The Darwin Day Lecture 2016, with Jerry Coyne | Evolution and atheism: best friends forever?

[@stewartmoore5158]

Jerry starts at 8:45.

[@hedgehog1965uk]

+Stewart Moore A shame to miss Steve Jones from 4:20 though.

[@P33G33B33D33]

Never Liked Steve. Don't Like His Views On Race And The Genetics Of Race.

[@acerovalderas]

Stewart Moore Thank you!

[@BlackEpyon]

I agree with Coyne. Anybody who thinks that science and region are compatible does not know enough about one or either of them.

[@TheWorldsStage]

From the National Academies of Sciences, a group of the most elite scientists in the world. I guess you think they don't understand science? "Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist." www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html

[@robburnett2672]

did you listen to his talk where he goes over that exact quote and explains how they are simply afraid to loose funding and that 97% of them are athiests?

[@TheWorldsStage]

First off the number that 97% is completely off. Typically people like to say 93%, but even that number is wrong. It's 72% that are atheists. 20% are agnostic or have doubts. With 7% being believers. Atheist is is not the same as doubting. Second that is done from a survey mailed out to only 517 of them, with about half of them returning it. A self filled-out survey of 250 scientists is not enough to count as an accurate survey. Third the survey was from twenty years ago. Things have changed. This website shows the data, and this website is clearly not based towards believers. www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm Also I find it interested that Jerry Coyne believes that the National Academy of Scientists are such cowards and corrupted, that they will make up statements for money. I'm sure he's just angry that they will never allow him to become a member.

[@乙-f1s]

Whitney D. If you doubt the existence of god, you're not a believer. If you're not a believer, you're an atheist. That's why.

[@wassilykandinsky4616]

Whitney D. I have a friend who is Ph.D. Physicist graduated from one of the top 10 universities in the world who worked his whole life as a scientist. His wife is a Christian. He told me that he had two mindsets in his brain: One believes in a God, the other cannot. Nevertheless, he can live with that, but only by not thinking about it. He said only in this way he can omit a severe inner conflict. If I hear scientists advertising for the compatibility of science and religion (It's almost always their specific traditional religion) I always get the impression that they would never accept their kind of argumentation in a pure scientific discourse. A good example is the Oxford mathematician John Lennox. His argumants are absurdly flawed. He seems to have a blind spot when he is arguing in the realm of religion and unlike my friend he is not aware of it.

[@capjus]

Its so pity that such brilliant guys like him has to take time to still deal such subjects. Thanks for his time, i hope it helps sleepers to wake up

[@evorock]

A brilliant lecture, very informative and a really enjoyable experience. Prof Coyne was also a very nice bloke and signed two of my books. Just a shame Prof.Dawkins was not well enough to attend.

[@P33G33B33D33]

What Books Did He Sign?

[@evorock]

faith verses fact and why evolution is true :)

[@P33G33B33D33]

Evolution Rocks I Haven't Read Either. Which Do You Like Better?

[@evorock]

to be honest I have not read them yet either but I shall be during the summer holidays when school finishes!

[@P33G33B33D33]

Evolution Rocks What School Do You Go To? By The Way, I Haven't Read Either Of Them Because I Know Evolution Is True And Faith Can't Beat Fact! Fact Can't Beat Fiction!

[@petermetcalfe6722]

That was one of the finest Theist/Atheist lectures I have ever heard.

[@P33G33B33D33]

They Gotta Metcalfe St. In Oahu. It's By UH!

[@SteveDeHaven]

The conclusion of this lecture tells you everything you need to understand about the marriage of politics and religion. One specific example is the union of the American Republican Party with the religious right. Why do they fight so hard to keep evolution out of schools, and employ so many overt and covert methods to put religion in? Because those who have learned to think critically eventually REJECT religious beliefs. I am happy to include myself among that number.

[@DonnaDee59]

Evolution is Theory not law, and Atheists learn what it means to be an Atheist, they arn't born that way, it is religion. " Faith without works is dead" applies to the atheist. Science needs one free miracle before it can tell you anything, it only can backwards engineer nature , not tell you about origins.

[@yumeriagirl1231]

Mark Wise You definitely do not understand how science works. Scientific Theories are never going to be a scientific law. A Scientific theory, explains the facts described in the Law. They are equal. One can never become the other... Wow! American education has failed too many!

[@DonnaDee59]

@Scott Paulson In Science "random" means NOT predictable . Mutations have never been found to be random.

[@sladechimera2837]

@@DonnaDee59 you should sue your teachers. Every sperm and egg has a host of mutations, if you could predict just one specific one I'd be impressed

[@DonnaDee59]

Which came first, the Chicken or Egg? Chicken.@@sladechimera2837

[@alancooper8774]

Isn't it clear that humans created the concept of god? That there were many gods and geography had a lot to do with what religion/cult you were indoctrinated into? One question for all believers - What did they know two thousand years ago that we don't know now?

[@reaganwiles_art]

It's not what we knew (know) but what we are that is pertinent: man is a myth maker; myth arises spontaneously not analytically, is pervasive and just as inexplicably complex as biology. Is psyche biological or metaphysical?

[@jasmineluxemburg6200]

Alan Cooper i

[@danminer5343]

Alan, only fools believe that they created themselves.

[@danminer5343]

@L M - so you believe that nothing was created? Then you don't believe that anything exists.

[@danminer5343]

@L M - There are reasons for both. The sacrifices prevented people from worshipping animals and also provided food for the Levites who served in the temple. Foreskins were important in the past when men lived to be 900 years old and puberty started at much older ages. Due to the fact that all kindes of organism have mutual relationships and all had to exist at the same time, and since no organism could live while being created a step at a time, and since nothing could live without a 100% complete coded DNA, ONLY God had the power and knowledge to do so. The fiction story of 'evolution" is only imaginary consisting of zero evidence.

[@jamothafucka]

Wonderful talk! I like when Jerry speaks undiplomatically on these topics, especially the illusion of free will.

[@thulyblu5486]

+jamothafucka Yes, me too, but on the topic of free will I'm always a bit frustrated with the argument: "Everything I do is predetermined therefore free will can't exist." For me this doesn't really follow because it equates free will with random chance. Let me explain: Let's say you should choose either an apple or a pizza. Let's say you hate apples and you love pizza. Let's imagine we are doing this experiment several times with *exactly* the same initial conditions. Is it predetermined what you will choose? You will probably choose the pizza every time, because there is a reason for that choice, after all you hate apples and love pizza. Now imagine it's not predetermined and even though the initial conditions are exactly the same you will sometimes choose the apple that you hate. That means that the decision is (at least in part) *random*. When Something changes for literally no reason that is randomness by definition. This requirement that your decision should not be predetermined equates free will with randomness. And a random decision is not free, it's not you that decides but it's chance. Free will is being able to choose whatever you want... but you can't choose what you truly want.

[@mikepublic111]

+jamothafucka -- You just had to say that, didn't you?

[@YOSUP315]

Science doesn't need to have a dialogue with theists, because the dialogue is already over: science was right, theism was wrong, end of dialogue. [Now I've grown, I resend the above statement. Jesus Christ is Lord!]

[@sinazomanentsa9461]

I couldn't agree more

[@P33G33B33D33]

What Kind Of Name Is That?

[@DonnaDee59]

Science needs one free miracle before it can tell you anything, it only backwards engineer nature not tell you about origins

[@P33G33B33D33]

Slander!

[@sladechimera2837]

Unfortunately theists and scientifically ignorant people still exist so there is a need for dialog to bring them up to the same level of education. The other option would be that only people who have a basic understanding of science are allowed to benefit from it but considering the resulting suffering I don't think that'd be any more ethical than the actions religious people take to try to make their religion dominant over other people

[@andrecampbell691]

Prof Cloyne is a very clear speaker, and I enjoyed his lecture very much.

