The Scariest 127 Seconds on Youtube

Submitted by: sbeelz 6 years ago in Science

Ohio ""science"" teacher ensuring that his students beliefs aren"t disturbed with logic or facts.
There are 346 comments:
Female 383
scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaary!
0
Reply
Female 246
to that entire classroom....

Heres ur sign

>.<
0
Reply
Male 190
OMG.... amazing how he thought Black people evolved from White people....

Just prooves how backwards they are. wow.
0
Reply
Male 51
`how can an african american person evolve from a white person, i mean, we`ve got different skin`


wooooooooow.
0
Reply
Female 23
@almightybob1
No worries really, just if you`re interested. :)
0
Reply
Male 4,290
@lumie
Ah OK, yeah lots of uni networks have bypasses for things like this - looking again I see the Athens login at the bottom, although I can`t remember my Athens login details. I`ll try again from a uni computer when I get the chance.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]I dont believe in heaven/hell, The Father, son and holy ghost but I tell you something. If I knew I only had 10 seconds to live I would pray for redemption just in case.[/quote]
To which god?
0
Reply
Male 736
omg
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@bridog6996- In answer to both of your questions, one word: magic, yo!
0
Reply
Male 571
The last kid makes a good point. How could a black person evolve from a white person? Also, magnets: how do they work?
0
Reply
Male 310
I literally facepalmed at that last kid`s comment.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
It probably is Dayton, Tennessee. I erroneously wrote "Ohio" in the caption.
0
Reply
Male 12
Other sites are saying this is Dayton, Tennessee.

Anyway, simple argument against creationism: If God created all life as is now, and all life is adapted for the environments as they are now, then what happens when the environment changes? No adaptive mechanism, no changing. Seems awfully incompetent of God to put static life on a dynamic planet.
0
Reply
Female 23
@almightybob1
Hmm, I didn`t have to register. I guess it only works on uni networks, sorry didn`t realise that. It`s not a review of scientific data on global warming, but some investigations by various peer-review boards of the allegations against the scientists which was conducted by the Science and Technology Committee and issued by the House of Commons. It`s pretty interesting though if you get the chance to read because you get to skip media opinion and look right at the source seeing all the details yourself. I`m not arguing for either side. I just like to look at things from both sides, I guess...tend to get waffly with these subjects though. :D
0
Reply
Male 496
*what you did right there

Oh no, I think the stupid has infected me. How do I get it off?
0
Reply
Male 496
"How can I say to a student, `Your ideas are trash. Keep em outta this room. I don`t wanna hear em?`"

Ummm...you don`t. You address rather than instigate discussion, emphasizing on the importance of religion, the distinction between religion and science, and move on. Encourage them to pursue further inquiries with their parent/spiritual leader of choice. Treat others how you wanted to be treated, that kind of thing.
They certainly shouldn`t be telling you they don`t understand how it could be possible. That`s your job. Teach science. That, what you did just there, was not right. Please try again.
0
Reply
Male 505
[quote]If I knew I only had 10 seconds to live I would pray for redemption just in case.[/quote]

Just make sure you spend those 10 seconds praying to the correct God, or Gods.
0
Reply
Male 505
[quote]
Guess what? If Religon was a part of science, it would be called a "theory"[/quote]

No. No it wouldn`t. Remember that scientific theory is different to the regular theory. Google what a scientific theory is please.
0
Reply
Male 271
hahaha... "We HAD to be put here by some supernatural being." Did we? Did we, oh wise and knowing high school girl?
0
Reply
Male 18
I dont believe in heaven/hell, The Father, son and holy ghost but I tell you something. If I knew I only had 10 seconds to live I would pray for redemption just in case.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@bjcub13

"Besides, what`s wrong with thinking God created the big bang? The big bang couldn`t have just "happened.""

That`s called "the god of the gaps": we have a gap in our current knowledge about the universe, so you stick god in there to explain it. Once we know more and can understand it, the gap evaporates and so too does the god of the gap.

Your example, though, is meaningless, as far as I understand it. My novice understanding is that the big bang was the creation of time as well as space. So you can`t ask what was "before" the start of time itself, as there was no "before" for there to be anything.

And you say it couldn`t have just happened...why not? On what do you base that bold statement?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]If any one of you can disprove God`s existence, please try.[/quote]
I can`t. Nobody can. Anyone who claims they can is a fool.

[quote]If any one of you can prove evolution, also please try. And may I just say good luck.[/quote]
I can do that, and I won`t need luck. All I need are some fruit flies.
Or you could just Google "observed instances of speciation" and read about what I`m about to do.

[quote]There is more concrete evidence that God created the world, based on reason, than there is that evolution did it.[/quote]
Such as?

[quote]Besides, what`s wrong with thinking God created the big bang?[/quote]
Nothing. But until you find evidence to support it, it`s an unfounded hypothesis.

[quote]The big bang couldn`t have just "happened."[/quote]
Why not? Radioactive decay just "happens".
0
Reply
Male 4,290
@lumie

From what I can tell on that website (although I haven`t registered which you need to do to actually see anything), it is primarily for gathering government documents, not scientific papers or peer-review assessments.

While sharing data is an important part of science, it only really applies amongst scientists, not to the general public. Indeed in climate science it is common to NOT give the general public their raw data, because frankly they don`t know enough to be able to draw meaningful conclusions the way a trained scientist could.

Not to mention the incessant FOI requests they have to put up with from "skeptics" who are merely trying to waste the scientists` time and efforts by legally forcing them to send data that the skeptics simply lack the scientific knowledge to interpret.
0
Reply
Male 3,076
0
Reply
Male 3,076
1:56 sorry ude but I believe that the opposite way... drating hill billy -.-"

0
Reply
Female 474
@bjcub13- Your ignorance renders me speechless. If you decide that you`d like to come out of the dark there are many strains of bacteria that have evolved to become resistant to antibiotics due to overuse of the drug. Also symbiotic bacteria that live in the stomachs of cows (E. Coli) which normally contains a basic solution has evolved to be able to withstand the acidic solution of human stomachs since factory farms feed cows corn instead of grass. Google it.

Just to clear things up, generally even Creationists have had to concede that evolution does occur, they just argue that it`s mechanism is intelligent design and interpret empirical data to reflect that. Scientists accept natural selection as the main mechanism for evolution due to overwhelming supporting evidence thanks to genetics and comparative biology etc., however there are other minor mechanisms such as sexual selection.
0
Reply
Male 93
People who have to tear down science in order to defend their religious beliefs understand neither science nor religion.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@bjcub13- No self-respecting scientist will claim to have disproved God- but there is no concrete evidence for God as described as a supreme intelligence that created the universe. Belief in such a God is a matter of faith. All I can say is, if there is a God, the evidence is clear that either God created the Universe via the Big Bang, and used the process of abiogenesis and evolution to produce the myriad life forms that exist on this planet, or created the Universe in some other way, but did so in such a way as to intentionally deceive us.

Scientific inquiry and theory is not a threat to those who believe in God, only those who believe in scripture as the absolute and literal word of God.
0
Reply
Male 3
If any one of you can disprove God`s existence, please try. If any one of you can prove evolution, also please try. And may I just say good luck. There is more concrete evidence that God created the world, based on reason, than there is that evolution did it. It`s like a flea saying the dog doesn`t exist. Besides, what`s wrong with thinking God created the big bang? The big bang couldn`t have just "happened."
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Guess what? If Religon was a part of science, it would be called a "theory"

Like the Theory of Evolution.
Anyways, I say God created Evolution.[/quote]

And if apples were parts of oranges they`d be called...something.

Religion can`t be part of science. It`s absolutely impossible. They are completely different things without any overlap.

Even if it could (but it can`t) it couldn`t be called a theory. At most it would be called a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

You have just shown that you know absolutely nothing about science.
0
Reply
Male 975
Is this a special education class?

How can a black person evolve from a white person? We`re different skin...

Holy drating poo! These must be the most retarded people on the planet!
0
Reply
Male 155
This is why we atheists exist... especially because of the kid at the end.
0
Reply
Male 34
Yeah. Theory and Hypothesis are two completely different words -.- I still hate how a vast majority of people can`t comprehend this simple concept.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Guess what? If Religon was a part of science, it would be called a "theory" "

*exasperated sigh* Please PLEASE read up on what actually constitutes a scientific theory.
0
Reply
Male 330
As a science teacher myself, I must say 3 things:

1. This guy teaching the next generation scares the crap outta me.

2. I dont know how he`s even remotely hitting all the national country-wide standards or his Ohio state standards teaching like that.

3. The kid at the end,

"We didnt like evolve from anything that doesnt make any sense.I mean how can like a African American person evolve from a white person. We`re different skin."

Oh dear Jebus *facepalm* that makes me want to cry.
0
Reply
Male 42
Guess what? If Religon was a part of science, it would be called a "theory"

Like the Theory of Evolution.
Anyways, I say God created Evolution.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"There is mountains of evidence everywhere and in reality religion is the one that has yet to provide any solid proof that god exists and created the universe."

The existence of God isn`t even incompatible with the theory of evolution. The existence of a supreme intelligent creative force in the Universe is not something that can be disproved. What`s incompatible with the theory of evolution, and the spirit of skeptical scientific inquiry in general, is the belief that the Bible, or any particular text, is the absolutely true and literal word of God. It`s fundamentalism, and the lack of critical thinking that goes along with it, that can`t exist side-by-side with science.

Personally, I see intelligence in matter itself. Nothing mystical- but matter exhibits rudimentary behavior that increases with complexity as physical structures increase in complexity. That`s not a fact, just a perspective; a creative application of the word "intelligence."
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@jasonlowe- Again, sorry. As I mentioned before, I wrote "Ohio" in the caption in error. It says "Dayton" in the video, but never says Ohio. My mistake.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
""I don`t think anyone is saying that the theory of evolution concerns itself with the origin of the Universe"

That`s exactly what creationists are doing."

