VIDEO: Creationist student challenges her anthropology professor, epic smackdown ensues

deadstate creationist student owned

The creationist’s lack of understanding of what the word “theory” means when applied to science is brutally exposed in this video.

We all know the old creationist adage which claims evolution is simply just another “theory,” disqualifying it from being reliable as factual evidence.

Probably the most frustrating aspect of this argument is that it reveals the creationist’s lack of understanding of what the word “theory” actually means when applied to science – or most things in the real world for that matter.

It’s that misunderstanding that reveals itself in the video below when a student questions her professor, asking, “Why should we base the validity of all of our life’s beliefs on a theory?”

Needless to say, he was ready with an answer. Think he got through to her?




  1. Duane Alford

    February 23, 2015 at 2:04 am

    uh Oh, now he’s done it, just wait til Fauxsnooze see’s this far left wing loon with his liberal hollywood Sal Olinsky communist / marxist views indoctrinating the children.

  2. veronica

    February 23, 2015 at 2:22 am

    personally, I’m happy to know that I’m a part of the natural evolution of life on this planet I’m quite glad to know that I’m intrinsically connected to every thing in some way & am an integral part of the world & not just a visitor on its surface

  3. Pierre Lapin

    February 23, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    Why was the camera centred on her before she asked a question? STAGED

  4. Jac

    February 23, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    Who ever said this girl was a Christian anyway? You all assume she is because she simply asked a question challenging Darwin’s theory. So anyone who has a mind who is willing to think for themselves and question something is just a dumb creationist? And the professor was wrong when he said that it’s not a theory it is a fact. There are no facts in science!! It is a theory! There are laws–like the Law of Gravity. So he’s obviously biased. Nothing in science is “proven” because science always changes with more information. Remember when everyone in the scientific community agreed that the world was flat? What else do you think can change with time? Darwin’s theory of evolution has been dis-proven. In his book he outlined how he thought the evolution process took place, slowly over millions of years. They’ve shown that this is incorrect because all of the variety of species all came into life within a short amount of time and there are fossils of all the different kinds in the same time. He also mentioned cancer?! Cancer has nothing to do with this. We know what causes cancer and we still eat toxic food and allow the government to pump carcinogens into our drinking water and then go get “treatment” which costs a ton of money and kills every cell-not just the bad ones. There is a cure for cancer and the pharmaceutical companies who run the country don’t want us to know about it.

    • Skinny

      February 25, 2015 at 12:16 am

      You blew it there at the end, by making an idiotic statement. There are thousands of types of cancer. The “leading” causes for a few are known (smoking for some types of lung cancer, sun exposure for some people’s melanoma, chronic alcohol induced liver damage for some hepatocellular cancer, etc). A limited few types of cancer do indeed have curative therapies, even in late stages. The vast majority do not (yet, and some perhaps never will), but a lot of incredible progress has been made due to scientists in academia and especially in the companies you speak so generically about, as if there is some puppet master in control of these many thousands of professionals, many of whom know people who die of cancer. Most new cancer therapies don’t actually kill healthy cells indiscriminately, as did traditional chemotherapy. Many are targeted to inhibit specific biological processes that are being hijacked by a particular type of cancer, or, very recently, some are designed to stimulate parts of the immune system. Making such sweeping, stupid statements such as yours, about something so incredibly complex as cancer and cancer medicine, beautifully demonstrates how many people think about science in general. Yet you are convinced of your understanding of evolution.

      • Jac

        March 24, 2015 at 12:43 am

        Western medicine sucks and they are giving the masses toxins. Poisoning everybody for population control so they can achieve their New World Order. But you sound like most people-brainwashed by the elitists who want you dead.

      • therandjerandje

        May 19, 2015 at 2:35 am

        Wrong. I realize you wrote this in February, but there has been so much information coming out now about the corruption and profitability (which often go hand in hand) in the Cancer “Industry–much of it from insiders–and so much about the curative properties of cannabis (to name one) on a long list of ailments ()including cancer) that I can’t help but think you are stuck in the Pink Myopia of Olde School Chemospeak. I suggest you begin to update by reading up on an interesting fellow named Dr. Burzynski. I recommend the full documentary (youtube) Cancer is Serious Business

    • Logan Altom

      February 25, 2015 at 1:37 am

      Ummmm yes there are scientific facts. They are different than theories, laws, and hypotheses. Facts don’t explain shit. Evolution happens, that is a fact, but we need theories to explain facts. Without theories, our understanding is limited.

      • Jac

        March 24, 2015 at 12:44 am

        I was not stating that evolution doesn’t exist I am stating that Darwin’s theory of evolution and his book Origin of Species is outdated and invalid. It’s a theory from the early 1800s and we have much more evidence that shows he was wrong in many things that he published.

      • nate

        April 28, 2015 at 10:43 pm

        Righto. Like the insurmountable notion of missing links in the fossil record. Yet i believe we can subtract one now, after your response. Tell me the angle of your forehead.