[@martinlanders]

This is one of the best lectures I’ve watched … wonderful 👍👍👍👍

[@iamanon4u]

Fantastic talk! Thank you very much for posting. Jerry's explanations are so clear. Even if you don't agree on the factors that elevate religion, building a better society is never a bad thing.

[@CaptainDooDoo-ans]

We have surely all noticed, as has Jerry, that the poorest countries are the most religious. I also notice that in these countries religion is harshest, more subjugative, more backward....driving this inability to rise out of poverty. It certainly looks deliberate to me...religion driving poverty, driving misery and fear which in turn feeds religious power. It's time this was argued in the UN.

[@thulyblu5486]

+Unholy Alliance What direction does the causation go? Are people poor and uneducated because of religion, or are they religious because of their circumstances. I mean if you're miserable enough you need the 'opium for the people', if you're rich and well fed you don't need the promise of a better life after your death. The causation could of course go both ways to some degree, making it a vicious cycle that strengthens religion as you suggest. One of the countries that doesn't fit in that pattern would be Saudi Arabia... extremely rich and extremely religious at the same time. And the USA are also rather rich and rather religious, compare that to ex-communist countries like Romania or Ukraine, which are not rich and not very religious.

[@thulyblu5486]

+Unholy Alliance What direction does the causation go? Are people poor and uneducated because of religion, or are they religious because of their circumstances. I mean if you're miserable enough you need the 'opium for the people', if you're rich and well fed you don't need the promise of a better life after your death. The causation could of course go both ways to some degree, making it a vicious cycle that strengthens religion as you suggest. One of the countries that doesn't fit in that pattern would be Saudi Arabia... extremely rich and extremely religious at the same time. And the USA are also rather rich and rather religious, compare that to ex-communist countries like Romania or Ukraine, which are not rich and not very religious.

[@CaptainDooDoo-ans]

Thulyblu You make interesting points. I'm 100% with you that there are different reasons people 'need' religion. The spectrum is wide, from 'community family/acceptance, inner peace/fear of death or 'non-existence'. Which reminds me of the '5 Basic Human Fears'. I hope you'll Google these and see for yourself how religions deploy these to manipulate the masses into compliance. We tend to think of Saudi Arabia as rich, but are we sure the average Joe there isn't poor? I don't know...what I do know is that like it or not, the average Joe there needs islam to stay safe whether they really believe it or not. I don't go in for comparisons between religious states and communist or ex-communist states because although they are/were both doctrinal, anti-secular and therefore unhealthy, that is where the comparison largely ends. (bearing in mind that it takes a generation or 2 or 3 or more, to clear the past from the community psyche). The 'USA' is rich?...no, not at all. The top 1% of the USA has almost all of the wealth. (tune into Bernie Sanders for the figures) The USA middle-class is fast disappearing, the poor increasing quickly, the economy is wrecked and the nation is under YUUGE stress. People turn to the unreal when the real offers them nothing but struggle & sadness. And let's not forget that once religion is established in a community - it's damn hard to ever shift it because of those 5 basic human fears.

[@pragmaticbent5606]

Yeah, that's what you will see in most highly religious countries. It's not necessarily the whole country that's poor, although it could be, it's the vast majority of the population. You'll notice in all those countries, there aren't any poor religions or clergy. After all, religion is the very first form of government, and today it's simply a government for the pious.

[@乙-f1s]

The evidence suggest that the causal link goes both ways. Religion reduces the health of a country, AND a country under stress has a strong tendency to become more religious.

[@larockeramenor]

This is my favorite Coyne lecture so far. Thanks for sharing!!!

[@prettyprudent5779]

I think it would be great if someone would do a lecture on Human Evolution alone. Just so the public is more clear on the subject - many people are confused about how it works.

[@dtdyvr]

wonderful - thank you so much for posting!

[@SimonWelander]

Excellent lecture, and Jerry signed my original copy of WEIT too!

[@danminer5343]

I am a creationist and if any evolutionist would debate me they would end up looking like an uneducated fool.

[@P33G33B33D33]

@@danminer5343 I Pity The Fool, Dan!

[@andrex3216]

Great talk. This guy is even better than Dawkins!

[@richardmabe4186]

Very good talk, Jerry really cuts through the bull.

[@wassilykandinsky4616]

For someone in love, it's almost impossible to think, that the loved one has got his special position in one's brain only by chance and it could well be another person. But from a rational point of view, it's undeniable. I think a similar story is happening in a religious brain.

[@danminer5343]

I am a creationist and if any evolutionist would debate me they would end up looking like an uneducated fool.

[@g.scottbroemeling1699]

thank you professor Cone

[@g.scottbroemeling1699]

Coyne

[@Roedygr]

Choose Your Own Purpose Everybody gets to choose their own purpose and change it as needed. The universe as a whole does not have a purpose any more than a mountain has a purpose. Asking what is the purpose of the universe is the same asking Why did god create the universe? What did he plan to use it for? If there is no god to have the purpose, there can be no universal purpose. So stop expecting science to answer meaningless questions like What is the purpose of the universe?

[@khalilurrahman1009]

Great! Informative lecture on Evolution's educative to be humanist.

[@P33G33B33D33]

Hasim? Is That You Brotha? If It Is You It's Lookin' Like A Whole New You! You All Light, Brite, And Pilipino Now!

[@ATageH]

Great talk, thanks for uploading

[@Rico-Suave_]

Great lecture, Watched all of it

[@shefiroth12]

how did he come out with 12.250 at 58:41 ???

[@felixndayisdebologne9725]

It is the number of female gene lines in MitDNA multiplied by 2 compounded with the numbers of the Y gene in cellular DNA. In fact the farther you go from Africa, the lesser you have genetic differences.

[@felixndayisdebologne9725]

For more on the subject start with this www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/10/how-we-lost-our-diversity

[@eave01]

This is a great lecture. Sapolsky lectures on religion rock

[@DQTanya]

"Almost doubled, going from 9 to 19%" Jerry, Jerry, Jerry

[@HarryNicNicholas]

37:50 i've always thought that having to find purpose is purpose itself. it would interest me to know if secualr countries are more or less creative in the arts than relgious countries.

[@AlanWinterboy]

Love these lectures, and Coyne's books.

[@420MusicFiend]

Love Faith vs Fact (might be better than his Why Evolution is True) phenomenal speaker/author.

[@georgediaz7545]

Great talk !

[@sydneymorey6059]

Special events should have a special thank you. Thank you from SBM.

[@乙-f1s]

Might be time to stage an intervention on the US.

[@aethelred3766]

As an American - please do

[@quantumrobin4627]

As an American, just drop a nuke on us and start over, I’m not sure any of us deserve to share this planet with intelligent life.

[@jordandthornburg]

@@quantumrobin4627 interesting. I wonder if your anti religious worldview is related to your desire to wipe out all life in the us.

[@robburnett2672]

brilliant guy great lecture and a cool dude imagine if everyone in America held his views we would be soo much better off.

[@LettersAndNumbers300]

Can you make subtitles appear?

