Eugenie Scott: What would Darwin say to today’s creationists? (2015 Darwin Day Lecture)

[@rorytennes8576]

Why are we having this debate 2021. Creationism. Zero evidence. Evolution. Volumes of evidence that increases daily. Why are we even having this debate today ??

[@TshaajThomas]

Yes, it's 2021. Why still put up this outdated piece of shit? Evolution is history.

[@ozowen5961]

@@TshaajThomas Yes it is recorded in history, and it is a thriving modern science that has applications and no competing theory at all.

[@falseprogress]

Because the human brain hasn't evolved and can't rid itself of primitive elements. Some people just rise above those elements.

[@KXSocialChannel]

This was a joy to listen to. I remind everyone that if Einstein renounced physics or his famous equation on his deathbed, it would make his works no less valid.

[@ozowen]

@@benb412 Young earth- disproven. most creationists embrace this assumption- thus they reject science. It is not a conjecture- it is disproven. The global Noachian flood. Disproven. Again, most creationists accept the flood was global. This is disproven- it cannot have happened. So, embracing this pseudo scientific garbage is rejecting science. Special Creation of "kinds". Once again, this is a nonsense and has been disproven. There is simply no evidence for any moment of special creation. The evidence against this is so strong that the creationists from around Darwin's time pondered "continuous creation" where God exterminated earlier species and replaced them with a new upgrade. Embracing these three basic elements of creationism means rejecting science in favour of disproven nonsense.

[@ozowen5961]

@@benb412 Creationists utterly reject science.

[@ozowen5961]

@@benb412 I get it, you were told that. But it's not true. Eg: the evidence for a global flood is overwhelming and such that it is not possible that it occurred. This is not interpretation. Dry layets and aerial layers and fragile layers and biennial layers all leave the flood claim a dud.

[@ozowen5961]

@@benb412 Bent layers are not a problem. Not sure why creationists think they are. All sorts of forces do that and even brittle layers bend. Eg: when heated. The entire Himalayan range was once a sea floor. It is still being pushed upwards every year. Soft tissues (not with blood, that was a lie repeated by Wieland) can be preserved. Schweitzer herself showed this. So, yes, you were told.

[@ozowen5961]

@@benb412 Brittle strata bend due to the impacts of heat. eg: adjacent igneous strata, or they bend before the strata have dried out and become brittle.

[@AtheistRex]

That was a wonderful lecture. I can only hope Dr. Scott's best advocacy work is still to come.

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Here is some science. Cabrera Museum Dr. Dennis Swift was shown around the museum by Dr Javier Cabrera and he was surprised at what some of the stones depicted. He saw protopeople riding pteranodons. Dr. Cabrera held up a stone of copter [pteranodons with the drawing of a man riding upon it. Some of these pteranodons were stupendously large. Quetzalcoatlus, the largest flying creature known to existed had a gigantic wingspan of fifty-one feet or more, larger than that of many jetfighter airplanes today. Another specimen had a skull and crest that measured five feet nine inches in length. The stones also indicated that the Pre Columbian Indians also had dinosaur ranches. So Marco Polo in China was right when it came to dinosaurs being trained at a young age to pull the Emperor’s chariots. It stands to reason that some of them would have been burden bearers. In history, very often the majority opinion is wrong. As the tour of the museum was coming to a close, Dr. Cabrera opened up a photo album and he proceeded to show Dr. Dennis Swift photos of dignitaries to whom he had given stones. There was a photo of Dr. Cabrera with the Queen of Spain with an engraved stone so big it had to be hoisted with crane. He gave another to the Queen of Sweden and they stood together with a massive stone. Still a third photo was of him with Shirley MacLaine. Dr. Dennis Swift repeatedly offered Dr. Cabrera money for one of these unique priceless stones, but he insisted that he would not sell them. Dr. Cabrera also gave one to Dr. Dennis Swift’s wife affectionately known as the Queen of Beaverton, with a T.Rex and triceratops engraved on it. It stands to reason that none of these ICA Stones were cheap forgeries made by peasants. Dignitaries only want that which is genuine and they possess the means to verify their authenticity. Forget about your Radio Metric Dating for dinosaurs and rocks, they are not millions of years old. The evidence is absolutely clear they were contemporary with humans not so long ago.

[@zaprowsdower3081]

I wish I didn't have to turn the volume all the way up on every video with Dr. Scott.

[@nirv]

You can always download the video to your hard drive and boost the volume in a real media player. Ooops that would require a real PC which most people don't own anymore. They like their simple, useless cell phones.

