SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (42) down (43)

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Dafuq (3430 days ago)
Even the catholic church acknowledges evolution as gods means of creation. And after all isnt the pope infallable?
ReplyVote up (990)down (124)
Original comment
Even the catholic church acknowledges evolution as gods means of creation. And after all isnt the pope infallable?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Scroticus Canis (3430 days ago)
Being made from star dust is awesome enough for me and I know the meaning of life - living it! Being good/kind/helpful to others is evolution of the human condition not a divine requirement. Look at how the various religious primitives hate each other.
ReplyVote up (331)down (131)
Original comment
Being made from star dust is awesome enough for me and I know the meaning of life - living it! Being good/kind/helpful to others is evolution of the human condition not a divine requirement. Look at how the various religious primitives hate each other.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Samsgimp Samsgimp (3430 days ago)
Creationism is very popular because its easy to understand from an early age and especially in societies with high rates of illiteracy. Belief in creationism is core to most religions and 'science' was still in its infancy and regarded as heresy a few thousand years ago when these myths were first put forward. Good n' proper science is always able to debunk the illogical fallacies fantasies and myths of creationism, but creationists are always unable to satisfactorily debunk the demonstrable, irrefutable, robust and increasingly accurate science behind evolutionary theory. Just because science can't explain everyfink (yet) ain't an excuse for making stuff up just cos it sounds nice - innit? Of course she can have a PhD and still believe in fairy tales...clever an mental at the same time?! Even if she studied cosmology, particle physics, paleontology and evolutionary biology - she would/could still believe in creationism. BUT I WOULD NEVER EVER REGARD THIS HANDFUL OF DELUDED NUT-JOBS AS SCIENTISTS!!!!!! Enuff already..
ReplyVote up (289)down (144)
Original comment
Creationism is very popular because its easy to understand from an early age and especially in societies with high rates of illiteracy. Belief in creationism is core to most religions and 'science' was still in its infancy and regarded as heresy a few thousand years ago when these myths were first put forward. Good n' proper science is always able to debunk the illogical fallacies fantasies and myths of creationism, but creationists are always unable to satisfactorily debunk the demonstrable, irrefutable, robust and increasingly accurate science behind evolutionary theory. Just because science can't explain everyfink (yet) ain't an excuse for making stuff up just cos it sounds nice - innit? Of course she can have a PhD and still believe in fairy tales...clever an mental at the same time?! Even if she studied cosmology, particle physics, paleontology and evolutionary biology - she would/could still believe in creationism. BUT I WOULD NEVER EVER REGARD THIS HANDFUL OF DELUDED NUT-JOBS AS SCIENTISTS!!!!!! Enuff already..
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3430 days ago)
how on earth did she get her PhD in molecular genetics?
ReplyVote up (152)down (129)
Original comment
how on earth did she get her PhD in molecular genetics?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Killer Wolf (3430 days ago)
to be fair, she looks like she skipped a couple of evolutionary steps herself.
ReplyVote up (124)down (145)
Original comment
to be fair, she looks like she skipped a couple of evolutionary steps herself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (3428 days ago)
Getting one's PhD in any discipline (even theology) does not require good looks nor belief (or disbelief) in a deity. It requires a deep and thorough understanding of the requisite subject matter. Purdom's expertise in how molecules interact in DNA is not in any way dependent on how we got to this moment in history.
ReplyVote up (103)down (120)
Original comment
Getting one's PhD in any discipline (even theology) does not require good looks nor belief (or disbelief) in a deity. It requires a deep and thorough understanding of the requisite subject matter. Purdom's expertise in how molecules interact in DNA is not in any way dependent on how we got to this moment in history.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3428 days ago)
but what she said about dna ist utter bullshit, there is no "lacking" mechanism to gain information, in fact there are several: 1. mutations, 2. epigenetics, 3. viral r/dna 4. bacterial dna 5. sex. Also we can test observe and see evolution...
