The word "Christian" was invented as a term of abuse with which to persecute followers of Yeshua. It derives from the Greek, "Christos", which like its Hebrew associate, "Meshiach" or Messiah, means "The Annointed One", which was evident when Christ came, as one who was able to heal all kinds of diseases and raise the dead. However, there is no "Christian God" any more than there is an "Atheist Universe".
I'm enjoying Bret's videos as a Christian believer. Though I don't agree with his points, it is nonetheless interesting to think his points through with him. What puzzles me though, is his repeated reference to "The Christian God"? As a Christian, I don't believe in a "Christian God", but I do believe in God. Brett's repeated reference to a "Christian God", does not resonate with a Christian whatsoever, because for a Christian believer, there is & can be only one God & not named "Christian"
Creationists seem to think that evolution of humans is like building a car. How did the first car ever built move without any wheels? They don't get that it's like the '56 Chevy with enhancements to the '57 Chevy. Present form of cars always had wheels. Think.... Horse and carriage to model T to '36 Ford and so on. It's not how humans survived without hearts but how the circulatory system became more advanced.
I really do think people like Bob aren't as ignorant as we say they are. I suspect that Bob actually has a better understanding of evolution than he lets on. He and other popular apologists are simply being deliberately dishonest in their criticisms in order to make their positions sound more plausible. I'd bet you anything Bob doesn't actually think scientists are claiming that blood started outside of an animal's veins and had to work their way in. It's simply a lie disguised as a question.
I don't debate Christians for the same reason I don't debate someone who thinks the Moon is made of cheese. The existence of God is unsuitable for debate. It is preposterous in this day and age of science, reason and technology. Believers lack the standing to debate among reasonable people. It is degrading to Atheists. I don't have to prove that something doesn't exist. I refuse to hold on to a Bronze age security blanket and deny myself the rewards of progression. I'm an Atheist. I'm saved.
@000dodo000 Dutko is an evangelist/apologist I sometimes catch on local Denver radio (his show is syndicated nationwide, however). A lot of folks listen to him and believe he's a champion in defending the faith. I wanted to show them they are wrong, "sitting duck" or not. And "thanks"!
Some one needs to orchestrate a meeting to, well, pretty much humiliate the people fighting to prove god's existence against atheists, a scopes monkey trial 2.0!
None of those were proofs FOR god. Just failing attempts to point out contradicting things in science, reason and logic.
Even if every single point of those were right it would only show that there is some contradicting things in science, reason and logic.
And that would mean his tools that he has assessed the proof for his god are flawed and in the essence he has just proved that he knows even less he thinks he knows.
Can that in ID/C-people's logic mean that a non-god exists by default? LOL
It's funny that he uses that deck of cards as an example. If he shuffled and dealt out a deck of cards and kept track of every card. Then tried to repeat this until he got the same order of cards. Would he conclude it's impossible that he dealt out the first deck of cards?
if you hadent have put the be calm and count to ten.....ughhhhh AHHH RAHHH WTF!?!?!?!?!?! he has left me speachless! how did it devolp veins while it was alive.....youv got to be fucking kidding me!??!?!??! AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The odds of a cell forming randomly are calculated based on modern cells, like bacteria or a skin cell … all it shows is that early like could not have been as complex as modern cells.
Biggest mistake is he keeps spouting shit w/o knowing what he's talking about. The next is that he doesn't understand that evolution doesn't mean there are no gods. Ashera or Ra could come down right now (if they were real) and evolution would still be valid. Another problem seems to be that they have some concept of immutability that they can't shake. Reality isn't as simple as you Dutko.
Jesus's existance, death, and resurrection have all been scientifically proven by the Shroud of Turin. However, they have not been scientifically explained.
Seriously? Just how much fail can come from one mouth? How can you even begin to criticize something (say biological evolution) when you don't even have the most basic fundamental understandings? This guy is like a burger flipper (with no medial background) giving advice on how to preform brain surgery, then selling that advice.
*a correction to my comment: Life didn't start when the earth formed; it started about 1 to 2 billion later; or, life started 2.5 to 3 billion years ago.
You just failed because science can't prove that. They can only have a THEORY. And you might say i can't prove anything, but i don't care because i have faith which pretty much beats everything.
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
In science, theory has a different meaning than in everyday common language.
Saying faith beats everything is simply appealing to ignorance. In science, when evidence appears contrary to established ideas, those ideas are examined, tested (or observed), and possibly restructured to account for the new data. This self correcting mechanism is one of the strengths of science. Just because you believe something, does not make that something true.
@123mrskinnyboy "...faith pretty much beats everything?" What exactly does faith "beat"? Does it beat medicine that is life-saving? Surgery? Food for when people are hungry?
Also, no matter how mathematically impossible it is that chance could produce life, we know that life exists (in the material sense of science). Whether anyone can prove it was a random process or not is not the point. The point is that life exists not as an impossibility, or an improbability, but as a reality.