Yeah, I meant that people who are arguing for the theory of evolution are not making that claim. I thought that was clear from the context.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Bias can have an effect on the approach to evidence. Also, political or other pressures can affect the attitudes of scientists, just look at Climategate"

That sort of bias usually works itself out over time as conflicts of interests are exposed and political ideals shift. Plus, since research is independently verified by scientists with varying points of view, the biases of individuals are factored out. A lot of people fail to recognize that, and people will freak out and totally change their behavior based on one study, which is stupid (which is what happened with thousands of people suddenly stopped vaccinating their kids against measles). But the theory of evolution is supported by the scientific research of hundreds if not thousands of people over the course of over 100 years at this point. Bias isn`t even in the equation anymore.
0
Reply
Female 8
yeah it`s just north of kentucky...they are edumacated
0
Reply
Female 23
@almightybob1
Yes, they were officially cleared, but as I mentioned, the actual results of some peer-review boards showed some dissatisfaction with the process. For example, there was one allegation of deleting information that they couldn`t investigate due to a law stating that it cannot be investigated after 6 months of the information being requested. There was disgruntlement with not being able to interview some people publicly or to actually see certain information (they had to rely on the word of one peer that it even existed), etc. It`s just little things. This wasn`t talked about in the media, it`s only in the actual results by the peer-review board which I had to research, so I`ll admit I`ve drawn my own conclusions. You can read them at publicinformationonline.com. I think the scientists were just being human, but there was a certain tribal mentality to the whole thing which is why people were shocked and called for more transparency. Scientists have to be objective./bla
0
Reply
Male 90
People from Ohio talk like that? I had no idea that hillbillies went that far north.
0
Reply
Male 496
I love how creationists main argument is

"It`s not even a fact! It`s just a theory"

A theory in Science = something that doesn`t have a mathematical formula associated with it.

Newtons Law = a law because it has a mathematical value, an equation you can put values in and get an outcome.

Darwins Theory = A theory because there is no mathematical formulae for it, but it is without a doubt 100% true. There is so much evidence that things evolve I wouldn`t even know where to start.
0
Reply
Male 37
I love how when I`m talking to religious people about this subject their biggest argument against evolution is the lack of evidence. There is mountains of evidence everywhere and in reality religion is the one that has yet to provide any solid proof that god exists and created the universe. Just because you don`t understand something doesn`t mean their is some great mystical being out there. Religion is a waste of time and its time to accept facts and stop killing each other over this pointless bullpoo. The truth hurts sometimes. *sigh*
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Also, political or other pressures can affect the attitudes of scientists, just look at Climategate. That scandal didn`t prove global warming wrong in any way, but it showed some bad practices and attitudes by the scientists that were being trusted to carry things out impartially.[/quote]
No it didn`t. The subsequent investigation cleared them of all malpractice or misconduct allegations. The only recommendation that was made was that they should share information more freely in the future.
0
Reply
Male 9
omg is this legit?
0
Reply
Male 200
everyone in this room is now dumber for listening to this.
0
Reply
Male 705
"Basically it`s not been proven"
Have you ever even opened a textbook? It HAS been proven. There is factual proof, 100% hard evidence that we evolved from other organisms and that the world dates back over billions of years. The proof that the Creationism theory is true is one book that libraries don`t even put in non-fiction sections.
0
Reply
Female 23
@minimullen34 Hmm, fair point. I`m going to guess they just have an interest in both science and teaching and happen to believe in creationism. Perhaps they just like the other parts of science such as chemistry, physics, etc.
@sbeelz
Again, fair point about the peer-review process. It`s obviously not perfect since people aren`t, but the best logical method. And yes, evidence can be tested, but just as in court, evidence cannot tell the whole story alone. Bias can have an effect on the approach to evidence. Also, political or other pressures can affect the attitudes of scientists, just look at Climategate. That scandal didn`t prove global warming wrong in any way, but it showed some bad practices and attitudes by the scientists that were being trusted to carry things out impartially. They were let off but results of some peer-review boards gave results that showed dissatisfaction with the judging process. I guess my point is everyone is biased, both creationists and evolution
0
Reply
Male 40,416
vv @Verinon: So you`re the one having sex with all those ramparts! Well stop it! That`s just sick!~
0
Reply
Male 40,416
Evolution is a fact, duh! It doesn`t "contradict the Bible" since the Bible isn`t meant to be taken `verbatum` (literally) but as a series of lessons.

These folks are nutty, eh? Way too fundamental for me.

Proof that God exists? You exist = God exists. Of course you have to believe in God in the first place for that `proof` to work...
0
Reply
Female 8,007
I do indeed find this scary. I find it even scarier that over here we seem to have a few who believe this crap. I hope it does not last and that common sense wins.
0
Reply
Male 335
If there is a God, he would have killed me a long time ago for all the rampant sex I`ve been having.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Proof that God exists is all around you. You are all just brainwashed by "scientists". You`ll believe anything a guy in a white coat tells you, won`t you?[/quote]
Startech, at first I thought you`re surely trolling with such a comment, but a quick scan through previous comments on other threads shows you variously telling us how radiocarbon (sic) dating is a lie, homosexuality is a disease of the mind etc etc. Sometimes it`s hard to tell a troll from the real deal though, so who knows?

Poe`s Law - "it`s difficult to distinguish between parodies of religious fundamentalism (or, more generally, parodies of any crackpot or extremist belief) and genuine proponents of religious fundamentalism, since they both seem equally insane".
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Boredhero78

Three points:

1: How life began has nothing to do with evolution. For that, you need to look at abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the process of life changing, not life originating.

2: The evidence for the fact of evolution, and the theory that explains the fact, does not consist of the fossil record alone.

3: Gaps in the fossil record are expected, and predicted. The reverse of what you assert is true: a complete and unbroken fossil record would do more to invalidate evolution than it would to validate it, as it would appear to go against what we know and understand of geology and the formation of fossils. Simply put, it is extremely RARE for a fossil to form. The human race is likely to leave behind no lasting fossil record at all.
0
Reply
Male 235
Proof that God exists is all around you. You are all just brainwashed by "scientists". You`ll believe anything a guy in a white coat tells you, won`t you?
0
Reply
Male 180
LOL @ the girl that said "they haven`t proven evolution". I`d like to ask her to prove that God exists.
0
Reply
Male 108
I`m just going to throw this out there because it`s an interesting point. So, without any undeniable proof for how anything got its start and without any undeniable proof of transitional fossils, we`re just going to make the assumption that everything has evolved from a previous ancestor? That sounds like a pretty big leap of faith to me. It`s one thing to make fun of religion but to turn around and do it using assumptions that can`t be proven makes you just as much of an idiot as anyone else.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
"I don`t think anyone is saying that the theory of evolution concerns itself with the origin of the Universe"

That`s exactly what creationists are doing.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
A perfect example of how the scientific peer-review process can fail but still ultimately weed out bogus studies is the Wakefield study that was used to support the conclusion that vaccines cause autism. It actually made it through the peer review process in The Lancet, a respected medical journal. It turns out the author was friends with one of the editors. However, when other doctors asked for access to Wakefield`s raw data, he refused. Then, it was discovered that he was paid by a pharmaceutical company that wanted to patent a measles medication. Why? They wanted to scare people out of getting their kids vaccinated against measles so they could sell it. All hell broke lose, the Lancet retracted the article, and Wakefield lost his medical license. Now idiots all over the US hold him up as a hero, and refuse to get their kids vaccinated against life-threatening diseases.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@Aragnarok- I don`t think anyone is saying that the theory of evolution concerns itself with the origin of the Universe. The Big Bang theory does, to a point. Although it STILL doesn`t exclude the possibility of the existence of God. It leaves open the question of how the nearly infinitely dense chunk of mass that proceeded the Big Bang got there to begin with. Science isn`t a threat to religion- it`s only a threat to Dogma, which is unfortunately the same thing for too many people.

0
Reply
Male 721
grrr, survial and replication.. thats all it is.
0
Reply
Male 306
WTF even the nerd was stupid.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@hatface- The grey wolf is technically classified as Canis lupus lupus.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@lumie- Scientists don`t debate topics like evolution and global warming like politicians. They have a very methodical process for develloping consensus- the peer review process. The theories of evolution and global warming, like all scientific theories, are supported by observational and experimental evidence. For any single study to be considered "good evidence," it has to be evaluated by peers. And it`s not like they`re just like "oh yeah, I read your study, it`s great." They actually reproduce the studies to see if they get the same results, and to analyze whether or not the conclusions of the study are valid based on the data. Whether or not a theory is well supported by the scientific community is not a matter of opinions. It is a matter of rigorous research with reproducible results. When it is said that evolution is "science`s view," as you put it, it means that there is overwhelming evidence in the form of myriad peer-reviewed studies.
0
Reply
Male 573
I despise religion.
0
Reply
Male 1,312
"It`s not proven, it can`t be possible that we evolved." Yea because a magic wizard in the sky said "POOF" and now here we are. That`s much more likely. How is that even legal that he can teach a class that way? Oh ignorance...
0
Reply
Male 179
@Lumie...mmmm, good reasoning, about why scientists don`t get along and why one always has to be the one to get it right. But what about the part where creationists like to become teachers if they don`t like evolution. I never once said that evolution was "Science`s view" its just that coincidentally evolution is taught in science classes, so why do they go through all this trouble just so they can get the chance to tell the kids it is a bunch of bull poo.
0
Reply
Male 497
@Zombiemike
[quote] This teacher doesn`t seem like he`s ignoring, or refusing to teach any scientific facts, he`s just fortifying these kids` religious beliefs, and as controversial as it is, it`s their lives really, they can choose to accept or ignore any teachings they want to. [/quote]

Based on this statement, you would be alright with a history teacher teaching that the holocaust never happened. After all, the kids will make up their own minds.

