I'm pretty sure you won't address this, but um... what's your view on miracles? And when I say miracle I mean healing physically or mentally that can not be explained by science or doctors in the medical profession. I apologize in advance for not providing a specific source that would support my question, but if need be I can.
I have this exact same conversation with my die-hard 'young-earth' creationist brother all the time. It starts out good because of a thought provoking question...but then he starts running the same circle over again and it's like I'm the only one contributing...learning the flaws, doing the research...what's he doing.,.rereading the bible for 'extra' inspiration. Now I'm like, WTF...waste of time...because its like I have to teach him biology every time...and he was once so smart...sigh
@EvangelistEvan 1) Depends on how do you define God. Is this a deistic God or a theistic one? What are its characteristics? I can't answer unless you define it properly (although I do have a pretty good assumption as to the characteristics you'll present, I'll leave you to fill in the details so I don't stuff words into your mouth).
@EvangelistEvan 3) Sure, I can definitely be wrong. Hell, we can all be wrong, now can't we? We can all be wrong about Zeus. We can all be wrong about Anubis. We can all be wrong about Odin.
Here's the issue though: do you take this lack of absolute certainty as a justification to believe? If so, I'd very much like to hear your reasoning on this.
@EvangelistEvan 4) Ah, good ol' Pascal's Wager (which I suggest you look up if you are not familiar with it, since your proposition is a practically clone of it). I'll explain to you why it's an invalid question to ask though:
First off, which god? If my goal was to avoid punishment after death for not believing, then I obviously want to believe in the right god, now don't I? The problem is, there are hundreds of different deities (and over thousands that have came in went in history).
@EvangelistEvan Cont.) If you want to argue that it is better to believe than not to believe for safety reasons, then you are in the same boat as me in terms of probability/chance; you could very well be worshiping/believing the wrong god. Your chances of believing the right god just suddenly became just as probable (if not less) than winning a $1 million state raffle.
Welcome to the Divine Lottery! :)
Another thing--by implying that it is better to just believe for the sake of avoiding
@EvangelistEvan Cont.) punishment, you are then implying that this god (or gods) would be so stupid enough to not see through your clique--that you are only "believing" to avoid punishment. You also assume that belief in a voluntary action. It isn't. Try as I might, I cannot convince myself the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real any more than a god unless I was presented (or discovered) new information to affect my thoughts on it. You're treating belief as if it were a choice when it clearly isn't
@EvangelistEvan Atheism is simply a lack of belief, not an attempt to prove something does not exist. Conveniently, no God(s) can be proven or disproven, so what's the point in trying?
@lampard554 Yes of course I do. I'm open to the concept of a God, a creator, a cause of the universe - whatever you want to call it. I'm open to God as a theory, but I openly despise religion.
And yes, I firmly believe in other forms of life in the universe. I think it would be arrogant stupidity to assume we are the only life forms in a universe which makes us look, by comparison, like bacteria.
This guy is a genius, I've never heard such sophisticated logical points before, just stunned me; forget Richard Dawkins, etc this guy will make all of them obselete LOL!!!!! Anyone that feels the need to actually film and post such BS often clearly has issues. Is he deep down happy and fulfilled in life??? Me thinketh not though in denial so he certainly won't admit that. Pretty sad actually but you get them. Oh he'll call you troll if you don't think he is just brilliant and so intellectual.
you're not very bright. look up "The God Part of The Brain" and also do some research on religious origins. its far to easy to attack modern Christianity and the other religions of today. but where they stem from, is quite a bit different.
Well, the so-called "god part of the brain," aside from being highly dubious, doesn't actually establish the truth of any religion even if it existed. There's a part of your brain responsible for fantasizing, yet no one would seriously argue that therefore fantasies must be real, so why would an alleged "god part of the brain" justify a leap to the conclusion that god must be real?
@FlyoviaUSA You'r reading into something that was never said, or thought. The area in the brain that causes people to have beliefs in a soul/spirit, afterlife, part of a whole, a continuation, etc has been located. and with repeatable test one can experience the feelings/thoughts. much like deep meditation, or using the old religious ways of using entheogens. What this does is prove god is not real, or anything else spiritual related, that it comes from an area of our brain.
@FlyoviaUSA We evolved the area so we could evolve as a species. and not be over stricken with grief, fear of death, afraid to take risk, and so. What this means it's is perfectly natural to have such beliefs. it does not mean the beliefs are true. That is silly.
creationism, or intelligent design, is no different. a creator is, by default, intelligent. yet, being the only "thing" (consciousness) in existence, where does it get experience? data? how could it utter "I am" when "I" is meant to distinguish something from something else (in this case, the self), and "am" represents a state of being as opposed to "am not", which implies it knows everything that it isn't? the basis of this intelligent being is non-existent. patterns cannot exist if only I do.
such as consciousness, experience, memory, manipulation of those experiences/memories ....wherever they are stored. Everything man has ever written or thought, concerning a deity, is based on what man thinks he knows of himself...ourselves...in hyperbolic form. god knows all (therefore, cannot believe). it exists everywhere (it must be every atom in existence). immortal (it cannot die, doesn't know how) no argument they can create using omni-anything can logically make sense...
In this argument (and you see this even in scientists trying to be objective), it is ASSUMED that, at one point in the distant past, nothingness existed. there was no quantum, no table of elements to evolve, no photons, electrons, or anything, just an endless void. then POOF! everything burst to life from nowhere. and yet, eternity/infinity go both directions in our "time arrow". BUT, "there was a consciousness." consciousness is a process, it isn't a THING. Intelligence is dependent on concepts
the greatest problem I see with creationists is their arguments are constructed backwards. the conclusion "god did it" is assumed to exist BEFORE they construct the premises. This is a very subjective way of debating what is, otherwise, an objective form of human thought: science. They WANT god to exist, and will stop at nothing to prove a desire. to me, some science IS up for debate. these are things that we cannot prove today, IE the big bang, predicated on Aristotle and Aquinas' metaphysics.
I'VE ALWAYS KEPT UP WITH THEORETICALBULLSHIT'S VIDEO'S-THIS GUY IS THE REAL DEAL,LISTEN WELL PEOPLE YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING FROM HIS VOCAL CAPACITY.
"... that you begin to operate under the assumption that the very next question, the very next objection that pops into your head is a product of your biological illiteracy which has been the case 100% of the time so far, and not some piece of brilliance mysteriously overlooked by everyone in acadamia for the last two centuries."
This should be the stock answer for every creationist question.
I watched his answer to this. It shouldn't be a surprise but, his lack of knowledge is not only about Evolution but also about the scientific method. Explaining Evolution to him wasn't enough, you would have needed to explain to him how science in general works too...
TheoreticalBullshit, I don't think Nick even used the compositional fallacy correctly, he probably misunderstood that one as well...the real compositional fallacy would be if incremental series of small changes simply leads to an overall small change, that is by attributing the quality of the parts (incrimental series of small changes) to the whole (overall small change).
Haha, this is so true. Everytime I discuss evolution with anyone who objects to it often asks questions with a wrogn bias. You often hear arguements such as these in the video, and I have yet seen any relevant questions or arguements that would even take a small bite of evolution.
I'm done. You are far too ignorant to have an intelligent discussion with. Maybe when you get out of High School or in your case home school where no doubt your parents did a great job of brainwashing you, you will be able to think for yourself. Good luck with college man.
@jeffandjoesports We aren't sure, that's the beauty in it. Missing links have been found, stop using that ancient argument that doesn't apply in today's world. How do we know there isn't a God? How do you know Zeus or Thor don't exist? What about leprechauns or the tooth ferry? Maybe if you would partake in some critical thinking once in your life you wouldn't be so ignorant.
Name some. We shouldn't have to be searching all over creation for them, there should be thousands.
No, you completely avoided the question. The credibility of Zeus and thor just aren't there compared to GOD. I asked you how you know that A CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T EXIST.
@jeffandjoesports I'm an atheist. And what "cause" are you talking about? Please, look up the word atheist before you go and spew that shit around. Thanks.
@jeffandjoesports "An atheist is a guy who claims to have no religion"
this is false. atheists are against theism, not religion. theism is not the same as religion. lots of people are theists but don't consider themselves religious. full knowledge of the universe is not required to make a supposition towards the existence of god. the information available leads me to believe that no god exists. as a scientist i will continue to test my theories and recognize that everything is subject to change.