[@donaldcallihan7153]

Okay

[@LettersAndNumbers300]

@@donaldcallihan7153 thanks! Accessibility is so important for the hearing impaired 👍

[@evolutionrhythm4416]

A well structured talk. I think the speaker hit on the key point when he said something along the lines of ‘due to education systems, by the time many people reach cognitive maturity they may already have been indoctrinated into whatever is the most common belief system of the community’. Christmas is used very effectively in the UK to introduce children into believing in something “magical”. I wonder how that effects peoples log term psychology?. Is there such a thing as a nice lie?.Of course children lap it up because they trust the people they look up to. And many of the Adults see no harm in a fantasy preached as a truth because the lucky children love nice story’s. However, if an adult was to manipulate another adult into believing something that they themselves knew to be false, a good moral society would judge that as fundamentally a wrong thing to do (even if the preachers are under the illusion of meaning well, it will only end in disappointment). Faith schools ( that teach religion as fact and/or schools that do not speak about evolution (my Daughter is 7 (and ¾), the Christian based school she attends have never mentioned evolution according to what she tells me) . These and many other schools do not begin by teaching children how to think for themselves as independent humans. They do not successfully encourage logical thinking, as being rational will lead to questioning the faith of the school/teachers. Young children can develop understanding of even complex subjects like ecology if given the cognitive tools to do so. They should be freed from the mental imprisonment of the indoctrinations of good and evil ,heaven and hell, good children get presents from father Christ-mass. (wealthy people whom give their children more presents then must be more “good”, maybe that’s how some less wealthy children interpret this delusion in our incredibly unequal societys). Faith schools begin by wishing to indoctrinate children into their belief (quite often using simple story’s with religious narratives/undertones). Any logical based subject’s are then taught around this faith, for some young people their minds are compartmentalised for life (logic for some things/belief for others). Though for some of the lucky ones (as logic removes fear) logic begins to erode away the deep seated indoctrination they were subjective too when naive. The indoctrinated teaching others how they were themselves indoctrinated. Of course indoctrinated people (Indoctrination is not the same as immoral as people can be indoctrinated to be kind) won’t see themselves as indoctrinated, they think they have freely made the choice themselves, though, strange how many misunderstand the basics of the theory of evolution whilst making ill-informed arguments against it. Like they have something preventing them learning all the evidenced that supports evolution. There are fundamental reason why we have a large percentage of adults in society whom are ecologically/evolutionary blind( ignorant ). Led by voted in leaders, blind voting for the blind. Self evidently (if you study subjects related to the self like biology and evolution) ,the evidence for evolution and ecology etc, is all around them and within them (even in cities where much of the ecological functions have long been removed, life is interconnected and microscopic organisms dominate. Indoctrination, inadequate education systems (including media) and lack of parental teaching that foster love and care for other animals (as the adults/parents don’t care that much for other animals in general. Unless their on dead on a plate) , are the fundamental reason why it continues to be so hard to move society forward on time critical issues such as biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, pollution & the combined effects these are having on accelerating anthropogenic climate change. Of course the denial of scientific evidence doesn’t just come from religion. It also comes from a large majority of Agnostics whom (judging by the things their more interested in) have not developed a level of conscious awareness of themselves & enviroment to understand that they are animals living in an ecosystem, on which they are dependent for their very survival. I urge anyone whom is lucky enough to care to watch the film Racing Extinction & please encourages other to watch it also. racingextinction.com/the-film/#where-to-see-itA. This film captures many of the severe environmental factors facing our species and what people working together can do about them. Debate is Good. But we must somehow find a way to start a movement to slow down and hopefully reverse the human trend of destruction of life . It's already too late for many species driven to extinction due to habitat loss and human persecution. If these trends continue we are edging towards population crashers within some of the key stone animals groups. If Ocean acidification continues to rise many of the plankton species will not be able to survive. This will begin the extinction cascade effect that many ecologists fear is fast approaching. When the microscopic organisms in the oceans and on land begin to disappear, it won't be long before the rest of the food chain begins to collapse. Basic ecology, that the people whom have the majority of power and the majority the UK voters, do not seem to be too concerned about. Maybe because they don’t understand basic ecology or are generally unaware that they are living in an ecosystem ( Citys do provide an illusionary separation from the web of life) .

[@__-tz6xx]

1:18:49 I don't have a problem with amazement, wonder, and gratitude for living and experiencing life as such "spirituality" movement does but, I do have a problem when people say your spirit, aura, chakra, personal energy or anything supernatural is a cause of something or is reason to act in some manner. That is just manipulation of others. People should instead be informed of their physiology the reptilian mind AKA the Parasympathetic Nervous System and know how ones body performs based on the environment, social factors, what is consumed, and physical activity such as strength training, cardio training, stretching, meditation and breath work. They would realize that everything is natural there is no room for supernatural woo woo. It is sad that people thought that people with neurological disorders were possessed by demons not long ago and there are still some people who say that today.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

what do people like tour and meyers think they will find? a trademark symbol?

[@nahshon9998]

Jerry Coyne, referring to the cover of his book “Why Evolution is True” which depicts a dinosaur, a transitional creature, an archaeopteryx and a great blue heron. The jacket depicts a chronological sequence of fossils showing the evolution of birds. We do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three. Apparently the blur heron is the only known animal in this evolutionary tree sleight of hand. Surely, of all the supposed known trees of life, Jerry could come up with one of more certainty. So much for the observable and testable science of microbe to man evolution.

[@DanielBrownsan]

Right. You know he didn't design the cover, right?

[@nahshon9998]

Dan, He didn't know that the cover was a false premise? How much of the book didn't he write? So, would you admit that there is no fossil sequence that shows the evolution of birds from dinosaurs? I have to think if there was a fossil sequence Coyne would want the correct one on the cover of his book. Is Coyne so stupid to allow a false fossil progression to be the first evidence a reader sees supporting his book?

[@DanielBrownsan]

I would not "admit" that archaeopteryx doesn't exist. An admission assumes your premise is already true, which means your question was either constructed accidentally and you're a moron or intentionally and you're a genius. My money is on the former.

[@DanielBrownsan]

nahshon I went looking for a citation for your claim and, stupid me, hadn't read it correctly. I thought you were asking what was between birds and dinosaurs and that somehow the blue heron was impossible in evolution. But you simply said "the first three are not connected" for which you have no evidence other than your assumed conclusion "Evolution must be false because god did it and if god didn't do it, I have no one to tell me everything is fine". I get it. It's scary to be a grownup, having to make your own decisions, having to make your own moral judgements at times. You just need to get your shit together and be a big boy (or possibly girl but probably not) But that's not _really_ the part that bothers you the most. The part that really bothers you are those moments when you feel your heart beating. So reassuring... but then you realize... that heart isn't going to beat forever; some day, it will stop and so will you. You're terrified of that moment (we all are) but that's no reason to deny (literally) *MOUNTAINS* of demonstrable evidence. See, people like you can't make a logical thought process work in reality. So, rather than conclude your way of thinking is out of whack, you blame reality. If *you're* right, then *REALITY* must be wrong. Yeah, that's not how this works. In other words, just because you feel small, don't pretend evolution isn't real and, if you do pretend, shut the hell up about it. The rest of us need to get on with science.

[@nahshon9998]

Dan, I am sorry, I didn't do a good job of explaining the problem with the book. Jerry Coyne wrote about his book "The jacket depicts a chronological sequence of fossils showing the evolution of birds. We do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three." (Referring to the cover of his book “Why Evolution is True” which depicts a dino, a transitional creature, an archaeopteryx and a great blue heron.) The point is "why couldn't Coyne come up with a real transition series?" Why use a false premise on his book cover. Does that make better sense?

[@martylawrence5532]

Hey Jerry Coyne! You said in 2011 that epigenetics is not dangerous to the theory of evolution because it only passes for two or three generations. . In 2014, it was found to pass adaptations for HUNDREDS of generations. I take it that now evolutionary theory is dead in the water. Am I right? You inferred in 2011 it would be the case.

[@numbersix9477]

"In 2014, it was found to pass adaptations for HUNDREDS of generations." I'd be interested in reading up on that. What were your sources?

[@ozowen5961]

No, you are wrong. Epigenetics is important. But it is only a fraction of a huge puzzle.