    • yhandros

      February 25, 2015 at 8:15 am

      are you serious? She’s probably a creacionist and you’re probably a troll.

      • Jac

        March 24, 2015 at 12:46 am

        And you’re obviously hateful and mean.

    • Montse Pérez Hernández

      February 25, 2015 at 8:47 pm

      “(….) of all of our life’s beliefs (…)” If that does not imply she´s a religious person at least …

      • Jac

        March 24, 2015 at 12:47 am

        Atheists have beliefs too.

    • Jamie Eckles

      April 4, 2015 at 5:29 am

      Please be kind enough to explain to me when “everyone in the scientific community believed the Earth was flat”. I’ve gone back to the time of Eratosthenes, some 2,300 years ago and still cannot find any scientific community that believed the Earth was flat.

    • drakvl

      April 5, 2015 at 3:40 am

      Did you even watch the video? The professor said Darwin got some things wrong. Well, where did the heritability piece of the puzzle come from? Gregor Mendel–and before you say it: yes, he was a friar–who presented his results in the 1860s.

      And you imply heavily that there were no major changes to the basic ideas after that; and this is where you reveal your utter ignorance of the subject. Around the time of the second World War, the great mathematization of evolutionary theory, known as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, took place, involving such great minds as Fisher, Haldane, and Wright. In fact, there’s a famous controversy around whether, as Fisher suggested, Mendel’s results were a little too clean–that maybe through conscious or unconscious biases, Mendel or an assistant might have fudged the numbers (if you are curious, Google the Fisher-Mendel controversy).

      Finally, you talk about when science thought the world was flat–something both scientists and sailors have known was nonsense at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. (Please tell me you don’t believe Columbus was trying to prove the world was round.) But the more important point: you are suggesting that science’s greatest strength, its built-in mechanisms for self-correction, is somehow a liability; for that. I direct you to Isaac Asimov’s essay “The Relativity of Wrong.”

      One more point: you say, “. . .all of the variety of species all came into life within a short amount of time and there are fossils of all the different kinds in the same time.” Well it’s odd that you find that to be true, because William Smith, and pretty much every geologist who came after him, has been using differences in the fossils between different strata as a means for identifying said strata since before the American Civil War.

    • susanava

      April 21, 2015 at 11:25 pm

      There are no facts in science??? What are u typing dumbass?
      Of corse she’s creationist. Her ignorance gave it away first of all – she’s never read Origin of Species, guaranteed. And we know bc she uses the ready-made straw men invented by creationists & ID proponents – limiting the evidence to Darwin, a misunderstanding & misuse of the terms “transitional forrms” and “theory”, and of course, that slightly telling end of her question “why should we base our LIFE’S BELIEF” – BELEIF is not a scientific concern. It’s a religious one. And she didn’t just ask a question; she was not motivated by curiosity or a desire to learn. She was there to dismiss what she doesn’t understand, another religious tell. Lastly her arrogance smacks of religion – she knows absolutely nothing about the subject, she can’t even phrase her question coherently, but she thinks she can outsmart an expert in the field who’s been studying it for years. Does that answer your question?

    • leadbones

      April 22, 2015 at 1:40 pm

      Sweet Jesus, your ignorance is astounding.

    • Tony Shell

      May 8, 2015 at 2:13 am

      She probably didn’t soak in what he said either Christian. You science deniers are among the reasons this country has been stuck at the edge of space for 50 years. Can’t be nothing out there.. God’s here. Stick your head back into your sandbox.

    • ElRay

      May 13, 2015 at 1:02 pm

      Actually, your science ignorance is showing. Evolution is an observed fact. There’s data for that going back to the 1700’s. Long before Darwin proposed his theory as an explanation for the observed fact. “The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection” is currently the best theory to explain the observed data. All the previous theories (Evolution via Acquired Traits, aka Lamarkian Evolution, etc.) have been dismissed, because they did not stand up to the observed data.

      Laws are not “proven theories”. Laws express a mathematical relationship. There will never be a “Law of Evolution”, because it is not something that can be expressed as a formula. That is why there’s a “Law of Gravity”, because you can calculate the attractive force between two masses. There make be “Smith’s Law of Gene Propagation Rates”, but “The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection” will never be promoted to a law, because that makes no sense.

      Your citing of misinformation regarding fossil data is astoundingly mis-informed (read that lied to), as well as your ignorance about cancer treatments, the fact that scientists were not the ones claiming the Earth was flat (the accent Greeks new the Earth was round and calculated it’s diameter very accurately, given the tools they had), and the FACT that it was the church that silenced folks like Galileo because their science disagreed with church dogma, is further evidence that you are too blinded by your mythological beliefs to actually understand the science you’re trying to argue against.

      There is no data out there that disproves the current theory of evolution. And even if there was, there’s ZERO data to prove any creation mythology, let alone the christian one; and there is tons of counter-evidence to disprove all of the creation myths, not just the christian one. If “The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection” was disproven tomorrow, scientists would have to find a new theory that fits the observed data. To claim otherwise is either an outright lie, or more ignorance.