True, but an agnostic what? Agnostic theist or atheist? You can be both since agnosticism is NOT A BELIEF POSITION. Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether you believe in God, but whether you consider your belief (or lack thereof) backed by actual knowledge. Anyone capable of rational thought is an agnostic, since we objectively don't know whether God exists, if they believe he does they are agnostic theists. Look it up.
Again agnosticism has nothing to do with what you believe in. That's theism/atheism. Agnosticism deals with knowledge not belief, and it doesn't have to be knowledge about a God, I'm also agnostic about the existence of pink elephants.
I don't believe in God but that doesn't mean I KNOW he doesn't exist. Likewise many theists are agnostic, belief in God without actual knowledge to base it on. (hence the word "faith").
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
That is just the way it is.
If you don't know that He exists, why do you act like He doesn't, and why do you believe that He doesn't?
@jeffandjoesports I'd like to add to this discussion on agnosticism. agnosticism recognizes that we can't really know whether or not god exists or that not enough evidence exists to say one way or another. so an agnostic is not both theist and atheist but neither! personally i think agnosticism is a cop out. its one thing to recognize that there is still more knowledge to be discovered but it's not like this is a brand new topic. there is lots of info out there. pick a side.
@leftocastpunx83 cont...i am an atheist because the evidence that exists leads me to believe that there is no god. i recognize that in order to get a clearer view of "the origins of life" and those kinds of questions, much more research is needed. even though i cannot answer every question about the origins of life and evolution, the information available to me leads me to believe with absolute certainty that god does not exist.
@jeffandjoesports based on fossil records and what we know about evolution and the big bang, this information leads me to believe that life was not breathed from an all powerful being. there is no evidence to support that we have souls or that a supernatural plane exists. that is how i know. i would ask you the same question but i already know what you will say.
@jeffandjoesports there are several missing links, tiktaalik to name one. how many animals die in the wild every day? hundreds in just a small area. where are their fossils? no where because the planet consumes them w/o a trace. that is why we don't have fossil records. mostly the fossil records we have are from mass extinctions where the earth could not recycle the bodies fast enough. if you're looking for more genetic markers, scientists have discovered that one of our
@leftocastpunx83 cont...chromosome pairs has fused which is why we have one fewer pair of chromosomes than chimps. the info is out there you just have to look for it. don't beg youtubers to present it it to you or else it must not exist. take responsibility and seek out the info for yourself, it's much more rewarding that way.
Oh. Did you know that I used to have a giant pink elephant? It only appeared at night, and only to me. It died, and its fossils decayed without a trace, so we couldn't ever prove its existence. BUT IT DID EXIST! Now, do you believe me? Then why should I believe you?
And you are wrong, it takes a long time for bones to completely decay.
@jeffandjoesports I like how you took my entire post, which was both respectful and fact based, and tried to strike it down with stupid religious anecdotes. there are plenty of fossil records to support evolution, but no fossils to support the existence of god. and personally, i don't care if i am ultimately able to convince you but i would encourage you to expand your knowledge pool. clearly you are only familiar with the cliche "how to defeat an atheist" arguments.
Yeah, it made so much sense! Basically you said that all the missing links died out, and all the fossils disappeared! That is like me saying that my God has died, and there is no reason for you to look for him, because he doesn't exist. Makes no sense.
Wow. What an ignorant and generalizing statement of foolishness.
No, the fossil record does not support atheists. You said it yourself, when you mentioned that all the fossils for missing links (your evidence) is gone!
@jeffandjoesports please try to learn some critical reading skills. you are misrepresenting everything i say. no, we don't have a fossil for every single animal that has ever lived. that does not refute their existence, it only means that our understanding of them is incomplete until more evidence is found. do not marginalize things simply because you don't understand them. you have not brought any evidence for anything to the table, just spewing your rhetoric.
@jeffandjoesports cont...try reading some real science, not the diluted stuff you learn in church or from your parents. clearly your parents have home schooled you so they could carefully control your brainwashing. and i didn't say that's how long it takes for bones to decay, i said the earth consumes them, meaning combination of decay and consumption.
@jeffandjoesports can you answer those questions yourself? of course you can, the good book says so and we all know the bible is infallible so w/e it says must be true and we should believe it in spite of evidence to the contrary. i'm glad you think that your attitude and your disrespect is winning souls for the lord. you are the pinnacle of "christ like".
Modern elephants have gone through an observable ( in a relative short time - 300+ years) change due to human hunting of Ivory. We see now in modern populations that elephants born tend to have shorter tusks, not because they are defending themselves from hunters but because elephants that had shorter tusks survived and bred...therefor passing on the gene for shorter tusks.
@Antimidation The santa catalina island rattlesnake in a much shorter period of time has evolved to not have a rattle because it has been secluded on an island void of large predators and therefore has no need for a rattle. in fact, it would actually be harmful to them because the rattle would make too much noise while it hunted and chase off it's prey. so not only does it no longer have a need for the rattle, but it's actually a disadvantage to have one. good post!
so it ok to kill the animal ,,,,beautiful...am up for that so terrorist is not a bad thing...its just like killing a cow are a chicken for my burger.......AWESON
@DocStrange0123 You're not gonna like this & will start screaming "WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!! COMMON ASCESTOR!!! APE NOT MONKEY AHHH!!!"
But, despite what you believe, not only have we descended from monkeys, but we are in fact monkeys still ourselves. This has been the scientific definition of humans for over a decade & unfortunately Atheists which have been repeatedly parroting this phraze are gonna have to swallow their pride and accept that they were the ones that were wrong. =/
@MrLittletomdj Is not what I believe, is what after looking the evidence and learning what science says I happen to be quite convinced and agree that all evidence point in that direction. We descend from a common acestor of the biological family of apes, get your facts straight. We are primates. You haven't give anything to prove your claim, science on the other hand proves mine so go read and maybe learn something, do it and then come back and we'll talk.
@DocStrange0123 Teehee, sorry I was bating you a little there. I knew it would piss you off royally, but I do have it on good authority. So chillax a little & watch this vid. I know you have no reason to respect my oppinion, but if you're an Atheist (I'm assuming you're an Athiest (sorry)) worth your salt, you will have heard of the guy who posted this vid & respect him. It stung a little when I watched it too.
If we're just natural materials why did we get so far off, start talking about religions, gods & things that don't exist? From evolutionary stand point, why didn't we just focus on natural material & how to improve it (better water, food, buildings, etc) Why are first writings of spiritual things, infused w/religion & myths? Why did natural materials come up w/spiritual "myths." Makes no sense thinking we evolved to state we're at, then came up w/religion, gods & things that don't exist.
There is good evidence for speciation? Last I heard, fruit flies, which are the most promising organism to show speciation has yielded exactly nothing on the subject.
@DoesNotApply Not just fruit flies. Salamanders in california, earthworms, the european blackcap and galapagos finches are just a few examples. And bacteria like e-coli in laboratories. :)
@Ronnocerman You're right, it isn't an analogy. It's a demonstration based on inductive logic. An analogy depends on a shared interpretation of an event or device. I'm dictating my results for an abstraction from a popular understanding of probability based on a concept that anyone can test.
First of all, what a stupid analogy. Why pennies? Second of all if they really grew two heads, whether it would be considered evolution would be dictated on whether or not the species became a two-headed species, or just a one-headed species with a few odd organisms. I highly doubt having two heads would be ideal for survival so natural selection would kill them and pennies would live on with only one head.At the end of the day, the penny species, having only one head, has not evolved
LOL. Atheism is the 'cry baby' of all beliefs. Here you have a group of people who believe something does not exist, then go form support groups and make videos to talk about how non-existent the thing is. "The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability." - Voltaire.
@johhnycarlos (1) That is absolute bullshit and (2) you don't even know the definition of what an atheist is. (3) You are obviously one of the fools who believe in the "invisible sky daddy" and feel threatened by anyone smart enough NOT TO! How pathetic is that!
@johhnycarlos At least the 2010 issue of it is right...to the extent that it does contain the correct definition, but it leaves out the other descriptions that can cause one to be labelled as an "atheist." Let me try to explain it so you can understand.
atheism = a- (not; without) + theism (belief in the existence of a deity)
I'll leave it up to you to put "2 and 2" together.
@Scyntist Apologies, but you are wrong. From the Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god. And if you want to define atheism, I would prefer to use ubiased sources, like...dictionaries. Funny how those things are useful like that.
