***** 5. Evolution vs. Creationism: Is Hearing Both Sides Fair? *****

[@comiconline]

This is an incredibly important video. It addresses a topic too often (publicly) neglected by the scientific community. However, the MOST IMPORTANT difference between science and religion is rarely hit upon: the difference between ABSOLUTISM and RELATIVISM. The problem with religion is that by definition, it is infallible. It is based on absolute beliefs that are not to be questioned or scrutinized. Science, by definition, is constantly changing due to testing, inquiry & challenges.

[@DaveSchwabIsHere]

This is a fantastic video series. Highly recommend the others if you have not seen them. More people need to learn how to reason properly and at an earlier age to the benefit of the human race.

[@chbu7081]

If you want to present both sides then just teach science in science class and creationism in church and Sunday school and then let the students decide.

[@wkmitchell]

You are right in that there aren't usually point scoring debates between the two. I guess what I am gauging the "victory" on is the response of the viewers. If you do some searches on KZbin, I'm sure you will be able to find some perfect examples of what I mean. For just one example, search KZbin for "EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM DEBATE IS LAUGHED AT BY AUDIENCE". "Victory" is I guess in the eye of the beholder I realise, but this happens quite a lot in the creationsits favour.

[@wildbestia]

taintedmeatallica, can you tell me the difference between evolution and adaptation? Just only on DNA level. What kinda changes in DNA you call "adaptation" and what changes you would call "evolution"?

[@A0DBOB]

@JungleJargon I also would like confirmation that you've read the some of the papers that ksqoo linked. Namely: "Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi" Hughes and Friedman 2003. It is only 14 pages long, easily found with a google search (full text available without any journal subscription. I ask this of you because you answered ksqoo within MINUTES of his post. So unless you had these papers memorized I highly doubt you read them.

[@kaysandesses]

Sad to hear you had to endure it; glad you found the strength to get out of it. A couple of women I love dearly went down that same road.

[@ravingidiot]

By what criteria do you conclude that the universe was created without error? Does there exist an objective definition of perfection, such that one could test for it? Of course, the origin of the universe has little to do with the Theory of Evolution, but since you've attributed perfection to the universe, I'm genuinely interested in how you came to that conclusion.

[@JungleJargon]

@A0DBOB I suppose that means, "No", you would not like to discuss any of the elephant in the room issues. How about explaining in your own words what it is that you believe as to how objects manage to do everything that they do. Did the fungi change into anything else?

[@CynicalSkeptic1]

5) Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc.. Which of these other theories (which also describe FACTS) have you investigated and disproven? Maybe radioactivity? Perhaps electromagnetism? How about gravity?

[@rugbysam]

Best video I've heard in a while. Thanks for this!

[@imikewillrockyou]

Those videos are blocked likely do to users like "PlasticSaladSurgery" that love to leave four letter words all over their page. The reason I think that is the case is because although the comments must be approved there are many approved comments critical of the video.

[@Killua2001]

Anyyyway, that's how from "disorder" you get "order", because the universe is expanding, allowing T to go down, and make delta G negative as delta H is negative and delta S is also negative (if delta S is negative as we all know, that means decrease in entropy, which is increase in "order"). It's basic thermochem, gibbs free energy, enthalpy, and entropy. It also explains why ice is more "ordered" than not, but freezes spontaneously if you lower the temp enough. All basic thermochemistry.

[@A0DBOB]

@ksqoo Don't argue with him.. he is either trolling or just reading off one of his websites. They say random mutations cannot increase genetic information, then after you explain it they say random mutations cannot create morphological changes, then they say random mutations cannot create new species, etc etc. Their goal posts are on wheels... they move faster than you can type.

[@A0DBOB]

@JungleJargon Choose the top 4-5 papers that you think I should read. We can start with your three previous topics: Sediment, atomic ordered functions and mutation accumulation. You may either private message me or leave the websites on my wall. Thank you.

[@Draffut2003]

I am not sure where you are making the distinction between Darwinism and Evolution. At what point does it change between them? Evolution does explain how all life *could* have descended from one organism. At what point down this line does it make it change from evolution to something else?

