The simple fact that a seemingly intelligent and scientifically educated person can parse their intellect into compartments and completely insulate portions of their cognition from the same critical thought that science demands is quite befuddling. The ability to understand intricate cellular processes comes with a certain amount intellect; the ability to understand science and the methods contained therein yet hold to a 6000yr old universe is nothing short of mental gymnastics.
I am not sure where the woman in the second video obtained her degrees, so I cannot claim that they came from less than reputable institutions. Her grasp of cellular biology seems decent, yet the ‘faith’ portion of her cranium seems intent on changing the scope of science from one that follows where the data leads, to a process where one begins with a conclusion, then distorts, cherry picks and ignores data to arrive at that conclusion.
The first video is from Daniel Dennett, who eloquently describes the natural processes in evolution that would lead to preferences development in species, and why they might be necessary. It is a very intriguing and short talk that makes me want to learn more, the second video on the other hand….
Now, Michael Shermer at the Creation Museum with a ‘Creation Scientist’.
P.S. If any of you are able to completely stomach this video without ending the pain prematurely, please let me know if there are fireworks or other excitement near the end because I was only able to view half before the dry heaves began and I could smell parts of my brain tissue dying.
Nicely compared & contrasted… And, you’re absolutely correct: The second clip made my brain hurt.
I wonder if that woman ever thought about the fact that if she were born in India or if she were born in Iran or if she were born as the child of Tom Cruise, she would have a completely different set of beliefs. Being so closed-minded as to not even realize that she is interpreting the Bible is dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. Science does not need any more bias, and I hope her “papers” are going under close scrutiny. The fact that she can sit there and say that a child who is born with cancer is a sinner pretty much rules her out in my list of humans I would view as good people.
video 1
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
video 2
It almost seems she is making this up as she goes. The fact that every response makes her look like an idiot suggests the motives of the interviewer, but that aside — unbelievable. The fact that evolution never came up in her study (~13 minutes) suggests she has sheltered her beliefs to the point of completely closing her mind (not the best person to interview, takes a straw man approach, i would rather see an intelligent christian answer these questions, as it is much more impressive to see the mighty fall).
You just don’t understand the science involved. All, that’s ALL, science PROVES a less than 10,000 year old earth, when properly evaluated. Its actually closer to 7000 years old, but you will find that out soon enough.
sure like the dendrochronology which suggests a MINIMUM age of 44 thousand (assuming earth started the moment tree’s started making rings).
that _alone_ shows your an idiot.
the second indication you don’t know science? ‘proof’ is for math and a definitional. not science.
science _never_ proves anything. it DISPROVES and it shows strong overwhelming (dang near unassailable) evidence that all points in the same direction. we call that a theory.
How much do you charge to haunt a house?
I don’t know what science proves it but whatever science it is, I’d like to see a link. The only “scientist” I’ve seen claiming that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old also writes papers on the formation of 2.5 billion year rocks and the processes involved in creating them. Oh and he writes them using the address of an Answers in Genesis branch in Australia as his correspondence address…
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/02/05/crashing-darwins-birthday/
So the one geologist Ken Ham convinced to say that the planet is a few thousand years old writes about our 4.5 billion year world when the boss isn’t looking. Well, I’m convinced. Not sure of what exactly though…
I do understand the science, she’s wrong, and so are you.
What’s happening in your brain? Were you indoctrinated by your parents? How did you get so stupid? Seriously. A nearly brain dead idiot who randomly walked into any local nature center could see that evolution is obviously true. The evidence is so preposterously overwhelming that the only explanation for people like you is some kind of psychological condition. I think you actually represent a cultural sickness. I think you’re part of a reactionary movement of people in total denial of the modern world because you’re so damn scared of the facts. Your stupid little 7,000 year-old earth might disappear – oh noes! I assume you’ve been ginned up by sick retards like limbaugh, behe, et al. and, no doubt, your local religious zealot. Stop being so stupid! You are holding this entire country back.
I don’t think that she is an idiot. I think that she is a very intelligent woman who unfortunately, as she says, has a much different starting point that doesn’t allow the possibility for error. Consequently, I think his best argument comes at the end of the video (22?) when he brings up the change in historical, sociological perspective of those two hundred years earlier. Her answer – of course – ignores the question and says, “Well, I’m right. How do I know? Because I’m right.” The circular argument is, again, where the lack of possibility for failure comes in. As he says, two hundred years from now, fundamentalists will look back (if they are still around) and say, “Yes, but I’m not the one interpreting Scripture. It says what it says.”
Video 1 : Nice, where can I get more of this speaker?
Video 2 : Yeah, right… If she’s a scientist, I’m Bill Gates the billionaire. Since she takes the scripture of the christian bible literally, it’s very good she’s not an engineer or mechanic. All her circles and wheels would fail. (There’s a part in the bible that says the ratio of a circle, pi, is 3. That’s close, but no where near close enough.)
As an engineer, we make estimations of pi as three frequently, especially when dealing with large objects. In fact, one of the most rabidly anti-Creationist professors that I had in undergrad taught us to sometimes just approximate it in orders of magnitude – hence he would estimate pi as 10. Also, as someone who read the Bible cover-to-cover on a yearly basis, there is nowhere that it says pi is three. It’s an inference made from dimensions given for construction, and was entirely acceptable for that time.
Short point – if you disagree with someone, make a salient argument against them, not an unsubstantiated assault on their intelligence and character. In this case, that would mean providing some evidence or other argument that suggests the world was not created. There are ample such arguments – please get educated and join the discussion.
People have been making “salient arguments” to these people for many, many years. Uh, like 150 years, actually. I think it’s time that cultural shame is used to get these people to wake up. Facts simply won’t work. They are in full blown battle mode and they have shielded themselves entirely from the evidence. Presenting it to them makes no difference. It’s high time we call “creationism” what it is – utterly stupid. They are highly susceptible to authority – they need to be TOLD what to believe. Why do you think they believe in their ridiculous gay-hating, war-loving, pro-capitalist sky God?! They are being told to believe it and they LIKE bowing down to their violent, stupid, imaginary God.
scott, find me a scientific paper that justifies your statement
I lasted 1 min 16 seconds, take into consideration that i managed to watch all of two girls and one cup.
I watched the first video, and then five minutes of the second video. I have NO IDEA what these two videos have to do with one another.
I can only conclude that the massive liberal bias on so many websites derives from the fact that their posts are INSIDE JOKES. Nobody but a fanatic would watch both videos to their conclusion to determine WTF the point was, and there probably isn’t one.
Do you know why leftwing–or rightwing, for that matter–comments are so inexplicable? Because they’re INSIDE JOKES. Only the “insiders” can understand them, and the presence of “insiders” determines a website’s bias.
I’ve read all of the comments posted so far in this thread, and I don’t think ANYONE HERE could explain what those fucking clips have to do with one another. Even the wingnuts in this thread seem to be commenting on clips that they just saw AT RANDOM. There’s no argument here. There’s no thesis. Just random shit that only the extremists can find a pattern in, because it’s an INSIDE JOKE.
I think I know what’s getting this voted up. It’s because the “reasonable” person promotes relativism, and then the scapegoat Evangelical seems to promote a belief in God, which means a belief in absolutism, and relativists HATE absolutism. (That’s why they demonize and scapegoat Evangelicals, propping them up as the straw man representing all absolutists. Absolutism, by the way, is the basis for modern science and ALL KNOWLEDGE we seriously claim to know.)
What a sick joke.
And, I GUARANTEE YOU, nobody has any idea what the fuck I mean by any of this.
So this bitch is stupid. Who cares? WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE FIRST CLIPS? What are the arguments? How do they contrast? Why were they selected? If this is just horrible media comprehension on your part, I apologize to you, but I cannot forgive the mass of Diggtards who latched onto this.
Scapegoat is not a verb.
Almost any non-latinate english noun can be made a noun and clearly communicate what the speaker (or writer intended). It may or may not be in the dictionary, but it follows an underlying rule just fine and does what language is intended for – communication.
err meant to say, almost any non-latinate english noun can be made a verb… mea culpa, but point still stands
scape⋅goat
/ˈskeɪpˌgoʊt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skeyp-goht] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.
2. Chiefly Biblical. a goat let loose in the wilderness on Yom Kippur after the high priest symbolically laid the sins of the people on its head. Lev. 16:8,10,26.
–verb (used with object)
3. to make a scapegoat of: Strike leaders tried to scapegoat foreign competitors.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scapegoat?jss=1
Bite my balls.
It’s called a falsifiable hypotheses. That means you always have to be open to being proven wrong. It’s one of the things that science has got going for it. It’s sciences ability to adapt that makes it useful – that an experiment, even in it’s failure, is useful. The casual, ingrained assumption that facts, 100% facts, are still open to debate is a good thing.
The idea that the earth is 7000yo is not a scientifically proven number, no such number exists because none of us were there to observe it. We can only infer from evidence, and by definition, this is not a fact, but simply an inference. We infer that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it did so today – but this does not make it a solid 100% occurrence. It is the ability to live in a complex world where you are expected to change as you learn and be open to the possibility of being wrong that is required here.
7000 years is a very convenient number for you and your threat that we’ll find that out soon enough only indicates your childish, petty nature.
Try leaving your peasant superstitions at the door.
Actually, GrapeApe, the only relativism I’m seeing is from the “Equal time, teach the controversy!” segment of the evangelical world.
The rest of us are just fine here in our reality-based world. Reality is the *only* absolute. Your invisible sky guy? Not so much.
You might want to look up “relativism” and “absolutism” as philosophical and theological underpinnings of understanding.
Here is a Bible passage suggesting that all animal life was brought forth out of the water:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Here is an evolutionary chart suggesting the same thing:
http://www.bordalierinstitute.com/images/animalsEvolution.jpg
It’s like they haven’t even read their own book.
Except for the passage right after that in which God creates all life that moves upon the land separately. It’s like you read something and took it completely out of context…
MOPC:
“MY” invisible sky guy?
And you talk about absolutes. Shame on you.
If you lack evidence for making a claim, DON’T MAKE IT. Rule #1. For people who believe in absolutes, that is. People unlike you.
If you’re going to pretend to be an intellectual, take a remedial reading comprehension class at the YMCA.
I can’t trust anyone with a speech impediment. Her PhD is a sham. She does nothing to critically evaluate any scientific evidence. Despicable.
the patience of the guy in the 2nd video is astounding
I would say, rather, that she is very honestly delusional.
Speech impediment? I have a sneaking suspicion we’re all seeing that video because she never took a course in public speaking. If she had, she would know to avoid phrases like “kind of” and “you know” and to avoid raising her tone at the end of a sentence. Of course, RATIONAL people know that speaking ability has NOTHING to do with intellectual ability; but this video isn’t playing to rational people. This is only a more sophisticated version of Jay Leno’s man on the street segments.
Patience? Have you ever met a fisherman who isn’t patient? This guy is reeling in a big fish, and he’s loving it! This guy made a CAREER out of this! Of COURSE he’s patient!
What, did you think Michael Shermer is just a very patient person who interviews people, with no agenda of his own? Come on…
I can stand Michael Shermer himself lying about his motives, but for uninvolved parties to try and jump on is just dishonorable. You didn’t do this. Don’t try to aggrandize yourself by boosting him. Don’t live vicariously through others!
Don’t try to gain praise from your fellow liars by posting here!
Hey Grape Ape,
Adam Carolla says you stole his childhood and he wants it back!
http://carollaradio.com/2009/03/16/acp-20090317-adam-and-seth-macfarlane/
I only made it 6:25 into that second clip.
I have to say that she is the most patient and polite Creationist I’ve ever heard of! She took on some really tough challenges and didn’t seem to take anything personally at all! Bravo!
As an atheist, I think she has a good point about it being a slippery slope to believe in some Christian Scripture but not all of it. She’s right – science says that virgins don’t give birth and dead people don’t rise.
This interviewer does a good job of giving her enough rope to hang herself. She nails it right at 6:25 when she says that she has a different starting point than a Christian scientist who believes in the Theory of Evolution. Like the intro to the clip states, she’s STARTING with a conclusion, whereas scientific study mandates that you begin with a question and a hypothesis.
