well you just don t even understand evolution and science ,that s all...evolution stands against strict science,evolution is a story for dumb dumbs.......
@@smithkarine9678 Well then, publish your hypothesis, get it peer reviewed and await your Nobel prize, just think of all the accolades, wealth and world wide recognition, I’ll wait but not hold my breath.
@@dryfox11 Oh thank you, actually it’s an 1986 I believe, I’ve gifted it to my youngest son, he and i play some rock/blues together with a keyboard player and guitarist, he plays bass and drums in a couple of bands., I’ve got a few more basses and some vintage ones (it’s a bit of an illness!) lol. Thanks for your nice comment. ✌️👍😁
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” “The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.” “Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.” ― Albert Einstein
repeating what someone smart says never make the one repeating it smart...........ID exist ,everywhere in nature...evolutionists are just to dumb to understand evolution itself ,how it works ,to understand that evolution goes against science.....
The only shortcoming of Eugenie Scott’s speech is that I’m only finding it 16 years after it was made. The distinction between methodological materialism necessary to practice science, and philosophical materialism was illuminating for me.
@@ergonomover ah well , have you missed a few branches along the way of evolution ???????? you don t seems to have all the chips in the same bag.........
We absolutely can observe evolution, as I do most days of the week in work. If you're confusing terminology and what you're claiming is that we haven't observed speciation, then you're also incorrect. We've observed the speciation of a wide range of species animals and plants, including gibbons, fish, fire weed and a whole host of other flora and fauna. Don't pretend the evidence isn't there. Ignorance isn't an excuse when you're arguing from a position of self proclaimed authority.
😂😂😂 That is nonsense and it is a lie . Either you don't know what evolution really is or you are just being dishonest about it. Nobody has ever observed evolution. Adaptation is must different from evolution. For the people who don't know a dog is still a dog wheater it's a Chihuahua or blood hound. Evolution vs speciation 🙄 Evolution theory is that one species can change into another over generations of mutations not simply by "natural selection " the sooner people acknowledge the proper definition of evolution theory the better it will be for everyone. Stop with all the double talk. That what con artists do to deceive people. No missing links have been found. Pilt down man was a hoax just like all the other " missing links " that they have found. Evolution has never been observed and it is not evident in the fossil record either.
What's 'controversial' in the Creationism v Evolution so-called debate? There is no controversy. One is a faith based surrender of reason while the other is based on observation, peer review and the demonstration of high quality evidence. The only 'controversy' is why the hell are we so polite to these superstitious apologists?
....but, but, but...where did all that stuff come from? Why does it exist at all? Why is there something rather than nothing? If there was nothing trillions of billions of year sago - and I mean absolutely NOTHING, then surely there should also be absolutely, totally, completely NOTHING now? Is that not true? Surely from NOTHING, only NOTHING comes? Now if you are sure that that STUFF exists, then it means that there MUST have existed something eternally!! Right? What other explanation can there be? After all, From NOTHING, NOTHING comes - that is logically correct, isn't it? So are you going to learn about the science of science itself? That is are you willing to study meta-physics? Philosophy and Logic; Ontology?
@@kevinrtres Hey Kevin, I have been studying physics a long time. Looks like what is called metaphysics is actually the physics/behavior of subatomic particles. I say the cartels of the world don't want us to know how fast subatomic particles spin and pulsate, which is so super-fast that nothing is physical or solid anywhere. This is literally a constantly created universe because of this speed. This speed is where the word magic comes from. This means WE ARE MAGIC. We are the best machines ever built because we heal, or go back to our perfect forms which are those electrical energy fields called atoms. In the book HANDS OF LIGHT written by the physicist Barbara Brennan I have seen many pictures/diagrams of what we look like as eternal holograms and eternal electrical energy fields. My take on looking at these pictures is that these atoms ARE the forms that our souls are. Souls literally exist. First there are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons and then there are the atoms these quarks create. These quarks/atoms take form looking like us, and THEN these souls project us from themselves. We are THEIR images. We have to be images, holographic images because subatomic particles spin so fast. This idea also comes from the Seth books written by Jane Roberts. After all, many call us spirits, but these spirits are actually electrical energy fields. I had a NDE as a child where I felt and heard energy and light beings around me. I knew there was no death then. I began reading these books in my 20s earth time because the soul creating me pointed out books to me. Eternity has been found in the behavior of subatomic particles. Isn't that great? From my 40 years of research I have found there are many cartels on this earth full of people wanting us to stay their slaves. They tell all kinds of lies consistently like hitler did. Death and covid are ponzi schemes that they tell. Look at all the people that believe them. There are NO germs/viruses because this is an electrical existence. We can hurt ourselves with our own withheld emotions and microwaves and 5G, etc. We are in the middle of a reality where joy has been taken over by those that take the most money from others. The federal reserve cartel, the prison cartel, the medical cartel, the kill animals for food cartel, let's put toxic fluoride in the drinking water cartel and the military cartel are all about making themselves huge amounts of money at our expense. I didn't forget the chemical cartels that ruin the rivers and oceans. I have read that the Fukushima catastrophe was done on purpose. The mountains in the ocean outside of Fukushima were bombed to make that tsunami. Plus G.E. must have built those generators low down in their plans to ruin the Japanese economy. Every read the book HIDDEN HISTORY?
"Both use the same evidence and interrupt the results differently." No. Creationists love to repeat this talking point, but it's not true. The truth is that Creationism's response to about 95% of the evidence is to simply ignore it. Their "interpretation" is "That evidence is wrong, so we'll ignore it." For instance, baraminology--the "science" of created kinds--starts with "Any evidence which says humans and apes are the same kind is wrong, ignore it."
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." "Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."
Red Rock yet you are not "intelligent" enough to know how the universe was made, why it was made and you cannot even produce one cell of life from non-life.
Grandpa KJV You are correct. But I have lots of company. No one on the earth "KNOWS' how and why our Universe was made. There is a BIG difference between believing and knowing.
+Grandpa KJV And you're probably not intelligent enough to produce a cellphone from raw materials... ... yet your impotence in this endeavour would hardly place them in the realm of divine miracle. Similarly, the very likely mechanisms of Abiogenisis (the creation of life from non-life) are actually fairly well understood. So is the formation of stars (yet we cant do that in a lab either) ... your argument is rather irrational. Are you somehow surprised that things that happen on the timescale of millions or billions of years cannot be demonstrated over lunch to your satisfaction. Oh well, Sorry about that. Please feel free to continue on in ignorance, surviving as religion always has, devolving to fit in the ever-shrinking gaps found at the very frontier of mans understanding.
It's very hard to watch this.. She miss-represents creationism and intelligent design so badly it's painful. I just wish both sides would be honest about what the other side believes. She then says "She doesn't want to go into the details" of what creation science believes but that it's just bad science. Well that's convenient.. she knows most people really haven't taken the time to investigate the claims of creationism so she just tells them to trust her that it's bad science without giving any examples of how it's bad science. Eugenie C. Scott knows exactly what she is doing as she creates this false straw man version of creationism and intelligent design. It seems to be the MO of the evolutionist camp to just try to shut down conversation about it. I see through their deception. I'm agnostic when it comes to evolution or creation science. Why? Because there are big holes in both arguments. At least take the time to find out what they really believe. Creation.com is a good start.
Ben Tanner But people HAVE taken the time to investigate the claims of creationism IN DETAIL and anyone with any legitimate science background (ie: NOT Kent Hovind) will agree that these claims are complete bunk..... just worn out biblical mythology trying (and thus far failing) to worm its way into the science class. To be "agnostic when it comes to evolution or creation science" is just a cheap and ignorant copout.
Your statement that "anyone with any legitimate science background will agree that these claims are complete bunk" is false. Why then are there so many published PHD Scientists that are regular contributors to creation magazine then? (www.creation.com) You are either running from this, or you are ignorant of the facts.
Ben Tanner HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! EXACTLY!.... they are regular contributors to a creation magazine. In other words, the only place they can get people to take them seriously is in a forum of similarly fundamental religious people. Part of the process of science is to put your findings out among the general population so that it can be reviewed and criticized by the most knowledgeable people in the field. When that has happened in the past, this creationist nonsense has been shot down as the mythological bullshit it is and the so-call "creation scientists" have been marginalized to their weird little creation publications.... and rightly so. The reason for this is that a "creation scientist" is not a scientist at all because he starts with a conclusion (god did it because the bible says so) and then rummages around trying to distort and twist and lie observed evidence into fitting his initial conclusion. That is simply not how legitimate science works.
Brammy... they are also published Scientists that have actually made breakthroughs in science unlike most of the scientific world. "Peer review" is just another name for Group Think.
Ben Tanner Yawn..... being published means little.... anyone can publish any crap they want...... where you are published and (more importantly) the reaction of the professional community is of much greater importance. Lots of complete nitwits are published.... Ken Ham for one who is so insane that he actually thinks that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time............ OK, lets get down to it..... please name the "scientist" or "scientists" who you think have good arguments for biblical creation.
The problem for ID is that so far all the evidence so far supports science, and the ID proponents have yet to find any supporting their view. Scientists are constantly asking ID proponents for evidence, yet still nothing. In court they were asked for some and they had nothing to say.
name a design that did not come from a mind. why do we have a branch of science/engineering that is called biomimicry? why copy a non design into a design?
Obviously you don't know much about the evidence and the reasons that scientists have used to support their argument for intelligent design. But that is okay if you don't comprehend the logic behind it and would rather go with the illogical presumption and presupposition that the atheists wanna be scientists use 😂 It just shows that you are not willing to give up your opinions for the objective truths which are found in scientific discoveries. Sarcasm ( yeah sure just accept the statement of the atheist blindly about their " scientific discoveries " and that is not biased at all ) Cognitive dissonance is an atheists best friend.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” ― Albert Einstein
Teacher: Alright students, how do you think life came to be? Students: God did it! Teacher: Correct. Now how do you think that the Earth came to be? Students: God did it! Teacher: Good job class! Okay, how did the universe come to be? Students: God did it! Teacher: You guys are amazing. You have passed my class. Is that how you would rather school go? Is that even correct? You see, "god did it" is not the answer to everything. Thinking so is an extremely childish notion.
Well, you also need to take cognizance of that fact that there are unabridged explanations of creation in other great scriptures of the world. Take the ancient Vedic scriptures as an example. They go into great detail about how God created, not just that "He did it". The Vedic literatures spans many books, with hundreds of thousands of verses. Some of the prominent ones that deal with ultimate goal of life, don't go into the great details, because they are serving a different purpose. Look at Bhagavata Purana as an example (18k verses) of which canto's 3 and 5 discuss details about the process of creation of the universe. You don't have to accept any of this, but the point it, there are other scriptures in the world that give the details. Why do we ignore these?
@@logicalatheist1065 How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It's only if blind and mindless processes produced life would we say they also produced its diversity. An Intelligently designed OoL means that organisms were intelligently designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes.
“The scripture worshipers put the writings ahead of God. Instead of interpreting God's actions in nature, for example, they interpret nature in the light of the Scripture. Nature says the rock is billions of years old, but the book says different, so even though men wrote the book, and God made the rock and God gave us minds that have found ways to tell how old it is, we still choose to believe the Scripture.” ~~ Sheri S. Tepper ~~ The Fresco
curiousgeorge1940 It's pretty messed up, because it means that the fundamentalist religion is a form of idolatry, where the book is worshiped more than the god it talks about.
KalibreSteelblast Go research Bible History and you'll see the thousands of errors that as many hands have messed up in the copying and recopying of the "original texts". Go to the dozens of web sites that illustrate biblical contradictions to see how "The Word" says one thing, then a little later says the opposite. - JWs ( that Jehovah crowd ) are told they can't read any of that : not even the history of their own religion, because all of that is the work of the devil. Nice touch to keep your sheep in line !