[@Stevoukos]

@Mirhaus Who said anything about the beak?Genetically chickens have teeth genes which are de-activated.The beak has nothing to do with it.As you said the beak is a part of the skull. I'm just pointing out this fact which clearly contradicts creationism.

[@wkmitchell]

The provable science I am refering to is wether or not the animals can be fitted into a vessel that has that carrying capacity. This was answering a question that was put to me earlier as to how the ark would be able to do so. The point you make about the fossils is good. My point is that if there are many thousands of species now & probably thousands that are now extinct,shouldn't there be a massive number of intermediatory links in between? Wouldn't you think that they would have been found?

[@imikewillrockyou]

Michael Behe (the guy who wrote Darwin's black box, and huge proponent of ID) accepts that the evidence for common descent is insurmountable? Quote and source please.

[@rocas511]

That isn't what Killua2001 said. All the post said was that learning about something is the only way to prepare yourself to discuss the subject. It wouldn't hurt you to listen to that.

[@SqueakerAlpha]

@JungleJargon the chemical properties of elements follow the number of protons, neutrons and electrons that comprise the elements. The periodic table is arranged to show those properties. Its simply following some laws of physics which may or may not have had a creator.

[@bajablast09]

"It takes more faith to believe the incredible complexities of nature came from gasses and pure chance" Let's assume this is true, that things that are complex need to be designed. By this logic, God also has designer. God must necessarily be complex to create everything in this universe, as well as performing supernatural acts on a daily basis. Would you agree? Isn't this a logical question, that invoking a creator to explain things only raises the question of who created the creator?

[@ksqoo]

@JungleJargon Oh I have a small error there: the rate of growth would be 1 µm per year. So before you jump on that: I have seen this myself, alright? :)

[@LAMOtyler]

@jazzx251 were did the earth come from. if u say big bang were did that come from?

[@Killua2001]

You're right and wrong. It's less entropy in a closed system, in that the entire closed system still has positive entropy, but the object itself does indeed have less entropy, actually negative entropy. Water freezing really does reduce the total entropy of the water, but still increases total entropy of the surroundings, but not as much as if you boiled the water.

[@ravingidiot]

How does one make that assertion without an operating definition of perfection? To that effect, you've only restated the conclusion, without giving us any objective method of determining that the universe was at one time perfect.

[@heyjoe4380]

I have an honest open minded question. Why do scientist not accept mystical experience as testable? They seem to say creationism can't be taught in science class because it is not testable, but religion claims it is testable via prayer, obedience and seeing the "fruits of belief" It seems to me most of these scientists aren't arguing against religion they are just saying it isn't testable, but religion claims that it is testable, so it is he said vs. she said. Who then should I believe?

[@Killua2001]

... You don't understand that water freezing is a negative entropy process somehow I can't picture a discussion on astrophysics to end well. However, I was speaking to my physics prof a month or so ago about this very topic, as far as I know, we're still not sure why matter became so common while anti-mater didn't or why they're in such disproportion, but that's the observation. If you want you can google formation matter big bang, learn for yourself, it's all particle physics.

[@IaintNoGood]

wk, trying to compare literary history with evolutionary science is like comparing plastic apples to organic oranges. Secondly, could you please cite some historical sources which support the miracles represented in the bible? I agree there is archeological evidence which supports the existence of people and places but I have found none which support miracles such as Jonah, Tower of Babel, Jericho, Soddom and Gomorah, resurrection, walking on water, talking snakes, garden of Eden, Noah's flood

[@XGralgrathor]

« Dark matter is just a name given to the phenomenon. » The phenomenon being that at close range (within the superclusters) visible objects generate more gravitational attraction than they should given the mass indicated by their luminosity. Dark matter itself is not observed directly.

[@confused353]

“There’s no one whose views are not subject to question”- Lawrence Krauss

[@imikewillrockyou]

"...the only things he has let get through his filter are agreements and or/weak arguments.." Do you have a strong argument you would like to tell me about?

