fantastic!
*promote!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, January 2nd, 2010 11:45am PST - promote requested by enoch.

all the points in this video are valid, but why does the narrator have to talk like the viewer is an idiot? Pretty sure creationists aren't going to watch any video that argues against what they believe and non-creationists already agree with these counter arguments. *yawn* (that's just me though.)

(4:31)

Actually The United States of America, was founded on religous freedom from the King of England. We didn't like the King's version of Christianity. Actually, we found the USA on a number of things, besides just religion. Like taxes, and representation...

Go read the history books if you don't believe me. Also, the concept of "Seperation of Church and State' come from Jefferson, not the US Constitution. So while the document doesn't contain the concept directly, its often thought of indirectly, since Jefferson had alot to do with American politics at the time.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists seem to fail to understand what the Theory of Evolution is and isnt. You can't blame the Creationists to much, as they often lack the education of what science is and isnt. But an evolutionists should know better. Consider the following question:

"Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?"

The moment you say "yes", you are holding a belief, not scientific understanding nor fact. Likewise, you just played in to Creationist's game, since at that point, the Theory of Evolution is not science, but a belief and religion.

The correct answer is "That is not the correct question to ask". The person will ask what is:

"Based on the information collected so far, is the Theory of Evolution correct?"

"Yes". That keeps you from thinking of the theory as a 'guess' or 'theory' in layman's terms.

Likewise, why debate Creationism to the Theory of Evolution? The two talk about totally different concepts. One talks about how Earth and everything on it, came in to being, while the other talks about what happen to life, since it got started. If a Creationists wants to debate science fairly, use the Theory of Abiogeneis.

>> ^Nithern:
(4:31)
Actually The United States of America, was founded on religous freedom from the King of England. We didn't like the King's version of Christianity. Actually, we found the USA on a number of things, besides just religion. Like taxes, and representation...
Go read the history books if you don't believe me.

Wait, huh??? I must have read a totally different history book than you. Several dozen in fact. I could have sworn Pilgrims came over sometime after 1500 A.D. Maybe I'm really off about this, but something about 1774 and 1776 sorta come 200 years after 1500 . . . . But hey, I wasn't a math major, just Political Science (which means lots of history too.)

Yes, we founded this nation on other things such as autonomy. At the time of the founding there were several dozen religious stewing around (all Christian mind you) but our country was founded to allow the free practice of those religions (after all, 200 years prior we came over to avoid persecution) but not allow any of those religions to take over authority, ie the Catholic church.

And I'm sorry, I do believe you missed # 5.

>> ^Nithern:
The moment you say "yes", you are holding a belief, not scientific understanding nor fact. Likewise, you just played in to Creationist's game, since at that point, the Theory of Evolution is not science, but a belief and religion.

Do you know the difference between Anyway and Anyways? Or do you simply avoid communication with other humans because they don't follow your rules for communication? Having belief in something does not prove nor disprove any facts. It simply states the acceptance of said fact. Children believe in all sorts of fantastic things but that doesn't make it real. Believing that I can jump from a tall building and fly away does not negate gravity. Believing in evolution simply states one accepts the facts before them. This would hark back to philosophy and the different modes of reality but digressing, it's also just simply a colloquial way of saying "I accept that the Theory of Evolution is correct given all available knowledge and evidence to support such a claim." Then again, the world Theory kinda underlines that in itself but that may just being nit-picky about the terms of communication.

The problem with belief or lack of belief in the 'theory' of evolution is moot, by using the term theory science already admits that it has not been proven beyond doubt...

Hypothesis
Theory
Law

You hypothesize something is the way it is by looking at the base situation. Then you test it using documented and scientifically repeatable criteria (eg. dropping an apple). If the tests prove overwhelmingly in the affirmative, it becomes a law (eg. the Law of Gravity has passed so many tests it cannot be disproven for example). Evolution is a theory, but there are some proven scientific methods that demonstrate it. eg. antibiotic resistant super bacteria, certain plants which are resistant to bugs or disease, human trait inheritance.

God is a hypothesis at best as there is anecdotal evidence that he has interceded directly enough for people to believe in him (eg. answers to prayers, miracles etc), but there is no scientific test which will prove his existence. Of course, there is no scientific test to disprove his existence either. Kinda like walking in to a darkened room and asking if anyone is there, if no one answers it doesn't mean the room is empty...

