Science

College professor shows student why her ‘it’s just a theory’ argument against evolution is dumb

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?”

The professor in this video is Timothy Douglas White, an American paleoanthropologist and Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is most famous for his work on Lucy as Australopithecus afarensis with discoverer Donald Johanson.

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

Watch:

Facebook Comment
220 Comments

220 Comments

  1. Reg

    June 26, 2014 at 11:43 pm

    The fundamental problem with the ‘just a theory’ argument is that people don’t know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. It’s all well and good to laugh at this uninformed young girl, but she did go to school for the purpose of learning. We can’t blame her that she was never taught the first rule of science.

  2. generikerik

    June 27, 2014 at 12:33 am

    I was afraid at first that the headline was accurate. Thankfully,it was wrong; he didn’t smack her down. He discussed her question and answered it. Science isn’t about owning or pwning your opponents. It’s not even about having opponents. Notice how he said that Darwin got a lot of things wrong and the speaker differentiated between reason and empiricism? Science isn’t a game or debate with winners and losers.

  3. Stephanie Johanesen

    June 27, 2014 at 12:38 am

    No, he did not get through to her. As soon as he started talking in a way that conflicted with her beliefs, her ears closed and her eyes went blank.

  4. mjlambert1

    June 27, 2014 at 1:39 am

    Thus making any attempt to get though to them useless.

  5. NRNS

    June 27, 2014 at 2:25 am

    She was taught the first rule of science, as we all were in grade school. She was either absent that day, chose to ignore it, or forgot it over the years. Some people are just stupid. But I won’t blame her for that. I am sure she would rather be intelligent.

  6. What'sUp

    June 27, 2014 at 2:33 am

    My issue with creationists is the question this young lady asked. Why is it so hard for them to believe in something that has literally no proof, yet when confronted with proof they just shut down.

  7. Phil

    June 27, 2014 at 2:52 am

    Sometimes theories become laws of effect. take Psychology. Freud ,Perls, Rogers Maslow etc etc had theories of behaviors ,but by the scientific method how do you prove there’ s an Id, or self-actualization or a sub-conscience etc what criterion is available to measure or validate their theories. On the other hand Pavlov and Skinner provided all kind of validation on how behavior IS LEARNED.

  8. Phil

    June 27, 2014 at 2:53 am

    Another thing that bothers me with the millions of species in the world what are the odds most all evolved into males and females ?.

  9. T-Fok

    June 27, 2014 at 5:21 am

    Not that this affects your comment, but I’d be curious to find out if she was never taught the first rule of science or if she never bothered to pay attention in science class. That rule you speak of is something kids learn very early on. I highly doubt she never came across it in all the years before college.

    More likely, those around her told her that the science was bad and the methods behind it were also bad.

  10. Ramil

    June 27, 2014 at 6:05 am

    And thats why teachers are great

  11. Stephen Gyetko

    June 27, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Sure we can blame her. Or her school. It looks like a college lecture hall to me. If this little dunderhead, can blab these goofy ‘creationist talking points’ either she’s ‘either a fundamentalist Christian, a freaking idiot, or her high school really let her down, educationally speaking by not teaching her the basic first rule of science.

  12. kindasuckingatthis

    June 27, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Well, she’s and arrogant little shit isn’t she? The saddest part is she in all likelihood learned nothing.

  13. Billy D

    June 27, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    I don’t know that any of us can conclude what she was thinking at the time. I will play this game though. I didn’t see any overt outward actions that say she was unhappy with the response. The one thing I saw was her nervous habit of rotating her pen. She still seemed to be making eye contact for the most part other than some nervous glances at the camera that was trained on her and didn’t have a scowl on her face. ::rewatched part of the video at this point:: If she did have one moment of what some others are describing, it could’ve been when he mentioned other theories. But she didn’t seem to check out as much as she wanted to say something back.

    Furthermore, she asked a good question based on what she “knew.” If Darwin said those things and Darwin is thought of as the single point of failure for the Theory of Evolution (neither of which are true), then a good question would be exactly what she asked based on her lack of understanding of the subject matter. Hopefully, she kept an open mind and learned something.

  14. Dekes

    June 27, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Why is she a creationist? Understandably the word “theory” has some murkiness to it and she might have just been seeking clarification. I didn’t hear the word God, or creation or higher being mentioned once in her question.

  15. Matthieu Guibert

    June 27, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Asimov put it this way…“Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”

  16. David Goza

    June 27, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    //Think he got through to her?//

    I doubt it. I wish I could remember who said “you can’t talk someone out of an idea that he wasn’t talked into in the first place.”

  17. Jim Bishop

    June 27, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    There is no chance he ‘got through to her.’ She displays all the body language of a hopeless fanatic. When one has such a student, the best thing to do for one’s sanity is to flunk them out, and send them home. The percentage of such students that is able to change their superstitions for fact based analysis is too small to be worth one’s time and effort.

  18. David Otness

    June 27, 2014 at 5:39 pm

    I don’t necessarily begrudge the facts presented but do take great umbrage with the reality of this being a staged presentation.
    I hope they got SAG wages.

  19. fuchsgiven

    June 27, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    Lots of people were taught, but refuse to believe it because “those evil atheist scientists are trying to undermine GAWD”….Willful ignorance of the subject is just ridiculous. What do those scientists know, anyway? ;P

  20. Ray

    June 27, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    If you’ve ever spent any time debating creationists, you wouldn’t have to ask that question. As soon as she asked the question, I already knew she was a creationist just by the words she used…almost verbatim to what I hear on a daily basis from the creationist debater.

  21. rolandgridley

    June 27, 2014 at 9:45 pm

    Good god, that’s a bad question. Sexual reproduction evolved waaaay waaaay waaaaay before the diversification we see today.

  22. Chuck

    June 27, 2014 at 11:31 pm

    Phil, you are confusing the epistemologies of the Social Sciences and Natural Sciences. In the Natural sciences, knowledge is based on empirical evidence,and theories do not become laws. Laws are contained in the theories.In the social sciences, however, knowledge is based upon statistical validation. Now, lay-people may speak of laws in the contexr of the social sciences (i.e. Law of attraction, law of supply and demand, etc). but there are no real laws in the social sciences (at least not in the same regard as th natural sciences).

  23. Chuck

    June 27, 2014 at 11:34 pm

    Phil, splitting into male/female selection allows for natural selection. Read up on the Red Queen Hypothesis.

  24. Chad Majors

    June 28, 2014 at 1:10 am

    Psychology isn’t a hard science like Physics yet. It is in the early stages like evolution 150 years ago. Because there are so many variables it is difficult to predict complex behaviours repeatedly.

  25. Chad Majors

    June 28, 2014 at 1:28 am

    You don’t understand evolution theory and the diversity of life on this planet all having common ancesters. I don’t know everything about it yet. Look up “ring species” and “parthenogenis” it might give you some insite. There is not really odds for having males and females in all species. In some species there are no males and it gets stranger.

  26. Odd Jørgensen

    June 28, 2014 at 3:00 am

    because it is the best way to ensure offspring with the greatest rate of genetic diversity,there are several species that can breed on their own,but they are susceptible to genetic disease much more than those with 2 parents.

