>> ^Quboid:
Great ending, I was worried the title was flame bait.
A couple of points:
1) I don't think it's established that it's a snake. Pretty sure it's a talking animal so this is a technicality, but that it's a snake is a myth. I think QI covered this and they are actually are beyond question.
2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge
If you think about it, it's arrogant to the point of ludicrous to presume this generation has all the big stuff figured it. I'm sure as hell not a Christian or Creationist, I just think science is a work in progress and we're at a pretty early stage. I hope so! I quit Christianity when I grew out of invisible friends, but I didn't become an atheist just to join other zealots. Science is our friend, but keep questioning.

Pun / Ironic choice of phrase intentional.


2) evolution doesn't have a design it works toward... there is no intelligent design inherent in it... when something evolves, the whole species doesn't just all take the same path... multiple mutations usually occur and those most suited for survival (those that are most beneficial) usually proliferate through breeding... there is no one right answer per se for mutation... multiple mutated strains may develop and evolve away from each other... or 1 mutation may be the most beneficial and while incoroporating other mutations will seem dominant...

the thing about science and theory is that it usually works like this... a huge generalization is made... this is then either proven or disproven to be true (reproduceable and the generalization holds true with a high degree of repetition).... if disprove... there was something QUITE wrong with the generalization in the first place... if proven, that doesn't mean that this generalization has everything right... it just means that it holds true for the vast majority of cases... this does leave room for further refinement and understanding... but it is very rare (though it has happened) that a false generalization holds true long enough for refinements to occur to the point where they realize the generalization was wrong...

the thing is, that science will not cling to a generalization simply because it is what has been assumed for some time... if there is proof either way... either refinements or complete rethinkings occur

see the motion of the planets/solar system and the theories involved for this overall concept

thats the problem i have with religions... the faith is supposed to be blind, but the religion shouldn't blind those that follow it... truth isn't limited to religion... that being said I'm obviously aware that there is the same range of closed mindedness on either side of the discussion... just as there is open mindedness

but if a person can hands-down believe in a talking serpent because a single book said so, you'd think they wouldn't limit themselves to being so ignorant of something like evolution when THOUSANDS of books, journals, and scientific magazines explain it

>> ^Quboid:
G2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge

The reason Evolution isn't discredited yet is the same reason Gravity wasn't discredited by Einstein: both are facts of life, however you choose to explain them. Why Darwin's work isn't discredited yet is the same reason Euclides' work isn't either: they're basic algorithms for solving precise problems. Unless the problems themselves change (more precisely our understanding of the problems), the solutions don't either.

Both Euclides and Newton ignored a pretty important variable: the three dimensional nature of space (four for space-time). That is why their algorithms were updated later by, among others, Riemann and Einstein. Darwin gave an algorithm for the Evolution of Life. It has been updated since, but there hasn't been a "three-dimensional" revolution yet (it's still a young theory by any standard, and note that the Theory of relativity hasn't been discredited yet either on macroscopic levels) . Even with that kind of revolution though, we would still talk about Evolution, just as we still talk about Gravity.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bill maher, evolution, creationism, religulous, senator' to 'bill maher, evolution, creationism, religulous, senator, mark pryor, arkansas' - edited by jimnms

>> ^Quboid:
Great ending, I was worried the title was flame bait.
A couple of points:
1) I don't think it's established that it's a snake. Pretty sure it's a talking animal so this is a technicality, but that it's a snake is a myth. I think QI covered this and they are actually are beyond question.
2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge
If you think about it, it's arrogant to the point of ludicrous to presume this generation has all the big stuff figured it. I'm sure as hell not a Christian or Creationist, I just think science is a work in progress and we're at a pretty early stage. I hope so! I quit Christianity when I grew out of invisible friends, but I didn't become an atheist just to join other zealots. Science is our friend, but keep questioning.

Pun / Ironic choice of phrase intentional.


You might find interesting this fascinating study this summer of unexpected evolution in bacteria cultures in the lab.

