jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (237 posts)

Has anyone heard of this yet?

  1. 0
    Beth37posted 2 years ago
    1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What about it?

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I thought he made a powerful point. I wondered if anyone had watched the video.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The interviewer used logical fallacies as his arguments. For example, his logic leading to a creator was based on the questions posed, such as, can you make a grain of sand? If not, then a creator exists. Have you ever stolen something? Then, you are a thief and a sinner, Jesus died for your sins. Can you give me one example in which science observed one species evolving into another? No? Then a creator exists.

          It's silly logical fallacies like this we see here on these forums, too. They are no more valid coming from an interviewers catching people off guard in the streets. smile

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Indeed, considering some of those ppl's backgrounds (and ages) one would think they would have been able to better answer the questions. However, I didn't feel his point was 'because you have no observable evidence of evolution, there is a Creator.' I feel his point was clearly, 'Because you have no observable proof of evolution, will you admit you have accepted evolution on faith?'

            He did a very good job pointing out, respectfully, that they believe in books of the past and teachers of the past, having *no observable proof of evolution and not being able to give one example of any animal who has changed in "kind" as Darwinian evolution suggests.

            If a person steals or lies, they are a liar and a thief, of course his only point there being to help a person see, that even when one thinks one is a good person, we are all, in fact, not really good according to God's laws, or man's.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You don't seem to get it, the questions were fallacies, they weren't valid questions to begin with They've been asked before in one from or another and are still not valid.

              No, we can't make grains of sand, but that question completely ignores the comparisons of time.

              Could a scientist, given millions of years and a laboratory the size of the earth create things like living cells and grains of sand? Probably.

              Can we watch as one creature evolves into another? Of course not, but that too ignores the comparisons of time. Could we watch one species evolve into another over millions of years? Probably.

              You can easily see how his questions are invalid.



              Here, he is trying to make the distinction that faith in hard evidence is the same as faith in religious beliefs, but that's just another fallacy. Everyone who understands evolution understands it the same way as everyone else, but that isn't the case at all with religious faith.



              We have many examples, some of those were presented in the video, only to be shot down with the ongoing fallacy by the interviewer, the deceitful comparison of time.



              Bullocks. That is another fallacy. It judges a person by rare acts of immoral behavior in their lifetimes, often never repeated and despite the fact those acts are overwhelmingly insignificant by the many ongoing, daily acts of compassion and good those same people exhibit the rest of their lives.

              1. bBerean profile image59
                bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                So to be clear you are saying that perhaps,  given a live, intelligent designer, (the scientist), and the existing laboratory with all of it's different resources, we might be able to create sand, given millions of years to do it?  Doesn't your theory remove all of that?  No life, no intelligent designer (scientist), and no raw materials or at best a molten mess that came from nowhere?  How is that a viable answer?  How exactly is the "exploding dot from nowhere to life, given enough time" premise superior or more logical than a Creator?

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If nature can do it, so can men, given time.



                  No, it doesn't.



                  It's called evidence, there is none for a creator and plenty for evolution. Deal with it.

              2. 0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                An Atheist's entire argument is that God cannot be seen or touched so He cannot be proven. He is simply stating you have based your belief on the testimony of men... who by the way also have no observational examples. I did find the (un-observable) examples given to be as ludicrous as you find the idea of a supreme being to be.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That would be untrue.

                  God cannot be detected by any method known to mankind - not just our 5 senses.  God's actions, if any, cannot be correctly attributed to Him.  Descriptions of God vary so widely most have to be lies.  God's location, although given definitively, is unknown.  God requires another universe, also undetectable by any method known to man.

                  There is thus zero evidence, whether through our senses, our mechanical senses, observed results of His actions or any circumstantial observations.  He thus not only cannot be proven we cannot find the smallest bit of evidence to show He might be there.  Just claims from various people that their "feelings" say He exists.

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That would be untrue.

                    It is such a bummer though to take part in these "conversations" cause they play out in your head in the instant you go to type your response. 'I will say this, then you will say that.'