If Bob Dutko says it would take billions of years for chance to create life, then he is agreeing with the time scale scientists propose. 14.5 billion years ago the universe came into being and 10 billion years later, life on earth started. So yes, Bob, it seems that it did take billions and billions of years. As the Bible Skeptic states, chance could have immediately produced life. With a time span of billions of years, immediately could be within a million years, etc. Great post!
Apologies to Brett. I didn't mean to make the discussion about bunny tails. I just can't resist responding to the people that keep responding to my original post. Love your work. I'm done with the bunny. (but I'd still like to hear from AronRa)
@alphanaj13 I'd say you just stumbled on the fundametal difference of ID/Creatonism and science.
ID/C people think that every question ever can be answered with "god", if no easy answer or an already existing answer exist or if it contradicts their "holy" writings.
Sience however, has no ready answers. It is based on observations, that can be then studied, tested and re-created. In other words: you have to actualy use the big think inside your skull we call "brain".
Two, the bible isn't "Holy", it's just a book with instructions that have MUCH meaning.
Three, you just proved yourself wrong with that science thing because there IS "observations" that prove God exist. You just have to find them and have FAITH which is pretty much the same thing ;)
@123mrskinnyboy One, hmm, you seem to be correct, I appologize for that error. English not being my first language and all that...
Two, the bible certainly has some good advices in it as well, however, first and foremost it is a religious scripture, thus making it a "holy" book, just any and all others like it.
Three, personal experiences (that I asume your mean by "observations") do not qualify as eveidence, as they can also "prove" aliens, the flying spagheti monster, unicorns, vampires, etc.
@123mrskinnyboy Further more, I really don't have anything against faith or belief. However, when people try to pass them as things that shape or have any effect in our reality, and then proven flase, but still thrown forward as "scientific proof and evidence", my personal reaction is laugh at these poor people that are so afraid of the beautiful, complex, and even scary world around them that they have to resort to blinding themselves with "faith" in their "god" that just happens to...
@123mrskinnyboy (continnued)...agree with their every personal whim, and use it to fill in their possible miscomfort for not understanding or knowing something.
*heavy breathing*
Sorry to have gone ranting a bit, but I felt I had to get that off my chest, just to point out where I stand on this issue. So again, sorry, and if you read my whole answer, thanks for using the time :)
As for religion? That's a whooole 'nother rant.... ;)
@alphanaj13 yeah y not hav a life and toss out any work 2 investigate how things really are. u obviously hav no life goin 2 atheist channels when u've already decided ur gonna chalk up everythin u don't understand 2 god
Do you think Bob Dutko actually believes this stuff, or is he just telling creationists what they want to hear because he can make money from their gullibility.
There isn't just ONE deck of cards being shuffled. There are trillions of decks being shufled all at the same time. So the odds of getting the right combination are really quite good.
@itsbenjamin You claim to be a "bible believing" Christian. How do you square that claim with John 14:11-14? Jesus said that 'anyone that has faith in me will do as I have been doing" (referencing the miracles). If you can not perform even one of those miracles, Jesus' own words clearly demonstrate that you do not have 'faith' in him and so, cannot be a Christian. Claim to be a xian all you want, your Lord and Savior denies you. Jesus rebukes you. You may cry now, if you wish. Fraud.
@yeshuahfullofit I lov this one! or the one where' if u hav even the faith the size of a mustard seed u could tell the tree 2 pick its roots up and run in2 the ocean & it will obey in the name of the Father.' I've actually been in this lazy wishful-thinking state and tried 2 make a tree move. a flower bend in half, a spoon, like in the matrix :P yet I could do none of these things with complete and utter belief.I challege all christians 2 jump from the roof of a building, hav faith u won't fall
the problem wit this tho, is that 4 every time there might b a way 2 'prove' god by some miracle or manifestation or challenge god in any way, its contradicted by other verses. like 'don't test the lord ur god lest u dash ur foot upon the stone.' etc. u just can't pin him down and get real answers. oh, unless ur havin a near death experience (and most don't understand what the dying brain is actually doing @ the time so they think its out of body) or a dream (which is a REM cycle of memory dump)
@cruelbusiness1984 That is because they have had a very long time to listen to complaints made by unbelievers. They then write new scripture verses, or even whole books, to address those concerns. What you get, is just what you'd expect.... as mishmash of competing positions, statements, and sayings. No mystery.
Im a Bible believing Christian and I can't understand how I used to be so narrow minded like the rest of you. Instead of dismissing everything the Bible says, take all bias opinions you have (science) throw them out the window and study the Bible. Don't let one persons opinion be your own, challenge it by studying it for yourself. Don't get me wrong science is a great thing and we've made so many medical break throughs.
@itsbenjamin So accepting scientific facts based upon testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence is "narrow minded" but rejected evidence based claims in favor of faith based ones is open minded? You have to be stupendously spastic to make that statement. I hope you are a troll or what you said was to highlight how stupid Christians are cause other wise I dont hold out much hope for humanity.