@johhnycarlos You're confusing the origin of the word from the present day meaning, sir. While our English language does borrow similar means and similar structures from a number of languages, they are not always exact. The difference in language should obviously be a big hint, but you seem to overlook that.
"And if you want to define atheism, I would prefer to use ubiased sources, like...dictionaries."
Did I say that Oxford had it wrong though? No. It's definition is correct
@johhnycarlos Cont.) BUT it lacks the other descriptions that can place one to be as an atheist. Again, you are appealing to authority and when I challenge you on it, you are doing nothing more but implying "it's in a dictionary, so it must be true."
I invite you to pull up "atheism" on Google and see how many other resulting dictionary sites include similar descriptions to the ones I've presented. If you're reasonable to research from unbiased sources, then you should also be
@johhnycarlos Cont.) reasonable enough to know that basing your arguments from one source is rather unconvincing and sophomoric. Especially when other sources include descriptions that very much follow the structure of the word "atheism" rather than submitting to the invalid "pop culture" use by theists.
@Scyntist Find me a definition of atheism that is defined as a "lack of or without a belief in God" and I will show you a definition that is applicable to inanimate objects that are incapable of making intellectual cognitive choices. A baseball as a lack of and is without belief in God. Congrats you have the thought power of a baseball.
@johhnycarlos Haha. Funny. Your sophomoric reasoning skills are very entertaining.
Perhaps you fail to realize that baseballs cannot even lack a belief because they simply have no (as you said) intellectual cognitive processes. You've just demonstrated yourself of your flawed logic and then try to assert it as if you triumphantly made a convincing comeback.
Good effort, but you might want to re-think your immature strategy; you aren't kidding anyone but yourself.
@johhnycarlos Cont.) To say a baseball is an atheist just shows how low you are willing to go into trying to assert your definition of atheism as the correct one, while dismissing others as false.
You're comparing apples and oranges, sir, and you're doing a very shitty job at disguising it as otherwise. Maybe you should actually think about your response before you post it for everyone to see. It kinda lowers your credibility and makes it less likely for people to take you
Do not fret, however, for you still have a chance to pick yourself up and try to actually (and honestly) make a reasonable argument instead of resorting to the illogical bullshit you've just presented.
@johhnycarlos Cont.) Having said that, atheism is better described as: 1) A lack of belief in gods 2) A disbelief in gods 3) A belief in no gods.
Notice how the definition from Oxford fits perfectly with the 3rd description, but yet the first two are absent from it. You can appeal to the argument from authority if you wish, but it becomes invalid if you cannot address the challenge made to the authority's own assertions.
I particularly subscribe myself to the 1st and 2nd descriptions.
@johhnycarlos Cont.) If you do not consider those as part of atheism though, then obviously you wouldn't call me an atheist (if you stick with Oxford's definitions). Either way, I still maintain my position of rejecting the idea of God (from the Bible and among others) based on the notion that there is no valid justification that I have come across or has been presented to me to otherwise believe.
@mst882 Quite the opposite actually. It is not a mental disorder, it's brain washing, and it starts at the adolesent age mostly. You must critisize creationism just as you would any other scientific theory and if it can stand up against scrutiny then it can be accepted. Although it is quite evident that creationism just can not with stand scrutiny. People just see debating reeligion and creationism as "harsh" or "cruel" because of the taboo that has been placed on it because of the faith issue.
You may not be a scientist, but as a biologist myself I can say you did a fantastic job of explaining evolution by natural selection. Absolutely brilliant. I doubt most biologists could have provided such an accurate, succinct explanation.
@DrLJ745 I know, it's crazy how clear and beautiful and well thought out his explanations and responses are. I have trouble talking to creationists and Christians in this manner, because my emotions and frustrations over power my mind.
My "hunch" (not prepared to call it a theory) is that major evolutionary changes only occur when a population is reaching a localized extinction and starts inbreeding, bringing all of those little recessive mutations to the fore. Then if it can recombine with another population before disappearing altogether, a new species will emerge rapidly.
Creationists love the smell of their own farts too much to have any kind of rational discourse with them.
The only way they can convert to logic is if the seeds of doubt get sown on their own terms, ie, when something they witness comes into direct conflict with the piety they've been taught to swallow wholesale. The house of cards then starts to fall pretty quickly, primarily through further internal questioning and logical reasoning.
@Bumblefoot69 Sadly, all creationists are like that, on YouTube, at least, but I'm laying money down they're not any better outside this esteemed website. Whenever I get in an argument with one, that's exactly what I end up seeing as well.
Was Scott calling himself a dick an accident ? South park GO GOD GO episode: "Our answer to the Great Question is the only logical one. Our Science is great. Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins who finally freed the world of religion long ago. Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future, but it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you." SCOTT IS A DICK!! LOL.
That is basically what they are, what they do is trying to replace evolution with creationism, or atleast put it on equal terms. They make pseudo-science to make it look like creationism is correct and evolution is wrong. They make up strawmen arguments to make it look like evolution is a joke.
@is1337Correct ya i get that they dont know shit about what they are talking about and how there arguments just flat out fail but they believe in a creator? exactly what creator? just any creator or in a specific one like a god
They base their belief in something that is, by the very definition, a logical impossibility and have to come up with arguments just to make it possible for such to exist. Their assumptions are just as baseless and mostly logical fallacies...
@is1337Correct im 15 (in 6 days) and im going into 10th grade...x) i try to understand it and usually i can piece it together with future information like theoreticalbullshit makes videos using huge ass words and eventually i can sum it up slightly x)
@is1337Correct- I have only one problem with evolution and that is how did something come from nothing? If we go back far enough in time I believe you come to a point of nothingness.... and then something came from it. So what was the prime mover? To say something was simply "always there" sounds just as ridiculous as any religious philosophy to me.
- the default state is "nothing" but it may as well be "something".
- there is nothing called eternity.
- life began when the universe "began".
Evolution does not tell "how life BEGAN", it tells "how life LIVES and change"; the word you are looking for is abiogenesis and it has been demonstrated that the building blocks of life can happen naturally, we have yet to see life begin from those blocks, but give it a few years.
@is1337Correct- I am free to assume anything I want when there is no definitive answers. Your first three statements are nothing more than your suggested counter assumptions- you have no proof, no knowledge greater than anyone else's. In my comment I was referring to creationism as it relates to evolution; I was not saying that evolution does not occur within species. When it comes to the beginning of all time and space evolution and creationism are on equal footing; this is my point.
You base your assumption on nothing but a desire for something more powerful than yourself, a creator. I base my assumption on logic and reasoning. No, because evolution is not about the STARTING POINT of life, you are looking at the word ABIOGENESIS...
You can assume as much as you want but going against logic is stupid: Can god create a object so big that he can't life it? Either way he is not all mighty...
Scientists disagree with you... They are NOT equal...
@is1337Correct- I am not talking about abiogenesis- look on another page of your text book- I am talking about the cosmological argument. You assume that materials always existed for things to evolve from I say I DON'T KNOW what started everything. You say you use logic but all you have is the same arrogance as the religious creationists. You think you know what stared everything? You think science explains everything? All you have is theoretical bullshit. I am agnostic- NO ONE KNOWS.
Evolution and nothing to do with the starting point; evolution explain how life change, not how it began which is how you were using it.
I never claimed to know how everything started (assuming there even WAS a starting point)... I stated you ASSUMED something to MAKE ROOM for a creator...
What you have done is making assumptions which makes room for a creator while trying to invalidate evolution yet not understanding what evolution REALLY is...
@is1337Correct - This is a quote from you "That is basically what they are, what they do is trying to replace evolution with creationism, or at least put it on equal terms." In this quote YOU speak of evolution as it relates to creation. I agree that evolution as a process has nothing to do with creationism but then why are you arguing that "they" are trying to "put it on equal terms"? Every scientist worth anything on this planet says there is room for a creator ... they just ask for evidence.
If you could understand the difference in the two situations... What you were saying is "...one problem with evolution and that is how did something come from nothing?" which is about how life began, not how it change... What I stated was not about the beginning but how life changed vs "what we see is how they were created, not evolved"... Big difference, but obviously you can't see it...
No biology scientist claims that animals were created in their current forms...
@isntCorrect- I stated I have no problem with the idea that evolution occurs within species but that I am at a loss to find a starting point for the process to have begun. This is the cosmological argument. How can something evolve from nothing is going one step back from evolution- a step I should have taken with you due to the fact that it has perplexed you. I never said anything about any biologist claiming animals were created in their current form; I don't know why you made this statement.