                    That's why it's not a real conversation, it's a circular argument. I remember when I went to Africa, I shared the gospel with ppl who had not yet heard. They were so grateful that someone had come and told them about God sending His son so that we might be saved (and yes I hear you saying they are simple or we were conniving... etc.), but their hearts were so un-jaded. I remember a very old man, he was fairly crippled and walked with a cane. We were baptizing ppl who had given their hearts to God, and he walked something like 25 miles b/c it meant so much to him. Again, I can hear the things you're saying, but it was extraordinarily lovely. It's a simple truth, it's a beautiful truth and scoffing can't change that.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You might want to pay attention once in a while to know that isn't an atheists entire argument, far from it.



                  That is where he is wrong.



                  That is entirely false, there is plenty of observational evidence for evolution.



                  That is because you have no understanding of evolution, just like the interviewer in the video and the people who run the website you posted.

            2. 60
              Paul Froehlichposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No one has ever observed the earth making a revolution around the sun, and no one has observed atoms either.  The inability to view protons, electrons and neurons in atoms hasn’t invalidated atomic theory.

              Fossils have been discovered for transitional organisms.  The Archaeopteryx  from 60 Ma was intermediate between reptiles (dinosaurs) and birds; it had feathers, while the skeleton is reptilelike, tho the skull & beak are birdlike.  Tiktaalik was intermediate between fish and tetrapods (amphibians).  Numerous hominids have been discovered between apes and Homo sapiens.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So someone makes a video of questions asked to Atheists and edits and only reveals the clips he likes and you think that is revealing. I couldn't get past the first few minutes and I personally can name evidence for evolution that we can see today. I imagine he edited those out of his film. Rather misleading. Off the top of my head the horse, donkey and Zebra are examples of species becoming other species as is the African and Asian elephants.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So like Melissa, you did not watch the video, but chose to comment.
            Thank you.

    2. kess profile image60
      kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A systematic and total destruction of an arrogant lie....

      Only to replace it with another.

    3. mr-veg profile image56
      mr-vegposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      More than the theory I liked the creation Museum ad smile

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        lol. You did?

        1. mr-veg profile image56
          mr-vegposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well Yeah wink It made me think of the clip as an preface to the Ad smile ..  so did you like the same smile  And what's special this Christmas at your end smile

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Just being with family.

    4. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
      Slarty O'Brianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. It's rubbish.

    5. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I got as far as five minutes before I lost interest. Soooo asking a number of science students to describe a specific evolutionary event who then fail is somehow evidence against evolution? Try the same tactic on a Southern Bible Fundy regarding some random passages of the OT, and they will similarly flounder.

      Evolutionary science is a complex thing, not a subject that can be explained to the cynical and scientifically illiterate in a 30 second sound bite. Do you seriously think that the interviewer would be interested in a scientist explaining some complex detail for 30 minutes? How long before the interviewer got bored or the scientist got bored with dumbing down a response to a clueless idiot? The interviewer is just trying to catch people out on the spot, which proves nothing but immaturity.

      No doubt this film was selectively edited to remove anyone who could satisfy the interviewers childish whims.

      How about a fairer challenge: ask those being interviewed to put together a report in 24 hours outlining the evidence for evolution, then compare the report quality to those from a bunch of creationists outlining the evidence for creationism?

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So then that would be 5. Thank you for commenting.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It can easily be seen in less than 5 minutes the dishonest tactics of the interviewer, no need to go on from there.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            One might assume such a thing if one were not to watch something in its entirety.
            Assumptions are of course not intelligent info, they are assumed intelligent info, making them, in actuality... empty guesses.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I did watch it, that's why I know it fails from the first 5 minutes.



              Do you even know what you're talking about?

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, Im talking about commenting on a subject you are knowledgeable about and one you pretend to have knowledge of. The noticeable difference would be engaging conversation and hot air.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The interviewer is certainly spewing hot air, there is no engaging conversation going on in that vid and we know you have no clue about evolution, so that too would be just hot air.

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well I thank you for your input. smile

    6. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Trust in scientific theories (including evolution) is not based on faith. It is based on the fact that the method used to derive such theories (scientific method) has a proven track record. The knowledge that has been acquired through the application of scientific method, serves as evidence that this method is a useful way of acquiring such knowledge, or identifying inaccuracies in that knowledge. In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest divine revelation is a useful way of acquiring this type of knowledge. The title of the video is therefore misleading. It would be more accurate to call it: Scientific Method Vs Divine Revelation, as that is what the interviewer is ultimately comparing. In relation to gaining knowledge about how the world works, there is no contest between the two. Scientific method has simply proven to be the most useful way of acquiring such knowledge. However scientific method has so far been less successful in enabling us to gain other types of knowledge, e.g. whether there is an ultimate meaning to life. That is the domain of other philosophies (science is a type of philosophy) and religion.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It got a little loopy at the end there, but...who are you and what have you done with Don W?