ReplyVote up (104)down (123)
Original comment
but what she said about dna ist utter bullshit, there is no "lacking" mechanism to gain information, in fact there are several: 1. mutations, 2. epigenetics, 3. viral r/dna 4. bacterial dna 5. sex. Also we can test observe and see evolution...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: plspirit (3430 days ago)
oh man, how the stars and fossils got there does NOT depend on OUR world view, they would be exactly where they are now if humans never existed
ReplyVote up (150)down (129)
Original comment
oh man, how the stars and fossils got there does NOT depend on OUR world view, they would be exactly where they are now if humans never existed
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (3428 days ago)
I am still baffled as to why people (both those of faith and some scientists) insist in absolutist, binary, mutually exclusive camps of evolution or creationism. This is a false dichotomy. Evolution posits a mechanism. Creationism posits an external cause. They are not necessarily at odds with each other. The former is a matter of the prevailing scientific viewpoint based on available evidence, and the latter is based on belief in things that cannot be seen or known through scientific tests. Most people believe many rational ideas while simultaneously holding beliefs that others might consider irrational. Belief in God does not negate the possibility of evolution. Belief in evolution does not negate the possibility of a god.
ReplyVote up (147)down (137)
Original comment
I am still baffled as to why people (both those of faith and some scientists) insist in absolutist, binary, mutually exclusive camps of evolution or creationism. This is a false dichotomy. Evolution posits a mechanism. Creationism posits an external cause. They are not necessarily at odds with each other. The former is a matter of the prevailing scientific viewpoint based on available evidence, and the latter is based on belief in things that cannot be seen or known through scientific tests. Most people believe many rational ideas while simultaneously holding beliefs that others might consider irrational. Belief in God does not negate the possibility of evolution. Belief in evolution does not negate the possibility of a god.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Beau Guest (3427 days ago)
You sound clever, but you're not: science and belief are not in any way compatible. Facts are not there to be believed in - they're just there: one's belief has no effect. Science does one thing only: it continues to ask questions, whereas the concept of belief relies on exactly the opposite: not asking questions. It's true that Purdom is influencial in her field, just as Desmond Tutu is influencial in his. At this point I must apologise for calling you 'not clever', because I'm sure you're influencial in your field. But the FACT is that it's a waste of everybody's time to use the words 'science' and 'belief' in the same room, let alone the same sentence.
ReplyVote up (134)down (124)
Original comment
You sound clever, but you're not: science and belief are not in any way compatible. Facts are not there to be believed in - they're just there: one's belief has no effect. Science does one thing only: it continues to ask questions, whereas the concept of belief relies on exactly the opposite: not asking questions. It's true that Purdom is influencial in her field, just as Desmond Tutu is influencial in his. At this point I must apologise for calling you 'not clever', because I'm sure you're influencial in your field. But the FACT is that it's a waste of everybody's time to use the words 'science' and 'belief' in the same room, let alone the same sentence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (3426 days ago)
Beau, I would argue that real faith continues to question. I would also argue that all scientists have belief, often in forces and things that cannot currently be seen, touched, heard or tasted. For now, the only proof exists as extremely abstract mathematical theorems understood by a tiny fraction of the worlds population, and spouted by every plebe as gospel truth. As for using the terms 'science' and 'belief' in the same room, I promise you, scientists believe in things. Attend a scientific conference and watch two scientists with different views fight with the ferocity of religious zealots. Scientific papers are also filled with belief statements. "We feel", "we believe", "it may be that", "it is possible"... all of these circumspect comments are made by scientists who are pretty sure that an idea is correct, but don't have sufficient evidence to to 'prove' it.
ReplyVote up (115)down (131)
Original comment
Beau, I would argue that real faith continues to question. I would also argue that all scientists have belief, often in forces and things that cannot currently be seen, touched, heard or tasted. For now, the only proof exists as extremely abstract mathematical theorems understood by a tiny fraction of the worlds population, and spouted by every plebe as gospel truth. As for using the terms 'science' and 'belief' in the same room, I promise you, scientists believe in things. Attend a scientific conference and watch two scientists with different views fight with the ferocity of religious zealots. Scientific papers are also filled with belief statements. "We feel", "we believe", "it may be that", "it is possible"... all of these circumspect comments are made by scientists who are pretty sure that an idea is correct, but don't have sufficient evidence to to 'prove' it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3426 days ago)
There was a time when I held with glortman on the potential for sincere belief in both...the I met the fundamentalists, like the well meaning people that opened this faith based theme park, that teach that the fossil record is nonsense because one must pay attention to the time line as drafted by a desert fabilist that wanted a straight line from Abraham to Christ. That's why these deluded propogandists want you to believe it all happened so quickly. I'm done with them.