I found the interview with Cindy Brady pretty compelling. She argues pretty successfully in my mid to reiterate that since the bible is the /absolute/ word of god, including the story of Genesis, then it should pretty much be dismissed in it’s entirety.
However for some reason she tries a feeble grasp at straws that may very well and lets us know that her five-year old is a guilty little sinner just like she is. Somebody needs to give her a spanking.
PS Her subtle support for Hitler starts to show at 23:00.
Science is fundamentally about the formation of a testable theory based on observations. The scientific world gets EXCITED when something DISPROVES the accepted theory. Take the Large Hadron Collider. The scientists there hope to find the Higgs-Boson. But they will be equally excited if they can essentially prove that they SHOULD have seen it but they DON’T. Either way will win someone a Nobel Prize. Einstein got it for showing that light behaved differently fomr what was accepted at the time. Others have gotten numerous accolades for DISPROVING the accepted ideas.
What she is doing is starting with the conclusion and finding evidence to ‘prove’ it. It is fine to think whatever you like. Believe the Earth is 6000 yrs old. Fine. But when you say you know the answer then wave your hands and say “Well, all that supposed evidence must be wrong somehow because it all suggests the answer I don’t like”, that is NOT science.
I take it as an affront to my world view when she claims this is somehow acceptable. I don’t tell her (or others like her) what to believe as long as they don’t try to tell me what science is. Unfortunately this live-and-let-live idea I and many other scientifically literate people have is under fire in Dover, PA, Georgia, Kansas and other places. Stay out of science and I will stay out of religion. Neither of us is qualified to tell our asses from holes in the ground in the other’s field
(That being said, while I’m sure she knows the chemistry of genetics quite well, she still doesn’t seem to think like a scientist)
>I am not sure where the woman in the second video obtained her degrees, so I cannot claim >that they came from less than reputable institutions.
Ohio State University, according to this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_purdom.asp
I’ve watched both to the end.
the second one is realy wierd ” we would not need to test something that we know god made. ”
God cursed everything. what a nice guy. this is what the chick “scientist”. She speaks like HER word is what “god” intended. The old guy had it right. the sugar thing he said about cake was awesome, she said that a 1 year old is a sinner. woa. crazy stuff indead.
Assuming that she actually has a PhD from Ohio State, as she claims, then I have to imagine that all the scientists at Ohio State are wincing in shame right about now. How could they have conferred a PhD in molecular biology upon a person who does not even understand the key starting point of science? Doh!
I don’t care WHAT her degree is in… the bottom line is this:
She doesn’t understand science.
She doesn’t do science.
She. Is. NOT. A. Scientist.
But, I have to agree strongly with a previous poster who said that she’s not dishonest, but “rather, that she is very honestly delusional.” She isn’t lying. But, then again, neither is a schizophrenic.
As for Mr. GrapeApe, I’m sorry that you “have NO IDEA what these two videos have to do with one another,” so much so that they seem to you to be “inside jokes” that were posted “at random.” (Caps removed from original to protect my delicate sensibilities.) I suppose I’d be pretty frustrated — even angry, like yourself — if I were utterly unable to see the connections that appeared so obvious to most others around me. However, instead of sitting around and venting all of your pent-up anger towards those of us with greater mental acuity, perhaps your time would be better spent engaged in a rigorous course of self-edification. I’d recommend Cognitive Acceleration lessons, which are designed to promote the student’s thinking from “concrete” to “formal”, abstract thinking. Best of luck.
I just wish she’d been asked where we got such a complex immune system from. Why would god design immunities to non-existent pathogens? Was he planning on crashing the party and kickin everybody out of eden? Had he predetermined how pathogens would “degrade” without his “sustaining power”?? And most importantly, how can this woman answer any of these questions without interpreting the bible?
She seems like a nice girl. It’s a shame to see that a bright and good-natured person like her has been so manipulated that she has to subvert an inclination toward honesty in order to adhere to someone else’s fantastic mythology.
Matthew – I have a PhD from Ohio State and, yes, I winced. When she said Ohio State I felt like someone punch me in my stomach.
It seems more likely to me that a person would misinterpret a text that has been translated a bunch of times in several languages than empirical scientific data. “I’m not interpreting, it’s what God’s word says…” You can’t observe without interpreting. It’s more likely to add your own spin on words than on number. In my opinion.
1st video did not add anything, nada
if you think that it solved any issue or proved anything is ridiculous
if Dan Dennett think he found which came first the egg or the chicken he’s hallucinating….
his video sucked
2nd video I did not watch I did not care to compare
I did not come to this page to compare the idiot with the dummy
Were the science dating fossils, the earth and the universe so incorrect as the creationists claim, items, like cell phones, TV’s and other electronic gear wouldn’t work either through the invalidation of Maxwell’s laws concerning electricity and magnetism.
It is not just the paleontology that demonstrates the ages of fossils, but geology, physics, biochemistry and other sciences that provide concrete reinforcement of not only the general theory of evolution, but even specifics of evolutionary lines.
She is excellent at clearly demonstrating the source of her own mental ditortion.
Every comment that she makes about scientist’s “starting point” or, better expressed, bias is directly speaking to her own life experience.
I watched the entire thing because I found her interesting. I want to give her a helping hand and get her into a good home and a good job and get her off the smack she’s been inculcated into and become addicted to. Like she’s a homeless junkie. But I can’t. And I shouldn’t. She has to want it.
Really, while the actions of the religious are sometimes injurious to others, there is nothing “wrong” with such beliefs in my opinion. We are all ignorant and do not know the truth. We likely never will. We can refine our understanding for a million generations and we still will be ignorant of something. Holding religious beliefs is just a matter of degree. More or less ignorant, are both ignorant. One more willfully.
I, for one, know that I don’t know.
“it’s not our interpretation, it’s what God’s word says” = arrogance
I feel sorry for all those kids in the background of that second video. The misinformation they are getting at that “creation museum” will quite possibly screw them up for life. Very sad.
she is starting with an end in mind with her study, instead of doing the study to see what the end is, she is starting with how the facts can be crammed into her ’starting results’
@jprik – exactly right, which is exactly what she criticizes others for doing.
I have a very thorough study of the use of the word ‘hell’ in the new testament, and, suffice it to say, fundamental Chistianity has no clue what Jesus was talking about. About 80% of the time the word is used, it literally means ‘grave’ and implies absolutely nothing about some mythical place where you go and burn forever. Furthermore, the few times the work hell is used in place of the greek ‘gehenna’, it refers to the valley of Hinnom, where the jewish culture burned their garbage. And garbage burns up until it is gone, it doesn’t burn for eternity. The notion of eternal punishment is a fallacy created by religious systems to control “sheeple”.
If you study the history of the King James version, you will find that King James told his interpreters “do no harm to the church”, meaning, keep the Catholic church in power. So their translation is so skewed it is scary. If I had a way to post some of the research I would. In fact I’ll dig it up and scan it, assuming I can find it, and post a pdf somewhere if anyone wants it. It isn’t hard to find with a little research.
So you don’t beleive in Hell? Don’t worry, you will when you get there!
As a homeopathist I am appalled at the lack of insight in both viewpoints. The interview is full of hooey. There are abundant Christian scientists and physicist who believe in Creationism; they just don’t get an airing in marxist dominated academia. That this woman even managed to obtain a science degree while maintaining her Christian faith is an accomplishment in itself.
Homeopathy is an utterly discredited profession based on a deep ignorance of science (biology) and mysticism. You do a grave disservice to those that seek your “remedies”. Hopefully no one has died as the result of the unproven and often unsafe concoctions you hawk to them.
As someone who take homeopathics, I’d like to suggest that you look into the difference between scientific homeopathy and holistic homeopathy. Holistic homeopathy is, I would agree, not a profession and does a great disservice to people. It’s the stuff that’s based on wive’s tales and mysticism. “Swing a dead cat over a fresh grave at midnight under a full moon and your warts will god away.” That kind of thing. Scientific homeopathy is based on the scientific concept that substances that cause symptoms can be used to treat the same symptoms, since the symptoms of a disease are evidence of your body fighting that disease. It gets into more details from there, and there are plenty of books, but I suggest that you understand something before categorically denouncing it.
Bullshit. Homeopathy is the treatment of illness with water diluted with… More water.
I don’t know if someone has mentioned this before. She appears to be partially deaf — from her speech patterns and enunciation. It also appears that she was lip reading in order to understand the interveiwer. Maybe that is her problem. Half of what she was taught in all those lectures went out the window when her istructors turned away. It was all an honest misunderstanding!
(I’m not making fun of deaf people, by the way.)
@The Lonely Trader: you ARE making fun of deaf people, but that’s ok, it’s all part of ‘god’s plan’. you can laugh at them for the same reason you can laugh at god’s duck-billed platypus, god’s book telling us to smite the children of the wicked, or god making the sun spin daily around the earth. it’s all part of the plan.
she should watch some csi or bones or law&order, not only will she be entertained but she will learn that starting with a result in mind, you’ll definitely find the facts to support it, but you might put good people on the hook along the way. but maybe morons screwing people is part of ‘god’s plan’.
btw, has anyone thought that maybe the chapter on science in the bible is still out there waiting to be discovered in a clay jar? “Letters to the Einsteinians 2:17 … And the scientific method was used, and the Lord said ‘er..um…dammit, so it DOES work. i gotta go.’ And then all the people in all the lands were good for goodness sake, fearing not eternal punishment, but priding themselves on not being dickheads.”
You have mastered the art of conflating the straw man with a wonderful imagination. Nicely done.
“Understanding that from a creationist perspective?”
Sounds like she is putting the horse before the cart here. How about trying to understand it from the perspective of reality/truth and then if it leads to creationism, so be it. Oh well, preaching to the choir probably
Mutation without evolution?
Sorry…
She went to Ohio State… now it all makes sense. All you need to do is cast a shadow to get through there.
@ LadyBard:
I managed to get two science degrees and maintained my devout Roman Catholic faith. Does that make me more impressive?
(of course not)
Science and faith are only antagonists if you attempt to use the thought and language ‘tools’ of one to describe and explore the other. I don’t need to “prove” that my faith is real or provide evidence for or against my beliefs. They just *are*. That’s faith.
Likewise I don’t “believe” in gravity or evolution or any other scientific theory. I accept them as working hypothesis and am open to contradicting evidence at all time. That’s science.
“I accept them as working hypothesis and am open to contradicting evidence at all time.” .. so you are saying: You don’t belive in the evidence, and thats why you call them a hypothesis? That’s an ignorat answer! You KNOW it’s wrong, and you are only waiting for the contradicting evidence. Sad. A scientist is ALWAYS willing ro be wrong, and your neither! You deny the theory, because you know the evidence to be wrong. Thats anything but science. (Apologize in advance for poor language skills)
Sorry, Rodney. Oriniwen elucidates his/her position perfectly, with logical and scientific clarity. It’s called intellectual honesty.
But I don’t understand the faith thing, though.
If there really is a god who created everything, he’s gone through a LOT of trouble to make it look otherwise.
I don’t see any trouble with creation the way it is. It all looks pretty neat. He even allows you the freedom of being an utter fool if you don’t want to beleive it.
Its interesting to me that I continuously see people railing against “Starting with a conclusion.” In fact, that is part of the scientific method: You begin with a Hypothesis that explains a phenomenon and you test it to gather evidence that either supports or this hypothesis or not. The difference to me is, in this woman’s mind, evidence that does not support her Christian faith is discarded.
Actually… a hypothesis is not a “conclusion”, it is in layman’s terms a guess, a way of saying “hey, this is how this might work, lets see”. A conclusion is far different, by saying “I am pretty sure how this works”, usually after evaluating data and using reasoning to infer its statement. Developing a conclusion before taking data into account is where her scientific method has failed.
Merriam-Webster:
”
Main Entry:
hy·poth·e·sis
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.”
“Main Entry:
con·clu·sion
1 a: a reasoned judgment : inference b: the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises ; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism”
My feeling is that her scientific method failed because she has a conclusion (or hypothesis) that she is not willing to see fail.