@itsbenjamin Yeah, the consensus opinion of tens of thousands of experts in a field, from all walks of life, from all kinds of differing faiths is "biased", while reading mythology (according to one group's interpretation of it) is open-minded? How backwards is that?
also, its claimed that the chances of other life in the universe is 1 billion to one. Astonomers agree that there is easily over 1 billion stars in the universe ( possibly even our own galaxy). With stars having numerous planets, the chances of other life existing is an easy possibility
I worked out that if someone played our local lotto using the minimum allowable games every week, that it would take 8000 years to statistically win the lotto. But, peole do win. People have been known to win teh first time they ever play. Just because statistics say it "could " take that long, doesnt mean it does.
What's ridiculous is that people like Bob Dutko seriously think that the evolutionary biologists haven't found an explanation for this; he seems to think that us "evolutionists" just accepted the model and then went "oops, we forgot about that bit, ah well, let's continue." He seriously thinks that evolution would be accepted even if there wasn't an explanation, he's worse than dumb.
I can't believe Bob Dutko expects idiots to pay for his "Proofs." For one things, you can get all of these things for free from Ray Comfort. Do these creationists ever think for themselves?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I've got a question, and I posed it to AronRa (the smartest human on Youtube). I had an epiphany the other day when my kids and I spotted a bunny on the canal trail. It was nearly dusk as my son tried to sneak as close to it as he could. Of course the bunny would not let him get to close and would hop away. It was, however very easy to follow the bunny, as it had a bright white bushy tail. Clearly evolution wouldn't have done that. This must be proof of god's existence. NO?
@brettppalmer that the way the tail comes loose saves the bunny's life when it (not the body of the bunny) is attacked- since it is so much brighter that the rest of the bunny? a clear evolutionary advantage.
Better camouflage doesn't always have to be the "best" trait"
My only response to this is it sounds like you are saying bunnies are commie socialist pinkos. I was talking about American bunnies, not some educated European Socialist kinda bunny.
@veggiescrub That's awesome. I would guess there are many different variables to an animals coloring. Are the genetics of the bunny still in transition from a snowy climate? Was it truly necessary for the tail to not be white? Maybe it aides in sexual selection. I have thoughts like yours all the time, I guess that's what makes learning about evolutionary biology so interesting. I do know that just because I don't personally know the answer to something doesn't mean a god did it.
@nett103 No I hadn't heard of god of the gaps - did a yahoo on it and got this on Wiki, 'the phrase is generally derogatory, and is inherently a direct criticism of a tendency to postulate acts of God to explain phenomena for which science has yet to give a satisfactory account." So what your saying is, just because it may not make sense to me, I don't have to attribute it to god? Whew, I can remain a devote Atheist then. Thank you (I still want to know why they have white tails see @doddilus
@veggiescrub I understand your thoughts. There are a lot of things on this planet that I personally do not understand but I expect that there are logical answers for all of them. You just have to do the research, which is the fun part.
@veggiescrub the white tail is visible so predators go for it rather than the head. This is not fatal, and can let it slip away, so it survives and reproduces better. Just a guess based on observation.
@itbevee Hmmm, very possible, though I would think to be able to out maneuver and out run, and then not be seen would be better. I have 2 good responses, but I'm still leaning towards god created them so we'd think they were so damn cute. I think that's why they wiggle their noses, too. I just don't which god did it. Any insights on that one? Oh well I'd better get some sleep.
@veggiescrub yes the bunny may be easy to follow, but not so easy to catch. in-spite of its bushy white tail, the specie still manages to live long enough to reproduce because they have other strategies to escape from predation. The cute bunny is still evidence for evolution, not against it.
@emancoy Yeah but just think of how many more bunnies there could be if they didn't have those cute white tails. They could rule the world. I definitely detect the hand of the FSM in all this. It is just the kind of nonsensical thing s/he would do. Krisna does these kinda things, too, I'm told. Well at least I've got it narrowed down to 2 possible valid explanations, at least until I hear from AronRa.
@veggiescrub If you think evolution is with purposeful direction, you are incorrect. The bunny's survival technique is not its ability to disguise itself or hide, it is the speed it has to evade predators. Evolution favors traits that are favorable for the survivability of a species. While the bunny may be easy to spot, good luck catching it.
@dallased25 Yes, I know evolution doesn't have a plan, what survives survives, but I am still wondering wouldn't have been more advantages to have brown tails. There must be a reason that white tails survived better than bunnies with brown ones. There have been some interesting responses here. It still might have been the FSM, though.
@veggiescrub maybe it would have, but again, evolution is about what is best suited to survive, not about what is the "most evolved". Take Bumble Bees for example. When they sting someone, they die...not very advantageous, yet they thrive due to sheer numbers. Natural selection is the key. If the brown bunnies are better suited to survive, the white bunnies numbers will dwindle and disappear. Clearly this is not the case though with the speed of the bunny, combined with the rapid breeding.
@Loustrikesagain What me trollin? I don't think of it as trollin' so much as bringing levity to the discussion. Though the story of walking with the kids and watching the bunny were true, and my wondering why the bunny would evolve such a trait is true, and I have been given some good answers here, though I am hoping AronRa responds. But you are right, that I never really suspected divine intervention as the true explanation, but it still could be the FSM, NO?