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Does this comment confound your expectations in some way? Not sure why.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.

      2. 0
        Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, thanks for your post.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Beth, what is your opinion of the video and why?

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Aw, how sweet you are for asking. No one asked me what I thought of it. lol
            Im sure this isn't a set up. wink

            I have watched Ray C. for many years though haven't really read his stuff since the late 90s. I always like his approach. He has a main point to share and he sticks to it, thats ok with me, it's his prerogative. I know he believes with his whole heart that souls will be lost and he simply wants to make sure he's done his part to see that everyone has heard the good news and has considered both sides.

            I do believe his point was not to say, "Hey, Im gonna prove your belief is false." His point was to say, "Your belief is as much faith as mine is." I believe he used the same kind of arguments that Atheists have used for years, which again, is not a bad thing. I really appreciated seeing the visuals of walking whales etc. b/c to me they very much looked as ridiculous to me as my faith looks to you.

            That's about it radman... I appreciate you asking.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              If you think he uses the same kind of arguments that Atheists do you really need to learn about the accepted rules for logic and evidence. 

              Not those used in religious arguments like his, those used in the sciences.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I spose we can agree to disagree.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No, not really.  I don't mean to be snarky or mean, but you really don't seem to understand that there is a difference in these things, let alone what it is.

                  Both sets of rules have a place and a use, but that place is not in a discussion in the "opposing" field.  Neither set works when used in the wrong setting; what is acceptable and useful in one is not in the other and vice versa.  Those religious folk that fail to understand that are often confounded and insulted when either they do not understand the rules in use or use the rules in the wrong setting (and so are the atheists, for that matter).  You need to understand the difference.

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The truth is, I don't feel like constantly defending my point of view. Life's too short... this particular point is not vital enough for me to drum up the effort. I prefer to save my arguments for things that are of more importance than why I believe the arguments Comfort used were similar to the ones Atheists use. Even the time I have spent on this short paragraph is slightly irritating to me, but it is my choice. I can only divide my attention in so many different directions and this is not one of the directions I want to spend a lot of time on. I respect that you disagree... maybe someday I will feel like discussing minute issues, this is not that day.

              2. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                LOL. If they were logical they would not be atheist, but would be agnostic.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks, I didn't get as far as walking whale, but what I can do if you like is put together a list of mammals that are direct links between cows and whales in the evolutionary process. There are BTW many mammals that have evolved at intermittent steps between whales and land mammals.

              I take it by your post you don't believe evolution is a possibility?

      3. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Less successful? What exactly is the meaning of life and how has the sciences not given you the answer. It may not be the answer you want but it is a valid and understandable, uncomplicated answer.

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You are asking me the meaning of life? Is it 42? Sorry, but I have no idea. I do know that scientific theories do not, and cannot, address anything beyond what we are able to verify through observation. This is a strength because it makes science rigorous and so useful - a scientific hypothesis is elevated to a scientific theory only after it has been well substantiated (often over many decades) through observation and experiment - but it also means that if something is not observable, then it is not knowable (scientifically). God as a hypothesis is not falsifiable through the application of scientific method. Phenomenon attributed to god may be falsifiable and therefore within the domain of science, but the general concept of god as described in traditional Christian theology is not. Billions of Christians cite god as the ultimate meaning of life. Science simply cannot speak to that claim. There is no scientific theory that tells us the meaning of life, or whether there is any ultimate meaning. Sure, we have opinions on the subject, but opinions are all they are.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, there are opinions on the subject and no, it is not the field of science.  So what field DO those opinions belong to?  Opinions that are purely subjective and without merit outside the individual?

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I take issue with the assertion that opinions are without merit outside the individual. That statement needs to be qualified to be meaningful.

              To which field do opinions about the meaning of life belong? Two spring to mind: Philosophy (specifically metaphysics and epistemology) and theology.