I think Eugenie C. Scott, as a professor is complete wrong about ID when talking about it and misrepresenting it and confusing it with creationism. Its better to say that ID is a challenge to Darwinism evolution natural selection theory. Its open enough space to creativity and exploration in science. It’s not creationism. As Darwinist atheists have a hard time in accepting other theories and doctrines our kids in schools as the truth.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
well ;good try ,but its the exact opposite..evolution is a story for dumbs.......evolution doesn t stand the scrutiny of real science...ohhh by the way ,repeating the stupid mistakes as a smart claim of a dumb Weitzenhoffer will make you look as stupid......
Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere-childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world-as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."[25]
This is simply the best video I have ever seen on Creationism/ID and evolution. Eugenie Scott is thoughtful, respectful, and wise in her delivery. Absolutely loved it!!
The claim of "Intelligent Design" is a common one amongst creationists of all ilk (I've had it thrown at me by Muslims as well as creationist Christians) But anyone with a basic knowledge of anatomy knows that so many things about the layout of the human body are completely and utterly dumb. If a human engineer designed an eye with nerves criss-crossing light sensitive cells, BETWEEN the cells and the light source, they'd be laughed out of the room.
Huw Rees Music in this scenario we explore two possibilities. 1. so called designer doesn't exist or 2. so called designer exists and sucks at his job. Given these two scenarios then it reveals that even if we do accept the premise that a designer exists, the designer is hardly to be beheld since afterall, if people could design things than this supernatural designer, what good is the designer?
Huw Rees Music It's not just in my opinion. It's a fact (and one of many in nature) If a system were created AS IS by an omnipotent being, WHY ISN'T IT PERFECT?
Or better, the playground in the same area as a sewage plant, or in the case of the male, directly sharing space with waste water disposal. Seriously? An intelligent designer couldn't do better than that? Oh! One more! Giving most tetrapods a singe line from the various orifices in the face for intake of food, water, and air, with only a switch-select to prevent drowning?
It's fumy that a lot of creationists consider Dover trial judge a traitor but I see a man who stuck to the principle of the law instead of letting dogma compromise his principles.
Please look up Miller-Urey Experiment from Princeton University or Wiki. It generated 22 organic compounds from inorganic origins. Many criticisms were made because of the "primitive atmosphere" that he assumed, but later studies, with other starting mixtures were tried,with various results. The original study did show that inorganic chemical reactions could lead to production of organic compounds. Not quite abiogenesis, but a very possible starting point, and definitely not a negative answer.
Thank you. You are right. I am not trying to convince Angela or anyone else like her. My goal is to expose how dangerous this nonsense is by making them talk about their beliefs. As a warning and to the benefit of all who are inclined to fall for this insanity.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons". At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
Creationism is not science. Science involves putting forward an idea (called a hypothesis) which postulates a cause with an effect. It then amasses evidence and objectively assesses that evidence to see whether it supports the hypothesis or not. If it does, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction which can be further tested. If not, the hypothesis is either rejected or amended for further testing. The key word in all of this is objective. Creationism involves beliefs which are subjective. What is worse, it bowdlerises the scientific method by only looking for evidence that supports its beliefs and ignoring or supressing that which does not. In addition, its supporters continually point to facts for which science (as yet) has no answers as 'proof' of the validity of their ideas. Science does not pretend to have answers for everything. It is an evolving, learning and adaptable way of looking at the universe. That is why it has been so successful over the last three hundred years. The old saying, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is true up to a point but absence of evidence is not proof of presence.
"Evolution" is not science. It is speculation and conjecture about what happened in the past. It requires belief and faith without proof . . . meaning it is a religion.
@@philroe2363 The fossil record provides more evidence and proof of evolution than has ever been dreamed up in favour of religion. - Which is why the religious obsessives try to deny that any of it even exists.
@@madgeordie4469 the fossil record shows stasis of species over time, not transition. In fact, there is no known transitional record in the fossils. Not one. The ONLY thing you evolutionists do is point at creatures that have similar features to two other creatures and say "transitional fossil." But this doesn't demonstrate "evolution;" absent a transitional record, it only demonstrates special creation. Further, the vast majority of fossils in the world show catastrophic water burial - something we DON'T see happening today. This situation speaks loudly of a one time massive global flood, not "millions of years of slow burial." The fossil record sustains Biblical creation . . . not Darwinistic "evolution." Sorry.
@@philroe2363 If species were static the plants and animals with their associated fossils from the Permian, Ordovician, Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous eras plus every other era up to the present would all be the same - which they are not. So much for being static. As evolution is a constant process which never stops all fossils and even the species of organisms alive today are all transitional. There is no such thing as a completely developed species. Finally while some fossils show that their originators suffered violent deaths, often by natural causes such as floods this does not apply to all or even most. Hence, no planet wide flood. Hard to believe that one person could be so wrong about so many things in one post but there you go...
@@philroe2363 you are simply wrong, you know nothing of this subject other than what religious zealots told you. Evolution is a fact, so is common descent. DNA alone shows it beyond all doubt, just as well as it can tell you who your parents are. There is no evdience for any of the ludicrous claims in the bible, a book that describes a fl;at earth coveredc by a firmament with waters above and below... Being created before the sun, all of that is ludicrously wrong, and you would never think it matches science were you not indoctrinated into it.
Evolution does explain the existence of many complex molecular machines (e.g., bacterial flagella). That evolution cannot (as yet) explain the evolution of some complex machines does not necessarily imply an intelligent designer - it just means that the proper experiments have not been done yet. E.g., your example of the Cambrian explosion - fossils of single-celled organisms are harder to find, although such fossils have been found recently, so an explanation of this should be forthcoming.
I found this clip very interesting and factual. Anyone, with half a brain, who listens carefully, will grasp the points and realize I.D. isn't just wrong, it is plain stupid and outrageous. It says much about the politicians who voted to add I.D. to high school and college/university curriculums, as an alternate theory.
+terry z When a "Creation Scientist" wins a Nobel prize and passes peer review, then maybe, it would be worth considering. Until then, it will remain fantasy and magic!
terry z We are dealing with very strong religious indoctrination, with many of these people. I am meeting a refreshing number of younger Christians, who do accept scientific origins so, there is hope.
terry z Neither do I, but I find less to argue about with most of the moderates. The only problem I have with them is, they really have to go to extremes in cherry picking the Bible, to make it more palatable.
Biology would not exist if not for quarks that are bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons. You can find these words in the book THE QUANTUM WORLD written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons". At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
There is not much controversy anywhere in the world about the validity of Darwinism. It is merely a Creationist claim made to give their irrational beliefs a veneer of respectability by fooling people into thinking that if such a controversy does exist there must be some scientific backing for those beliefs (of which there conspicuously is not). In other words, its a Creationist scam.
Eugenie has her head on a box, and Darwinism evolution has a monopoly on education to teach our kids only evolution right? What century this Amazon women is living?
@@bluejysm2007 This woman is evil and her fairytale of Evolutionism won't save her that's for sure.. "DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST" RICHARD DAWKINS WWW.EVOLUTIONFAIRYTALE.COM
Actually we can reproduce that particular chemical process in a lab now that we know how. The paper is 'synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions' and it's published in nature.
Produced in a lab, under very controlled specific conditions by intelligent people who know before they make it what they are trying to make. People who keep notes so if something doesn't work they can go back a step or if they run out of something can go back and get more of what's needed to start again. Give us a break. Do it in the wild, with no controlled specific conditions, with NO input of any sort from any intelligent being or anything made by any intelligent being. Don't have any way for the information and data used, to be present in the wild test. Oh. and make sure there is absolutely no life where the test is done. Not one single cell of life. Not one single piece of the building blocks. Only what is there as if man or machine or animal or living cell or parts of a cell had never existed. You must not cause any type of influence at all. You cannot help the process in any way shape or form. You cannot provide anything at all. Nada. Nothing. Nothing that might guide the process or show what the process was or is trying to do or make. That is how it would have been if what you say happened happened. No information at all. No knowledge that anything was happening or meant to be happening. No information storage retrieval systems for start over when something went wrong somewhere down the track. No way of knowing that something wasn't working how it was meant to because there was no knowledge that something was or should be happening. No reason for it to happen. nothing to cause it happen. Nothing to guide the process. No awareness of any process even happening. Nothing to control whether a process takes to long or is to short. Nothing to control amounts of the chemicals in the process. Nothing to control what chemicals to use. Im not sure how to make it any clearer. Totally unguided, uncontrolled.
Creationists had been unsuccessful in getting their brand of religious "Creation Science" taught in science class so they manufactured this "Intelligent Designer" facade. The "controversy" was manufactured by a collection of Creationists through what is called the Wedge Document and formed an organization called the Discovery Institute to distribute their nonsense. They do no discovery of any sort other than quote mine and seek donations. In return the gullible and scientifically illiterate get a pamphlet and videos so they can further distribute their propaganda.
Evolution could not exist because energy is constantly spinning/vibrating/pulsating/etc. Evolution is built on what is called the solid. Those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity. This is an electrical energy field world where we are electrical energy field beings because atoms spin as electrical energy fields. It didn't take all that many words to show you up as a disservice to humanity.
"everything in its present form" Proven wrong through genetics. God idea creates ID plausibility. Self fulfilling. Religious attracted to false dichotomies. Incredulity sparks supernatural tendencies. "If I can't understand it, then god." Religion puts cart before horse, conclusions first, then cherry picking research to fit narrative.
Yiu are intelevtually impotent my friend and ignorant as they get. If not, and you poses the knowledge than it is possible that you are also stupid, , incapable of rational reasoning, along with other possibilities such as: hypocrite, liar, manipulator, marxist, etc. Take your pick.
@@pappycool Now point all of those words at yourself because you don't read books of any kind. Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons". At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
She is amazing only to those more intelectually impotent than she is. Religious fundamentalism?!! Are you aware of the fact that it is the chortsian moral standards that are the foundation of the democracy and prosperity in the western world? Stop being a idiot.
@@pappycool Dr Eugenie Scott is a real scientist unlike your fraud heros of Stephen Meyer and the other liars at the Discovery Institute. "Are you aware of the fact that it is the chortsian moral standards that are the foundation of the democracy and prosperity in the western world?" Another lie. Your biblical morality forbids all other religions. That is a fundemental freedom in all western democracy. There is NO trace of any democracy in your bloody bible, nor do women have human rights in your bible. Your bible condones slavery, something gone from our democracies. Sorry but your biblical morality has little to do with the rights and freedoms we enjoy in modern society. Again you show yourself to be an ignorant liar.
It is NOT logical to fill in gaps of missing information with hearsay. Imagine the implications of that in a murder trial. "Ladies of gentlemen of the court, we can't find the body, nor the weapon, nor any evidence to determine his guilt, so logically you must find him guilty because he can't prove he didn't do it either."
This woman is rational?!! Get real. Richard Dawkins himself admitted to the possibility of intelligent design. This woman is either intelectually impotent, either a liar, hypocrite, manipulatori and a Marxist. Possibly a combination of all the mentioned above.
@@keithboynton your ignorance is a bliss! Actually Dawkins DID EXACTLY THAT, in a 2004 interview with Ben Stein, contained in the documentary, " Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I suggest you study more and put less nerve on display.
In order to explain this world, we have to believe that a very clever person made it. The designer is always smarter than the thing he designed. So now we need an even smarter designer who designed the designer. Yes folks, it's gods all the way up !