Science and Religion are very different and should not be mixed together.
0
Reply
Female 23
@minimullen34 Um, because scientists often have differing theories based on the evidence they find, so they will not all have uniform beliefs. Many scientists disagree with each other on many things whether about evolution, global warming or the best way to kick a penguin. Evolution is not `science`s view` - science is merely interpretable evidence - you`re talking about the conclusions of the majority of scientists. There`s a big difference.
0
Reply
Male 179
Why is it that creationists love to become science teachers? Legitimate question. There seems to be a common theme of hating science and hating evolution, so why become a science teacher in the first place. If the argument is so that they can teach children creationism, then why go through with getting a degree in teaching science in the first place if you don`t agree with its views. I know its more than just against science, specifically evolution, but still the fact remains that they are going through these great lengths just to dispel evolution and the scientific process.
0
Reply
Female 62
Last kid`s comment was scary though...
0
Reply
Female 62
@KMeTG
It`s true that parent`s beliefs weigh a lot on people. Atheists, religious people and agnostics will all influence their kids and pass on their belief system whether intentionally or not. You seem to imply that if it were taught according to standard beliefs then it is not blind leading blind. It is all blind leading the blind, not just religious people.
It`s probably true these kids are `spoonfed`, but everyone who ever lived is spoonfed with what the society of the time believes. From the perspective of religious people it is evolution that is current brainwashing, and the pressure of society to conform to the majority belief is intense as it used to be for non-religious people when religion was the majority belief (fortunately without the heretic-killing). History shows how easily people are influenced by government, society and majority. No one knows for sure, so everyone should stop being so arrogant about their beliefs whatever they are.
Last kid`s comment was
0
Reply
Male 2,670
This just in -- religious people are STUPID! Pictures right above.

Sheesh.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]What evolution does not concern itself with is the origins of the universe. Big difference. Any academically honest evolutionist/scientist will tell you that, and if not then they are inserting their own unethical bias into the argument.[/quote]

It`s always creationists who try to confuse the two things. Some of them know just enough to realise how strongly supported the theory of evolution is, so they try to attach it to the far less strongly supported ideas about the origins of the universe in order to make it seem less supported.

[quote]it has also been proven lie, manipulate and omit in its own best interest. [/quote]

Science is a process. You are referring to some scientists who were abusing science. That`s extremely rare and stupid because their work will be checked repeatedly by other scientists who won`t get the same results.

It would be more reasonable to argue that religion is sexually abusing children.
0
Reply
Female 4,039
"We`re different skeeen."

LOL! That was the best part.
0
Reply
Female 169
Its so funny how anyone south of Akron has an accent :P
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]"Carbon dating only works with certain materials and only up to about 50,000 years."
(Why? You seem to know about this more then I do so please explain why. Is this an assumption or is there a legitmate reason why it won`t work? I don`t know this.) [/quote]

Living things continue to take in C-14 in the form of carbon dioxide (a very small amount of it contains naturally occuring C-14 rather than the usual C-12). As a result, they have more C-14 than inanimate things. That stops when they die, at which point the decay of the C-14 in their is not matched by intake of newly formed C-14 from the environment.

So you can only use C-14 to date things that were once alive.

C-14 decays quite quickly (half-kife is ~5500 years). After about 50,000 years, the higher C-14 level in a once-living thing will have decayed down to about background levels, at which point it becomes impossible to date it with carbon dating.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]If carbon dating only works for ~50,000 years why do your million year earth scientists use it to date stuff at millions of years?[/quote]

They don`t, obviously. They`re not as dumb as you are.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]"Even if that`s true, all it demonstrates is that those creationists were ignorant or lying."

(even if they were right they aren`t or their lying?)[/quote]

I`m beginning to think you`re going to wear me down. After I explain something very simple a couple of times, you ignore it and pick out something to make wholly untrue statements about.

I`ll give it another go, but I`m really not in the mood for pissing in the wind so don`t expect any enthusiasm.

Anyone who knows anything at all about carbon dating knows that it only gives accurate results on some materials and only if they are less than ~50,000 years old.

The creationists you refered to misused it to "date" samples of different materials millions of years old.

Either they were so spectacularly ignorant of carbon dating that they didn`t know the results would be completely wrong or they did know and did the tests knowingly to get false results - lying
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Zombiemike.

"he`s just fortifying these kids` religious beliefs"

Which, as a SCIENCE teacher in a SCIENCE class, he shouldn`t really be doing, now should he?
0
Reply
Male 1,341
Rabble rabble rabble!
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@davymid

Dammmmmmmnnnnnn......that`s quite a sh*t load of pages.
0
Reply
Male 385
NOOOOO people have different beliefs! ALL MUST BE UNIFORM! I see nothing wrong with believing what you want.
0
Reply
Male 243
Aaah, ´merica!
0
Reply
Male 440
@kh2ishere Actually the most recent cavemen were identical to us in every way. We just have more stuff provided by technology & science. I agree evolution explains where we came from. Don`t make the mistake of thinking you are smarter than a caveman or indeed a primative tribesman of today. Human is human. Education and a western lifestyle is all that seperates us from them.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
methinks IAB needs some numbers........ here is one for ya
0
Reply
Male 369
Oh, this would be so hilarious if it wasn`t so damn sad...
"How can an african american person evolve from a white person"? OMG, that`s just comedy gold!

I love the fact that we, as human beings, think we`re so damned important that we just -had- to be created by a higher power!
Yeah, we might be higher up in the food chain, but we`re no different than any other critter roaming this earth...
We eat, we procreate, we die...
Party over!

0
Reply
Male 605
"no, dogs aren`t wolves. Wolves and dogs are both subspecies of Canis lupus."

That`s debatable. A dog is a domesticated form of Canis Lupis which, in turn, IS the grey wolf. Dogs are Canis lupus familiaris.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Evolution ONLY concerns itself with observable biological changes over time. What evolution does not concern itself with is the origins of the universe. Big difference.[/quote]
You are completely correct, evolution says nothing about the origins of the universe.
We have the Big Bang Theory for that.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
(continued)

The ~60,000 year limit is because of C14`s half-life, which is around 5,700 years. After a certain amount has decayed, we cannot reliably determine how many half-lives have passed, so we stop using it. For example, if 10 half-lives have passed, then only 0.1% of the original number of C14 atoms are left - the rest have decayed away into nitrogen. So after a certain point it becomes unreliable to use a certain radioisotope for dating.

When we date things like rocks, we don`t use carbon dating, because rocks were never alive and carbon dating has too small a range anyway. We use different radioisotopes with far far longer half-lives.

People mistakenly use "carbon dating" as a catch-all term for all kinds of radiometric dating, and then think that carbon is the only dating method used, which is incorrect.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]"Carbon dating only works with certain materials and only up to about 50,000 years."
(Why? You seem to know about this more then I do so please explain why. Is this an assumption or is there a legitmate reason why it won`t work? I don`t know this.) [/quote]
I`ll take this one.

This is to do with the radioisotope used in carbon dating, called carbon-14 or C14 (because it has an atomic mass of 14 instead of carbon`s usual 12).

C14 is absorbed into living things while they are still alive, and held at the same concentration as it is present in the atmosphere. Once they die, the being stops replenishing their C14, and then the process of radioactive decay begins to reduce the amount of C14 present, at a known rate.

This is why carbon dating only works on certain materials, like wood or bones - it needs to be something that was alive at some point. It cannot date rocks for example.

(continued next comment)
0
Reply
Male 1,265
"...they can choose to accept or ignore any teachings they want to..."

Except they can`t. Children are born knowing nothing, with minds like sponges for information. Of course, the kids shown in the clip are of an age where they can choose to accept or reject something, but I`d put money on most of them having a religious background, and this class merely builds on what they`ve been spoonfed for years.

How many of us even now feel the weight of what our parents taught us? I would expect it to be difficult for the kids to break away from what they`ve been taught. It`s not a classroom, it`s the blind leading the blind.
0
Reply
Male 552
Well, I cant say I agree or disagree with what`s going on here. Personally, I`m a creationist, who believes in natural selection and adaptation. I don`t claim to have the answers, and I don`t think any intelligent person should. This teacher doesn`t seem like he`s ignoring, or refusing to teach any scientific facts, he`s just fortifying these kids` religious beliefs, and as controversial as it is, it`s their lives really, they can choose to accept or ignore any teachings they want to.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@kh2ishere

Or the TL/DR:

FACT = sh*t happens.
THEORY = explanation of why sh*t happens.

THEORY does not "graduate" to FACT. They are seperate things.
0
Reply
Male 897
..How can an African American person evolve from a white person? I mean, we`re different skin..?"
Wow.. Choosing to disregard scientific fact just so that you don`t have to question your beliefs.. I don`t get that at all. In my opinion the key to living a good life is to constantly be seeking some form of enlightenment. As a result one must always keep an open mind, and never be afraid to question their beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
that was dumb
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@kh2ishere

"It`s bad enough that evolution is taught as fact."

That`s because it IS a fact:

The FACT of evolution and the THEORY of evolution are two different things.

The FACT of evolution is the observed reality that species change over time.

The THEORY of evolution is the explanation that we have developed to explain why that observed fact is as it is.

There is also the FACT of gravity (matter attracts matter) and the THEORY of gravity (which, surprisingly, is a lot less in-depth than the theory of evolution: we know more about the explanation for the fact of evolution than we do about the explanation for the fact of gravity).

People who use the phrase "it`s just a theory" are misunderstanding the word. "Theory" simply means "an explanation". It does not mean "a guess" or "unproven idea".

Even the most rock-solid proven theory is still called a theory.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
Does anyone else hear the voice of Mr Garrison in the teacher`s voice every now and then?

When I see idiocy like this, I think that it`s GOT to be staged...I couldn`t handle the knock to my faith in humanity if this were real.
0
Reply
Female 437
You can believe in God and evolution, you just need to not be a creationist
0
Reply
Male 1,265
Utterly, utterly, utterly, utterly vile.

They might as well teach the "gravity" view and the "God holds us down with magic string" view.
0
Reply
Male 734
" Although some people say "SCIENCE" like it is the holy grail above reproach, it has also been proven lie, manipulate and omit in its own best interest."