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Science is not the end all answer to a full and meaningful life. We don't sit over morning coffee to discuss string theory. We don't go to museums to look at mathematical equations. We don't limit our purchases of cd's to scientists giving lectures.

              Science broadens our understanding of the world about us. It plays an invaluable role in enhancing our lives. But, your statement shows a lack of understanding of all the things which add quality and depth to our lives. Were humanity to limit themselves solely to science we would be a very shallow species.

              Consequently, if you feel that opinions on the subject lack merit outside of the mind, why do you express them?

      4. jstfishinman profile image79
        jstfishinmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What do you do when a hundred years of scientific evidence is proven wrong and all of science has to be re-proven using variables instead of constants?
        Case in point, light has recently been proven to be of variable speeds instead of a constant like Einstein thought.
        Everything based on Einsteins Theory of Relativity will have to be re-thought out. That means all previous evidence is called into question.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          As it always is. I suspect you may have to learn a little more about Relativity before you rule it out.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          This will always happen.  What we thought was a general, universe wide absolute truth, turns out to be not so true in weird, different and exotic environments.  Or just in something we never thought of or tested in.

          We deal with it - it is completely normal and accepted.

        3. EncephaloiDead profile image59
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Provide citation, please. Light is invariable.



          Sorry, but Relativity is quite intact.

          1. jstfishinman profile image79
            jstfishinmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://www.examiner.com/article/new-res … a-variable
            This will give you a place to start, but there are many proven studies going on now that are stopping light for a period of time. Some of the papers have all ready been accepted by science journals.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Not sure about your link: key words are "theoretically" and "potentially measurable"; it does not seem that the hypothesis has been shown at all.  It seems to be all just thought and idea at this point.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, not interested in some pop sci website, please provide the proper peer reviewed journals that show the evidence.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                This is the type of thing that bothers me. The quick dismissal of ideas which run contrary to one's own. From what I've read the idea that light might not be constant is being explored quite vigorously within the scientific community. If so, all it would mean is that we have acquired another piece of information in the search for answers concerning our universe.

                I suppose many are quick to defend current ideas against new ones simply because they fear what conclusions others might incorrectly jump to. Or, they fear the information might reinforce falsely held beliefs. But, is that prudent? Is it not simply mimicking behavior patterns? There's another thread going briskly where a Christian refuses to consider alternative information. I suppose, out of fear that to do so might alter already formed conclusions. The exchange here bears some resemblance.

                1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                  Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Agree. I read the article and it sounds reasonable and nobody is making an absolute claims here. When physicists from Max Planck are looking into this, it is nothing tha can be simply dismissed. Better to wait for the grown-ups with letters after their names to do the peer reviews.

                  I notice though that even if true, it's not likely to have any great effect on cosmology, so quite why the poster who at a cursory glance appears to be a creationist posted it Im at a loss.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I wouldn't know why it was posted. I'd hate to make a judgment. I think, many make assumptions about why others make comments. Conclusions are not written in stone. Small pieces of information gradually come together and the individual can change their cosmological view.Attempting to bottleneck the free flow of information and the exchange of ideas serves no one, in the end.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Once again, perhaps you need to read the words that are in the post as opposed to making up something that isn't there and then commenting on your own words rather than the ones written.

                  There was no dismissal of ideas, there was a dismissal of a pop sci website in favor of a peer reviewed journal, that's actually how science works, Emile.



                  And, what have you read exactly? The same pop sci websites? Or, are you just making stuff up again?



                  Or, they would like to see the current ideas in scientific journals, not pop sci websites.



                  Yes, just keep making up bs there, Emile.



                  It would if that was indeed the exchange, but it wasn't, it was an exchange that YOU dishonestly made up yourself, either deliberately or as a result of poor reading comprehension skills. Which was it, Emile?

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I think I've addressed most of this in a response to you on another thread. Should I repeat it, or simply let you rebut my rebuttal there?

        4. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          All scientific theories, however well known and accepted, are only tentative. They are accepted only on the basis that they are currently the best explanation of a given phenomenon, as verified through observation and experiment. The modification of hypotheses is a fundamental part of scientific method. It's why science is so useful. Through this process, knowledge is built up incrementally and we gradually get a more accurate understanding of the different phenomena we observe in the universe. If we held on to scientific ideas just because they have been around for a long time, then science would loose its rigor and become less useful.

