John Stossel – Science vs. God: Big Bang, Intelligent Design, Debate with Krauss, D’Souza, Shermer and Hutchinson – VIDEO

32
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYG_mBqTfv4

 

[ccw-atrib-link]


Share.

32
Leave a Reply

32 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
32 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
anonazero

im really impressed with stossel’s objectivity here.

Kevvlio

en.wikipedia(DOT)org/wiki/Dinosaur_Valley_State_Park
read that


anonazero

you’re right, he thought he was god and acted as such.

anonazero

Dinesh and that nuclear physicist are awesome.

David Wakefield

foot prints of humans have been found ontop of fresh dinosaur foot prints in texas,,,,so wake up

gypsycabs

You’re not serious, are you? Check out the Glenrose Wiki page… those claims have been debunked long ago.

gypsycabs

You should try reading things before you make silly comments like that.

warfl4g

Have you read the bible lol? Theres no direct qoute stating it’s 6 thousand years, but if you make a timeline of all dates mentioned since he “created he world in a few days” it adds up to 6000. Many websites have all the reasoning behind the aging such as, creation.com/6000-years-qa. it’s a real facepalm.

wufongtan

Show me where in the Bible does it say that the Earth is only thousands of years old?

warfl4g

What is something if you don’t study it with science? What would gravity be if i studied it without science and said i had all the answers.. do you think people would believe my theory? you say an athetiests view cannot disprove creationism, although everything on earth disproves the world being a couple thousand years old. How long do you think coal takes to form.. how long did the grand canyon take to form, whats the oldest rocks we’ve dated back? (hint: Western australia pibera region)

waketheoblivious

Fact: Economics is a Social Science in the same College of Liberal Arts as the Physical Sciences.

Fact: When Adam Smith published Classical Ecn Theory, he scientificaly proved the existence of the Principle of Self Interest, Laws of Supply & Demand and the Invisible Hand.

Fact: Adam Smith deliberately used the metaphor Invisible Hand, to by synonymous with God.

Fact: Science proved the existence of the Invisible Hand(God), Principle of Self Interest and Laws of Supply & Demand 250+ yrs ago

wufongtan

As a Catholic ill tell you You can’t study creationism with science. Dont fall into the trap of trying it with some internet fundie atheist Instead embrace science While you cannot prove creation with science You can’t disprove it either. I will say this. look at genesis then look at the big bang theory Tell me they are not the same. in fact they are so close that when the catholic priest first discovered it Einstein rejected it because he said it too closely resemble what happened in the bible

jorgekluney

Krauss’s book was an embarrassment

jorgekluney

Should have been Edward Feser smoking Shermer.

tron81

What is there to look into in Creationism? If you want to provide *evidence* and write a *peer reviewed* scientific paper based on that evidence that supports a Theory of Creation, then that would be “looking into it.” Listening to what someone else believes based on faith is waste of time.

Miss Monika

There is one commonality among each and every Aesop’s fable, biblical story, mythological tale:
the moral of the story
the lesson to be learned
the consequences (negative and/ or positive) of your actions

Miss Monika

all religions are based on the same central tenet:

the golden rule:
“do unto others as you would have done unto yourself”

Numba1SouthParkFan

Wow is this guy a retard? 20:55 he says ” it’s not about the majority” what people think about abortion yet states it is when it comes to what Americans think of god.

Numba1SouthParkFan

The logic of the host is stupid. A majority of something that people believe doesn’t make it any more true. The majority doesn’t change the fact from what actually happend. It pushes it away.

CynicalSkeptic1

You said “They reject Creation without even looking into it.”

Ma’am, there are dozens of religious creations…NOT just ONE. You simply happen to believe in the talking snakes, rib-women, and magic zombie version. You readily dismiss all the others but happily accept your creation story which is equally absurd.

All religious believers recognize the utter absurdity of OTHER religions but fail to apply the same critical scrutiny to their own.