[@JungleJargon]

@ksqoo I will do that when you show me another function that does not have a maker. All other lesser functions have a Maker. I didn't even say "ordered function". I said a mere function. What part did you not understand about mutations not being able to order any functions? They can only change existing information, corrupted or otherwise. You just said life forms are not meaningful because it is that order that made the life forms. That means that you just said you are not meaningful.

[@Killua2001]

How many times do people have to mention observed instances of speciation (in and out of lab), transitional fossils found in predicted strata levels, second chromosome, vestigial traits, discovery of DNA,and genetic similarity for more similar creatures, that also happen to correspond to fossil records showing divergence to you? Creationists seem to say "there's no evidence" and when confronted with evidence they ignore it and still say "there's no evidence".

[@wkmitchell]

So you're saying the simple points that I have made today about: the size of the ark & carrying capacity, the possibility of the animals on the ark being juvenile, the lack of evidence in fossil records for missing links, the fact that if one sex of a species that has only 2 left dies they will become extinct, can't be backed by observable, testable & repeatable data? So the "process" (NOT Theories) of evolution is backed by observable, testable & repeatable data?

[@Killua2001]

cooling down. Oh, why is delta H negative? Because the process will be exothermic, duh, it's not exactly the same thing but think of a P verse T graph, at a constant temperature the more dense phase will exist at a lower temperature, thus it takes energy to go from high density to low density, or rather X=Y+heat, increase heat and you get more X, decrease heat you get more Y (lechatelier), so the delta G will be negative at lower temps, and you'll get atoms to form, even if delta S is negative.

[@Killua2001]

e=mc^2, mass and matter are energy. I can take a particle and it's anti and give pure energy, or smash two particles together and some of the kinetic energy becomes mass. Matter and energy are the same otherwise there'd be no conversion. However you could research the rapid cooling of the universe during the inflationary periods when fundamental particles formed, you know, understand how the particles came about by doing your own work (novel concept I know).

[@damdarch]

"Just because you're not aware of any evidence for design doesn't mean there isn't any. Let's start there." That is very true, but if there is no one has any evidence for design, then what exactly will be taught?

[@mickelsd]

Where does math bring in the supernatural, as far as I have seen it is ordered and follows the material world quite closely. Wouldn't you say? Also the way most operations, systems, etc are proven or defined down to the simplest forms, kinda mimics materialism in other majors?

[@wildbestia]

mickelsd, you brought materialism, when we were talking about "creatonism/evolution". I didn't agree that materialism is a philosphy, i SAID that. and therefore "materialism" has nothing to do with science/religion debate. I just don't get your point. Bible has nothing to do with philosophy - it is a religion, pretty much materialistic religion. I just don't see where you can fit your "materialism" argument in here.

[@imikewillrockyou]

"No, I tried to leave a comment last time..." Well I have to give you that one, I just tried and they haven't approved comments for week now. There are other people that have posted that video I just don't have the link handy.

[@jamesmccobb970]

I think you might be overlooking some possibilities, however unlikely they might be. If it's not possible for the Biblical god to exist as he is described in the Bible, that does not negate the possibility of him existing some other way, meaning that he could still exist but the Bible's description of him is wrong. And I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution disproves creation". A being could have created a single cell organism and instilled in it the seeds of evolution, right?

[@wildbestia]

taintedmeatallica, so adaptation doesn't change DNA? people from Africa and China have exactly same DNA? what determines then the skin color then? Divine intervention?

[@mavicmaverick-pnw]

Why are we watching a window burn? What's with the time code at the bottom?

[@A0DBOB]

@JungleJargon No, that's actually the advice I give from my personal experience with creationists on KZbin, random forums, IRC, via email etc. I've encountered EXACTLY what I said no less than 15, probably more, times. It is almost comical how it goes from beneficial random mutation -> morphological change -> species -> "kinds". I say comical because it repeats itself over and over, like they are reading off Answers in Genesis or some other creationist site.

[@ksqoo]

@JungleJargon (1) That is just gibberish. You don't understand what selection means. I'll try one more time: A change in the genome results into a change in the phenotype of an organism. These changes happen nearly all the time. Some are detrimental and might kill the organism before it can reproduce, but some are beneficial for the organism's survival and reproduction. And these changes will be carried on to the organism's offspring or in other words are selected.