It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium [with frozen samples every 500 generations], scientists have been able to replay [the history of the 44,000 bacteria generations] to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

I'm not going to go into it, but towards your second point... to understand what has come before you, design your own investigation/experiment and gather evidence to test assumptions made on previous findings. This is all that Darwin did, this is all that Einstein did, this is all the Newton did. If you drag yourself through Darwin's wikipedia post, for instance, you'll see that the idea of evolution was around for a long time, and all he did was take a few disparate sources like Malthus' book on populations and his own finding of how species are similar to neighboring species in different parts of the world (but different from animals in the same climates in other parts of the world) and figured out a simple method for evolution... 'natural selection'.

Since the time Darwin and Alfred Wallace were around there have been incredible modifications to the story, but 'evolution by natural selection' is still the foundation for all of biology. Not only is it still the foundation, our understandings based on evolution are actively used predictively in research to form hypotheses, design experiments, and even predict things like the development of bacterial and viral strains.



In reply to this comment by Quboid:
Great ending, I was worried the title was flame bait.

A couple of points:
1) I don't think it's established that it's a snake. Pretty sure it's a talking animal so this is a technicality, but that it's a snake is a myth. I think QI covered this and they are actually are beyond question.

2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge

If you think about it, it's arrogant to the point of ludicrous to presume this generation has all the big stuff figured it. I'm sure as hell* not a Christian or Creationist, I just think science is a work in progress and we're at a pretty early stage. I hope so! I quit Christianity when I grew out of invisible friends, but I didn't become an atheist just to join other zealots. Science is our friend, but keep questioning.


* Pun / Ironic choice of phrase intentional.

>> ^thepinky:
Didn't see it.
The thing that I find amazing is that atheists take it for granted that no one could possibly give a compelling argument that atheism is irrational. Can you tell me what happened 3 millionths of a second before the big bang?

What does being an atheist have to do with the big bang?


So...has the universe always existed and will it always exist?

Well, yes and no. The universe as we know it has not always existed, but the matter has, in some form or another, and will always exist, even after the universe as we know it ceases to exist.


Alright, then. Did it come from nothing? NO WAY! That's an uncaused event and irrational. Well, then, what is the only solution left to us? An unmoved mover is the only other possible solution. In other words, a supernatural cause. In other words, we're all searching for answers to questions that we cannot possibly answer with our infantile understandings of the cosmos.

I don't know where the matter came from, but there are scientists working on figuring that out.

Are you saying we just give up and accept that it's some supernatural force at work? There was a time when people thought that diseases were caused by supernatural forces, but thankfully there were people who didn't accept that as fact and looked for the real reasons that caused them. That led to germ theory, which led to antibiotics, then microbiology and many more medical advances.

Imagine all of the things that we wouldn't have today if people just said, well we can't possibly understand this, therefore it must be supernatural and leave it at that.

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^thepinky:
Cheap shot. Why make this movie? I'll tell you why. So that all of you "intellectuals" can feel fulfilled and pat yourselves on the back for being enlightened. No thanks.

So, you enjoyed 'Expelled' then? Really, to say 'cheap shot' is pretty weak, think about it... by saying cheap shot, you're really saying 'Yeah, it's obviously stupid, you're just picking the really obviously stupid points of religions'... like... oh, most of it.
He's pointing out the insanity of believing in the bible/Koran/Torah etc. as literal truth. To believe there really was a snake that talked to Eve, to believe there really was Adam and an Eve in an idyllic garden in the first place. To believe there was a boat, made by one guy, who held two of EVERY SPECIES ON THIS EARTH TODAY (and all the thousands that have become extinct in the last 2000 years).
It is insane.
They're parables, stories, fables, they're meant to teach lessons, not to be taken literally and taught as FACT in schools.
So saying this is some 'intellectual' breast beating movie is ridiculous. It's (hopefully, obviously I haven't seen it, but I've listened to him talk about it a lot) a demonstration of what's wrong with religion today.
In my mind the core teachings of most religions are great, tolerance, treat others as you would be treated, don't covet what other people have etc. These are good things to live by, but it's twisting and corrupting of that core acceptance teaching and turning it into a shunning and hatred of others and pushing for religious doctrine over proven scientific fact.
It's a horrible state to be in, which is why movies like this DO have a place.


Didn't see it.

The thing that I find amazing is that atheists take it for granted that no one could possibly give a compelling argument that atheism is irrational. Can you tell me what happened 3 millionths of a second before the big bang?