@@tedgrant2 Your argument presupposes a designer. It's not clear at all that is required. I believe there is such, but the argument is not one I would use. It hopes the listener is poorly educated
@@ozowen5961 When you see a pot on sale in a shop, do you presuppose that someone made the pot ? Or do you think it just popped into existence, all by itself ?
If you mean evolution as "in all life came from a common ancestor" that is not a fact. And I say that based on the definition she gives for what can be known: only those things that can be tested and examined. There is no way to know, as an absolute fact, that we all came from a common ancestor.
Evolution is built on believing in solidity which those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER FIND. This is an energy existence where subatomic particles are constantly spinning/vibrating and pulsating this world into existence. Creation is constant.
What controversy? Like the people who continue to argue for a flat earth, so-called "creationists" are simply people who don't know what they're talking about.
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” ~~ Richard Dawkins
That is a caricature of Christian faith. The Bible says, Test everything, and hold on to that which is true. 1st Thessalonians 5.21. How is that blind? How is that not science?
Not only that, but also what was the cause of time, space and matter, aka Universe, to come into existence. Also how about mathematical odds of life appearing by chance. Etc. Etc. Etc.
@@pappycool YOU ARE A LIAR. YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A HYPOCRITE. YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A MARXIST. YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A LIAR. YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A MANIPULATOR. YOU LIED WHEN YOU POSTED YOUR QUOTE MINE OF DARWIN'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE EYE. YOU ARE A LIAR.
@@garywalker447 lol, it is true I said thatvand i stand by my statement! Every single modern atheist on this planet today is a Marxist wheter they know it or not. Atheism is mandatory step in the Marxist formation. No kne can be a Marxist without being an atheist first. You are a Marxist too by the way. Yiu may not acknowl3dge it but it is a fact.
@@garywalker447 here is the challenge again: pick from biology astrophysics, or chemistry, as we already yiu were left speechless about the mathematical and paleontology evidence you were given. I dare you. This will be a copy paste whenever you attempt to take the conversation into ridiculousness. Your choice. So what's it going to be?
@@pappycool lol, it is true I said thatvand i stand by my statement! Every single modern atheist on this planet today is a Marxist wheter they know it or not. Atheism is mandatory step in the Marxist formation. No kne can be a Marxist without being an atheist first. You are a Marxist too by the way. Yiu may not acknowl3dge it but it is a fact.
Here is something that I want you to answer. Do the Falgellum and the ttss share any protein? or are they all different proteins (meaning that they have no common protein)?
+François D So the argument is between the clear minded and the deluded? Do you come to that conclusion as the result of careful study, or is it a belief you hold? Seriously curious.
"Dinosaurs have existed, are talked about in the bible..." Creationists love to claim that Behemoth was a dinosaur--even though that means ignoring most of what the Bible actually SAYS about him, and ALL of the context. They claim that the Bible says his tail was as big as a cedar; it doesn't. They ignore the fact that it says he has a navel. They ignore the fact that it says he chews grass like an ox, which sauropods COULD NOT do--they don't have the teeth for it.
Biblical wisdom Numbers 31:17-18 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
"Evolution is entirely based on the straw man principal." This alone disqualifies you for any intellectual discussion in whatever topic whatsoever. You would do well to look up the definition of a "strawman" and then be ashamed for the rest of your life.
Firstly Darwin NEVER based anything on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are completely separate things (no overlap). Secondly when people talk about abiogenesis relative to the formation of life on earth the are speaking about a totally different set of circumstances than the beliefs held in the 18th century . when we test the primordial condition we in fact see the formation of biomolecules proving that it is at least plausible.
Please give me the exact sentence/paragraph or tell where it is. Just reading the abstract it says this concerning the soft tissue: "..Moreover, the fibrils DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY in spectral signature FROM those of potential modern BACTERIAL CONTAMINANTS. Also, if there had been bacterial contamination 23000 years ago why wouldn't the soft tissue have decomposed? Did it say that results of C14 were conclusively bacterial, or possible? Also what's the explanation for ANY soft tissue preserving?
A couple of points: I would agree with some your statement if you replace "cannot be" with "has not yet been". If you state that something "cannot be explained", it can be translated to mean "don't bother to look". That is the surest way of stifling science. It is possible that there is knowledge that you cannot get scientifically, but that would not be science. I have no issue with teaching ID - my issue is with teaching ID in a science class.
You don't research at all because you know nothing about the behavior of subatomic particles, those quarks and atoms that are creating us as they spin and vibrate billions of times a second as light BEFORE the word biology can even begin to exist. Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons". At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
I’ve heard of Eugenie Scott before. She must be a heavy hitter because I’ve seen the creationist try to put her down. The reason I remember this is because they care so much about sex they always have to point out the fact she is one of those women things they talk about so much.
Evolution in biology can be defined as any change in the inherited traits of biological populations over successive generations. It unites every field of biology and is a repeatedly confirmed theory.
LightUpon Light Wait, what? Who are these scientists who are scrambling away from evolution? Because this is the first I've heard of a major shift in the consensus.
Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationist organisations often misrepresent evolution by stating that it does not explain the origin of life. This is a dishonest tactic. Of course the theory of evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. It is not supposed to. The origin of life or abiogenesis is within the field of chemistry not biology. Evolution explains the diversity of life within the field of biology not chemistry.
You missed the part where I made it clear that you have misunderstood the passage. I know you want him to be saying there's no evidence for evolution, but what he's saying is that Darwin's understanding of evolution was limited compared to what we know now. You need to accept this. "...what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices" This appears in both quotes because you're quoting the same passage.
I'm having trouble coming up with any specific problems. I assume you're familiar with a few of them or can point me in the right direction. And perhaps explain how the size of the animals is a problem?
So "creation science" claims there is a materialist bias in the research of science. May I inquire then....... as to how you test for non materialist reality? How would science test to confirm fairies or the tooth fairy? What research can be conducted in the field and/or laboratory setting to discover, define and explain that methodology of an intelligent designer? The fact remains that creation science is a theology.......not a science.
That was disproven in court, the kitzmiller vs dover trial to be exact. The flagellum is a modified version of the needle mechanism that can be found in viruses. Haven't you updated your arguments for the like 10 years or something?
That's a strange thing to say because the proposed lineage is based on the fact that these animals have both fish and tetrapod traits in varying proportions. Acanthostega has a fishy pectoral girdle and gill covers but has it's pelvis fused to a sacral rib in a very tetrapody manor. Tiktaalik is an even clearer mosaic. The spine would have to be modified as you point out. In Ichthyostega the spine resembles Eusthenopteron but has distinct zygapophyses to make it more rigid.
You're still avoiding my question. Why all the similarities? Convergence only accounts for so much, and nothing at all when the similarities are between organisms occupying different environments.
Nice try Eugenie, now tell us where all the life came from in the Cambrian explosion. You only mentioned it once in passing in over an hour and a half. The elephant in the room which bothered Darwin so much.
There are a lot of theories about the Cambrian Explosion and none if them point to Intelligent Design or Scientific Creationism in any way. Just because we haven't got the full information about something doesn't make it false...
Once you start throwing out that "odds are so great" nonsense, you open yourself up to a flood of criticism. ... and "random chance" is NOT postulated anywhere, in any scientific paper, or it would have been scrapped on day one of the review process. That term only appears in the misunderstood creationist criticisms of reality based work.
No. I've described why one would throw up their hands and say "I don't know what that means." If the "opponents" to her general message constantly abuse and misrepresent a specific term - Darwinism - she is actually forced to treat it as an ambiguous term for the purposes of her speech. If she were to hammer it down as the historical definition, she would be misrepresenting what her "opponents" are saying.
And you didn't address the other half of the question. Why are the limbs built on the same pattern? Why do they develop homologously? Why the mosaic of fish-tetrapod features? Why all those similarities of the skull? Tell me why, Moon.
@@ozowen5961 I guess we'll agree to disagree on evolution being true. To clarify, I don't believe one needs faith in God to look at the evidence and come to the logical conclusion that evolution is false.
No, that's as much as I could paste into this awful youtube conversational space. Not sure what page you're on, but on the wiki that I'm in there is no reference to Tacitus. I've read much about him, but I will double check before getting back to you. Thanks.
I was 7 when I suggested a “theistic evolution” argument based on something a Sunday school teacher said. He said “the days before man were time on God’s scale, which meant that a day could be a billion years.” I raised my hand and said, “If God can do anything, then why can’t he make humans out of amoebas (I was only 7 😅) through evolution?” He answered, “because it doesn’t say that.” I replied, “it doesn’t say a Day was a billion years either.” I stopped being Christian young……
Maybe you don't know where you are and you just made it clear to me with your answer. Yes, you are a resident of this devine zoo. But you are one of these lucky people who don´t know that they are zoo residents He has created to bring some fun in his boring everyday life. I´m one of the unlucky people how know where they are. But make some funny noices to please Him. I have a prayer for you. "Almighty alien from hyperspace. Don't kill us with your laser cannons like you did before." The Extraterrestrial has also created dinosaurs for His zoo. When they bored Him, He killed everyone with a laser. The burn marks can still be found in layers of earth. Make Him happy. Act like a good resident of His zoo. But don't argue against why you exist or He will burn you up like dinosaurs.
Einstein was a creationist in the most fundamental meaning of the word. “God does not play dice with the universe.” “God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.” “Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.” “Black holes are where God divided by zero.” There are many of these quotes from Einstein.
On that note, how convenient that my question has ended up right below this comment. What a perfect opportunity for you to try to address them rather than obfuscating as usual.
“I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.” Albert Einstein
Is there such a thing as a credible atheist who seriously refutes evolution or is everyone that refutes evolution a theist in some way. This is meant as a serious question, I would love to hear a genuine atheist refuting evolution. Does anybody know any?
+Gareth Tatler On the subject of the validity of evolution, I would say that atheists fall into two camps: Those who accept evolution as a fact, and those who don't care. The only people actively trying to refute it are all theists.
Jesus didn't slowly change water into wine. He didn't slowly raise people from the dead. He could have made an aged universe in less than 1 second. He's God! He took 7 days as a pattern for our week, so we could relate, and numerology tells us 7 is the number of completion of wholeness. There aren't gaps in the fossil record. There is no fossil record to support evolution; they're just a few questionable samples. The complexity, the amount of information, the mathematics, and the design found in nature reeks of a creator, not evolution. All animals are capable of micro-evolution. This gives them the ability to adapt as the environment changes, but they don't have the ability to go from being one kind of animal to another. ID requires an intelligent designer and that would be Jesus. Let's see what God says about all this in Romans. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Are you sure? What if the Intelligent Designer is ODIN! I have just as much evidence to support ODIN. He did after all say that he'd get rid of the ice giants. Are there any around today? NO. That is proof of Odin.
Ross Fraser Just read a fascinating article at ICR .org that discusses this nerve in the developmental stages. Fascinating proof that it also was designed. Title of the article "Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design." But then you probably will not read it. You're not interested in the truth or you would have found it by now. God says, "Only a fool says in his heart there is no God." We are all born with a knowledge of Him and that knowledge is with us throughout our lives. I think the most wasted life is one that is spent trying to disprove God The Creator, and the happiest is the one that just enjoys Him and all His benefits. Your struggle isn't against knowledge; you're seeking justification to live a life that refuses to believe that you'll someday be accountable to the God who created you. Good luck with that....
David House NO DISADVANTAGE ? The giraffe can hardly make a croaking noise,it is the quietest large mammal in the animal kingdom . I read the article and am not convinced,I think ( being indoctrinated ) you are really grasping at straws on this one . Next you will be saying the earth is 6000 yrs old,because your ancient magic book of superstitious nonsense say so There is the real truth for you,peace .