[@wkmitchell]

When debating creation/evolution, there is a common problem here also for both sides, since neither you or I or anyone else alive today was around when these theories did or didn't take place, we can only use science to support or disprove what we can now observe. I'll post some examples in a bit.

[@IaintNoGood]

eg, I narrowed it down by saying it is in this video series. This video series as 23 vids. That is a far cry from 190. With that said however I believe it is called "Evolution vs. Creationism: Is Evolution just a theory". In the very beginning of the video Eugenie Scott explains that a "fact" in science termonology, means a confirmed observations. So when speaking to the uneducated or unscientific, we need to be more clear. Saying something is a fact, has different meaning to these people.

[@ksqoo]

@JungleJargon (2) To your questions: You seem to imply that there are no explanations other than your beloved great flood. There are plenty of other mechanisms that transport sediments. The fossil record does actually contradict your "great flood"-hypothesis. The vertical distribution of the fossils is the same all over the earth. The chaotic forces of masses of water plowing over the earth would have just scrambled around all the living beings. No specific vertical order would be present.

[@XGralgrathor]

« Every genetic change is and was an instantaneous event. » In individuals, yes. But a genetic change spreads through the population following the models of population dynamics, at a pace determined by natural selection.

[@imikewillrockyou]

You left out the whole context "By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species." Do you agree with that? Behe is an evolutionary creationist.

[@wkmitchell]

Please take the quote in context with the rest of what he is saying. It is not saying that you should not think and/or use your brain. By the way, all the debates I have seen & been to have been evenly divided by between creationists and evolutionists, and the reactions are still the same as the ones that may have more creationists in it. I include the one's in the science classrooms where the creationists have been heavily out numbered, that I have observed. Go to one if you haven't already.

[@JungleJargon]

@ksqoo Tell me what order mutations have? I defined order as the information that makes you what you are. It orders your existence. You exist only because you were ordered to exist by a preexisting word written in and with the functions that the elements were made to have. Do you want some mutations to see if they give you more order? The reason you fall apart when you get older is because of mutations so just wait awhile and see if they give you eternal life. Address the issues.

[@Killua2001]

Ok, now 2) In the beginning yes, there was energy, and the universe was very, very hot and expanding. As the universe expands nothing new is coming in, thus the temperature drops. As the universe isn't a closed system, this expansion is possible (and seen in hubble redshift). Thus, when things became cool enough, atoms formed spontaneously (delta G=delta H-tdeltaS), because delta S is negative for this process, and delta H will be negative, this can only occur at low temperatures, aka, universe

[@jamesmccobb970]

I think I agree with your points 1 and 3, but this one I'm not so sure of. The literal Biblical account might contradict Evolution, but many Christians believe that the talking serpent wasn't really a serpent, or that the Earth wasn't created in 6 days; that those are metaphors. I'm not sure what that would mean for the Adam & Eve story, but I don't see where Evolution disproves God as a creator. Many Christians have began to mix the two together.

[@ksqoo]

@JungleJargon (2) We have observed the evolution of 1. increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) 2. increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) 3. novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) 4. novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995) Source: talkorigins

[@SaunaFinland]

Dictionary: Change= To cause to be different; transform Evolve= To undergo gradual change; develop To evolve is to undergo change. Magic god of mutation changes the DNA, which changes the organism and through natural selection the superior DNA sequences are favoured. The favouring of certain DNA sequences makes the species undergo change and develop. The dictionary calls this "to evolve". Time is just a passive factor, like in a hockey game. Time doesn't make goals, but allows players to do it

[@Killua2001]

We said that at around the Devonian period we should find animals exhibiting fishlike and amphibian like properties, so they should have lungs and gills, ribs and scales. This is because that's around when we traced the divergence of the two types of animals under evolutionary theory, we find Tiktaalik and Panderichthys, providing remarkable confirmation for evolution because we made a prediction of what we should find, and did.