  27. Odd Jørgensen

    June 28, 2014 at 3:01 am

    looked like she was on the brink of breaking down in tears,just look at her eyes once the teacher start talking.

  28. kking

    June 28, 2014 at 8:16 am

    Did he get through to her? Not a chance.

    It’s unfortunate that she is occupying a slot that could have been taken by a real student.

  29. Aaron Ingebrigtsen (@Krepta3000)

    June 28, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

    the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
    : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

    : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

    : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

    Theory is not Fact until it is proven one way or the other. Theory is an idea, an explanation that fits the facts we already know, and can help us predict future events. But theories are proven wrong sometimes, when we learn new facts.

    hy·poth·e·sis noun \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
    : an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion
    1
    a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

    You people think you are So Smart don’t you? You think you can attack someone, harass them, for thinking that a Theory is not a Fact, when, in actual FACT it isn’t. How many people thought the Earth was flat, and the center of the universe? How much was based on that incorrect theory? How long did it take to disprove that theory and to finally get that proof accepted by the masses? We, as a people, should be open minded enough to realize that a Theory is not a Fact and not therefore put on Blinders to keep us from accepting any new facts that may disprove that theory. Sure, I don’t believe in the Creationist myths. I do think it’s magical thinking, not based on facts. But I don’t think considering Theory to be Fact is appropriate either.

  30. Care

    June 28, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    Exactly.

  31. Pingback: Weekend Religion and Freethought Report | Evangelically Atheist

  32. Stephen Gyetko

    June 29, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Listen here you oaf. It is as near to rock solid fact as anything relying on fossil records can be. I’m sure there are still some holdouts who still don’t believe that tobacco smoking causes a certain types of cancer. It’s the same with evolution. When 99.9 % of scientist agree on something, it’s a pretty safe bet. I’d go ahead and ‘bet the farm’ on it, and I’m not a betting man.

  33. Sam Dawson

    June 29, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    I still don’t see how she is a creationist. Because she was challenging PART OF (but not completely) the original theory of evolution which the professor explained Darwin did have it wrong in some of his theory due to modern evidence of heredity.

  34. Neil N

    June 30, 2014 at 4:28 am

    A scientific theory is the set of ideas based on observed facts to explain the mechanism that produces them and to allow you to make predictions in similar circumstances.

    So, no, the theory itself is not a fact, but a successful theory (like evolutionary theory or germ theory) is borne out through repeated experimentation and by its successfully allowing a researcher to make consistent predictions.

    As for geocentrism (Which isn’t totally dead, amazingly enough), that was based on pre-scientific belief, not scientific theory. It was the development of the scientific method which allowed it to finally be laid to rest. It mainly fell apart because attempts to make predictions about planetary movement (Which were an observable phenomenon) became absurdly complicated in a geocentric model. When that theory wasn’t borne out by real life observation, heliocentrism became the better theory. The reason we “believe” in evolutionary theory is because it allows doctors and scientists to make predictions about how organisms and cells change and mutate that agree with observed phenomena. The reason creationism isn’t taken seriously is because it’s ultimately untestable, offers no new insights into natural mechanisms, and does not allow you to make accurate predictions about anything. It exists only to introduce doubt about naturalistic explanations of how life develops and changes.

  35. mach

    June 30, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Argumentum ad Webster’s

  36. Stephen Gyetko

    July 5, 2014 at 6:01 am

    Absolutely, Neil. It’s about as rock solid as anyone can be. “Creationism” like ‘flat earth’ is, basically “Bulls**t! And that’s all there is to it.

  37. Corey

    August 26, 2014 at 5:53 am

    Maybe you should have taken a minute and read the full Miriam Webster definition of theory. If you had you might have noticed this:
    5
    : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

  38. Eric Wesley Mobley

    August 26, 2014 at 6:30 am

    I love you Neil.

  39. Stuart Hill

    August 26, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    Skinner has been disproven over and over again.

  40. Stephen Gyetko

    August 26, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    Okay “Corey”, if that really is your name, as I don’t have proof, let’s just call it a ‘theory’ okay? Anyway, okay, then: If gravity and germ theory are just ‘theories’, then why don’t you jump from a ten story building or inhale tuberculosis laden coughs? After all, it’s just a ‘theory’, right? You know damn well you won’t because you know the fall will kill you, you will not float, and you know if you inhale tuberculin sputum (spit) you will, in all likelihood, contract TB. Don’t parse words from science using a dictionary, a dictionary uses linguistic standards to define a word, science uses a word to define a process or a phenomena. Did you know, for instance, that we don’t actually know all there is to know about gravity. I mean, the ‘why’ of it. That’s why it’s called the ‘theory of gravity’. We know it works, we know it ‘exists’, we’re just short of a few details, but that does not negate the rock solid fact of its existence. You know, ‘Corey’, there’s an old saying you would do well to take to your heart, it may save you from making an ass of yourself in the future: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”.

  41. tipsytrex

    August 27, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    SOMEONE GETS IT

  42. SaintCayetano

    August 27, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    Ugh. She shows her thinking process by rolling her head and eyes while he tries to teach her. What a waste of his time. Toss her out of class now before she eats up other students’ class time on more nonsense.

  43. John Coffey

    August 27, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    Why are you so disrespectful to Corey below? Read what he posted and think about it. He actually is agreeing with your position. Take your own advice about being quite or proving yourself a fool.

  44. tiacat11

    August 27, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    I think the most important factor here is whether or not she learned anything that day. I wish we had gotten to see her face at the end of it, because it might have clued us in. You know the saying, “Ignorance is correctable, but stupidity is not”? I think that right there just about sums it up. The lady is either stupid or ignorant, and it’s up to her to decide which one she wants to be.

  45. Daryn

    August 27, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    Um, the Skinner/cognitive-behaviorism school of thought is quite strong.

  46. Ann Bochnowski

    August 27, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    I’m with the professor, but I’m wondering why this was so professionally filmed or taped. It seems like this was actually staged, but ok, the message is valid.

  47. Clark

    August 27, 2014 at 7:35 pm

    This young woman is in college enrolled in a science program. It would be safe to assume she’s also a high school graduate, but at the same time it’s acceptable that she doesn’t know what the concept of scientific theory entails?? Excuse me?

  48. Bill

    August 27, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    You don’t “believe” in Darwin’s theory. You either understand it or you don’t.

  49. Franis

    August 27, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    No, from her body language she probably did not even listen to what her professor said – she was probably wondering what she was going to say to her creationist friends if she had any respect for her professor at all. There’s a cognitive dissonance effect when someone gives you irrefutable facts that differ from your beliefs – it only serves to reinforce your resistance to these facts and reconfirm your beliefs.

  50. Bruce

    August 27, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    The word THEORY means something different in lay language than it does in science. A scientific THEORY is an EXPLANATION of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.
    To the average person on the street, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone’s head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
    DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a scientific theory(see above), supported by an overwhelming body of evidence. To say “it’s just a theory” is just plain silly!