David HouseHow can you watch a brilliant SCIENTIST like Eugenie Scott and not immediatly forge t all those dopey impossible beliefs ? Answer....childhood indoctrination ,simple really
First, as I pointed out, I'm not an omnipotent being. Second, again as I pointed out, it doesn't matter whether I can do better for the aforementioned reason. Third, even I could (provided I learned how to manipulate DNA so precisely) design a giraffe in which the recurent laryngeal nerve doesn't go seven feet completely out of its way before looping back to the top. You guess wrong and you clearly don't understand how evolution is proposed to work. You've fashioned yourself a nice strawman
u still didnt answer, do u believe in some kind of divine intervention ? that all life just like that in one moment appeared thanks to god ? or perhaps it is continuous act of creation ?
Should holocaust denial be taught in history class? Should we allow children to be taught of a flat earth in geology class? Alchemy should also have it's fair time in Chemistry class too. What do you think about a heliocentric universe being taught in cosmology class? Hey, it's only fair to teach "both sides" right?
@Colin12475 - The issue is not necessarily that both evolution and creation be taught; but that truth be taught. From what and others have read, heard, seen - the ideology of Darwinian evolution is taught as factual, along with the hoards of fakery, fraud, dishonesty in order to propel a doctrine that is fraught with a host of problems. What is not allowed is questioning such debauchery! I believe that it is more important to teach critical thinking, to allow the student(s) the opportunity to question and follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of the dogmatic emphasis on evolution as the ONLY game. It is not, and students must be made aware of the real issues and problems; yet such problems are not discussed nor even brought up. But these days, thanks to the power of the internet, students CAN do their own research and reach their own conclusions based on the evidence, not just because some teacher makes false claims.
@@WienArtist The reason why evolution is taught is because it has mountains of peer reviewed, testable, repeatable, observable, evidence supporting it, not because it is some sort of dogmatic Atheist propaganda. Throughout history, not one creationist has ever furnished one legitimate piece of evidence disproving evolution or proving creationism. Though they claim they have all the evidence in the universe, what they produce is nothing but a cornucopia of lies, fallacies, wishful thinking evolution bashing, biased sources of misinformation, god of the gaps, empty claims and so on.
@@Colin12475 Wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels!!! The true reason that Darwinian evolution is taught - not just the simply definition of evolution, which is that things change over time; but the atheistic mentality that drives the fraudulent cornucopia of lies that are prevalent in Darwinian evolution! Yes, evolution is indeed a dogmatic atheistic propaganda. Peer review? In other words, argument ad populum, or appeal to the masses. Peer review simply means that a group of people who all agree with one another have reviewed a document and put their stamp of approval on it. However, it does nothing to make it true just because a group of people think it to be so. "...mountains of peer reviewed, testable, repeatable, observable, evidence supporting it..." Darwinian evolution is NOT testable, repeatable, observable, nor is there any evidence to support its theory! All the atheistic evolutionist can claim is that they can observe horizontal adaptation, or variation within a family or genus. There is absolutely zero observational evidence that one phyla can become another outside of its taxonomical family. There is limitation in how far even breeders can go to create a different animal within the family, but it is still within that family. In other words, try as they might, no breeder can create a cat by cross-breeding a dog! Will never work! It is the atheist/evolutionist who claims evolution of the gaps! Give me just ONE, just ONE example of one kind of an animal or even ONE organism that has been observed using the scientific method to have evolved outside of its family - that is to say something like a dog becoming anything other than a dog. Regardless of the plethora of so-called evidence you purport, all you will ever arrive at is some creature or organism that changed in some way; yet it still remained in its originally created family. Suffice it so say that, as Dr. David Berlinski so succinctly and eloquently stated, bug stay bugs, dogs stay dogs, cats stay cats, etc.! What did Darwin observe with the beaks of finches? Huh? Oh yes, that they changed! Wow! That certainly proves that Darwinian evolution is true. Everyone knows that things change over time, but still everyone knows (if they will be honest enough to admit it), that finches remain finches, no matter how often their beaks fluctuate due to dietary changes. And this goes for every living organism known to mankind. Certainly things change, but try as any atheist might to extrapolate or equivocate, they cannot cite one true example of anything morphing into anything outside of its category (dog/dog, cat/cat, fish/fish, etc.)
@@Colin12475 Of course you are wrong! Actually what we really observe is not evolution, but devolution. In order for evolution to work, you need new information to create entirely new body plans. What we only observe is the breaking down of the information that is already present in the DNA - that is called variation or adaptation, a far stretch from any organism becoming an entirely new one (dog to a cat for example). Now you are the one who is making a truth claim that Darwinian evolution (not simple variation) is true, so it is up to you to prove it. Where is your scientific, observational proof of any animal morphing into another kind! I am waiting!
No argument there. Can't help but notice you've avoided proffering any real critique of the transition in question. Are you going to do it or are you going to keep evading?
It also doesn't exclude Intelligent Design either. Therefore, until experimental/empirical evidence proves Darwinian evolution is adequate to create a ribosome or other complex molecular machine, we cannot eliminate intelligent design as having a role in abiogenesis and evolution. Many scientists are questioning the ability of natural selection/mutation as being creative enough for the origin of these complex organelles.
The fossil record is discontinuous. About one in a million organisms get fossilized and only a very tiny portion of those fossils survive. Thus it's unsurprising that there are large morphological gaps in the record. The fact that we're able to piece together such a clear path is astounding. There are around 20 million years between Panderichthys and Ichthyostega, time enough for the drastic change that occurred.
Additionally, Tacitus was not a contemporary of JC and could have easily had been referring to what he was told. The scholars that you are referring to are Theistic Scholars, NOT critical scholars.
Can you give me at least a phrase to put in the search box? I thought evolution was always described like branches on a tree, with parallel ancestries, and that the more linear approach is described as a misunderstanding of evolutionary processes by the creationist. And what kind of evolution are we referring to here? no one argues mutation, copying errors, genetic variety, even gene duplication
I don't know what you're asking. If you mean how do I know you're wrong about your quote, I know because the source himself has confirmed it. If that's not what you're trying to say, please clarify. And double please answer the question.
My reply to you would be, if I were a biology defender, is, "We are working on it." And my rebuttal would be, "What is your evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that God created the ribosome?"
And you didn't clarify what you were talking about developing to higher organisms. And you still haven't told me any more about that frog of yours. And you still haven't presented actual objections to the Panderichthys-Tiktaalik lineage beyond that you've looked at the animals in question and decided that "they look very similar," but they're not related. While I'm sure your examination was well-informed and rigorous, I'd like some actual objections.
Do you live beside a quote mine or something? Stephen Gould was commenting on the rarity of transitional fossils between species, not on transitional fossils themselves. He was also trying to support the punctuated equilibrium vs the gradualism model of evolution. He wasn't questioning evolution nor saying what you're trying to imply.
Your statement is not constructive. You need to be more specific. Are you objecting to my characterization of Gould's thoughts regarding the fossil record? Because your characterization is demonstrably false. I know it feels good to be glib, but it's not very useful.
"The ribosome, both looking at the past and at the future, is a very significant structure - it's the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms. Craig does comparative genomics, and you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome. And it's recognizable; it's highly conserved. So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be?"
There is no controversy, creationism is bunkum.
well you just don t even understand evolution and science ,that s all...evolution stands against strict science,evolution is a story for dumb dumbs.......
@@smithkarine9678 Well then, publish your hypothesis, get it peer reviewed and await your Nobel prize, just think of all the accolades, wealth and world wide recognition, I’ll wait but not hold my breath.
@@jackthebassman1
She posts and says nothing.
One bassist to another: Nice bass jack!
@@dryfox11 Oh thank you, actually it’s an 1986 I believe, I’ve gifted it to my youngest son, he and i play some rock/blues together with a keyboard player and guitarist, he plays bass and drums in a couple of bands., I’ve got a few more basses and some vintage ones (it’s a bit of an illness!) lol. Thanks for your nice comment. ✌️👍😁
There is no controversy. Evolution is a fact and creationism is a bunch of lies. ;-)
Absolutely 🤗
Of course saying doesn't make it so. Creationism is a fact evolution is a bunch of lies. Evidence please.
That’s putting it mildly 🤣🤣
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
“The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.”
“Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.”
― Albert Einstein
repeating what someone smart says never make the one repeating it smart...........ID exist ,everywhere in nature...evolutionists are just to dumb to understand evolution itself ,how it works ,to understand that evolution goes against science.....
"You better hope there's intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, 'cos there's bugger all down here on Earth."
- Monty Python
The only shortcoming of Eugenie Scott’s speech is that I’m only finding it 16 years after it was made. The distinction between methodological materialism necessary to practice science, and philosophical materialism was illuminating for me.
materialism is crap.....
@@smithkarine9678 Says the person using material (pc, internet).
@@ergonomover heuuu....are you brain dead ? plug something and come back.......
@@smithkarine9678 You mean something material can help me, even if its "crap"?
@@ergonomover ah well , have you missed a few branches along the way of evolution ???????? you don t seems to have all the chips in the same bag.........
I really appreciate this speaker’s intelligence, humour and undogmatic reasonableness.
We absolutely can observe evolution, as I do most days of the week in work.
If you're confusing terminology and what you're claiming is that we haven't observed speciation, then you're also incorrect.
We've observed the speciation of a wide range of species animals and plants, including gibbons, fish, fire weed and a whole host of other flora and fauna.
Don't pretend the evidence isn't there. Ignorance isn't an excuse when you're arguing from a position of self proclaimed authority.
I can't observe evolution in the USA.
😂😂😂
That is nonsense and it is a lie .
Either you don't know what evolution really is or you are just being dishonest about it.
Nobody has ever observed evolution.
Adaptation is must different from evolution. For the people who don't know a dog is still a dog wheater it's a Chihuahua or blood hound.
Evolution vs speciation 🙄
Evolution theory is that one species can change into another over generations of mutations not simply by "natural selection " the sooner people acknowledge the proper definition of evolution theory the better it will be for everyone.
Stop with all the double talk.
That what con artists do to deceive people.
No missing links have been found.
Pilt down man was a hoax just like all the other
" missing links " that they have found.
Evolution has never been observed and it is not evident in the fossil record either.
What's 'controversial' in the Creationism v Evolution so-called debate? There is no controversy. One is a faith based surrender of reason while the other is based on observation, peer review and the demonstration of high quality evidence. The only 'controversy' is why the hell are we so polite to these superstitious apologists?
I'm not in love with anything. I simply learn about everything that is science.
You know, that stuff that turn on the lights at night.
....but, but, but...where did all that stuff come from? Why does it exist at all? Why is there something rather than nothing?
If there was nothing trillions of billions of year sago - and I mean absolutely NOTHING, then surely there should also be absolutely, totally, completely NOTHING now? Is that not true? Surely from NOTHING, only NOTHING comes?
Now if you are sure that that STUFF exists, then it means that there MUST have existed something eternally!! Right? What other explanation can there be? After all, From NOTHING, NOTHING comes - that is logically correct, isn't it?
So are you going to learn about the science of science itself? That is are you willing to study meta-physics? Philosophy and Logic; Ontology?
a trick : watch movies on InstaFlixxer. Been using them for watching loads of movies during the lockdown.
@Onyx Tanner definitely, been using instaflixxer for since december myself :D
@Onyx Tanner Yup, I have been using InstaFlixxer for years myself :D
@@kevinrtres Hey Kevin, I have been studying physics a long time. Looks like what is called metaphysics is actually the physics/behavior of subatomic particles. I say the cartels of the world don't want us to know how fast subatomic particles spin and pulsate, which is so super-fast that nothing is physical or solid anywhere. This is literally a constantly created universe because of this speed. This speed is where the word magic comes from. This means WE ARE MAGIC.