[@Killua2001]

Let me expand that further, not only is there no natural affinity for the different components for a space shuttle, but no process by which they can come about, and in fact plenty of empirically demonstrable experiments are possible to show those processes are fundamentally impossible (no natural process can compress oxygen to a liquid without reacting) but not so much with evolution, where the chemical interactions are favored and make perfect sense.

[@Killua2001]

According to evolutionary theory we aren't supposed to be getting better, we're supposed to just be able to survive according to evolutionary pressures. Plus no information was lost when the chromosomes fused, telomeres are non-coding sections of DNA, they aren't transcribed! So... even if some telomeres were lost, we're not "getting worse" or even changing all that much. How do you not understand this yet? How many times do we need to explain it to you?

[@XGralgrathor]

c2's position is thus: evolution occurs and is observed, but it is micro-evolution, or radiative adaptation. this natural phenomenon was originally programmed into life by some creator. that creator cannot have programmed life to evolve over more substantial periods of time than say 10.000 years. ends.

[@wildbestia]

cballen, are you saying that cars 50 years ago were better than now? Or medicine 100 years ago with no antibiotics was better than now? Or knowledge of ancient Greeks was more than ours? Why Noah (supposedly) built a boat, why didn't he build a space station?

[@wkmitchell]

I don't have a problem with you evolutionists using data & evidence if it is talking about the same thing (as in scientific). I said earlier that when I was talking about evidence earlier, I was referring to historical writings, not scientific data. I then re-said it and you accepted it. What's your point?

[@rocas511]

"rocas511 without intelligence to direct energy it is random." That is simply not true. Mutations are essentially random. But mutations are only the raw material of evolution, they are not the process itself. The process is natural selection which only tends to preserve traits that are favorable for a species survival. It does not preserve traits randomly. tbc...

[@Killua2001]

Then vestigial traits would be expected if there are changes in evolutionary pressures that make the original use of the traits seem obsolete. In other words whales if they share a common ancestor with land mammals would be expected to share a pelvis, but because it wouldn't be used for legs like on land, it would have the same basic structure but a very different use (oh look, they do). Another would be the Coccyx in humans. Evolutionary theory would predict seeing vestigial traits.

[@sux0rz]

whats your point? That because we don't know everything we should believe in a god? Just because i cant prove or explain that there isnt a teapot circulating around the sun doesnt mean i should believe in it... just in case. sounds a tad ridiculous to me

[@Killua2001]

Same applies for Archaeopteryx... Now, the genetic similarities also indicate common descent because of the mechanism by which inheritance works... because there are only very small changes to the genome with each passing generation, two species that would share a close common ancestor would be expected to have highly similar DNA, whereas creatures with a common ancestor long ago would share less DNA, that's how we traced lineage back to Devonian period.

[@Killua2001]

I specifically said atoms came as a result of the rapid cooling during the rapid expansion of the singularity, atoms coming from the singularity is hardly the same as "atoms coming from nothing". Your only argument is that I said the singularity came from nothing, to which I say, it's impossible for the singularity to have been "created" but if there was a cause, we simply don't know, and won't pretend to (unless string theory pans out, waiting on CERN for that)

[@DarthHater100]

Whats with the clock at the bottom of the screen? Very unprofessional.

[@kaysandesses]

"But why is it the only logical way?" Because it is the only "way" that is supported by scientific evidence. That doesn't exclude other explanations which might arise due to increase in information and technology, but is currently the "best".

[@imikewillrockyou]

"Does your idea have any explanatory power at all?" Yes, it explains that for whatever reason there is macro evolution in the fossil record. Not hard to understand. It does show, for whatever reason, that many types of living creatures appear in the record with no pre-history. Does that prove creationism? No, but it sure doesnt hurt the concept.

[@Killua2001]

However abiogenesis would be considered science for two main reasons. A) It is falsifiable. I can demonstrably show it can be false (for example if I show RNA can't catalyze reactions) B) It it testable, (we can reproduce each component in a lab, save self-replicating RNA which we're currently working on, if we create it, it'll be the linchpin that solidifies the theory) You however can't provide a falsifiable hypothesis, nor empirical evidence for any component of that hypothesis, not science.