[@martylawrence5532]

@@ozowen5961 A quote from down below... "There are lots of questions to ask about evolution. Evolution is a thing that happens, that is settled. But how things evolve and the mechanisms that drive it are largely unknown." Well, let's put it under a spotlight. Here is an analogy to start On the first day of the baseball season in 2023, a professional baseball player hits a single between third base and shortstop. Is it evidence he will lead the majors in home runs for the year? No. Conversely, are theorized evolution's little 'singles' evidence of it causing 'home runs' to be called instances of macroevolution? Are little 'singles' such as ERVs, loss of offspring capability [speciation], and DNA mutations evidence of evolutionary homeruns? How about the chance-arguments of homologous structures, homologous organs, analogous organs, vestigial organs, and DNA similarities evidence of the macroevolution mind-constructs? These suppose to be predictive of the evolutionary theory. Let's look at the biggest evidence of evolutionary 'singles'. They are adaptations to changed environments, new threats, or diets. These are observable such as the Darwin Finch beaks, butterfly color change to brown in offspring due to droughts, lizard's footpad or elongation of the gut changes. The problem with these singles? In 2014, it was found it is an already existing biological system called the epigenome with pre-ability for adaptations WITHOUT ToE's 'engine' of DNA mutations into new DNA sequences being involved into any of the macroevolution mind-constructs. Epigenome-derived adaptation abilities were not credited for passing new traits and adaptations hundreds of generations until 2014. The sleuthing by scientific method by Dr. Michael Skinner proved these adaptations had correlation to epigenetics and NOT to natural selection of beneficial DNA mutations. This turns out to be the THIRD ASPECT of the epigenome in which has gene expression modifications within it and putting a fetus together. This fits the predictive power of the intelligent design model, not the mindless evolution model. What happens with a baseball player who hits a double or a triple but misses the first base bag as he rounds it? He can be called out by an appeal to first base with the baseball. Even with a home run! It's all disallowed. Conversely, with the evolutionary theory...epigenome-derived adaptations results in ToE missing the first place bag. The macroevolution homeruns becomes a false equivocation and sleight of hand. All of the chance-argument 'evidences' such as vestigial organs, homologous organs/structures, vestigial organs, and ERVs become moot and laid out to be framed evidence with a bias to a conclusion of desired evolution. | Evolution is not happening. Academic studies have a found-wrong precept standing at first base as evidence as 'microevolution'. It is memorizing all of the framed evidence points and all of the rescue excuses used to explain away pro-intelligent design evidence. If you are going to get into the field of evolution, take a course on story writing, too. The only evolution that is occurring is the story of it thru the years. Polished and honed to become more and more convincing. Don't go thru life being fooled. It is so much fun and rewarding to know the truths.

[@ozowen5961]

@@martylawrence5532 Long winded way to fail. Once again- the processes are observed. When I noted that the processes are largely unknown I meant it in the particulars (btw- the baseball analogy means zilch to me- it's not a game I am familiar with) By particulars I mean- how did that species, at that time make those changes? On the other hand, what we are seeing constantly is that all sorts of different things are making those changes. eg: Novel mutations Ancient mutations that have done nothing finally being utilised Epigenetics in operation Transposable elements Other Combinations of the above. You appear to want it all to be epigenetics. Too bad, that horse has bolted.

[@jasmineluxemburg6200]

Yes, I agree, the most destructive aspect of religious belief systems is the tendency to proscribe and penalise non practitioners and none believers. In effect to dehumanise those they see as adversaries. I would contend that you can be a political and philosophical adversary without becoming an enemy to those of another persuasion. But that territory only tends to open up historically and socially when humanism is on the winning side and religion on the losing side. The correlation between widespread wellbeing and reduction in religiosity is very persuasive. That reality ought to connect affluent societies with awareness that they have a very real interest in the improvement of living conditions worldwide, rather than exclusively or merely their own countries self interest. I would also say that the practice of humanism is contagious. I have often found people to be incredulous when I assert I am an atheist, because they associate that with callous indifference to others well being. I test as high on empathy, a good listener, patient and open minded. They have learnt to associate atheism with callousness and insensitivity. I do not buy the behaviourist view of motivation. There is such a thing as intrinsic reward in seeking to avoid harm, hurt feelings or shock in others. Generally referred to as self esteem. We are a social animal, but destructive systems and societies undermine that mutual respect and pursuit of mutual wellbeing, in effect suffocating humanistic attitudes and behaviour. I have had the salutary experience of knowing there are individuals who are incapable of empathy apparently genetically lacking that attribute and both destructive and intentionally deceptive towards others. I consider that a refutation of behaviourism. It would need a whole treatise to explain that adequately.....

[@donjonsen5295]

your contention sucks ass

[@nefaristo]

8:30 for Jerry Coyne

[@willmpet]

“The invisible and the nonexistent seem very much alike”

[@kaskaniety]

Poll is short for "creative truth". Where you take the very well crafted data, interpret it in the way you see fit and sell it as cause-effect towards what you want this data to "prove". Funny how things works exactly the same in the almost all branches of science.

[@bmarsh3683]

Christmas honestly is CULT mas

[@julianherrero9056]

I write from Spain, which is a non-denominational state that, however, has maintained agreements with the Catholic Church since 1979 on legal, educational and economic matters for which thousands of priests, bishops and professors of religion have enjoyed fixed salaries. Until 2007, the Catholic Church was financed directly through the general state budget. Currently the State facilitates, through the annual income tax return, that citizens allocate 7% of taxes to the support of the Catholic Church and not to social purposes of general interest. In 2020, the Church collected in this way the amount of 280 million euros and maintains the privilege of being exempt from paying the IBI for its real estate: temples, monasteries, seminaries, universities, etc. In 2013, the subject of religion (Catholic) became compulsory - evaluable. With the recent Education Law of 2020, schools will have the obligation to offer it, but it will be voluntary for students. All this happens in a country where not even 10% of the citizens go to Mass. The problem with religion is that, like a virus, it "installs" in people's minds and parasitizes them without them being aware. The coronavirus pandemic ravages the world. A majority of the epidemiologists consulted publicly declare the need to implement more effective protection measures and advise that the Christmas holidays should not be celebrated with more people than those with whom one usually lives. However, a majority part of society ignores these warnings and they gather beyond the measures proposed by these scientists. Many celebrate the supposed date of the birth of a child who is God, who was born from the union of a virgin with the Holy Spirit, who performed a good number of miracles during his life, and who was resurrected ascending to heaven. Many others do not celebrate it exactly for these reasons but for the "tradition" or custom of celebrating these holidays. On January 10, 2021, official data showed the figure of 69,381 positives compared to the 2,072 positives recorded on December 22, just before these holidays.

[@userwl2850]

is there more questions to come or was 3 enough? great talk.

[@hedgehog1965uk]

+userwl2850 I'm afraid there was only time for three questions. It didn't help that the questioners were a bit long-winded and not very clear. We might have managed one or two more. I also would have liked to have heard more from Alice Roberts. I guess I will have to catch her at another lecture.

[@HumanistsUK]

+userwl2850 We ran out of time :(

[@P33G33B33D33]

Ran Out On ME!

[@DanielBrownsan]

Starts at 8:40 btw. Charming introduction but... yeah.

[@KXSocialChannel]

Not meaning any offence to the speaker at the beginning, but doesn't he sound and look like David Icke a bit?!?!

[@__-tz6xx]

34:49 So true. There is a Mormon scripture which begins something like "The natural man is an enemy of God..." and then says to submit to God. Yet they exploit the natural man and don't realize that everything is natural. 36:03 No meaning just means we create meaning like we do for a game. Which is why I like to say that life is a collection of games. Eat that chocolate Forest Gump.

[@differdog9354]

Good lecture

[@KaiHenningsen]

Gould wasn't the first with NOMA. There's a saying attributed to Galileo: "The bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".