[@jackthebassman1]

It's pointless arguing with creationists because they "have this book", need I say more?

[@LogicAndReason2025]

Excellent point. Religious con-artists will never give a straight answer. No use even talking to them. It's like a Monty Python routine, only it's not funny.

[@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264]

The burden of proof is on the evolutionists because they push their theory, or should I say religion in the schools under tax payer money creationists don’t do that. So why has no evidence been shown?

[@nomore4me286]

After Trenobyl the worms evolved to accept the radiation. That's proof in a 30 year time span.

[@LogicAndReason2025]

​@Paul Morphy special pleading

[@jean-francoisvaillancourt173]

@المهاجر التونسي you're proving his point with that ridiculous question . We did not evolve from rocks .

[@ozowen5961]

So Evolution is not mathematically impossible nor an erroneous extrapolation. Nor is it a fallacy. Some creationists on this thread have made those claims. Neither could sustain their assertions.

[@jean-francoisvaillancourt173]

It's unfortunate that Dr. Scott sound isn't better amplified , her voice is so soft it's hard to hear her at all .

[@nirv]

You can always download the video to your hard drive and boost the volume in a real media player. Ooops that would require a real PC which most people don't own anymore. They like their simple, useless cell phones.

[@angusstrover4176]

to Pavan Dhaliwal DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CAMPAIGNS BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION 39 MORE STREET LONDON EDIV 8BB Dear Mr Dhaliwal, I am enclosing herewith my cheque for £50 in support of used in the campaign for an improved curriculum in British Schools. Being a Medical Doctor and having been educated in Science and Biology in School and University in Southern Africa, I am 100% behind the over-looked absence of the teaching of Evolution in Schools in the UK. I love science and at my school in Southern Rhodesia where I did the Cambridge Higher School Certificate and I was given Charles Darwin’s “The Origin Of Species” as a setbook . I am now 75 years old and in reasonable health and am delighted to have read “The God Delusion” about 15 tears ago and have past it on successfully to one of my grandsons and I hope that he, now 21 years old will Join the Humanist Association. I look forward to the next Annual General Meeting. With Kind regards, Angus Strover

[@HumanistsUK]

+Angus Strover Thank you so much for your donation, Angus, and not seeing this comment before now. Your support means a great deal to us.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Great lecture, thank you very much

[@tessalyyvuo1667]

47:50 Well that would explain the Turkish versions of Western movies. Apparently they also had difficulties getting the actual movies there and so decided to make their own. But I wouldn't be surprised if they have adapted laws based on this history.

[@tedkrasicki3857]

The Poetry of Reality with Richard Dawkins Christmas Lecture 01-05

[@peterkerruish8136]

What happened to the fu..ing volume !!

[@avecus]

STRONG AGREE WITH 1:28:16

[@avecus]

"I wanted to ask about the fella (Patrick Matthew) who wrote the book about trees (On Naval Timber and Arboriculture). At the end of it he went "oh yeah and evolution" like that. Well, he wasn't given enough credit. I know he didn't write the book about it and make it exciting and popular but it's pretty cool, isn't it? Like... just coming up with the idea. I feel like he deserved some credit (unless I've misunderstood)"

[@MsDjessa]

47:50 There are Turkish versions of Superman, Batman, Spiderman and a Star Wars rip of. So yeah. :'D

[@toddcott9510]

How many religious people believe there parents could never be wrong?

[@psycho6542]

Im really surprized there isnt a grip of replys to this question,

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it

[@fasihodin]

Well done professor 👍

[@whatabouttheearth]