[@A0DBOB]

@JungleJargon Feel free to just link me to whatever website you use for your information. Please make sure it is a reputable source (Not Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Discovery Institute, Conservapedia, Creation Research Society, etc). From there I will be glad to read what the source says, after all trying to describe and explain a scientific paper 500 characters at a time gets us nowhere.

[@Killua2001]

... Did you not understand that entire little bit about gibbs free energy? With an input of energy you can get negative entropy to go spontaneously in nature quite frequently. Honestly, it's not a hard concept to understand, take a few minutes to learn thermochem before you go claiming "chaos doesn't produce order"... it CAN if you're not in a closed system. Have energy to lower temperature, and you can freeze water spontaneously, it's not a hard concept to grasp.

[@summerinjuly7637]

[theory Gk. "theōria" to look at, behold, contemplate, consider] The word theory, according to Webster's book of synonyms, is interchangeable with CONJECTURE, SUPPOSITION, PRESUMPTION, POSTULATION, SPECULATION, etc.

[@wildbestia]

Can you give any possible scenario of Stalin not being in power whole his life?

[@Killua2001]

Bit more complicated than that... "always" implies some length of time, but because the big bang created time, there could be no real "always" or even "creation" for that matter... so "always" works just as well as it was "never" there, but the only thing forbidden to say was that it was "created" because that implies a before creation and after creation which mandates time. Time however didn't exist prior to the big bang, so causality we can't have, we can't have a "before" the big bang.

[@XGralgrathor]

« you probably have an over simplified feedback model » Yes, that is certainly true. I wouldn't care to publish with the scant data and meagre model I have - but I still think we're looking at a massive global increase in mean temperatures - soon.

[@IaintNoGood]

For the record, Judge Jones III in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, made the same assertion. Not to mention at least 12 other trials regarding "id/ceationism". It is & until substantial peer review proves otherwise, will always be a theological/philosophical point of view. With that said, this does not mean science and philosophy or theology are antithetical. It simply means that until science can prove or disprove the supernatural, there is no controversy.

[@kaysandesses]

"Whatever doesn't kill you just makes you stronger. " Yes it does! It also makes you a lot smarter.

[@mickelsd]

There aren't any applications for ID as far as I have seen, so why through away evolution when its being applied and leading to products? Seems stupid to think something is a lie or false thats been shown to be accurate (still some bugs, LIKE ALL THEORIES).

[@wkmitchell]

I really think it's about time I cleared things up a little. The secret info that I asked 334 to keep from you Iaint & egamble was the location of the forum I told her about,not the information itself.The info I was refering to was a host of cited quotes by evolutionists that you can find yourself quite easily if you would search a little further away from your comfort zone.By the way, if you think that googling will find you all the answers you're after,it won't,do it the old fashioned way.

[@verzen]

Also.. another reason why fossilized creatures generally arent walking around right now is do to either extinction or evolution. If they dont go extinct, then they evolve. Answer me THIS question.. why don't we find any fossilized creatures of MODERN animals? We have found NONE... can you answer that?

[@supercrazylegs1]

@whtballerking13 I don't think most evolutionists use it as a way to disprove god. I'm agnostic, and fully embrace evolution's credibility, but I don't think it has to do with religion. You can be a Christian and accept evolution.

[@Killua2001]

PS. The dot was smaller than a period on this page, also, the planets and moons were not created by the big bang, we attribute that to supernovas... heavy elements weren't created during the big bang. We have other stars to thank for the earth, that's why our sun is a second generation star and why the earth has such a high abundance of heavy elements such as uranium. Do you ever bother to do research? Or do you just say whatever comes to mind, because you know, astronomy actually interests me

[@Killua2001]

"We don't know". How's that? The idea that we can't say anything before the singularity especially as the statement "before" makes no sense. The universe and everything in it was that singularity, that singularity expanded, we have no substitute for god, we don't try to, we simply say "we don't know". Rather humble compared to the theist "it is god, no if ands or buts, we know even though it's non-falsifiable".

[@chadhub]

isnt that the evolution game plane. like the aclu setting up the "monkey trial"(sorry cant spell) or useing cartoons to tellkids to not think about it and just accept it

[@JungleJargon]

@ksqoo Erosion works much faster than sedimentation falling from the sky. ...and you did not account for where the sediments came from besides the sky.