[@warren52nz]

Conclusion: *Religion leads to ignorance.*

[@Cowboy-uw7jz]

Warren NZ I farted

[@warren52nz]

I'm guessing you're one of the ignorant ones. 8^) If smart people have more negative impact on society it's because they get to higher positions of authority and have the means to do so and they occasionally fuck up or are evil or narcissistic as well. Your average garbage collector isn't likely to start a war. On the other hand virtually all of the good stuff we see around us came from intelligent people.

[@DanielBrownsan]

Well... it decreases the odds of "helping understand science".

[@mardishores4016]

Religion is poison to the human mind

[@mardishores4016]

@@DanielBrownsan agree

[@LettersAndNumbers300]

Wish this had subtitles

[@P33G33B33D33]

Happy Birthday!

[@idio-syncrasy]

Great lecture.

[@paradigmbuster]

There two reasons I can think of why atheists say there is no soul. 1. If spirits exist they cannot be self existent but had to be made by supreme eternal Spirit. 2. It would be impossible for an ape to become a human because decent with modification can edit a body but not a spirit.

[@LettersAndNumbers300]

I like Jerry.

[@wassilykandinsky4616]

Ina sentence like "You can't put God in a test tube..." God is presupposed as an existing entity. In all those statements you could replace "God" by "the flying spaghetti monster" or just another fantastic figure you like. "You can't put any fantastic figure in a test tube..." But you can do neuroscience with a person fantasizing about a fantastic figure.

[@kristijanakristijanic]

I need a title! (croatian). Salut!

[@nahshon9998]

I like Jerry Coyne. He tells it like it is. Here is a great quote from him. "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture." Of Vice and Men, The New Republic April 3 2000 p.27 So spot on! So many evolutionists claim that all the evidence points to microbe to man evolution. Jerry tells it like it is. He wrote a book called "Why Evolution is True". of faith. Seeing and Believing The New Republic February 4 2009 p.41. The book jacket depicts a chronological sequence of fossils showing the evolution of birds. But Jerry then makes this note: “We do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three.” (Referring to the cover of his book which depicts a dinosaur, a transitional creature, an archaeopteryx and a great blue heron.) Now don't you think that if there was some hard evidence of dinosaur to bird evolution he would put that on the book cover? Of course he would! But there is no evidence of any ancestor of dinosaurs and there is no evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds. And Jerry clearly acknowledges that fact. I have a much better explanation. God create everything in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago. Including the dinosaurs and the birds. Both created by God. No evolution required. And then 2020 years ago God sent his Son to Earth as a Man to die on a cross to save us. All you have to do to be saved is to accept in your heart what Jesus did for you.

[@ozowen5961]

Your "explanation" is a nonsense.

[@nahshon9998]

@@ozowen5961 what part? The Coyne quote? Can you refute any of what I wrote?

[@ozowen5961]

@@nahshon9998 Coyne wasn't making the point that Evolutionary Theory is at the level of Phrenology, but that it is closer than hard sciences. That doesn't make it wrong or untrue and it was a nonsense of yours to pretend it did. Harder sciences like Physics are closer to provable (but only maths is provable). Your post also neglected a fact of science. Disproof. Disproof in science is incredibly important. The global Noachian flood is disproven. That will remain true should the Darwinian Theory of Evolution ever be disproven. The special creation of "kinds" is disproven. Should someone overturn Natural Selection as the primary driver for how life diversifies (and certainly a dozen sub systems are already known) special creation will not return. The young Earth is totally disproven and cannot be possible. This cannot be returned since the evidence has rendered it impossible.

[@nahshon9998]

@@ozowen5961 Evolution is not a science it is a belief based on no observable or testable evidence. The main belief is that the universe is billions of years old. The rest of evolution relies on that belief. Disproof is fine. But there is no proof to disprove. How did you manage to disprove the flood? And how did you disprove the creation of kinds? Or the young Earth? You started well but then finished not so well. What is there to disprove about natural selection? Everyone agrees that animals can adapt to their environment. But that is because the variation is already present. It has nothing to do with mutations. That has been proven time after time. An organism adding new unique body features has never been observed. Land animals could never add a fluked tail for example. Can't happen, didn't happen, and there is no evidence that it did happen. It is a belief, not science.

[@ozowen5961]

@@nahshon9998 "Evolution is not a science it is a belief based on no observable or testable evidence." Lie "The main belief is that the universe is billions of years old. The rest of evolution relies on that belief." Lie "How did you manage to disprove the flood?" Dry layers in the supposed flood strata The fossil order is robust- exactly not like a flood. Sediment layers are not in order of density as per flood order. Despite supposed massive tectonic shifts in flood- no evidence of this- but plenty evidence against- eg: stable and well formed sedimentary layers (not in flood order of density) Aerial layers such as K120 boundary cannot form submarine and even less able to form in turbulent water. "It has nothing to do with mutations. " Plenty of evidence, even in laboratory of positive, new mutations (not reconfigured previous dna)

[@carlosmario224]

Que bueno sería que estuviera en español.

[@alialialamili7727]

ليس من العدل انيحتفل بيوم مولد درون وينسا يوم جنون البقر It's not fair to celebrate Dron's birthday and forget mad cow day.

[@mustaphaItani]

What a amazing lecture. It completely captured me.

[@EdwinLuciano]

Ah, that pun at the end of the presentation!

[@patm6704]

To fully understand the reason why religion is still so powerful in the U.S. - the land of the almighty dollar - we can't avoid the political and financial elements of religion as the powerful tool of control and the mega cash-cow, which, unfortunately, most leading atheists do. (We can speculate as to the reasons. But, some are obvious if you watch their responses to political questions. Jerry comes nearest to mentioning the wider picture, at least in my opinion.) To the detriment of the atheism, in my opinion because it's like a boxer fighting with one hand tied behind his back. And it is a fight. An extremely serious one for 'creationists' and all of the other powerful, wealthy vested interests which have everything to lose. The tried and tested Constantine template for church/state mutual back-scratching is clearly evidenced today by the deafening silence from religious leaders on laws which benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else, wars-for-profit, etc. In return, religious institutions get tax-free status and other perks afforded vital pillars of society (in the U.K., seats in the Lords, religious programs on BBC, etc.) The DNA evidence for evolution extends to the Neanderthal DNA evidence i.e how can creationists reconcile the Bible account of human origins with the fact that most people of European or Asian ancestry have between 0-4% Neanderthal DNA, due to some early humans migrating from Africa - the home of human evolution - mating with Neanderthals?Many thanks to all concerned for sharing this excellent video!

[@DonnaDee59]

Most people confuse Adaptation with Evolution, because they interrupt Theory as literal. Evolution is not repeatable and adaptation is repeatable , that is the "theory" of Evolution.

[@wasp89898989]

Thanks

[@lifeisneverthesame910]

woww lovely British and American accent.

[@I_Don_t_want_a_handle]

The thing that is often missed here is that faith can be used to explain anything. If evidence is found against a god then it is simply a test of the believer's faith. The stronger the evidence the greater the test. The same applies to Humanism and its 'beliefs'. It is also perhaps quite illuminating that this chap wishes the audience to laugh at believers. This is tempting but should be avoided as it only creates division and strengthens resistance to enlightenment.

[@Detson404]

So long as they’re not teaching their religion in the public schools I don’t really care what people believe. If someone’s religion is limited to unfalsifiable claims and doesn’t conflict with what we know about the physical world, I care even less. Insisting on philosophical materialism is a step too far.

[@sunnysun2145]

Has any atheist society been selected for by Nature ? Or even: Has such a society ever been existed in human history?

[@bondsings2384]

At 1:09:00 That's another reason they are afraid of Bernie Sanders

[@ojtrumpet]

Jerry, according to David Carrier, Jesus probably never existed! (You talked about finding bones of Jesus at around 30)

[@thulyblu5486]

+Ole J. Utnes Do you mean _Richard_ Carrier?

[@ojtrumpet]

+Thulyblu Yes - and his books "Proving History" and "On the Historicity of Jesus."