I don’t see how a hypothesis or a conclusion (Based on the definitions) are not interchangeable within the scientific method. Both can be tested and analyzed. In my mind a conclusion or a hypothesis are not all that different. In fact, a conclusion can be derived by going through the scientific method, which should then be tested in the same fashion.
Perhaps I’m the only one. As I said to Jprlk, I think we are discussing semantics though I see your objection.
@ Carl
I see what you mean, but I’d draw a distinction. Having a predicted outcome is not the same as trying to mold something to fit the context of a non-scientific outlook. I think this is basically what you’re saying by discarding contradictory evidence.
Trying to explain something in the terms of GR is not the same as trying to explain something in the terms of creationism, in my opinion.
@Carl
you’re wrong, dude, sorry:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Notice that #3 says nothing of a conclusion, just a hypothesis. starting with a conclusion is flat out wrong, and even then the hypothesis comes after some initial information and resource gathering.
I need to know which university gave that woman a PhD so I can work on getting their accreditation taken away.
@ Joe
I think you interpreted my post correctly.
My point is that “starting with a conclusion” is a fundamental part of the scientific method. However, by trying to make evidence fit the mold of that conclusion is not scientific. Its the fact that she is unwilling to allow her hypothesis to be disproved that breaks out of the scientific method, not that she has a starting point.
@jprlk
I think that your disagreement is based on semantics. I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, I interpret the word hypothesis to mean a conclusion, both basically saying “I think it’s this way.”
I can see your objection.
Cognitive dissonance influenced me to stop at about 1:31, guess I’m not as patient as I used to be.
I thought the idea behind ‘Faith’ was that ‘Science’ wasn’t required. And the concept that God gave ‘man’ free will pretty much covers and good/bad cell states (cells have free will, bacteria has free will, etc., etc.).
I think she might better serve the community in a position that does not require the use of higher forms of logic.
I’ve been there before. One big reason I eventually stopped being a creationist is that I realized that every pro-creation argument is nothing more than a rationalization. “Well, God could have [fill in the blank].”
Ohio State must be an easy school if you can do molecular biology and genetics WITHOUT covering Darwin. Did they leave out Mendel aswell? Because he shows that if you combine pea type A with pea type B you get pea type C!!
I am an Ethologist (I study animal behaviour) and, unsuprisingly, this covers a lot of ground on evolution. I am without a doubt an evolutionist, some would say a Darwinist. When covering evolution we did look at religion because it shaped the way the world was run for many hundreds of years. The interesting thing is that if it wasnt for religion we would probably be doing something cool like living on the moon (to pick an example). Why? Because in a period of great scientific achievement religion had a resurgance and, if i remembver the lectures correctly, caused a little period of time I like to call the Dark Ages. You may have heard of it. In this period of time there was absolutly no scientific advancement which delayed the ‘evolution’ of human thinking for a long time. Look it up!
Yes, there are many things with the world and the universe that science cant explain. The Big Bang for one is something that perplexes me. But to simply discount it just because we cant proove what happened is hypocritical. Can she proove that god created everything? Not unless she can find a cell with a tiny stitched label attached saying ‘property of god’.
One more closing thought. If there were no ‘religion’ section in a library, would the Bible go in Fiction or Non-Fiction?
if science thrives in an empirically-founded evaluation of evidence, then, to further our understanding of the available evidence, we must often begin with the notion that our ideas could be wrong. this includes even apparently well-founded ideas. now, true, it must be added, that all ideas, even the so-called ‘faith-based’ ideas, must all be subject to the same scrutiny. nothing should ever be canonized.
ROFL @ “evil bacteria” from that PhD lady.
She totally explained evolution…when she says how bacteria BECAME symbiotic.
There shouldn’t be a BECAME. God just made it so, right lady?
Come on lady. We’ve proven evolution selectively breeding foxes in a human’s lifetime. You can’t have any objective scientific research about how anything BECAME anything if you explain it all away with god. That’s a throwback to the dark ages.
Interesting posts and comments.
But Holy CRAP.
BGH, do you have to use LONG STRINGS of clichés to run in scientific communities or something?
LOL.
What I mean is:
- Intellectual dishonesty
- Simple fact
- Seemingly intelligent
- Scientifically educated
- Quite befuddling
- Contained therein
- …Nothing short of…
- Mental gymnastics
Dude. Seriously. Try and be yourself. Use shorter sentences. We’ll still like you.
I lasted 43 seconds.
Well, Michael, I watched the whole thing, maybe it was morbid fascination. The interview becomes more and more astonishing, even painful, to watch. This delusional yet seemingly rational and intelligent woman never loses her cool as she sidesteps, evades, and mirrors questions that are actually impossible for her to answer without giving up her beliefs.
Truly tragic, and a loss to the scientific community, when someone who claims to be an educated scientist throws out every step of the scientific method to cling fervently to her beliefs.
you’re not even bothering to give ANY credence to why a person would be a YEC. the “idol of reason” camp doesn’t ever really bother.
I stand pretty neutral on the whole YEC thing, and I understand where the beliefs on both sides come from. I am a Christian creationist, but not a YEC, and perhaps that is why I see the points on both sides.
but, the truth is, neither side is being intellectually honest. and to deny that is… well, intellectually dishonest (or willfully ignorant)
Pot, meet Kettle. We offer them in ebony or black, take your pick.
The thing that worries me most is that she will now use the fact that she has a degree in order to “prove” to people that whatever she says is right.
The problem I have with the first video is that, while interesting, there is no data, research or anything else “scientific” about it. It’s a bearded man taking jabs at a supposed preposterous position, yet with little at all to show for himself other than self-assured conclusions about what evolved how and why. Where was his data, his research, his empirical method? All I saw was some fine asses. As far a scientific discourse is concerned, the first video has absolutely no value.
The problem is, these guys are giving limited time to talk. He didn’t have time to present data because then he wouldn’t have gotten his message across.
Daniel Dennett has an astounding body of published works supporting his theories. He is a well respected and very well known professor and scientist in the world of genetics. It is a google away to find supporting data from Daniel Dennett.
And this woman is, um, I don’t know.
I don’t believe in Evolution. Why ?
It’s impossible to get intelligent life out of
1. an explosion ( big bang)
2. a series of miraculous fortunate events ( maybe 1,000,000,000,000,000) that allow atoms to become living breathing humans and animals, who enjoy SEX and believe in GOD.
You see it’s statistically more likely that God did it all – in 6 days. Problem is He won’t prove it to you by facts, you must believe by faith.
You can rant and rave and call me names now…
1. The Big Bang and Evolution are two different things.
2. There’s nothing miraculous about the origin of life, no matter how unlikely, given unlimited time.
I can see why you don’t believe in evolution; you simply do not understand simple science (or logic, if you will). First of all, you do not understand that the big bang was not an explosion, combustion requires the presence of oxygen- which there was none. The big bang is delicately referred to as an expansion. Furthermore, you do not understand the simple process of respiration, which allows us to live. I do not understand why you cannot accept that we, or any other organism exist because of the very fortunate conditions which are present in our location. There are close to an infinite amount of planets or any other cosmic body out there, it is not a surprise that at least a few of them should harbour the perfect conditions needed for life to exist. Yet despite not believing in this, you believe that a superior, whose existence has not even been proved, has created an ever-expanding universe in a mere 6 days. Finally, neither have you gathered that humans and animals are in fact the same thing.
This is why I understand why you do not believe in evolution. As mentioned, you do not know enough about it. Maybe you have not reached the correct age to start learning science yet (not meant as an insult, I’m merely curious).
You got a lot of opinions and assumptions about me. All aimed at insulting me and saying I am stupid or unintellectual. Why ? Because I believe in God. Classic Atheist behavior. Very unscientific .
In case you care… I’m a Ex-Bio Major. I went to a Christian American University. We learned everything about Evolution. So we know what we believe in and we know what Evolutionists beleive.
I know you think humans and animals are the same… I rejected that concept years ago. We are were designed by the same Creator (GOD). So God used the same awesome design concepts across the board when he created living beings. He had no need to reinvent thing over and over. We are similar, but not the same.
He did not create humans from animals.
Explosion or implosion or whatever… Your probably right.
These days, we do say it is an expansion. I’m not talking about technical points though. Read my first comment. Give me concrete evidence that Billions of Billions of random events created YOU and Me. I’ll send you $100.00 via paypal.
The Bible already says that other beings exist in the universe. We are not alone. And I am not talking about Heaven. Finding them tomorrow will not prove that Evolution is possible.
Again. IMHO Evolution = A awesome way to formalize and enforce your real religious view: Atheism.
Is the author of this article an atheist ? If he is an atheist, the Intellectual Dishonesty lies in his lap.
Evolution is not a series of random events happening by sheer luck, regardless of how much time you have. So, no, you don’t understand it. So, did your “Christian University” teach you incorrectly, or did you just not pay attention? Either way doesn’t help you much.
PS: Would an English class or two have killed you, or do they not teach that there either?
The woman in the second video is *mentally ill*.
Her beliefs are part of a collective, viral delusion. To continue to think a sentient, god-like being actually wrote words in a book is patently absurd. The delusion has been, over time, honed and massaged to a story that allows believers dismiss any contradictory, fact-based observation. She should be treated with counseling and medical care to teach these people they are not connected with reality.
Kudos to this man and his patience with her. I am no longer tolerant in any way of these people *blatantly lying* about observable facts.
The phrase “collective, viral delusion” is the best way I can express the true nature of what she is doing. Many people together all creating and perpetuating a story that does not conform with observation, and actively working to cause others to believe it. From my point of view, spreading mis-information can be dramatically harmful, seen especially in the video around +17:40-18:00 where she says her 5yo daughter is a guilty sinner, and “we’re all sinners”.
omg. second video made my eyes bleed. she is an absolute idiot. quote from her: “every religion, jews, greeks…”
i’ve just proved her idiocy with one single quotation.
if evolutionists used her argument they would start their statements by saying “well since we all know darwin was right, then evolution must be true”. thank darwin (not god) not everyone is an idiot
The fundamental flaw is this.
Genesis is NOT a historically accurate record. Especially the creation story. God (well, Moses wrote it…pretty sure he wasn’t around during the creation) was NOT trying to tell us HOW He did it, just THAT He did it. It is almost insulting for us to assume that the entire creation of the world could be effectively condensed into a few chapters. Come on. It was not given to Moses so that he could go tell the Israelite’s how God made the planet.
Science and Religion will one day meet. period. And we will all slap our collective foreheads.
@Science
1. nice handle, clever
2. thank you for your permission to call you names
i see no facts or theories in your argument as to why you THINK getting intelligent life out of blah blah blah is impossible. my grandfather used to think it was impossible to put a man on the moon, his great-grandfather used to think it was impossible for the lay person to attend mass in a language he spoke, and his great-grandfather used to think that picking fleas out of his mate’s fur was proper grooming. and if you don’t believe that given infinite trials in an infinite amount of time that anything and everything can and will happen, then you may as well believe that it’s impossible to add 1 + 1. reasonably easy mathematics on both counts. i don’t think anyone here will try to deny you your faith any more than anyone here would try to deny me my borderline alcoholism and habitual masturbation. just realize that they are all equally effective at gaining knowledge.
Putting a man on the moon requires lots of planning, billions of dollars, knowledge of science. It does not involve luck or a series of tiny accidents.
Evolution involves many billions and billions of accidents. How did the situations arise for the “accidents” to happen. By accident again ?
How did the unstoppable desire to “pass on genes” get planted in us ?
By accident?
Evolution = A awesome way to formalize and enforce your real religious view: Atheism.
Science, you obviously do not understand the process of evolution. Situations did not need to arise for “accidents” to occur. The mutations which turned out beneficial, stayed. You’re also confusing an emotion, with an automatic process. When producing offspring, it is not our desire which transfers our DNA, it is RNA.
RNA: Ribonucleic acid
Again, your assuming I’m an idiot. I know what you believe scientifically. But I reject it. Mentioning facts and figures to support your false premise does not work. Mixing the well known facts of A with the biased lies of B does not produce the truth. It still creates a lie.
