this should get your blood boiling

[The Wrath]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=80...Along&hl=en

I can respect Creationists when they at least get their facts straight. But when someone actually refers to apes as "monkeys" and claims that Evolution requires that "we evolved from apes," they lose any modicum of credibility that they should have. Claiming that the "missing link" isn't there is one thing...because, admittedly, we don't have every transitional form between species. But saying that there are "no transitional fossils" is pretty ridiculous.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I really think there should be legal action taken against idiots who blatantly lie about the claims made by Evolutionists.

[dbc]

I definitely share your frustration. For every legal action however, we must be able to demonstrate a legally-compensable harm. That is, we have to show how we (you, me, whoever) has been harmed; what right has been violated? and how was it violated?

Dan

[DarkWaters]

Although they will never admit it, these fundamentalists should be gradually expunged from the gene pool by evolution.

Edited July 5, 2007 by DarkWaters

[The Wrath]

I definitely share your frustration. For every legal action however, we must be able to demonstrate a legally-compensable harm. That is, we have to show how we (you, me, whoever) has been harmed; what right has been violated? and how was it violated?Dan

It's slander and it is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. Slander, most of the time, does not actual cause anyone harm, but you can still sue over it. All it would take would be for Richard Dawkins (or an American counterpart) to file a class action lawsuit on the grounds that no actual Evolutionary biologist espouses such things.

Although they will never admit it, these fundamentalists should be gradually expunged from the gene pool by evolution.

This assumes that they are stupid...but they aren't. That video should be all the evidence you need that Ray Comfort is actually a highly intelligent man. A stupid person could not produce such a masterwork of propaganda. I can easily see how a video like that could brainwash people into thinking that Evolution is self-evidently ludicrous. The tactics used in such videos show a pretty decent understanding of hyman psychology and how it can be manipulated.

[softwareNerd]

There's definitely nothing in the video that would warrant even the thought of legal action. [Moose, if you want to sue people for saying their ideological opponents don't have evidence, you'd better make sure you will always agree with majority opinion.]

All the same, it was interesting to watch it. It's aimed at a low intellectual level -- probably school kids. Even so, it was interesting to see the type of arguments, objections and evidence they put forth.

This would actually be a good video to show to a class of high-school students, after they have studied the theory of evolution. One wouldn't do this type of thing on every topic; but evolution is foundational enough that it would be good to shake them out of their apparent understanding, and then explain the truth. I find that a lot of people who say they agree with evolution do not understand it , even at a fundamental level. I don't expect anyone to have even a university-level understanding. However, there are some basic misconceptions that people hold. The guys in the video play on some of those. So, viewing this video, followed by a classroom discussion should help students chew on the ideas.

The funny part about the video is that they end by advising kids not to discuss this too heatedly with their non-Christian friends. Instead, they suggest that Christian kids should simply convince non-Christians that they're sinners, and that Jesus can save them. So much for their confidence in the arguments that make up the body of the video.

As for the arguments they make against evolution, here is what they offered:

• The fossil record is incomplete
  
• Kids on the street could not answer questions like: was the first land-animal male or female? did it have gills or lungs? [The video goes on asking silly questions like these, of kids on the street and highlights each time they say "I don't", "maybe" etc. One could get this effect on any topic. It's completely silly.
  
• They take an ape out to lunch and the ape wants the guy's salad rather than his own! [Don't even ask. You get a snapshot of what liberals focus on, when they think conservatives are a bunch of ignorant hill-billies]
  
• They claim Darwin thought men were biologically more capable than women, and say that some people who believe in evolution, interpret it to mean that races are unequal
  
• They quote a few scientists (mostly from 50 years or more ago) who say that evolution is false or uncertain
  

[The Wrath]

There's definitely nothing in the video that would warrant even the thought of legal action. [Moose, if you want to sue people for saying their ideological opponents don't have evidence, you'd better make sure you will always agree with majority opinion.]

That was just my gut reaction after initially watching it. And I'm sure it would never hold up in court. But my beef wasn't with them saying there's no evidence...it was about how they said "Evolution claims that we evolved from apes." Any biologist will tell you that that is an outright lie.