@veggiescrub I'm no expert, but my wildlife teacher in highschool once told me that the majority of animals can't distinguish color, and I'm not sure how well a predator could benefit from peter's cotton tail. Maybe rabbits can see it better than predators, and it might help mates find each other? It's not uncommon to find evolutionary vagaries, traits that don't particularly help, and sometimes possibly hurt the animals, often with origins we don't yet understand. /:
@Loustrikesagain Yes, Humans, Cats, Birds and some Monkeys are some of the few animals that see color, but that only makes the tail stand out more. If all you saw was gray scale the white tail would be very prominent. Birds have colorings for mating reasons that clearly don't help them hide from predators. I'm going to have to write AronRa again.
@veggiescrub : It's not proof of anything. I suppose it depends on how one looks at it that they could try to use it as evidence as something. I would say from an evolution stand point that the white tail would stick out and make in vulnerable to predators that see in the light spectrum. But it has it's advatages too. We about to celebrate Easter, named after a fertility goddess. We have the Easter Bunny because of their rapid repopulation. That white tail is a target for sex.
@veggiescrub "Clearly evolution wouldn't have done that." You say this like evolution has a plan that it is sticking to, a design that needs to be reached? Please go and read about evolution. There is no grand design evolution is working to. Only pressures put onto living systems cause diversity and natural selection for traits that provide a survival advantage. This sounds very much like the Ray Comfort "god's designed banana" argument.
@veggiescrub: Why clearly? Were you able to catch the bunny? But, despite that, were you able to follow it and could you have gone into the burrow it has somewhere? What if *you* were a bunny? You merely need to stop thinking in human terms to see advantage in many things.
@RyuDarragh Well I couldn't catch the bunny, but get a group of people together with slings or bolas, or a group of coyotes, and you got one dead bunny. Clearly something is wrong here. Or like you pointed out I wouldn't have to catch it, just merely follow it till it went down, and then dig, I get the whole lot of 'em. I'm vegetarian, but the vast number of things following bunnies are not.
@veggiescrub: And you're still thinking like a person. All that is needed is enough advantage in that poofy white signal of a tail to ensure more bunnies are born and survive for it to be selected for. In a bunch of bunnies, which one do you follow when they all go BOING? Baby bunnies and distracted bunnies find the burrow hopefully before they get caught and so on. Go to Australia and you can see what happens when there are not enough predators to keep the bunnies in check...
@veggiescrub I'm no lagomorphologist, but the bright white fluffy tail probably aids in sexual selection. This is usually the case when the identifier is on the specimen's behind.
@Nonefrog Well, I don't know about you, but if I'm choosing a mate, I'm gonna choose one that ain't gonna get eatin'. Ya know one that will stick around help with the house keeping and bills and all that. Not one that looks like it might be cute in bed, and then split. Even if it doesn't get eatin' by a coyote, it would probably pretend to have been, just so it doesn't have to come back around, while it goes huntin more tail.
@veggiescrub No. It is similar to the White-Tailed deer. When the deer is frightened, it raises its tail as it runs. It is a visible signal to other deer that danger is near. Same with the cottontail rabbit. Evolution isn't 'smart' or 'clever', or operating with 'intent'. Maybe the one rabbit/deer is in danger of being caught because of the white 'flag', but it alerts many others to the danger and allows the majority to survive. I wouldn't think that so hard to figure out, since it 'evolved'.
@veggiescrub Think of a woman's response to danger. She screams in a high-pitched voice. That would alert all of the predators within earshot. God to the rescue? No. Men that also heard her scream, 'to the rescue'. Why does anybody take these creationists' arguments, seriously? Seriously? Why?
@yeshuahfullofit First off, maybe you shouldn't be so serious, seriously. Second, read the whole discussion. Third, I don't get your analogy. When a woman screams for help, she is hoping that there are a thousand good people around to come save her. If she was a Jewish woman trying to sneak out of Nazis Germ., she might not choose to scream, but look for another option out of the situation. Bringing attention to oneself is not always the best survival mode, when amongst wolves and coyotes.
@veggiescrub You are talking about situations that exist now, or, in the recent past. I am talking about situations that existed at the time these behaviors were evolved.
@veggiescrub As for your "Jewish woman trying to sneak out of Nazis Germ." analogy, you are correct. Her scream for help may not do her any good at all as an individual, any more than the white tail helped the individual rabbit. However, her scream did alert others to her plight. When enough screams were heard, the world rose up to stop it, thereby ensuring the health and life of countless others. It's not always about 'you' or 'I'.
@yeshuahfullofit Oh, there you edumacated people go again. I'm not talking about some edumacated socialist, commie French bunny that might sacrifice itself for the good of his commie buddies. This is a red blooded American like bunny.
The climate mixed with natural selection can have a significant effect on an animal's coat. If you were in a colder climate, cold enough for snow, then the white could be used for camouflage during winter, which would explain the white tail. If the climate isn't cold enough, it's very likely that it migrated or that it is domesticated.
