X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
not,pixar,god,god tube,godtube,christian,evolution,creationism Darwin Gets PWNED by God Tube.
Comments  playlists with this video Religiony Stuff by R0SENCRANTZ
• Promotable goodness by Ornthoron
• Religulous by Ornthoron
• Whiskey Tango Foxtrot by CrushBug
• evil disco comedy by evil_disco_man
• Sifts to *promote by EDD
who voted for this video JAPR
- dystopianfuturetoday
- Ornthoron
- evil_disco_man
- CrushBug
- EDD
- Issykitty
- siftbot
x100 - Zonbie
- ninewest
who has this post bookmarked EDD
- 11917
- poolcleaner
Darwin Gets PWNED By God Tube. Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 12. Seric
(139 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Some people like their ideas...very...simple. this belongs in * terrible - because whoever greenlit this - wasn't very bright.
Have they not seen walking fish? Because, yeah, they're not fish who can live out of water for long periods.
F*CK they annoy me... you're allowed to be stupid, that's fine, but when your stupidity starts trying to spread to others and starts trying to tell those smarter than you that you that they're wrong, that's when it's dangerous.
It's OK to not get it, it's OK to not understand, but don't then try and bring everyone down to your level of moron. Either take the time to learn, or accept that you're a bit dense.
I downvote this because there is absolutely no hint of satire and I wouldn't want people to see this stupidity. It's just TOO inane.
"The mudskippers are probably the best land-adapted of contemporary fish and are able to spend days moving about out of water and can even climb mangroves, although to only modest heights"
ROFL. C+ Must try harder.
Suck it, atheists!
VARIATION:
1) Variation exists in all populations.
2) Some of that variation is heritable.
3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4) Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "Crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
SELECTION:
6) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
7) Characteristics tend to become more common over generations if they tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring which are able to reproduce in turn, and tend to become rarer if they tend to decrease such prospects.
8) "Sampling errors" can occur in populations that alter the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.
SPECIATION:
10) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favour" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
11) The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of life forms.
SUFFICIENCY:
12) Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain the diversity of all life observed on Earth, both in what is directly seen at present, and indirectly through geologic evidence from the fossil record.
That's what Evolution IS. If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these twelve points. Which one is it? Provide evidence that any of the points are incorrect.
Note that Evolution does NOT indicate how the first life arose; that's a question of Autocatalytic Biochemistry, and largely dependant on the definition used to distinguish "alive" from "not-alive". Also, Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture... But without evidence, they aren't science.
Other people's opinions, presented in the form of quotes, are not evidence against the theory of Evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions which turn out to be false. So lets' stick to the facts.
evolution is real. it happens. its been observed, documented and shown time and again. the question is : is natural selection the real reason life arrived/started/whatever on this planet? we have a *theory* which has yet to be disproved based on any quantifiable evidence, but this does not mean evolution doesnt happen or couldnt in fact be the reason life did indeed begin here.
This is obviously a fake. I mean, first of all, the fish is wearing glasses. Secondly, he's thinking in hieroglyphics. What's next, a piece of popcorn shaped like a child molesting weatherman mutating into a Mentos and spraying John McCain with Bill Maher's Diet Coke?
......
>> ^YouMakeKittyMad:
i feel like some of my brain dribbled out of my ears while i was reading that
Normal services resumed!
And try, for once in your life, reading something that contradicts your opinion, and read it with an open mind instead of combing the world for ideas that justify your narrow mindedness.
This video sucks, but I'm totally upvoting.
I'm not Catholic, but this really smart dude named *ehem* Pope Benedict has a lot to say on the topic of Darwinism. Also, read "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" by Kenneth R. Miller.
There is yet hope for you.
I personally wouldn't call the Pope "a smart dude" though. I mean, he is running an organisation that seems to tolerate pedophiles working closely with children, lying to third world countries by saying condoms actually cause AIDS, etc, etc.
I agree with anything written by Ken Miller as well, he claims to be Catholic, but he has a sensible and reasonable head on his shoulders when it comes to biology and evolution.
The problem us godless atheists mostly have with the idea of "Creation by a God Character" is that it is a far more complex explaination for how life, and indeed, the Universe arose. Why? Because it cannot be explained simply stated. If something created us with intelligence, then something must have created that intelligence, and so on, and so on, ad naseum.
The then often used rebuttal to the previous assertion, "That God has always existed" is an extra and unnecessary step. You could just as easily remove God from the equation and say that "The Universe has always existed". We have evidence for how the Universe formed, but none so far for what it was before the Big Bang, String Theory might change all that.
Now, I'm an atheist agnostic, I'm a skeptic, and a student of science. I do not believe in a Creator, or God because there is no evidence to support it. I also do not believe in the Big Bang, Evolution or Atomic Theory. I accept them as fact because they are supported by observable, testible, and falsifiable evidence. All of this does not mean, however, I don't concede to the idea of a Creator. To deny the existence of something isn't science, and it isn't smart.