[DarkWaters]

They take an ape out to lunch and the ape wants the guy's salad rather than his own!

The video is worth watching for this scene alone!

Although the orangutan makes some great points, the overall arguments of the video are very juvenile. Debunking this video would be a very productive high school exercise.

[DavidOdden]

Slander, most of the time, does not actual cause anyone harm, but you can still sue over it.

Such a suit would be an initiation of force, a waste of time, and most states have laws that prevent attorneys from taking on frivolous harassment suits. You may not know this, but telling the truth is a legal requirement only in very restricted circumstances. A fact for which The Daily Show is thankful on a daily basis. You should be thankful too, that I can't sue you for telling a lie.

[Mammon]

I want to dress up as Ray and make a spoof of this video and walk around asking Christians how much they know about their Bible.

When they say "I don't know" i'll it in huge letters that don't even fit on the screen and then scream it really loud for more awesome and witty effect!

[softwareNerd]

I want to dress up as Ray and make a spoof of this video and walk around asking Christians how much they know about their Bible.

That could be funny. And, among the legit bible questions, you have to throw in things like: "When Joshua marched around the walls of Jerico, what color were the walls?" "What type of wood was the cross made from?" "What is the mother's maiden name of the pope's first cousin?"

I wonder if there is a good pro-evolution video out there on YouTube, for Christian kids who do surf.

Maybe we need a "One Minute Case" for evolution.

Edited July 6, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Blinky]

"Evolution claims that we evolved from apes." Any biologist will tell you that that is an outright lie.

Are you sure? I think that we all evolved from apes. Biologically humans are apes, so because I evolved from my parents (who are humans and thus also apes) I evolved from apes. And so did all of you. Different would be claim that we evolved from monkeys, chimpanzees and so on, since we (as a specie) are not involved in those groupes (strictly cladistically we should be considered monkeys as well but I will leave that aside and stick to usual meaning of word "monkey").

[mrocktor]

I think that we all evolved from apes.

No. Both humans and apes evolved from some more primitive primate. The evolutionary split happened a long time ago (in fact, our "line" split again more than once since then, though the other hominids have died out).

So no, we did not evolve from apes.

[Blinky]

No. Both humans and apes evolved from some more primitive primate. The evolutionary split happened a long time ago (in fact, our "line" split again more than once since then, though the other hominids have died out).

So no, we did not evolve from apes.

Since humans are apes, and chimpanzees and gorillas are apes, our ancestor we shared with chimpanzees had to be ape too, otherwise how would it happen that we and chimpanzees are apes and gorillas are apes when we don´t have common ancestor woth chimpanzees who is ape too? I presuppose the notion that gorillas split as first and after that the branch that leads to humans divided from branch that leads to chimps (as far as I know this is the most probable and most scientifically proven occurence of events).

Edited July 6, 2007 by Blinky

[DavidOdden]

I think that we all evolved from apes.

This is a case of terminological nit-picking. Humans didn't evolve from gorillas, chimps, gibbons or orangutans. We did evolve from an animal which no longer exists, as did gorillas, chimps etc. "Ape" refers to the family Hominoidea, which encompasses man, chimp, blah blah, and man is, biologically, an ape. Of course, many people choose to reject science and deny that men are apes, so they could say that for them, the term "ape" refers to something else. But that is evasion, and no more correct that saying that "ape" refers to gorilla (most people will not correctly identify chimpanzees and gibbons as "apes", and will mostly apply the term to gorillas and gorilla-like primates, mostly orangutans). The only way to deny that man evolved from an ape is to claim that the primate which man evolved from is called something else. In that sense, you can deny that man evolved from an ape, and in the same sense you can and should claim, if you're going to engage in terminological nitpicking, that animals only evolve from things with fancy Latin names that nobody knows or uses. Common names, the story would go, only refer to the existing life-forms, not their ancestors. There is some merit to this, because it reinforces the idea that man and gorilla both descended from something else (similarly, dogs, wolves and jackals, etc). In the case of "ape", though, the term doesn't even refer to a specific animal species, so the argument for denying that man and gorilla evolved from a proto-ape, i.e. "from apes", is pretty weak.