@atheistvstheist these rabbits have been the rabbits that live in this region since before man documented them. The climate hasn't changed much here, and they go under for the winter. They would be absolute sitting ducks in the snow with their brown coats. Clearly their tails are for our viewing pleasure. Praise be to the almighty FSM. By the way people if you don't know the FSM please look him up, he will change your life.
@veggiescrub rabbits have other ways to survive, ie High breeding rate/adaptable diet (that white tail probably helps attract partners). When an animal (such as a peacock) has a very non-camouflaged body, it helps them breed in other ways ( getting all the sex ), Or look dangerous to predators (bright colours usually means poisonous) To survive a species only need attain equilibrium between births and deaths.
@veggiescrub considering the many colour varieties of domesticated rabbits we have today, you can't deny that artificial selection is powerful enough to at least change the colours of rabbits over successive generations, based on artificial human selection. It must be obvious then that since all wild rabbits have white tails, it must be beneficial, or at least have no effect on the rabbits chances of survival, otherwise rabbits would have more camouflaged tails.
@CRAGIFICATION That's exactly my point. Clearly rabbits do well, but wouldn't a rabbit that ran as fast as the others, was just as shifty, but once it got a 10-20 foot lead into the brush was invisible as well, wouldn't that rabbit have a much better chance of survival? Clearly the FSM gave them white tails for our viewing pleasure, not to help the rabbits survival.
@veggiescrub No. You assume evolution wouldn't produce this without any scientific enquiry then assume that if evolution didn't do it, then magical sky father must have. That is a massive leap, and no less preposterous than saying it was Frith the rabbit god who did it and also created all life on Earth (see Watership Down). In this story the god Frith gave rabbits their white tails so their bobbing when fleeing predators could warn other rabbits to flee also. Clever god that Frith...
@veggiescrub Notice also, that a question arising "why would rabbits have white tails?" if raised by a scientist would initiate a long line of enquiry and testing to try to discover a satisfactory answer. When such a question arises for a creationist, "God done it" quickly puts an end to any and all enquiry which is why science increases understanding and religion keeps its followers pig-ignorant of even a basic understanding of the world around them.
@Hamulus8 Best answer yet. Of all the things I've written on Utube, this is the one I get the most response too? Go figure. Anyway the original story and question are true. My crediting it to a diety was a joke.
@veggiescrub Clearly an intelligent being would not have designed them that way, so it would have to be proof of either God's nonexistence or his stupidity, no?
@veggiescrub This bunny example is a joke right? If the tail is not beneficial, evolution will eventually select against it. However, you do understand that evolution is a process - right? No creature is yet in a perfect form. Evolution WOULD and DOES contain THOUSANDS of imperfections. Humans have wind pipes too close to food pipes, so we can choke. Eventually, Evolution should take care of those problems - but the very existence of them points AWAY from a perfect creator and TOWARDS a process.
@Stairc Yes, I was joking about attributing a bunny tail to a creator, but I was curious about how a white bunny tail evolved to advantageous. The consensus on the web seems to be that it confuses predators in two ways. It gives them a false (and expendable target), and when a group of bunnies flee, the predator sees nothing but a flurry of white bouncing things going in all directions, and it is hard to focus on one. But of course only a god would have been smart enough to come up with that.
@veggiescrub Interesting. Either way, even if it's not beneficial, the bunny's other survival characteristics might outweigh it to such an extent that the tail comes along for the ride. Regardless, it doesn't come close to invalidating evolution.
I would say "stupid alert"! Dutko has revealed his utter ignorance.
It is the same as to ask how the words appear in a language...
btw if by any chance his surname has ukrainian roots than it would be roughly translated as "blower" or "blown up", "inflated" or in a slang "fake","empty".
They're certainly not evidence against evolution, let alone for a god of any sort. But the question of how the various organs and systems developed are among the most fascinating inn science, imo.
Crabs, Lobsters, Cockroaches. Three non vertebrates that have no complete system of veins and arteries but all have a heart. Their blood does not just spill out it circulates freely. Its not that complicated.
@Maxdwolf You are right thats why I said complete system. For the most part it is free flowing with some direction. If I remember correctly roaches have no real veins or arteries because they dont need them they are small enough to not need them with their body structure
@ProfoundReality2 I know, right? I've met several people who'd ask me how all the stuff in the Biblical creation could've happened if God wasn't real. @_@ Some people just don't make the link...
They should show the blood and vein argument to every pupil and student once a year and remind them why education and knowing things in general is important.
Of all the things ever said on the internets, this section by Dutko may be the DUMBEST. That was mind-numbingly, face-meltingly, moronic. It does make one wonder if he REALLY believes that horseshit, or he simply knows his audience and is spoon feeding them the horseshit they've become accustomed to. Either way, I think we're all a little stupider for having been subjected to that ranting...
Pick any integer number, and then calculate the probability of picking THIS very number:
you just picked 1 element out of a set composed of an infinity of elements, which makes a probability of (1:infinity)=0. Using creationist "logic", we can determine that picking THIS number is impossible...
Conclusion: You just did something impossible !! Congratulations: you're God !!