      • Kenny G

        September 28, 2015 at 12:45 am

        Well said!

    • Normandy

      May 14, 2015 at 12:15 am

      Shes obviously Christian (over 80% of all US citizens are) because non Christians aren’t programmed to question science.

      • Elkay

        September 27, 2015 at 1:34 am

        Peer review. When a question is constructive you can bet its an atheist, most scientists are. when a question is bullshit constructed to build up religious ideas than its a creationist desperately trying to hold onto dogma despite the cognitive dissonance.

    • Pete Foy

      May 14, 2015 at 5:37 am

      No one in the scientific community ever agreed or believed the world was flat !

    • channeledhistory

      May 25, 2015 at 3:32 am

      You didn’t understand a damn thing, did you ? Just because science changes as it adopts new information doesn’t mean it will ever think that human beings were made by an old beardy Jewish guy who lives in the sky… because who made the Jewish guy ? And who made the guy who made theguy who made the Old beardy Jewish guy ?

    • Morgan Fildersnatch (@angulimala22)

      June 2, 2015 at 10:15 am

      you’re an absolute moron.

    • Chicho Blanco

      June 11, 2015 at 3:50 am

      You are the epitome of the dismal failure of the US school system.

    • Darren Johnson

      July 1, 2015 at 6:35 pm

      Evolution is both a fact and a theory. You are incorrect.

    • John McGrath

      July 1, 2015 at 11:46 pm

      Where do you get this “flat” business? Reflecting the general knowledge of the time, Bishop Iranaeus (born 125 CE/AD) consistently refers to the earth as a sphere. Educated people knew the arth was round.

    • D'Bickataw Purgaton

      August 16, 2015 at 8:38 pm

      Those who believe in creationism are the only ones who challenge the fundamental basis of evolution by calling it “just a theory”; everyone else knows better. So that’s how we know she’s a Christian. Thanks for playing.

    • Mac McCormick

      September 26, 2015 at 8:14 pm

      *SIGH1* I don’t even know where to start with this.

      1. There are MOST CERTAINLY facts in science.

      Gravity is a scientific theory AND a law.

      2. Remember when everyone in the scientific community agreed that the world was flat?

      No, I do not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

      3. Darwin’s theory of evolution has been dis-proven.

      You are quibbling over details that Darwin could not have known during his time. And yet, not one thing you’ve posted has disproven Darwin’s general observations.

      The fact of evolution is evident. How it took place is the question. 😉

      Your argument that “all kinds of fossils” have appeared in the same time frame is meaningless. What exactly do you mean by “all kinds”, and what are your examples?

      4.We know what causes cancer and we still eat toxic food and allow the government to pump carcinogens into our drinking water and then go get “treatment” which costs a ton of money and kills every cell-not just the bad ones.

      No, we do not know what causes cancer. We have guesses. We have hypotheses (which are far different from theories). We have

      • Mac McCormick

        September 26, 2015 at 8:26 pm

        We have hypotheses (which are *far* different from theories).We do not, however, have any singular cause of cancer which appears to be a set of disorders; not a sole villain in the pantheon of diseases.

        I’m sorry, I don’t so far think you’re necessarily stupid and I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • steve gyetko

        October 14, 2015 at 10:58 am

        Nice try Mac, and I applaud your patient reply to these ‘flat earther’ fools. You can shovel a mound of evidence that will blot out the sun, but they’ll still believe what they want. They believe that a book full of contradictory writings, written by bronze age idiots in the pre-science era, that have been translated and retranslated a dozen times and is, by consequence, loaded with errors, is the ‘gold standard’. There’s no talking to these idiots. Fortunately, more and more of us are coming around and embracing fact, not fantasy.

  5. Jac

    February 23, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    That professor didn’t even know what Darwin’s points were. And he said it wasn’t a theory it was a fact which is untrue because there are no facts in science. There are laws -the Law of gravity. And it’s just a theory because there is evidence that goes against it!! What about the Cambrian explosion? Darwin couldn’t explain that. In fact that evidence goes directly against his theory. He himself said that there are no evolutionary leaps in nature and that if there was evidence of that then it would show signs of creation

    • Shawn James

      February 26, 2015 at 3:11 pm

      You Sir, are a jackass. You obviously have no clue how Darwinian Evolution works. “Darwin’s theory of evolution has been dis-proven. In his book he outlined how he thought the evolution process took place, slowly over millions of years. They’ve shown that this is incorrect because all of the variety of species all came into life within a short amount of time and there are fossils of all the different kinds in the same time” What the hell are you even trying to say. This sums up your lack of knowledge perfectly. All the species found in fossils records were not alive at the same time, nor did they “come into life” at the same time. There is clear evidence that fossils are from numerous time periods, and you must have a lack of understanding to think otherwise. You sound like another denial submerged, blind and dumb, creationist. Go read a book. (or two in your case)

