Was your Anthropology class a graduate level class? Did you have to take five of them? If you want to compare the intro class you took to taking five classes, many of them graduate level, be my guest.

BTW, wtf does Anthropology have to do with astronomy? Are you seriously suggesting psychology has no relation to teaching? You do understand that in order to help teach, you should know how the human mind works, right? It's not the ESPN Decathlon jump where you're sprinting, and suddenly have to fish. You're argument is like saying a scientist doesn't know math well because they're a scientist. Uhh, math and science are heavily related.

Nobody said teachers are dedicated expert psychologists. But to pretend that a teacher doesn't need any or even just a cursory "Intro to Psych" level knowledge to teach is silly. I've taught, I have the degree, I've proven to you just how much psychology is involved in getting degree alone, nevermind what's involved in the actual job; you pretend the only thing in the coursework was an Intro to Psych class, and pretend you're an expert in what is involved in teaching because you went to school as a student. I guess I'm an expert in architecture because I've lived in buildings all my life. I also know all about what it must be like to be a professional cook, since I've eaten food all my life.

But I get it though, you're just trying to troll, not have an honest discussion.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
He did claim the job is easy. I'm sorry, but that's what it implied.
He's not saying teacher's are all Einstein's. He's saying the swath of skill a teacher must possess is very wide, and it's not a cursory level of knowledge and skill. And his description is absolutely correct. He never said teachers are full time experts in every single one of those fields.
Before you say something idiotic like teachers don't need or are not required to have in depth knowledge of psychology, you could do a few common sense things like, oh I don't know, check college requirements for education degrees.
I must have imagined all those undergrad & graduate level psychology and education classes that were REQUIREMENTS to getting an education degree, which I had to have to get a teaching license! You know, classes that couldn't have a thing to do with psychology. Let's whip out that transcript and take a look:
101 Introduction to Psychology
300 Foundations of Education (heavy doses of educational psychology)
301 Human Development and Learning
607 (That's a graduate level class) Advanced Educational PSYCHOLOGY
605 Theory and Practice of Education/Special Needs Students
There were also Practicum classes with heavy doses of psychology.
Does your job require you to take five semesters of psychology in college to get licensed to do your job?
And that's my point with both of you. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the teaching profession, and yet you insist over and over and over you somehow do because you attended school. You clearly don't have a clue, so how about you go learn about these specific areas before you speak to them instead of trying to prove an ignorant point of view.


Ah, got it. So I guess the Anthropology course I took at my Liberal Arts school makes me a scientist. I'm also now qualified to operate the Hubble Telescope because I took a general studies course called 'Stars & Galaxies'.

This video is from their "Periodic table of videos" channel, not their "Sixty symbols" channel.
The periodic videos are about chemistry but the sixty symbols videos are about physics and astronomy.

Ya know, I don't think it would be so bad to teach kids about religions in social studies classes. Over, say, 2 weeks I think you could cover the major world religions, explaining the basics of their beliefs and touching on their history. It's world culture and it helps to understand other people and their history (not to mention our own).

But I also see how it could turn into an issue of its own. Somewhere a parent will be offended that their beliefs were left out or that they were misrepresented.

What I can't support is teaching religion in science class. Genesis has no scientific basis, no application of the method, so it's got no reason to appear in biology, geology, astronomy or earth science and even less of a reason to appear in any other science.

Oh, okay, so you believe everything you read. That's not very intelligent, or at least it's not very SMART. The bible was written hundreds of years ago, and has since been translated and re-translated to and from dozens of different languages. Individuals and groups in power throughout different points in history have taken it upon themselves to modify the bible, adding and omitting pieces here and there to suit their agenda. They knew that gullible sheep, unable to think for themselves, are easily swayed by religion, and what better way to control a populace than by attacking their very basis for the way they live their lives?