We are the best machines ever built because we heal, or go back to our perfect forms which are those electrical energy fields called atoms. In the book HANDS OF LIGHT written by the physicist Barbara Brennan I have seen many pictures/diagrams of what we look like as eternal holograms and eternal electrical energy fields. My take on looking at these pictures is that these atoms ARE the forms that our souls are. Souls literally exist. First there are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons and then there are the atoms these quarks create.
These quarks/atoms take form looking like us, and THEN these souls project us from themselves. We are THEIR images. We have to be images, holographic images because subatomic particles spin so fast. This idea also comes from the Seth books written by Jane Roberts. After all, many call us spirits, but these spirits are actually electrical energy fields.
I had a NDE as a child where I felt and heard energy and light beings around me. I knew there was no death then. I began reading these books in my 20s earth time because the soul creating me pointed out books to me. Eternity has been found in the behavior of subatomic particles. Isn't that great?
From my 40 years of research I have found there are many cartels on this earth full of people wanting us to stay their slaves. They tell all kinds of lies consistently like hitler did. Death and covid are ponzi schemes that they tell. Look at all the people that believe them. There are NO germs/viruses because this is an electrical existence. We can hurt ourselves with our own withheld emotions and microwaves and 5G, etc.
We are in the middle of a reality where joy has been taken over by those that take the most money from others. The federal reserve cartel, the prison cartel, the medical cartel, the kill animals for food cartel, let's put toxic fluoride in the drinking water cartel and the military cartel are all about making themselves huge amounts of money at our expense.
I didn't forget the chemical cartels that ruin the rivers and oceans. I have read that the Fukushima catastrophe was done on purpose. The mountains in the ocean outside of Fukushima were bombed to make that tsunami. Plus G.E. must have built those generators low down in their plans to ruin the Japanese economy. Every read the book HIDDEN HISTORY?
"Both use the same evidence and interrupt the results differently."
No. Creationists love to repeat this talking point, but it's not true. The truth is that Creationism's response to about 95% of the evidence is to simply ignore it. Their "interpretation" is "That evidence is wrong, so we'll ignore it." For instance, baraminology--the "science" of created kinds--starts with "Any evidence which says humans and apes are the same kind is wrong, ignore it."
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."
Intelligence and creationism do not belong in the same sentence.
Red Rock yet you are not "intelligent" enough to know how the universe was made, why it was made and you cannot even produce one cell of life from non-life.
Grandpa KJV
You are correct. But I have lots of company. No one on the earth "KNOWS' how and why our Universe was made.
There is a BIG difference between believing and knowing.
+Grandpa KJV And you're probably not intelligent enough to produce a cellphone from raw materials...
... yet your impotence in this endeavour would hardly place them in the realm of divine miracle.
Similarly, the very likely mechanisms of Abiogenisis (the creation of life from non-life) are actually fairly well understood. So is the formation of stars (yet we cant do that in a lab either) ... your argument is rather irrational.
Are you somehow surprised that things that happen on the timescale of millions or billions of years cannot be demonstrated over lunch to your satisfaction. Oh well, Sorry about that.
Please feel free to continue on in ignorance, surviving as religion always has, devolving to fit in the ever-shrinking gaps found at the very frontier of mans understanding.
+Red Rock so what do you think happens when you die you ignorant faithless fools
When *I* die? Nothing much. But when *you* die? ...
... well, then our species evolves : )
It's very hard to watch this.. She miss-represents creationism and intelligent design so badly it's painful. I just wish both sides would be honest about what the other side believes. She then says "She doesn't want to go into the details" of what creation science believes but that it's just bad science. Well that's convenient.. she knows most people really haven't taken the time to investigate the claims of creationism so she just tells them to trust her that it's bad science without giving any examples of how it's bad science. Eugenie C. Scott knows exactly what she is doing as she creates this false straw man version of creationism and intelligent design. It seems to be the MO of the evolutionist camp to just try to shut down conversation about it. I see through their deception. I'm agnostic when it comes to evolution or creation science. Why? Because there are big holes in both arguments. At least take the time to find out what they really believe. Creation.com is a good start.
Ben Tanner But people HAVE taken the time to investigate the claims of creationism IN DETAIL and anyone with any legitimate science background (ie: NOT Kent Hovind) will agree that these claims are complete bunk..... just worn out biblical mythology trying (and thus far failing) to worm its way into the science class. To be "agnostic when it comes to evolution or creation science" is just a cheap and ignorant copout.
Your statement that "anyone with any legitimate science background will agree that these claims are complete bunk" is false.
Why then are there so many published PHD Scientists that are regular contributors to creation magazine then? (www.creation.com)
You are either running from this, or you are ignorant of the facts.
Ben Tanner HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! EXACTLY!.... they are regular contributors to a creation magazine. In other words, the only place they can get people to take them seriously is in a forum of similarly fundamental religious people. Part of the process of science is to put your findings out among the general population so that it can be reviewed and criticized by the most knowledgeable people in the field. When that has happened in the past, this creationist nonsense has been shot down as the mythological bullshit it is and the so-call "creation scientists" have been marginalized to their weird little creation publications.... and rightly so. The reason for this is that a "creation scientist" is not a scientist at all because he starts with a conclusion (god did it because the bible says so) and then rummages around trying to distort and twist and lie observed evidence into fitting his initial conclusion. That is simply not how legitimate science works.
Brammy... they are also published Scientists that have actually made breakthroughs in science unlike most of the scientific world. "Peer review" is just another name for Group Think.
Ben Tanner Yawn..... being published means little.... anyone can publish any crap they want...... where you are published and (more importantly) the reaction of the professional community is of much greater importance. Lots of complete nitwits are published.... Ken Ham for one who is so insane that he actually thinks that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time............ OK, lets get down to it..... please name the "scientist" or "scientists" who you think have good arguments for biblical creation.
The problem for ID is that so far all the evidence so far supports science, and the ID proponents have yet to find any supporting their view. Scientists are constantly asking ID proponents for evidence, yet still nothing. In court they were asked for some and they had nothing to say.
The funniest thing about ID is the use of the word 'intelligent'! Their proponents certainly seem to be lacking in that area!
what if we introduced life / dna to mars?
name a design that did not come from a mind. why do we have a branch of science/engineering that is called biomimicry? why copy a non design into a design?
@@ricoigor dna 3B bits of info per cell.....people think it came from mud
Obviously you don't know much about the evidence and the reasons that scientists have used to support their argument for intelligent design.
But that is okay if you don't comprehend the logic behind it and would rather go with the illogical presumption and presupposition that the atheists wanna be scientists use 😂
It just shows that you are not willing to give up your opinions for the objective truths which are found in scientific discoveries.
Sarcasm ( yeah sure just accept the statement of the atheist blindly about their " scientific discoveries " and that is not biased at all )
Cognitive dissonance is an atheists best friend.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
― Albert Einstein
When & where did he say this. Cite your source.
Teacher: Alright students, how do you think life came to be?
Students: God did it!
Teacher: Correct. Now how do you think that the Earth came to be?
Students: God did it!
Teacher: Good job class! Okay, how did the universe come to be?
Students: God did it!
Teacher: You guys are amazing. You have passed my class.
Is that how you would rather school go? Is that even correct? You see, "god did it" is not the answer to everything. Thinking so is an extremely childish notion.
Well, you also need to take cognizance of that fact that there are unabridged explanations of creation in other great scriptures of the world. Take the ancient Vedic scriptures as an example. They go into great detail about how God created, not just that "He did it". The Vedic literatures spans many books, with hundreds of thousands of verses. Some of the prominent ones that deal with ultimate goal of life, don't go into the great details, because they are serving a different purpose. Look at Bhagavata Purana as an example (18k verses) of which canto's 3 and 5 discuss details about the process of creation of the universe. You don't have to accept any of this, but the point it, there are other scriptures in the world that give the details. Why do we ignore these?
It's not a controversy evolution is a fact, and the latter are just primitive religious beliefs
No one is debating mere evolution. It's when people say life and its diversity arose via blind and mindless processes that there is debate.
@@sombodysdad evolution has nothing to do with how life originated
@@sombodysdad origin of life is still a mystery to science and therefore everybody
@@sombodysdad There is no debate. You don't have any science.
@@logicalatheist1065 How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It's only if blind and mindless processes produced life would we say they also produced its diversity. An Intelligently designed OoL means that organisms were intelligently designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes.
It's a shame this professor has to explain why ID is not science. It's also a shame that the people who need to hear this will never listen.
“The scripture worshipers put the writings ahead of God. Instead of interpreting God's actions in nature, for example, they interpret nature in the light of the Scripture. Nature says the rock is billions of years old, but the book says different, so even though men wrote the book, and God made the rock and God gave us minds that have found ways to tell how old it is, we still choose to believe the Scripture.” ~~ Sheri S. Tepper ~~ The Fresco
The mental gymnastics begin when they can't reconcile reality with with their book. Willfully deluded they are.
curiousgeorge1940
It's pretty messed up, because it means that the fundamentalist religion is a form of idolatry, where the book is worshiped more than the god it talks about.
KalibreSteelblast Go research Bible History and you'll see the thousands of errors that as many hands have messed up in the copying and recopying of the "original texts". Go to the dozens of web sites that illustrate biblical contradictions to see how "The Word" says one thing, then a little later says the opposite.
- JWs ( that Jehovah crowd ) are told they can't read any of that : not even the history of their own religion, because all of that is the work of the devil. Nice touch to keep your sheep in line !
I think Eugenie C. Scott, as a professor is complete wrong about ID when talking about it and misrepresenting it and confusing it with creationism. Its better to say that ID is a challenge to Darwinism evolution natural selection theory. Its open enough space to creativity and exploration in science. It’s not creationism. As Darwinist atheists have a hard time in accepting other theories and doctrines our kids in schools as the truth.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
well ;good try ,but its the exact opposite..evolution is a story for dumbs.......evolution doesn t stand the scrutiny of real science...ohhh by the way ,repeating the stupid mistakes as a smart claim of a dumb Weitzenhoffer will make you look as stupid......
People who quote others cannot put forth their own thoughts -me
Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere-childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world-as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."[25]
This is simply the best video I have ever seen on Creationism/ID and evolution. Eugenie Scott is thoughtful, respectful, and wise in her delivery. Absolutely loved it!!
Because you're a fool.
Scott knows nothing about subatomic particles.
She's like the Hillary Clinton of education law.
Some of the old heroes of the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial.
These people helped hold the line against creationism in schools.
The claim of "Intelligent Design" is a common one amongst creationists of all ilk (I've had it thrown at me by Muslims as well as creationist Christians)
But anyone with a basic knowledge of anatomy knows that so many things about the layout of the human body are completely and utterly dumb.
If a human engineer designed an eye with nerves criss-crossing light sensitive cells, BETWEEN the cells and the light source, they'd be laughed out of the room.
Huw Rees Music It is neither weird nor insignificant. If such a system is designed, it's designed VERY badly. What would that say about the designer?
Huw Rees Music in this scenario we explore two possibilities. 1. so called designer doesn't exist or 2. so called designer exists and sucks at his job.
Given these two scenarios then it reveals that even if we do accept the premise that a designer exists, the designer is hardly to be beheld since afterall, if people could design things than this supernatural designer, what good is the designer?
Huw Rees Music It's not just in my opinion. It's a fact (and one of many in nature)
If a system were created AS IS by an omnipotent being, WHY ISN'T IT PERFECT?