. Kardong 316 "The axial skeleton includes the notochord and vertebral column. The notochord is the oldest, predating vertebrates, having appeared within early chordate evolution. It is a slender rod that develops from mesoderm, lying dorsal to the coelom. Typically, it is composed of a core of fluid-filled cells wrapped in a fibrous sheath. Mechanically, it laterally flexes but does not axially compress, thereby turning contraction of axial muscles into lateral undulations during locomotion. It is prominent well into derived fishes, serving as the major means of axial support. Even when replaced by the vertebral column, it still appears as an embryonic structure, inducing the neural tube to develop above it and serving as a scaffold for the growing embryonic body. Chains of articulated vertebrae, cartilaginous or bony, constitute the vertebral column. Each vertebra is composed of a centrum, supports a neural arch and spine, and often is associated with processes, including ribs. Intervertebral bodies or disks occur between successive vertebrae. The shapes of articular surfaces determine functional roles. Ribs, which often meet the sternum midventrally, protect viscera and contribute to respiratory movements in tetrapods. In turtles, the hip and shoulder girdles are actually brought inside the rib cage beneath the protective shell. Embryonic development of the vertebral column may involve prior formation first in arcualia (chondrichthyan fishes, some other fishes), appearance of specialized anlaga (teleosts), or perichordal tube (most tetrapods), before ossification occurs. Vertebrae are rare in agnathan and primitive gnathostome fishes, in which axial support more commonly depends upon a prominent notochord. The caudal fin delivers propulsive forces, driving the fish forward, but also can produce lift forces. Especially in bony fishes and tetrapods, the ossified vertebral column largely replaces the notochord as the major source of axial support and locomotion. Intervertebral cartilages or intervertebral disks are composed of fibrous connective tissue and fluid, and lie between successive vertebrae. The various types of collagen that make up the fibrous connective tissue are arranged in such a way as to resist tension and shear forces. Especially within the core of intervertebral disks are proteoglycans, proteins attached to special chains of carbohydrates. Their special chemical structure gives them the property of binding water, which therefore brings it into the functional service of resisting compressive forces. In the buoyancy of water, the axial column serves primarily as a compression girder, resisting telescoping of the body during locomotion and translating axial muscle forces into lateral swimming undulations. These same lateral undulations of fishes are carried into early tetrapods on land as the early basis of terrestrial locomotion. In a terrestrial environment, the axial column assumes the additional function of suspending the weight of the body, without the aid of aquatic buoyancy, as it is carried over the surface of the land. The tetrapod vertebral column often incorporates elements of design that are analogous to humanly engineered structures such as bridges, whereby weight is cantilevered or suspended about or between supportive columns (limbs). Torque becomes a feature of quadrupedal locomotion, favoring the appearance in tetrapods of anti-twist features of the vertebrae, such as the zygapophyses. The height and direction of neural spines reflect their role as levers, delivering forces to the vertebral centra and thereby moving or stabilizing the vertebral column. The vertebral column is regionalized, reflecting functional demands. In fishes, the vertebral column is relatively undifferentiated trunk and caudal regions. It lacks zygapophyses. It is not used in support of the weight of the body, but instead is used basically for muscular support and attachment, a compression girder. In tetrapods, the vertebral column is used to support the body proper, limbs provide the propulsive force for locomotion, and these forces are transmitted to the body through the vertebral column. A cervical region differentiates in early tetrapods, for cranial mobility, as does a sacral region, for direct attachment of the hips to the axial column. These regions are even more distinct in reptiles, where posteriorly the trunk may exhibit rib reduction, yielding a lumbar or lumbarlike region. In mammals, locomotion based on flexions of the vertebral column vertically (cf. laterally) is accompanied by the appearance of a distinct lumbar region. This provides mammals with five distinct regions-cervical, thorax, lumbar, sacral, and caudal. In birds, the overriding dynamic demands of aerial locomotion are accompanied by accentuated fusions and flexions of the vertebral column. Fusion of the synsacrum (sacrum plus adjacent vertebrae) with the innominate (ilium, ischium, pelvis) produces a stable, firm platform while in flight; multiple, heterocoelous cervical vertebrae return flexibility when deploying the head. Overall, the axial skeleton contributes, with its musculature, to bending of the body, storing elastic energy, and transmitting useful forces for locomotion generated by appendages (fins or limbs) or by the tail (aquatic). Associated ribs help ventilate the lungs. The axial skeleton also holds the position of the body steady against gravity. The form and function of the vertebral column are related directly to the static and dynamic demands placed upon it. In turn, these are related to the general environments in which it serves-aquatic or terrestrial-and the type of locomotion in which the vertebral column is involved. As we shall see in chapter 9, the design of the appendicular skeleton is similarly affected by such functional demands."

[@DamienMearns]

".. and in the primordial soup a simple one celled life form appeared..." -The problem with this is that a cell is a fractal of the universe - just as complex - but a lot smaller . There is simply no such thing as a simple cell.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

Micelles. Ribozymes. Look up origin of life research. We understand much better now

[@DamienMearns]

@@isidoreaerys8745 Last time I did it was the "Primordial soup" with longer words - what's your best link ?

[@sombodysdad]

@@isidoreaerys8745 Yes, we understand there isn't anyvway that nature produced life.

[@Detson404]

@@sombodysdadAnd the moment the mechanism is discovered, your god will just pick up stakes and move to the next pocket of ignorance. Everywhere the light of knowledge extends, we find god has already fled. Funny, that.

[@sombodysdad]

@Detson404 Nope. There aren't any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing life and its diversity. Your position is pure fantasy.