  51. Simeon Beresford

    August 27, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    Nods she did. She was afraid. she had exposed her beliefs and then realised how vulnerable this made her when confronted with someone who was not going to follow her script. I doubt she heard anything he said.

  52. Violet

    August 27, 2014 at 9:36 pm

    Stockholm Syndrome. They’re afraid to even consider the possibility that their beliefs are wrong, because God could supposedly damn them to hell for all eternity if they dare to believe he can’t.

  53. Fullerene

    August 27, 2014 at 11:21 pm

    1. There is the popular definition of “theory,” which does not apply here, and the scientific definition, which does apply. the scientific definition is not ambiguous.Your not understanding that definition does not make it ambiguous.

    2. Science does not prove. Proof is in the domain of mathematics, predicate logic, and perfect induction. Rather, the confidence we have in a theory is a function of the quality and quantity of evidence supporting that theory, and whether the tests that support it are reproducible.

    3. The theory of natural selection, like the atomic theory, is supported by a huge amount of high-quality data. Nothing that contradicts it (that is supported by empirical evidence, rather than bible passages) has turned up. There is good reason for the great confidence people have in the theory of natural selection. Your not understanding why does not weaken the theory.

  54. ericsmiles

    August 27, 2014 at 11:42 pm

    Epic smackdown? Not hardly. It was a question asked and answered.

  55. wineisyourfriend

    August 28, 2014 at 3:52 am

    She probably expected things to go down like in one of those fictional stories where a xtian student challenges the atheist professor and stumps him with some philosophical drivel about good/evil and darkness/light. She thought she would be that famous internet girl who stumped the real professor. Call me crazy, but I would never try to stump an expert on something in their field of expertise when I didn’t even have the terminology right.

  56. Rhys

    August 28, 2014 at 4:19 am

    Her parents are to blame .. sigh .. sad!

  57. sara

    August 28, 2014 at 4:42 am

    I don’t think she did go to that class to learn anything, I think she went to that class to show the teacher how much smarter she was because she could repeat what her pastor told her science was.

  58. Jeff

    August 28, 2014 at 4:46 am

    I’m still trying to figure out why everyone is so certain she’s a creationist. She asked a question…she never stated her position on the matter.

  59. mach

    August 28, 2014 at 5:52 am

    A dictionary definition is not necessarily sufficient for all usages of the word. Take the word “measure,” for example. There’s a mathematical area called measure theory, which has over a hundred years of study, yet the mathematical definition is no where to be found in the MW dictionary.

    By your reasoning, does this not suggest the mathematical definition used for over a hundred years is invalid?

    That said, the MW dictionary does actually have the definition of the word “theory” in the context of science. Read further in M-W please, the exact page you linked (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory). See Definition 5.

    1
    : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
    2
    : abstract thought : speculation
    3
    : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
    4
    a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
    b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
    5
    : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
    6
    a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
    b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
    c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

  60. Scott Marienthal

    August 28, 2014 at 7:28 am

    I’ve seen him react differently but RD was a complete gentleman in this interview. The interviewer acknowledged his own stupidity several times (and this perhaps defused the Dawk a little) but this, by his own standards, was very gentle.

  61. perineal

    August 28, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Many colleges film their (best) professors’ lectures. This allows the masses to get much of the benefit thereof without the expense.

  62. Larry Rehrer

    August 28, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    Reg, it is obvious that this girl would ignore the science and parrot what she has been spoon fed from her religious background. Don’t presume to defend the deliverer of an intentional impediment.

  63. Ian Richardson

    August 28, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    That’s what homeschooling and faith schools get you. Blind ignorance of the most basic concepts.

  64. Stephanie Cholensky

    August 28, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    I wish this were the case, but in the US many children are home schooled. While some children receive a good education this way, others are actually taught that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is false.

  65. David Roland Marsilia

    August 28, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Daryn, cognitive-behavioral therapy is actually based on the work of Aaron Beck, not BF Skinner, despite the somewhat confusing name. In fact, Skinner would not have approved of a cognitive approach, as he believed the mind does not per se exist. Nonetheless, some of Skinner’s research is valid and has had an impact on CBT and other schools, as have discoveries made by Freud and even loopy Jung. It’s just the overall framework and unfalsifiable claims that have been refuted.

  66. Stacy

    August 28, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    *Creationist lover*

  67. dee

    August 28, 2014 at 9:05 pm

    All the scoffers will have their day to remember their ridicule. But by then it will be too late. And they will realize they where wrong about everything. I feel sorry for you. First for choosing the scraps of garbage a Godless World feeds you instead of a life full of meaning and true lasting happiness. Second, because on the day when God returns you will cry and plead for mercy but won’t find none. Your choice today will determine your future.

  68. Stacy

    August 29, 2014 at 12:07 am

    <3 God Bless!!!

  69. dee

    August 29, 2014 at 12:30 am

    The debate of evolution vs creationism basically boils down to one question:

    Either a Creator God exists or He doesn’t. It’s that simple. There is no middle ground. Now using simple math, you can weigh the options.

    Option #1- If He does exist and we believe, then we have infinately to gain. But If we are wrong, then we had nothing and we lose nothing.

    Option #2- If God does not exist then we had nothing and we gain nothing. But if we are wrong we stand to loose infinitely the best thing we could ever gain, eternity.

    Which is the best most logical decision/bet?

    Answer
    (Option #1 is the only one with 50% chance to gain infinitely and loose nothing)
    (Option #2 has 0% chance to gain anything and 50% chance to loose infinitely)

    Using just your logic and intellect and no pre conceived notions, which of the two is the most logical bet? In which one do you bet your life, or the life of those you love?

  70. Brian Hinkel

    August 29, 2014 at 1:10 am

    How do any of you know what her views are? She simply asked a question! Is that not the basis of learning? Isn’t that what started scienctific study in the first place? Stop being such judgmental jerks and be happy she was curious enough to ask!

  71. PaulB

    August 29, 2014 at 4:00 am

    Yes, but which of the 1000+ gods do you wish to believe in? By your logic we have to believe in all 1000+ to cover all bets!

  72. Michael

    August 29, 2014 at 5:39 am

    Godless world sounds like a eutopia to me. The vast majority of problems in the world stem from someone’s religious belief. Racism. homophobia. even clashes with other regions and other sects. People that are frequently killed in “God’s” name, and no not just the Christian god. It’s a whole world out there.

    I can assure you if I find your god is the type that is in fact “the” one and he’s a jerk, I’ll take my chances with Satan himself. Remember.. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I do not and will not follow a “vengeful god” nor will I pray for mercy for living as I do.

    You go ahead and go worry about your own personal life and quit dictating to others on how they should believe. Sadly with the faithful they tend to cherry pick what they want to believe. All fortunes are somehow by the grace of God yet all bad is somehow the fault of the person? Heh. A god that sends his own kid down to die for sins is a pretty screwed up act of live. It’s quite.. psychotic and albeit…disgusting.

    Thankfully I do not acknowledge your god and good ol science keeps us trucking. But yeah the world would be fantastic without your ilk around. We wouldn’t have things like religious nutjobs and terrorists.