          I don't think it's quite the case that "a hundred years of scientific evidence is proven wrong". The upshot of these studies is that there is a "theoretical possibility that the speed of light is not fixed". That's an interesting hypothesis, but it is only hypothesis. The scientific community will not accept something just because it's interesting. Theoretical results have got to be substantiated by others. These studies will need to be peer-reviewed and confirmed; Another aspect of scientific method that contributes to its rigor. Scientific knowledge is not based on the opinions and personality of an author. If no one can substantiate the theoretical results in these studies, then they will not be accepted. If the results can be substantiated then existing ideas (however widely accepted) will have to be modified accordingly. There are no sacred texts in science.

    7. EGamboa profile image86
      EGamboaposted 2 years ago in reply to this
      1. 0
        Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ive only read half of that so far... The human body is truly amazing. Yes, I do not see how it could be viewed as anything but a supernatural design... it is so completely complex. To this day, I hold on to the argument about sex feeling good. I can see how one might imagine that an evolved creature might procreate, but the fact that it feels good is, to me at least, the thing that suggests someone was giving us incentive to fulfill this purpose.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It's also full of completely useless things that make its designer look like a drunk!

          The uvula, the tailbone, the appendix, wisdom teeth...

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's funny. The speaker in that video I posted spoke on the importance of the tailbone and the appendix... seems like just b/c we don't know the reason for something, doesn't mean there isn't one.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It would seem far more likely that those animals that are born without a strong urge, with lots of "It feels so good!" built in, don't procreate.  They don't have a reason to.

          So they have no offspring and their line quickly dies out - the root of evolution at work.  No god necessary, just nerve endings in the right places.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            However, *mankind is built that way, and according to your research on the specific animals that you claim don't orgasm(?), we would die out as well. So again, why would we be created with incentive to have sex? B/c we were designed that way. A creator had a plan, for us to procreate and He knew that we would need incentive and reward... without a designer, there is no explanation for the fact that sex brings great pleasure.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Or chance provided, on the 10,000th "try", the needed incentive, which has remained through all the (successful) changes.  No god necessary, no "creation" in the sense you use it.  Just another random chance.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                That is not at all plausible.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Why?  Why do you assume that the first try at bisexual reproduction was successful?  It would seem much more likely that there were a great many failures before the first success.  It would also seem quite likely that any future effort that removed the incentive would fail, resulting in a failed organism or species.

                  Understand that "try" and "effort" do NOT represent any intelligence; merely the random mutations that always occur in living organisms.  Likewise, "failure" and "success" represent merely a living, reproducing organism, not a step towards a pre-ordained result.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You don't see how evolution explains why we enjoy sex? Are you serious?

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                We know that pregnancy can occur thru simple steps. The seed needs to penetrate the egg. But we were created in such a way that for the seed to get to the egg, both the man and the woman are able to receive great pleasure. This is an incentive based act. The theory of evolution does not allow room for this stipulation. It is only with a designer that this makes any sense at all.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The theory of evolution almost requires that kind of stipulation.  Without it there is no reason to reproduce, after all, and the species quickly dies out.

                2. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "Only with a designer does this make sense" translates to mean that it's the only way you can imagine it making sense,  which makes it the argument from ignorance/incredulity.   It doesn't make it true.  Since you know very little about evolution,  and all you DO know about it comes from the likes of Ray comfort,  I find it a little disingenuous that you're making claims about what evolution can and cannot explain.

                3. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm afraid you don't or won't understand evolution, I can't help you there, but I will tell that the women doesn't need to experience pleasure to become pregnant. The sexual urges do not fall in line with what the bible teaches. If God really wanted us to be monogamous we would be more like certain birds that mate for life. A look at the different sexual practices between chimps and bonobos may help you understand why these two closely related species are so different.

                4. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It seems quite the reverse to me.  A mindless system causes those who enjoy sex to have more offspring.  God could just make us so we copulate in any given circumstance.  In fact many churches say that doing it just for fun is against (ergo not part of) his plan.

        3. EGamboa profile image86
          EGamboaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, the idea was that it's impossible for this system to 'evolve'…per any imagined sequence of event. smile

    8. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I have now! lol

      Thanks for sharing. Enjoyed it.