You don`t actually understand what science is, do you? The whole point of science is that it shows what is and isn`t true via experimentation. To say that science is a lie is logically equivalent to saying that the universe itself is an unstable, unpredictable, and chaotic system with no rhyme or reason.
0
Reply
Male 1
It personally saddens me to see the blatant ignorance on both sides of this debate. As an individual that truly has experienced and believes in a higher power (God), and one who also believes that evolution (a proven theory) exists; it is disappointing to see those narrow minded individuals on both sides of the debate that are so firm in their stance they refuse to accept (or at bare minimum) entertain another theory.

I personally believe, without a shadow of a doubt, you hard line idiots are destroying democracy! It`s so hard to vote for the "bleeding heart" liberals that want to single handedly save the world. And at the same time, how in the h0ly he11 can I vote for people that trust absolutely in a book that King James revised to benefit his nation in medieval times!

It`s such a sad state we live in when we truly refuse to research, discover and find "truths" for ourselves!

God bless, and may logic and reason help you all find truth
0
Reply
Male 101
i can`t believe that in 2011, when we have answers and explanations to these questions, that people still believe an invisible man in the sky put these things here.
0
Reply
Male 718
It sure is hip to be an Atheist these days.. all the cool kids are doin it! well im a Satanist and i dont need a faggy youtube video to validate myself. LOL DUMB CHRISTIANS AMIRITE?! we know they are dumb. get over it.
0
Reply
Male 53
Once again it is the extremist viewpoints of both sides not understanding not only the other`s position but most ironically their own. When it comes to evolution, yes indeed it is a fact, but only in context of its own definition. Evolution ONLY concerns itself with observable biological changes over time. What evolution does not concern itself with is the origins of the universe. Big difference. Any academically honest evolutionist/scientist will tell you that, and if not then they are inserting their own unethical bias into the argument. Although some people say "SCIENCE" like it is the holy grail above reproach, it has also been proven lie, manipulate and omit in its own best interest. The problem with religion is more often than not those who teach it invariably have little understanding of it themselves so they fall into the same trap of the singular viewpoint. Therefore it would not be a bad thing to teach all sides as thoroughly and without bias as possible, but g
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@jadedtortois- what scares me is that there are vast numbers of people who are unwilling to abandon mythology in the face of reason and empirical evidence, and these people are making decisions that affect my life and the lives of those around me.

What a person thinks about where human beings came from is of little importance- but the thought process that leads them to think what they do speaks volumes about their ability to think critically. People who blindly accept what they`re told by religious leaders are more likely to blindly accept all manner of lies. It worries me that I live in a country with democratically elected leaders where vast numbers of voters lack basic critical thinking skills. It`s not just religious fundamentalists I`m talking about, but religious fundamentalists are definitely included in that number.
0
Reply
Female 779
You guys who cares what their views are, they have rights & freedoms to express themselves and religion is not legally allowed to influence any part of government/laws. So really its not like creationists are going to destroy us, if anything it reminds us to remember that Evolution IS after all the THEORY of Evolution and not absolute fact. You never know what could be proved/disproved in the next 1000 years.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@handys003- Personally, I enjoy the debate. It`s the ad hominem attacks I could do without
*cough* wnderfulbabs *cough*
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Only in America :)
0
Reply
Female 16
@kh2ishere You`re a retard. That sir, is a fact. Evolution is scientifically proven poo for brains, it`s not a belief. Why do you think that we`re not still knuckle dragging cavemen? Say it with me,
e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n.
0
Reply
Male 3
Those students to some extent have a point as it seems evolution has truly given their gene pool a wide berth.

Born, eat, shag, die. Deal with it folks and enjoy the ride!
0
Reply
Female 500
I didn`t think the creationist teachings were as "scary" as that borderline racist kid at the end of the video, just sayin`. Also, I know this isn`t my argument, but number43, I haven`t seen much proof of God, either, so it`s a bit of a moot point. There`s a book and a bunch of believers, but that doesn`t prove anything more than if aliens are real, or superman.... It`s a good story, though. (Don`t take that offensively; it came out a little bit weird, and I suppose evolution is a good story if you`re a geek, too.)
0
Reply
Male 156
When does James Franco cut off his arm?
0
Reply
Male 464
We`re Different Skeened.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
vv Handys, there`s been a few.

Prolls this one.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@sbeelz
Don`t think I was taking away from your post. I was merely stating how burned out I feel in the Evolution vs. Creationism/ID arguement. I`m more curious if you can set an IAB record on comments on your post. I hope you can.

BTW Mods what is the record for a set number of comments on a single post?

As of this it`s 10 pages.
0
Reply
Male 759
kh2ishere;
Out of curiosity, not an attempt to spark an argument (truly), what would it take for you to believe that evolution is a fact? What would be required, beyond the current collection of skeletal and fossil records?

Keep in mind that I say this as a Christian.
0
Reply
Male 759
msieg007, that`s a redneck accent it is not geographically distributed.

I wasn`t scared up until the kid said "how can a black person evolve from a white person?" My brain has trouble comprehending in how many ways that statement is ... wrong
0
Reply
Male 61
Of all the things to be labeled "the scariest." People these days. Why can`t you accept the fact that creationism is taught in some schools? It`s bad enough that evolution is taught as fact. If someone were to prove it -- truly prove it -- I`ll accept evolution as fact. I like this school`s approach to a touchy subject, though. Teach both and let the kids pick their belief, as that`s what both are. Beliefs. I can`t prove God made man, nor can you prove man evolved. We both have to have faith.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@msieg007- No, sorry, my mistake when I wrote the caption. I heard Dayton in the video and assumed Ohio. But that is most likely not correct.
0
Reply
Male 588
127 SCARY SECONDS

Y U NO BE SCARY
0
Reply
Female 10
Anyone else disappointed because they thought it was Hurley from Lost on the picture?
0
Reply
Male 2,034
That accent is from Ohio? Weird. I would expect this from the deep south.
0
Reply
Male 2,004
i like how this is pretty much the opposite than the classrooms that i have experienced when i was in school. my classmates argued with the teachers that jesus was a fictional character and never existed
0
Reply
Male 661
The mere thought that this crap can even be spoken of, let alone taught in a science class still brings a palm to my forehead
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"What is sad is that all three views cannot be taught and reasonable human beings make up their own damn mind."

Science classes should be teaching kids how the scientific method works, and what conclusions the world`s scientists have come to about the Universe by applying the scientific method. There is no room in such a class for creationism, because The Book of Genesis was not developed using the scientific method.

Teaching science isn`t about telling kids that they have to believe in the conclusions arrived at by the scientific community- everyone is welcome to study science and challenge any theory- but they have to do so in such a way that other scientists can reproduce their findings, and their findings have to be confirmed independently by other scientists for their conclusions to be accepted.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Sorry for multiple posts, but in other news, I hope this thread smoulders on for a while longer. I`ve almost filled in my bingo card!

0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]that last line was just great lolz. I feel sorry for the teacher. He is in a tough position. I understand that the evolutionary theory is still a theory and i don`t believe in Darwin`s origin of species but i do believe in adaptation and genetics.[/quote]
If you believe in adaptation (definition: "the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats"), then you believe in evolution. It`s entirely analogous to saying "I believe that I can walk forwards 10 feet, but I don`t believe that it`s possible I can walk a mile".

As for the "evolutionary theory is still a theory" part: Do me a favour. Find a phone, look up a number, and call someone in north-eastern Japan. Then reassure them that "plate tectonic theory is still a theory" (after all, it *IS* just a Theory). I`d be delighted to hear the response you get.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Before preforming a biased, at LEAST get a view of both sides![/quote]
Ah yes, the old "Teach the Controversy, let the children decide!" schtick. While that`s a noble sentiment at its core, it`s not quite that simple. Surely it`s a bad idea to teach schoolchildren (who are impressionable, and in there to learn) both the geocentric theory and the heliocentric theory, and invite them to make up their own mind as to which one is correct? I think not.

One of the greatest coups ever pulled off by creationists is to actually convince (mostly scientifically illiterate) people that there`s an incisive debate going on amongst the global community of professional scientists as to whether evolution even happens. There is no such debate. It`s a bald-faced lie.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Eh, when will people learn to leave and let live? Oh well, both sides will continue to slander each other`s beliefs until the day the world ceases to exist.[/quote]
This isn`t a "live and let live" thing, nor a "slandering other peoples` beliefs" thing. It`s a science classroom. Those children should be learning science, not some religious creation-myth dogma which the teacher happens to subscribe to. It`s not fair to those children, and I don`t think it`s too far to say that it`s a form of child-abuse. Not physical, sure, but educational. Say one of those kids one day decides they`d like to be a biologist, or a doctor, or a pharmacist, or a geologist, or whatever. They will be unable to function effectively in any of those professional roles without a full and proper knowledge of processes such as evolution. It`s heinous in the extreme.

Creationism has no place in the science classroom.
0
Reply
Male 330
We can all breathe easy. Wal-mart will have plenty of new cashiers and cart collectors in the future.
0
Reply
Male 377
What is sad is that all three views cannot be taught and reasonable human beings make up their own damn mind.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Before preforming a biased, at LEAST get a view of both sides!"

I don`t know what "a biased" is, but if I ever preform one, I`ll be sure to get a view of both sides.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@IceDragon77- If science teachers in privately-funded Christian schools want to teach mythology as science, I say go for it. But it would be irresponsible for US citizens to take a "live and let live" attitude towards teaching creationism in science class in a publicly funded institution.
0
Reply
Female 474
this is sad, the teacher nor the students have even a basic understanding of what a scientific theory is, let alone how evolution by natural selection works.
0
Reply
Male 423
When will people understand we dont need religion to live? The very idea that even if you`re not religious you need spirituality is completly absurd too. There`s nothing after death. What you call the ``soul`` or ``spirit`` are eletrical impulses in your brain, which is one of the most complex thing nature has achieved on this planet. I`m too busy being in awe before the sheer beauty of nature complexity and awesomeness to worry about things like spirituality...
0
Reply
Male 1,196
that last line was just great lolz. I feel sorry for the teacher. He is in a tough position. I understand that the evolutionary theory is still a theory and i don`t believe in Darwin`s origin of species but i do believe in adaptation and genetics. I thought Gregor Mendel (a catholic monk) proved it.
0
Reply
Male 123
Before preforming a biased, at LEAST get a view of both sides!
0
Reply
Male 490
Eh, when will people learn to leave and let live? Oh well, both sides will continue to slander each other`s beliefs until the day the world ceases to exist.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"theories are theories because they haven`t been proven."