Yet again, they did not evolve from nothing... They started out as basic components that was, by nature, brought together, made life, life spread, evolved in different directions AKA species.
You claimed that scientists are open to the idea of creationism, in the argument of evolution, which is about species being created in their current form, which is a lie, they DON'T...
Before life there was nothing but materials and before that, if there was a before, who knows...
@is1337Correct - Who knows is my point exactly so stop thinking science is God and explains all. When you say a creator is an impossibility it is the same as when religious nuts say that a creator is an absolute. WE DON'T KNOW. So stop pretending to know how life began or how all the aspects of life developed and just be honest and say there are a multitude of possibilities and that we simply don't know for certain. Honesty really should not be so difficult. What is the first cause - UNKNOWN.
Why do you state the obvious? We know not how life began on Earth, we have an idea how it did, we have research that explain part of it, we know how part of it developed, and we know of some of the possibilities that is possible and what is not...
What you don't get, and where the problem arise, is when people, like you, try to make room for possibilities by misusing words and discredit what is known for just that.
Really should not be that hard to get, even for you...
@inCorrect "You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junkyard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance in, any kind of primeval soup in five or six hundred million years. It's just not possible" Francis Crick - "There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding." Richard Dawkins. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein. You know nothing.
1. There is about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, now multiply that number by 5 (planets) and you have the number of planets where live could have begun...
2. He talks about something that MAY be beyond the universe, not about a god (which is a logical impossibility)
3. Without imagination there is no creativity which would lead to new ways to think and that to new knowledge.
Please run for public office!
Kornknealious 2 days ago
TheoraticalBullshit, thank you so much for a little daily dose of sanity, in a world spinning out of control.
democrat1515 4 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
LMFAO this would of saved me years of arguing with creationists!!!!
pandorachild 1 week ago
You are far from being a dick in this video; I have found this is usually the only approach to speak to some creationist loon about real science!
west884 1 week ago
BUUUUURRRRRRNNNNNNNNN
bloodwolfsaga 2 weeks ago
I'm pretty sure you won't address this, but um... what's your view on miracles? And when I say miracle I mean healing physically or mentally that can not be explained by science or doctors in the medical profession. I apologize in advance for not providing a specific source that would support my question, but if need be I can.
I would love to hear what you think. :) Thanks.
1SaySomethingWitty1 2 weeks ago
I have this exact same conversation with my die-hard 'young-earth' creationist brother all the time. It starts out good because of a thought provoking question...but then he starts running the same circle over again and it's like I'm the only one contributing...learning the flaws, doing the research...what's he doing.,.rereading the bible for 'extra' inspiration. Now I'm like, WTF...waste of time...because its like I have to teach him biology every time...and he was once so smart...sigh
MarsStarcruiser 3 weeks ago
@MarsStarcruiser I feel your pain. my brother is the EXACT SAME WAY
bloodwolfsaga in reply to MarsStarcruiser (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago
Some creationists do not want to learn anything. They just are ignorant and in a bubble.
Mellybeans0919 3 weeks ago
Atheists:
1. Are you 100% sure God does not exist? If no, then do you admit God may exist?
2. Do you have proof that God does not exist? If not, then how can you be 100% sure God doesn't exist?
3. Do you admit you could wrong? As a Christian and Creationist, I humbly admit I could be wrong. What about you? Do you admit you could be wrong?
4. If you are right, how am I going to be worse off than you in the grave? But if I am right, are you going to be worse off than me in the grave?
EvangelistEvan 3 weeks ago
@EvangelistEvan 1) Depends on how do you define God. Is this a deistic God or a theistic one? What are its characteristics? I can't answer unless you define it properly (although I do have a pretty good assumption as to the characteristics you'll present, I'll leave you to fill in the details so I don't stuff words into your mouth).
Scyntist in reply to EvangelistEvan (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@EvangelistEvan 2) Again, define God and we'll talk.
Scyntist in reply to EvangelistEvan (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@EvangelistEvan 3) Sure, I can definitely be wrong. Hell, we can all be wrong, now can't we? We can all be wrong about Zeus. We can all be wrong about Anubis. We can all be wrong about Odin.
Here's the issue though: do you take this lack of absolute certainty as a justification to believe? If so, I'd very much like to hear your reasoning on this.
Scyntist in reply to EvangelistEvan (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@EvangelistEvan 4) Ah, good ol' Pascal's Wager (which I suggest you look up if you are not familiar with it, since your proposition is a practically clone of it). I'll explain to you why it's an invalid question to ask though:
First off, which god? If my goal was to avoid punishment after death for not believing, then I obviously want to believe in the right god, now don't I? The problem is, there are hundreds of different deities (and over thousands that have came in went in history).
Scyntist in reply to EvangelistEvan (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@EvangelistEvan Cont.) If you want to argue that it is better to believe than not to believe for safety reasons, then you are in the same boat as me in terms of probability/chance; you could very well be worshiping/believing the wrong god. Your chances of believing the right god just suddenly became just as probable (if not less) than winning a $1 million state raffle.
Welcome to the Divine Lottery! :)
Another thing--by implying that it is better to just believe for the sake of avoiding
Scyntist in reply to EvangelistEvan (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@EvangelistEvan Cont.) punishment, you are then implying that this god (or gods) would be so stupid enough to not see through your clique--that you are only "believing" to avoid punishment. You also assume that belief in a voluntary action. It isn't. Try as I might, I cannot convince myself the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real any more than a god unless I was presented (or discovered) new information to affect my thoughts on it. You're treating belief as if it were a choice when it clearly isn't
Scyntist in reply to EvangelistEvan (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@EvangelistEvan Atheism is simply a lack of belief, not an attempt to prove something does not exist. Conveniently, no God(s) can be proven or disproven, so what's the point in trying?
lampard554 in reply to EvangelistEvan (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@lampard554 So do you admit to me that God may exist? Yes or No?
And do you believe life may exist somewhere in the universe besides Earth? Yes or No?
EvangelistEvan in reply to lampard554 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@EvangelistEvan Lol i think i accidentally replied to myself there... check the video for my reply.
lampard554 in reply to EvangelistEvan (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@lampard554 Yes of course I do. I'm open to the concept of a God, a creator, a cause of the universe - whatever you want to call it. I'm open to God as a theory, but I openly despise religion.
And yes, I firmly believe in other forms of life in the universe. I think it would be arrogant stupidity to assume we are the only life forms in a universe which makes us look, by comparison, like bacteria.
lampard554 in reply to lampard554 (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You stated that you are 100% sure God does not exist. So onto my next question:
Are you 100% sure no life exists anywhere in the entire universe besides Earth? Yes or No?
If no, then how can you count out a God living somewhere in the universe?
EvangelistEvan 3 weeks ago
Hats off to you bro...fckn awesome! please don't go away and keep tearing the superstitious apart. Great video.
eldave4048 3 weeks ago
This guy is a genius, I've never heard such sophisticated logical points before, just stunned me; forget Richard Dawkins, etc this guy will make all of them obselete LOL!!!!! Anyone that feels the need to actually film and post such BS often clearly has issues. Is he deep down happy and fulfilled in life??? Me thinketh not though in denial so he certainly won't admit that. Pretty sad actually but you get them. Oh he'll call you troll if you don't think he is just brilliant and so intellectual.
CloudsBeyond 3 weeks ago
you're not very bright. look up "The God Part of The Brain" and also do some research on religious origins. its far to easy to attack modern Christianity and the other religions of today. but where they stem from, is quite a bit different.
DecentralizedByGuilt 3 weeks ago
@DecentralizedByGuilt
Well, the so-called "god part of the brain," aside from being highly dubious, doesn't actually establish the truth of any religion even if it existed. There's a part of your brain responsible for fantasizing, yet no one would seriously argue that therefore fantasies must be real, so why would an alleged "god part of the brain" justify a leap to the conclusion that god must be real?
FlyoviaUSA in reply to DecentralizedByGuilt (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@FlyoviaUSA You'r reading into something that was never said, or thought. The area in the brain that causes people to have beliefs in a soul/spirit, afterlife, part of a whole, a continuation, etc has been located. and with repeatable test one can experience the feelings/thoughts. much like deep meditation, or using the old religious ways of using entheogens. What this does is prove god is not real, or anything else spiritual related, that it comes from an area of our brain.
DecentralizedByGuilt in reply to FlyoviaUSA (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@FlyoviaUSA We evolved the area so we could evolve as a species. and not be over stricken with grief, fear of death, afraid to take risk, and so. What this means it's is perfectly natural to have such beliefs. it does not mean the beliefs are true. That is silly.
