How to debate creationists

[CommonSensein2012]

ZZZZZzzzzzzzz......

[Atheismisthetruth]

Great video, only one snag... Most of those creationists are Calvinists & think Catholics are Pagans

[TruthinessDotCom]

It IS scientifically possible to disprove God.

Science today is a religion itself. Based on patchwork explanations linking facts into a framework that supports an 'accepted' theory with a religious-like following. You don't have to "prove" there is no God. Just prove your science! Isn't that what makes it a science? After all. If you prove your right,you prove there is no God. If Bigbang is a SCIENCE and not a belief system,arguing against another belief system you might get somewhere.

[GronTheMighty]

that last part about all the gods disproving eachother blew my mind.. iz' true, it must be.. its circular so it can't fail.. mwahaaa, we'll take over 'zhe world! ^^

[z0z0bra]

this video is funny and sad at the same time. but someone just had to do something like this. just shows how stupid it is to debate serious about creationism.

[smitty0521]

Thank you for the references. I was being a little lazy, but you seem pretty quick with your sources, so I thought that you could save me some time.

I'm sure that I have heard and forgotten a good deal about ERVs. It has been several years since my last genetics class.

[DrSim0nSayz]

CDK007 has a couple of videos on ERVs, you might want to check them out as well, he usually link his reference material in the description box for further investigation.

[smitty0521]

thanks. I have been busy but will check them out soon.

[smitty0521]

I am a biologist (as you likely now know). I would explain most types of homology as follows. Lots of animals have things in common (certain genes, body structures, even ERVs I suppose). These can be explained by common ancestry or by design for a common purpose by a common designer. I think that both explanations are plausible. Knowing which explanation fit best would depend upon the specifics. Either way, I would expect similar animals who used to live in similar places to have similar ERVs.

[DrSim0nSayz]

How can you claim to be a biologist and say something like "I would expect similar animals who used to live in similar places to have similar ERV" that is something only an uneducated person would say. The chance that you and me would incorporate an ERV in the exact same place is at least 1 in a million, the fact that you and me share a lot of these is clear evidence for common ancestry, the fact that chimps also share it with us is undeniable proof of common ancestry. Did you study at libertyU?

[smitty0521]

I said that I would expect them to have similar endogenous viruses. I did not say that I would expect them to be in the exact same place.

I recommend you read more carefully before you start throwing out insults.

I got my degrees from Murray State University and the University of Louisville School of Medicine.

What is your source for saying that chimps and humans have a lot of ERVs in the exact same places.

You may be more interested in protecting your ego, but I want to learn and share.

[DrSim0nSayz]

I'll try to be more civil.

A simple Pub med search "ERVs between humans and chimps" perhaps.

Humans and chimps share at least 16 ERVs in our genomes in the exact location, the exact b.p..

We even share ERVs with mice in the exact location.

It is common knowledge for biologists, or it is supposed to be.

[DrSim0nSayz]

Barbulescu, M., G. Turner, M.I. Seaman, A.S. Deinard, K.K. Kidd, and J. Lenz. 1999. Many human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) proviruses are unique to humans. Curr Biol 9: 861-868.

Barbulescu, M., G. Turner, M. Su, R. Kim, M.I. Jensen-Seaman, A.S. Deinard, K.K. Kidd, and J. Lenz. 2001. A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans. Curr Biol 11: 779-783.

you could also search pub med for Löwer R. to get a bunch of get a bunch of review articles on HERVs

[smitty0521]

I am a scientist and a theist. I don't believe the evidence for evolution based upon the faultiness of the evidence not just because it goes against what Genesis says. I do wear a lab coat and I believe that science is very useful at finding facts. However, it has been my experience that all facts that "point to evolution" require some interpretation in order for them to do so. Therefore, the facts themselves do not prove evolution.

[DrSim0nSayz]

Most scientists are theist, I am an exception. Most theists accept evolution, only creationists don't.

How do you explain ERVs and gene homology if not through evolution for example?

Are you a biologist?

[KakashiHatake212]

HAHA! you're awesome :] Love this vid.

[rdccdr801]

This really does use their own reasoning against them. This is exactly the creationist's rational for having intelligent design in schools.

[hyoidbone54]

Oh, now I see. I tried to help him out though. We'll see.

[hyoidbone54]

a01011399 never came back? Dang. Now I'll go check out his deal. see ya Dr.

[xBuscopanx]

when I read the title I thought "well, there isn`t really anything to debate about"

But this vid is so good! ^^

[DrSim0nSayz]

Thanks.