God pre-exists everything. We know God exists because He lets us know, and He would let you know that if you sought Him out. The New Testament was written 2000 years ago. The Old Testament is at least 1000 years older than that. We have copies of the early manuscripts so we know what the original bibles looked like. So the translations today are accurate, and this idea that they are corrupt is just outright false. Yes, man has used the bible for evil ends, but this is no different from anything else man does. The very reason that Jesus Christ came to Earth is because man is so desperately wicked and needs Gods redemption.

Additionally, if one is intelligent, and they believe in ancient myths, obviously they're going to be some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, right? That's why all the geniuses of the world are devout Christians or whatever religion you want to name, right? WRONG.

NASA is not run by rocket scientists who go to church on Sunday. Great inventors and genius-level individuals such as Stephen Hawking are not religious specifically BECAUSE they are intelligent. They are able to think for themselves, not be told what to think.

Some of the greatest minds in history were devout Christians..and some of the greatest scientists:

Francis Bacon - Originated the scientific method
Johannes Kepler - Laws of Planetary motion
Galileo Galilei - Father of modern astronomy
Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Universe
James Clerk Maxwell - Electromagnetic field
Neils Bohr - the Atom
Louis Pasteur - germ theory of disease
Rene Descartes - Philosopher and mathematician
Issac Newton - Invented classical mechanics
Max Planck - Founder of quantum mechanics

A lot of modern science is built on the backs of Christian thinkers, as you can see, and that is just a short list. Today, around 10 percent of scientists believe in God. At least 50 nobel laureates believe in God. Now, if you want to talk about great thinkers, how about Albert Einstein? He believed in God. Although not a Christian, here is what he had to say about Jesus:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

Of course, religion and science are completely unrelated topics, and one does not have to be non-secular in order to be a scientist, but typically, the two mindsets would conflict, as religionists base their beliefs off of emotion and other irrational concepts. Scientists use a thought process, experimentation, and ruling out possibilities in order to come to conclusions and figure out FACTS about the universe around us. There are scientists who believe in the possibility of a god, but it takes a different form than that of some all-seeing being that created everything. I'll never try to explain that to you, though, as you're too blinded by foolish nonsense that has been force-fed to you since childhood.

I will leave you with this though: Adam and Eve. Here's some fruit. I'm going to tempt you with it, and then create a snake to TALK to you and tell you you should eat some of it, and THEN I'm gunna come back and be all "OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?! I SMITE THEE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!" just to fuck with humanity. Wow. You worship a pretty evil, and vindictive force. Why would you want to do that? The fucker's up there just fucking with us like a little kid with a magnifying glass over an ant hill. Jesus christ, you must really enjoy misery. I'll take the reality of humanity surviving on our own acquiescence and compassion over that bullshit any day!

I base my belief off of personal revelation. I was an agnostic my entire life and raised without religion, and I was a secular humanist and a strict materialist who didn't see any evidence for God or spirit. God woke me up to the truth and let me know He is real. If you want science facts, you only have to examine the first page of the bible:

In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)

And God said, “Let there be light (ENERGY),” and there was light.

It took mankind 3000 years to catch up and figure out the Universes foundation is based on these principles. There is also no better description which uniquely fits the big bang theory. Creation ex-nihilio, which is creation from nothing.

The serpent you're referring to was Satan. God put the tree there because He gave mankind free will to follow His commands or not. He also warned them of the consequences if they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and believe the lie because Satan promised them they would have Gods power if they did it. So, instead of trusting God, they lusted after His power and betrayed Him. That's why they were kicked out of the garden. Their sin brought death into the world.

No, God didn't damn us for eternity. It's the very reason God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross, to save us from this fate we created and redeem mankind. So we could have eternal life with God again in the Kingdom of Heaven. We are sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Gods gift of salvation is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

It's not dishonest to say you are open to evidence of a supernatural being but find belief without it silly. Is it arrogant to find a belief in unicorns silly? Shiva? Mormon doctrine? Was it hubris for Christians to not be pagans when Christianity wasn't the #1 religion? Would you reconcile your beliefs if someone found a herd of unicorns? Some help with terms: http://videosift.com/video/Lack-of-belief-in-gods