"I don't understand why you think it would have to be perfect". Why would a perfect being DELIBERATELY create something imperfect?
Or better, the playground in the same area as a sewage plant, or in the case of the male, directly sharing space with waste water disposal. Seriously? An intelligent designer couldn't do better than that?
Oh! One more! Giving most tetrapods a singe line from the various orifices in the face for intake of food, water, and air, with only a switch-select to prevent drowning?
It's fumy that a lot of creationists consider Dover trial judge a traitor but I see a man who stuck to the principle of the law instead of letting dogma compromise his principles.
Please look up Miller-Urey Experiment from Princeton University or Wiki. It generated 22 organic compounds from inorganic origins. Many criticisms were made because of the "primitive atmosphere" that he assumed, but later studies, with other starting mixtures were tried,with various results. The original study did show that inorganic chemical reactions could lead to production of organic compounds. Not quite abiogenesis, but a very possible starting point, and definitely not a negative answer.
Thank you. You are right. I am not trying to convince Angela or anyone else like her. My goal is to expose how dangerous this nonsense is by making them talk about their beliefs.
As a warning and to the benefit of all who are inclined to fall for this insanity.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
you just claimed insanity by yourself by that stupid statement....you just don t understand the matter ,period.
Creationism is not science. Science involves putting forward an idea (called a hypothesis) which postulates a cause with an effect. It then amasses evidence and objectively assesses that evidence to see whether it supports the hypothesis or not. If it does, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction which can be further tested. If not, the hypothesis is either rejected or amended for further testing. The key word in all of this is objective. Creationism involves beliefs which are subjective. What is worse, it bowdlerises the scientific method by only looking for evidence that supports its beliefs and ignoring or supressing that which does not. In addition, its supporters continually point to facts for which science (as yet) has no answers as 'proof' of the validity of their ideas. Science does not pretend to have answers for everything. It is an evolving, learning and adaptable way of looking at the universe. That is why it has been so successful over the last three hundred years. The old saying, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is true up to a point but absence of evidence is not proof of presence.
"Evolution" is not science. It is speculation and conjecture about what happened in the past. It requires belief and faith without proof . . . meaning it is a religion.
@@philroe2363 The fossil record provides more evidence and proof of evolution than has ever been dreamed up in favour of religion. - Which is why the religious obsessives try to deny that any of it even exists.
@@madgeordie4469 the fossil record shows stasis of species over time, not transition. In fact, there is no known transitional record in the fossils. Not one. The ONLY thing you evolutionists do is point at creatures that have similar features to two other creatures and say "transitional fossil." But this doesn't demonstrate "evolution;" absent a transitional record, it only demonstrates special creation.
Further, the vast majority of fossils in the world show catastrophic water burial - something we DON'T see happening today. This situation speaks loudly of a one time massive global flood, not "millions of years of slow burial."
The fossil record sustains Biblical creation . . . not Darwinistic "evolution." Sorry.
@@philroe2363 If species were static the plants and animals with their associated fossils from the Permian, Ordovician, Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous eras plus every other era up to the present would all be the same - which they are not. So much for being static. As evolution is a constant process which never stops all fossils and even the species of organisms alive today are all transitional. There is no such thing as a completely developed species. Finally while some fossils show that their originators suffered violent deaths, often by natural causes such as floods this does not apply to all or even most. Hence, no planet wide flood. Hard to believe that one person could be so wrong about so many things in one post but there you go...
@@philroe2363 you are simply wrong, you know nothing of this subject other than what religious zealots told you. Evolution is a fact, so is common descent. DNA alone shows it beyond all doubt, just as well as it can tell you who your parents are. There is no evdience for any of the ludicrous claims in the bible, a book that describes a fl;at earth coveredc by a firmament with waters above and below... Being created before the sun, all of that is ludicrously wrong, and you would never think it matches science were you not indoctrinated into it.
Evolution does explain the existence of many complex molecular machines (e.g., bacterial flagella). That evolution cannot (as yet) explain the evolution of some complex machines does not necessarily imply an intelligent designer - it just means that the proper experiments have not been done yet. E.g., your example of the Cambrian explosion - fossils of single-celled organisms are harder to find, although such fossils have been found recently, so an explanation of this should be forthcoming.
I found this clip very interesting and factual. Anyone, with half a brain, who listens carefully, will grasp the points and realize I.D. isn't just wrong, it is plain stupid and outrageous. It says much about the politicians who voted to add I.D. to high school and college/university curriculums, as an alternate theory.
+terry z When a "Creation Scientist" wins a Nobel prize and passes peer review, then maybe, it would be worth considering. Until then, it will remain fantasy and magic!
Jeffrey P Very true Jeff. I find it almost impossible to discuss anything with the Creationists. Ever listen to Ken Ham? What an idiot!
terry z We are dealing with very strong religious indoctrination, with many of these people. I am meeting a refreshing number of younger Christians, who do accept scientific origins so, there is hope.
Jeffrey P Yes, there is hope. Still, I do not believe in a god.
terry z Neither do I, but I find less to argue about with most of the moderates. The only problem I have with them is, they really have to go to extremes in cherry picking the Bible, to make it more palatable.
There's no such thing as Darwinists or Darwinism. Only biologists and biologism. 😉
Biology would not exist if not for quarks that are bursting forth and spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons. You can find these words in the book THE QUANTUM WORLD written by the physicist Kenneth Ford.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
There is no controversy, other than in some parts of the US
Because you must make a special case for a backward nation.
Allow them their hamless(?) little crazy beliefs.
There is not much controversy anywhere in the world about the validity of Darwinism. It is merely a Creationist claim made to give their irrational beliefs a veneer of respectability by fooling people into thinking that if such a controversy does exist there must be some scientific backing for those beliefs (of which there conspicuously is not). In other words, its a Creationist scam.
Eugenie has her head on a box, and Darwinism evolution has a monopoly on education to teach our kids only evolution right? What century this Amazon women is living?
@@bluejysm2007 This woman is evil and her fairytale of Evolutionism won't save her that's for sure..
"DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST" RICHARD DAWKINS
WWW.EVOLUTIONFAIRYTALE.COM
@@jaydelgado1994
How dare she use science instead of your solid yet evidence free conjecture!
Actually we can reproduce that particular chemical process in a lab now that we know how. The paper is 'synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions' and it's published in nature.
Produced in a lab, under very controlled specific conditions by intelligent people who know before they make it what they are trying to make. People who keep notes so if something doesn't work they can go back a step or if they run out of something can go back and get more of what's needed to start again. Give us a break. Do it in the wild, with no controlled specific conditions, with NO input of any sort from any intelligent being or anything made by any intelligent being. Don't have any way for the information and data used, to be present in the wild test. Oh. and make sure there is absolutely no life where the test is done. Not one single cell of life. Not one single piece of the building blocks. Only what is there as if man or machine or animal or living cell or parts of a cell had never existed. You must not cause any type of influence at all. You cannot help the process in any way shape or form. You cannot provide anything at all. Nada. Nothing. Nothing that might guide the process or show what the process was or is trying to do or make.
That is how it would have been if what you say happened happened. No information at all. No knowledge that anything was happening or meant to be happening. No information storage retrieval systems for start over when something went wrong somewhere down the track. No way of knowing that something wasn't working how it was meant to because there was no knowledge that something was or should be happening. No reason for it to happen. nothing to cause it happen. Nothing to guide the process. No awareness of any process even happening. Nothing to control whether a process takes to long or is to short. Nothing to control amounts of the chemicals in the process. Nothing to control what chemicals to use. Im not sure how to make it any clearer. Totally unguided, uncontrolled.
calling it a controversy does a disservice to the scientists who discovered/illuminated us upon the process of evolution.
Creationists had been unsuccessful in getting their brand of religious "Creation Science" taught in science class so they manufactured this "Intelligent Designer" facade. The "controversy" was manufactured by a collection of Creationists through what is called the Wedge Document and formed an organization called the Discovery Institute to distribute their nonsense. They do no discovery of any sort other than quote mine and seek donations. In return the gullible and scientifically illiterate get a pamphlet and videos so they can further distribute their propaganda.
Evolution could not exist because energy is constantly spinning/vibrating/pulsating/etc. Evolution is built on what is called the solid. Those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity. This is an electrical energy field world where we are electrical energy field beings because atoms spin as electrical energy fields.
It didn't take all that many words to show you up as a disservice to humanity.
@@pureenergy4578 talk to me after youve taken a collegiate lvl course in quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.
"everything in its present form" Proven wrong through genetics.
God idea creates ID plausibility. Self fulfilling.
Religious attracted to false dichotomies.
Incredulity sparks supernatural tendencies. "If I can't understand it, then god."
Religion puts cart before horse, conclusions first, then cherry picking research to fit narrative.
Yiu are intelevtually impotent my friend and ignorant as they get. If not, and you poses the knowledge than it is possible that you are also stupid, , incapable of rational reasoning, along with other possibilities such as: hypocrite, liar, manipulator, marxist, etc. Take your pick.
@@pappycool Now point all of those words at yourself because you don't read books of any kind.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
Eugenie Scot is amazing! So is the NCSE. They are essential in a country riddled with, not religion, but religious fundamentalism.
She is amazing only to those more intelectually impotent than she is. Religious fundamentalism?!! Are you aware of the fact that it is the chortsian moral standards that are the foundation of the democracy and prosperity in the western world? Stop being a idiot.
@@pappycool Dr Eugenie Scott is a real scientist unlike your fraud heros of Stephen Meyer and the other liars at the Discovery Institute.
"Are you aware of the fact that it is the chortsian moral standards that are the foundation of the democracy and prosperity in the western world?"
Another lie. Your biblical morality forbids all other religions. That is a fundemental freedom in all western democracy.
There is NO trace of any democracy in your bloody bible, nor do women have human rights in your bible.
Your bible condones slavery, something gone from our democracies.
Sorry but your biblical morality has little to do with the rights and freedoms we enjoy in modern society.
Again you show yourself to be an ignorant liar.
It is NOT logical to fill in gaps of missing information with hearsay. Imagine the implications of that in a murder trial. "Ladies of gentlemen of the court, we can't find the body, nor the weapon, nor any evidence to determine his guilt, so logically you must find him guilty because he can't prove he didn't do it either."
This woman is a wonderful example of what it is to be rational. Brilliant!
This woman is rational?!! Get real. Richard Dawkins himself admitted to the possibility of intelligent design. This woman is either intelectually impotent, either a liar, hypocrite, manipulatori and a Marxist. Possibly a combination of all the mentioned above.
@@keithboynton your ignorance is a bliss! Actually Dawkins DID EXACTLY THAT, in a 2004 interview with Ben Stein, contained in the documentary, " Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I suggest you study more and put less nerve on display.
@@pappycool that was and still is a great doco. I must watch it again sometime. Its still very relevant. Maybe even more so now.
In order to explain this world, we have to believe that a very clever person made it.
The designer is always smarter than the thing he designed.
So now we need an even smarter designer who designed the designer.
Yes folks, it's gods all the way up !
silly argument
@@ozowen5961
Don't you agree that a potter is cleverer than his pots ?
@@tedgrant2
Your argument presupposes a designer. It's not clear at all that is required.
I believe there is such, but the argument is not one I would use. It hopes the listener is poorly educated
@@ozowen5961
When you see a pot on sale in a shop, do you presuppose that someone made the pot ?
Or do you think it just popped into existence, all by itself ?
@@tedgrant2 I see you are a single argument kind of guy.
You must be proud.
Evolution is a fact.
If you mean evolution as "in all life came from a common ancestor" that is not a fact. And I say that based on the definition she gives for what can be known: only those things that can be tested and examined.