Tell me, do scientists believe in uncaused events? No, to do so would be irrational. So...has the universe always existed and will it always exist? No. That's an uncaused event and irrational. Alright, then. Did it come from nothing? NO WAY! That's an uncaused event and irrational. Well, then, what is the only solution left to us? An unmoved mover is the only other possible solution. In other words, a supernatural cause. In other words, we're all searching for answers to questions that we cannot possibly answer with our infantile understandings of the cosmos.

It's called cosmogony. You strike me as an educated individual and you've probably heard of it.

>> ^thepinky:
Cheap shot. Why make this movie? I'll tell you why. So that all of you "intellectuals" can feel fulfilled and pat yourselves on the back for being enlightened. No thanks.


So, you enjoyed 'Expelled' then? Really, to say 'cheap shot' is pretty weak, think about it... by saying cheap shot, you're really saying 'Yeah, it's obviously stupid, you're just picking the really obviously stupid points of religions'... like... oh, most of it.

He's pointing out the insanity of believing in the bible/Koran/Torah etc. as literal truth. To believe there really was a snake that talked to Eve, to believe there really was Adam and an Eve in an idyllic garden in the first place. To believe there was a boat, made by one guy, who held two of EVERY SPECIES ON THIS EARTH TODAY (and all the thousands that have become extinct in the last 2000 years).

It is insane.

They're parables, stories, fables, they're meant to teach lessons, not to be taken literally and taught as FACT in schools.

So saying this is some 'intellectual' breast beating movie is ridiculous. It's (hopefully, obviously I haven't seen it, but I've listened to him talk about it a lot) a demonstration of what's wrong with religion today.

In my mind the core teachings of most religions are great, tolerance, treat others as you would be treated, don't covet what other people have etc. These are good things to live by, but it's twisting and corrupting of that core acceptance teaching and turning it into a shunning and hatred of others and pushing for religious doctrine over proven scientific fact.

It's a horrible state to be in, which is why movies like this DO have a place.

>> ^thepinky:
Cheap shot. Why make this movie? I'll tell you why. So that all of you "intellectuals" can feel fulfilled and pat yourselves on the back for being enlightened. No thanks.


Actually we intellectuals need this movie to offset the sad tragedy that was "Ben Stein's Expelled".

>> ^StukaFox:
Everything you need to know about religion can be found at this location:
Intersection of Liberty St & Church St
New York, NY
10006



I see what you did there.

>> ^MrConrads:
I think I spotted a keffiyeh in this clip gasp... everyone associated with this movie must support terrorism.


You noticed it's starring Bill Mahr right? And the bit about it coming from the studio that produced Fahrenheit 9/11?

To Michelle Malkin, those are completely equivalent to Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda.

The gay muslims are just icing at that point.

Sorry, this is a dupe.. =(

http://www.videosift.com/video/Religulous-Movie-Trailer

That's on top of the 'hot' list right now

>> ^Krupo:
I'll take the bait. Comedians are well-known for being hateful - many of his jokes are more hate than ha-ha.
The American scandals are freakin' overblown - in the sense that you might as well condemn minor league hockey and boy scouts organizations for being bastions of evil too, then.
Catholic Church: Universal & Eternal Salvation FTW!


Wow, that's some serious denial you got going on there. Try looking up a few topics like the Crusades, the Inquisition, Witch Hunts... That's an organization to be proud of! Murder in the name of the Lord!

Oh, but them comedians! They're hateful! How pathetic.

Its actually coming out in April now, I imagine right around the same time at Bill Maher's "Religulous." Should make for a fun double feature.

>> ^Krupo:
Maher's done nowhere near the amount of Good Things that the Catholic Church has done. If anyone's "more destructive", it's him.

How much good the Catholic Church has done is debatable...but your fooling yourself if you believe what the Catholic Church has done over the years is less destructive then Bill Maher. Bill Maher after all is just a comedian with an opinion and a TV show to share that opinion and talk about the issues he thinks is important.

The list of "destructive" things the Catholic Church has done doesn't even compare to that....the child molesting problem alone far out weighs anything Maher is capable of with his TV show and opinions.