[@XGralgrathor]

« scientists wouldn't be trying to understand dark matter, they would just make it 'fit' with what we know » Which is of course exactly what they're doing. And if in doing so some of what we know turns out to be wrong, another compromise is made, and so on. You're right in that the compromise never affects the facts as we observe them - but depending on the level of certitude, it may be postulated that our observations are affected by external influences, even if there is no direct evidence.

[@Killua2001]

In before the universe? How can you have a before time any more than you can have a north of the north pole? However the universe is still expanding, new energy is coming in... *cough* dark energy *cough*. The "what comes in" is the energy to cause the cosmic expansion. And there is matter, there is matter, and antimatter, and why matter is so common we're still trying to figure out (or at least that's the last I was told, we may have made progress).

[@labrat1807]

@DonataII I will tell you why the theory of evolution is accepted as correct. 1) It is verifiable and falsifiable 2) It has not been falsified. No contradictory evidence has been found. 3) It has been verified, its predictions have all been confirmed. 4) It works when applied to technological developement, the hallmark of a correct theory 5) Microevolution is observable, and you cannot have microevolution without macroevolution, as they are really the same thing.

[@anonymous2635]

Not sure if i agree on that, one is right and one is wrong and if you teach creationism it will say that evolution is wrong. And when its science class again it will tell the students that creationism is wrong. Yes you can say "let them think for themself" but you can apply that to anything else, it is our duty to teach theories that are suported by science only.

[@XGralgrathor]

« right alongside random mutation » What is mythical about random mutation? Do you deny that mutations occur, and that most of them are basically random? « natural selection » What is mythical about natural selection? Do you deny that an organism better adapted to its environment will reproduce faster than a less adapted organism?

[@ksqoo]

@JungleJargon Random mutations are only one aspect of speciation. Selection is just as important. If a mutation in the genom results in a better adaption of the organism to its environment it will reproduce and a new species will be formed. Why do you have such intellectual problems with this simple concept?

[@paulbarman]

Science is a process witch helps us understand how the world works. We go from knowing very little about the world, to knowing more and more. At one point in history we thought that the world was flat, now we know that it is round. Simply because science doesn't know everything right now, dose not mean that we will not understand more in the future. Saying science doesn't know something, thus it had to be god is a bad argument.

[@XGralgrathor]

« Since them tons of new evidence and facts have come up that refute evolution » Yes, this is where I saw you say that. Yet at another video I say you claim to study biology. Did you mean that you actually study biology at a college or university? If so, then how do you reconcile saying the above with that claim?

[@JungleJargon]

@ksqoo By your beliefs, the sediments would all be in the oceans instead of on land where they are in real life, you failed to say how the sediments got on land. We can only go by the evidence that we have and ordered functions require a Maker.

[@XGralgrathor]

« Not so with science. » But they must. For instance: when it was discovered that the universe contained more matter than we could observe, we didn't just throw away our gravitational laws and theories: we compromised. We postulated dark matter in order to reconcile our observations with our theories. Another example was Einstein himself: when he discovered that his theories predicted either collapse or expansion of the universe, he compromised and included a cosmological constant.

[@Killua2001]

Rocas, other way, water freezing is order from disorder, it's disorder becoming order as the crystal lattice needs to form which requires an energy input and is far more ordered than the liquid free flowing water. Still, it's odd that mandl somehow believes that energy only causes disorder, clearly he's never taken a basic chemistry class... or physiology... or physics class for that matter. Apparently he's never heard of a refrigerator, uses energy to have entropy in the fridge decrease.

[@wkmitchell]

I'll say it again. I use the words "I guess" loosely. Not in the literal sense. That's the way I talk. I wasn't there and can't possibly tell you how they died, just like you can't. I gave you a viable answer about one of them dying and you either snear at, or completely ignore it as a point. The lack of live vegetation may not have been enough to support some of the larger animals as well. Who knows? Do you? That wasn't scarcasm, that ws a genuine question by the way :)