Eugenie Scott: Intelligent Design & YE Creationism pt1 of 2
Uploaded by: RationalResponse
Video Description:
http://www.rationalresponders.com
This is Eugenie Scott's talk from AAI 07 in Washington DC on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism. She covers the history of the movement and how it has evolved, including the recent Dover, PA trial.
* Sorry about the lower audio quality that starts somewhere in part 2. The batteries on our lapel mic went out, so we had to use the "live room" audio from there on. You can still understand it, but it is definitely not as clear.
Margaret Downey at:
http://www.Margaretdowney.com
Visit the AAI website at:
http://atheistalliance.org
See more videos like this at http://richarddawkins.net
and http://video.rationalresponders.com
Video by
The Richard Dawkins Foundation
Camera:
Wayne Marsala
Josh Timonen
Edited by
Josh Timonen
Tags for this video: Behe Creationism Design Dover Earth Eugenie Evolution Intelligent Michael Science Scott trial Young
Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by RationalResponse
| Richard Dawkins - The Argument from Beauty | Michael Shermer vs William Dembski on intelligent design | Intelligent Design? Watch it get schooled. |
 |  |  |
| Eugenie Scott 1/2 (The Amazing Meeting 2) | Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists | Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07: pt2 of 2 |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
The genetic code for the great apes and for humans have been discovered and a shared chromosome was found which can only have come from a distant - a very distant - relative. It's called chromosome 2.
Go to any natural history museum with fossils and ask to see:
1) Tiktaalik - this is a trans. fossil between fish and amphibians which should start to answer your gills to lungs question.
2/3) Ambulocetus natans or Indohyus which are trans. fossils between walking land mammals and modern whales
So why should anyone show you evidence for something that is not actually claimed by anyone? Seems like a rather odd thing to ask to me.
Word of advice to you, insults demean only the insulter, not the insultee. If you have no point to make then so be it, but to cover that up using insults.... it is not big.... it is not clever.
Correct. Your disagreement is purely due to you refusing to agree. Complete bias. You have given no argument for your disagreement.
"are based off a few bones"
False. Completely false. There is a lot more than that from transitional fossils to DNA markers. EVen if we had NO fossils at all the proof from DNA alone would be MORE than enough. Not just enough but MORE than. There is so much of it. Human Chromosome 2 and its merging in primates alone is sufficient proof
This was already done in the courts of Dover. The case was made and passed and supported to the full extent of the law. A general ruling was made that creationism is simply not science and does not even resemble science.
So sorry, case already made and case closed.
No, we do not prove books wrong. If you claim the book is true then you have to prove that. Not the other way around. Raise your game here and get with the standard of proof people use, not the one you want.
Look at what happened to the Pod Mrcaru lizards in only 30 years when their entire digestive system, feeding method and social structure changed drastically. DRASTICALLY, in just 30 years. A few generations
Look at the work of Richard Lenski with E.Coli who in under 20 years observed the rise of completeley new proteins and completely new genes and DNA. Things creationists claimed could never happen!
Then we have nothing to fear. If all the people going after evolution are as ill informed about what evolution actually claims... then we have nothing to fear from you at all.
Animals KNOWING they need lungs.... I have never laughed at a you tube poster so hard as I laughed at you when you said that. Knowing they neeed lungs... you crack me up, you really do.
If you want to attack evolution, find out what it actually CLAIMS first. Otherwise you attack a strawman.
No sorry that was sarcasm. Insults demean ONLY the insulter. Have you an actual point to make or are the kind of insults I could get from a kid on a schoolyard the sum total of your opinions on this matter?
Science did. Theres established scientific methods accepted throughout the community. By this method evolution is fact, as gravity, newtons and einsteins lawsm, ballistics or any other area of science
Your problem is when you like science you apply the scientific method and its standards of proof and accept it as fact
When you dont like it you make up your own standards of proof to apply instead. You cant do this.
False. Most scientists accept evolution. Most religious people do too. The official position of the Church of England and of the Vatican are to accept it. The community of people who do not are declining, not increasing.
Scientists who are against it are rarely biological scientists but are people with degrees in something like psychology or some such.
Another thing. Only this month a survey of scientists in Texas reveals the vast majority reject creationism. 2% give it any respect at all. This is Texas where Don McLeroy, creationist dentist, runs the educational show. One of the states that supported McCain and conservatives the most..
So in the state that should MOST agree with you, the reality is the opposite to what you said. No suprise there since you clearly just made it up huh.
Im glad you said this as it shows how wrong youve been so far. You sit there claiming Evolution is wrong and it has no facts, and then openly admit you know nothing about 1 of the most central and important proofs for it
You also show you do not even know what evolution claims when you make statements about animals "knowing" they need lungs.
All in all you have openly shown you know nothing about the theory you claim to know is false
Go look at the trans. fossils recommended and find out why they are transitional
Find out about DNA and the way it supports evolution. Read about E.Coli experiements for a start
Then find out what Evolution actually claims. Its nothing about animals "knowing" what they need
After that you may be in a position to have an informed discussion
This is something we do not know. It also have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the area of science that deals with what happens with life after it started until today. So you would do well to realise the difference. It is kind of like looking at the field of ballistics and asking "Why does gunpowder explode". It is a category error.
This is just one example of speciation. There are loads. Look it up, its actually pretty interesting and as I said youd do well to know what the theory is actually about rather than claiming its false and then showing you know little or nothing about it.