[@gabrielekennedy7587]

Volume! !

[@nirv]

You can always download the video to your hard drive and boost the volume in a real media player. Ooops that would require a real PC which most people don't own anymore. They like their simple, useless cell phones.

[@mariusyanthan4426]

Why no one started a religion based on Darwin... Theory that cannot be substantiated remains debatable till time goes on..

[@ozowen5961]

But it is substantiated

[@TheHamsterMaster]

Are you kidding? Evolution has been tested and PROVEN many times now.

[@whatabouttheearth]

Exactly. Religions are based on the unsubstantiated, scientific theory is not.

[@stephaniecuellar3192]

Wow! Never have l seen a better example of the long windedness of preachiness. Is this a creationist tactic? Wear them down by boring them to tears? Thereby delivering a victory because their adversaries have been worn down from boredom and just said 'ta hell wid it' and went home

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Darwin's words: "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished, And that is a damnable doctrine." I do not want to abide in Darwin and his words, his mantra was: "Survival of the Fittest" these words are earthly, sensual, devilish and hell is behind it. There is no hope in Darwinian Evolutionary Religion only death and destruction. Those who preach evolution as a fact of science are irresponsible; as they promote immoral behaviour by the back door. There will eventually be curfews in towns and cities; this is the beginning of sorrows, but it will all end in tears at Armageddon. On the very day of this battle; the Lord Jesus Christ will descend from heaven in order to stop man; destroying himself through selfishness and greed. Jesus will settle his account with mankind, having destroyed the Antichrist and his kingdom. Jesus said, that lightning would flash across the sky from the east unto the west on the day when the Son of man is revealed I willingly abide in Jesus and his words, "Let him who hath ears to hear, let him hear" this was his mantra very often while teaching the people. Jesus made this statement because he knew that the majority were dull of hearing! Jesus warned men about speaking idle words, indicating he never spoke an idle word. Jesus said, love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and love your neighbour as yourself. What an excellent moral recipe! That sounds about right to me, words of spirit and life. This is good doctrine, sound doctrine, flawless doctrine, sober doctrine etc. If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a damnable doctrine as Darwin asserts; then where does that leave "The Origin of Species and Preservation of Favoured Races?" Kind Regards

[@psycho6542]

Ya, highly doubt he would say any of that, but anyway, got a bet for ya, you give me the exact date of when this, sky god of yours is goin 2 come back , and i'll give you $1000 bucks, but when that date comes and goes, without your god, you hav to pay me $10,000,

[@nontheistdavid]

Lady Hope bearing false witness for Jesus.

[@BenETaylor]

***** Cheeky Charlie sabotaging Mo's virgins.

[@ScreamingForClemency]

37:40 this guy looks ripe for meming.

[@joskadampanattu7741]

Only if the British could speak English. It is so annoying to listen to when they speak. Just spit it out and done with as to whatever you want to say for common ancestor's sake!!!!

[@dumontgo]

if darwin knew what we now know about the complexity of the cell, origin of species never would have been written. so mockery is all that neo-darwinians have left.

[@mrcurly1147]

+dumontgo More wishful thinking. Too bad you have to live in the real world huh? Not sure what a neo Darwinian is but that sort of attack is obviously all you have left.

[@warwickindustries8658]

+dumontgo If he knew what we know today, then no, origin of species would not be written the way it was. It would be more specific and more explanatory. Had it been written using the information we have today, there wouldn't be anyone arguing against the law of evolution out of ignorance and failure to understand the fundamentals of science. Fewer stupid people would exist if we had modern information earlier in history. We're smarter today than we were in the past, that applies to every scientific field. And there has always been people like you around, but science always prevails. Do you know why? Because science provides technology and predictions. We have computers, the internet, medicine, space exploration, longer lives, better clothes, healthier food, safer world for our children. ALL because of scientific understanding resulting in improved technology. Religion is falling behind. Just the last 200 years religion has been recognized as myth in most parts of the modern world. Unfortunately, poverty and strife makes people look to the sky for answers. So third world countries such as those in Africa, Middle East and the US have people that just cannot let go of their fantasies, because reality is too harsh for those people. But a few of us have been blessed with better geographical situations, so we don't have to turn to the amazing because we're uneducated or suffering. And the number of educated people are steadily rising, whilst the number of uneducated religious believers are steadily dropping. Why do you think religious cults such as Creationists are fighting so hard for their survival? It's because most such cults are dying out. Improved understanding of the natural world kills religion. And the only way to fight the future of humanity, is to try to falsify science. But it won't happen. The US is the last modern country on the planet that still has a problem with religious terrorist cults (Yes, creationists should be labeled terrorists since they seek the destruction and suffering of billions of people and hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge of the human species.). And no matter what happens to the US, the rest of the world has already entered, fought and won that battle. All we have to do is wait for the creationists to die out. And no one is worried that they won't. :)