    9. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I find it interesting that an ad for an atheist dating site is often at the bottom of the page.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    Spoiler Alert: Evolution wins.

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      million to one you just read the link.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Nope. I opened it up and saw this:

        "Commended by AFA, Ken Ham, Kirk Cameron..."

        And then I laughed for about 2 minutes. And then I posted.

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I was wondering if any grown ups had heard of it.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, that was my reaction... except I looked at the length of the video as well. I decided that I wasn't willing to give up 34 minutes of my limited life that I would never get back to watch idiots trying to do intellectual backflips to try to prove something that I don't give a crap about anyway.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well at least you took the time to comment.

    2. 0
      christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      thanks. i didnt really wanna waste 38 minutes of my life to hear the same old regurgitated information on evolution.

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I spose since you didn't watch it, you wont have to worry about whether or not it offers anything of value. Thanks for commenting.

      2. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        He is wrong as usual - You'll want to watch the video.  Evolution doesn't win.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image78
          Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Evolution doesn't win" translates into "due to my poor education, and the fact that I have a problem with rational thought, I'll stick to something that is easy for me to understand. For instance,  how an invisible magic man created everything in six days and start life in a plush garden with a talking snake!" For those simple minded, brainwashed people, my advice is to stay out of discussions where big words like "evolution" and "big bang". Here's a link for something easier to understand www.disney.com

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That makes four, at least, who have not watched it... that would make you an uneducated commentator, I suppose.

          2. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            roll

          3. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A common atheist approach. lol
            It seems the only ones that "truly understand" evolution are the highly educated, rational, free thinkers. If you are not one of them, you are lost, and without hope in this world.
            So, you are left with only two options;
            1) Educate yourself, and become one of them, or
            2) Believe what they tell/teach you (faith).

            I watched the video, and, contrary to critics, Ray asks very poignant questions, that even the pHd's had difficulty answering.
            Where does that leave "average Joe"?

            It seems to me, from this and countless other forum discussions on the subject, that common sense has been discarded for elusive arguments which lead down "rabbit trails" from which no-one ever returns.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ray Comfort lost all credibility to comment on evolution with his banana-gate incident.

              However the irony still stands that whilst creationists demand ever more evidence for evolution, they singularly fail to provide a shed for creationism and do not believe they are required to do so.

              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Faith is faith.
                One is directed at a designer (ID),
                the other at evolution.

                If you write someone off for one POV, you are indeed a shallow person.

                Irrespective. The question remains.
                Which "theory" better explains the evidence at hand?

                1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                  Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no faith required in evolution, as it is based upon observable evidence, our genetc make up for example. You say it's faith based because you have never looked into it objectively, everything you know about it comes from creationists.

                  Ray Comfort is not a scientist and his banana-gate demonstrates a propensity to jump to unqualified conclusions.

                  Creation 'theory' (it does not really qualify as a theory, perhaps a hypothesis) provides no evidence, as exemplified by creationists like yourself.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Right there on your hand should be all the evidence for evolution you need. The colour of your skin will tell you which environment your ancestors have evolved to thrive. Skin colour as it turns out is a rather complex genetic process where many many genes are involved.

                3. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Evolution, obviously. To understand evolution requires thinking, not faith.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    But it sounds so much better if the scientist can be accused of using faith instead of reason, just like the theologian does.  If you can't make the believer into a scientist, equalizing the two, then drag the scientist down to the theology level of reason.

                  2. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Both require faith.

                    Think all you want, but your conclusions will be faith based.
                    Sooner or later you will run into information supplied by others, and you will have to take their word for it (faith). Sure, it will be logical, for you, because, your worldview will (probably) support the concept.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, it doesn't require a whole lot of brain power or education to understand evolution, but it does require you do actually have to think. Is that where the problem lies, perhaps?



              So, you aren't interested in educating yourself or not interested in thinking?

  3. EGamboa profile image86
    EGamboaposted 2 years ago

    They lost me in the first 30 seconds when they all said Evolution is a fact. It is a theory.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So is gravity.  A theory. 

      Do you doubt it as well?

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        To play Devil's (God's?) Advocate, gravity is a law, not a theory.

        Heliocentrism, atoms, cells, bacteria, the Big Bang, and plate tectonics, on the other hand, are scientific theories, just like Evolution.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Uh Huh.  And the concept of what is causing the attraction is a law?  The thing we term "gravity"?