DecentralizedByGuilt in reply to FlyoviaUSA (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
creationism, or intelligent design, is no different. a creator is, by default, intelligent. yet, being the only "thing" (consciousness) in existence, where does it get experience? data? how could it utter "I am" when "I" is meant to distinguish something from something else (in this case, the self), and "am" represents a state of being as opposed to "am not", which implies it knows everything that it isn't? the basis of this intelligent being is non-existent. patterns cannot exist if only I do.
jeromyrutter 1 month ago
such as consciousness, experience, memory, manipulation of those experiences/memories ....wherever they are stored. Everything man has ever written or thought, concerning a deity, is based on what man thinks he knows of himself...ourselves...in hyperbolic form. god knows all (therefore, cannot believe). it exists everywhere (it must be every atom in existence). immortal (it cannot die, doesn't know how) no argument they can create using omni-anything can logically make sense...
jeromyrutter 1 month ago
In this argument (and you see this even in scientists trying to be objective), it is ASSUMED that, at one point in the distant past, nothingness existed. there was no quantum, no table of elements to evolve, no photons, electrons, or anything, just an endless void. then POOF! everything burst to life from nowhere. and yet, eternity/infinity go both directions in our "time arrow". BUT, "there was a consciousness." consciousness is a process, it isn't a THING. Intelligence is dependent on concepts
jeromyrutter 1 month ago
the greatest problem I see with creationists is their arguments are constructed backwards. the conclusion "god did it" is assumed to exist BEFORE they construct the premises. This is a very subjective way of debating what is, otherwise, an objective form of human thought: science. They WANT god to exist, and will stop at nothing to prove a desire. to me, some science IS up for debate. these are things that we cannot prove today, IE the big bang, predicated on Aristotle and Aquinas' metaphysics.
jeromyrutter 1 month ago
I'VE ALWAYS KEPT UP WITH THEORETICALBULLSHIT'S VIDEO'S-THIS GUY IS THE REAL DEAL,LISTEN WELL PEOPLE YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING FROM HIS VOCAL CAPACITY.
jadm7777777 1 month ago 11
I see no dick here.
15hmael 1 month ago
I love this:
"... that you begin to operate under the assumption that the very next question, the very next objection that pops into your head is a product of your biological illiteracy which has been the case 100% of the time so far, and not some piece of brilliance mysteriously overlooked by everyone in acadamia for the last two centuries."
This should be the stock answer for every creationist question.
TheTexanCanadian 1 month ago
You are a paragon of rationality.
GenoTheMailler 2 months ago
I watched his answer to this. It shouldn't be a surprise but, his lack of knowledge is not only about Evolution but also about the scientific method. Explaining Evolution to him wasn't enough, you would have needed to explain to him how science in general works too...
flueedo 2 months ago
TheoreticalBullshit, I don't think Nick even used the compositional fallacy correctly, he probably misunderstood that one as well...the real compositional fallacy would be if incremental series of small changes simply leads to an overall small change, that is by attributing the quality of the parts (incrimental series of small changes) to the whole (overall small change).
philonous09 2 months ago
Haha, this is so true. Everytime I discuss evolution with anyone who objects to it often asks questions with a wrogn bias. You often hear arguements such as these in the video, and I have yet seen any relevant questions or arguements that would even take a small bite of evolution.
Keep the good work going!
RawSwedishMeatball 2 months ago
@Gastrophetes he plays Liam on The Bold and the Beautiful...a soap
mftwmc 2 months ago
Comment removed
mftwmc 2 months ago
Wish ur character on b&b had a brain too! So smart!
mftwmc 2 months ago 10
@mftwmc
b&b?
Gastrophetes in reply to mftwmc (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@mftwmc 2nd reference to "b&b" I've seen.. what is b&b?
xESOTERlC in reply to mftwmc (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@mftwmc
wow I've watched this guy's youtube videos for years and I didn't even know he was on TV! =0
moyga in reply to mftwmc (Show the comment) 1 month ago
r u gay??
bindasbolre 2 months ago
I'm done. You are far too ignorant to have an intelligent discussion with. Maybe when you get out of High School or in your case home school where no doubt your parents did a great job of brainwashing you, you will be able to think for yourself. Good luck with college man.
StigmatiX 3 months ago
you sir are a breath of fresh air, easy to follow, easy on the eyes lol and I'm glad I found your vids xoxo
devilzangel111451 3 months ago
You bring idiocy to a whole new level.
jeffandjoesports 3 months ago
@jeffandjoesports LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED FOR THAT CLAIM! WOW, I'M BLOWN AWAY.
Dillingerman1 in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@Dillingerman1
ok, you want a debate.
What was before the big bang, where are all the missing links (genetics) and how do you know there isn't a God? (for starters)
jeffandjoesports in reply to Dillingerman1 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@jeffandjoesports We aren't sure, that's the beauty in it. Missing links have been found, stop using that ancient argument that doesn't apply in today's world. How do we know there isn't a God? How do you know Zeus or Thor don't exist? What about leprechauns or the tooth ferry? Maybe if you would partake in some critical thinking once in your life you wouldn't be so ignorant.
StigmatiX in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@StigmatiX
If you don't know, that makes you an agnostic.
Name some. We shouldn't have to be searching all over creation for them, there should be thousands.
No, you completely avoided the question. The credibility of Zeus and thor just aren't there compared to GOD. I asked you how you know that A CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T EXIST.
jeffandjoesports in reply to StigmatiX (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@jeffandjoesports I wasn't the one you asked any question btw. And no, I'm 100% an atheist. I have zero belief in the supernatural.
StigmatiX in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@StigmatiX
IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU ARE AN AGNOSTIC WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!! its not rocket science!
REALLY. Tell me then whether or not a cause without effect is supernatural.
jeffandjoesports in reply to StigmatiX (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@jeffandjoesports I'm an atheist. And what "cause" are you talking about? Please, look up the word atheist before you go and spew that shit around. Thanks.
StigmatiX in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@StigmatiX
You are really acting like an idiot.
If you don't know everything, you cannot know or prove there isn't a God.
An atheist is a guy who claims to have no religion. I know.
WOW LET ME THINK.... Duh! This whole universe is supposed to be (if a God doesn't exist) a cause without an effect! Isn't it?
*sigh* just plain stupid, bro.
jeffandjoesports in reply to StigmatiX (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@jeffandjoesports "An atheist is a guy who claims to have no religion"
this is false. atheists are against theism, not religion. theism is not the same as religion. lots of people are theists but don't consider themselves religious. full knowledge of the universe is not required to make a supposition towards the existence of god. the information available leads me to believe that no god exists. as a scientist i will continue to test my theories and recognize that everything is subject to change.
leftocastpunx83 in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@jeffandjoesports
"If you don't know, that makes you an agnostic "
True, but an agnostic what? Agnostic theist or atheist? You can be both since agnosticism is NOT A BELIEF POSITION. Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether you believe in God, but whether you consider your belief (or lack thereof) backed by actual knowledge. Anyone capable of rational thought is an agnostic, since we objectively don't know whether God exists, if they believe he does they are agnostic theists. Look it up.
OddityDK in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@OddityDK
I think all atheists are agnostic. They don't believe in God, and they believe that we can't prove their position. lol.
No but really, how on earth can you be an agnostic theist? Either you
(1) Believe in God (Creator)
(2) Believe that God doesn't exist
(3) Believe that we can't truly know.
jeffandjoesports in reply to OddityDK (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@jeffandjoesports
Again agnosticism has nothing to do with what you believe in. That's theism/atheism. Agnosticism deals with knowledge not belief, and it doesn't have to be knowledge about a God, I'm also agnostic about the existence of pink elephants.
I don't believe in God but that doesn't mean I KNOW he doesn't exist. Likewise many theists are agnostic, belief in God without actual knowledge to base it on. (hence the word "faith").
Look it up. It's a common misunderstanding.
OddityDK in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@OddityDK
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
That is just the way it is.