There is no way to know, as an absolute fact, that we all came from a common ancestor.
@@TheAaronYost Evolution is descent with modification. Observed fact.
Evolution is both theory and fact at the same time.
Evolution is built on believing in solidity which those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER FIND. This is an energy existence where subatomic particles are constantly spinning/vibrating and pulsating this world into existence. Creation is constant.
What controversy? Like the people who continue to argue for a flat earth, so-called "creationists" are simply people who don't know what they're talking about.
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” ~~ Richard Dawkins
I wonder if he has faith in his wife..
That is a caricature of Christian faith. The Bible says, Test everything, and hold on to that which is true. 1st Thessalonians 5.21. How is that blind? How is that not science?
@@femibabalola4057
Creationism is not science.
It fails the tests.
Science disproved its primary claims.
@@ozowen5961 So, what is the age of the oldest tree?
@@femibabalola4057 What is the orbital velocity of the Moon?
Gee, aren't irrelevant questions fun?
You're welcome to explain the fossils in any other way, let's hear it.
Not only that, but also what was the cause of time, space and matter, aka Universe, to come into existence. Also how about mathematical odds of life appearing by chance. Etc. Etc. Etc.
@@pappycool YOU ARE A LIAR. YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A HYPOCRITE.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A MARXIST.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A LIAR.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID DR SCOTT IS A MANIPULATOR.
YOU LIED WHEN YOU POSTED YOUR QUOTE MINE OF DARWIN'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE EYE.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
@@garywalker447 lol, it is true I said thatvand i stand by my statement! Every single modern atheist on this planet today is a Marxist wheter they know it or not. Atheism is mandatory step in the Marxist formation. No kne can be a Marxist without being an atheist first. You are a Marxist too by the way. Yiu may not acknowl3dge it but it is a fact.
@@garywalker447 here is the challenge again: pick from biology astrophysics, or chemistry, as we already yiu were left speechless about the mathematical and paleontology evidence you were given. I dare you. This will be a copy paste whenever you attempt to take the conversation into ridiculousness. Your choice. So what's it going to be?
@@pappycool lol,
it is true I said thatvand i stand by my statement!
Every single modern atheist on this planet today is a Marxist wheter they know it or not.
Atheism is mandatory step in the Marxist formation.
No kne can be a Marxist without being an atheist first.
You are a Marxist too by the way. Yiu may not acknowl3dge it but it is a fact.
Albert Einstein said it well: "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."
Here is something that I want you to answer.
Do the Falgellum and the ttss share any protein? or are they all different proteins (meaning that they have no common protein)?
Why is evolution still a topic in a supposed “advanced” civilisation?
it has withstood the scrutiny of 150 years of critical testing and has been confirmed by predictions made.
@@IIrandhandleII except if someone’s crazy old book seems to say the opposite
@@IIrandhandleII ...in your dreams!!! You are so funny!
Evolution is everywhere
François D especially our wonderful schools. We really are doing so well as a country. Our kids are the smartest, most well behaved children on earth!
+François D So the argument is between the clear minded and the deluded? Do you come to that conclusion as the result of careful study, or is it a belief you hold? Seriously curious.
world peace I dont have to do it , Darwin did it all
François D So it is a belief you hold
world peace It is not a belief, it is a reality.
Discovery Institute what a totally Orwellian use of the words
"Dinosaurs have existed, are talked about in the bible..."
Creationists love to claim that Behemoth was a dinosaur--even though that means ignoring most of what the Bible actually SAYS about him, and ALL of the context. They claim that the Bible says his tail was as big as a cedar; it doesn't. They ignore the fact that it says he has a navel. They ignore the fact that it says he chews grass like an ox, which sauropods COULD NOT do--they don't have the teeth for it.
Biblical wisdom
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Yep, primitive, Bronze Age nonsense.
"Evolution is entirely based on the straw man principal."
This alone disqualifies you for any intellectual discussion in whatever topic whatsoever. You would do well to look up the definition of a "strawman" and then be ashamed for the rest of your life.
Firstly Darwin NEVER based anything on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are completely separate things (no overlap).
Secondly when people talk about abiogenesis relative to the formation of life on earth the are speaking about a totally different set of circumstances than the beliefs held in the 18th century . when we test the primordial condition we in fact see the formation of biomolecules proving that it is at least plausible.
Please give me the exact sentence/paragraph or tell where it is. Just reading the abstract it says this concerning the soft tissue: "..Moreover, the fibrils DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY in spectral signature FROM those of potential modern BACTERIAL CONTAMINANTS. Also, if there had been bacterial contamination 23000 years ago why wouldn't the soft tissue have decomposed? Did it say that results of C14 were conclusively bacterial, or possible? Also what's the explanation for ANY soft tissue preserving?
what a gibberish question
A couple of points: I would agree with some your statement if you replace "cannot be" with "has not yet been". If you state that something "cannot be explained", it can be translated to mean "don't bother to look". That is the surest way of stifling science. It is possible that there is knowledge that you cannot get scientifically, but that would not be science. I have no issue with teaching ID - my issue is with teaching ID in a science class.
You don't research at all because you know nothing about the behavior of subatomic particles, those quarks and atoms that are creating us as they spin and vibrate billions of times a second as light BEFORE the word biology can even begin to exist.
Biology could not exist if first there were not quarks and atoms. YOU like billions of others are ignoring what you can't see. Gell-Mann won a Nobel prize for his theory of quarks which Kenneth Ford writes about in his book THE QUANTUM WORLD. More specifically, this sentence completely woke me up: "magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons".
At our core, at biology's core are quarks spinning as 3 points of light. How do quarks turn into what is called physical? Don't you know that those billion-dollar energy colliders built around the world NEVER find solidity? They work with energy and only energy because energy is the core of this existence. Atoms are electrical energy fields because they spin as positive/negative poles. All of us consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms. WE ARE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FIELDS. Where in biology is this taught? To me, biology is strictly a money maker, the kind that rockefeller created to make himself king of the world. He was not interested in healing. He wanted to put oil into pills. It is because of this nazi thinking rockefeller that this earth is so full of sick people, so full of cartels.
What is your source concerning positive evidence of design?
I’ve heard of Eugenie Scott before. She must be a heavy hitter because I’ve seen the creationist try to put her down.
The reason I remember this is because they care so much about sex they always have to point out the fact she is one of those women things they talk about so much.
Evolution in biology can be defined as any change in the inherited traits of biological populations over successive generations. It unites every field of biology and is a repeatedly confirmed theory.
LightUpon Light If it has inputs and outputs THEN IT ISN'T A CLOSED SYSTEM.
Jebus.
LightUpon Light
Something arrives. Something leaves. Not "closed," you moron.
LightUpon Light Wait, what?
Who are these scientists who are scrambling away from evolution? Because this is the first I've heard of a major shift in the consensus.
Gog Mclaine
I realize, but I was hoping he'd explain what he was talking about.
Huw Rees Music Names please?
Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationist organisations often misrepresent evolution by stating that it does not explain the origin of life.
This is a dishonest tactic.
Of course the theory of evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. It is not supposed to. The origin of life or abiogenesis is within the field of chemistry not biology.
Evolution explains the diversity of life within the field of biology not chemistry.
You missed the part where I made it clear that you have misunderstood the passage. I know you want him to be saying there's no evidence for evolution, but what he's saying is that Darwin's understanding of evolution was limited compared to what we know now. You need to accept this.
"...what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices"
This appears in both quotes because you're quoting the same passage.
I'm having trouble coming up with any specific problems. I assume you're familiar with a few of them or can point me in the right direction. And perhaps explain how the size of the animals is a problem?
im evasive ? what were u saying about divine intervention ?
actually we found a motor called flagellum. do a motor need a designer or not?
Now what about those similarities between organisms in different environments?
12:00. Young Earth creationists are not just rejected by scientists, but by most Christians as well.
So "creation science" claims there is a materialist bias in the research of science.
May I inquire then....... as to how you test for non materialist reality?
How would science test to confirm fairies or the tooth fairy?
What research can be conducted in the field and/or laboratory setting to discover, define and explain that methodology of an intelligent designer?
The fact remains that creation science is a theology.......not a science.
That was disproven in court, the kitzmiller vs dover trial to be exact. The flagellum is a modified version of the needle mechanism that can be found in viruses. Haven't you updated your arguments for the like 10 years or something?
That's a strange thing to say because the proposed lineage is based on the fact that these animals have both fish and tetrapod traits in varying proportions. Acanthostega has a fishy pectoral girdle and gill covers but has it's pelvis fused to a sacral rib in a very tetrapody manor. Tiktaalik is an even clearer mosaic. The spine would have to be modified as you point out. In Ichthyostega the spine resembles Eusthenopteron but has distinct zygapophyses to make it more rigid.
You're still avoiding my question. Why all the similarities? Convergence only accounts for so much, and nothing at all when the similarities are between organisms occupying different environments.
Nice try Eugenie, now tell us where all the life came from in the Cambrian explosion.
You only mentioned it once in passing in over an hour and a half. The elephant in the room which bothered Darwin so much.
That we do not have a complete understanding of abiogenesis does not cast doubt on the Theory of Evolution.
There are a lot of theories about the Cambrian Explosion and none if them point to Intelligent Design or Scientific Creationism in any way. Just because we haven't got the full information about something doesn't make it false...
the standard academic work on the Cambrian is Erwin and Valentine. Where do you think they went wrong? What is the weakest chapter and why?
"Nice try Eugenie"- she doesn't need to try, you pig-ignorant dunce.
Once you start throwing out that "odds are so great" nonsense, you open yourself up to a flood of criticism. ... and "random chance" is NOT postulated anywhere, in any scientific paper, or it would have been scrapped on day one of the review process. That term only appears in the misunderstood creationist criticisms of reality based work.
No. I've described why one would throw up their hands and say "I don't know what that means." If the "opponents" to her general message constantly abuse and misrepresent a specific term - Darwinism - she is actually forced to treat it as an ambiguous term for the purposes of her speech. If she were to hammer it down as the historical definition, she would be misrepresenting what her "opponents" are saying.
And you didn't address the other half of the question. Why are the limbs built on the same pattern? Why do they develop homologously? Why the mosaic of fish-tetrapod features? Why all those similarities of the skull? Tell me why, Moon.
Fish are better adapted to their environment than we are. Fish and humans are equally evolved to their respective environments.
someone doesn't have to believe in evolution to point out that fish are better at getting oxygen underwater than humans (which cannot)
@@justanobody0
However, evolution is just a fact. It doesn't require belief. Just a grasp of the evidence.
@@ozowen5961 I guess we'll agree to disagree on evolution being true.
To clarify, I don't believe one needs faith in God to look at the evidence and come to the logical conclusion that evolution is false.
@@justanobody0
I suspect you might need to actually look at the evidence.
It's observed so, you know, it's real
No, that's as much as I could paste into this awful youtube conversational space.
Not sure what page you're on, but on the wiki that I'm in there is no reference to Tacitus.
I've read much about him, but I will double check before getting back to you.
Thanks.
Very good and how many years have you been studying for?
I was 7 when I suggested a “theistic evolution” argument based on something a Sunday school teacher said. He said “the days before man were time on God’s scale, which meant that a day could be a billion years.” I raised my hand and said, “If God can do anything, then why can’t he make humans out of amoebas (I was only 7 😅) through evolution?” He answered, “because it doesn’t say that.” I replied, “it doesn’t say a Day was a billion years either.” I stopped being Christian young……
Maybe you don't know where you are and you just made it clear to me with your answer.