More importantly, a theory CAN`T be proven. It can only be supported by evidence. A theory CAN be disproved, however.

Evolution will never be a scientific law, which is a "concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science."

This site explains precisely what is meant in science by law, theory and hypothesis.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@davymid- that comic pretty much hit the nail on the head.
0
Reply
Male 2,004
facepalm moment at the end
0
Reply
Male 11,739
He also believes that women find him sexy. Keep on believing.
0
Reply
Female 533
Oh dear god (small g) please tell me that this is staged....I weep for all those pathetic, closed- minded, mouth breathing, redneck bible-thumpers. How could we have evolved? How could we not? Yikes.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]"Carbon dating only works with certain materials and only up to about 50,000 years."
(Why? You seem to know about this more then I do so please explain why. Is this an assumption or is there a legitmate reason why it won`t work? I don`t know this.)[/quote]
FfanaticR, did you ever stop to think that, being ignorant of the science behind radiometric dating, that you may not be in a fully informed position from which to criticise it?
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@AUTiger91- but it doesn`t say where that dense hot mass came from- it`s an open question. There is debate among physicists whether the Universe will expand indefinitely, or if the expansion will slow, causing gravity to pull everything together again. If that happens, then perhaps it will all collapse into a very dense hot mass and explode again. But that`s just speculation. In science, it`s OK to say "I don`t know."

Also, I would like to apologize for writing "Ohio" in the caption for the video. My bad. It doesn`t say Ohio anywhere in the vid, and I don`t think this is actually Ohio. I just heard Dayton and thought Ohio and wrote it.
0
Reply
Male 546
Be careful when someone tells you what to believe. No matter the source. Especially here!

No one in Academia, the Scientific or Religious community knows for sure or has all the answers. That is what open minded investigation and discussion will help to solve over time (if possible).
0
Reply
Female 229
Oh Lordy, Lordy...

No pun.
0
Reply
Male 39,621

0
Reply
Male 881
CrakrJak and FfanaticR can try to poke holes in Evolution all they want. The fact is that they can`t. If they could, they would publish a paper in a respected journal that would overturn Evolution and everyone would know their names for hundreds of years. That is all it takes to disprove Evolution. They prey on peoples ignorance of science, and distrust of scientists, to bolster their own faith.

The contrast is stark when you think about it. Where one person publishing one paper can overturn Evolution, there is no place where "facts" about Creationism are tested, reviewed, replicated, and possibly overturned. That is because it is religious dogma that exists for the sole purpose of reinforcing a belief on God.

Listen to this video, these people find proof in Creation in their ignorance of Evolution. You can find the answers to why science believes something that sounds counter intuitive. Science long ago debunked the crap that the God-bots post here.
0
Reply
Female 24
@Maromi "theories are theories because they haven`t been proven. It`s not called the LAW of evolution jeebus, why can`t people make that connection. Sounds like they belong in the bible belt."

Please learn what the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory is. kthxbai
0
Reply
Male 840
This IS scary. These kids will grow up to be CrakrJak Republicans. Every single one of them.
0
Reply
Male 62
I don`t think this is Dayton, OHIO. First, the scene where all of the kids are walking in the hall, the majority of them are white whereas Dayton, Ohio has a ~42% black demographic. Second, "THE local high school"; Dayton, Ohio has many public high schools. Third, no high school in Dayton, Ohio has the Eagle for their mascot. Fourth, Daytonites (Daytonians?) don`t have that strong of a Southern drawl. However, I could be wrong; I don`t even live it Dayton.
0
Reply
Male 17
@sbeelz

No the Bang does not say everything came from nothing. It says that everything came from a singular very dense and hot mass.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Did a being create all this? Well if everything didn`t come from nothing... then yes."

Well, the Universe is a being, really. I mean, it IS, isn`t it?

And the Big Bang theory doesn`t say that the Universe came from nothing (as creationists like to say it does). It just leaves whatever came before the big bang as an unknown.
0
Reply
Male 798
[quote]How can like an African-American person evolve from a White person? We`re different (skiing?). [/quote]


0
Reply
Male 725
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Angilion you must be enjoying yourself. I can`t imagine liking doing what you`re doing. It seems very... automated. ;-)

In retrospect I`m glad there are a handfull of nutcases here on IAB. It is somewhat entertaining to see them foundering about only to be dispatched by you... but that is the point of this site isn`t it?
0
Reply
Male 3,915
kieth2, i couldn`t agree more...

"How can a (n*gger) african american person evolve from a white person? we`re two different kinds of skin...."

this is what happens when the stupid outweigh the smart in schools....
0
Reply
Female 42
Every time I see this clip the ignorance makes me want to punch something.
0
Reply
Male 2,591
they talk just as stupid as the words that are coming out of their mouth.
0
Reply
Male 17
If carbon dating only works for ~50,000 years why do your million year earth scientists use it to date stuff at millions of years? Doesn`t that mean they are orchestration results which would technically make most of yalls beliefs a PSEUDO science?
0
Reply
Male 43
@sbeelz
"If God created the Universe and everything in it, then God speaks to you in everything that you experience."

I actually would agree with you on that. I don`t believe in magic here. I think that whatever entity created all of this... also created science and logic (or at least put these elements in place) and that with the advancement of humanity`s understanding we will come closer to understanding all that was created.

I doubt evolution. Not science. I read, learn, and think about what is put before me. Thus far I see evidence that evolution didn`t happen. That is all.

Did a being create all this? Well if everything didn`t come from nothing... then yes.

Or maybe we`re nothing but a spec of dust on a snowflake in something a hell of a lot bigger. Who knows?
0
Reply
Female 1,095
theories are theories because they haven`t been proven. It`s not called the LAW of evolution jeebus, why can`t people make that connection. Sounds like they belong in the bible belt.

"How can an African American person evolve from a white person?" Oh gosh, sounds like that teacher failed to do his job.
0
Reply
Male 43
@Angilion... okay apprently I`m uneducated on this subject.

Please explain to me why I`m wrong instead of being an arse about it. Thus far you`ve said

"Even if that`s true, all it demonstrates is that those creationists were ignorant or lying."

(even if they were right they aren`t or their lying?)

"Carbon dating only works with certain materials and only up to about 50,000 years."
(Why? You seem to know about this more then I do so please explain why. Is this an assumption or is there a legitmate reason why it won`t work? I don`t know this.)

"The only reason to use it on objects made of different materials and millions of years old is to get wrong results."
(This is true if one establishes that carbon cannot date older samples. Again please bestow some knowledge to me.)
0
Reply
Male 2,422
This is my problem with creationism: They look around at the universe and think that something so vast and complex could only have been created by some kind of being, yet they don`t apply that same line of thinking to the being that created it in the first place (who, as complex as the creation is, they hold to be perfect and superior in every way). If the complexity of the universe is a compelling argument of the necessity of a creator then it should also apply to the amazing and complex entity that could create such a world. Seems rather arbitrary reasoning to me.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
also from Wikipedia, on the page for Canis Lupus:
"This article is about wolves, not the species Canis lupus per se, WHICH INCLUDES WOLVES AND DOMESTIC DOGS"
0
Reply
Male 17
@yudontn0me

Are you from Africa or is any of your family from Africa?
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@maemukisama-
No, I can use Google just fine: "Canis lupus has 39 subspecies currently described, including two subspecies of domestic dog, Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris, and many subspecies of wolf throughout the Northern hemisphere. The nominate subspecies is Canis lupus lupus."

source
0
Reply
Male 845
im african american and my mom is white. no god.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]C-14 is the shortest half life common enough to actually be used. Also, an element with the half life in the millionths of seconds probably isn`t very easy to measure accurately now is it?[/quote]

You claimed that carbon had the shortest known half-life. I showed that your claim was wrong.

[quote]I`ve read cases where items millions of years old came up to be thousands of years old done with carbon.[/quote]

Even if that`s true, all it demonstrates is that those creationists were ignorant or lying. Carbon dating only works with certain materials and only up to about 50,000 years. The only reason to use it on objects made of different materials and millions of years old is to get wrong results.

[quote]Plus carbon dating assumes that over billions of years, NOTHING touched the sample[/quote]

Please, learn something about carbon dating. Just a brief overview will do.
0
Reply
Female 2
@sbeelz
[i] no, dogs aren`t wolves. Wolves and dogs are both subspecies of Canis lupus.[/i]

Are you so lazy you can`t even Google dogs and pull up a few facts to at least make an attempt to appear intelligent? DOGS (Canis Lupis Familiaris) are a SUBSPECIES of WOLVES (Canis Lupis). A subspecies implies that a small population, in this case the dogs that joined nomadic bands of early humans, adapted to a different environment. There are small genetic differences that can usually be discerned with genetic mapping. We share 98% of our DNA with apes, but it`s that 2% that makes us different. It is also that small divergence that makes dogs a subspecies of wolves, not actually wolves.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@FfanaticR-
If God created the Universe and everything in it, then God speaks to you in everything that you experience.
0
Reply
Male 2,506
Okay I WAS SEVERELY disappointed. A baby laughing is scarier than this.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Since evolution always seems to be vs creationism... you cannot simply neglect abiogenesis from the argument.[/quote]

Yes you can, because abiogenesis is not evolution. I`m not going to pander to the ignorance or lies of creationists who try to confuse the two.