      • Jaclyn Kunkel

        March 23, 2015 at 11:30 pm

        Shawn James. I know that the Cambrian explosion took millions of years, that’s not the point. It’s that what was found in the records were the emergence of brand new species that started out as complex beings; with spines, exoskeletons, ect. They discovered these creatures came into existence already being complex, that they didn’t have any slow evolutionary processes to become complex. Also, many of those creatures never changed for thousands of years and there are a few that are still here today, unchanged. The way Darwin explained evolution of being like a tree, with the base of the tree a single celled organism and it slowly evolves creating multiple complex creatures is not how it is viewed in the scientific world today. There is no evidence of the slow process of natural selection during the Cambrian explosion. Also if you believe in Darwin’s theory, how can you explain that the single cell came from a primordial chemical pool? Darwin couldn’t explain that and science has actually shown that it is pretty much impossible. Dr. Antone Flew-one of the most famous atheists for the past 50 years who wrote “Biochemical Predestination” (trying to explain how a single cell came from a pool of chemicals) actually stopped believing his theory and started believing in God through scientific research. They haven’t been able to re create this happening in a lab so why do you believe that it actually happened? You do not need to be so mean and hateful in order to have a conversation. We are not enemies because we have different minds. Society makes people feel like we are in a war against each other if we believe different things and it doesn’t have to be that way. Since you used name calling like an immature child as part of your argument I’m going to assume that you are unable to have a mature adult conversation.

      • steve gyetko

        March 24, 2015 at 7:40 pm

        Jaclyn, nothing ‘starts out as a complex organism’. It simply isn’t done outside of the bible when God put on his magic hat, waved his wand and went ‘zap’, or in a comic book. You think a house starts out fully constructed? No, it starts out as a pile of brick, mortar, wood, wiring, plumbing, etc. The fact is, fossil records are maddeningly tough to figure out, as animals have a nasty habit of not dying in neat little rows, like in a file cabinet for easy retrieval later. Do you know how tough if is to become a fossil in the first place? If everything doesn’t happen just exactly right, ‘fuggedaboudit’. Also, I happen to believe in God, only I think God WAS AN EVOLUTIONIST. He mixed the petri dish, stood back and watched, keeping his hands off. Sort of like those “Ron Popiel Set it and Forget it” ovens. The elegant and complex dance of evolution seems more fitting for a deity than donning a star and moon spangled cape, a pointed hat and a wand and going ‘Poof’, all over the place.

      • Jac

        March 24, 2015 at 12:34 am

        Shawn James. I meant all of the different categories of phylum came into life within the same time period. I know that the Cambrian explosion was over a long period of time. Many species came into existence already being complex, and many of them never evolved into something more complex. There is no evidence that supports the idea of a slowly evolving single cell and there is no consistent evidence that shows Darwin’s theory of natural selection, there are no transitional fossils. His theory is outdated and many aspects of his theory have been disproven. You’re going to believe in a theory that was written in the early 1800s when we have so much more information that states otherwise? That’s your choice. If a single cell was formed from a pool of chemicals then why can’t they recreate that in a lab today? They can’t. Dr. Antone Flew who wrote “Biochemical Predestination,” dedicated his life trying to describe how that happened and he never could. He found through science that he couldn’t even believe in his own theory. And you do not need to be so hateful. I don’t know why you hate people who believe in God so much, but you need to get that out of yourself. Society teaches us that if we believe in different things then we are enemies and that is not true. Humans need to stop fighting with each other and start respecting each other. If you respond hatefully again, then I will ignore it because that shows that you are immature and unable to have an intelligent, adult conversation.

    • lauralaplace

      February 28, 2015 at 5:54 pm

      What about the Cambrian explosion? There’s nothing there that’s even an issue for evolution: a diverse variety of creatures evolving over a period of millions of years is exactly what evolution predicts. If you’re referring to the common creationist strawman that in the cambrian period lots of creatures appeared suddenly… that’s an exaggeration. “Sudden” is on an evolutionary timescale, not a few days, as the creationists want you to believe; actually look it up, it was hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

      • Jac

        March 23, 2015 at 11:34 pm

        Laural there’s no evidence of the process of natural selection during the Cambrian explosion. Creatures came into existence already being complex. Darwin’s view of the world is not all in scientific evidence, that is his view point. A viewpoint of a young man in the early 1800s is what people are still teaching in school is ridiculous. It is not an irrefutable, whole, sound argument.

    • basicpract

      March 10, 2015 at 3:18 am

      Jac, I am going to assume that you are actually interested in this topic, and not here just to troll, although if you prove me wrong in the future, oh well 😛

      1. “Professor did not know Darwin’s points”.
      Why would you think this? If you have ever taught a class, you know that there are some parts of a questions you do not have time to answer, or are not important to the main point. The easiest way to derail a poorly managed class is ask so many stupid questions that there is no chance to actually address them all. I would imagine though that most people who study evolution know what Darwin’s original theories were (and also know how our understanding of evolution has changed since then).