CynicalSkeptic1

No, Ma’am. The brain will hallucinate when deprived of oxygen and this happens with regularity when people die and are resuscitated. Anyhow, you said “There are scriptures to back this up…”.

Really? Which scriptures PROVE an afterlife? Reading my Bible from cover to cover is what originally made me an atheist. Since that time, I have discovered an enormous amount of evidence which contradicts my previously-held beliefs. There just isn’t any valid evidence for any gods.

CynicalSkeptic1

Really? What evidence do you have for an afterlife? Let’s discuss it.

CynicalSkeptic1

Subscript on Stossel: “Galileo, Newton, Kepler among great scientists who have believed in god.”

They most definitely believed in a god. Yet, all of those scientists were also persecuted by the Christian church for contradicting religious orthodoxy when newly-found facts were discovered.

Science = conforming beliefs to newly-discovered evidence.

Religion = adhering to ancient beliefs no matter what contradictory evidence is discovered.

Jay

hitler was NOT an Atheist.

CynicalSkeptic1

Dr. Hutchinson: “What convinces me most about the truth of Christianity is the person, the life, death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Hutchinson is a brilliant nuclear physicist. Yet, his ability to distinguish fact from fiction appear to be sorely lacking.

The “person”, life, and death of Jesus don’t prove the existence of a malevolent genocidal supernatural being….and Jesus’ resurrection appears no more valid than the other eight (at least) in the Bible or dozens of other gods.

CynicalSkeptic1

“It was given by means of procreation which God set in order.”

Thor or Zeus or Cupid or Poseidon or Apollo or Wotan or Horus or Ra or Vishnu or Osiris or Akamba or Balder or Yahweh or Audhumla or Myrrdin or Jarilo or Svetovid or Dagon or Shachar or Daramulum or Baku or Hiruko or Allah or Isis or Aphrodite or Sobek or Amun, or Hathor or Khonsu or Satis or Anuket or Bastet or (insert god name here).

Please describe the procedure you utilized to separate your god from the remaining thousands.

CynicalSkeptic1

“if your going to hold to something being true shouldn’t you go by REAL fossilized evidence?”

They do have REAL fossils…what evidence do you have for talking snakes/donkeys/foliage & rib-women & salt-women & 3-day whale-belly vacations & trumpets destroying walls & magical hair & magical fruit & magical staffs & Noah’s Ark & supernaturally-parting seas & thousands fed from a few fish/bread & water-walking & resurrections & ascensions to heaven & leprosy cleansing from sprinkling bird’s blood?

CynicalSkeptic1

At least you seem to be open-minded. Why don’t you begin by investigating the enormous amount of evidence for evolution. Simply Google “Evidence for evolution”.

There would have to be a worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists just to disprove talking snakes, rib-women, and magic zombies.

You can also check out this link:

rationalwiki(dot)org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_of_evolution_being_a_hoax‎

CynicalSkeptic1

5) Many of the changes for what you would consider “Macro-E” take place over millions of years. Yet, there is no mechanism which limits genetic change over time. What the two categories truly signify is the limits of any particular human’s belief. This would be considered a non-existent division between believable and unbelievable based on religious *faith* from ancient holy books. Not just your ancient holy book, but dozens of ancient holy texts with absurd accounts of creation from magic men.

CynicalSkeptic1

4) When these terms are used by biologists, it is simply for descriptive reasons. PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on “Macro-E”, 341 publications on “Micro-E” and 247,308 publications on evolution. Even the “Platypus” has 414 publications…so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E. If the publications were compared then Macro-E and Micro-E would represent 0.0007% and 0.0013% of evolution’s publications respectively.

(continued)

CynicalSkeptic1

3) You said “there is no evidence for macro evolution.”

Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are not recognized as “significant” sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community…there is only evolution. They use the terms but not in the same context as Creationists. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate between them. Macro-E is Micro-E on a larger time scale. Walk a few feet and eventually you can walk a mile.

(cont)

CynicalSkeptic1

2) Excerpt: James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.
Perhaps these scientists are utilizing a figment of imagination for medical advancement?

(continued)