[quote]HardyWineberg created the ideal world for ABG.[/quote]

Are you sure about that? How would you know?

Also, I can`t find any references to them performing any such experiment. Are you confusing it with the Miller-Urey experiment? Which tested one possible set of circumstances that might or might not have been ideal.

One partially successful experiment does not prove the whole idea false.

[quote]To my memory, living things only use right handed, and all the acids HW produced were left handed.[/quote]

The Urey-Miller experiment produced both.
0
Reply
Male 17
@FfanaticR

Its amazing how everyone here calls shenanigans when the SCIENCE disputes their claims.

Yall claim science is all yall listen to, but apparently you only listen when it says what you want? and you call me a troll and and say im the stupid one for believing in a God?
0
Reply
Male 17
@sbeelz

But i did in fact say s myself i may be wrong so your argument is already poo. There is a lot of your true non believer, atheist, or whatever science that says most every reason you can devise to dispute an intelligent creator or creationism has been dis-proven(sp?). The flaws of C-14 dating and the existence of Polonium 214 are just 2 of the ways to make your entire argument invaid
0
Reply
Male 43
I getcha nubbins.... :) didn`t mean to sound like a snob lol.

0
Reply
Male 2,988
nice one CrakerJack. those wolves just aren`t what they used to be eh? lol
0
Reply
Male 43
One of the leading evidences I see for a billion year old universe is light. We see stars many many light years away. Some of them could already be dead by the time we see them.

However if the speed of light is getting slower what are we to assume? Has the decay in the speed of light been constant or has it slowed down exponentially so to speak?
0
Reply
Male 43
lol @ pooptart/madest...

u mad?
0
Reply
Male 1,587
fight fight fight fight!!!
0
Reply
Male 43
@sbeelz

This is the interesting thing about "The Word of God"

You see.... there are many many many books (over 3x as many) that are omitted from your typical bible. The purpose being, that Christians (and other religions) want to be very sure that their religious texts are as verified as possible.

Jewish scribes were the closest thing to the printing press as far as accuracy, copying entire manuscripts character by character.

Largely, I would agree that on some level or another, Christians are a little off with this word of God thing. I mean... if God spoke to people then... is he speaking to us now? if he is, then we don`t we take it more seriously?

Some of the Bible has to be outdates... at no point does it say "kay guys... all this poo is legit... ignore me from now on"
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Thank you Pooptart19, My thoughts exactly.
0
Reply
Female 1,441
Oh my god. It hurts just to listen to them!
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@fanaticR-
Carbon dating is used to date fossils and other artifacts, but it is not the sole piece of evidence for the age of the Earth or the Universe.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
FfanaticR, you provide a never-ending torrent of utter horsesh*t. Bravo.
0
Reply
Male 43
@handy

Yea, I didn`t post here expecting to win. I posted here expecting to think. Thank you to all who listened, considered, and perpetuated actual intelligent conversation.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@AUTiger91- You`re forgetting that creationism had its fair shake for thousands of years. The foundation of "creation science" is an unshakable belief that the Bible is the literal word of God. It is not possible to practice science when one is unwilling to consider the possibility that their beliefs are wrong. "Creation science" is not science at all- it is a clever use of semantics and pseudoscience to bend selected pieces of evidence to support a belief based on faith.
0
Reply
Male 43
C-14 is the shortest half life common enough to actually be used. Also, an element with the half life in the millionths of seconds probably isn`t very easy to measure accurately now is it?

I`ve read cases where items millions of years old came up to be thousands of years old done with carbon.

While using an isotope like potassium-40 with a half life of 1.26 billion years resulted in a much longer estimation.

Plus carbon dating assumes that over billions of years, NOTHING touched the sample... no outside influence changed the rate of decay. (the rays from the sun passing through the earth for example)

If the speed of light changes, we can only assume that so can the speed of everything else.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@handys003- Whatever. This post has been super-successful. It has prevented me from doing any homework over the last few hours, which is what I intended when I submitted it :-)
0
Reply
Male 69
@AUTiger91 How do you correlate your belief of a ~6000 year old earth when there are completely developed, planned cities that have been excavated that are 8500+ years old? And that is just the current level of excavation. Estimates are that when virgin soil is reached the city may be thousands of years older.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
No, actually madest, I apologize, you did not say dogs are wolves. Sorry about that! I misread "there are still wolves" as "they are still wolves."
0
Reply
Male 2,402
This was just posted several hours ago and already has 6 pages of arguments. I wonder how high the page count will go on this?

Frankly myself this type of argument has become too boring and tiresome.
0
Reply
Male 43
@Angilion
Since evolution always seems to be vs creationism... you cannot simply neglect abiogenesis from the argument.

HardyWineberg created the ideal world for ABG. They did successfully create amino acids (which build proteins and eventually everything else)

However they cheated reality. The very same electricity that created the amino acids if fired in the are again instantly destroyed them. So after each test they removed the product.

They also failed to create all 24 of the essential amino acids that all living things require to live.

Finally, amino acids are either right or left handed. To my memory, living things only use right handed, and all the acids HW produced were left handed.

We would have to start citing specific cases as far as carbon dating known age items, because I`ve read cases of the opposite.

(continued)
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Not believing in a god is a religious belief after all.[/quote]

Yes, like not playing tennis is a sport and not collecting stamps is a hobby. Obviously.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Dogs are the descendants of wolves sbeelz come on."

Clearly they are, but you said "dogs ARE wolves," which is not true. Wolves and dogs are both part of the same species, Canis lupus. Dogs descended from wolves by the process of artificial selection (Darwin wrote a book on that, too). But dogs are not wolves. Sorry, I just like to be semantically precise.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Dogs were created by humans from wolves, they didn`t really "evolve" per se.

We did what nature does, only instead of traits that make the organism more likely to survive, we picked the ones that we preferred.[/quote]

Which is evolution. Evolution by human selection instead of evolution by natural selection, but still evolution. If evolution didn`t happen, changing plants and animals by selective breeding wouldn`t work at all.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]This is a wolf, according to madest.[/quote]

madest wrote "there are still wolves", not "they are still wolves".

You`re arguing that animals of different species that can`t interbreed are the same species because their DNA is basically the same(*), so it`s you who`s arguing that chihuahuas are wolves. Chihuahuas and wolves are close enough to interbreed.

* The DNA of all sorts of very different animals is basically the same, depending on how you look at it. Human DNA isn`t that much different to wolf DNA...are humans and wolves the same species?
0
Reply
Male 2,868
BTW, for those saying this doesn`t sound like Ohio, it never says Ohio. It just says Dayton. I`m sure there are other Daytons that aren`t in Ohio.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
I never said I didn`t believe in God. As Ted Turner once said "Religion is a crutch used by the weak minded. I`m actually warming up to this theory.
0
Reply
Male 17
How am i the troll here? Yes, my idea of the age of the earth may be off. I may be correct in my statement. If you have the right to attack my beliefs then dont I reasonably have the right to refute your claims?
0
Reply
Female 1,743
@Ffan

Know what I mean, not what I say. lol. :)
0
Reply
Male 43
@ TDKderp_master

Sorry, I assumed he was talking to me. Now that I re-read it I see what he was saying.
0
Reply
Male 43
@nubbins
Genesis actually. Exodus is all Egyptian shyt.

Lemme explain it this way. if you`ve got the number 4... and you break the number 4 apart to find a 1 and a 2..... you`re left with 4=1+2+x

Now scientists see this as

4 = 1 + 2 + (discovery yet to be made)

Theologists (lets lump all religion together)
see it as

(3+x) = 1 + 2 + x

They see a deity not only being part of the formation of 4(reality) but also being an active part of it after being made... something that can`t be put in numbers, but still existed in the equation all along.

0
Reply
Male 7,378
Dogs are the descendants of wolves sbeelz come on.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"yet you refuse to acknowledge all the SCIENCE that refutes your claims?"

You left out a PSEUDO. But then again, you`re a troll.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
@AUTiger91
Get back to hiding under your bridge, Troll.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]the Hardy&Weinberg experiment show`s that it is incredibly unlikely that life came from non-life.[/quote]

i) Please explain how it shows that.
ii) Abiogenesis is not evolution.
iii) There are ~200 billion stars in our galaxy alone, which isn`t a particularly big one. "incredibly unlikely" will happen if there are enough chances for it.

[quote]Or how carbon dating only works in theory[/quote]

i) Carbon dating can be and has been cross-checked against objects of known age. It works in practice.
ii) Carbon dating is only one of numerous dating methods, only used on some materials and only for stuff up to about 50,000 years old.

[quote](remember, the shortest half life we know, carbon.. is over 10,000 years)[/quote]

There are elements with a half-life of about a millionth of a second.
0
Reply
Male 585
thats ohio? sounds like alabamy...im not even talking about the words their saying just the twang their saying them with.
0
Reply
Male 4,793
"Please speak English. Using thesaurus.com to find a better word for, `mistakes` won`t hide your inability to know which form of there/their/they`re to use. "

Hey dumbass he used the right form. derp!
0
Reply
Male 17
Wow I really will pray for you all... Yes i admit this was not done in the best of light to show either the teachers or students intelligence. You say you believe in science and proven facts alone, yet you refuse to acknowledge all the SCIENCE that refutes your claims? And yes i am a Christian and yes i am a believer in the ~6,000 year old earth, so let the bashing of my truths begin!
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@FfanaticR- personally, I got a good education in the scientific method, and was taught precisely what scientific theories, hypotheses, and laws are and what they are not. I think teaching the scientific method and how it works to shape our body of knowledge is far more important than teaching any particular scientific theory, and I think you`re right, it often is not adequately taught.
0
Reply
Male 43
Oh madest,

150 years outdated are we... Evolution as a theory has grown quite a bit since Darwin`s day. It encompasses a whole lot more then Finches. (they were Finches correct?)

Also... Madest,
"Your thoughts about evolution are your way of justifing your religious beliefs." The exact same could be said about you. Not believing in a god is a religious belief after all.