[@dumontgo]

+Captioned Swede _Had it been written using the information we have today, there wouldn't be anyone arguing against the law of evolution out of ignorance and failure to understand the fundamentals of science._ i'm pretty sure you know its not a law, but if you feel the need to propagandize it, go for it. i don't know where you're getting your info, but there's more dissent from Darwin then theres been in decades. that would explain your vitriolic frustration. you got a healthy disdain for religion, thats obvious. but the truth is the truth and it doesn't change because it leaves you philosophically unnerved. i'm not going to respond to rest because its nothing more than an attempt to shame into conformity. does this really work? calling people with contrarian belief than yours, stupid, then they conform to yours? i hope not. i'd have very little respect for anyone who can be shamed out their viewpoints. until you can refrain from hyperbole lets leave it at that. it gets tiresome being called stupid from ill informed people.

[@tomormiston6592]

+dumontgo There are no viewpoints or opinions when it comes to evolution. It is a scientific theory, an explanation that has over 150 years gathered a vast amount of supporting evidence. Creationism is a belief system for the religious, has gathered zero scientific evidence, and is at best just a story.

[@IanAtkinson555]

I'm pretty sure they have more than that left, unless medical research, wildlife conservation and natural history, biological research, taxonomy and cladistics, organism morphology, genetics, the agreement of the whole world's biological academies (even form rival states), geology and the fossil record are one big world wide conspiracy with billions of workers to 'keep the big secret.' I really think you ought to grow up, dumontego - and perhaps you should actually watch a video before making silly, uniformed comments.

[@sombodysdad]

Darwin wouldn't have ptoday blind and mindless processes did it if he knew what biologists know tiday.

[@walkergarya]

Actually, I think Darwin would be quite proud to know he is the founding father of all modern biology.

[@sombodysdad]

@@walkergarya He isn't the founding father of modern biology. He wasn't even wrong. Mendell had more to do with modern biology than Darwin.

[@walkergarya]

@@sombodysdad Mendell is the father of the science of genetics but overall modern biology, it is Darwin.

[@sombodysdad]

@@walkergarya Darwin was ignorant if what was inside if cells. He didn't understand genetics. Darwin is the father of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes such as natural selection and drift.

[@walkergarya]

@@sombodysdad Putz. The Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time for 160 years. Darwin did not get it perfect and the Theory of Evolution has itself evolved over that time. You, trying to piss on that fact does not change the value of this Theory to Biology nor does it increase the value, which is zip, of your creationism.

[@gordonjones4095]

Jesus Love you. Definitely your teaching is for rest and sleeping way off in the wilderness not tolerant of a Creator's Love. However He is sovereign no matter what we can do really since you're very intelligent but hopefully not completely foolish. He must Know you through your heart and spirit. Pray. InJesusName

[@rorytennes8576]

Ah. No.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

Thankyou for actually showing the kindness of Christ and truly embody his philosophy rather than spreading misinformation like others have. You’re free to believe whatever you like about the ultimate nature of existence.

[@gordonjones4095]

We are in His Creation and a Book provided which if soley is followed amazing Understanding follows. America became because of some other understanding? I think not.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

@@gordonjones4095 america was founded on the secular values of the enlightenment. Radically liberal thinkers in their time who drew upon philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Paine.

[@gordonjones4095]

Liberty freedom are really god given. Inalienable rights. Definitely not out of universities.

[@DrKildem]

The fossil fuel records are a film of evolution with 999 frames out of every 1000 missing. (National Geographic, November 2004)

[@ozowen]

1) They are fossil fuel records- they are fossil records. 2) There are many millions of frames so that gives us a lot to work with. The order of the "film" is very clear in terms of "from start to now", but some of the middle is a bit hard to read at the moment. 3) Lucky for us, fossils are not the only means for working this stuff out. The genetic record is pretty rich and has helped fill in a lot of gaps.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

The Frame Rate of evolution is so high that what you are saying makes no difference. 999 grandparents ago. And your 1000th grandchildren will still be humans, hardly distinguishable from yourself, 20,000 years from now. As modern humans are understood to have existed for 200,000 years before the dawn of history that means that 1000 generations(frames) have passed TEN times before we can observe a discernible transition of speciation. 20,000 years per 1000 human generations. So in a sequence where 10,000 identical frames are happening for each noticeable shift in the organism, a 1 in 1000 fossil recovery still leaves us with the highest fidelity necessary to view every stage of the process in an unbroken sequence. Evolution is constant it happens every generation it takes many accumulations of mutations across populations to result in speciation. If you think 1 frame = 1 species you have misconceived biology.