I know everything a college graduate needs to know about Science and Evolution (Scientific Atheism, IMO).
But I say things differently because I believe differently. It makes me look foolish in the eyes of an Evolutionist and Atheist. I prefer it that way.
P.S. This is not a Religion VS Religion discussion. Just in case someone wants to talk about Hinduism and other world religions. Religion (A) VS Religion (B) is a totally different discussion. I wanted to make that clear. Let’s stay on track and keep it simple in advance.
“i don’t think anyone here will try to deny you your faith any more than anyone here would try to deny me my borderline alcoholism and habitual masturbation. just realize that they are all equally effective at gaining knowledge.”
I’ll bite at that easy bait…
Knowledge can be gained from drinking alcohol (and lost, if you drink enough, I think… I don’t really remember.). And habitual masturbation will teach you something new every single time you do it, I guarantee.
But faith is never a means of gaining knowledge. It is a means of avoiding knowledge, a barrier against reality. Faith is a mental firewall which only ports the absurd details of your chosen fiction.
@Science
there’s nothing wrong with atheism, and there’s nothing wrong with believing that harvey the rabbit created the universe. true scientists may not believe in god but show them some proof (not just quoting from fairy tales) and they’ll update their views.
and again billions of accidents take billions of years, hmmm…kinda like the age of the earth, eh?
are you american? not meant as an insult, just curious. i was just reading an article this morning (will try to find it in my history) about how the US is second only to turkey in its belief in hooey and trailing the rest of the first world in its scientific knowledge. less than half of you know how long it takes for the earth to go around the sun once (and the other half think the sun goes around the earth)
@BGH
Notice I say Evolutionists/Atheists and not Scientists. To me there is a BIG difference.
I have to use Evolutionist/Atheist because they are not forthcoming about their beliefs. You can’t claim to believe in Evolution and be a Christian. I use the two words together whenever a scientist does not honestly disclose his/her personal religious views. Evolutionists hardly admit their religious believes openly. Yet, they push their religious views subtly. It’s unprofessional. Politicians and Stock Market Experts are expected to disclose their finances and stocks. The same concept should apply here.
@jprlk
Since you asked… I am not an American. I’m an European.
You can call my Bible fairy tales. But can you prove the events didn’t happen though ? Nope. At the turn of the 20th century lots of Archeologists worked hard to prove that the bible was false and full of errors. One by one their claims were proven false over 100 years ago. So your over 100 years late with the claim that the bible is a fairy tail. That claim was squashed over 100 years ago.
Simple example: For years archeologists claimed there was NO record of King David. But the evidence was found eventually found.
Thanks for the discussion guys. I hope that’s all I’m urged to say here.
I appreciate the complete and blind dodge to my point that you are engaging in the same exact prejudgment and presupposition you are criticizing in others.
And judging from your previous comments, I suppose that was to be expected….
“You can call my Bible fairy tales. But can you prove the events didn’t happen though ?”
Of course not.
And you have a college degree? In a subject that requires logic?
I can’t prove your fairy tales didn’t occur. But, nor can I prove the non-occurrence of several identical copies of myself typing innumerable variations of this post in tenth-dimensional hyperspace. Nor can YOU prove that I’m not an omniscient being trying to once again inform you of how utterly silly — and ultimately, harmful — your ideas are.
More generally, see Russell’s Teapot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Thanks for playing. Please come again.
@Science
Try not to confuse two separate beliefs. Believing in evolution and being an atheist is not the same thing, although they may be closely related. That’s like saying all christians are creationists, which is not true.
@Science
let me say this as clearly as possible.
you. do. NOT. know. everything. about. evolution.
no one does.
and you ARE unintellectual, not just because you believe in harvey the rabbit, but b/c you won’t apply your intellect to your beliefs, to the bible or any other question of ‘faith’.
btw Ex-Bio Major = didn’t finish school
Classic example again…. Lot’s of insults. Lot’s of assumptions.
Classic Evolutionist/Atheist behavior.
Assumes the Christian is an idiot, uneducated or ignores the facts.
You said “btw Ex-Bio Major = didn’t finish school”
For your information, I was doing double major. I quit Biology and did Computer Science instead. That was over 10 years ago.
Do you any more assumptions to present as facts and insults?
You do realize, by continually making the classification, “Classic Evolutionist/Atheist behavior”, you are engaging in the same presumptive and biased arrogance you bemoan in others?
It might be best to take a look in the mirror prior to your next comment…
200 years after Jesus’ life Christians were still being eaten by lions, so comparatively Evolutionists are doing pretty well I would say.
Serious scientists who advocate intelligent design do not believe in the bizarre “young earth” of some Christian “creationists”. You people shouldn’t forget this.
Someone wrote: “To continue to think a sentient, god-like being actually wrote words in a book is patently absurd.”
Oh is it really absurd? That’s because all the atheist writers that you have been being fed from intellectually so far make fun of such ideas, isn’t it? Who writes books? Unconscious beings rather than sentient ones?
Let me tell you what is absurd: The people who believe that the sentient/conscious beings, especially the humans, and all the meaning in their lives like their feelings of and their search for love and happiness were made by an unconscious, purposeless, nonsensical material universe…
Regards
Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi
Istanbul, Turkey
A lot of arguments from personal incredulity popping up here.
@ Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi
“Serious scientists who advocate intelligent design”
Serious scientists DO NOT advocate Intelligent Design, because it is NOT scientific. To date, the Intelligent Design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:
* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam’s Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining Intelligent Design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.
[Taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#Defining_science ]
“Oh is it really absurd? That’s because all the atheist writers that you have been being fed from intellectually so far make fun of such ideas, isn’t it?”
Absurd, yes. But my reason for thinking it absurd does not arise from reading atheist writers who make fun of such ideas. (Though, they DO make fun of such ideas.) It has to do more with a long, ongoing process of critically questioning all assumptions, wherever possible; researching those questions; studying the different ideas, arguments, and data; and, most importantly, arriving at my current positions independently. These positions — beliefs, if you like — are not static. They are subject to change. In fact, I find it intensely satisfying when any of my long-held beliefs are shown, logically and rationally, to be “wrong” or in need of significant modification. It reminds me that I am still able to learn and grow, and that “I” am more than merely a collection of my beliefs.
“the sentient/conscious beings, especially the humans”
I’m glad to see you accept that sentience and/or consciousness extends to other animals beyond humans.
“…absurd… that [you think]… love and happiness were made by an unconscious, purposeless, nonsensical material universe…”
Well, not “made by,” but certainly “occur within.” I see no absurdity in that, whatsoever. Sorry.
Your culture has enveloped your reason.
For all the folks who have criticized the “old guy with the beard” in the first video:
It seems safe to assume that you’re not familiar with Daniel Dennett and his impressive work in philosophy. Dennett is the Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, University Professor, and the director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett
Please, do yourself a favor and read some of his works:
“Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomenon
“The Intentional Stance”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance
Or, watch him in these videos:
The Four Horsemen: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for a first-of-its-kind, unmoderated 2-hour discussion. (Hint: Dennett is the old guy with the beard.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM
Bill Moyers interviews Daniel Dennett:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605
Please, read and watch.
You’ll be glad you did.
Look, there are creationists who believe the universe is billions of years old and that evolution is a viable tool for God to use to create the many forms of life on this planet. (Old-earth creationism). People like the woman in the second video do a lot to harm Christianity by making everyone think we must be anti-intellectual idiots.
Good website with actual science and creation
http://www.answersincreation.org/
Yes I know about that. There a lot’s of views and opinion about how it happened.
But that’s a sort of Religion VS Religion discussion. I prefer to keep it a simple Christian Religion VS Evolution. Or else we get lost of mud.
@ Elle
I’m sorry, Elle, but simply because your ideas are less absurd than the Young Earthers hardly makes them intellectual. Your ideas continue to promote baseless conjecture and wishful thinking to the level of Unassailable Truth.
@ Science
Ah, yes. Isn’t so much easier to pretend that all Christians agree with you? Or do employ the No True Scotsman argument and thus those who don’t agree with you are simply deemed to be not Christians?
I’m just happy that we don’t have “scientists” like her here in Brasil. At least, not yet. Creationists don’t mess with science here, and I’m gratefull for it.
By the way, I’ve never imagined there was such a museum dedicated to theses nuts.
It cracks me up that people seem to believe that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. This seems to be particularly prevalent in Christianity.
Sure there are those that believe that the bible is the literal word of God but there are many that are able to incorporate science into their belief structure and see the bible more as a guide than literal word. In fact, in the bible didn’t Jesus often make use of the Parable? A story that illustrates a lesson rather than throw out commandments?
Yes, there are lots of parables and illustrations in the bible. However, in most cases it’s easy to prove that it’s an cultural illustration by looking at the history, language and of culture of the region. There are lots of similar creation account. The Babylonians had a similar one too. Evolution does not fit in because it has a clear anti-religion agenda.
Christians believe this:
1. We believe God made us with a purpose because he loves us.
Any scientific claim denying this has a religious undertone or agenda. The religious undertone is atheism
Atheists and Evolutions believe:
1. There is no God
2. Humans were for no reason at all
3. Bible is a fairly tail (it’s your right)
4. We evolved from Monkeys and therefore… certain races are superior to others. That’s how Hitler justified killing the jews.
Alright, with a post THAT wacked-out, ignorant, illogical, and misspelled, I am seriously and openly questioning your claim of having a legitimate university degree, particularly in a field requiring the utmost attention to accuracy, logic, and detail.
* Science never makes claims about “God.”
* Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.
* While it’s correct to say that atheists believe there is no God, “Evolutions” [sic] may or may not believe such; they span a broad range of religious and secular philosophies.
Atheists, in general, do believe there is a reason for humans (though their belief has precisely NOTHING to do with their atheism). Likely, many of them would explain that “reason” in terms of natural selection as part of the evolutionary process of the origin of species. What I think you meant, however, is that atheists are rather unlikely to believe that there is a Purpose for humans — on that point, had you made it, you’d probably be correct. I point out, of course, that making any generalizations about atheists, other than their lack of belief in a deity or deities, is just that: a generalization, for which we will likely find many contrary examples.
* I can’t believe that you actually pulled out the pathetic “Evolutionists say we evolved from monkeys” trope. This is, of course, simply Not True. By putting forth this claim you have reduced yourself to being (1) a Troll, (2) a Liar, or (3) simply too ignorant of the topic for us to share a meaningful discussion about it. (Not stupid, just ignorant. You can CURE ignorance!)
However, I’ll quickly respond anyway:
We are hominids — humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans — and collectively share a common ancestor who lived appx 13 million years ago. For humans, most recently we shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees appx 7mya. To find a common ancestor that we (humans and all hominids) share with modern monkeys (Old World monkeys) we have to go back to Catarrhini, appx 25mya. But we did not evolve FROM monkeys, in the same way that you did not evolve from your cousin: You Share a Common Ancestor with your cousin, and we ALL share a common ancestor with monkeys. And further back, all Mammals (rats, elephants, dogs, whales, humans, etc.) share a common ancestor who lived appx 220mya.
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. So when a Atheist makes comments about a religion, he is entering a spiritual territory and expressing a spiritual opinion.
You are right Atheism is not a religion. But it is a religious view on Life itself.
God has an opinion about “Atheism”, He says
“The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”" Psalm 14:1-3
As a Christian this is what I believe.
Humans did not Evolve. We are not animals. We do not share a common ancestor with animals.
We did not come about through Evolution. We did not Evolve. Animals and Humans do not have a common ancestor. I reject those ideas categorically.
*Species Variation*
There is variation within the species. There is no evolutionary change to totally different species.
So we have Wolves, and Dogs, possibly from one ancestor
We have Lions, Cats and Tigers , possibly from one ancestor
The fact that we have similar humanoid features does not mean anything. We came from the same Creator – God. But not by evolving.
So we came from God. We were designed by God. So we have a similar design. Macs have chips. Ipods have chips. They have a common creator – Apple.
Just to clarify
THIS IS WHAT I BELEIVE
There is *Species Variation*
*Species Variation*
There is variation within the species. There is no evolutionary change to totally different species.