          I don't think so...

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, he's right. It became the Law of Gravity some time back.

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Gravity is both law and theory. It's law because there are equations involved that provide accurate measurements. It's a theory because it's an explanation for how something works.

          Yes, there are some things that are just laws and others just theories, but gravity is both.

          It is also a fact. That's three. smile

        3. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Without fundamental forces we wouldn't exist, without the theory of evolution or the creation story we would still exist but life would be boring if we have nothing to argue about wouldn't it!

      2. 0
        christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        what does gravity have to do with evolution? evolution is a THEORY because it hasnt been proven. kind of like the THEORY of relativity that some hubbers were convincing me was fact, when it isnt. People are very good at takling about things like they are undisputed when that isnt the case at all.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          LOL. Theories are collections of facts, dude.



          Yeah, it is fact.

        2. JMcFarland profile image92
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Um... do you realize that a theory in science is the graduation point?   That it doesn't get any higher than a theory?   It doesnt become law... laws and theories serve two different purposes.  In order for something to become a theory,  it is, in fact,  proven - otherwise it's a hypothesis.

        3. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Do I really have to explain this again? Scientific theories are different from rhetorical theories.

          In science, a theory is a collection of facts that coalesces into a larger truth that has been tested numerous times and has been found to be true. For example, evolution is a theory based on the many examples of transitional forms and prototype versions of modern animals (as well as a multitude without any modern equivalents) present all throughout the fossil record. Just like the Big Bang is a theory based on the facts of the universe's expansion, omnipresent radio static and heat signatures uniform all throughout it, and visual evidence of early stellar formations at the edge of the visible universe. Just like heliocentrism is a theory based on the fact that we orbit the sun and so do many other things. Just like atomic theory is a theory based on the fact that we can look through a powerful microscope and see the little buggers.

          "Theory" as you know it, in the rhetorical sense, does have a scientific equivalent. In science, it's called a "hypothesis."

        4. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It has everything to do with gravity.  Things falling is fact..  Gravity is a theory.  Given this, are you a gravity skeptic too?

      3. Chris Neal profile image84
        Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That's a false parallel. Gravity we can see. There is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity. There is a Theory of Evolution but not a Law of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution is supposed to work, but for those who believe it explains how this all happened without God usually have to start from idea that there is no God.

        1. JMcFarland profile image92
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That's simply not true, Chris.  No scientific theory "graduates" to become a law.  In science, laws and theories are two distinctly separate things.  A theory is the highest something can get.  A law isn't "better".

          No one has to assume that there is no god in order to understand and accept evolution.  Thousands of believers accept evolution but believe that god put evolution in place and started it in motion.  Evolution doesn't really address the beginnings of life.  It addresses what happened once life was here.

          I've met several people who claim that they can prove evolution to ANYONE'S satisfaction - and they've done it countless times - for believers of all faiths.  There is no faith required.  Just understanding and careful study.

          1. Chris Neal profile image84
            Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            We actually had the conversation before about Theory vs. Law and I did get it. I hope I didn't imply that I still think a theory graduates into a law. I was trying to say that while there is a Theory of Gravity (as wilderness pointed out) and a Theory of Evolution, there is also a Law of Gravity but there is no Law of Evolution. That's what I meant by it being a false parallel.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.  The word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The question remains are there laws of evolution?
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_te … _evolution

              I admit to copying and pasting a bit with that sorry. Less spelling errors for me.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                And some of that comes awfully close to being a law for evolution.

                The probability, for instance, of a mutation from a gamma ray.  The math of basic genetics and results of gene combinations.  Statistical analysis of survival rates for specific species attributes, along with prediction of long term survival.

                One could almost say there are indeed "laws" for evolution - mostly statistical/probability based but still very much analytical statements backed by mathematics.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  There are certainly facts of evolution as for the laws I'll have to leave that up to the people studying it.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, I understand that two blue eyed people will always produce a blue eyed child, unless a mutation occurs.  And that two brown eyed people with brown/blue genes will produce a blue eyed child 1 out of 4 times on average.  Would those not be  laws of evolution?  If, at least, they were tied to survival/reproduction?