[@whatabouttheearth]

The fact of the matter is that you are choosing to be blind to the the massive amounts of evidences. You are choosing to be an enemy of truth. And you either know this and are being intellectually dishonest, or even worse...self deceiving.

[@drphil4ril161]

If Darwin were here he would say to today’s creationist, “ if my theory is true, we will find billions of transitional fossils”. We will show him Lucy, piltdown man, Nebraska and he would laugh at you. All of them were fakes.

[@rovert46]

Do you think that debunked the validity of the existing fossil record ?

[@drphil4ril161]

rovert46 Fossils don’t prove but one thing. That the owner of those bones once lived and died suddenly and was buried soon afterward. A set of bones does not prove that the owner of those bones had babies. And it surely doesn’t prove that the owner of those bones had babies of a different KIND. THATS WHY ALL THE SO CALLED MISSING LINKS ARE FAKES. BUT YOUR CERTAINLY WELCOME TO BELIEVE IN YOUR OWN RELIGION.

[@rovert46]

Repent &Trust NJesus I suggest a visit to your local natural history museum, and a couple of books from their shop, might be useful in advancing your education. Happy New Year!

[@drphil4ril161]

rovert46 Thank you. Happy new year to you. Now you might say the books in the Bible are based on someone’s opinion. I say Darwinian evolution and Big Bang theory is the result of imaginations of men. So most science books are filled with lies. THATS WHY ALL OF THE SO CALLED MISSING LINKS ARE FRAUDS! If evolution was true, why use lies to prove it? But let’s just use common sense. DNA, the book of life, proves there is an intelligent designer. The laws of physics prove life can’t evolve. Everything left alone over time breaks down into chaos. But evolutionist say the opposite. The books said dinosaurs are millions of years old. Recent dinosaur bones have been found to have soft tissue inside. Proving they are only about 6000 years old. No carbon dating is used for dinosaurs. In fact, carbon dating is proven to be flawed. You know why scientists don’t carbon date dinosaurs?

[@rovert46]

Repent &Trust NJesus well, I think your arguments are mistaken, but if they’re what you think is accurate and acceptable, I’m not going to debate you. 🙂

[@geobla6600]

I'm sure Darwin would say today is science supporting the theory. Creationism as far as six actual 24 hour days fails the science . But thats a misinterpretation of the word for day which in the Hebrew form can mean a number of different periods of time , but is always a finite amount of time. But going back to what Darwin might say to Creationists. He might say that he's extremely disappointed that defenders of the theory such as Dawkins and Scott offered nothing more then the same repetitive evolutionery rhetoric for over an hour about how evolution is true and how individuals that don't have the believe are fools. He might ask why nonbelievers of his theory criticize how the fossil record is devoid of what should have been billions upon billions of transitional animals that would have been needed to create the multitude and variance of life on the planet. He might wonder why his theory fails to meet the sciences after over 150 years of research and millions upon millions of dollars of funding. I'm sure he would wonder why almost all of the hypothesis(s) presented in defense of his theory has failed to meet the scientific criteria. Well , its because a large percentage of these were conceived mainly to support the theory and not the science. He might wonder why that his supporters such as Dawkins still presents these lame videos of the the poor design of the eye when the real research shows the incredible complexity and the amazing design of it, Or why Genie Scott does discourses on how big foot and aliens are just fiction and then ties creationism into it . It may be that you find more of these beliefs amongst atheists. Darwin may have even come to believe the failure of his theory once he researched the evidence and not the empty rhetoric that seems to satisfy so many in their unsupported beliefs.

[@budd2nd]

Wow you wrote a lot, sadly most of it is unsupported by the data, but that’s how theists like it, I guess. Any actual evidence for any of that? By evidence I mean proper verified scientific evidence, not the word salad you hear in church or read on the Internet.