So we have Wolves, and Dogs, possibly from one ancestor
We have Lions, Cats and Tigers , possibly from one ancestor
The fact that we have similar humanoid features does not mean anything. We came from the same Creator – God. But not by evolving.
So we came from God. We were designed by God. So we have a similar design. Macs have chips. Ipods have chips. They have a common creator – Apple.
“There is variation within the species. There is no evolutionary change to totally different species.
So we have Wolves, and Dogs, possibly from one ancestor
We have Lions, Cats and Tigers , possibly from one ancestor”
Ummm… Lions and Tigers ARE distinct species. And are distinct from cats, as well, if you are referring to domestic house cats.
Alternately, “Cats” is also a general term for the biological family, Felidae, which encompasses two subfamilies, Felinae and Pantherinae, with more than forty extant (currently existing) SPECIES of cats (Felidae). If these cats come from one ancestor, as you concede is possible, then speciation has occurred, QED.
One way that we can see the process of speciation in cats is to look at the degree to which two different cat species are able or unable to mate and successfully reproduce. Within the range of cats, some species are (1) unable to mate (copulate) with other species. Some may be (2) able to mate, but no offspring will occur; or, (3) offspring will be stillborn, or survive only briefly, or not survive to reproductive age. Closer still, (4) two species may produce healthy offspring that survive to adulthood, but are infertile/sterile. And finally, there can be (5) interspecies mating which results in viable, fertile offspring.
See “Haldane’s Rule,” referring to interspecies mating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_Rule
[Perhaps I should have numbered it in reverse, for that would correspond more closely with the process of speciation. But you should get the idea.]
As such, as soon as two types/groups of animals are unable to produce viable, fertile offspring between them, then we can no longer be talking about “variation,” because we now have two distinct, non-merging groups. This is, quite simply, a form of speciation.
“Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. So when a Atheist makes comments about a religion, he is entering a spiritual territory and expressing a spiritual opinion.”
Does that mean something to you? Because it is utter babble to me. Meaningless.
Fictional things are fictionally discerned. So when a historian makes comments about a novel, he is entering a fictional territory and expressing a fictional opinion.
“You are right Atheism is not a religion. But it is a religious view on Life itself.”
That doesn’t make any sense, either. How can atheism be religious? It has no faith, no dogma, no ceremony, no unifying beliefs. In fact, no belief at all. It is a non-belief in deities. Is it a religious view when I tell you that I don’t believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns? Right. Same thing.
“As a Christian this is what I believe. Humans did not Evolve. We are not animals. We do not share a common ancestor with animals.”
I think that’s true for you. You don’t seem to have evolved at all!
And I slap my hand on my face and I ask myself: Why? WHY do I engage in discussions with people who don’t have the slightest capacity for critical thought? Who don’t have the ability to think and learn and change? Why don’t I instead go down to the hospital and argue with someone who is in a coma? The responses would be far more cogent.
Science,
Try to avoid attributing opinions to groups of people, it is invariably incorrect and also suggests condescension.
I, personally, believe…
That the original creation of the universe had a cause.
That the origin of life occured from conditions within nature, not outside of nature.
That evolution is the method by which all diversity in life forms has been created.
That Humankind evolved from prior life forms, none of which were precisely monkeys.
That the Bible is a compendium of human writings compiled by men. So do you. You believe that it was “Inspired by God” not “Written by God”.
I beleive that all actions occurring, or having ever occurred in history are the result of conditions within nature not outside of nature. Nothing “supernatural” has ever occurred. Because all events that occur within nature are natural by axiom.
And I believe in God.
Try fitting me in your tiny little athiest-definition box.
I can’t
not to be too much of a d!ck, but see what i mean about turkey.
@science, i’ve got a CompSci degree & a B.A. with a double major in Psych. and Soc. i work in compsci and i too could easily find the analogy between being the creator of a program and there being a creator for us. but (in tron lingo) the mcp for our lives isn’t a bearded omniscient guy in the sky who kills children and starts wars, it’s the sum of physical, mathematical (including probabilities) and chemical formulae that govern every aspect of every particle, sub-particle and wave in the universe.
Now your talking about religion and showing your true colors. You don’t believe in the Bible. That’s fine. It’s your right. But that changes our discussion.
So my first question to you is:
1. Who established the physical, mathematical (including probabilities) laws your talking about. What keeps them in place ? Why don’t the laws change ? Why can’t they change ? Everything has a law attached to it.
Why does the balance of our universe rest on so many tiny laws that never change ? It’s because God holds it in place, and He said so Himself.
If you want the answer, I invite you to pray and read the chapters of Job when God give an answer to Job and his friends.
Acceptance of laws that are constant does not require a belief in a higher power.
Also, you are using scripture to “prove” God’s existence. You can’t support a premise with the premise itself.
Faith is subjective. Believe what you want. But in matters of science, the Bible is not authoritative. Does Science disprove the existence of God? No. But does the Bible supercede scientific evidence? No. Where the two conflict, The Bible rules in matters of faith and the scientific method rules in matters of testable hypotheses.
Excuse my english, at time I’m typing rather fast.
I got to answer this one.
Jesus said
“I am the Way, the TRUTH and the LIFE”. No one will go to the Father God (which you hate) but by Jesus.
The Bible was never meant to be a science tool or a historical tool. It presents facts and details to guide you spiritually guidance. And Science does not contradict the Bible. Notice I didn’t say “The Bible does not contradict Science”. The Bible is the authority. Not Science. Also notice that Jesus said He is the Truth. Science is not the truth. It’s an incomplete changing sea of details and discoveries my Man.
But that’s ok, because The Bible and Science have different functions and goals. We can’t pit them against each other. Unfortunately only Evolutionists and Atheists do that while dishonestly not admitting their own religious views.
Excluding Evolution, Science usually agrees with everything the Bible has to say. There are areas where does not seem to be the case. But if you look at it closely, using history, language and culture you will discover that not only does the Bible validate science, it told us about science facts thousands of years before we even understood what the Bible was talking about. So scientific facts were stated and health laws were established, long before they were even proven by science to be necessary. Go on Amazon and search for books detailing the scientific facts presented in the bible long before they were discovered.
Or start here: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html
or go here: http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/bibleac.html
If you don’t know what I am talking about, you should read about the health laws and requirements in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Also read the last chapters in the book of Job.
Example: Seventh Day Adventist Christians have been following the health principles of the Bible for over 100 years. For decades, everyone laughed atthem . Now everyone is trying to copy the health principles of the Seventh Day Adventists, not knowing that they are really from the Bible.
See this National Geographic Slideshow that mentions the Biblical principles of Seventh Day Adventists
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0511/sights_n_sounds/index.html
Study of Seventh Day Adventist Diet Means Good News For Vegetarians
http://www.naturalnews.com/022599.html
Oh SNAP! You did not just invoke Job did you! I’m going to have to pony up some Job smack on you.
Job not only has God talking up Unicorns, but also fire breathing dragons! And that’s before he refers to Satan yoinking God’s Heavenly fire ( lightning ) to zap Job’s family.
Look, take all the liberties you want with science, it can hold it’s own. But don’t pull out Job as an example that someone should dive into to get some truth out of the bible. Start easy.
I don’t remember why that was mentioned. Operating in faith is very important when you can’t understand things in the Bible.
Ask someone who knows the bible, an knows what he is talking about.
I can’t help you on these questions.
*Good place to start*
BUT I remember seeing a video at Amazing Facts (Link Below) that perfectly explains the unicorns and other strange creatures very well. I’ll repost it here if I ever find it again.
You can always check out the videos by AmazingFacts.org.
It can understood, in the right historical and cultural context.
I *THINK* this was explained in one of these videos at
http://www.amazingfacts.org/Television/AmazingFactsPresents/tabid/77/SQT/2-2008/Default.aspx
Either
1. Confusion in the Cemetery, Pt.2
2. Confusion in the Cemetery,Pt. 1
Anyway… nice talking with you guys.
bye
Final thought: Dennett really needs to keep going with the beard, does he not look a bit like Darwin/Santa?! LOL
@Science
raised roman catholic, i read (past tense) the bible (a lot) and i ‘prayed’ (a lot). pray in quotes b/c my folks told me how to pray and told me i had to. as a child without the means to defend myself, nor the ability to acquire other points of view on the world, i can now look back and see that my parents were abusing me (i know what ppl think when catholic and abuse are in the same sentence) by not giving me the tools needed to decide for myself. as a (hopefully) rational adult i can see that the ‘boy who cried wolf’ and ‘little red riding hood’ were stories used to teach the uneducated and susceptible in society (who until modern times was just about every person not born into nobility) the rules of society, which are used to help propagate the species.
There is nothing more important than your Eternal Salvation.
I am sure they wanted to make sure you were saved.
These websites debunk a few catholic views
SabbathTruth.com
TruthAboutDeath.com
HellTruth.com
The problem with Evolution is that it creates spiritual disbelief about God and His Love for us.
Of course, that’s great for Atheist agendas…
Science??? Whaaaa???
You write: “There is nothing more important than your Eternal Salvation.”
This is silly bunk. Do you believe that another person, or even God–who doesn’t do it in everyday life–can save you from yourself, your own sins, mistakes and learning?
We are all part of God/All That Is, that’s all there is to it. I don’t need priest rabbi or minister to interpret God’s word to me.
I don’t need a bearded man hanging on a cross to “save me” from myself.
(For that matter, if the real Jesus were all _that_ powerful, He never would have let Himself get hung on a cross. And he’d be a Marvel superhero starring in his own comic by now! Idiocy! Think! Figure it out!)
I take the meaning and love of All That IS in the wind, in song, in the whispers of the sun, nature, boulders, trees…in my child’s laughter, in butterflies, in a cat jumping on a tuft of paper!
Read my other post on cherry=picking from religion. And if you won’t take that suggestion…let’s try the Biblical way to get you on board:
…ooohhh, I hear thunder…lightning striketh!…W speaketh–and like him, I hear Jesus–or was that Jesus (prononunced hay-soos) the Mexican waiter at El Chalupa? (“Yes, guacamole with that, please!”)
I say to thee: Do it! The Lord commandeth thee as I speaketh his tongue! For you are but a woman, I am a man, and thee must do as I Biblically biddeth. Even if I lispeth as I writeth!
Also, do not voteth! Votething is not mentioned in the Bible, the Word, giver, taker and describer of All Things!
Also, ifeth thee are Hot and Slim, especially with bountiful or perky mammary glands, MILFish or 18+, sendeth me pictures of thee nudeth and fornicatingeth, by email! It shall saveth thine Soul!
And it raiseth, my, er…spirits!
Science, first person to go to hitler automatically invalidates everything else they say, no matter how correct or logical it may be (which you’re a fair distance from).
Simply, who created God? If he can create himself from nothing, then why can’t the universe? It’s not that complicated. So many people here invoke the word of god – but we know nothing of that being aside from what he’s told us (apparently) and that he must always speak the truth (of course).
That’s simply not good enough.
What interests me more than the topic of evolution (which interests me greatly as a computer scientist who models evolutionary systems) is this blind, basic ignorance that it is not upon the aesthiest to disprove the existence of anything, it is upon the believer to prove god under laboratory conditions.
Science, put forward your experiment which would change the mind of the aethiest by causing the presence of god to appear in your lab. That’s the only thing that’s required here. It’s all that’s ever been required.
Your asking some questions that only God can answers. All I can say is read the Bible for yourself. If your angry at God, read Job and pay close attention to the last chapters. Yes Paul, the last chapters.
Also read James (it’s short) and the beginning of Luke.
Also remember that God is Holy and Loving. We are unholy.
He is not obligated prove his existence to us. He already did that through nature and creation. Sometimes he does answer the reqeust, but that is his prerogative.
*Testimonials*
1. That’s a testimonial from a friend.
http://miraclediary.com/?p=7
*My own personaly Testimony*
I was personally healed from uveitis in my left eye after praying, and quitting my my medication. The Doctor said I would go blind if I didn’t take the medication. My wife and I prayed. Next morning it was gone and I could see clearly.