I don't think he believes the proofs himself, he's probably trying to make some money off of the gullible. Most people know the expression "A fool and his money are soon parted."
it scares me that with the amount of information that we have with all the books and just the internet itself, that there can be this many stupid people out there that believe the same things this fool does.
The word "Christian" was invented as a term of abuse with which to persecute followers of Yeshua. It derives from the Greek, "Christos", which like its Hebrew associate, "Meshiach" or Messiah, means "The Annointed One", which was evident when Christ came, as one who was able to heal all kinds of diseases and raise the dead. However, there is no "Christian God" any more than there is an "Atheist Universe".
faithbyloving 1 week ago
I'm enjoying Bret's videos as a Christian believer. Though I don't agree with his points, it is nonetheless interesting to think his points through with him. What puzzles me though, is his repeated reference to "The Christian God"? As a Christian, I don't believe in a "Christian God", but I do believe in God. Brett's repeated reference to a "Christian God", does not resonate with a Christian whatsoever, because for a Christian believer, there is & can be only one God & not named "Christian"
faithbyloving 1 week ago
Creationists seem to think that evolution of humans is like building a car. How did the first car ever built move without any wheels? They don't get that it's like the '56 Chevy with enhancements to the '57 Chevy. Present form of cars always had wheels. Think.... Horse and carriage to model T to '36 Ford and so on. It's not how humans survived without hearts but how the circulatory system became more advanced.
paramattic70 2 weeks ago
God created man in his own image.... so what's going to happen if god gets appendicitis? Or an impacted wisdom tooth? You get the idea....
waxxlippz 2 weeks ago
WoW ! This was the most embarrassing video so far
Schoening91 3 weeks ago
I really do think people like Bob aren't as ignorant as we say they are. I suspect that Bob actually has a better understanding of evolution than he lets on. He and other popular apologists are simply being deliberately dishonest in their criticisms in order to make their positions sound more plausible. I'd bet you anything Bob doesn't actually think scientists are claiming that blood started outside of an animal's veins and had to work their way in. It's simply a lie disguised as a question.
FrankLightheart 3 weeks ago
They must be Apologists because of the fact that they really should apologize for making such unintelligent arguments.
paleryder22 4 weeks ago
I don't debate Christians for the same reason I don't debate someone who thinks the Moon is made of cheese. The existence of God is unsuitable for debate. It is preposterous in this day and age of science, reason and technology. Believers lack the standing to debate among reasonable people. It is degrading to Atheists. I don't have to prove that something doesn't exist. I refuse to hold on to a Bronze age security blanket and deny myself the rewards of progression. I'm an Atheist. I'm saved.
paramattic70 1 month ago 2
Who is this Dutko? I really like brettppalmer, but it seems to me he is "shooting a sitting duck"!
000dodo000 1 month ago
@000dodo000 Dutko is an evangelist/apologist I sometimes catch on local Denver radio (his show is syndicated nationwide, however). A lot of folks listen to him and believe he's a champion in defending the faith. I wanted to show them they are wrong, "sitting duck" or not. And "thanks"!
brettppalmer 1 month ago 2
@brettppalmer Don't know what kind of champion sells his pearls of wisdom for cash. If Jesus knew this guy.....
MsGhoulz 3 days ago
Some one needs to orchestrate a meeting to, well, pretty much humiliate the people fighting to prove god's existence against atheists, a scopes monkey trial 2.0!
F35Pilots 1 month ago
Wow, Dutko is right up there with Comfort and Cameron, isn't he?
urcorrect 1 month ago
@urcorrect They certainly aren't strange bedfellows!
brettppalmer 1 month ago
i can't beleive people would buy those crappy dvd's... cthu
220love07 1 month ago in playlist More videos from brettppalmer
5 minutes in: "if they took university courses..." uni? creationists shouldn't even be allowed to learn about mating!
neonblast 1 month ago
If there was a proof of god's existance, no one would be questionning his existance, therefore, there is no such proof.
ppsp3 2 months ago 5
@ppsp3 Well, THAT'S pretty much it in a nutshell, isn't it! :)
brettppalmer 2 months ago 4
@ppsp3 To be fair, there's proof of evolution, but he not only doesn't believe it, he doesn't even understand what evolution is.
Sines314 1 month ago
None of those were proofs FOR god. Just failing attempts to point out contradicting things in science, reason and logic.
Even if every single point of those were right it would only show that there is some contradicting things in science, reason and logic.
And that would mean his tools that he has assessed the proof for his god are flawed and in the essence he has just proved that he knows even less he thinks he knows.
Can that in ID/C-people's logic mean that a non-god exists by default? LOL
leflipmo 3 months ago
It's funny that he uses that deck of cards as an example. If he shuffled and dealt out a deck of cards and kept track of every card. Then tried to repeat this until he got the same order of cards. Would he conclude it's impossible that he dealt out the first deck of cards?
urantivirus 3 months ago
My head hurts now. That was just... ugh...
Raydeus 4 months ago
I think you broke my mind by including that part near the end.