ReplyVote up (142)down (142)
Original comment
There was a time when I held with glortman on the potential for sincere belief in both...the I met the fundamentalists, like the well meaning people that opened this faith based theme park, that teach that the fossil record is nonsense because one must pay attention to the time line as drafted by a desert fabilist that wanted a straight line from Abraham to Christ. That's why these deluded propogandists want you to believe it all happened so quickly. I'm done with them.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (3425 days ago)
I am inclined to agree with most of what you wrote. Still, dishonest, cheating and incompetent scientists have not kept me from scientific exploration, and neither will bigoted, misguided fundamentalists keep me from considering ideas about faith.
ReplyVote up (146)down (141)
Original comment
I am inclined to agree with most of what you wrote. Still, dishonest, cheating and incompetent scientists have not kept me from scientific exploration, and neither will bigoted, misguided fundamentalists keep me from considering ideas about faith.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (3425 days ago)
glortman, how can faith continue to question? The point of faith is not to question.
ReplyVote up (131)down (132)
Original comment
glortman, how can faith continue to question? The point of faith is not to question.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (3424 days ago)
MissAlanius, I have spent a little time pondering your comment, because to me it has a lot of weight, and you always strike me as sincere. If faith has a point, I don't believe it is to avoid questioning. That might be the role of dogma, or more accurately indoctrination. The point of faith is that it suffices in the absence of answers. It is like a hypothesis without proof: the search is not over, it has only begun.
ReplyVote up (143)down (128)
Original comment
MissAlanius, I have spent a little time pondering your comment, because to me it has a lot of weight, and you always strike me as sincere. If faith has a point, I don't believe it is to avoid questioning. That might be the role of dogma, or more accurately indoctrination. The point of faith is that it suffices in the absence of answers. It is like a hypothesis without proof: the search is not over, it has only begun.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (3424 days ago)
I don't think even you are convinced by your words. It's not that faith provides answers that suffice for the time being, that's a better description of science. Faith provides answers and the proof is in a holy book. The only questioning involved is how to interpret the holy book so it fits with what is observed.
ReplyVote up (120)down (135)
Original comment
I don't think even you are convinced by your words. It's not that faith provides answers that suffice for the time being, that's a better description of science. Faith provides answers and the proof is in a holy book. The only questioning involved is how to interpret the holy book so it fits with what is observed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (3423 days ago)
Well, first of all, I disagree with your definition of faith. It is too simplistic, reductionist, and automatically pejorative. Max Planck's laboratory had an inscription over the door "Let no one enter here who does not have faith." and Einstein famously said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I don't believe for a second they were referring to faith or religion in some specific Judeo-Christian deity, but I also do not believe they were saying empty or idle words. They are appealing to profound ideas of human nature, intangible concepts and the possibility of something much, much bigger and more important than ourselves. This involves faith. I still think your are referring to indoctrination rather than faith. Second, I realize that responding honestly in such a public forum leaves one vulnerable to misprision, ridicule and suspicion, however, I am quite sincere. I am not sure why it is necessary to assail someone's character if you disagree with their ideas.