[Mammon]

That could be funny. And, among the legit bible questions, you have to throw in things like: "When Joshua marched around the walls of Jerico, what color were the walls?" "What type of wood was the cross made from?" "What is the mother's maiden name of the pope's first cousin?"I wonder if there is a good pro-evolution video out there on YouTube, for Christian kids who do surf.Maybe we need a "One Minute Case" for evolution.

You need to ask irrelevant facts like "What color was Jesus' eyes" or "Was Adam an African or an Asian?" or "Which animal did Noah like the most on his Ark?!" When they say they don't know then say "IF YOU DONT KNOW THAT THEN HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IN THE BOOK!?!?!?!?!" or something. Because that's essentially the kind of crap Creationists put people through. I hate the whole transitional fossil things. Fossils are incredibly hard to create in the first place and geology destroys more of them then it preserves. Plus, if they ask "Where are the transitional fossils?!" ask "Where is Noah's ark?" because that piece of evidence should be pretty easy to spot if they say the earth is only 6,000 years old.

This is a case of terminological nit-picking. Humans didn't evolve from gorillas, chimps, gibbons or orangutans. We did evolve from an animal which no longer exists, as did gorillas, chimps etc. "Ape" refers to the family Hominoidea, which encompasses man, chimp, blah blah, and man is, biologically, an ape. Of course, many people choose to reject science and deny that men are apes, so they could say that for them, the term "ape" refers to something else. But that is evasion, and no more correct that saying that "ape" refers to gorilla (most people will not correctly identify chimpanzees and gibbons as "apes", and will mostly apply the term to gorillas and gorilla-like primates, mostly orangutans). The only way to deny that man evolved from an ape is to claim that the primate which man evolved from is called something else. In that sense, you can deny that man evolved from an ape, and in the same sense you can and should claim, if you're going to engage in terminological nitpicking, that animals only evolve from things with fancy Latin names that nobody knows or uses. Common names, the story would go, only refer to the existing life-forms, not their ancestors. There is some merit to this, because it reinforces the idea that man and gorilla both descended from something else (similarly, dogs, wolves and jackals, etc). In the case of "ape", though, the term doesn't even refer to a specific animal species, so the argument for denying that man and gorilla evolved from a proto-ape, i.e. "from apes", is pretty weak.

dumbassdunt u now dat god breath into a piel of dust a tahts were mans come frum?! hahahaha ur so stoopid ur sompin/?/

[Mammon]

Oh I found this video on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI

This kid is a total idiot but you should watch it because this younger kid comes and refutes him, it's actually pretty funny. The younger kid is alot smarter.

But about the first kid, can that much stupidity be labeled as child-abuse?

[Antonio]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=80...Along&hl=en

I can respect Creationists when they at least get their facts straight. But when someone actually refers to apes as "monkeys" and claims that Evolution requires that "we evolved from apes," they lose any modicum of credibility that they should have. Claiming that the "missing link" isn't there is one thing...because, admittedly, we don't have every transitional form between species. But saying that there are "no transitional fossils" is pretty ridiculous.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I really think there should be legal action taken against idiots who blatantly lie about the claims made by Evolutionists.

Most fundamentalists that I know would not be aware of the fact that apes are not monkeys and vise-versa. It's all about marketing. Better-educated fundamentalists will coin terms like "Scopes Monkey Trial" because it plays to people's attraction to the absurd. Then the lemmings follow.

Pierre Boulle called his novel "La planète des singes" (singes being closer to "simian" vs. monkey or ape) and when translated into English, monkey was chosen over ape when Xan Fielding called his translation "Monkey Planet." It sounds more absurd. Really, "Planet of the Apes" was a more appropriate transalation.

It's all about marketing. And the fundamentalists are doing quite well at that.

[Mammon]

Check out the blind-blowing propoganda at this website...

http://www.americanvision.org/

Watch the commercial on the front page.

[TheEgoist]

Of course these cowards do not walk into a room of scientists. They ask people randomly, who might have not even studied biology since 10th grade.