  73. Michael O'Brien

    August 29, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    With age can come wisdom…let’s assume the student has been swaddled in a faith-based environment for 20 odd years. Now she’s in the real world struggling, as any young person might, with what she sees as contradictions.

    Her question reveals her naivete. But isn’t that what the process of learning is all about? Questioning and discernment? Give her a chance…she may come around in time.

  74. alex

    August 29, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    I don’t think she was in his class, the rooms look different and the spacing of the desks is off. Still a good response though.

  75. Sherlock B221

    August 29, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    So your basically trying to guilt trip people into believing what you what. Let me ask you this, even if there is a God how can you be sure the one you believe in is the right one? Face it there are thousands of Gods, how do you know for a fact that you chose the right one. You have a 1 to 63,000 chance of being right, great odds huh.
    What if I said that if you don’t believe in what I believe you’re going to end up having your eyes pecked out by birds for eternity, its only an empty threat made only to control the ignorant masses into doing what I want. So using Logic and intellect we can infer that your argument is rubbish, but your somewhat right about the pre conceived notions because it would take someone indoctrinated from birth to believe your argument.
    If this comment seems rushed that’s because it is, places to go things to see, life to live unencumbered.

  76. Sherlock B221

    August 29, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    Fixing my grammar “want”

  77. Sherlock B221

    August 29, 2014 at 10:39 pm

    Or perhaps you’ve wasted your life believing in a fairy tail meant to keep peasants in line. If you want us to dedicated our life to something you must show evidence (Real evidence not emotions or personal experiences, and you must be able to REPLICATE said evidence.) Otherwise all you have is a threat that is only testable when we die, which is just sad. My prior question still stands, how do you even know your following the right religion. Do you seriously believe that your god would turn a blind eye to the billions of people who have ever lived, who don’t/didn’t believe as you do? That’s just sad. I hope you realize that its wrong to threaten people the way you do, because you have no evidence to back it at all.

  78. Pingback: Teaching, In a World of Experts - It's Not Me, Right?It's Not Me, Right?

  79. dee

    August 30, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Guilt trip? Nope. We are all free to choose as we wish. Each of us bets our own life the way we see fit. As for your 63000 Gods? No need to worry there, there is only one true God who created you and me. If you truly do want to know if He exists, you can find Him if you seek Him with all your heart. He wants to be found and He will reveal Himself to you if you truly want to know Him. If you don’t know where to begin, start with as prayer in your own mind and be vigilant and you will see things happen. Unexplained Coincidences, things people keep saying to you, signs all around us if we are paying attention. What do you got to loose? How much can you gain? Don’t think you are going to be encumbered. There is more true freedom in walking with God than anything else in the world. You can find freedom to see past people’s faults, and prejudices. You can see their value for what they are, children of an infinitely intelligent Being who wants what’s best for them, not the bi-product of some monkey goo omelette. Freedom to live a healthier more meaningful life, and see the World through its right perspective and for the miracle that it is. Utilizing not only a secular view of science but also not ignoring the vasts amounts of data which points to intelligent design. If true discovery is what’s being sought, true science, then you cannot eliminate this from the equation.

    Either way. I truly do hope you find God. Not for myself but for your own good. God is love. And if seen through the right perspective, irresistible not to follow Him. Unfortunately there is an adversary doing everything possible to misrepresent Him, and this lie and falsehood is all that a lot of people choose to see. But nonetheless, He can be found and the best years of your life will come after that, guaranteed.

  80. Rick Bagnall

    August 30, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    If you’re going to cite Pascal’s wager, at least cite *all four* conditions. You still won’t convince anybody (Pascal might have been a wonderful mathematician, but he was neither a good philosopher nor a good theologian), but at least you won’t sound quite so ignorant.

  81. Sherlock B221

    August 31, 2014 at 7:22 pm

    To your comment below, basically you want us to take a Placebo. I was raised Roman Catholic but have since decided to be Agnostic because there is no evidence to prove there is a god, granted there is no evidence to disprove it either, but hey try to disprove the flying spaghetti monster to me.

    “As for your 63000 Gods? No need to worry there, there is only one true God who created you and me.”

    There have been around 63,000 religions on this planet, billions of people who don’t believe as you do which you simply don’t care about, and you’re book was written over a thousand years by around forty different authors not to mention a good chunk of it was passed down orally. Do you honestly think its accurate?
    We would have to hope that-

    *That god exists
    *None of the people who met with said god where nuts
    *That mans meetings with god were recorded accurately
    *That the none of the authors corrupted it on their own accord
    *That it was translated accurately
    *That today we follow the right parts

    Ever played telephone, were a message is passed down from person to person and the last person says what was passed down. The message is almost never the same, so lets apply that to your book.

    Have you ever had to translate something from another language? Then you probably know how difficult it is to pass on words and meaning the exact same way they were originally intended. So if you want to hear the most accurate version of the bible, better start taking Hebrew and Greek lessens.

    “There is only one true God who created you and me.”

    Do you have any idea how many religions claim this, why should it be yours when other groups literally kill people for their god? Obviously they have more faith then you in a sick twisted way. We would be so much better off with out religion in our modern world as Michael has pointed out-

    “Godless world sounds like a eutopia to me. The vast majority of problems in the world stem from someone’s religious belief. Racism. homophobia. even clashes with other regions and other sects. People that are frequently killed in “God’s” name, and no not just the Christian god. It’s a whole world out there.

    I can assure you if I find your god is the type that is in fact “the” one and he’s a jerk, I’ll take my chances with Satan himself. Remember.. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I do not and will not follow a “vengeful god” nor will I pray for mercy for living as I do.

    You go ahead and go worry about your own personal life and quit dictating to others on how they should believe. Sadly with the faithful they tend to cherry pick what they want to believe. All fortunes are somehow by the grace of God yet all bad is somehow the fault of the person? Heh. A god that sends his own kid down to die for sins is a pretty screwed up act of live. It’s quite.. psychotic and albeit…disgusting.

    Thankfully I do not acknowledge your god and good ol science keeps us trucking. But yeah the world would be fantastic without your ilk around. We wouldn’t have things like religious nutjobs and terrorists”

    I would say we have more to gain renouncing some thousand year old book then embracing it.

    “You can see their value for what they are, children of an infinitely intelligent Being who wants what’s best for them, not the bi-product of some monkey goo omelette.”

    “Utilizing not only a secular view of science but also not ignoring the vasts amounts of data which points to intelligent design.”

    Intelligent design, that’s about the stupidest argument you can make. As Neil Degrasse Tyson put it-

    “And what comedian configured the region between our legs—an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?”

    We have a fossil record that proves that we came from an ape like ancestor, we even have almost 99% the same DNA as monkeys
    House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA. Evolution takes many thousands of years you have any noticeable changes but here’s an example I like to point out.

    If there no such thing as evolution why do you have to get a flu shot ever year? You see the flu evolves around and gains immunity to our vaccines over time so you never face the same strain of Flu twice making it necessary to produce new vaccines. If it never changes how can it get around them then?

    “He wants to be found and He will reveal Himself to you if you truly want to know Him.”