I am an atheist because I don't believe in any Gods or Godesses, and I'm an agnostic because I don't know whether any exist or not.
And now I apologise for making another long-winded post, I'll just go back to my reading and vector calculus.
But at least if you say God uses evolution, that still gives people motivation to investigate the way evolution works, instead of banning it's teaching.
> ^Raigen:
That's what Evolution IS
Reminds me of that video (link anyone?) of the old Muslim man who declares the world cannot be round nor revolve around the sun, regardless of any video or science that says otherwise, because the Qur'an says Earth is flat and the hub of the universe.
We can, though, make reasonable statistical estimates
Want to feel at one with the universe? Turn off the part of your brain that develops in infancy that allows us to distinguish between our body and environmental objects.
That coupled with the many senseless injustices like Harlequin babies (sift), "the girl born without a face" (sift), and biological intersexuality (sift), and you have a pretty good argument against the idea of a creator.
Creationists do have a strong argument. If evolution were possible, why are they not smarter than medieval man?
Because intelligence does not increase your likelihood of reproduction. Case in point: Britney Spears and Kevin Federline.
In several decades it's going to trickle down that our religious experiences, which are generally the final proof of religious forces, are generated by turning off some neurocircuits and turning up the power on other neurocircuits.
That doesn't really prove anything except that our brains are wired to have spiritual experiences. Compare that with, say, the specialized neural circuits for face recognition. Just because those circuits are active doesn't say anything about the reality of the face we're looking at, be it on a friend or a piece of toast.
>> ^thepinky:
Naw, guys, I was half kidding. But you do bug me. A lot. I still love you.
I'm not Catholic, but this really smart dude named ehem Pope Benedict has a lot to say on the topic of Darwinism. Also, read "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" by Kenneth R. Miller.
There is yet hope for you.
People have emerged on both sides questioning their respective fields' dogma. For example the head of the Anglican Church in England does not believe that God created the universe, he believes that God "made the universe make itself", which strikes me as a *huge* paradigm shift.
Physicists like Lee Smolin, Milo Wolff, Halton Arp, etc, are absolutely convinced that string theory and in fact the last 30 years of particle physics are seriously misguided, even questioning the interpretation of early quantum experiments, Big Bang theory (which has had to be modified and patched with each new discovery to the point that it isn't a good foundation for cosmology any more, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, mis-interpretation of red shifts etc etc)
Neither the scientific rationalists nor the religious irrationalists have their house in order, and disciples of each shouldn't be so smug.
I believe in the Creation AND in Evolution! HOLY CRAP IS IT POSSIBLE?! IS IT LOGICAL?! Yes, yes, and HELLS YEAH IT IS. And you're ALL too stupid and ignorant to understand why. That includes you, Creationists. And you, Darwinists. I ain't kiddin'. You bug the crap outta me. Read a little, will ya? As in books. With pages and words. Written by smart people. Not like you.
And try, for once in your life, reading something that contradicts your opinion, and read it with an open mind instead of combing the world for ideas that justify your narrow mindedness.
This video sucks, but I'm totally upvoting.
How about you quote anything that backs up what you're saying... don't just say 'read this book', go on, point out anything remotely succinct that backs up your claims.
Really, I think perhaps YOU need to read a few things that contradict YOUR beliefs in the good ol' Pope. Please do point us to some enlightening text which make us all feel foolish for believing that all the creation story is, is... well, a story.
^
Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll have to look it up.
Great. Now I want to defend Catholicism from drive-by comments like the one you just made about the Pope. Come on. I know you're smart enough to know why that was a stupid things to say about Catholics.
Yes, you have a point about creationists not knowing what created God, but you're right, atheists have the very same problem. The only three options are (uncaused) infinity, (uncaused) cosmos springing from nothing, or an unmoved mover. Science cannot explain the cosmos. It tries, but it can't. Why not believe in a supernatural cause, because I truly believe that science cannot possibly explain the origins of the cosmos any more rationally than creationists.
So, I respect your agnosticism. Neither side can be proven, can it? It comes down to picking a side, not picking a side, or basing your beliefs on something other than the things that have failed us so far: That is, the cold, hard, unhelpful facts.
how about this: GOD created the beings we EVOLVED from. thats my personal philosophy. i think we can all find some common ground there. =)
I believe in God, not religion.
Creationists do have a strong argument. If evolution were possible, why are they not smarter than medieval man?
Because humans typically have an edge over natural selection.
I don't consider the comment I made "drive-by". I would make the same of a reasonably intelligent man who runs a company that allows its executives and managers to embezzle company funds, or sexually harass their subordinates. As smart as some people can be, and I'm sure the current Pope has enough intelligence, turning a blind eye to injustices which you have the power to stop sort of dilutes that intelligence somewhat.