[@geobla6600]

@@budd2nd In fact I did write a lot and of course you very little. I wrote how completely lackless the main tenets of this theory are and how they completely "Fails" to support their endless speculations. As science progresses , evolution theory continues to digress . That's why you have 7 or 8 "Complete Rewrites" of human evolution a year. How harmful (entropic) mutations of good DNA are the main driving force of evolutionary change . The just so stories of the benefits of inheriting Sickle Cell Anemia and being immune to malaria. Or the completely manipulated sequence of the evolution of whales. Or the fossil records completely devoid of the trillions of transitional fossils. Or the complete failure of Abiogenesis to explain even the nucleotide , never mind the additional 40 or so steps to create the simplest of cells. Or the science denying claims of different genus of animals morphing into another genus like Greek Mythology. Why do we know all this? Well it's because of science. My argument is that considering the incredible liberty's that are given to those that discount the science and make unsupported claims based on this non-existent evidence of inanimate materials creating all living things are even less scientific because much of it is testable and falsifiable. Unfortunately Scientism has become it's own religion filled with dogma's and misinformation. Claims like yours are based on your own impiety which somehow you and many others consider as some form of argument to counter scientific evidence that counters your belief's. Haven't been to church for over 30 years other then weddings or funerals.

[@budd2nd]

@@geobla6600 Wow, I ask about evidence but get a page of word salad. Most of it repeated junk arguments, unsupported by E V I D E N C E. what waste of your time writing it and my time reading it. I guess you don’t know about the thousands of fossils we have found or that DNA on it’s own proves common decent. Or maybe you do and are deluded enough to ignore that uncomfortable (for you) fact.

[@psycho6542]

@@geobla6600 you mention repetitive, how about that same book that 100% of people like you go to, for 100% of your info, regarding such topics, never a smidge of real time, visual, touchable, undeniable evidence, with what should be so easy to optain, if such myth were true

[@whatabouttheearth]

Do you understand what a fucking theory is?

[@nahshon9998]

Eugenie is a true believer. She accepts, on faith, that there is no creator God. She is also a leader to make sure creation is banned from the classroom and the only faith taught is atheism . Dawkins is a willing helper. What can we learn from this? That evolution is taught as the gateway religion of atheism. Eugenie's goal is to replace the christian ideals which built this country and replace them with atheist morality. But atheism has no mechanism for morality. That only comes from a Christian world view. Evolution isn't about science. There is no observable and testable science in evolution. It must be taken on faith. The scientific method demands observation and testing. Therefore evolution isn't science. The actual observable and testable science points squarely at God and a literal 6 day creation. Followed by a worldwide flood. The evidence is clear.

[@richardholloway5221]

+nahshon Haha, it is still to me utterly hilarious how people still believe such rubbish. All of the scientific community perform their works regardless of religious views. There is no agenda to suppress god. Unfortunately for you, it does. That is, science does ever reduce the likelihood that god exists, from almost 0% to very almost 0%. It is funny that every person who has ever (and you can look this up if you like although I doubt you will because you have already made your mind up despite what is actually discovered), won or been considered for a Nobel prize in the field of science, does not and usually laugh at the 6-day creation theory. No my friend, Eugenie and most others are not promoting Evolution to disprove Christianity. They don't give a damn about Christianity. They promote it because it is the fact which needs promotion.To any extent that the evidence is clear, it is only clear that the Christian world view is grossly inaccurate, despite whatever may in the end be considered the most accurate theory.

[@xaverlustig3581]

+nahshon "She accepts, on faith, that there is no creator God." There's nothing in the entire lecture about her belief or non-belief in God. "She is also a leader to make sure creation is banned from the classroom" Nothing wrong with that, because creationism is not science. "That evolution is taught as the gateway religion of atheism." Evolution has nothing to do with religion in the first place. Evolution can't logically refute any faith including the Christian one, and it isn't meant to be an attack on faith. If creationsts perceive it to be, then that's their problem resulting from their warped perception. They simply have the wrong end of the stick. There are lots of devout Christians who accept evolution and see no contradiction, and why should they. "But atheism has no mechanism for morality. That only comes from a Christian world view." Morality comes neither from atheism nor from Christianity or any other religion. It comes from people. "There is no observable and testable science in evolution." You may want to read a text book or two. "The scientific method demands observation and testing." Evolution is based on observation such as fossils, and it has been tested. For example the discovery of microbiology - which came over a century after evolution - could have rocked the boat, but it confirmed evolution. "The actual observable and testable science points squarely at God" You can't test for God scientifically. "and a literal 6 day creation." Not really. You'll find it's closer to a couple of billion years. "Followed by a worldwide flood" If the sea level rises it has to be worldwide, which has happend gazillions of times, but that doesn't mean God did it.