[@Cotictimmy]

8.5 minutes for the Richard Dawkins impersonator to leave and Jerry to come on! Only kidding Steve! ;-)

[@patrickambler749]

If abiogenesis isn't possible then none of the other aspects of the evolutionary origin theory are valid. It always surprises me that people would take a stance that all of science backs Charles Darwin's theory when it is quite the opposite. If a challenge to this theory offends you then you are the same as someone who believes in God who refuses to look at the counter argument. To believe in evolution today takes more faith than believing in God. Also, it's rather validating for Christians that they talk about the Bible and Christianity at these conferences and in the comments rather than the Quran, Shreemad Bhagavad Gita, Tripitakas, etc... Come on people. Be what you claim to be, be smart. Here's a letter written by a scientist who easily dwarfs these gentlemen in credentials, achievement and understanding. Biology is built on chemistry. Brave enough to have your faith challenged? inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues

[@patrickambler749]

Tour was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015.[41] He was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World Today" by TheBestSchools.org in 2014.[42] Tour was named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine in 2013.[43] Tour won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012. Tour was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson Reuters in 2009. That year, he was also made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Other notable awards won by Tour include the 2008 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007, the Small Times magazine's Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005, the Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005, the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1990, and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1989. In 2005, Tour's journal article "Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars" was ranked the Most Accessed Journal Article by the American Chemical Society.[44] Tour has twice won the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching at Rice University in 2007 and 2012.

[@patrickambler749]

I apologize for my pretentious comment. I was simply offended and derailed by this lecture/lecturer. I found it ridiculous that anyone would try to justify a belief in evolution based on disproving the plausibility of religion by ridiculing it with empty accusations. That's not science, that's just a condescending attitude. This time I will disagree with respect. To say "science vs religion," insinuating that they are at odds, is uninformed in my opinion. You are expected to have faith in religion, but it should have no place in science. I highly doubt that John Sutherland and Jack Szostak would endorse your slander of a well respected scientist such as James Tour. I really don't think saying anything else is necessary after you just demonstrated your own narrow mindedness. However... The research articles you suggested that briefly "spotlight" what you would call "books by REAL scientists who are doing current research" led me to some interesting reading so thank you. I will say though that there are much more current research publications alluding to the possibility of abiogenesis (not just articles that "spotlight" them) than the 2012 & 2015 examples you gave. The Szostak Lab in particular is diligently pumping out research. molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/OFlaherty_et_al_2018_JACS.pdf So here's my take on some honest research, that I will continue to do. The conditions in which the experiments were conducted from the examples you gave only deepen the argument for a necessity of a guiding hand. The components and processes were strictly governed and controlled in a lab and excluded many elements believed to exist in a prebiotic condition, and even then the results were nowhere near "fact worthy." We are nowhere near close to explaining the mechanisms that would allow for abiogenesis let alone being able to synthesize most parts of an artificial living cell. "Inanimate molecules, congregated together inside a fatty skin, somehow became capable of replication, and of evolution:" the definition of life, as Szostak sees it. You know... the problem isn't intelligence, it's that the desire for evolution to be true just creates a bias. Maybe it's not possible to operate without a bias. (shrug) Scientists who believe in God could be accused of the same. Do you write off everyone who believes in God as an idiot and laud the intelligence of all people who consider the theory of abiogenesis a fact? Truth is no respecter of persons. "If I am wrong, then enlighten me on my error. If I am correct, then ponder how far afield we have gone in projecting to the public our knowledge of life’s origin." - James Tour Ph.D. inference-review.com/article/two-experiments-in-abiogenesis

[@katiekat4457]

The host seems like a great guy but I don’t see any resemblance of Richard Dawkins in him. Maybe it was years ago and their hairs and glasses were more similar or something but even then I don’t see it. Nevertheless they are funny stories.

[@LAW_LESS1983]

Romans 1 21,22 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they become futile in there thinking, and there foolish heart's were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became FOOL'S. So the more people scratch and claw there way out of believing in God, the more FOOLISHNESS like Darwinism we can expect to see. Science points to God ever time. Go with Truth, Go with God.

[@jamessoltis5407]

“Nope!”, said the talking serpent, the talking ass, and the talking smoldering shrub.

[@LAW_LESS1983]

@@schmetterling4477 I'd think twice before you go saying something so ignorant about a book that has been scientifically proven 100% accurate since day one friend. You better recheck your fax before you lose your way.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Darwin said let there be light and light was made. Not. Three phases, ideational, energy and force, and the gross physical. In the mind of God all this would take place at once. At the physical level evolution takes place over eons to the pattern of the divine template. Both are true God gave the blueprint and it evolved from there.

[@pedrobismark5618]

Not a bad society? 20 million africans enslaved and killed, 3 million vietnamese, 2 million cambodians, 2 nuclear bomba detonated un Japan,1.5 million iraquíes, abandon Afganistán after a20 year invasión, etc And he doesn't think America could be categorized as a bad society.

[@eunicedavenport9173]

If we do not have a soul or spirit why isn’t murder ok. He is only going thru the same old debunking as all the others. Did I hear him say you were going to make society better. Tha

[@donjonsen5295]

lick me where i shit

[@eunicedavenport9173]

If chance is the father all flesh then sniper kills 18, and bomber kills 20 It is man worshiping his maker.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Life is chemical? What about forces don’t they play a role? The strong, neutral and weak forces plus electromagnetism and magnetism. Explain magnetism and then we can take you seriously.

[@laeequenadvi4746]

QUR'ANIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION VS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION (1) The theory of evolution asserts that living things are not part of creation or intelligent design, but a coincidental causes and natural process. However, this " theory of Evolution by natural selection " gave rise to doubts from the very beginning. 1- What were the " natural and coincidental variations " referred to by Darwin ? How could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species ? 2- Darwin asserted that " living beings evolved gradually". In this çase, there should have lived millions of " transitional forms". Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought this problem, and eventually arrived at this conclusion that " further research would provide these fossils." 3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes , ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing. H.S.Lipson, a British physicist makes the following comments about these " difficulties " of Darwin's: " On reading ' The Origin of Species ' I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be ; the chapter entitled " Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen. (1) However, contrary to his expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties. The Problem of Origin of Life : The theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organism, had been widely accepted. Even in the period of Darwin's ' Origin of Species ' was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread. A corner stone of the Theory of Evolution was disapproved by Louis Pasture. In his lecture at the Sorbbone in 1864. He said: " Never will be the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow srtuck by this simple experiment." (2) However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidently faced an even greater impasse. The problem of Genetic : Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory was inheritance.Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false ground.Darwin assumed that : Naturaĺ selection was the " mechanism of Evolution." He was unable to explain how would " useful traits" be selected and transmitted to the next geneation? At this point, he embraced the Lamarckan theory, that is " the inheritance of acquired traits". However, Lamarck's thesis was disapproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of species occurs. This was a serious deadend for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of " useful traits " on Lamarck. Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. Mendel was in favour of the orthodox doctrine of special creation. (1) H.S. Lipson, " A Physicit's view of Darwin's theory", Evolutio Trends in Plants, vol.2, No, 1988, p.6 (2) Sidney Fox, Klause Dose, Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. W.H.Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1972, p.4. Continue:--

[@garywalker447]

Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. Mendel was in favour of the orthodox doctrine of special creation. Nope. Mendel was very much in favor of Darwin's Theory.

[@captaingaza2389]

Why do Creationists have to LIE so much??? I know Because it's all they have, LIES!!! Lots and lots of LIES!!!

[@primeminister1040]

@@captaingaza2389 that's your counter evidence?, you sound like a triggered religious fanatic, wait... Darwinism is a religion

[@captaingaza2389]

@@primeminister1040 Nope Nothing of the sort, I'm just calling you out for what you really are, a LIAR!!! You LIE because that's all you have left to defend your delusion, LIES!!! Lots and lots of LIES!!!