Which leaves us with an assumption based on lack of repeatable provable evidence vs belief.

I think the people that came up with religion were very very clever indeed. Gods who never reveal themselves and who find you wanting for even questioning their existence?

edit: spelling fail X D

So this is what those monster truck rally announcers do when business is slow...

To counter #10, all you have to say is Godwin

Whoa man! Explosions and fast pace! Atheism is totally tubular!

>> ^Asmo:
The problem with belief or lack of belief in the 'theory' of evolution is moot, by using the term theory science already admits that it has not been proven beyond doubt...
Hypothesis
Theory
Law


I'm not sure if this is correct asmo, at least as far as i understand it. You state those 3 like they're the stages of a scientific fact, but that's actually not true.

Firstly, when referring to scientific theory and law, there's no definitive proof for anything which might constitute a fact in the context i used.

Secondly, this ties into the first, the best we have for anything is a law - which describes observations that we have witnessed, or a theory - which is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which can be tested and shown to be true and tries to explain why something is as we witnessed. The law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the theory tries to explain why.

We can't send stuff to a panel of administrators who put a stamp on a piece of paper and say "Yep, this is now a law, we will not permit the universe to disprove our quantification and understanding of this observation." It's not like some AD&D universe where we can check the back of the book for strict values and procedures. All we can do is spot patterns in nature and try to explain them to the best of our abilities.

I typed a bit more but realised i'm almost quoting this website which i didn't intend to do:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law :-

"A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.
Simplified: a law states what we observe, it doesn't try to explain it. It often is found lacking and as such we state boundaries for the law, as below:

Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc."

>> ^Asmo:
(eg. the Law of Gravity has passed so many tests it cannot be disproven for example)

Gravity if only a Theory, not a Law (as it currently stands.) It was only a Law after Newton and until Einstein changed it. Yes, your "law" that cannot be disproven was in fact, disproven. It was replaced by another theory on gravity. Now, we have this really odd problem of explaining why gravity fails at the atomic level. It works great for explaining things on the macro level but once you get to atomic it falls apart. Not exactly a totally disproven law is it? Gravity is a theory, nothing more.

What's great about that theory though is that it still works. Hence why it's an accepted theory. We launch rockets into space using it and the Myth Busters test whether a bullet that is dropped lands at the same time one that is fired lands. It's an amazing theory.

>> ^Asmo:
God is a hypothesis at best

Science wouldn't even consider this a hypothesis. Hypothesis, when used correctly, refers to a more stringent examination of the world. Let's us the example of the apple. When the apple fell, Newton didn't immediately come up with the theory of gravity. He didn't even come up with a hypothesis really. After dropping a few items and seeing similar events he noted a pattern. Once a pattern was established and some examples were collected, then he could make a hypothesis. It takes observable events to create a hypothesis. Now, the biggest difference between saying God is a hypothesis is that we cannot observe the acts of God like we can observe acts of Gravity. This is why religions have Faith, because they cannot observe the acts and thus must have trust that they will happen without any proof.

While it's somewhat understandable to called religion a hypothesis, it simply undermines the process that science takes to understand the world. Additionally, if God was a hypothesis, it would already be disproven and rejected from the community. God would be dead and religion would cease.

>> ^Asmo:
(eg. the Law of Gravity has passed so many tests it cannot be disproven for example)

All I have to say is wow. First off, Gravity if only a Theory, not a Law. It was only a Law after Newton and until Einstein changed it. Yes, your "law" that cannot be disproven was in fact, disproven. It was replaced by another theory on gravity. Now, we have this really odd problem of explaining why gravity fails at the atomic level. It works great for explaining things on the macro level but once you get to atomic it falls apart. Not exactly a totally disproven law is it? Gravity is a theory, nothing more.

What's great about that theory though is that it still works. Hence why it's an accepted theory. We launch rockets into space using it and the Myth Busters test whether a bullet that is dropped lands at the same time one that is fired lands. It's an amazing theory.