Need more evidence ? Ask God to show himself to you, His way. Not Your Way. Read the Bible to find out what God’s way is. The Bible is God’s Love Letter to you.
Angry at God? That’s a strange thing to say. I think you’re hinting at the underlying “Why does God let good people suffer” routine. I don’t buy it. I’m not angry at God, I’m concerned that people will put away their medication and rely purely on faith for a cure which may or may not be presented according to the desires of a being we don’t know and who won’t co-operate with us except in a tyrannical do-as-I-say manner.
Pointing people to the bible to answer their questions implies that you think I havent already looked, that the bible was enough by itself – that also implies I believe everything I read. I don’t.
I went to a number of christian schools growing up, and was not treated well when asking these very questions – “If adam and eve had two sons does that make being gay ok? or incest ok? Could two boys have babies back then? Even when one was dead?”. It’s not the last chapters of the bible that should be the ones with answers in them.
No, I don’t dispute your anecdotal evidence, but yes, I am asking hard questions.
Where did God come from? Why is God given a get-out-of-jail-free-card on that front, but the universe expected to tow the line of cause and effect.
If you observe a phenomenon, such as the miraculous healing of your eye through prayer, then please please please reproduce this under labarotory conditions so that we can get that cure to the people dying of things far more terrible. I, for one, would love to see hospitals shut up shop because God’s love was enough.
I’m trying to avoid being sarcastic here, but seriously, you cured your eye through prayer? And yet children die of leukemia every day? Grow up. God’s love isn’t enough to save the world from suffering simply because he doesn’t exist.
It’s called a coincidence and they *just happen*.
Perhaps, and this is just my opinion, life is actually an extraordinary occurence we are very, very lucky to experience. That’s all. It’s a theory that actually explains the evidence. Luck, chance, believe it or not, despite the amazing odds against winning the lottery, people still do. Perhaps, sometimes, eyes just fix themselves and like a lot of gamblers, you forget all the times you prayed and lost, and convenentily forget that you prayed the night before and the night after, so to you, everything must seem linked to that act anyway.
The title of intellectual dishonesty is fitting for a person who chooses Science as their title, instead of their simple name.
In Bible times, culture saw it fit that women were not seen as important. So they were hardly ever mentioned. The Bible only mentioned Cain and Able, but they obviously had sisters. Just because the women are not mentioned does not mean they didn’t exist.
See what All Experts have to say about the possiblity of incest: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Incest.htm
Christians are only human. I apologize if you were mistreated by Christians.
You cannot place God in a box and framework of your choosing. You have to accept him for who He is, not what you think he is. Creating a personal ideal of who God should be and what he should do is called Idolatry.
Yes I was healed through prayer. My wonderful wife approached me and suggested I should pray and beleive. We prayed earnestly. God healed me. Simple as that. No big deal. Several doctors had already diagnosed me. They all called it the same thing. I rebuked everything the doctors said and decided that if God was going to heal me, I would ride the wave with belief. I knew how to monitor my condition. I knew what to expect if things got worse. I got better and I was healed. God answers prayers. That was over 1 year and a half ago.
I had Uveitis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uveitis
Miracles happen everyday. You have to know where to look or ask.
It was not a coincidence.
I know of other miracles:
http://legacy.guardian.co.tt/archives/2005-03-09/features1.html
She mentioned a few times in her sermons that she was cured of AIDS
She also overcome her Lesbianism through God
She had gotten AIDS from her first husband
She is a pastor now.
This is her Music
http://www.imeem.com/people/ffjonco/music/89qtN58D/kathy-ann-samaroo-ordinary-servant/
BTW, I use the name Science for SEO purposes.
In 2004, definitive studies were done on the possible effects of intercessory prayer on medical treatment recovery. No correlation could be found. In fact, patients who had someone praying on their behalf did slightly worse.
In light of this statistical evidence, you are presenting anecdotal evidence as fact. What is more plausible:
1. A well-controlled, blind study, whose methods are accepted as valid by the scientific establishment, is correct; and therefore any individual instances of healing prayer are most likely “pos hoc, ergo propter hoc.”
2. Somehow, God only chooses to answer prayers when we’re not measuring results. There is no Biblical precedent for this behaviour.
The Bible says, “Ask and you shall receive,” but when put to the test no such thing happens.
I’ve seen research that says otherwise:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/health/10prayer.html?scp=20&sq=prayer&st=cse
Besides, there are three types of lies
“Lies, D*** Lies and Statistics”.
It’s crazy to think you can put the Creator of the Universe in a test tube, measure him and evaluate him. You can’t. You can try. Spiritually things are spiritually discerned. Spiritually things are NOT scientifically discerned.
Science can’t even take pictures of demons, yet you want to measure and evaluate the creature of every living thing.
Here is little secret. Are you ready ? When your a skeptic, and in rebellion against God. God will send you exactly the type of evidence you need to keep denying him.
Need proof that God’s going to send you strong delusion ?
Read 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 Verses 11 to 12
“11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.”
http://bible.cc/2_thessalonians/2-11.htm
Want another example?
Read the entire chapter of 1 Kings 22.
1 Kings 22:22 “The LORD said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.’
Let me shorten the story. A demon applied for the job of deceiving someone who was in rebellion against God. God told him “Go, you will succeed”.
You can find that passage here:
http://bible.cc/1_kings/22-22.htm
Note: Read the other example cross notes on the right hand.
Search the bible and see the answers Jesus gave the skeptical pharisees. Jesus always refused to give the Pharisees evidence.
If you want to talk to God he has a invitation to you.
“Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)
And yes, I know about Seth, thus the comment about incest.
hmm. at about 6:30 they discuss Francis Collins’ work from “The Language of God” and this woman invokes the ever-wonderful rebuttal of different starting points. She makes the claim that starting with the supposition of the inaccuracy of “God’s” history of early (pre-exile-from-eden) Earth skewed Collins’ view of evolution, regardless of whether he claims to be christian or not (Collins’ supports evolution while also maintaining most of his christian religious beliefs).
The fundamental flaw in her thinking is that she seems to believe that Genesis IS the word of God. I would like to know -which- version of the Bible she takes as infallible truth. King James version, NIV, or what? They are all slightly different. And if these Bibles can have different content due to (presumably) differing translations form the original Aramaic or Latin, well, how can you really believe that the Bible is infallible? If mistakes or differing opinions can exist in translation, then can’t mistakes and differing interpretations have happened at the time of the original writing of the books that would eventually be compiled into the Christian “bible” and all of it’s versions?
As Jake alluded to above, with these two verses from the Bible (not sure which version):
“20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
This could be an interpreted to show that the bible does, in fact, support evolution. Trade “Waters” for the evolutionary “soup” of microbes and micro-organisms that eventually underwent evolutionary process to sow the seeds for life as we know it, and it’s just a matter of language.
These hardline religous nuts drive me crazy. They can’t realize that their religion, while being a construct of humans, is NOT infallible, and never can be. Religion of all types nearly always have some history of people twisting their theology to their own needs and chalking it up to a matter of “interpretation”. How are we to know that the Bible was not a fairly accurate account of early human history that has, through the years gone under it’s own sort of… *deep breath* evolutionary process that has made it into the document that it is today?
The Old Testament was written in two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, then later translated into Greek. How can any right-thinking scientist ever believe in the infallibility of a human product, even if it was a divinely-inspired human product? The key point here is human. I have never understood the insistence of some people to believe in biblical literalism. Religion as whole is a bit of a stretch when you consider it rationally, but to believe that the hand of God wrote these books themselves (either through proxy or not) is more than this brain can handle, not to mention the plethora of religions with fundamental differences in belief all making that very same claim.
Ugh, I was jsut re-reading through the comments and saw Helen’s post, did I read that right when she says this woman (from above video) got her degree from Ohio State (meaning OSU?) If this is so, I am ashamed to work for an institution that would award someone so obviously closed-minded. Gee and I will need to have a talk soon.
Why do we reject religion completely because the media it is documented in (the bible for example) might be flawed. Lets say Darwin drafted his theory of evolution for the first time and stopped there. And we had that first documented theory to determine if this guy found the meaning of life or if he’s a loon. We would find aspects of it that are flawed and imperfect. So do we reject it? And that is the nature of all science. It is a working hypothesis which requires further work. People mistakenly say its a matter of science, as in it is a matter of fact. When essentially nothing is a matter of fact, because a matter of fact means absolute. We (humans) have a limit to our ability to comprehend anything (some of us more than others). So “our” matter of fact (or our accepted science) is limited to what the most logical persons from our species are able to comprehend and explain to the rest of us at time T (current). Science allows for the possibility that tomorrow the next Darwin/Newton/Einstein of our time will be born that will re-define “our” science (or a portion of it). The authority on religion (the church) does not allow for this. The church accepts only a hand-full of documents (Genesis, new testament, gospel according to X) as a matter of fact, and reject any further revision on these. There will always be Evolution-minded people who will be able to point out flaws in Creation because they have the benefit of looking at a revision dated X while Creation-minded people have stopped at revision X-2000years. And what the X-200years revision is missing requires a leap of “faith”.
Science allows for revisions and is open to a working hypotheses on anything, including Evolution (should we find a revision that disproves/enhances it). Religion does not. But they are on a collision course. When (not if) science “stumbles upon” a uniting theory (and it will) I suspect it will be able to account for Creation or lets say incorporate it in the minds of Creationists. The only problem is that Creationists will possibly reject that as well because its in their nature (pardon the pun) to not allow for revisions of their ideology.
The other point that I want to make, and this is more from a discussion stimulus perspective: Have people contemplated that the media that science and religion are documented in are fundamentally different. Once uses language and the other uses data to form a hypothesis. Its kind of like using an instrument to play a song (Creation), and then looking at the music notes on paper (Evolution). Since Creation rejects iterations, it also rejects the ability to document (and explain) itself in another form, or perhaps write another song on paper using notes. If I can extend the analogy further, its like a blind man playing the instrument. Evolution will come along and prove the song and also prove how you can replicate it and enhance it, but Creation reject the next version of the song written in notes, because it cannot read it and therefore cannot learn the “new” song.
This may be a flawed analogy, but its worth exploring. Science and Religion and therefore Evolution and Creation dont “speak” the same language. So all the comparisons between one and the other are challenging. But if we introduce a common language, who is to say that they wont agree. In another analogy, consider a magnet: 2 poles differently charged. Essentially the same purpose and very alike, apart from the different magnetic charge i.e. different language. They will always repel. And so I suspect will Evolution and Creation.
——
Free your mind
Maybe some else has already touched on this, but if not here’s a take from an ex-Evangelical Lutheran sunday shcool teacher on the issue of “interpretation:”
Before I evolved to my present total Darwinist views,I used to defend my scientifically tained mind against the Luthran doctrinaire view espoused by the Ohiio State creationist this way.
So Gensis (and the rest of Christian Scripture) is supposed to be the literal Word of God – cover-to-cover. Now how was God supposed to convey to Moses and other transcribers of the Word the idea that the Univese was actually put into play about 13.2 billion years ago, from a Singularity – followed by an exponential expansionist phase in which the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force and the forceof gravity de-coupled, leading eventually to the formation of stars, galaxies, super-nova events, nuclear synthesis, planets, life forms and us. Just what sort of wording was Moses supposewd to use in expressing these Divine Ideas to the people wandering the desert?
My take then was, Moses did the best he could with what he was given at the time – Six Days, the People inthe desert could understand– 13.2 billion years, etc, etc,? Gimme a break.
Nowadays, I just view it all as one of many of our species’ creation myths…charming but hardly worth building a museum and a religion around.
I think the second lady must be related to my current boss. He likes to make things up as he goes…
I wish I had the patience of the interviewer. I would have a lot more friends. I don’t understand why he doesn’t bring up the 100s of contradictions and false prophecies in the Bible? Or fossil evidence? Or the fact that the modern bible was cooked up in the 3rd century by a non-believer who rejected over 17 other gospels and ordered all evidence of their existence burned.
This woman’s thinking offers an example of tilted, twisted and even retarded reasoning based on authority and control, which is what much of religion is: a tool for some people to control others.