If you don't know that He exists, why do you act like He doesn't, and why do you believe that He doesn't?
jeffandjoesports in reply to OddityDK (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@jeffandjoesports I'd like to add to this discussion on agnosticism. agnosticism recognizes that we can't really know whether or not god exists or that not enough evidence exists to say one way or another. so an agnostic is not both theist and atheist but neither! personally i think agnosticism is a cop out. its one thing to recognize that there is still more knowledge to be discovered but it's not like this is a brand new topic. there is lots of info out there. pick a side.
leftocastpunx83 in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@leftocastpunx83 cont...i am an atheist because the evidence that exists leads me to believe that there is no god. i recognize that in order to get a clearer view of "the origins of life" and those kinds of questions, much more research is needed. even though i cannot answer every question about the origins of life and evolution, the information available to me leads me to believe with absolute certainty that god does not exist.
leftocastpunx83 in reply to leftocastpunx83 (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@jeffandjoesports based on fossil records and what we know about evolution and the big bang, this information leads me to believe that life was not breathed from an all powerful being. there is no evidence to support that we have souls or that a supernatural plane exists. that is how i know. i would ask you the same question but i already know what you will say.
leftocastpunx83 in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@jeffandjoesports there are several missing links, tiktaalik to name one. how many animals die in the wild every day? hundreds in just a small area. where are their fossils? no where because the planet consumes them w/o a trace. that is why we don't have fossil records. mostly the fossil records we have are from mass extinctions where the earth could not recycle the bodies fast enough. if you're looking for more genetic markers, scientists have discovered that one of our
leftocastpunx83 in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@leftocastpunx83 cont...chromosome pairs has fused which is why we have one fewer pair of chromosomes than chimps. the info is out there you just have to look for it. don't beg youtubers to present it it to you or else it must not exist. take responsibility and seek out the info for yourself, it's much more rewarding that way.
leftocastpunx83 in reply to leftocastpunx83 (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@leftocastpunx83
Oh. Did you know that I used to have a giant pink elephant? It only appeared at night, and only to me. It died, and its fossils decayed without a trace, so we couldn't ever prove its existence. BUT IT DID EXIST! Now, do you believe me? Then why should I believe you?
And you are wrong, it takes a long time for bones to completely decay.
jeffandjoesports in reply to leftocastpunx83 (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@jeffandjoesports I like how you took my entire post, which was both respectful and fact based, and tried to strike it down with stupid religious anecdotes. there are plenty of fossil records to support evolution, but no fossils to support the existence of god. and personally, i don't care if i am ultimately able to convince you but i would encourage you to expand your knowledge pool. clearly you are only familiar with the cliche "how to defeat an atheist" arguments.
leftocastpunx83 in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@leftocastpunx83
Yeah, it made so much sense! Basically you said that all the missing links died out, and all the fossils disappeared! That is like me saying that my God has died, and there is no reason for you to look for him, because he doesn't exist. Makes no sense.
Wow. What an ignorant and generalizing statement of foolishness.
No, the fossil record does not support atheists. You said it yourself, when you mentioned that all the fossils for missing links (your evidence) is gone!
jeffandjoesports in reply to leftocastpunx83 (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@jeffandjoesports please try to learn some critical reading skills. you are misrepresenting everything i say. no, we don't have a fossil for every single animal that has ever lived. that does not refute their existence, it only means that our understanding of them is incomplete until more evidence is found. do not marginalize things simply because you don't understand them. you have not brought any evidence for anything to the table, just spewing your rhetoric.
leftocastpunx83 in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@jeffandjoesports "the fossil record does not support atheists"
Implying you need too, oh fuck it, i cba.
MitchofSmeg in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 1 month ago
@jeffandjoesports cont...try reading some real science, not the diluted stuff you learn in church or from your parents. clearly your parents have home schooled you so they could carefully control your brainwashing. and i didn't say that's how long it takes for bones to decay, i said the earth consumes them, meaning combination of decay and consumption.
leftocastpunx83 in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 2 months ago
@jeffandjoesports can you answer those questions yourself? of course you can, the good book says so and we all know the bible is infallible so w/e it says must be true and we should believe it in spite of evidence to the contrary. i'm glad you think that your attitude and your disrespect is winning souls for the lord. you are the pinnacle of "christ like".
leftocastpunx83 in reply to jeffandjoesports (Show the comment) 2 months ago
Modern elephants have gone through an observable ( in a relative short time - 300+ years) change due to human hunting of Ivory. We see now in modern populations that elephants born tend to have shorter tusks, not because they are defending themselves from hunters but because elephants that had shorter tusks survived and bred...therefor passing on the gene for shorter tusks.
Antimidation 3 months ago
@Antimidation The santa catalina island rattlesnake in a much shorter period of time has evolved to not have a rattle because it has been secluded on an island void of large predators and therefore has no need for a rattle. in fact, it would actually be harmful to them because the rattle would make too much noise while it hunted and chase off it's prey. so not only does it no longer have a need for the rattle, but it's actually a disadvantage to have one. good post!
leftocastpunx83 in reply to Antimidation (Show the comment) 2 months ago
You are my fucking hero. I sincerely hope to be able to be as well spoken and well read as you some day.
HorrorshowMusic 3 months ago
Nick sounds like an ignorant egotistical douche.
TheBiAtheist 3 months ago
My name is Nick and this video freaked me out.
Crzywhiteboy182 3 months ago
Nailed it
MrThatjim 3 months ago
I have never seen someone torn to pieces with such eloquence in my life, bravo!
RedBooster 3 months ago
so it ok to kill the animal ,,,,beautiful...am up for that so terrorist is not a bad thing...its just like killing a cow are a chicken for my burger.......AWESON
archorn100 4 months ago
how studip can we be gosh.....man are monkey and we are an animal
archorn100 4 months ago
@archorn100 "man are monkey".. wrong, we share a common ancestor with the Great Apes (Gorilla, Bonobo, Chimp and Orangutan) not monkeys.
DocStrange0123 in reply to archorn100 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@DocStrange0123 You're not gonna like this & will start screaming "WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!! COMMON ASCESTOR!!! APE NOT MONKEY AHHH!!!"
But, despite what you believe, not only have we descended from monkeys, but we are in fact monkeys still ourselves. This has been the scientific definition of humans for over a decade & unfortunately Atheists which have been repeatedly parroting this phraze are gonna have to swallow their pride and accept that they were the ones that were wrong. =/
MrLittletomdj in reply to DocStrange0123 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Is not what I believe, is what after looking the evidence and learning what science says I happen to be quite convinced and agree that all evidence point in that direction. We descend from a common acestor of the biological family of apes, get your facts straight. We are primates. You haven't give anything to prove your claim, science on the other hand proves mine so go read and maybe learn something, do it and then come back and we'll talk.
DocStrange0123 in reply to MrLittletomdj (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@DocStrange0123 Teehee, sorry I was bating you a little there. I knew it would piss you off royally, but I do have it on good authority. So chillax a little & watch this vid. I know you have no reason to respect my oppinion, but if you're an Atheist (I'm assuming you're an Athiest (sorry)) worth your salt, you will have heard of the guy who posted this vid & respect him. It stung a little when I watched it too.
watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8&context=C2626cADOEgsToPDskK8eAoyvlgkWJ6hLUkNqBHH
MrLittletomdj in reply to DocStrange0123 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
5:16 to 6:10... Spot On. Your vids kick ass.
MrLittletomdj 4 months ago
If we're just natural materials why did we get so far off, start talking about religions, gods & things that don't exist? From evolutionary stand point, why didn't we just focus on natural material & how to improve it (better water, food, buildings, etc) Why are first writings of spiritual things, infused w/religion & myths? Why did natural materials come up w/spiritual "myths." Makes no sense thinking we evolved to state we're at, then came up w/religion, gods & things that don't exist.
CrimsonRunnerToJesus 4 months ago
There is good evidence for speciation? Last I heard, fruit flies, which are the most promising organism to show speciation has yielded exactly nothing on the subject.
DoesNotApply 4 months ago
@DoesNotApply
articles.cnn DOTCOM /2000-01-28/nature/fruit.flies.enn_1_invasive-species-spread-of-exotic-species-fruitfly?_s=PM:NATURE
maxergud in reply to DoesNotApply (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@DoesNotApply Not just fruit flies. Salamanders in california, earthworms, the european blackcap and galapagos finches are just a few examples. And bacteria like e-coli in laboratories. :)
omgwtfbbqxD in reply to DoesNotApply (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@omgwtfbbqxD You're pointing out adaptation. Not speciation.
DoesNotApply in reply to omgwtfbbqxD (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@DoesNotApply Yes and no. Speciation is just a lot of adaption. It's the same thing.
omgwtfbbqxD in reply to DoesNotApply (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@omgwtfbbqxD There is no evidence for that. Hence my original point.