    This is the Placebo effect, here’s a definition

    “Something prescribed for a patient that contains no medicine, but is given for the positive psychological effect it may have because the patient believes that he or she is receiving treatment”

    If you want to see something enough sometimes you mind invents it for you, kind of how ink blots work in a way.

    “If true discovery is what’s being sought, true science, then you cannot eliminate this from the equation.”

    This is just about the only thing you said with an ounce of truth behind it. We cannot eliminate the possibility of a god, but we cant have a biased toward it like you do. Like any good scientist I will be convinced by evidence, but so far you have provided none; just ignorance, misunderstanding of complex theory’s, and a total inability to grasp the amount of time that has passed since the big bang. So I say again, convince me with evidence, real evidence.

    -With love, Sherlock.

  82. Fullerene

    August 31, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    You don’t understand statistics. You don’t get to posit an absurd idea and claim that there’s a 50-50 chance that it’s true.

    Dee, is there a 50-50 chance that the sun will explode in the next second?

    And how do you know the religious propaganda, which sprung from the minds of men, is correct? Maybe believing in a girl will anger him, and damn you to hell, whereas the god may respect the skeptic, and give him eternal reward.

    Your beliefs are arbitrary, and believing something simply because it’s in your selfish best interest in at best dishonest. How can you actually BELIEVE something because it would be nice to do so?

  83. Michael Paul Goldenberg

    August 31, 2014 at 9:17 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

    Creationism in one sentence.

  84. Frank Neuman

    September 1, 2014 at 12:12 am

    Creationist have their proof – Science has been proven wrong so many times one cant count them – Has the Bible ever been proven wrong ? Even if one wasn’t a Christian – we didn’t blow here in the wind as a seed -How stupid for those on this page to believe this .

  85. samer

    September 1, 2014 at 11:26 pm

    I’m sorry, but it seems to me that you are implying that if a person chooses to believe in god then he/she must be stupid. Well I have to tell you sir, that such beliefs have nothing to do with a person’s intelligence. The difference is simply the points of view.. and just because you see things differently from the way believers do, it does not give you the right to judge them, because that, my fellow human being, is an action of the weak.

  86. Doc Sane

    September 2, 2014 at 2:29 am

    ” Has the Bible ever been proven wrong ? ”

    I think the better question is “Has the Bible ever been proven right?”, especially when you deal with stuff like the talking serpents and stopping the sun in the sky and mass exoduses from Egypt which somehow left no evidence and certainly no signs of chariots and dead Egyptians piled up on the bottom of neither the Red Sea nor the Reed Sea.

    “Even if one wasn’t a Christian – we didn’t blow here in the wind as a seed -How stupid for those on this page to believe this .”

    Well, yes, that would be a stupid thing to believe, which is why people who accept evolutionary theory don’t believe that. The funny thing about evolution is that it only deals with how life changes and speciates, not its origins.

  87. Fullerene

    September 2, 2014 at 4:58 am

    You’ve created a straw man by equating a belief in God (or some god or gods) with believing as fact the mythology of creationism.

    There are not many people who are truly educated in the subjects of anthropology, genetics, biology, etc. who believe the arbitrary myth in question. There will always be a small fringe, though, who believe the craziest stuff.

  88. Fullerene

    September 2, 2014 at 8:16 am

    Frank Neuman, what do you mean creationists have “their proof”? If you want to believe something badly enough, do you get to have your own system of logic? Creationists have NO proof, but the problem is that they have no evidence that stands up. Faith is not evidence.

    You have no idea — not the faintest clue — how life on Earth originated. So what is the source of the arrogance that allows you to say definitively How It Is?

    If you were intellectually honest, you’d say that you simply have no idea. But you’re not intellectually honest.

    Since the time of Darwin, science has been converging ever more on natural selection (and so far, in all of history, not one single piece of evidence has arisen to contradict it. Likewise for molecular and evolutionary biology regarding the origins of life.

    But learning about those sciences, if you have the capacity, might challenge your faith, and you can’t have that. After all, you’re intellectually dishonest.

  89. Stephen Gyetko

    September 2, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Regarding Frank Neuman,and ‘proof’ of creationism, their ‘proof’ is, simply stated, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”. You can’t argue with these people. It’s like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter that you can and will beat him. All he’s going to do is knock all the pieces over, crap on the board, and strut around triumphantly, as it he’s somehow, ‘won’.

  90. Stacy

    September 3, 2014 at 12:03 am

    <<<Long winded!!

    I believe in God. I don't believe in Atheism. Unfortunately one cannot believe in God when he believes only in himself. You must be humble and repent to receive a witness that He exists. 🙂

  91. Stephen Gyetko

    September 3, 2014 at 1:09 am

    Stacy, you can believe in God and also believe in evolution, just as you can believe in the sun centered solar system (rejected by the church when they excommunicated Galileo for heresy) as well as the fact that the earth is millions of years old and not merely 6,000 years old. You must remember that, even though the bible may be divinely inspired, it was written by men, over thousands of years and has undergone many translations. There are factual errors in the bible. For instance, the bible says that Joshua made the ‘sun stand still’ to finish the battle of Jericho. Don’t you know that if the ‘sun stood still’ at any one spot on the earth, for longer than it was supposed to, that the earth would resemble a burnt charcoal briquette? It’s true. I happen to believe in God and evolution, as it seems that it makes more sense that God, actually started the whole thing rolling with the ‘big bang’ and just let the ‘chips fall where they may’. It makes more sense that God, seen as some kind of goofy magician with a robe with stars and planets on it, and a pointy hat, waving a wand and going ‘poof’. I am a practicing Episcopalian and find no conflict whatsoever with this. After all, if God didn’t want me to think, he never would have gave me a brain with which to think with. Getting any of this through your ‘cognitive dissonance’, Stacy?

  92. John Coffey

    September 3, 2014 at 1:25 am

    Stephen Gyetko, nice response until the last sentence.

  93. tiacat11

    September 3, 2014 at 1:32 am

    THIS.

  94. Stephen Gyetko

    September 3, 2014 at 1:50 am

    What on earth was wrong with the last sentence. it’s clear that it’s ‘cognitive dissonance’ that’s keeping Stacy, and the rest of the creationist crowd from seeing the error of their whole laughable defense of ‘creationism’, that has about as much to do with science as a mud pie has to do with a Red Velvet Cake.

  95. dan

    September 4, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    Dee, you should probably watch Matt Dillahuntys rebuttal of pascals wager, he explains it better and in more depth than most other people could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBCDGohZT70

  96. Sherlock B221

    September 6, 2014 at 12:54 am

    In reply to this statement-

    “Stacy

    <<<Long winded!!

    I believe in God. I don't believe in Atheism. Unfortunately one cannot believe in God when he believes only in himself. You must be humble and repent to receive a witness that He exists. :)"

    First off I said I was Agnostic not Atheist; though I have very much respect for any who are Atheist. I also mentioned that I was born (Though if it was anything other then religion, we would call it indoctrinated.) Roman Catholic and completed their sacraments, like communion (I think that's what it's called.). As you can see I wasn't exactly convinced, now why do you think that is? I was humble, and repented and yet never got an answer that couldn't be logically explained. I found that most of the world problems sprout from religion, and please do try to prove me wrong on this statement.