You have yet to contribute any form of logic to this conversation... I still have yet to even see a complete sentence from you. 3640 posts? I suspect none of them are smart enough for you to be spewing things about the intelligence of others.

P.S
We understand the concept of dog > wolf evolution. Thanks for explaining it though ;)
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@Madest- no, dogs aren`t wolves. Wolves and dogs are both subspecies of Canis lupus.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
Dogs were created by humans from wolves, they didn`t really "evolve" per se.

We did what nature does, only instead of traits that make the organism more likely to survive, we picked the ones that we preferred.

I don`t see how people can argue with evolution.
It makes a whole lot more sense than Exodus.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
CJ, You`re a Christian. Your thoughts about evolution are your way of justifing your religious beliefs. hate to break it to you but you`re not smart enough to doubt Darwin.

PS: It`s ancestors were wolves.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@SilverThread-
You`ve treaded into interesting territory- subjective experience. While science CAN explain things like what is going on with us neurochemically when we experience joy, it has yet to connect the dots between our physiology and subjective experience. Science has not explained why I experience the universe from the perspective of this one body and mind, when the matter my body is made of is regularly being exchanged with the outside world.

That is where religion and spirituality can be useful- helping people to better understand their subjective experiences. Personally, I don`t find dogma to be useful at all in this respect, but others do, so OK. I do, however, find that a spiritual framework, and spiritual language, can be very useful for framing some of the more abstract and subtle aspects of subjective experience.
0
Reply
Male 43
@CrakerJack

****ing LOL!!!
0
Reply
Male 43
@ madest
"FfanaticR, Dogs evolved from wolves. There are still wolves."

How does this pertain to anything anyone has said?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
This is a wolf, according to madest.

0
Reply
Male 43
I figured you wouldn`t :)

I feel that our education system does a poor job of teaching it as a theory though.

Angilion coined it though...

"A theory cannot be proven. Even if it is tested a billion times in a million different ways by a million different people and passes every test, it is not proven. "

This is what is missing in our education. This concept should be the main focus of our education in my opinion.

Pushing students to test, weigh, measure, even disprove if possible. As we move forward we must both accept new truths about reality, and dismiss old ones. Only when we do both do we actually advance.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
sbeelz: True, but many evolutionists try to call that adaptation an `evolutionary` change, which is a bunch of bullcrap. Such is the problem with many animals they have classified as separate species based solely on the fact of that groups isolation, even when those animals are genetically the same.

This insistence on incorrectly creating `speciation`,where none exists, to support the theory of evolution is why I`m a skeptic of the whole theory. if a science is willing to cut corners and invent facts to reinforce their theories then it`s corrupt and not trustworthy.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]2. Indisputable proof of evolution is impossible, so there is no point of trying to convince someone it`ll ever be more than a theory. [/quote]

There is an overwhelming mass of indisputable proof of evolution, much of it very directly relevant to humans. I`m sure you`ve heard of MRSA, for example.

Evolution is fact, absolutely. It`s as much fact as light, gravity, etc.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of how evolution works.

My key point here is that a theory is an explanation of how something works, not the thing itself. Whether or not a theory is completely right (and there`s a LOT of evidence that the theory of evolution is very right) has no relevance at all to the existence of the thing that the theory explains.

e.g. the current theory explaining the existence of mass has never been tested by experiment. It may be wrong. If it is, would that stop you being injured by a piano dropped on your head?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
FfanaticR, Dogs evolved from wolves. There are still wolves.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"ignorance goes both ways."

I have no problem admitting that, FfanaticR :)
0
Reply
Male 43
@mechBFP

"FfanaticR, and their mathematics are illogical fallacies in ALL cases I have ever heard. So ya... great argument."

Please speak English. Using thesaurus.com to find a better word for, `mistakes` won`t hide your inability to know which form of there/their/they`re to use.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
I simply fail to accept that there is nothing divine about humanity. How can one define, in scientific terms, the joy we feel in watching a sunset or listening to music?

If life is nothing more than a complex series of chemical reactions, then are all complex chemical reactions to be considered a form of life? Is the Sun alive?

Whether you choose to have faith in God or have faith in No God, it is still a matter of faith. I know my Body does not cease to exist when I die, why should I assume that my conscience is any different?

I don`t know who or what might have set the ball in motion. I do know that atheists deriding a devout`s belief system is as divisive and antagonistic as any other religious crusade.
0
Reply
Female 354
Oh god.

The last boy.

Oh god. *facepalm*
0
Reply
Male 43
@Sbeelz

"FfanaticR, "intelligent creationist" is an oxymoron. That`d be like a "sane Scientologist.""

And again... here`s the immature, ignorant, and uninformed attitude that high school science has taught our children about evolution and religion.

While I don`t think you in any way hate religion, or deny it (as per your previous comments) I do think you need to knowledge that the ignorance goes both ways.
0
Reply
Male 43
@sbeelz

"because evolution is the only explanation that DOES make sense. what they are actually not understanding, is how mommy/daddy/preacher have been lying to them all these years..."

This is the attitude that high school science teaches about evolution. You`re right, there isn`t a theory that claims to take into account all of the observable data in the Universe... just a bunch of e-thugs who think they`ve got it all together before their even 40...

But instead of granting you your flame war... which after reading your comments you seem to blatantly crave... let me give you this for thought.

Science is in many ways similar to magnification. We can only see so much. From the naked eye, to a magnifying glass, to the microscope, to the electron microscope... our understanding can only go so far. The entire concept of "facts" can be misleading.

0
Reply
Male 2,868
CrakrJak, you are correct. Although Assassin is wrong about more than that- light skinned people did not develop dark skin to adapt to the African climate- dark skinned people migrating North from Africa developed lighter skin to adapt to colder climates with less sun.

Both shorter days in the winter and a need to wear more clothing for warmth led to less exposure to the Sun. People with dark skin living in this climate who did not get enough vitamin D in their diet ended up with severe deficiencies- which can be life threatening, since vitamin D is necessary for the absorption of calcium. Lighter skinned people in northerly climates died from vitamin D deficiencies less often because they were able to produce more of it in their skin, and thus whiteness was born.
0
Reply
Male 1,587
I wonder how old this is... Times have changed people. There are a lot less black/white creationists out there.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]If you took time to speak with an intelligent/informed creationist, you would find that their beliefs are more mathematical then philosophical.[/quote]
FfanaticR, "intelligent creationist" is an oxymoron. That`d be like a "sane Scientologist."
0
Reply
Female 43
f*ck religion
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Assassin: That`s not evolution, that`s called adaptation. Evolution and adaptation are two completely different things, humans share the same basic DNA despite the variations in color, size, etc.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]that`s when the teacher needs to have his ass handed to him for not properly teaching the student`s what a theory is. Because once a theory is proven or disproven, it is then no longer a theory.

Darwin`s theory of evolution isn`t a fact and isn`t taught as such. It is a theory, an educated guess[..] [/quote]

You say the teacher should have his ass handed to him for not properly teaching the student`s (which student and what thing they possess?) what a theory is and then you make fundamentally wrong statements about what a theory is.

i) A theory is very far from being an educated guess. You might describe a hypothesis as an educated guess, but a theory is completely different.

ii) A theory cannot be proven. Even if it is tested a billion times in a million different ways by a million different people and passes every test, it is not proven.

iii) Calling it Darwin`s only shows that you are ~150 years out of date.
0
Reply
Female 1
@dognose82 - It only stated Dayton without specifying state. I think they were referring to TN...
0
Reply
Male 813
FfanaticR, and their mathematics are illogical fallacies in ALL cases I have ever heard. So ya... great argument.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"The holes in evolution force me to assume that, "Reality = science/evolution + x" "

Yeah, that`s how the scientific method works, FfanaticR. There isn`t a single scientific theory, nor will there ever be, that claims to take into account all of the observable data in the Universe. Every theory is a "best fit" for the current set of known data.
0
Reply
Male 43
First off, the obvious agenda with this video/report was to make all creationists look ignorant and illogical with their views.

If you took time to speak with an intelligent/informed creationist, you would find that their beliefs are more mathematical then philosophical.

There ARE holes in evolution. Most high school educated evolutionists aren`t even taught things like how the Hardy&Weinberg experiment show`s that it is incredibly unlikely that life came from non-life. Or how carbon dating only works in theory, and completely ignores things like change in rate of decay, and outside influence... or simple things like decimal rounding. (remember, the shortest half life we know, carbon.. is over 10,000 years)

The holes in evolution force me to assume that, "Reality = science/evolution + x"

x being science we have not learned thus far, or some sort of supernatural force superseding science.

0
Reply
Male 153
I just want to put this out there - the narrator of this clip says this teacher is from Dayton, Ohio. a) this isn`t any Dayton public school I`m familiar with. b) the class doesn`t have the correct mixture of students to be Dayton public schools. c) the class size (both number of students and the size of the room) is all wrong. d) every person interviewed in this clip has a VERY un-Dayton-like accent. They have a twang that would lead one to believe that they are from MUCH further south. e) the narrator`s description of this being "the local high school" bothers me. Dayton Public is quite large and has have several high schools, none of which resemble this. Please don`t judge people from the Dayton area by the teacher or students in this video.
0
Reply
Male 205
"How can like, an African American person evolve from a white person?! I mean, we`re different skin!"