      2. “There are no facts in science”.
      – the sun rises in the east
      – force = mass x acceleration.
      – ten centimeters = a meter.
      – objects in freefall accelerate at 9.8m/s/s
      – 12 of the 20 plants died when the pH was lowered to 3.

      Science is about collecting data (facts) and developing theories that explain the facts. The theories are then scrutinized, tested, retested, and analyzed. Every scientist would love to be the one who discovers an effect that out theory of gravity cannot explain. As Bill Nye has to remind science deniers repeatedly, if you want to prove that evolution is false, find evidence that contradicts the claims.

      3. “If there are evolutionary leaps in nature, it would show signs of a creator”

      Right now, there is no evidence of evolutionary leaps. What we have is a *lack* of evidence showing the full progression. This is a very crucial concept to science. The lack of evidence, however, is not evidence that it is false.

      What is intended by this idea of “if there was a leap” means that you find one specimen of a organism lower down on the tree of live changing into an organism higher up in a rapid period, without a series of small changes in between, something new has happened. Right now, we just have gaps, and the more fossils we find, the more the new evidence supports the theory. There is not new evidence being found that has a proto-mammal and a human being stuck in the same tar pit from the same time period, with a miraculous transformation having happened.

      4. “The Cambrian Explosion”
      With that phrasing, it sounds like there was a nigh-immediate creation of life. Even at its most sensationalistic, this explosion of life took millions of years. Since Darwin wrote his book, a lot more evidence has been found. People have found fossils that show that complex life was beginning to form before our current fossil record indicated. There are also hypotheses as to why a period of *relatively* rapid evolution could occur, such as a crucial oxygen threshold having been reached, or a significant influx of calcium due to increased volcanic activity.

      • Steve

        March 17, 2015 at 7:40 am

        Basicpract, that was a nice ‘point by point’ correction you put out there. Concise, and to the point, without hyperbole. Unfortunately, the ‘denier crowd’ tends to ‘tune out’ after two or three sentences, mostly due to cognitive dissonance, or fear that their imaginary friend will make their ears fall off it they continue to listen to ‘blasphemy’. “Basic”, it’s like playing chess with a pigeon. Even if you’re a grand master, all he’s going to do is walk around the board, shitting on it, knocking over the pieces and strut around thinking he’s ‘won’.

      • Jac

        March 24, 2015 at 12:10 am

        basicpract, Yes, science is about collecting data and attempting to explain that data with theories. Darwin’s theory has many unexplained parts to it and many of his explanations have been disproved by testing. His law of disuse was thrown out. Also where are the transitional fossils? There are none, right. Not just because they can’t find them, because they don’t exist. If they were there, they would have been discovered by now. Also if a single cell (which is very very complex in itself) was formed through a pool of chemicals, why can’t scientists recreate this in a lab? They haven’t been able to and the way amino acids form proteins is so complex and specific that it couldn’t be just random chance. There IS a lot of evidence that contradicts Darwin’s claims. And I’m not stating that evolution itself doesn’t exist I’m claiming that Darwin’s theory of evolution and his book the Origin of Species is an outdated concept. I think the lack of evidence for something is evidence that it doesn’t exist. Thank you for being kind and mature and being able to have an intelligent conversation instead of name calling and being hateful like most people on the internet.

      • dicesurf

        April 3, 2015 at 5:37 am

        Basic, you seem to be intelligent, yet you chase the argument and don’t really add facts. So I ask a simple question? If evolution occurs like you claim why are there no examples yet found of a lower species moving up the ladder? I’ll Give you a gee whiz, apes have been around man for about 120,000 years or so and have yet to evolve to use tools, cultivate crops, harvest fire etc, why? Yes adaptations occur, but evolve? Evolve really means to change by outpacing the environment in order to “control” that environment. To change because of the environment is adaptation.

      • Zaimokoya

        May 14, 2015 at 9:33 pm

        I favor the speculation that the Cambrian “explosion” was the result of many different body plans putting on calcareous armor with the advent of the first true-sighted apex predator, the trilobite. The explosion was better seen as a case of soft bodies gone hard rather than the instantaneous explosion of biological diversity.

      • therandjerandje

        May 19, 2015 at 2:53 am

        Is there someone here who understands that these are largely issues of semantics? You may present something as a fact, but when you offer it, it is still your opinion that it is a fact. You may share that opinion with enough people to affirm yourself “right” and the other “wrong”, but that is ego-mind in operation. For example it has been blithely presented here as a “fact” that the sun rises in the east. Root assumptions are a bitch! Our star does not in fact “rise” at all. It spins & so does the Earth, but people get entrenched in their perception of things, and then a sort of mental adaptation converts it–at least to the holder–into indisputableTRUTH. It is a very good example of perception being everything. Now, how can any scientific discussion that purports to know the whole truth about humankind and its origins, leave out the ET card? It is not as though it is inconsequential; quite the contrary. It is in fact the dispassionate bridge between the scientists and the creationists. There is at present massive long-term cross-cultural evidence to indicate scientists (from other systems) seeded life here,again and again and again. It is a never ending process.Sorry if it doesn’t jibe with your calcified perspective, but if you choose to discount this rhinocerous in the rumpus room (as so many staid, fatuous, near-sighted science geeks do) you are in fact missing the most significant pieces, just as the evolution theory is. The level of intelligence & mastery of these ‘alien’ scientists brings us back around to semantics. They can in fact be thought of as Creator Gods (to less advanced species), and herein lies the root & the solution to the Great Rift. No thanks necessary.