You say that "science cannot explain the cosmos", and you know something, you are entirely correct making that statement at this point in time. I cannot fault you for it, for the exact same reasons that no more than 60-80 years ago science couldn't explain, nor produce, lasers, wireless technology (Tesla aside), heavier than air flying machines, or going to the Moon. Hundreds of years before that, the science of the times couldn't explain lightning, what causes a baby to be formed, what causes sickness and disease, etc, etc, etc. To suggest that "science cannot explain the cosmos" and leave that as a definitive is slightly ignorant considering the long history of what science "could not explain", yet now explains with a lot of detail and accuracy. 99.999999999% of the cosmos is unexplainable at present, however, this does not mean it will always be so. I'd also appreciate what it is that has instilled this unshakable belief that science, or perhaps the human species, will never explain the origins of the cosmos? Is there a particular failure due to science which spurred this for you personally? The fair maiden Curiosity, she constantly plucks at my heart-strings.
I'm slightly taken aback by your final comment: "basing your beliefs on something other than the things that have failed us so far: That is, the cold, hard, unhelpful facts." This is striking, as for myself I see these cold, hard facts which science has provided us with to be beautiful and vivid. There is much more complexity to our world, the cosmos, and ourselves than we ever could've possibly imagined and these horrible facts brought to our attention have shown these wonderful things to us. I could never suggest that the facts we currently hold onto have failed us, far from the truth, unless, of course, I have completely misinterpreted your comment, in which case I apologise.
I have discussions with coworkers about facts and reason and rationality from time to time, and I am commonly referred to as "cold". I realise why people see it as such, because the natural human response to most things is an emotional response, not a rational one. For instance, when I talk about how pointless it is to have cemetaries, I am shot a dozen evil eyes. "But they're for the people who have lost their loved ones! So they can visit them!" they'll say. And I'll respond by asking if you died today, in one hundred years, or even fifty, who is going to visit your tombstone? We live on a planet with limited space, and using up so much of it for the dead, when the living could use it, seems unfair, and irrational.
One of our species greatest flaws, which I attribute to people who cannot fathom how Evolution works in millions and billions of years, is that we have no long-term forethought. We marvel at our ability to plan, but fail to understand that we only really plan for the short term. Only for our own lives, how selfish, is it not? We don't plan for two centuries down the road, for what our children and grandchildren will have after we are gone. As much as we fear it, accepting that this measure of entropy and decay we call "time" will never end for the rest of the cosmos (at least not for a few trillion trillion years) could help our species a lot in the centuries to come.
One day, I'd like to imagine that my ancestors will watch a broadcast from their home of our Sun dying and swallowing up the inner planets of our solar system, long, long, long after we've gone to find homes throughout the galaxy.
By the way, many atheists (such as Dawkins) accept that there may be a greater intelligence that some may call God, but as a completely separate idea from those described in religious texts.
*Blows smoke off keyboard and rolls wit' his homies*
I consider my comment "drive-by".
Blows smoke off keyboard and rolls wit' his homies
"They see me rollin', they hatin'."
>> ^chilaxe:
In several decades it's going to trickle down that our religious experiences, which are generally the final proof of religious forces, are generated by turning off some neurocircuits and turning up the power on other neurocircuits.
That doesn't really prove anything except that our brains are wired to have spiritual experiences. Compare that with, say, the specialized neural circuits for face recognition. Just because those circuits are active doesn't say anything about the reality of the face we're looking at, be it on a friend or a piece of toast.
Doesn't the problem arise when we feel our neural circuits are proof of unverifiable ideas?
>> ^Payback:
I consider my comment "drive-by".
Blows smoke off keyboard and rolls wit' his homies
"They see me rollin', they hatin'."
Me and my home boy darwin are going to pop some creationists yah hear me?
It does say that the earth is "stretched out like a carpet" or something to that effect, and it also describes it as a the nest of a ostrich (and not the egg, like so many literalists try to claim) So I think if we take in the Quran with an open, honest mind (Instead of giving it all the benefits of doubt, in order to square its "facts" with actual facts) I think its pretty safe to say that whoever wrote it thought the earth was flat, and at the center of the universe.
I agree that the guy was an idiot, but I think he understood the Quran correctly, but when you take that book more seriously than reality, then yes, you are quite an idiot.
Obviously the animator can't hack it in any other realm, much like the Christian rock/punk/rap acts that wouldn't ever be heard by anyone but their poor parents if the church didn't accept and promote them.
That video just PROVED Darwin's theory. That fish was an imbecile and to even think that it could breath on land makes him the weakest of the species. The stronger, more intelligent fish were under the water evolving into hybrid creatures that could breathe both in water and on land. I am glad the stupid fish got themselves out of the gene pool as swiftly as shown in this video.
Just quoting and bringing to light my favorite comment in this thread for all the new people seeing this.