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, but lots of things have statistical/probability mathematics, but that doesn't make them laws.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh?  Is the rate of radioactive decay a "law"?  Or a "theory"?  I would have said "law", and it is purely a matter of probabilities, with the probability determined by the material itself.

              2. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you, although I did say I had the conversation before with JM and I did get it then.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              There are equations for gravity which is why it is a law and a theory, there are none for evolution, which is why it is only a theory. There is no false parallel here.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You can see gravity?  What color is it?  Bright or dim? 

          You cannot see gravity but you can see the result of gravity; the ball falling for instance.  You can see the result of gravity just as you can see the results of evolution; a giraffe with a long neck.

          1. Chris Neal profile image84
            Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Where in that quote did I say we can see gravity?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              From your post:
              "Gravity we can see. "

              Did I misunderstand (again!)?

              1. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                No, I was typing to fast. What I meant was that we can see the effect of gravity, the 'what goes up must come down' of gravity.

    2. 0
      Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That is their belief... he challenges this belief and asks them very good questions. You should watch it all the way thru.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        He does no such thing, he doesn't challenge anyone or asks good questions, he delivers fallacies instead. Anyone watching this video would see the dishonest tactics used by the interviewer. it is pure rubbish. Only those who are steeped in Christianity and have no clue about evolution would likely see that as a challenge. It's laughable.

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You know "rubbish" is a British word, for the most part. I have said for months that you were a retired, British school teacher. Science most likely. Am I right?
          You still didn't share your favourite colour. (You all have done so much for the U. We Americans have totally under utilized it, but we tried to make up for it with our usage of the Z.)

          1. Disappearinghead profile image88
            Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ive often wondered why you Americans can't pronounce the following words correctly either: aluminum, jaguar, Nissan, vitamins.

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              As an immigrant in the US I am just happy that no one cares how you pronounce things here.  As long as the meaning gets across.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Garage, cookie.

              1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Tomato, titanium,

            3. 0
              Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Vitamins always sounds so strange, but I always enjoy "lit trally." You all found a way to cut the syllables in half. It's very economical.

    3. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It is no more or less of a theory than God. So what has that got to do with anything?

  4. fraa profile image60
    fraaposted 2 years ago

    nice!look it.thanks for sharing the website

  5. WiccanSage profile image95
    WiccanSageposted 2 years ago

    Hi, I don't go on the forums often,but I like to follow some threads and this was interesting.

    I have seen that video before myself; a friend challenged me to watch it. Like many others here, I found it nothing but flawed arguments (logical fallacies, misunderstanding of evolution, oversimplification of complex theories, etc.)

    But I thought you guys might find this equally as interesting for the discussion:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGKyzVaF9sI

    It's a show where a group of creationists are brought on a tour to talk to scientists and see museums about evolution to be given a more in depth understanding of it.

    I thought it makes some good counterpoints to the original video posted.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for that. Seems as though faced with the evidence only one person, maybe two said they may need to rethink and do some research. I enjoyed the guy calling the director a bully while telling everyone else what to say.

    2. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I've seen that before, thanks for posting though. It really is truely sad the depth of indoctrination.

  6. oceansnsunsets profile image87
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    I appreciate you sharing that video, and it is very interesting to watch how people handle the fact they are believing in something they have been told over and over is scientific, but turns out to be really a philosophy at play, and beliefs. (Even if Darwinian Evolution is 100% true.)  In fairness, the question over the at least the first third of the video is a question that there isn't an answer to.   I think they must have been trying to make a point though, and it seems to have done that.

    Have you ever read a science book,  or been listening to a science professor say that "here is where the science ends, and the philosophy begins?"  There are many people willing to weigh in with their philosophy on what the evolution we do observe "must mean, or likely means."  They went far past science to arrive at some big conclusions but presented it all as "science."   

    My point is that if philosophy, and personally held worldviews are allowed to be part of what explains what we DO observe, why can't all philosophies and worldviews take a stab at what would make the most sense while keeping with the science we DO know?  Rather, it is secretly inserted and people are told how to believe and don't really often realize it until they are questioned or think hard for themselves about it.  Just a very interesting thing to observe.

  7. oceansnsunsets profile image87
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    I have to say that I can't believe what all the people said about their dog or their neighbor drowning. It was tough to answer which they would save, and they thought hard about it, then went with saving the dog over their neighbor. To me, that is unbelievable.

 
working