Where religion focuses on the wonder and joy of life, offers community members a chance to help each other, and provides a moral compass by which to live in harmony with others, it’s a valuable and humane tool.
Instead of using science to inquire about what is, the interviewee is using religion to hem in science and train it to a predetermined purpose: to support preconceived religious tenets that are unsupportable using free and independent inquiry.
It’s no coincidence that democracy rose at about the same time the scientific method was developed.
It’s not a far reach to go from “The Bible is the only right way” to “My way is the only right way, because I interpret the Bible; Jesus or God talks to me, but not to you; therefore I’m important, and you are not. Follow me!”
…
At the very least, it’s important to recognize that the Bible was written by humans, who are inherently flawed and self-interested–regardless of whether they were inspired by God or other spiritual sources. (Those assertions are, of course, unverifiable.)
It must be obvious that Biblical documents were written by people profoundly influenced, and limited, by their times and intellectual environments, as well as their respective personal limitations.
To plan and run one’s life wholly based on such documents is insane. These creationists need to get a life and read Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason.
And they should check out how the beliefs of David Koresh, Jim Jones and Charlie Manson jibe with those of their own leaders.
“…absolute power corrupts absolutely.” –Lord Acton.
———-
Check out a fully developed version of this post, coming soon at Toward Bestworld:
http://2bestworld.blogspot.com
Faith requires equal parts denial and belief. Zealotry knows no bounds. Science, unlike doctrine, doesn’t claim to know The Truth; it always remains skeptical and never stops the search for better answers — good thing, too, or the world would still be flat! Notice how you never see scientists protesting at churches? Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition…
Comparing Religion to Science is pointless. Their objectives are different.
The Bible is not against science. And being a Scientist does not make you anti-religious.
Religious organizations are the greatest pushers of Science, Education and Health. The Bible is not against science. The Bible mentioned thousands of years ago that the world was round. However some religious people thought otherwise.
Since Religion and Science proffer answers to many of the same questions, I think some comparison is fair and (obviously) engaging… I am interested to hear your short summary of those respective objectives.
In my experience, most people of faith accept doctrine wholly (no pun intended) and wholeheartedly, while accepting science only selectively and categorically. Is this “pushing” science or adapting it to suit a predetermined direction of thought?
I missed that “round world” verse in The Bible; would you kindly direct me?
Well the Bible encourages Faith over Evidence. Why ? Well because we have God on our side. God is omnipotent ( all powerful, can do anything), omnipresent (everywhere at the same time), Omniscient (knows everything about absolutely everything). One top of that, we have the Holy Spirit, who speaks to everyone of us personally and guides us. How do you explain this to a skeptic ? A short while ago, I said I was healed of a eye disease, and got laughed at.
Skeptics encourages evidence all the time. No real action is taken without real evidence.
You can’t say people of faith accept everything 100%. I know pastors who don’t. Each church isn’t 100% correct. Only the Bible is always 100% correct. Churches, just like humans stray from the Truth. Since my salvation is between me and God, I got to read and get to know Him for myself. We won’t be able to blame others for misleading us on judgment day. Every single person hears the Holy Spirit speak to them. Even when your typing, he speaks to you/me. Pointing you to the truth and steering you away from wrong. You just have to let Him take control of what you beleive
“I missed that “round world” verse in The Bible; would you kindly direct me?”
Long Answers:
The Bible refers to “the four corners of the earth.” How can a spherical earth have corners?
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat?
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
Short answer:
http://christiananswers.net/bible/isa40.html#22
“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.”
You would have to compare like with like to be fair. Yes, I would also prefer if you would choose a Christian scientist who is not a YE Creationist, who does not have a fundamentalist motivation to fight evolution. Then the comparison would be more interesting I believe.
Wow, I think the woman in the video would be very please with herself at the debate she has created here. If i may go slightly off topic for a moment here, there is a book written by Terry Goodking called ‘The Wizards First Rule” (yes a work of fiction) which has an interestincf concept “People are stupid. People believe what they want to believe” Now i’m not intending to offend anyone with this point but its very true. If someone wants, wholehartedly, to believe in something then they will. There are examles of this everywhere, especially when it concerns religion. When someone, like our friend ‘Science’, is so devout in their belief they will not be swayed no matter what you say to them.
Science, you say that we (being as you put it the Evolutionists) cannot proove that the Bible isnt true. Well I put it to you that YOU cannot proove that it IS true, can you?
The bible says that no one can get to ‘the light’ without going through Jesus. To me that sounds like a bribe “come with me little human and I will take you to the magic place!”.
Also Science, you quit your bio course 10 years ago? Has it occured to you that science (the sugject) has changed in those 10 years and has been updated while the bible still remains exactly the same since that version was written?
One final thing Science. you appear Speciest to me. I would welcome your thoughts on this absolutly but maybe that is for another discussion.
I have no idea what a Speciest is.
This is just an example:
Let’s imagine your 32 years old. 32 years ago your mother gave birth to you on a Friday night. Do you need an update on that ? What else do you need ? 100 years ago, Monday was Monday, Tuesday was Tuesday. What change do you nees ? I think you understand…
Jesus is giving you the opportunity to live forever with Him while living a better live on Earth. That’s not a Bribe. The alternative it to burn once in Hell and be dead forever. Notice I didn’t say Burn forever. But that’s another topic
Dear Moderator:
I noticed that some of my comments or links are being deleted by the moderator. I am being asked specific questions. I am giving my evidence with link to proof. I think I’ll stop participating this conversation. There is no need to delete the links because your links are “no follow”. I checked. So I can’t “spam” you.
Thanks for keeping it civil. At least this is not Digg.com
“Dear Moderator:
I noticed that some of my comments or links are being deleted by the moderator. I am being asked specific questions. I am giving my evidence with link to proof. I think I’ll stop participating this conversation. There is no need to delete the links because your links are “no follow”. I checked. So I can’t “spam” you.”
You may want to recheck you claim. I am not one to heavily moderate a conversation, even inflammatory one or excessive prosyletization ones such as yours, but some of your comments with an excessive number of links are held by WordPress until I review and approve them. Everything you have submitted thus far has been approved.
Understood. I’ll blame WordPress than.
“Inflammatory and excessive prosyletization?” All I can say is that when I’m asked a question, I should provide the answer and the *reasons* behind the answer.
Anyway. It was still nice talking people. I really got to go. I’ll really fight the urge to reply next time.
“…Looking at how a bacteria changes from symbiotic to pathogenic…”
“So, evolution then?”
“No, it’s not evolution.”
Hmmmm. “Evolution”. From the Greek. literally “Change over time”.
Now, I don’t want to get into a semantic argument, but since this woman claims to be a molecular biology PhD and yet doesn’t actually know what evolution is, I’m going to go right ahead and call it: SHE LYIN’ FO’ JEEEEEEBUS! That woman does NOT have a doctorate in any science. No way in hell.
Okay, apologies if this has already been done, but I only made it thorough about half of the replies. As a scientist, engineer, and Creationist Christian, I would like to inject a little bit of understanding here within this context.
Dozens of people are on here saying that the woman in the second video is starting with a conclusion, and therefore her scientific process is faulty. These people are correct, but only halfway. Yes, she assumes that the universe was created by a God. Guess what – evolutionists assume that the universe was created when Nothing decided to explode into matter. There is no conclusive or even overwhelming evidence to support either theory. There never will be, either, because we can’t go back and find out. In many ways, much of the purported “evidence” for either evolution or creation has become a game of seeing what you want in evidence that really doesn’t go conclusively either way. Yes, we have seen evolution within species. But we have yet to see a new genus appear suddenly. There is no fossil evidence of “missing links” – all of the ape-men that have been found have been discredited either as explained by disease or misinterpretation or were outright falsifications. The one exception is Lucy, which last I heard was still inconclusive. Carbon-14 dating and other ancient dating methods are still in controversy, and it’s no wonder. There is ample evidence to suggest that it is not accurate, and I honestly wouldn’t expect it to be. We’re basing age estimates of objects in the millions of years using a method that has only existed for fifty. Back then we thought that it took trees thousands of years to petrify – now we find 50-year-old fence posts petrifying.
As to the terminology thing about Evolution, can we cut the poor woman some slack? When most people say “evolution,” they are talking about macroevolution – the theory that all the different families, genuses, species, etc. all evolved from a common ancestor over billions and billions of years. Obviously she believes in microevolution – small changes over time not leading to massive differentiation, because that’s what she’s talking about in the interview. If I were her, I would avoid using the generic terminology as well.
Have a little understanding before you run off to condemn someone, people. When it comes to our origins, everyone takes something on faith and everyone makes and assumption. We’re talking about something that will forever be beyond our understanding, whether the truth is that some great, omnipotent Being spoke and created the universe or that one day Nothing went “Bang!” and matter suddenly existed. Thy sound pretty equally ridiculous to me. Don’t talk to me about scientific hypotheses and being willing to be wrong unless you’re willing to accept that the big bang and evolution are a theory as well, and are willing to discuss where they might be wrong.
“Guess what – evolutionists assume that the universe was created when Nothing decided to explode into matter.”
No, they never have and they never will! This is a pointless claim, and often made by people who have never done any real resarch on the subject.
First, the big bang theory and evolution are not one in the same. The one does not rely on the other. This is just the same as saying a theory is only hypothesis.
Second, I barely know anything about the actual big bang thory, but even I understand it does not say: Once there was nothing, a bang occured, and then there was everything. Simply put: You can’t make anything, out of nothing.
(I apologize in advance for poor language skills)
Her process is faulty and so is yours.
She does not merely assume God created the universe, she assumes that the Bible is literally true. That’s not quite the same thing, y’know?
“evolutionists assume that the universe was created when Nothing decided to explode into matter”
For the ten-thousandth time: EVOLUTION has NOTHING to do with COSMOLOGY!!! It has nothing to say about where the universe came from. Or even about how life came to be. It merely explains how living things start simply, change over time, and branch into species, etc. (I’m simplifying, yes.)
Of course, I think you already know that, and that you are simply a prevaricator.
As for the Big Bang… it is a prominent scientific explanation of universal cosmology. However, it might be wrong. A number of scientists suspect it is wrong. (And I’m not talking about Creationists; they’re NOT scientists.) And that’s just it, you see? Scientists want to find out stuff. They learn new information, new evidence, and then CHANGE their views to fit with REALITY. If it were conclusively proved tomorrow that the idea of the Big Bang was completely wrong, scientists would not be sad or worried or depressed. They would be excited. They would have a party. And one scientist (or a team) would win a Nobel Prize and be respected by all the other scientists from then on.
You might not have noticed this, but that’s NOT how it works with Creationism.
Teddy, really! How can you make these pronouncements about science? Blahblah, this is wrong, blahblah this is inaccurate, blahblah.
You don’t know the first thing about what you speak of. Not even a little.
“It’s inconclusive…”
“…still in controversy”
“no fossil evidence”
WRONG. You’re just wrong. You are not well informed on the subject.
Whoa! So many words. So much condescension.
Grape Ape, you’re probably long gone but thanks, great analyse of much of the discussion.
Science, good try but its like trying to blow away fog, it just swirls around.
1.The theory of evolution is a theory. Unlike some theories it cannot be tested or proved. Many of the above “scientific” posts above have admitted this.
The theory of creation likewise cannot be tested or proved.
All those of us who believe the creation theory ask is that both theories be give a fair hearing and let individuals decide for themselves.
2.The notion that there is a “scientific” way of thinking that is somehow different and more “reasonable” (and therefore superior) to a religious/faith way of thinking is spurious. Observation, measurement, analyisis, synthesis, trial and error are what we all do, every day. So why do people have such different beliefs about what reality is? It’s because we are intellectually dishonest or in “religious” language, because we are sinners.
>
The “just a theory” argument betrays a total lack of understanding of how science works. I studied Music Theory as an undergraduate. Are we permitted to believe that music doesn’t exist, because it’s “just a theory?” To the lay person, “theory” means a mere idea. In science, theories need to be proven before even earning the label “theory.”