It burns...
gimmethegepgun 4 months ago
if you hadent have put the be calm and count to ten.....ughhhhh AHHH RAHHH WTF!?!?!?!?!?! he has left me speachless! how did it devolp veins while it was alive.....youv got to be fucking kidding me!??!?!??! AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
max11binf 5 months ago
I realize this guy is trying hard to prove something exists but how can someone be so stupid
vstavropoulos554 6 months ago
Wow your so smart. I wanna be like you so I can tell those Christians where to go.
angellicvoices 7 months ago
So, according to Dutko, every single lifeform on earth, including plants and bacteria, has a heart, lungs, veins, blood etc...
This must be a whole new level of stupidity... oh wait, it's called religion -_-'
ihr0ppa 7 months ago 10
My forehead hurts!
Too. Much. Face-palming.
ralph17p 7 months ago 15
The odds of a cell forming randomly are calculated based on modern cells, like bacteria or a skin cell … all it shows is that early like could not have been as complex as modern cells.
Credits to:
watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
GapWim 8 months ago
a lot of space , a lot of earth , alot of water and a lot of time , makes a large probablity much more likely , people do win the lottery
jmm1233 8 months ago
Biggest mistake is he keeps spouting shit w/o knowing what he's talking about. The next is that he doesn't understand that evolution doesn't mean there are no gods. Ashera or Ra could come down right now (if they were real) and evolution would still be valid. Another problem seems to be that they have some concept of immutability that they can't shake. Reality isn't as simple as you Dutko.
mistereveready 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
Jesus's existance, death, and resurrection have all been scientifically proven by the Shroud of Turin. However, they have not been scientifically explained.
DarkAsylum327 9 months ago
@DarkAsylum327 Absolute nonsense.
uscjd2004 8 months ago
@DarkAsylum327 How does the Shroud of Turin "scientifically prove" Jesus' existence, death, and resurrection?
peasantsoul 8 months ago
@DarkAsylum327 In other words, what is your definition of scientific proof?
peasantsoul 8 months ago
Argh... at the end.. the stupid.. it burns us... it burnssss ussssss....
marco171180 9 months ago
I suppose there is scientific evidence for Thor and zeus as well.
connerjd 9 months ago
@connerjd LOL
peasantsoul 8 months ago
@123mrskinnyboy: "They can only have a THEORY." What is your definition of a theory?
peasantsoul 10 months ago
Seriously? Just how much fail can come from one mouth? How can you even begin to criticize something (say biological evolution) when you don't even have the most basic fundamental understandings? This guy is like a burger flipper (with no medial background) giving advice on how to preform brain surgery, then selling that advice.
ZephyLynx 10 months ago
*a correction to my comment: Life didn't start when the earth formed; it started about 1 to 2 billion later; or, life started 2.5 to 3 billion years ago.
peasantsoul 10 months ago
@peasantsoul
You just failed because science can't prove that. They can only have a THEORY. And you might say i can't prove anything, but i don't care because i have faith which pretty much beats everything.
123mrskinnyboy 10 months ago
@123mrskinnyboy From wikipedia:
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
ZephyLynx 10 months ago
@123mrskinnyboy
In science, theory has a different meaning than in everyday common language.
Saying faith beats everything is simply appealing to ignorance. In science, when evidence appears contrary to established ideas, those ideas are examined, tested (or observed), and possibly restructured to account for the new data. This self correcting mechanism is one of the strengths of science. Just because you believe something, does not make that something true.
ZephyLynx 10 months ago 2
@123mrskinnyboy "...faith pretty much beats everything?" What exactly does faith "beat"? Does it beat medicine that is life-saving? Surgery? Food for when people are hungry?
peasantsoul 8 months ago
Also, no matter how mathematically impossible it is that chance could produce life, we know that life exists (in the material sense of science). Whether anyone can prove it was a random process or not is not the point. The point is that life exists not as an impossibility, or an improbability, but as a reality.
peasantsoul 10 months ago
If Bob Dutko says it would take billions of years for chance to create life, then he is agreeing with the time scale scientists propose. 14.5 billion years ago the universe came into being and 10 billion years later, life on earth started. So yes, Bob, it seems that it did take billions and billions of years. As the Bible Skeptic states, chance could have immediately produced life. With a time span of billions of years, immediately could be within a million years, etc. Great post!
peasantsoul 10 months ago
whast a moron
cruelbusiness1984 10 months ago
Haha, excellent touch with the fadeout!
alphaenemy 10 months ago
Apologies to Brett. I didn't mean to make the discussion about bunny tails. I just can't resist responding to the people that keep responding to my original post. Love your work. I'm done with the bunny. (but I'd still like to hear from AronRa)
veggiescrub 10 months ago
Brett, thanks for making these videos. I think they're great.
MegaZeusThor 10 months ago
awesome channel, subscribed
kk207 10 months ago
Wow, I've got a friend (creationist) who listens to this guy. He's also a "fan" of Behe, and wait for it, Sean Hannity.
I can hardly have a convo with with this friend anymore, it's pretty sad.