Yes, you are a resident of this devine zoo. But you are one of these lucky people who don´t know that they are zoo residents He has created to bring some fun in his boring everyday life. I´m one of the unlucky people how know where they are.
But make some funny noices to please Him. I have a prayer for you.
"Almighty alien from hyperspace. Don't kill us with your laser cannons like you did before."
The Extraterrestrial has also created dinosaurs for His zoo. When they bored Him, He killed everyone with a laser. The burn marks can still be found in layers of earth.
Make Him happy. Act like a good resident of His zoo. But don't argue against why you exist or He will burn you up like dinosaurs.
@@marculatour6229 what in the world are you babbling about? Your comment suggests that you’ve some good herb…wanna pass it to the left hand side? 😂
Einstein was a creationist in the most fundamental meaning of the word.
“God does not play dice with the universe.”
“God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.”
“Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.”
“Black holes are where God divided by zero.”
There are many of these quotes from Einstein.
You still listed a humerus as an organism which is wrong no matter how you writhe. Now, what about those questions I asked?
On that note, how convenient that my question has ended up right below this comment. What a perfect opportunity for you to try to address them rather than obfuscating as usual.
“I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.”
Albert Einstein
Is there such a thing as a credible atheist
who seriously refutes evolution or is everyone that refutes evolution a theist
in some way. This is meant as a serious question, I would love to hear a
genuine atheist refuting evolution. Does anybody know any?
Tom Cruise
I'm not sure you understood the question.
+Gareth Tatler Raelians are atheists who reject evolution. I think some Buddhists fit into that category too, but I'm not sure.
Rembrandt972
Thanks, I'll look into both of those, thought I'm not sure that Buddhists as such advance any particular evolutionary theories.
+Gareth Tatler On the subject of the validity of evolution, I would say that atheists fall into two camps: Those who accept evolution as a fact, and those who don't care. The only people actively trying to refute it are all theists.
Tom Cruise Scientists, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
@echosyst I will support an honest debate as soon as creationism/ID get some evidence. As long as there is no evidence, there is no debate.
Jesus didn't slowly change water into wine. He didn't slowly raise people from the dead. He could have made an aged universe in less than 1 second. He's God! He took 7 days as a pattern for our week, so we could relate, and numerology tells us 7 is the number of completion of wholeness. There aren't gaps in the fossil record. There is no fossil record to support evolution; they're just a few questionable samples. The complexity, the amount of information, the mathematics, and the design found in nature reeks of a creator, not evolution. All animals are capable of micro-evolution. This gives them the ability to adapt as the environment changes, but they don't have the ability to go from being one kind of animal to another. ID requires an intelligent designer and that would be Jesus. Let's see what God says about all this in Romans.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Are you sure? What if the Intelligent Designer is ODIN! I have just as much evidence to support ODIN. He did after all say that he'd get rid of the ice giants. Are there any around today? NO. That is proof of Odin.
David House You brainwashed idiot,check out the laryngeal nerve in the girraffe and let me know if you think that is intelligent design .
Ross Fraser Just read a fascinating article at ICR .org that discusses this nerve in the developmental stages. Fascinating proof that it also was designed. Title of the article "Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design." But then you probably will not read it. You're not interested in the truth or you would have found it by now. God says, "Only a fool says in his heart there is no God." We are all born with a knowledge of Him and that knowledge is with us throughout our lives. I think the most wasted life is one that is spent trying to disprove God The Creator, and the happiest is the one that just enjoys Him and all His benefits. Your struggle isn't against knowledge; you're seeking justification to live a life that refuses to believe that you'll someday be accountable to the God who created you. Good luck with that....
David House NO DISADVANTAGE ? The giraffe can hardly make a croaking noise,it is the quietest large mammal in the animal kingdom . I read the article and am not convinced,I think ( being indoctrinated ) you are really grasping at straws on this one . Next you will be saying the earth is 6000 yrs old,because your ancient magic book of superstitious nonsense say so There is the real truth for you,peace .
David HouseHow can you watch a brilliant SCIENTIST like Eugenie Scott and not immediatly forge t all those dopey impossible beliefs ? Answer....childhood indoctrination ,simple really
First, as I pointed out, I'm not an omnipotent being. Second, again as I pointed out, it doesn't matter whether I can do better for the aforementioned reason. Third, even I could (provided I learned how to manipulate DNA so precisely) design a giraffe in which the recurent laryngeal nerve doesn't go seven feet completely out of its way before looping back to the top.
You guess wrong and you clearly don't understand how evolution is proposed to work. You've fashioned yourself a nice strawman
And considering an all powerful creator deity.....did a piss poor job.
....yet, here you are!!!!
@@kevinrtres Yes, thanks to evolution. NO god needed.
@@TheJimtanker You clearly do not understand your own evolution!!!!
@@TheJimtanker genetics-supports-a-biblical-model-of-human-origins Google is your friend.
@@kevinrtres No it doesn't.....clearly a natural process....no godhead needed.
What are your sources?
u still didnt answer, do u believe in some kind of divine intervention ? that all life just like that in one moment appeared thanks to god ? or perhaps it is continuous act of creation ?
Should holocaust denial be taught in history class? Should we allow children to be taught of a flat earth in geology class? Alchemy should also have it's fair time in Chemistry class too. What do you think about a heliocentric universe being taught in cosmology class? Hey, it's only fair to teach "both sides" right?
@Colin12475 - The issue is not necessarily that both evolution and creation be taught; but that truth be taught. From what and others have read, heard, seen - the ideology of Darwinian evolution is taught as factual, along with the hoards of fakery, fraud, dishonesty in order to propel a doctrine that is fraught with a host of problems. What is not allowed is questioning such debauchery! I believe that it is more important to teach critical thinking, to allow the student(s) the opportunity to question and follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of the dogmatic emphasis on evolution as the ONLY game. It is not, and students must be made aware of the real issues and problems; yet such problems are not discussed nor even brought up. But these days, thanks to the power of the internet, students CAN do their own research and reach their own conclusions based on the evidence, not just because some teacher makes false claims.
@@WienArtist The reason why evolution is taught is because it has mountains of peer reviewed, testable, repeatable, observable, evidence supporting it, not because it is some sort of dogmatic Atheist propaganda. Throughout history, not one creationist has ever furnished one legitimate piece of evidence disproving evolution or proving creationism. Though they claim they have all the evidence in the universe, what they produce is nothing but a cornucopia of lies, fallacies, wishful thinking evolution bashing, biased sources of misinformation, god of the gaps, empty claims and so on.
@@Colin12475 Wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels!!! The true reason that Darwinian evolution is taught - not just the simply definition of evolution, which is that things change over time; but the atheistic mentality that drives the fraudulent cornucopia of lies that are prevalent in Darwinian evolution! Yes, evolution is indeed a dogmatic atheistic propaganda. Peer review? In other words, argument ad populum, or appeal to the masses. Peer review simply means that a group of people who all agree with one another have reviewed a document and put their stamp of approval on it. However, it does nothing to make it true just because a group of people think it to be so.
"...mountains of peer reviewed, testable, repeatable, observable, evidence supporting it..." Darwinian evolution is NOT testable, repeatable, observable, nor is there any evidence to support its theory! All the atheistic evolutionist can claim is that they can observe horizontal adaptation, or variation within a family or genus. There is absolutely zero observational evidence that one phyla can become another outside of its taxonomical family. There is limitation in how far even breeders can go to create a different animal within the family, but it is still within that family. In other words, try as they might, no breeder can create a cat by cross-breeding a dog! Will never work!
It is the atheist/evolutionist who claims evolution of the gaps! Give me just ONE, just ONE example of one kind of an animal or even ONE organism that has been observed using the scientific method to have evolved outside of its family - that is to say something like a dog becoming anything other than a dog. Regardless of the plethora of so-called evidence you purport, all you will ever arrive at is some creature or organism that changed in some way; yet it still remained in its originally created family. Suffice it so say that, as Dr. David Berlinski so succinctly and eloquently stated, bug stay bugs, dogs stay dogs, cats stay cats, etc.!
What did Darwin observe with the beaks of finches? Huh? Oh yes, that they changed! Wow! That certainly proves that Darwinian evolution is true. Everyone knows that things change over time, but still everyone knows (if they will be honest enough to admit it), that finches remain finches, no matter how often their beaks fluctuate due to dietary changes. And this goes for every living organism known to mankind. Certainly things change, but try as any atheist might to extrapolate or equivocate, they cannot cite one true example of anything morphing into anything outside of its category (dog/dog, cat/cat, fish/fish, etc.)
@@WienArtist I'm not wrong. If you honestly think you can disprove evolution, go out there and do it, I'll wait.
@@Colin12475 Of course you are wrong! Actually what we really observe is not evolution, but devolution. In order for evolution to work, you need new information to create entirely new body plans. What we only observe is the breaking down of the information that is already present in the DNA - that is called variation or adaptation, a far stretch from any organism becoming an entirely new one (dog to a cat for example). Now you are the one who is making a truth claim that Darwinian evolution (not simple variation) is true, so it is up to you to prove it. Where is your scientific, observational proof of any animal morphing into another kind! I am waiting!
No argument there. Can't help but notice you've avoided proffering any real critique of the transition in question. Are you going to do it or are you going to keep evading?
It also doesn't exclude Intelligent Design either. Therefore, until experimental/empirical evidence proves Darwinian evolution is adequate to create a ribosome or other complex molecular machine, we cannot eliminate intelligent design as having a role in abiogenesis and evolution. Many scientists are questioning the ability of natural selection/mutation as being creative enough for the origin of these complex organelles.
The fossil record is discontinuous. About one in a million organisms get fossilized and only a very tiny portion of those fossils survive. Thus it's unsurprising that there are large morphological gaps in the record. The fact that we're able to piece together such a clear path is astounding. There are around 20 million years between Panderichthys and Ichthyostega, time enough for the drastic change that occurred.
Additionally, Tacitus was not a contemporary of JC and could have easily had been referring to what he was told.
The scholars that you are referring to are Theistic Scholars, NOT critical scholars.
Can you give me at least a phrase to put in the search box? I thought evolution was always described like branches on a tree, with parallel ancestries, and that the more linear approach is described as a misunderstanding of evolutionary processes by the creationist. And what kind of evolution are we referring to here? no one argues mutation, copying errors, genetic variety, even gene duplication
I don't know what you're asking. If you mean how do I know you're wrong about your quote, I know because the source himself has confirmed it. If that's not what you're trying to say, please clarify.
And double please answer the question.
U dont want the bible u dont want the GOX h y pothosis
What do u want
Sixty coppies were not purchased by the education system, a singular school board member donated them.
My reply to you would be, if I were a biology defender, is, "We are working on it." And my rebuttal would be, "What is your evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that God created the ribosome?"
And you didn't clarify what you were talking about developing to higher organisms. And you still haven't told me any more about that frog of yours. And you still haven't presented actual objections to the Panderichthys-Tiktaalik lineage beyond that you've looked at the animals in question and decided that "they look very similar," but they're not related. While I'm sure your examination was well-informed and rigorous, I'd like some actual objections.
Do you live beside a quote mine or something? Stephen Gould was commenting on the rarity of transitional fossils between species, not on transitional fossils themselves. He was also trying to support the punctuated equilibrium vs the gradualism model of evolution. He wasn't questioning evolution nor saying what you're trying to imply.
Your statement is not constructive. You need to be more specific. Are you objecting to my characterization of Gould's thoughts regarding the fossil record? Because your characterization is demonstrably false. I know it feels good to be glib, but it's not very useful.
"The ribosome, both looking at the past and at the future, is a very significant structure - it's the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms. Craig does comparative genomics, and you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome. And it's recognizable; it's highly conserved. So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be?"