    • samadnit

      April 21, 2015 at 11:29 pm

      Well if u don’t like science or western medicine, why don’t u try living in Calcutta? Idiot.

    • leadbones

      April 23, 2015 at 4:32 pm

      Why are Creationists so intent on using out of date information to make their points? Yes, Darwin missed some things, and got a few things wrong. That was almost 200 years ago. The body of knowledge has increased, but you haven’t bothered to keep up. And now you want to pose elementary questions and act like you are braving the wild frontier of thought? Everything you are saying is just highlighting the ignorance of your position. If you don’t think there are facts in science, then you refuse to understand science.

    • Tony Shell

      May 8, 2015 at 2:24 am

      Lets see. You don’t believe in evolution because some of the fossils are missing in the line. Doesn’t matter that the other fossils are right in front of you. These are evidence of the things seen. But, you deny all of this on the idea that you have an invisible friend that’s going to kick everyone’s ass who doesn’t believe like you. REASONBLE????

    • Normandy

      May 14, 2015 at 12:17 am

      come on, youre dumb-there are many FACTS in science! (ie two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen make Water! that’s just one of millions…)

    • Rosemary Lyndall-Wemm

      July 30, 2015 at 8:41 pm

      An Established Theory is a Scientific Fact, Jac. Scientific Laws are Mathematical constructs. Scientific Theories are Explanations of how observed facts and laws work. Laws are BELOW Theories in the Scientific ranking system.

      Gravity is
      1. An Observed Fact 2. AND
      Several Laws (Newtonian, Einsteinian and Quantum) AND
      3. Several Theories (Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum).
      These things are not mutually exclusive. They can exist together.

  6. Kevin Walli

    February 23, 2015 at 10:22 pm

    I appreciate that she asked the question and Tim answered in a way that I hope she listened closely to. Last I checked, Tim teaches at Berkeley which is one of the top schools in the world. If she is sitting there, she is no fool. She was probably raised to believe that evolution is only a “theory” and as she progresses through Cal she will make up her own mind.

  7. Danielle

    February 23, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    The real problem here is that those who believe in evolution want to claim all science as their own and give no credit to any scientist who believes other than they do. Science fact is fact, but it does not belong to evolution. You hate the very idea of an all powerful, omnipotent, everlasting God that created and controls everything. YOU puny people who think you are so smart cannot control anything.
    When you die you will find out the truth. There is a GOD, JESUS CHRIST is God, he is God’s only begotten Son, who became the ultimate sacrifice for all our sins. He did this so all sinful humanity who believe in him can go to heaven. YOU are the blind ones. YOU are deaf to truth. The professor is a fool who imagines he knows the truth when he has no idea what truth is.

    • Ramón Peña

      February 25, 2015 at 1:13 am

      The difference is scientists do not “believe” in evolution; evolution is an observable reality, just like gravity. Both of these are things to be “known”, and happen and keep happening even if you don’t believe in them. On the other hand one believes in undemonstrable things, like fairies, gods, and bigfoot, which are only in the mind of the believers. You can believe them with all your might, but you cannot make them real.

      • Larry Williams

        March 6, 2015 at 6:56 am

        Your basic mistake is that you think you believe in the one true god. Chances are that you picked the WRONG one.

        How could this be true? How many religions are there? Past or present!

      • Jac

        March 24, 2015 at 12:51 am

        There’s more evidence that supports Christianity than any other religion or philosophical view. You obviously have not attempted to find the truth.

      • Jac

        March 24, 2015 at 9:56 pm

        some evolution today is an observable reality-like viruses evolving to not be killed by a vaccine, or an insect evolving to not be killed by insecticides. But Darwin’s theory of evolution is not an observable science. How can you observe something that happened so long ago? The scientific method cannot be applied to something that cannot be observed. There is no proof in the fossil record that shows the theory of evolution to be true. There are no transitional species-no matter how hard they’ve tried to find them. And all of the claims of the evidence of evolution has been looked over and counted as fraud. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A FRAUD AND THE ELITISTS ARE BRAINWASHING EVERYONE NOT TO BELIEVE IN CREATION. Also creation can be taught without religion. Evolution is a part of a religion called humanism and takes more faith to believe in than creationism.