[@primeminister1040]

@@captaingaza2389 chill out XD

[@ALavin-en1kr]

More people would be interested in science if so many scientists who are atheists, no problem with that, are so hostile to religion so that gets a backlash.

[@cheekymonkeyali]

People are religious because they have no agency to be otherwise.

[@BibleResearchTools]

I would like to see some of the 'science' in the theory of evolution. Thus far, all I have seen is the over-extrapolation of observable data by Darwin, and an elaborate series of just-so stories to make it appear his over-extrapolation is real science. Dan

[@ozowen5961]

So basically you don't explore any actual science, just creationist stuff and their very interesting "interpretations" of actual research.

[@BibleResearchTools]

@possumface2425 wrote, "I love the Just So stories in the bible." There are many just-so stories in science, from the big bang and star formation, to the evolution of one or a few simple organisms into wondrous varieties of life on the planet. But I don't know of any in the Bible. For about 65 years I believed Noah and the flood was only a moral story, until I examined the geologic column for the first time. What a surprise! Those enormous, homogeneous, sorted, sequenced, uneroded, unbioturbated, ocean fossil-laden, sedimentary rock formations blanketing the earth could not possibly have formed without a global flood, and without some massive geological upheavals during the flood. The Bible explains the process in this manner: _"He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth." -- Ps 104:5-9 ESV_ The flood waters formed the world-wide continental shelf when they poured off the earth and eroded away much of the sediment. The continental shelf is still a mystery to secular scientists. For the record, did you ever wonder about the Bible being 3500 years ahead of secular scientists on the matter of a static vs. a formed universe? @possumface2425 wrote, "There's this god guy who makes a man (fully formed of course) out of mud and then makes his girlfriend from one of his ribs!" I am unfamiliar with your god guy. Must be an atheist thing. The God I worship is a spirit. @possumface2425 wrote, "Many years later after much genocide," Are you referring to the hundreds of millions killed or injured during the 20th century by the megalomaniacal evolutionists named Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, among others? Or are you referring to the horrors of eugenics, which plagues mankind until this day? @possumface2425 wrote, "misogyny and stoning of gay people" Are you referring to the god of Islam, or the God of Israel? @possumface2425 wrote, "this god guy walks on water and then has himself killed." That should not be too difficult a concept for those who believe the universe magically appeared out of nothing, and then fine-tuned itself for life. It should be even easier for those who believe life magically appeared out of primordial soup, or for those who believe frogs turn into princes if given enough time. Just for fun, see if you can answer this question: _Proteins are made by molecular machines. Molecular machines are made of proteins. Which came first?_ @possumface2425 wrote, "But wait have you heard the one about the big boat. None of those animals came out alive. The lions ate them." Who said there were lions on the ark? Perhaps you have been fooled into believing Charlie Darwin's Book of Fairy Tales is real. Just saying . . . Dan

[@eunicedavenport9173]

You took out my comments about Islam. He said no,one could answere. I did .They give no forgiveness.

[@donjonsen5295]

Islam,like Mohammed,like to get fucked up the ass

[@tgstudio85]

Islam, that religion of pedophiles?

[@librepensador6906]

Jerry is a boy Rockefeller.

[@Mr4twitch]

I'm not incest. I didn't come from one set of grandparents.

[@NephilimFree]

Once upon a time, we all believed in creation. Then came the rise in secular humanism energized by the laziness of Christians to defend the truth against new "ideas" that were nothing more than replacements for one truth or another, as well as the outsourcing academic and scientific control to those who are non-believers. Then no longer did we all believe in creation, but many fell into believing that philosophical ideas from the secular world scientific because secular men of science said it was so. Today the tables are now turning, and there is a rise in the force of creationism and the Intelligent Design movement that has so greatly threatened the control over academia that secular men of science are resorting more than ever to harsh treatment of Darwinism doubters or disbelievers, that the preachers of evolutionism are now typically afraid to debate the subject of evolution and creation on college campuses for fear of being refuted in front of their own students and the media. Eugenie Scott has stated, "If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten." Evolution is disproved by millions of facts, such as the fact that polymerase is a product of it's own translation, which proves Special Creation. Atheists are obligated to explain how all things can exist if God does not exist. Their claim that God does not exist is in effect a statement that all that exists can come into being without God. The laws of nature about information have refuted the assumption of scientific materialism and the theories of chemical and biological evolution. Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for naturalists because of their rejection of God. Biological science was rudimentary and archaic, and provided no information about the operations of the cell. Modern biology has very greatly changed what is known of genetics and biology. It has been discovered that life is based upon information which is digitally encoded and stored in a more compressed form than man's best computer compression schemes. DNA possesses thousands of 3-dimensional information hierarchies directed to the cell. When the DNA molecule is supercoiled as chromatin, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when the molecule is uncoiled, and when it is not supercoiled, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when it is supercoiled. Genetic information when read by the cell's machinery in one direction produces different information than when it is read by the cell's machinery in the other direction. This feature of design alone is so far superior to man's computer software that it is not currently possible for us to conceive how this could have been done while making all of it's information relevant and critical to the organism. It's individual information sequences are overlapping and nested sharing nucleotides between sequences across the entire molecule. It's sequences across the entire 7 ft. long molecule are organized to conform to linguistics laws which go beyond Zipf's law of Linguistics. It contains codes built upon codes which regulate the use of each other, even when they are distant from each other in the molecule. A recent discovery is that there is a code which lies upon codes for proteins, sharing it's base pairs, and regulates how to express those sequences for proteins. If we liken the mechanical functions of the protein machines of the cell as it interacts with DNA, then the operations mirror the human language properties of phonetics, semantics, syntax, and grammar, and punctuation. The information input and output processing of DNA includes the analytical operations of proofreading, information comparison, cut, insert, copy-and-past, backup and restore, all of which operate by algorithmic operations which possess "if" and "when" statements, just like computer programs. Information, algorithms, and linguistics are all immaterial nature has no potential to produce them. They are products only producible by a mind. During an organism's development, the genetic information instructs the cell on how to turn on and off, like chemical light switches, many sequences of information of the DNA in a supremely complex and yet to be understood orchestral arrangement of various groupings and orders so as to build the structures of the organism. These patterns of genes being switched on and off is so complex that man will likely never be able to decipher it. If you want to believe in evolution because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of our creator, nobody can stop you. But doing so is to be a denialists of the discoveries of modern science - things which the outdated concept of Charles Darwin over 150 yrs ago could not have predicted. Believing in evolution today is as antiquated as it was to believe that flies arose from meat or frogs arose from mud a century prior to Darwin. Atheists in fact hate the Scientific Method and refuse to employ it. Example: 100 years of random genetic mutation experimentation provides consistent results demonstrating that random mutations are destructive and negative to organisms, both biochemically and anatomically, and does not add anything incrementally to the anatomy of organisms. Conclusion? Mutation cannot be a mechanism for accruing change that results in macroevolution. But what does the atheist conclude despite the evidence? They continue believing that random mutation IS a mechanism for accruing change that results in mind-bending complexity, microscopic interdependent machinery, and macroevolution, not because of science, but because their worldview requires it to be, since if evolution were true, random mutation would have to be the base mechanism for evolution, since genetic information defines organisms. In this way, they refuse to come to the correct conclusion because of their paradigm, tossing out the Scientific Method and the conclusion it would require them to accept. Examples of how atheists refuse to comply with the Scientific Method are nearly countless, and found in all fields of science. I would say that based upon this fact, atheists are incapable of being objective, responsible scientists in any field of science which relates to the universe, organic life, or history. Anthony Flew, once the word's foremost atheist academic who's former arguments are the posters upheld by atheists today, converted to a theist and creationist because of the biological evidence. See him dicuss his conversion: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iX_OqaOKfsd2f9k kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5OupHx3nsdoj68

[@Joseph-rv6lc]

I'm impressed Jerry that u can wiggle your ears

[@ozowen5961]

Easy

[@PolemicContrarian]

Jerry: "Would you conclude that Catholicism and paedophilia are compatible with one another?" Yep.