DoesNotApply in reply to omgwtfbbqxD (Show the comment) 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DoesNotApply
« has yielded exactly nothing on the subject »
You heard wrong. Even in fruit flies, speciation was directly observed under experimental conditions, as far back as 1971. Some examples:
Dobzhansky et al, 1971, An experimentally created incipient species...
Stanley, 1979, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process...
Martino et al, 2006, Speciation by polyploidy...
Scannell et al, 2006, Multiple rounds of speciation...
MrGralgrathor in reply to DoesNotApply (Show the comment) 3 months ago
im so glad you did this one, npages video was frustrating to watch and although you admit to being a dick in this one, i think you let him off easy.
the man is deluded.
WILLYUMZZZ 4 months ago
YES.... dudemanbro, im not guna debate dumbasses anymore ima just point em to you. its nice to see someone that knows wats going on. Solid
tralalalumpeedoo 4 months ago
Throw a bunch of pennies into the air. Remove any that lands tails. That is a selective pressure.
If those pennies could have sex and make more pennies to flip you would have natural selection.
If some of those pennies started having two heads you would have evolution.
If those pennies started to think and choose to deny the coin toss, you would have a creationist.
aphoxema 5 months ago 2
@aphoxema But... Pennies can't have mutations... It's a false analogy.
Ronnocerman in reply to aphoxema (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@Ronnocerman You're right, it isn't an analogy. It's a demonstration based on inductive logic. An analogy depends on a shared interpretation of an event or device. I'm dictating my results for an abstraction from a popular understanding of probability based on a concept that anyone can test.
aphoxema in reply to Ronnocerman (Show the comment) 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aphoxema Good one
emailpobox666 in reply to aphoxema (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@aphoxema "If some of those pennies started having two heads you would have evolution."
Wrong, that would be mutation.
rencrow in reply to aphoxema (Show the comment) 1 month ago
@rencrow
mutation is part of evolution.
having two tails would be mutation too, but two heads (and therefor 100% chance of 'survival') + the survival itself = evolution.
by the way : how does "if those pennies started to THINK..." refer to creationists? :D
kamul8 in reply to rencrow (Show the comment) 1 month ago
@kamul8
First of all, what a stupid analogy. Why pennies? Second of all if they really grew two heads, whether it would be considered evolution would be dictated on whether or not the species became a two-headed species, or just a one-headed species with a few odd organisms. I highly doubt having two heads would be ideal for survival so natural selection would kill them and pennies would live on with only one head.At the end of the day, the penny species, having only one head, has not evolved
chimpbottle in reply to kamul8 (Show the comment) 1 month ago
@chimpbottle
LMAO!!!!!!!!!! I don't know WHAT you're responding to but I think if I read it I would fucking die. Ahahahahaha oh man...this is perfect.
MrOmniblast in reply to chimpbottle (Show the comment) 4 weeks ago
Raaa! Fuck yeah. Subbed.
saurocrat 5 months ago
This is one of the biggest problems with Creationists - that they just don't know what the hell they are talking about.
cmadison93 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL. Atheism is the 'cry baby' of all beliefs. Here you have a group of people who believe something does not exist, then go form support groups and make videos to talk about how non-existent the thing is. "The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability." - Voltaire.
johhnycarlos 5 months ago
@johhnycarlos (1) That is absolute bullshit and (2) you don't even know the definition of what an atheist is. (3) You are obviously one of the fools who believe in the "invisible sky daddy" and feel threatened by anyone smart enough NOT TO! How pathetic is that!
xusmcguy in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@xusmcguy Atheism - noun - the belief that God does not exist. Copyright 2010 Oxford University Press.
Is that official enough? Read up on Romans 1:21,22.
1 Corinthians 4:10 - We are fools for Christ's sake... (thanks for the compliment)
johhnycarlos in reply to xusmcguy (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos At least the 2010 issue of it is right...to the extent that it does contain the correct definition, but it leaves out the other descriptions that can cause one to be labelled as an "atheist." Let me try to explain it so you can understand.
atheism = a- (not; without) + theism (belief in the existence of a deity)
I'll leave it up to you to put "2 and 2" together.
Scyntist in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@Scyntist Apologies, but you are wrong. From the Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god. And if you want to define atheism, I would prefer to use ubiased sources, like...dictionaries. Funny how those things are useful like that.
johhnycarlos in reply to Scyntist (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johhnycarlos You're confusing the origin of the word from the present day meaning, sir. While our English language does borrow similar means and similar structures from a number of languages, they are not always exact. The difference in language should obviously be a big hint, but you seem to overlook that.
"And if you want to define atheism, I would prefer to use ubiased sources, like...dictionaries."
Did I say that Oxford had it wrong though? No. It's definition is correct
Scyntist in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos Cont.) BUT it lacks the other descriptions that can place one to be as an atheist. Again, you are appealing to authority and when I challenge you on it, you are doing nothing more but implying "it's in a dictionary, so it must be true."
I invite you to pull up "atheism" on Google and see how many other resulting dictionary sites include similar descriptions to the ones I've presented. If you're reasonable to research from unbiased sources, then you should also be
Scyntist in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos Cont.) reasonable enough to know that basing your arguments from one source is rather unconvincing and sophomoric. Especially when other sources include descriptions that very much follow the structure of the word "atheism" rather than submitting to the invalid "pop culture" use by theists.
Scyntist in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@Scyntist Find me a definition of atheism that is defined as a "lack of or without a belief in God" and I will show you a definition that is applicable to inanimate objects that are incapable of making intellectual cognitive choices. A baseball as a lack of and is without belief in God. Congrats you have the thought power of a baseball.
johhnycarlos in reply to Scyntist (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos Haha. Funny. Your sophomoric reasoning skills are very entertaining.
Perhaps you fail to realize that baseballs cannot even lack a belief because they simply have no (as you said) intellectual cognitive processes. You've just demonstrated yourself of your flawed logic and then try to assert it as if you triumphantly made a convincing comeback.
Good effort, but you might want to re-think your immature strategy; you aren't kidding anyone but yourself.
Scyntist in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos Cont.) To say a baseball is an atheist just shows how low you are willing to go into trying to assert your definition of atheism as the correct one, while dismissing others as false.
You're comparing apples and oranges, sir, and you're doing a very shitty job at disguising it as otherwise. Maybe you should actually think about your response before you post it for everyone to see. It kinda lowers your credibility and makes it less likely for people to take you
Scyntist in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos Cont.) seriously.
Do not fret, however, for you still have a chance to pick yourself up and try to actually (and honestly) make a reasonable argument instead of resorting to the illogical bullshit you've just presented.
Scyntist in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@Scyntist I enjoyed your refute of my argument against your definition of atheism. Well done.
johhnycarlos in reply to Scyntist (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos Cont.) Having said that, atheism is better described as: 1) A lack of belief in gods 2) A disbelief in gods 3) A belief in no gods.
Notice how the definition from Oxford fits perfectly with the 3rd description, but yet the first two are absent from it. You can appeal to the argument from authority if you wish, but it becomes invalid if you cannot address the challenge made to the authority's own assertions.
I particularly subscribe myself to the 1st and 2nd descriptions.
Scyntist in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos Cont.) If you do not consider those as part of atheism though, then obviously you wouldn't call me an atheist (if you stick with Oxford's definitions). Either way, I still maintain my position of rejecting the idea of God (from the Bible and among others) based on the notion that there is no valid justification that I have come across or has been presented to me to otherwise believe.
Scyntist in reply to johhnycarlos (Show the comment) 3 weeks ago
Fucking amazing
rafalbielec 5 months ago
@mst882 Quite the opposite actually. It is not a mental disorder, it's brain washing, and it starts at the adolesent age mostly. You must critisize creationism just as you would any other scientific theory and if it can stand up against scrutiny then it can be accepted. Although it is quite evident that creationism just can not with stand scrutiny. People just see debating reeligion and creationism as "harsh" or "cruel" because of the taboo that has been placed on it because of the faith issue.
carny426 5 months ago
You may not be a scientist, but as a biologist myself I can say you did a fantastic job of explaining evolution by natural selection. Absolutely brilliant. I doubt most biologists could have provided such an accurate, succinct explanation.
DrLJ745 6 months ago 47
@DrLJ745 That is awesome to know! Thanks so much.