    "Unfortunately one cannot believe in God when he believes only in himself."

    What? if your implying that Atheist think their gods then well, you're wrong. Sure I believe in my self in a positive way, its called self confidence; it's kind of healthy to have it. I believe in my deductions/inductions because there's evidence behind them; what evidence can you provide pray tell?
    In my opinion its the religious folk who are so confident that seem to trash the world as Michael pointed out-

    “Godless world sounds like a eutopia to me. The vast majority of problems in the world stem from someone’s religious belief. Racism. homophobia. even clashes with other regions and other sects. People that are frequently killed in “God’s” name, and no not just the Christian god. It’s a whole world out there.

    I can assure you if I find your god is the type that is in fact “the” one and he’s a jerk, I’ll take my chances with Satan himself. Remember.. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I do not and will not follow a “vengeful god” nor will I pray for mercy for living as I do.

    You go ahead and go worry about your own personal life and quit dictating to others on how they should believe. Sadly with the faithful they tend to cherry pick what they want to believe. All fortunes are somehow by the grace of God yet all bad is somehow the fault of the person? Heh. A god that sends his own kid down to die for sins is a pretty screwed up act of live. It’s quite.. psychotic and albeit…disgusting.

    Thankfully I do not acknowledge your god and good ol science keeps us trucking. But yeah the world would be fantastic without your ilk around. We wouldn’t have things like religious nutjobs and terrorists”

    "<<<Long winded!!"

    Glad you think so, it's because I actually research instead of spew dogma like you. For Spaghetti Monsters sake (Please notice how I capitalize Spaghetti Monster, and not god.) You need to research the subject you're debating, otherwise you look like a fool.

    "I don't believe in Atheism."

    And I don't believe in your god, now it seems that-

    "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOv-7ZoMc7A&quot;

    I will continue to defend my opinion until you can provide evidence that you're right, then maybe I'll change my mind.

    PS

    Stephen Gyetko, I like your argument, keep on keeping on.

    With love~Sherlock

  97. Jesse

    September 6, 2014 at 5:08 am

    Imagine if you will, an advocate of the stork theory, questioning an OB/GYN about how babies come into the world

  98. Hannah Ward

    September 6, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    You clearly don’t know what it’s like to be homeschooled by a conservative religious family.

    This girl probably never got a fair chance to learn the truth. Even in public schools, teachers in the bible belt will say “I’m only teaching you this because I HAVE to and I don’t believe it” and then they give you a 10 page packet with all the barest facts possible, and that is literally all the instruction you’re given on evolution and similar subjects.

    If you’re raised in that environment where the only times you hear about the truth, it’s told in such a way as to make it sound absolutely absurd, and every single adult or other person you trust and respect tells you it’s a lie, it’s very difficult to finally break out of those teachings and figure out the truth.

    This girl looks to be a freshman in college, which is where I first started to break out of my own indoctrination. I was probably a little further along than she is in the video, but I can totally empathize here.

    What’s really sad about this isn’t that religion has made this girl “dumb” or any less intelligent than she would be otherwise. What’s sad is that religion in this country is lying and teaching misinformation and academically handicapping thousands of intelligent, curious, and trusting children.

  99. Pingback: Creationist student challenges her anthropology professor, epic smackdown ensues | On Reddit

  100. Mike Lince

    October 4, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    I cannot be certain, but I strongly believe that the female student in this video did not get that her understanding of evolutionary theory was demolished in the professor’s explanation. Like many creationist believers, she was intellectually incapable of making the leap from her beliefs to the verifiable theory as it was explained to her. Quite possibly, given time, she might begin to grasp his response. But digesting new concepts is like learning to walk. You do not get it on the first or even the second try.

  101. Tom

    October 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    Sadly, you and that lady have lots in common. At least she is smart enough to ask questions. You all act as if you understand Creationism. Your need to pretend that the only Creation theory is 7 day stuff from the Middle Ages speaks quite strongly. The point needs to be well heard. She at least is open to ask. That would make you less scientific than she.

  102. Fullerene

    October 5, 2014 at 9:43 pm

    None of the creationist myths have any relationship with truth. They certainly do not have any relationship with science.

    So, how about the Hindu myths?

  103. JD

    February 22, 2015 at 2:33 am

    what’s wrong with the question? isn’t that what science does: ask questions and seek answers? Don’t get me wrong, the Professor’s answer makes sense and evolution certainly appears to be a fact but what perverse thrill do you get from bullying a college sophomore via the internet?

  104. FELESMALAS (@FELESMALAS)

    February 22, 2015 at 2:54 am

    YES, Science does have winners and losers. Science is not some cozy little club. Science is gladiatorial combat and you not only have to have evidence, from a repeatable testing method/verification process, but it must be proven by evidence over and over again and overcome all subsequent challenges as new evidence and testing methods come along. We once thought x but now we now better and have tossed x out and gone with y because y better explained what was the truth of the question under consideration. Rabbits in the Cretaceous, for example, would annihilate Evolutionary theory. And the scientist who found said rabbit fossil would be hailed, given the Nobel and make a gazillion dollars.

  105. Ray

    February 22, 2015 at 3:01 am

    This seems staged to me. I mean, the footage has been edited from at least two different cameras. Why would there be two different cameras filming this class?

  106. FELESMALAS (@FELESMALAS)

    February 22, 2015 at 3:14 am

    From Pascal’s Wager to 6000 yr old Earth. BTW “Creationist” the Sumerians were brewing beer circa 10,000 BCE. Do you doubt the existence of beer? After all beer isn’t mentioned in the Bible. Wine, yes, beer no. The Egyptians brewed beer too so the Xians would know beer existed. Still, not mentioned. Perhaps you forgot the Dover, PA ‘Monkey Trial’ and how Intelligent Design was shown to be just Creationism in ‘fancy dress’ and just as Unscientific and illegal to be taught in public schools. Now instead of being such a lovely sheep – in certain South Pacific Islands they don’t know what sheep are so their missionaries use pigs instead – and begin to THINK for yourself. Get your head out of that moldy old book and keep up. You flick the switch and say ALL HAIL THE LORD when the electricity lights your light bulb? And if it doesn’t work – do you change the light bulb or do you damn the infidels who bewitched your power so it doesn’t work?

  107. nic

    February 22, 2015 at 7:54 am

    I don’t know I have now watched the video 3 times and not once has she stated that she is a creationist, not once has she stated her religeous beliefs, she has simply asked a question. This reminds me of the time I was called homophobic (I am unquestionably gay and knew it long before my accuser had dealt with his denial) Dr White said good question, and he was right. It was well formed and totally lacking in bias.

  108. Ron Millam

    February 22, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    Actually, the fundamental problem is that too many people don’t know the difference between a “theory” as used by the general public and a “theory” as used by science.