ReplyVote up (137)down (183)
Original comment
Well, first of all, I disagree with your definition of faith. It is too simplistic, reductionist, and automatically pejorative. Max Planck's laboratory had an inscription over the door "Let no one enter here who does not have faith." and Einstein famously said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I don't believe for a second they were referring to faith or religion in some specific Judeo-Christian deity, but I also do not believe they were saying empty or idle words. They are appealing to profound ideas of human nature, intangible concepts and the possibility of something much, much bigger and more important than ourselves. This involves faith. I still think your are referring to indoctrination rather than faith. Second, I realize that responding honestly in such a public forum leaves one vulnerable to misprision, ridicule and suspicion, however, I am quite sincere. I am not sure why it is necessary to assail someone's character if you disagree with their ideas.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (3422 days ago)
In the context of this video (about creationism) I think my definition of faith is fine. Sure it's simplistic and reductionist, and even intentionally pejorative, but it's accurate. Creationists are just silly and deserve the same respect as the Flat Earth Society. On a deeper level, I think the term 'faith' (when talking about the big questions of life) is outdated because of its religious connotations. Today, questions like "what is our purpose in life? how did we get here? etc." are better answered without the help of religion. The big questions of life are a journey of discovery, not a journey to a 'truth' dictated by an undetectable god.
ReplyVote up (128)down (138)
Original comment
In the context of this video (about creationism) I think my definition of faith is fine. Sure it's simplistic and reductionist, and even intentionally pejorative, but it's accurate. Creationists are just silly and deserve the same respect as the Flat Earth Society. On a deeper level, I think the term 'faith' (when talking about the big questions of life) is outdated because of its religious connotations. Today, questions like "what is our purpose in life? how did we get here? etc." are better answered without the help of religion. The big questions of life are a journey of discovery, not a journey to a 'truth' dictated by an undetectable god.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (3422 days ago)
Latest comment: Many scientists in history (more the further you go back) were religious but I think that's a part of the transition from religion to science in providing answers to the big questions. My guess is that the proportion of religious scientists is declining, and that some time in the future, religion as we know it will be relegated to the same league as the Flat Earth Society. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us will live long enough to witness that.
ReplyVote up (131)down (131)
Original comment
Latest comment: Many scientists in history (more the further you go back) were religious but I think that's a part of the transition from religion to science in providing answers to the big questions. My guess is that the proportion of religious scientists is declining, and that some time in the future, religion as we know it will be relegated to the same league as the Flat Earth Society. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us will live long enough to witness that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: God (3430 days ago)
Man, these guys annoy me. I didn't give mankind independent thought for them to ignore all of the evidence I scattered around about how I made the universe 6 billion years ago.
ReplyVote up (111)down (115)
Original comment
Man, these guys annoy me. I didn't give mankind independent thought for them to ignore all of the evidence I scattered around about how I made the universe 6 billion years ago.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: God (3428 days ago)
People like you annoy me, pretending to be God when I'm the true God. BTW I gave mankind independent thought so that I could indoctrinate them with concepts based on cognitive dissonance so that if they ever tried to see passed their indoctrinate they would be confronted by those who cannot see passed it. Why? I'm God, **** you!
ReplyVote up (96)down (119)
Original comment
People like you annoy me, pretending to be God when I'm the true God. BTW I gave mankind independent thought so that I could indoctrinate them with concepts based on cognitive dissonance so that if they ever tried to see passed their indoctrinate they would be confronted by those who cannot see passed it. Why? I'm God, **** you!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Allah (3425 days ago)
What are you going on about this time? I can`t leave the room for a second but you`re all over the internet trying to take credit everything. Look, I created this world and everything in it. I hid the fossils and all the other stuff deep enough but those nosy humans went and dug it all up. Why couldn`t you have left it where it was, I`d at least get a moments peace. But no, I have to listen to all the praying and worshipping 24/7. I have other stuff to do, leave me alone god dammit!
ReplyVote up (116)down (142)
Original comment
What are you going on about this time? I can`t leave the room for a second but you`re all over the internet trying to take credit everything. Look, I created this world and everything in it. I hid the fossils and all the other stuff deep enough but those nosy humans went and dug it all up. Why couldn`t you have left it where it was, I`d at least get a moments peace. But no, I have to listen to all the praying and worshipping 24/7. I have other stuff to do, leave me alone god dammit!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hugh Losers (3429 days ago)
So denial of evolution is correct because lots of other countries are equally stupid as Americans. Poor, poor America - freedom of thought and speech and this is the crap you come up with.