      • steve gyetko

        March 25, 2015 at 1:36 am

        It is a fact. Evolution is observable. The fossil record, even with the gaps, that can be explained on account of animals and organisms don’t die in neat little rows, like in a file cabinet, lined up ‘A through Z’, proves it beyond doubt. Do you know how difficult it is to become a fossil? Unless everything happens just right, ‘that’s it, game over’. When ninety nine percent of scientists agree on something, like evolution or climate change, it’s time to sit down, shut up and listen to someone who knows what the hell they’re talking about. Time and time again, when I’ve read up on these pseudo ‘scientists’ who beat the drum for ‘creationist theory’, it follows that, on closer inspection their credentials are not ‘up to snuff’ and their ‘science’ would be laughed out of a Jr. High School ‘Science Fair’. Besides, I believe in God also, only my God gave evolution a nudge to get it going, starting with the ‘big bang’. Sounds a lot like ‘let there be light’, doesn’t it? Give it the nudge, get it started and watch it go through all the twists and turns that it would to become what we know as the observable world. It sounds a lot more ‘God like’ to me than donning a robe with moons and stars on it, and a pointy hat, whipping out a wand and going ‘poof’, right?

    • Shawn James

      February 26, 2015 at 3:16 pm

      Wow! “The real problem here is that those who believe in evolution want to claim all science as their own and give no credit to any scientist who believes other than they do. ” Can you say HYPOCRITE!!

      You believe in God and claim that it is science (or scientists) that is ignorant to opposing ideas. You obviously do not understand how science moves forward. Opposing ideas are encouraged as well as welcomed in all areas of science, not to mention they are is the driving force towards advancement in any field.

      It is you religious people who deny another opinion that goes against your beliefs in irrational superstitions AKA God.

      • TMC

        March 3, 2015 at 2:44 am

        Science (evolution) is not just the domain of atheists. Let’s not forget that there are scientists who have various religious beliefs, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and so one, who believe in evolution.

    • Ben Weaver

      February 27, 2015 at 8:28 am

      ” I am God.I created the ENTIRE universe,billions of stars,hundreds of thousands of planets everything….

      …But could you leave some blood on the doors so im not confused as to which babies NOT to kill.Thanks.

      Let that percolate in your brain for a while.

      • dicesurf

        April 3, 2015 at 5:45 am

        Ben, the blood was about faith, that if you follow gods covenants he would “passover” you. So to break it down so as not to confuse your “deep” thoughts, the blood mark was demonstrating to god your faith/believe not his ability to know. Pass pass puff dude ahh whatever.

    • Tony Shell

      May 8, 2015 at 2:29 am

      You follow imaginary friends and we are deaf to the truth?? Can’t say there’s no god but this guy you people invented doesn’t exist.

    • Mark

      August 22, 2015 at 4:04 am

      We’re so fortunate to have you here so that we can also know Absolute Truth, Danielle. :)

  8. Sean

    February 24, 2015 at 2:44 am

    As an educated Christian homeschooler, I can safely say that it is ludicrous to claim that evolution does not exist. Plants, animals, and even humans have clearly evolved throughout history, adjusting to survive, in accordance with that environment/climate.
    However, the evolution I believe in is microevolution, not macro. There is no evidence to support the idea that I was descended from an ape, not to mention the big bang theory.
    I’ve long questioned how anyone could believe that: a collection of particles, originating from absolutely nothing, could randomly collide, and create a universe filled with this much perfection–is a more likely scenario than one which includes an all-powerful creator behind all of it.
    I would like to challenge all of you to justify your position. Not because I wish to convince you of a new belief, but because I really would like to know what the other side of this really is.

    • Jim C

      February 24, 2015 at 6:07 pm

      Sean – I don’t know how you can believe in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. (These, I think, are not scientific terms.) I trust that the mechanisms in play for micro were also in place for macro. No reason to believe they weren’t. Simply because you don’t understand how it all worked before some arbitrary point in time you select doesn’t mean it could not have happened. Yes molecules came together over millions of years and life evolved. We could reconcile this if you simply move your “belief point” (the point between macro and micro back to the moment before macro. Many would agree that there may be a prime being that kicked this all off.

      • David

        February 24, 2015 at 10:55 pm

        Jim C,

        I do not know where you are getting your facts that macro-evolution has occurred because all the evidences seems to point otherwise… Again, science is to take all the information (evidences) and base a knowledge (understanding) of what has happened… The problem is macro-evolution has proven to fail in all circumstances and situations that they could think of.. Look, evidences means that if this scientific theory is a fact, it should be happening NOW… It has not.. They could not naturally create a new species out of mutation time and time again (in the lab)… Again, believing in micro-evolution is something that the evidences prove.. But to take blind faith and state that since micro happen, macro happen is a bad argument and thought process.. Again, this is you need to move your belief point and get to the reality of the evidences.

      • TMC

        February 26, 2015 at 12:24 am

        Please provide some examples as to how proof of evolution has failed?

    • Enginerd

      February 26, 2015 at 4:25 pm

      What you call MACRO-evolution is simply accumulated MICRO-evolution. The theory of evolution never states that big jumps occur.

      All changes are small, it is the accumulation rates that change. When a group is threatened (small numbers can occur by isolation or environmental change) each change is able to spread through the population in fewer generations than it would if the population were robust. If these accumulated changes help the creature to adapt to the threat then the population will rebound. If the threat lingers or periodically returns then the creature might change enough so that it no longer has the ability to mate with a herd that was not threatened.