Also, afishamongmany, you present a false dichotomy. If evolution isn’t real, then we cannot be certain that the Christian account of creation is the only other alternative.
Finally, you refer to science as a way of thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is merely a method of inquiry. If a line of inquiry leads to a revision of previously held beliefs, then we accept those beliefs. That’s the difference between science and ideology. Science is self-correcting; ideology is slow to change.
Ha! welcome teddybouch. My that was a fortuitous coincident, you doing a complemenary post while I was slaving away at the keyboard. But the fog will continue to swirl.
) >
Go well u all (no I’m not a texan
afishamongmany, you said:
“1.The theory of evolution is a theory. Unlike some theories it cannot be tested or proved. Many of the above “scientific” posts above have admitted this.”
WRONG! SO VERY WRONG THAT IT DESERVES CAPITAL LETTERS TO HIGHLIGHT ITS SHERE WRONGNESS!
For a start, EVERY scientific theory MUST be testable – if it can’t be tested, it’s NOT a scientific theory (that why creationism doesn’t qualify).
Evolution says man decended from apes. Apes have 43 chromosome pairs, humans have 42. So, for the theory of evolution to hold true, there must be a way to explain this. And there is: Humans have a chromosome which is twice as long as other chromosomes, and which has end markers in the middle – i.e. two chromosomes have fused to become one.
You then said:
“2.The notion that there is a “scientific” way of thinking that is somehow different and more “reasonable” (and therefore superior) to a religious/faith way of thinking is spurious.”
Oh. My. Goddness. Where to start? You are honestly telling me that you think “Stuff my parents told me because their parents told them, because their parents told them (and so on, ad infinitum)” is as valid a way of looking at the the world as “This is what I can see, test and measure”? I’m sorry, but if you REALLY think that way, you’re an idiot. Genuinly.
Sly Raymond —”In science, theories need to be proven before even earning the label “theory.”
Afish —So the proof of Darwins idea is?
Sly Raymond —Also, afishamongmany, you present a false dichotomy. If evolution isn’t real, then we cannot be certain that the Christian account of creation is the only other alternative.
Afish —No I agree the world is awash with alternatives. But I was talking as a believer in one specific alternative to a believer in another specific alternative.
Sly Raymond —Science is merely a method of inquiry.
Afish —Which of course the non priestly caste (the lay person)could not possibly use or comprehend. Sorry mate that’s condecending rubbish. We all do it everyday.
Custador —Apes have 43 chromosome pairs, humans have 42. So, for the theory of evolution to hold true, there must be a way to explain this. And there is: Humans have a chromosome which is twice as long as other chromosomes, and which has end markers in the middle – i.e. two chromosomes have fused to become one.
Afish —Big sigh That “two cromosomes have fused to become one” is another theory. Theory upon theory is not proof.
Custador —You are honestly telling me that you think “Stuff my parents told me because their parents told them, because their parents told them (and so on, ad infinitum)” is as valid a way of looking at the the world as “This is what I can see, test and measure”?
Afish —that depends a lot on what your parents are telling you. But as a method, it is the only one there is of passing on wisdom and knowledge. You think seeing, testing, and measuring are a recent invention?
ok nite folk, God bless you
You are pontificating an awful lot about the (perceived) flaws you see in evolutionary theory without:
1) Knowing or understanding anything about the theory, the irrefutable data over 150yrs and even comprehending exactly what constitutes scientific ‘theory’. It is not merely a guess or an idea, is an encompassing scientific principle that describes a body of evidence from numerous fields.
2) Your expounding the virtue of creationism yet you have nothing to substantiate your claim for a creator other than a amalgamation of bronze age myths compiled into a single book 2000yrs ago. But you accept this as proof over current data and methods that continually confirm the theory that is evolutionary biology. Creationists once squacked about the fossil record, then gentics came into play and confirmed the fossil record. The genetics findings being difficult to grasp creationists resort to arguments such as “I never saw a rock turn into a dog”, and display a true unwillingness to learn anything about the evidence or the theory. Instead you hold up a book, as something substantial to consider when in reality it is nothing more that tales and fables told around the campfire to explain a natural world that the primitive, ignorant men of the time did not understand.
Good luck fighting disease with parchment fragments found in a cave in the desert, I will rely on evolutionary theory to develop my cures and medicines.
“Sly Raymond —”In science, theories need to be proven before even earning the label “theory.”
Afish —So the proof of Darwins idea is?”
Um, yes, in fact. Read a book.
As for your other two “rebuttals,” I’m not sure you’re even addressing the points at hand.
By the way, since I’ve gotten so hopelessly sucked into this debate, I should point out that I am a Christian, who attended 12 years of parochial school. I have heard (and used) all the arguments against evolution.
Eventually, I recognized the cognitive dissonance I was experiencing and accepted the facts. Pardon me for forgetting the source, but whoever said (and I’m paraphrasing), “The less rational the belief, the more zealously the believer defends it” is pretty accurate. This forum is a case in point.
All this debate has distracted us from the central problem in Shermer’s interview:
Whether you believe in creation or evolution, the woman in the video is being intellectually dishonest by claiming to be a scientist, then admitting that her research is guided by preconceived conclusions — a most non-scientific approach. I believe she put it as, “it depends on where you’re starting from.”
Scientific inquiry shall never be performed only to support a preexisting ideology, or the data is invalid. Hence, she is just pretending at science.
Afishamongmany, you said:
“…Big sigh That “two cromosomes have fused to become one” is another theory. Theory upon theory is not proof…”
Wrong again. Chromosomes aren’t subatomic particles, my zealous friend – they’re not so small that we can’t see them. We can physically see the chromosome concerned through an electron microscope. It’s a fact.
You then said:
“that depends a lot on what your parents are telling you. But as a method, it is the only one there is of passing on wisdom and knowledge. You think seeing, testing, and measuring are a recent invention?” [refering back to my earlier comment].
No I don’t, but since you live on the same planet as me, answer me this: How many books or newspapers or television shows have you seen in your entire life that weren’t skewed (i.e. innacurate) for the benefit of a specific audience? The Bible is no different. For a start, the gospels were written around 250 AD; considering life expectancy of poor people at the time would have been about 40 years, that’s six to eight generations after Jesus was supposedly born (I say “supposedly” because there are no historical documents which ever mention Jesus despite there being at least a dozen well known documentary historians in the Mediteranean area between 1AD and 100AD). Are you honestly telling me that you think stories could be passed on for that long without getting corrupted? And let’s not forget the first pope, who edited all of the gospels to suit his own purpose and carefully selected which would and would not be allowed into the new testament.
Sly Raymond: Much respect to you, sir.
ok peoples
I’ve decided to come back on this; not to have the last word, this will be my last post on this thread promise promise; not to promote a belief in creation or to attack a belief in Darwinism nor have I been “holding up The Book”. My purpose is simply to try to encourage intellectual honesty.
Let’s focus on Custador’s chromosomes. In minature they mirror almost every argument put forward to present the evolutionary hypothesis, theory, idea (use what ever word you’re happy with) as fact.
So, assuming that Custador has given us the correct information:-
1. Apes have 43 chromosome pairs, —- a fact.
2. humans have 42. —- a fact.
3. Humans have a chromosome which is twice as long as other chromosomes, and which has end markers in the middle — a fact.
4. there must be a way to explain this. And there is: – i.e. two chromosomes have fused to become one. —- this is NOT A FACT, repeat NOT A FACT it a hypothesis, theory, blah blah.
It is intellectually dishonest to present it as a fact!
The Darwin idea that inert matter can of itself become alive and then develop into a myriad of distinct and highly complex creatures has never been observed, tested or replicated. Neither has the creation idea. I believe that “In the begining God made”. You believe, well you know better than I what you believe. I know nothing about it do I BGH?
But that’s fine, none of this should be a threat to anyone. In the end we all (even idiots like me) do the analysis, decide what is the most believable and believe it until we come across something that is more believable.
What is a threat to us all is intellectual dishonesty.
God bless you!
Number 4. in your list just proves what an ignorant joke you are. Twice as long WITH END MARKERS IN THE MIDDLE. Two chromosomes HAVE fused to become one – that or ONE chromoseom evolved to look like that?! Riiiiight….
Also, Darwinian evolution has this amazing thing called A GIGANTIC PILE OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS IT, while creationism has a bunch of tools and a 2000 year old book which is demonstrably wrong on innumerable other isues too. WAKE UP!!!
Can we get one thing straight: humanity is not descended from apes.
At best, the current *theory* (and how you hate that word), it that we share a common ancestor, most likely a proto-lemur (cute).
That apes differ from us in their genetic make-up is a product of their own, independant evolution. We are distant relations, seperated by miliions of years of parallel evolution, at best.
Quit it. It’s offensive to apes to say they birthed our ridiculous speices. They went one way as chance and environment dictated, we went another.
I really don’t understand the resistance to the idea that we’re a happenstance. That strange belief that a group of chemicals around sub-marine sulfur vents may have form primitive chemical compounds is just outrageous … I don’t understand. None of us were there, the bible doesn’t go into much detail about the hows and whys of God’s creation, just a bland reassurance that he did and we should all be terribly impressed by it. Well I am terribly impressed – by the universe’s existence and mine within it, but I don’t believe that a book written on our tiny planet explains all of what we see when we look at the stars at night. Except, in the most banal “A wizard did it” way. Honestly. Adults believe this nonsense?
I really find it interesting that the lady in the second video talks about what she “knows” due to scriptures. She also mentions how men think they know something because they think about them (and presumably employ logic)and are wrong because it isint based from the bible. Now wasnt the bible written by men, whether through divine intervention or not? And if the scriptures are filtered through the minds of men then they would end up being imperfect because of that, wouldnt they? She even calls god perfect and if IT is the perfect being then everything and everyone else (including their minds, divinely enhanced or not) are not perfect because they arent god.
So they how can this bible be “true”? And doesnt this entire situation require that she contradict herself to even believe the bible?
I’ll close in saying that the bible proves absolutely nothing, but for those who are religious it can be a tool for understanding your religion…..not validating it.
1. I stuck with it, because the questioner is excellent. He’s so generous and considerate. And I think that’s important. I’ve often seen Richard Dawkins on YouTube, and even when I agree completely with him, he comes across as very grumpy and unattractive.
2. To judge by this exchange, the age of the earth is more of a sticking point for Christian Creationists than evolution. It’s different with Muslim Creationists, who can accept an old Earth, but not evolution. I wanted the questioner to ask, “okay so you don’t trust this or that dating method. Fair enough. So tell me a dating method you do trust. Let’s use it to date some things we both agree on the age of, to show it works. If it does work, let’s use it to date the stuff we’re arguing about, and agree to accept the result.”
3. Muslims consider the Qu’ran to be a perfectly preserved speech act in Arabic, passed down directly from the mouth of God, via Gabriel to Muhammad. But Jews and Christians don’t view the Bible this way. They can’t. They accept that humans wrote it, albeit under divine inspiration. The four gospels, for instance, are called “the Gospel According To…” . So human interpretation is explicitly acknowledged in their titles.
With Genesis, even a Qu’ran-style celestial dictation is untenable. There could be no eyewitness to report the creation story, or stenographer to take celestial dictation, until after the creation of Adam. And this leaves only Adam or Eve as possible authors/stenographers, assuming they were created already skilled in the craft of writing, and with writing materials readily available. But nowhere does it say that Adam or Eve wrote down what was happening in the Garden Of Eden. So Genesis must have been written down some time after the events it allegedly describes.
4. If we take Genesis literally, then we have a talking snake. How different would a modern snake’s anatomy have to be to be for it to be able to voice human vocal sounds, and process them in its brain?
Evolution is a fairytale because the world is not millions of years old. How do we know ? Polonium Halos provides Unrefuted Evidence that the present dating methods are totally wrong.
Without a million years, it’s very hard to believe in Evolution.
I won’t explain anything else about this. I’ll let the scientists on the video provide the evidence.
Start by watching at least 30 mins of this video.
Fingerprints of Creation
http://www.halos.com/videos/0001-FingerprintsofCreationEnglish-216k.htm