How intuitive an idea is has little bearing on truth. That something can't come from nothing, if true, grants no particular credibility to the idea of a supreme intellect. If a supreme intellect can be eternal, why not the universe itself? How the universe works is a profoundly interesting question, but until our understanding of a material universe stops bearing fruit, its exploration -- testing the predictive power of (even unintuitive) hypotheses -- is the most helpful method for finding truth. Additional random thoughts: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

Religion is important to believers, in part, for the sense of humility, awe, and connection it inspires with the world and others. But this feeling is important to everyone. When accusing an atheist of arrogance, consider what might inspire reverence in him or her:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Pale-Blue-Dot-by-Carl-Saga
n-Excerpt-read-by-the-Author

Does the obviousness of an idea guarantee its truth? Does its popularity? Does the comfort it brings you, or the earnestness with which you believe in it? Ask yourself what makes your testimony more valid than the differing testimony found in others'? Is that an arrogant position? Despite earnestness, you sound no more convincing than...>> ^shinyblurry:

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know unicorns exists; they are as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from the unicorns. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, the unicorns' herald commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach unicorn words and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

>> ^shinyblurry:

What I am saying is that there is no distinction between atheists, that the distinction is false from the outset (as confirmed by the dictionary). People who hold these combinations of beliefs are just logically inconsistant. This is part of the delusion that is out there, that people try to cloak themselves in this inpenetrable void of unbelief. Sorry, but you are exposed:
Ask yourself this question:
Was the Universe deliberately created by a supreme intellect?
Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
I dont know = Agnostic
It's pretty much that simple. You can muddy it up all you like..but the basic question is fairly simple. Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)
As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, Jesus commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach the gospel and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. I don't claim to be humble, or tell you to be humble. I'm pointing out that your arrogance make you sound like a fool, and you come here to make a mockery of religion.

"I know quite a bit about evolutionary biology and general relativity." Oh really? Pray tell what you do for a living and what exactly qualifies you as knowing "quite a bit" about these fields? Becoming an expert on one field is difficult enough, and apparently on videosift we have a self professed expert on two major fields of science.

What I am saying is that there is no distinction between atheists, that the distinction is false from the outset (as confirmed by the dictionary). People who hold these combinations of beliefs are just logically inconsistant. This is part of the delusion that is out there, that people try to cloak themselves in this inpenetrable void of unbelief. Sorry, but you are exposed:

Ask yourself this question:

Was the Universe deliberately created by a supreme intellect?

Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
I dont know = Agnostic

It's pretty much that simple. You can muddy it up all you like..but the basic question is fairly simple. Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.

Again, Jesus commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach the gospel and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

I watch science videos all the time. Far from being ignorant of science, I was going to make it my career..it didn't turn out that way, but I would say I know more about science in general and astronomy in specific than the average bear. Thank you for watching it with an open mind..I found it fascinating simply of the basis of the illustration of molecular machinery. I agree with the irreducible complexity not on the basis that things like this couldn't necessarily evolve..but simply on the information content of something like DNA..which could not have evolved on its own. Information has to come from somewhere. And you have the chicken and the egg problem..DNA requires around 75 proteins to function, and those proteins require DNA to make them. Science just doesn't have any good theories on these things..nature is not matching up to darwinian evolution. And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

>> ^Skeeve:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry There are more than 1.1 million biological and geological scientists in the US. You posted a video from one of the approximately 150 American biologists who are creationists.
Please (and this is a serious and humble request with all the fervor a Christian might have when trying to save someone from hell), please watch, with an open mind, one of the thousands of videos from biologists who aren't trying to convert people.
This atheist watched your video with an open mind and found it lacking. It's time for you to open yours.

Not a lot of love in here for this one. As an avid physics and astronomy fan, I've got to agree this presentation was mildly irritating.