ReplyVote up (114)down (134)
Original comment
So denial of evolution is correct because lots of other countries are equally stupid as Americans. Poor, poor America - freedom of thought and speech and this is the crap you come up with.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Finbar None (3429 days ago)
Seriously?! 'Like' this if you have a decent strain of Normailty and coherent selrealisation, Ffs, Posted by a Glaswegian abroad surrounded by eiijits
ReplyVote up (104)down (125)
Original comment
Seriously?! 'Like' this if you have a decent strain of Normailty and coherent selrealisation, Ffs, Posted by a Glaswegian abroad surrounded by eiijits
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3430 days ago)
This guy can't even give a reasoned argument without reading it from a bit of paper below the camera. If he's the best they can put up to argue their case, then the argument was lost a long time ago, something anybody with one brain cell could work out for themself
ReplyVote up (101)down (128)
Original comment
This guy can't even give a reasoned argument without reading it from a bit of paper below the camera. If he's the best they can put up to argue their case, then the argument was lost a long time ago, something anybody with one brain cell could work out for themself
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Juniper Juniper (3430 days ago)
"Observational science confirms the literal history in Genesis." WTF?
ReplyVote up (114)down (126)
Original comment
"Observational science confirms the literal history in Genesis." WTF?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Richard_N (3430 days ago)
This isn't about whether you can do science without knowing about a principle; it's about intellectual honesty. For example, Newton did some exceptional (and highly accurate) work without knowing about Relativity. Even today, many calculations can be made with perfectly good accuracy using Newtonian mechanics: Relativity is (in the words of the speaker) "superfluous". BUT...the principle of intellectual honesty is critical to any scientist. The Creationists are either deliberate liars, or they are closed-minded to any evidence they dislike. In either case, they are not competent professional scientists.
ReplyVote up (110)down (217)
Original comment
This isn't about whether you can do science without knowing about a principle; it's about intellectual honesty. For example, Newton did some exceptional (and highly accurate) work without knowing about Relativity. Even today, many calculations can be made with perfectly good accuracy using Newtonian mechanics: Relativity is (in the words of the speaker) "superfluous". BUT...the principle of intellectual honesty is critical to any scientist. The Creationists are either deliberate liars, or they are closed-minded to any evidence they dislike. In either case, they are not competent professional scientists.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (3428 days ago)
Purdom is a highly cited and influential scientist in her field. Your comment about her professional competence is not correct. This does not mean I think she is correct in her views about evolution, but when it comes to genetic transcription factors, I would certainly believe her.
ReplyVote up (90)down (104)
Original comment
Purdom is a highly cited and influential scientist in her field. Your comment about her professional competence is not correct. This does not mean I think she is correct in her views about evolution, but when it comes to genetic transcription factors, I would certainly believe her.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: NaughtyMan (3425 days ago)
Purdom may be highly cited and influential in her field. The analogy would be a world champion scrabble player on a 747 who thinks it`s held up by fairy dust. She`s still a scrabble expert, just no expert on the rest of reality.
ReplyVote up (101)down (103)
Original comment
Purdom may be highly cited and influential in her field. The analogy would be a world champion scrabble player on a 747 who thinks it`s held up by fairy dust. She`s still a scrabble expert, just no expert on the rest of reality.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (3425 days ago)
I like your analogy, but Richard_N's comment is that scientists who believe in Creationism are not competent. My point, quite simply, is that she is competent as a professional scientist, regardless of the fairy dust.
ReplyVote up (109)down (99)
Original comment
I like your analogy, but Richard_N's comment is that scientists who believe in Creationism are not competent. My point, quite simply, is that she is competent as a professional scientist, regardless of the fairy dust.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Bill Nye's open letter to President Obama
Bill Nye's open letter to President Obama
Rachel Maddow: buzzer-beating shots don't disprove climate change
Rachel Maddow: buzzer-beating shots don't disprove climate change
Ken Ham responds to Bill Nye "The Humanist Guy"
Ken Ham responds to Bill Nye "The Humanist Guy"
Right wing media needs a science class
Right wing media needs a science class
Are tornados getting stronger?
Are tornados getting stronger?