[@thulyblu5486]

+PolemicContrarian As a mean joke yes, but honestly they are not compatible.

[@PolemicContrarian]

Thulyblu Weird then how the leaders of Catholicism have been found guilty of covering up the raping of children for decades then if they're not pro-paedophilia.

[@thulyblu5486]

PolemicContrarian Although that may be true, I would categorize that as corruption, not as a genuine representation of catholic values (I'm an atheist, please don't make me defend Catholicism)

[@PolemicContrarian]

Thulyblu Well in the Bible god demands taking children of villagers they've murdered and having them as slaves and mistresses, and Catholics follow the bible, so...

[@nahshon9998]

Jerry Coyne, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, quotes: "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture." Of Vice and Men The New Republic April 3 2000 p.27 (Note: Phrenology is predicting the future by reading of bumps on a head) "Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all." Nature August 31 2006 p.984 (Note: Evolution produces nothing of use.) "We'll never be able to reconstruct how selection created everything -- evolution happened before we were on the scene, and some things will always be unknown." Why Evolution is True 2009 p.137 (Note there is no observable and testable science) "These mysteries about how we evolved should not distract us from the indisputable fact that we did evolve." Why Evolution is True 2009 p.208 (note: Despite the fact there is no science supporting Darwinism, you must believe.) (Referring to the cover of Jerry Coyne’s book, “Why Evolution is True”, which depicts a dinosaur, a transitional creature, an archaeopteryx and a great blue heron.) Disclaimer: "The jacket depicts a chronological sequence of fossils showing the evolution of birds. We do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three. (Note: the book starts with deception, but you can believe the rest of it.)

[@DamienMearns]

The basis of Darwinism is "...and from the Primordial soup the fist simple celled life appeared..." - the basic problem with this is: there is no such thing as a simple cell. A cell is a fractal of the Universe - immensely complex - small, but staggeringly complex

[@donjonsen5295]

shut the fuck up

[@richthessolonian1842]

Jerry Coyne (in Why Evolution is True), says animals “seem beautifully designed to fit their environments" (isn't this what the creationists have been saying all along?! Why do we insult them when they're the same?) He also states, “we have fossil evidence of only 0.1% to 1% of all species-hardly a good sample of the history of life!” Not enough fossils? Isn't this what creationists been saying all along?

[@BibleResearchTools]

There are no vestigial organs. Dan

[@ozowen5961]

LOL I must say I am always impressed to hear this one. It's important to creationism to deny vestigial organs or processes because if they are found then creationism is in trouble. Well, the sad news is that vestigiality is constant. All/ most organs, structures and processes and systems are always in this state. They have several functions at any one time, and the primary functions recede as primary as other functions take over. Creationists, for example, will happily inform the gullible that whale hip girdles are used to ensure the sexual act can proceed successfully. And indeed that is their current function. The previous function of being the anchor point for the now no longer active and barely present legs is a thing to ignore. The human tail bone, the only bone structure with a variable number is no longer a tail- except in occasional, rare and unfortunate cases where the genes for the tail are expressed and an amputation is required. (true tails Dan, I know there is another deformity that is not a true tail). Vestigial as a tail. It now has other uses. The legless lizard's legs no longer are used for walking, their ambulatory quality is vestigial. They do have the function of assisting with digging. Humans have a now vestigial and almost non functioning visual system. It doesn't register in consciousness at all. Nearly gone.

[@kamra99a]

Atheists care about what is true. Christians care about what provides emotional comfort. Don't knock religion till you try it. It's fun.

[@danminer5343]

Atheists rely upon myth and fantacy

[@ozowen5961]

@@danminer5343 Myth and fantasy is the stuff creationism is based on and scaffolded by. young Earth- nonsense. Global Noachian flood- did not happen. An ark with a sample pair (or seven pairs) every creature on board- utter fantasy. Special creation of kinds- tosh.

[@danminer5343]

@@ozowen5961 - You know nothing about the observable scientific facts showing that the world is around 6,000 years and you refuse to know about them because you have been trained to avoid all science that is against your axiom on the ancient myth of evolutionism. What you were told first with great repetition in life is extremely hard to change, but believe me, it is possible if you study the opposing model enough to open you mind to the truth. If you study geology enough and are shown the actual observable facts in detail with an open mind then it should become impossible for you to ever believe that the earth is older than a few thousand years, but only if you want to know the truth. An excellent way to start is to watch all of the "IS GENESIS HISTORY" series on geology by those who have researched and studied this issue for decades. If you do then I guarantee you that you will not be able to refute what they teach. As for the Ark, never has any scientific reason existed that would be against its reality, which is why evolutionists have invented so many unscientific illogical straw man arguments against it which have all been easy to refute. If you refuse to learn the truth, then shame on you, but if you want and search for the truth the I applaud you.

[@ozowen5961]

@@danminer5343 Your collection of false statements was wrong because: "You know nothing about the observable scientific facts showing that the world is around 6,000 years and you refuse to know about them because you have been trained to avoid all science that is against your axiom on the ancient myth of evolutionism." 1) I left creationism because of the lies. I'm very familiar with that nonsense. I later learned about the scientific truths that the creationists kept from me. 2) Science works by disproof. All positive evidence for any assertion can only be regarded in the light of any assertion made for it, if is not based on a disproven assertion or has addressed all the evidence for a disproven assertion. In other words, any claim you pretend exists for a young Earth cannot be understood that way, until every disproof for a young Earth is addressed and all of the evidence dealing with disproof has been shown to stand together in a unit4ed and cohesive model. eg: You can't discredit all varve laminae globally unless you can explain how any suddenly deposited laminae were formed and survived while recently laid and thus very fragile, when a large, super strong currented flood was impacting all those laminae external to those quiet, still lakes. Then you have to be able to explain how they survived massive tectonic upheaval, so close to any mountain range they were near. (ie: within around 1,000 miles as a minimum) "it is possible if you study the opposing model enough to open you mind to the truth. " There is no opposing model to the Darwinian model of evolution. Not really. Not in science. Just in the imaginations of creationists. "An excellent way to start is to watch all of the "IS GENESIS HISTORY" series on geology by those who have researched and studied this issue for decades. " I have watched them, and commented frequently. They are nonsense. "As for the Ark, never has any scientific reason existed that would be against its reality" Other than no wooden boat (including a floating box) of those dimensions, can be structurally sound enough for anything more than a placid lake. Other than there is zero evidence of any single point of origin for all species on the planet. No Turkish marsupials or monotremes. No Middle Eastern sloths. A complete lack of Israeli or African Komodo Dragons.

[@danminer5343]

@@ozowen5961 The last first. RIght after the animals left the Ark they would have traveled to where we find them today. We would not expect each kind to remain near the Ark. God would know where to guide them. The further back in time we go the higher talents mankind had, before mankind received so many mutations in their brains. By today's standards everybody back then would have been considered an amazing genius. You can show nothing scientifically wrong about the flood model except it does not agree with your world view. All observations in life show that that the world started out perfect and very good with no mutational load in humans, and that mutations are leading only to extinctions and that no new information is evolving into existence. Studies and experimentation in sediments being laid down prove that you are wrong.

[@ozowen5961]

There are vestigial organs, systems and structures. The process is always happening. Creationists have a pretence that this is not so. But it is just pretence. A lie.

[@rlittlejohn2772]

Only problem with the picture example the first female would be an African. Not Karen

[@Hhjhfu247]

A