>> ^packo:

i'm all for debate
definitely not a believer or any faith
but i couldn't last 10 mins listening to this
on the other hand, i did find the comments funny
amazing how many people would jump on Ray's incorrect use of words, and also mispell things like:
medicine
evolution
is it anal to nitpick like that? sure
will that prevent people from judging you based on errors like that? no (i mean, to me that falls into the same category as someone nitpicking over the definition of words used too - dictionaries usually have multiple definitions - and dictionaries vary)
have to agree with some that debating over minutia is pointless... astronomy was at one time at direct odds with religion, and has now to a large degree been accepted and 99.999% of it, to a religious person, doesn't contradict their beliefs... the same thing will happen with evolution and other current hot topics
you'll never really convince a person who is so wound in religion over these points, sure you might disprove how they are trying to prove their point, but before becoming an aethiest, they'll most likely just look for more ways to prove their faith to the non-believer... there is no such thing as backing them into a corner with science
i personally think it comes down to the people involved in organized religion. how people abuse/control others using the control structure of the system... you'll never disprove religion by going after something that can't be proven... the everyday, common corruption of the system... much easier


Packo, you're new here so you may not know about westy's thing. Longtime sifters have, over the years, developed the ability to overlook westy's myriad spelling errors and accept him for the intellect that he is. You might even say we've evolved.

i'm all for debate
definitely not a believer or any faith
but i couldn't last 10 mins listening to this

on the other hand, i did find the comments funny
amazing how many people would jump on Ray's incorrect use of words, and also mispell things like:

medicine
evolution

is it anal to nitpick like that? sure
will that prevent people from judging you based on errors like that? no (i mean, to me that falls into the same category as someone nitpicking over the definition of words used too - dictionaries usually have multiple definitions - and dictionaries vary)

have to agree with some that debating over minutia is pointless... astronomy was at one time at direct odds with religion, and has now to a large degree been accepted and 99.999% of it, to a religious person, doesn't contradict their beliefs... the same thing will happen with evolution and other current hot topics

you'll never really convince a person who is so wound in religion over these points, sure you might disprove how they are trying to prove their point, but before becoming an aethiest, they'll most likely just look for more ways to prove their faith to the non-believer... there is no such thing as backing them into a corner with science

i personally think it comes down to the people involved in organized religion. how people abuse/control others using the control structure of the system... you'll never disprove religion by going after something that can't be proven... the everyday, common corruption of the system... much easier

Okay, finally off work, no drive-by comment this time.

I've been a member of a number of online communities over the years, of almost every stripe and size. Political, film, celebrity gossip, astronomy, feminism, books - you name it. Some I've enjoyed more than others, but this by far is my favorite. I've been active here longer than any other URL in the world, so I guess I've found my home. Even when I take vacations, I always come back. This place feels like an old pair of shoes - lived in, comfortable, and fits just right. But with no putrid stench.

I'm guessing it's the people who make me feel at home that matters more than anything else. There are so many funny people, intelligent people, creative people, and just plain interesting people that I could literally name scores and scores of members who have caught my attention and enriched my life, even in a small way. I was even tempted to name as many as I could, but I knew I'd inevitably forget some and I didn't want to do that, and I also didn't want to turn this into an Academy Award speech.

It would be so freaking cool if we could have like a class reunion with hundreds of members, old and new. Seriously. But I know that's seriously impossible. So I hope more long lost members show up today or tomorrow, just to say hi, if nothing else.

Thanks for that my foolish mistake.

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
astronomy ≠ astrology

>> ^jan:

I feel like in watching a Disney version of astrology 101.
I find him entertaining enough, but humans are ingenious in all forms not just the formerly educated state.
There are engineers that can not fix there own house plumbing.
Survival within the technological boom means we may have to resort to a more practical understanding of our needs.
I'm only one hour into it, it may win me over yet.

astronomy ≠ astrology

>> ^jan:

I feel like in watching a Disney version of astrology 101.
I find him entertaining enough, but humans are ingenious in all forms not just the formerly educated state.
There are engineers that can not fix there own house plumbing.
Survival within the technological boom means we may have to resort to a more practical understanding of our needs.
I'm only one hour into it, it may win me over yet.