Easily the dumbest thing I`ve ever heard. How about it`s so f*king hot in Africa, their melanin glands over produce to protect from the waves of the sun.
0
Reply
Male 373
wut
how old is this?
0
Reply
Male 1,341
Bigphil, what % of Canada doesn`t know how to spell `remember`?
0
Reply
Male 694
the teacher actually seems not that bad, but i lol`d a magnificent lol at that last kid.
0
Reply
Male 261
Try to remeber 45% of americans don`t know the sun is a star
0
Reply
Male 2,988
i cried after listening to these people. my dog has a better understanding of the natural world than these people, but then again my dog is well trained and had a good upbringing. guess that makes the difference.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
this teacher is obviously not doin his job. if he was, then these kids couldn`t possibly sit there and say "it just doesn`t make sense" because evolution is the only explanation that DOES make sense. what they are actually not understanding, is how mommy/daddy/preacher have been lying to them all these years...
0
Reply
Male 2,868
Now, what science DOES disprove about religion are the things religions have to say about the nature of the physical universe- things like "it`s 6000 years old," or "all human beings descended from one man and one woman." These claims are completely incompatible with observable facts and reason. To say that is not to attack the existence of God- it`s merely an attack on superstition and ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 626
I HATE people who still completely reject science. On the last day of high school, there should be a mandatory sterilization for these kind of people.
0
Reply
Female 513
Oh god.. the stupidity.. my head... my.....head..
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Religion should be taxed. The true sin tax.
0
Reply
Male 1,341
"How can like, an African American person evolve from a white person?! I mean, we`re different skin!"

Takes the cake for stupidest thing I`ve heard all week... Well, it`s only Monday.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@Nubbins- Albert Einstein expressed what I was getting at much more eloquently: "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
0
Reply
Male 299
If there is no way that we could have evolved from nothing, where did god come from?
0
Reply
Female 1,743
I know, but my point was that science does not deal in the divine. Sure, someone can look at the physical world with a religious viewpoint, but that just further proves my point that the faithful tend not to differentiate, where as scientists do.
0
Reply
Male 295
There`s something about that accent. It`s captivating. Like staring at an autistic kid kind of captivating.
0
Reply
Male 483
dburley24, Win all around.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
Yeah, nubbins, and what I meant by that statement is that an understanding of the divine can come through rational observation of physical reality- not that science disproves God.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
"Well, really, if there is some kind of supernatural presence in the Universe that can affect the physical world, then it has everything to do with it. " <-
0
Reply
Female 803
oh my gawd.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@nubblins- When did I say science says there is no God? I don`t believe I said that at all. What I was actually getting at is that science can help one who believes in God to more completely understand God.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Both sides on this issue are far too militant."

No, only one side is militant. Rationalists are forever on the defensive against creationists. I see nothing wrong with mentioning that some people believe in creationism in science class, but calling it "intelligent design theory" is going to far, because it is NOT a scientific theory- but that`s what creationists want to teach. They want to use science classrooms as a pulpit for their faith. Do you see atheists DEMANDING (or even suggesting) that Christians be forced to listen to lectures on evolution in church? Didn`t think so.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
You just don`t get it, do you, Sbeelz?

Science doesn`t say THERE IS NO GOD.
It says, "These are cells. They are the building blocks of life. In each cell, there is DNA. After many generations, the DNA changes. This is micro-evolution."
There is no, "Because this is happening, there is no gods or God or magic chicken in the sky dictating our lives." It just states, "This is happening and here are the facts to prove it."
0
Reply
Female 146
omg I almost died at the "how can an african american person evolve from a white person" bit. It just shows HOW IGNORANT these people are. African Americans and Caucasians are not different races just different ethnicities.....it`s this sort of people who won`t even attempt to consider or try to understand another persons point of view that are killing America right now
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"What the faithful seem to never understand is that science proves what we can know in the physical world, and has absolutely nothing to do with the divine"

Well, really, if there is some kind of supernatural presence in the Universe that can affect the physical world, then it has everything to do with it. Personally, I look at the word God and try to understand what people are describing when they use it. So God is the force that created everything in existence. OK, so if I want to understand the creator, shouldn`t I observe the creation? Shouldn`t I do so systematically? "But hey, there`s this book that tells you how it was created..." There`s hundreds of those stories, and they all say different things. Useless. But here are these rocks, and fossilized bones! Look up, there are billions of stars! Galaxies! If you want to call the creative force "God," then all you need to do to understand God is open your eyes, your ears, and your mind.
0
Reply
Male 221
Sometimes I want to believe that Adam and Eve were monkeys. It`s hard to choose between the two ideas...
0
Reply
Male 181
Way, way back, at the public high school I went to, a very well respected teacher devoted one class a year to creationism. He didn`t present it, he had someone come in and do it. It was open for lively debate, and was thought provoking.

I say this as a non-believer. Call me an atheist if you will, but I have grown to despise that label as I found that too many who wear that mantle proselytize as annoyingly as those of the various faiths.

Both sides on this issue are far too militant. I say allow creationism to be discussed, the whole idea of a liberal education is to present all ideas for discussion. However, don`t use this open door as an attempt to sneak christianity into the cirriculum. If you are going to present creationism, present a wide range of creationist beliefs. The greeks/romans had their beliefs, as did the norse, and the native american tribes, et al. Why aren`t these ever presented? Would those who seek to teach creationism in schools be OK with that?
0
Reply
Male 17
I do like the one kid that says, "How can a black person evolve from a white person?" That only shows how little the teacher has actually taught them since all people regardless of skin color are among the same species though some evolution did take place since both black skin and white skin serve a purpose.
0
Reply
Male 493
God dammit.

I go to a Catholic university in the Midwest and I have yet to meet a person here who believes in creationism on the same par as these nutters. They`re all just appealing to their own ignorance about how evolution works. Saying you don`t believe we could come from unicellular organisms because you don`t understand it is like saying you don`t believe in heliocentricism because you can`t understand why the sun goes across the sky.

It`s this twisted view of religion that ruins everything.
0
Reply
Male 17
If there is a god he screwed up… that is all I learned from that video. Just a bunch of idiots saying, since I can`t even imagine the possibility then it must not be true. Well, if the teacher was teaching the subject maybe they might get it instead of playing dumb. Typical creationist stance, I don’t know so therefore it must’ve been god. That’s not really a valid rebuttal; it more or less means you should probably close your bible and open your science book.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Oh no, these kinds believe strongly in the bible. I am so scared.[/quote]
---------
You should be. They`re the future. Bet there won`t be any scientific discoveries coming outta fat boy`s class.
0
Reply
Male 2,085
Oh no, these kinds believe strongly in the bible. I am so scared.
0
Reply
Male 199
drat, even the kid with GLASSES at the end of the clip is an idiot, and he may just be the worst of em all! Aren`t glasses supposed to make you smarter or something?!

FYI: I have glasses ;)
0
Reply
Male 155
We need religion out of politics and school systems. Its the seed of corruption.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
We didn`t, like, evolve from anything. That don`t make no sense.


DAMN RIGHT. I AIN`T NO POKEMAN.

In all seriousness, these people can roll in their ignorance for all I care. It isn`t my place to explain that evolution has obvious facts behind it, whereas creationism has none. What the faithful seem to never understand is that science proves what we can know in the physical world, and has absolutely nothing to do with the divine. They`re two completely separate fields (as Galileo was trying to argue back when the Catholic church put him on trial for teaching the Copernican idea of a heliocentric galaxy).

But alas, you can`t teach someone who is unwilling to learn. So, let it be, fellow evolutionists. Let it be.
0
Reply
Female 52
this is ridiculous. i went to a Catholic school and they didn`t even teach creationism in biology
0
Reply
Male 199
@kingpong I live in North East Ohio, we see anything south of Columbus as the "South". But most states have a city called Dayton in it, so still not sure if its Ohio.
0
Reply
Male 1,582
America, welcome and enjoy your stay.
0
Reply
Male 197
They might as well get rid of the science lab in the school. It obviously is not going to get any good use.
0
Reply
Male 542
This gave me a migraine
0
Reply
Male 639
I should also add that most people don`t understand the difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory and they will also argue about that, so please don`t attack me for that.
0
Reply
Female 346
White people, why you so crazy?
0
Reply
Female 728
madest: Science is based on inductive reasoning. Meaning that it finds the most likely explanation for any particular occurrence and it attempts to make sure that various explanations for natural phenomena do not contradict one another. It is strong induction, meaning that it is likely to be true, but it doesn`t mean that it is 100% proven to be true. If your science teachers taught you correctly, they taught you to never say that the results of an experiment prove something to be true, but that it is supporting evidence for a particular theory. I`m certainly not saying that science should be disregarded just because it can`t be proven; it is more logical than any alternative. But I`d also like to point out that science periodically goes through paradigm shifts. Newton`s theories looked pretty accurate and the experimental evidence supported them, but then relativity came along and it explained things much better, while also being supported by experimental evidence.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@Madest- no, evolutionary theory is not a fact. A fact is an indisputable, objective observation- the location a fossil was found and the amount of carbon-14 it contains, for example. The half life of carbon-14 is another fact. Those facts together can be used to estimate where and when the animal that the fossil came from lived. A theory is constructed to explain all of the known relevant facts, but no theory is, in and of itself, a fact. A theory can always be changed in the face of new evidence- a fact cannot.
0
Reply
Female 346
I think the part at the end scares me the most. :|
0
Reply
Male 199
See what happens when you think you`re more then just a bag of chemical reactions. The last guy really takes the cake, he thinks that black people came from whites. LOL
0
Reply
Male 150
Best quote:"We didn`t, like, evolve from anything. That dosent make any sense. I mean, how can like, an African American person, evolve from a white person. We`re different skin."
Aaaaaaaaaw the little hillbilly is trying to comprehend science. i call aww of the day.
0
Reply
Male 639
1. Creationism is relevant to a biology class, similar to how geocentricism is important to an astronomy class. Still doesn`t mean it`s right.

2. Indisputable proof of evolution is impossible, so there is no point of trying to convince someone it`ll ever be more than a theory.

3. Even though we`re diffrunt skeeyunned, white people would have evolved from black people, not the other way around.

4. I`m happy to say the Dayton, Ohio is not part of the South, don`t blame us for this one.
0
Reply
Male 2,372
OMG!!! SOOOO scary!! This clip makes me want to, like, get all up in arms and freak the f*ck out!!

/sarcasm
0
Reply
Male 39,621

those kids emberass white people everywhere.
0
Reply
Male 136
this is what comes out when a cult get to big