And yes, there is nothing to debate.

[THEREIZNOGOD]

it's just hard to get them to think

[LotusGreenX]

"it's just hard to get them to think"

Well the more intellectually honest ones ignore the evidence and trust God and the dishonest ones pretend to be intellectual and debate the issue.

What got me out of the creationists umbrella of safety was when I learned how lowsy and dishonest most of the arguments are against evolution.

[THEREIZNOGOD]

how could one be intellectually honest, yet ignore evidence and trust what one doesn't know to be true?

[LotusGreenX]

"how could one be intellectually honest, yet ignore evidence and trust what one doesn't know to be true?"

Not me. Once I doubt and investigate things I cannot fall back on what I want to be true. I was a creationists once, but I could not tell myself to just make up bs implications as if God created the world in order to deceive scientists.

[THEREIZNOGOD]

i see

[THEREIZNOGOD]

lol, creationists are never hard to debate...

[LithodidMan]

Awesome video, fav'd!

[thebigredduck666]

Let them deal with logical fallacies for awhile, haha

[a01011399]

creationists do not deny facts

[Minttzz]

"creationists do not deny facts"

Hahah haah hhaah hah hohahahah hoha haho haho ho Hhohho HO HOH HO HO HAHA HEE oho Ha no. What? Oh no ... you're serious!

ROFL LMFAO LOFR.

[a01011399]

show me one fact that creationists deny

[Minttzz]

"show me one fact that creationists deny "

What for? So that you can deny it?

The Earth is over 6000 yrs old - FACT.

Q:Do creationists deny it?

A:Yes YEC deny that the Earth is more than 6-10 thousand years old.

[a01011399]

the idea of an olde earth is not a fact is a conclution, or the resoult of interpreting several facts

[Minttzz]

"the idea of an olde earth is not a fact is a conclution, or the resoult of interpreting several facts"

Yep denial of evidence from radiometric dating, ice-cores, fossilized coral reefs, tree-rings, plate techtonics, limestone formations, geo-magnetic pole reversal, arcaeology, pacific island formation, .. the list goes on.

Okay, we'll play your game. What geological evidence of leads to any other conclusion?

[a01011399]

you are not getting it, we don´t deny the facts, For example we don´t deny the fact that isotopes decay, we simple interpret the evidence in a different way, evolutionists try to erase the line between fact and interpretation.

[carat]

you are a stubborn one aren't ya?I bet you are one of those guys that knows deep down creationism is bullshit but.....stubborn

[Minttzz]

"For example we don´t deny the fact that isotopes decay, we simple interpret the evidence in a different way"

Explain your interpretation of isotope decay then.

[a01011399]

isototpres decay ¿so what? we don´t know how much of the parent and daughter elemens where there in the begining so, we can not know how much of parent element has decayed

[Minttzz]

"isototpres decay ¿so what? we don´t know how much of the parent and daughter elemens"

Please explain hat you mean in specific terms and how you think this provides a different interpretation of radiometric dating.

[a01011399]

if you find a rock with 1g of daughter element you don´t know how much of it was produced by the decay of the parent element and how much was there since the begining

[Minttzz]

"if you find a rock with 1g of daughter element you don´t know how much of it was produced by the decay of the parent element and how much was there since the begining"

Specific example please.

[Minttzz]

Still waiting for a specific example.

[a01011399]

why are you asking for examples if you won´t reed the source, and nothing will make you change your mind?

(chek yur e-box)

[Minttzz]

"why are you asking for examples if you won´t reed the source, and nothing will make you change your mind?"

You're just making a vague claim and not referring to any specific type of radiometric testing. Give me an example of the type of radiometric testing that you have a problem with. Remember you are the one saying that the interpretation of the people who actually studied them is wrong. You have to explain why in specific terms not just make a vague claim.

[LotusGreenX]

"you are not getting it, we don´t deny the facts"

Oh, I see, you just deny the logical implications of facts. I can play the same game with evidence for Alexander the Great and the holocaust. I can interpret the evidences we have right now, the people who claim to have seen it and have my own conclusion based on non naturalistic assumptions. That is incredibly disengenuous to say.

[hyoidbone54]

You guys are killin' me. Do you realize you are saying these things out loud so people can actually hear you? My God...

[LotusGreenX]

"show me one fact that creationists deny"

ERVs have non random regions but insert randomly within these regions in the genome.

[MikeAZ69]

Haha! Hi father Nick, priceless