>> ^Asmo:
God is a hypothesis at best

Science wouldn't even consider this a hypothesis. Hypothesis, when used correctly, refers to a more stringent examination of the world. Let's us the example of the apple. When the apple fell, Newton didn't immediately come up with the theory of gravity. He didn't even come up with a hypothesis really. After dropping a few items and seeing similar events he noted a pattern. Once a pattern was established and some examples were collected, then he could make a hypothesis. It takes observable events to create a hypothesis. Now, the biggest difference between saying God is a hypothesis is that we cannot observe the acts of God like we can observe acts of Gravity. This is why religions have Faith, because they cannot observe the acts and thus must have trust that they will happen without any proof.

While it's somewhat understandable to called religion a hypothesis, it simply undermines the process that science takes to understand the world. Additionally, if God was a hypothesis, it would already be disproven and rejected from the community. God would be dead and religion would cease.

>> ^Asmo:


I think the people that came up with religion were very very clever indeed. Gods who never reveal themselves and who find you wanting for even questioning their existence?

Ain't that the truth!

I guess I was not entirely clear. A scientific "Law" and "Theory" is different, from how a legal "Law" or "Theory" is understood. And both these terms (from a scientific and legal perspective) are differently understood when compared to the layman's term of "Law" and "Theory". A layman's defination of "Law" is a rule that gives structure and a penalty (like the blue laws, or the 10 commendments). A layman's defination of "Theory" is much like a guess, and usually thought of as based on no real facts. Now, in this case, there's a religious "Law" and "Theory", and its defination is different from the scientific, legal and layman's terms.

If your going to define God (which is often thought of in religious terms) in a scientific manner, then you open the door, to letting someone define The Theory of Evolution, in religious terms. So, let religious people have God, and allow them to define the subject in their way. That would be taking the high road of the arguement.

Shatterdose,

If your going to bash me on the use of the word "Anyway" or "Anyway's" in a quote. Make sure the actual word is *IN* the quote. Otherwise, it allows me to fairly bash you back for being an idiot.

"Having belief in something does not prove nor disprove any facts"

Oh, that's a SCIENTIFIC fact that your talking about? You are mixing up what is understood as scientific and what is religious. A religious FACT, is the Holy Bible comes directly from God. A scientific fact would not past a correct level, since to say "The Holy Bible came from God." One must first prove the existance of God. Last I check, the nature of Science does not allow the ability to understand God.

"I accept that the Theory of Evolution is correct given all available knowledge and evidence to support such a claim."

This STILL states your thoughts on the subject as a belief, not one based on scientific understanding. You 'accept' means you take 'on faith', that what ever follows is correct, without checking if it *IS* correct.

Just remeber.....Obey Gravity, its the Law!

Fair point. (I must have missed the whole "law of gravity no longer a law" back in high school in the 80's.. X )

The definition I was working off (hypo/theory/law) was the one we learned in my first (and only) year of university chem years ago so it might be a tad dated... *grin*

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Asmo:
The problem with belief or lack of belief in the 'theory' of evolution is moot, by using the term theory science already admits that it has not been proven beyond doubt...
Hypothesis
Theory
Law

I'm not sure if this is correct asmo, at least as far as i understand it. You state those 3 like they're the stages of a scientific fact, but that's actually not true.


Incorrect, the bible is passed through the minds and pens of the people who wrote it down. Old King James, New King James, New International Version etc etc. Pick any two versions and they'll be altered from each other. That's not directly...

>> ^Nithern:
A religious FACT, is the Holy Bible comes directly from God. A scientific fact would not past a correct level, since to say "The Holy Bible came from God." One must first prove the existance of God.

I think what I like most about the evolution of religion in the 21st century is that I no longer even feel the need to debate it. It has become such a silly topic you wonder how people can still defend it with a straight face.

I have one thing to say to everyone trying to defend creationism/bible:

[citation needed]

As far as the "theory vs law" argument, one is not a stronger version of the other. The problem is that, after looking around for a bit, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the definitions.

Here is the explanation I have received from people in the fields of chemistry and physics:


Law: A statement of observation. Gravity has a certain effect, gases behave certain ways under certain conditions, etc. These observations have been tested and shown to be consistent.

Theory: An attempt to explain observed behavior. There is a Law of Gravity (observation) and several Theories of Gravity (attempted explanations for the Law of Gravity). We know that objects have mass and are attracted to one another, but there are still holes in our understanding of why.


On a similar note, there is a difference between a belief in gods (or deities) and a belief in young-earth creationism. One exists in the gaps of current knowledge, the other directly contradicts current knowledge.

The whole comment section: tl;dr