  109. TMC

    February 22, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    Too many people here see the young lady’s question as stupid. I see the question as “okay, I’ve heard this and I’ve heard what you are saying. Why is your explanation better than someone else’s?” This is what students are supposed to do. This is what scientists do. They constantly question. This is why scientific theories carry so much weight. They have been questioned and tested in many different way until there is very little doubt as to their validity.

    Good teachers want students to ask questions.

  110. TMC

    February 22, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    I guess I missed the “creationist talking points?” I heard someone as why should we accept this over that and I heard an excellent explanation in reply. Isn’t that the way a classroom is supposed to work?

  111. ludovicah

    February 22, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    Breaking the Fourth Wall slightly here. It would seem to be a set-up for the cameras. Both his answer and her question seemed rehearsed as were all the camera shots and angles, I’m sure. Not that that takes away from anything that was said of course, but as always when watching videos on the internet, it’s always good to ask yourself about the camera work and editing, and even about the presence of a camera in the first place before accepting the headlines as the literal truth. It seems likely to me that this young woman was posing a devil’s advocate question for the purpose of the educational video

  112. Anthony

    February 22, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    is that a Borderlands logo?

  113. Steve

    February 22, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    Your god is a narcissistic psychopath who forced himself on a teenage girl and impregnated her with himself so he could kill himself to make everyone like him. It only gets worse from there.

    You can keep your “heaven” or at least your belief system’s version of the an afterlife. Who wants to spend eternity telling god how great s/he is? Does your god have low self-esteem and need constant praise and adulation or s/he flies into a passive/aggressive rage? Moreover, if I don’t want to spend eternity telling a deity how awesome s/he is I also don’t want to spend any part of eternity being forced to watch people in hell suffer. Neither of those are the kind of afterlife that I am interested in.

  114. John R. Witt

    February 22, 2015 at 9:28 pm

    Did Dr. White get through to her? Yes, I imagine he did — to some extent. His class offered her the possibility of learning, exactly the process that college is intended to be. I don’t know what this young student believes. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that she, and others in the class, had the opportunity to challenge their own beliefs and prejudices, and to made decisions based on facts. Isn’t that what a liberal education means? The student is fortunate to be at UC Berkeley, one of the finest public universities in the world. And she had the opportunity, courage, and intelligence to ask a question in what must have seemed to her like a hostile environment. The professor taught and the student had the opportunity to learn. Good for Tim White and good for the student.

  115. jenny

    February 22, 2015 at 10:18 pm

    Based on this video, there is no way to even tell if she is a creationist. She did not mention god, or any specific religion.

    Just because she brought up a question asking “I head this was a theory, why should I believe it” does not mean she comes from a religious household. She might have come from a non religious household, but have no background in science. Or maybe she believes something completely different other than evolution and creationism (aliens landing on earth and us being their decedents) no one knows her background.

    If she had flat out said “i dont believe in evolution”, we still cant call her a creationist, because not believing in evolution does not automatically mean she believes in creationism,

    BUT add to the fact that she didn’t say “I don’t believe in evolution” to begin with. She says “Darwin stated these facts, my understanding is they have not been proven, explain this to me” She wasn’t debating with him, she was confused and needed clarification.

  116. Cosmo

    February 22, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    This girl is clearly at a university level. To not know the first rule of science at a university level means that she should have been screened out at admission

  117. beingwithdogs

    February 22, 2015 at 10:33 pm

    Well, then we would have a headline like “Science teacher teaches science.” That doesn’t make very good clickbait.

  118. beingwithdogs

    February 22, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    I’ve seen the same reaction from business students when I start talking about ethics

  119. Regan Ferguson

    February 22, 2015 at 10:45 pm

    The young lady is making the same mistake every single creationist makes. You heard her say that evolution shapes our beliefs. She is right in only one respect. It shapes our scientific beliefs. Evolution is a tool, it is not a religion. They can’t get that through their thick skulls. Scientists don’t pray to Darwin hoping for salvation or everlasting life. Evolution is not what we base our morals and values on. They are so threatened by something that proves the earth was not created in 6 days they choose the path of being morons!

  120. marecek

    February 22, 2015 at 11:29 pm

    I am not concerned whether he got through to her, as she seems like a smug and arrogant person who isn’t going to accept anything he says, no matter what, because she already KNOWS the truth. You cannot convince people who have forsworn the use of reason. I wonder whether he persuaded most of his audience that his argument was sound. That’s what is important.

  121. Brian Martodam

    February 23, 2015 at 12:31 am

    Your answer is in the wikipedia entry “asexual reproduction.”

    “A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles. Another constraint on switching from sexual to asexual reproduction would be the concomitant loss of meiosis and the protective recombinational repair of DNA damage afforded as one function of meiosis.”

  122. Jim C

    February 23, 2015 at 12:57 am

    I went through many of the comments and was most amazed at how many people jumped to so many conclusions with so little evidence. She’s a moron homeschooled by Christian wingnuts. She did not learn anything. She should be thrown out of the class.

    So much for the scientific method! These all fit the creationist definition of theory (as in I have a theory about how the cookies disappeared from the cookie jar.)

    It may seem to many to be a dumb question to many (myself included). But we really have NO IDEA what came before or how she got there or how she may have been influenced by the answer (notwithstanding the expert body language interpreters among us).

    John R Witt’s comment is more to the point.

  123. Bill

    February 23, 2015 at 1:38 am

    While I believe in evolution, despite my upbringing in a conservative, Christian home, where it’s all Jesus, all the time, to be fair, I didn’t hear anywhere in this clip, where she identified herself as a “creationist.”

  124. 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.

  125. 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

  126. Jonathan

    February 23, 2015 at 3:06 am

    Bingo. Darwin’s monkeys will humble her soon enough.

  127. Just

    February 23, 2015 at 6:52 am

    Likely, she was homeschooled using a religious textbook, approaching science with an agenda. She’s obviously intelligent and able to repeat what she’s been told. but what she’s been told is fundamentally incorrect

  128. Rev. Mark Throckmorton

    February 23, 2015 at 9:37 am

    Yeah, for Creationism to be true, God would have had to be in on the deception, placing fossils in strata with radiocarbon levels that violate the laws of physics that God created. The Creationist position must ascribe to God the Tempter and Trickster roles that the Bible attributes to Satan. It further relies on the premise that God wishes to make the world unintelligible to humans, yet we are to have dominion over it. In short: Creationism depends on God being deceitful, malicious, and deliberately confusing…i.e. All the attributes of the false gods of Rome and Babylon. Creationism is blasphemy.

  129. Pierre Lapin

    February 23, 2015 at 12:39 pm

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

  130. Steve Gyetko

    February 23, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    …..and on the eighth day, God created idiots.

  131. Captain Scorpio (@CaptainScorpio)

    February 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    It doesn’t take fundamentalist homeschooling to give someone bad science. I remember, in a decently-funded private 3rd-grade classroom, in New york City, being taught that a Hypothesis that gains sufficient evidence becomes a theory, and a theory with sufficient evidence eventually becomes a Law. this was a science class.

    (Side note: I am now training for my teaching certification — biology concentration — to try to save as many kids as I can from going through this.)