[@nahshon9998]

+Richard Holloway Did you notice who made the video of Eugenie? The British Humanist Society. Humanism denies a God and believes that man is god. Now why would the Humanist Society support Eugenie? Because she is also a humanist atheist. So is atheism a provable belief system? No. I cannot prove God exists. Atheism cannot prove God doesn't exist. Both are belief systems. So is evolution. All are religions. You are trying to claim consensus. Here is what Michael Crichton has to say about consensus. "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." The observable science points to a creator. For example, according to Carl Sagan there is about 3 billion bits of information in the human genome. We know a lot about information in the cell and information in general. For one thing information can only arise from an intelligent source. In this case, God. Check it out. There is a lot of information pointing to a creator God.

[@richardholloway5221]

I wont address all that was said insofar as it just screams counter-logic and I imagine that it matters not what I say, it would fall on deaf ears. I will plead however, that you lift the veil of restrictive ignorance you cast. On what basis can complex info only arise from a source of intelligence. The most intelligent people in the world are spending their life's work on fields like understanding evolution and arrogant you says only your way can be the correct one. Shut up, write your thesis on how every scientist is wrong, submit and get your Nobel prize. If you cannot do this, open your eyes. I'm not saying realise you are wrong, I am pleading that you realise that you could very easily be wrong. An as the trends in the intelligent communities demonstrate, you may very well be long, otherwise they would not be wasting their time. We make our living studying what there IS. Because you cannot show me god, I cannot study her. What there is, is a vast amount of information which demonstrate evolution, which demonstrate a cosmos with no need for a creator and life without the need thereof. As you plead with me, I must apply the counter plea and say, just look at the evidence, there is overwhelming evidence that the whole universe and living beings within it that can come about without the need for a creator, and to apply Occam's Razor, the simpler answer is usually the correct one. If you introduce something as complex as a creator, the complex question would then be where this complex creator came from and who created it. Oh and this nonsense that humans believe they are god based on your definition. Bullshit. Show me 1 human being with an iq slightly above zero who believes they created the universe or the universe was created by man for man. No, I must again make the plea I made at the top. STOP making your views and definitions so restrictive. By definition, a humanist or secular humanist is a person who downplays the significance of God in life or Death. They don't presume to make man god, they presume that there just is no such thing, that life can be explained and studied without any divine influence.

[@richardholloway5221]

+nahshon +nahshon it's super easy to conceive, and Richard Dawkins explain it well with the "theory of Mount improbable". You say 3bil bits of info. Life on earth has been around for about 3bil years. That means that genetic improvement through selection in gene variation only needs to add 1 bit of info to the genome per year. For the last 3bil years. That sounds not only possible or even probable, it is inevitable. A tree too has immense amounts of information, but doesn't need intelligence certainly no God to exist. And stop calling atheism a religion. It's not. Religion is defined as the belief in something with no evidence or by faith. Atheism is the recognition and understanding of something only because of its evidence. None of us challenge the likelihood that there may be a god. The evidence for her existence is just so little that we cannot conform to understand her. Let alone whether that god is intelligent, loving blah blah. When you provide unequal evidence that doesn't need a leap of faith, then, because of our ability to test and verify, will we include it in the scope of what we understand.

[@syoung6126]

Religion, fast talking for slow thinkers

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Darwin's words: "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished, And that is a damnable doctrine." I do not want to abide in Darwin and his words, his mantra was: "Survival of the Fittest" these words are earthly, sensual, devilish and hell is behind it. There is no hope in Darwinian Evolutionary Religion only death and destruction. Those who preach evolution as a fact of science are irresponsible; as they promote immoral behaviour by the back door. There will eventually be curfews in towns and cities; this is the beginning of sorrows, but it will all end in tears at Armageddon. On the very day of this battle; the Lord Jesus Christ will descend from heaven in order to stop man; destroying himself through selfishness and greed. Jesus will settle his account with mankind, having destroyed the Antichrist and his kingdom. Jesus said, that lightning would flash across the sky from the east unto the west on the day when the Son of man is revealed I willingly abide in Jesus and his words, "Let him who hath ears to hear, let him hear" this was his mantra very often while teaching the people. Jesus made this statement because he knew that the majority were dull of hearing! Jesus warned men about speaking idle words, indicating he never spoke an idle word. Jesus said, love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, spirit and strength and love your neighbour as yourself. What an excellent moral recipe! That sounds about right to me, words of spirit and life. This is good doctrine, sound doctrine, flawless doctrine, sober doctrine etc. If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a damnable doctrine as Darwin asserts; then where does that leave "The Origin of Species and Preservation of Favoured Races?" Kind Regards