TheoreticalBullshit in reply to DrLJ745 (Show the comment) 6 months ago 15
@TheoreticalBullshit as a random person in an evolutionary psych class, I agree. Also you have a gorgeous face.
umkay101 in reply to TheoreticalBullshit (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@DrLJ745 I know, it's crazy how clear and beautiful and well thought out his explanations and responses are. I have trouble talking to creationists and Christians in this manner, because my emotions and frustrations over power my mind.
bobbycathey in reply to DrLJ745 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
Fucking. Epic.
Futurist2029 6 months ago
My "hunch" (not prepared to call it a theory) is that major evolutionary changes only occur when a population is reaching a localized extinction and starts inbreeding, bringing all of those little recessive mutations to the fore. Then if it can recombine with another population before disappearing altogether, a new species will emerge rapidly.
HitfulVids 6 months ago
@HitfulVids And...how does the population know the localized extinction is coming? Do they get a memo?
meaninter03 in reply to HitfulVids (Show the comment) 6 months ago
Creationists love the smell of their own farts too much to have any kind of rational discourse with them.
The only way they can convert to logic is if the seeds of doubt get sown on their own terms, ie, when something they witness comes into direct conflict with the piety they've been taught to swallow wholesale. The house of cards then starts to fall pretty quickly, primarily through further internal questioning and logical reasoning.
karadan100 6 months ago
Perhaps 'why I don't debate Nick' would be more appropriate :)
Bumblefoot69 6 months ago
@Bumblefoot69 Sadly, all creationists are like that, on YouTube, at least, but I'm laying money down they're not any better outside this esteemed website. Whenever I get in an argument with one, that's exactly what I end up seeing as well.
StrikaAmaru in reply to Bumblefoot69 (Show the comment) 6 months ago
Was Scott calling himself a dick an accident ? South park GO GOD GO episode: "Our answer to the Great Question is the only logical one. Our Science is great. Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins who finally freed the world of religion long ago. Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future, but it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you." SCOTT IS A DICK!! LOL.
dawns4ever 6 months ago
what exactly is a creationist in a brief sentence or two?_?
Maper555 7 months ago
@Maper555
Someone who are of the belief that everything was created by a creator.
is1337Correct in reply to Maper555 (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@is1337Correct a littel more descriptive please :) dont right me novel unless you have to x.x.. :D
Maper555 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@Maper555
That is basically what they are, what they do is trying to replace evolution with creationism, or atleast put it on equal terms. They make pseudo-science to make it look like creationism is correct and evolution is wrong. They make up strawmen arguments to make it look like evolution is a joke.
is1337Correct in reply to Maper555 (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@is1337Correct ya i get that they dont know shit about what they are talking about and how there arguments just flat out fail but they believe in a creator? exactly what creator? just any creator or in a specific one like a god
Maper555 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@Maper555
They base their belief in something that is, by the very definition, a logical impossibility and have to come up with arguments just to make it possible for such to exist. Their assumptions are just as baseless and mostly logical fallacies...
is1337Correct in reply to Maper555 (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@is1337Correct im 15 (in 6 days) and im going into 10th grade...x) i try to understand it and usually i can piece it together with future information like theoreticalbullshit makes videos using huge ass words and eventually i can sum it up slightly x)
Maper555 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@is1337Correct- I have only one problem with evolution and that is how did something come from nothing? If we go back far enough in time I believe you come to a point of nothingness.... and then something came from it. So what was the prime mover? To say something was simply "always there" sounds just as ridiculous as any religious philosophy to me.
tigerkwon48 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@tigerkwon48
You assume that:
- the default state is "nothing" but it may as well be "something".
- there is nothing called eternity.
- life began when the universe "began".
Evolution does not tell "how life BEGAN", it tells "how life LIVES and change"; the word you are looking for is abiogenesis and it has been demonstrated that the building blocks of life can happen naturally, we have yet to see life begin from those blocks, but give it a few years.
is1337Correct in reply to tigerkwon48 (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@is1337Correct- I am free to assume anything I want when there is no definitive answers. Your first three statements are nothing more than your suggested counter assumptions- you have no proof, no knowledge greater than anyone else's. In my comment I was referring to creationism as it relates to evolution; I was not saying that evolution does not occur within species. When it comes to the beginning of all time and space evolution and creationism are on equal footing; this is my point.
tigerkwon48 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@tigerkwon48
You base your assumption on nothing but a desire for something more powerful than yourself, a creator. I base my assumption on logic and reasoning. No, because evolution is not about the STARTING POINT of life, you are looking at the word ABIOGENESIS...
You can assume as much as you want but going against logic is stupid: Can god create a object so big that he can't life it? Either way he is not all mighty...
Scientists disagree with you... They are NOT equal...
is1337Correct in reply to tigerkwon48 (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@is1337Correct- I am not talking about abiogenesis- look on another page of your text book- I am talking about the cosmological argument. You assume that materials always existed for things to evolve from I say I DON'T KNOW what started everything. You say you use logic but all you have is the same arrogance as the religious creationists. You think you know what stared everything? You think science explains everything? All you have is theoretical bullshit. I am agnostic- NO ONE KNOWS.
tigerkwon48 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@tigerkwon48
Evolution and nothing to do with the starting point; evolution explain how life change, not how it began which is how you were using it.
I never claimed to know how everything started (assuming there even WAS a starting point)... I stated you ASSUMED something to MAKE ROOM for a creator...
What you have done is making assumptions which makes room for a creator while trying to invalidate evolution yet not understanding what evolution REALLY is...
is1337Correct in reply to tigerkwon48 (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@is1337Correct - This is a quote from you "That is basically what they are, what they do is trying to replace evolution with creationism, or at least put it on equal terms." In this quote YOU speak of evolution as it relates to creation. I agree that evolution as a process has nothing to do with creationism but then why are you arguing that "they" are trying to "put it on equal terms"? Every scientist worth anything on this planet says there is room for a creator ... they just ask for evidence.
tigerkwon48 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@tigerkwon48
If you could understand the difference in the two situations... What you were saying is "...one problem with evolution and that is how did something come from nothing?" which is about how life began, not how it change... What I stated was not about the beginning but how life changed vs "what we see is how they were created, not evolved"... Big difference, but obviously you can't see it...
No biology scientist claims that animals were created in their current forms...
is1337Correct in reply to tigerkwon48 (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@isntCorrect- I stated I have no problem with the idea that evolution occurs within species but that I am at a loss to find a starting point for the process to have begun. This is the cosmological argument. How can something evolve from nothing is going one step back from evolution- a step I should have taken with you due to the fact that it has perplexed you. I never said anything about any biologist claiming animals were created in their current form; I don't know why you made this statement.
tigerkwon48 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@tigerkwon48
Yet again, they did not evolve from nothing... They started out as basic components that was, by nature, brought together, made life, life spread, evolved in different directions AKA species.
You claimed that scientists are open to the idea of creationism, in the argument of evolution, which is about species being created in their current form, which is a lie, they DON'T...
Before life there was nothing but materials and before that, if there was a before, who knows...
is1337Correct in reply to tigerkwon48 (Show the comment) 7 months ago
@is1337Correct - Who knows is my point exactly so stop thinking science is God and explains all. When you say a creator is an impossibility it is the same as when religious nuts say that a creator is an absolute. WE DON'T KNOW. So stop pretending to know how life began or how all the aspects of life developed and just be honest and say there are a multitude of possibilities and that we simply don't know for certain. Honesty really should not be so difficult. What is the first cause - UNKNOWN.
tigerkwon48 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@tigerkwon48
Why do you state the obvious? We know not how life began on Earth, we have an idea how it did, we have research that explain part of it, we know how part of it developed, and we know of some of the possibilities that is possible and what is not...
What you don't get, and where the problem arise, is when people, like you, try to make room for possibilities by misusing words and discredit what is known for just that.
Really should not be that hard to get, even for you...
is1337Correct in reply to tigerkwon48 (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@inCorrect "You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junkyard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance in, any kind of primeval soup in five or six hundred million years. It's just not possible" Francis Crick - "There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding." Richard Dawkins. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein. You know nothing.
tigerkwon48 in reply to is1337Correct (Show the comment) 6 months ago
@tigerkwon48
1. There is about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, now multiply that number by 5 (planets) and you have the number of planets where live could have begun...
2. He talks about something that MAY be beyond the universe, not about a god (which is a logical impossibility)
3. Without imagination there is no creativity which would lead to new ways to think and that to new knowledge.
You know nothing.
is1337Correct in reply to tigerkwon48 (Show the comment) 6 months ago