      When a group is large it appears stable because changes take a much longer time to influence the entire herd. Fossil remains are much less likely to be found when a group is small. So our record has the appearance of big jumps.

    • steve gyetko

      March 25, 2015 at 1:47 am

      Listen carefully, and I will explain it one more time. No one, Darwin included, said we were ‘descended from apes’. Listen up! Apes and humans had a COMMON ANCESTOR!!! That is not the same as descending from, as in a direct line. You are ‘descended from’ your father and mother, Collies and Cocker Spaniels had a common ancestor, namely, the wolf. Got it now? Descended is a direct line, common ancestor is many different lines, with a common source. Got it now? All it takes is a little bit of ‘reading comprehension’, something most of us with all ‘that there humanistic book lernin’ figured out by the third grade!

    • Rick Bagnall

      May 28, 2015 at 6:01 am

      You weren’t “descended from an ape.” You *are* an ape, as am I, as is every member of Homo sapiens.

      Leaving that little detail aside, have you taken *any* opportunity to investigate australopithecenes? Or compared the various species of the genus Homo? Granted that we can’t trace back generation by generation to see the truly gradual pace of evolution, but we have found enough remains to show–for example–an enlarging of the brain case and a receding jaw over millions of years. Not to mention a more upright stance, toes no longer designed to grip, a wider pelvic arch (good for bigger-headed babies)…

  9. A Person

    February 24, 2015 at 4:47 pm

    Is it confirmed she’s a creationist? Maybe she was just playing Devil’s advocate (pardon the pun).

  10. Jim C

    February 26, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    There is not macro evolution and micro evolution. There is only evolution. There’s no scientific reason to believe they are separate process. (btw – “evidences” is not a noun)

  11. Jason M. Phelan

    March 6, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    I love her resting bitch face.

  12. Jac

    March 24, 2015 at 9:58 pm

    If you all want to hear the truth watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoAhq1zs3E&index=10&list=WL and WAKE UP

  13. Huko o Samoa

    March 28, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    Creationist student = stewed mind…that stewed mind of your creation…eye witnessed that
    Dr. Tim White = title + Legal Name Fraud = profit/prophet of your creation…truth tainted by ego and control paper creation
    Story by deadstate = dead/death/fraud/lie + state/soulless/corpse oration fictional entity or not
    Fact…non agenda…just neutral observer. What I do know is those two in the video are in the box…whether they truly know it or not…
    As Creation …it comes whole…both good and bad…Truth Is Creation…and Creation is Truth and it cannot be in a box or comes from a control program luciferian consciousness. T
    Truth cuts thru…soars …Creation/creator knows. Albert Einstein found this to be true…the universe/creation is alive. We will never die…death was another lie…I Know this… we are spirits… you are gods…as above so below…know thyself…no woman no cry
    Does it really matter to smackdown what?…the box?…and to go all literal/litter-all…don’t need to…I mean searching is good…just don’f forget your search is in the box…box explained…did you hear that? “Believe me”…I would get up, turn around 180 degrees lol
    All answers are within …Truth runs off lies as it tries to take all souls it can take…for the greater good of ONE…not for all…very evil isn’t it?
    No not mine. Not here. Not my reality.

  14. Bobby

    May 10, 2015 at 2:37 am

    Jac: Western medicine is poisoning to enforce population control and the “New Workd Order”??? You are seriously deranged. Not mention totally ignorant of science and evolution. Go cure yourself with tree bark or Dr. Oz. colon cleansing.

  15. Zaimokoya

    May 14, 2015 at 9:18 pm

    This video clip is interesting but the framing of it as “Creationist student owned by Dr. Tim White” is aggressively unfair. The student does not identify herself as a creationist and asked what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question. She also listens attentively to White’s answer. And White does not “own” her; he behaves exactly as a university professor should in responding to such a question. He treats it and her with respect and then proceeds to marshal evidence and argument to answer her question. Why does every exchange on religious and scientific understandings of the world have to be treated as a mud-wrestling smack-down?

  16. Zaimokoya

    May 14, 2015 at 9:45 pm

    I posted that before I saw where the real mud-wrestling was going on; here in the comments section. Kudos to those who explained their points of view without resorting to vitriol and name calling.

  17. chaosgarden

    May 25, 2015 at 6:51 pm

    Anthropology major, here. @the chick in the video… First of all, idiot, why are you going by Darwin when contemporary studies clearly prove evolution? Darwin had no way of predicting the things we’ve found since then and, if he had, those stipulations would have been noted as fulfilled.

    JFC, these people miss such basic points. Like, do you want me to go through the entire primate taxonomy going back several hundred thousand years ago? Because it’s pretty clear.

  18. chaosgarden

    May 25, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    Also, I <3 those australopithecine skulls. Look at that supraorbital torus.

Leave a Reply

Most Popular

To Top