  132. John Cross

    February 23, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    LOL, Lets say there is a one in a billion chance that the “god” you happen to pray to is a “real” god out of all the fake gods AND the infinite possibility that there is no God at all, then you MAY be right. In the meantime, what do you have to lose? Medical science, technology, progress, the lives of billions of people on this planet (including your own) that are supported by that technology. So you are willing to give up your life in the hope that you just HAPPEN to have picked a true god? GO AHEAD! But quit dragging the rest of us down with you, moron.

  133. 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.

  134. 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

  135. 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.

  136. 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.

  137. Anita Page

    February 23, 2015 at 11:36 pm

    Yes, the Bible has been proven wrong. Creationists’ proof is all contained in one book, while scientific proof of theories is cast in the very bones of the earth. By the way, if you truly believe in God, why do you think he created a lie? This earth has many stories to tell, if you observe.

  138. Anita Page

    February 23, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    Does God lie? By calling this world “Godless”, you deny your own story. If God created all things, then He created the Earth as well, so this Earth is not Godless. Man did not create this world. We observe, and question. We think upon our observations, and draw conclusions. I ask again, does God lie?

  139. TMC

    February 24, 2015 at 12:04 am

    Most of us Christians believe there is much better that a billion to one chance that God exists. As a matter of fact, we feel the odds God doesn’t exist are far greater than a billion to one.

    Apparently, you have no idea about how Christianity works. You seem to believe that Christians shun technology, medical science and progress. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Yes, there are those few creationists who believe Earth is only 6,000 years old, but even they get their vaccinations and regularly use technology. Nothing about Christianity outlaws any of that. I am a Christian. I have been an electrical test engineer on a nuclear power plant. I was an electronics technician for the first company to use a microprocessor for production equipment. I have worked as a scientist and now teach science. In case you didn’t know it, many scientists, doctors and researchers are Christians, Jews and Muslims and none of us are “dragging the rest” of you down with us. We can’t do that because we are too busy trying to pull the rest of you up with our science, technology and progress.

    Just for the record, I also know there are many people who don’t believe, who also work in science and technology. You know what, most of the non-believers in those fields are pretty good at what they do. I am going to guess you don’t work in either area.

  140. Roozbeh Pirzadeh (@r00zster)

    February 24, 2015 at 1:59 am

    More than that, I don’t think it’s good to criticize anyone at all for asking a question in a classroom…I don’t think it was a dumb question at all…it was exactly what she needed to hear and it was the perfect question to hear it! Let’s not be mean just for the sake of being mean…

  141. 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.

  142. Sean

    February 24, 2015 at 2:58 am

    Hey, I am a current Roman Catholic. I believe your problem was that you were taught to believe all forms of evolution are false. It is little wonder you abandoned your faith, if you believed Roman Catholic teaching forbade belief in any kind of evolution, with so much evidence to prove contrary. Evolution DOES exist. Animals who dwell in darkness evolve to see in darkness, those that live in cold regions evolve to stay warmer, etc. Even humans evolve in order to most capably deal with our environment.
    However, I believe that there is a god behind it all. This universe is too perfectly created to have happened by chance. God provided us with these complex survival mechanisms.
    Can you honestly believe that a group of random particles, originating from nothing, could randomly collide and bring about all of this perfection? Seems to me that this idea is much more far fetched than the idea of a creator.

  143. 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).

  144. 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.

  145. Steve

    February 24, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    You misunderstand how it all came about. It wasn’t all one spin of a gigantic roulette wheel. And yes, there are self-organizing systems.

    Many people who wins the lottery thinks God gave them the money, when in fact, someone has to get it, at random. There is nothing special about them.

  146. 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.

  147. 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.

  148. 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.

  149. 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.

  150. yhandros

    February 25, 2015 at 8:15 am

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

  151. 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 …

  152. TMC

    February 26, 2015 at 12:24 am

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

  153. 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)

  154. 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)

  155. 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.

  156. 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.

  157. 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.

  158. 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.

  159. 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.

  160. 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!

  161. Jason M. Phelan

    March 6, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    I love her resting bitch face.

  162. 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.

  163. 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’.

  164. 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.

  165. 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.

  166. 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.

  167. 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.

  168. 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.

  169. 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.

  170. Jac

    March 24, 2015 at 12:46 am

    And you’re obviously hateful and mean.

  171. Jac

    March 24, 2015 at 12:47 am

    Atheists have beliefs too.

  172. 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.

  173. 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.

  174. 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.

  175. 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

  176. 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?

  177. 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!

  178. 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.

  179. 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.

  180. 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.

  181. 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.

  182. 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.

  183. 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?

  184. 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.

  185. leadbones

    April 22, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    Sweet Jesus, your ignorance is astounding.

  186. 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.

  187. 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.

  188. 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.

  189. 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????

  190. 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.

  191. 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.

  192. 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.

  193. 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.

  194. 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…)

  195. Pete Foy

    May 14, 2015 at 5:37 am

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

  196. 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?

  197. 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.

  198. 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.

  199. 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

  200. 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.

  201. 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 ?

  202. 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.

  203. chaosgarden

    May 25, 2015 at 6:59 pm

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

  204. 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)…

  205. Morgan Fildersnatch (@angulimala22)

    June 2, 2015 at 10:15 am

    you’re an absolute moron.

  206. Chicho Blanco

    June 11, 2015 at 3:50 am

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

  207. Darren Johnson

    July 1, 2015 at 6:35 pm

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

  208. 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.

  209. 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.

  210. Zenfinity

    August 4, 2015 at 4:45 am

    Nice poetry. I dig it.

  211. 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.

  212. 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. 🙂

  213. 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.
    http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-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

  214. 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.

  215. 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.

  216. Kenny G

    September 28, 2015 at 12:45 am

    Well said!

  217. 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.

  218. Sherlock

    December 30, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    Not sure why everyone was replying to this topic months after it was presented.

    I’m just gonna one up you people.

    To reply to the above question:

    Yes, on multiple occasions. The whole “Go kill your son.” thing with Abraham is in there.

    You can say that it was a test or whatever, but in the end, he still lied.

    And no, calling the world godless does not deny their story; maybe you should look up what exactly they believe instead of spewing rubbish? You’d look less like an ass.

    They also don’t think that man created the world, honestly Wikipedia is a thing (or tenth grade education…)

    I’m pretty sure you just wanted to make some comment that sounded good, but honestly you lose the effect in text. You need to write with well studied facts and etc. if you want to be taken seriously.

    Regards, S.H.

  219. Laurie Corwin Rodriguez

    April 12, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    Wow… spoken as someone who must have absolutely no understanding of what life was like before modern “Western medicine”, which includes modern dentistry. Higher death rates, shorter life spans, teeth falling out, plagues, nutritional diseases, polio, measles, mumps, parents having large families because they weren’t sure how many of their kids would survive childhood.

    Yes, you do sound like so many fear-mongering brain-washed woo-woo elitists who think that a few minutes of googling can give you all the information you need to keep your kids from dying. You are welcome to live in that deadly world of yesterday, but don’t try to drag the rest of us backward with your anti-science delusional nonsense. Crack a few science and history books and then come back to the conversation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top