Great series Btw! :)
OnTheFritz602 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Screw you Brett Palmer. Why not just have a life and believe in a religion. You obviously have no life trying to figure this out. STFU dick
alphanaj13 10 months ago
@alphanaj13 lol
brettppalmer 10 months ago 93
@alphanaj13 I'd say you just stumbled on the fundametal difference of ID/Creatonism and science.
ID/C people think that every question ever can be answered with "god", if no easy answer or an already existing answer exist or if it contradicts their "holy" writings.
Sience however, has no ready answers. It is based on observations, that can be then studied, tested and re-created. In other words: you have to actualy use the big think inside your skull we call "brain".
Arkticus 10 months ago 21
@Arkticus
One, you spelled science wrong.
Two, the bible isn't "Holy", it's just a book with instructions that have MUCH meaning.
Three, you just proved yourself wrong with that science thing because there IS "observations" that prove God exist. You just have to find them and have FAITH which is pretty much the same thing ;)
123mrskinnyboy 10 months ago
@123mrskinnyboy One, hmm, you seem to be correct, I appologize for that error. English not being my first language and all that...
Two, the bible certainly has some good advices in it as well, however, first and foremost it is a religious scripture, thus making it a "holy" book, just any and all others like it.
Three, personal experiences (that I asume your mean by "observations") do not qualify as eveidence, as they can also "prove" aliens, the flying spagheti monster, unicorns, vampires, etc.
Arkticus 10 months ago
@123mrskinnyboy Further more, I really don't have anything against faith or belief. However, when people try to pass them as things that shape or have any effect in our reality, and then proven flase, but still thrown forward as "scientific proof and evidence", my personal reaction is laugh at these poor people that are so afraid of the beautiful, complex, and even scary world around them that they have to resort to blinding themselves with "faith" in their "god" that just happens to...
Arkticus 10 months ago
@123mrskinnyboy (continnued)...agree with their every personal whim, and use it to fill in their possible miscomfort for not understanding or knowing something.
*heavy breathing*
Sorry to have gone ranting a bit, but I felt I had to get that off my chest, just to point out where I stand on this issue. So again, sorry, and if you read my whole answer, thanks for using the time :)
As for religion? That's a whooole 'nother rant.... ;)
Arkticus 10 months ago
@alphanaj13 LMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fyapowar 10 months ago
@alphanaj13 So you do not have any belief of god, merely belief in religion. Well that explains a lot.
69soulstone 10 months ago
@69soulstone fuck you and all religions have at least one god
alphanaj13 10 months ago
@alphanaj13 What are the gods of scientology and for example Taoism then?
69soulstone 10 months ago
@alphanaj13 yeah y not hav a life and toss out any work 2 investigate how things really are. u obviously hav no life goin 2 atheist channels when u've already decided ur gonna chalk up everythin u don't understand 2 god
cruelbusiness1984 10 months ago
@alphanaj13
Wow these peopl really like his lies...... But alpha you didn't have to go all Bi-polar on him... lol
123mrskinnyboy 10 months ago
@alphanaj13 what brought you to this vid ?? You are clearly retarded . And a bit uncivilized to say the LEAST.
bockydo 9 months ago
@alphanaj13 You're a mature one, aren't you?
SoggyPoridge 9 months ago
@alphanaj13
lol some people are so stupid
q41n 8 months ago
@alphanaj13 LOL, "It is better to be thought of as a fool than the open your mouth and remove all doubt", you have just failed in the eyes of many.
Iguana1138 6 months ago
Do you think Bob Dutko actually believes this stuff, or is he just telling creationists what they want to hear because he can make money from their gullibility.
BkupAcct 10 months ago
@BkupAcct the discs are 29.99 after all. mayb I should make up some milarky about some new gods, mix in a little taoism and karma and charge 39.99 :P
cruelbusiness1984 10 months ago
There isn't just ONE deck of cards being shuffled. There are trillions of decks being shufled all at the same time. So the odds of getting the right combination are really quite good.
ebaltrace 10 months ago
@itsbenjamin You claim to be a "bible believing" Christian. How do you square that claim with John 14:11-14? Jesus said that 'anyone that has faith in me will do as I have been doing" (referencing the miracles). If you can not perform even one of those miracles, Jesus' own words clearly demonstrate that you do not have 'faith' in him and so, cannot be a Christian. Claim to be a xian all you want, your Lord and Savior denies you. Jesus rebukes you. You may cry now, if you wish. Fraud.
yeshuahfullofit 10 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit I lov this one! or the one where' if u hav even the faith the size of a mustard seed u could tell the tree 2 pick its roots up and run in2 the ocean & it will obey in the name of the Father.' I've actually been in this lazy wishful-thinking state and tried 2 make a tree move. a flower bend in half, a spoon, like in the matrix :P yet I could do none of these things with complete and utter belief.I challege all christians 2 jump from the roof of a building, hav faith u won't fall
cruelbusiness1984 10 months ago
the problem wit this tho, is that 4 every time there might b a way 2 'prove' god by some miracle or manifestation or challenge god in any way, its contradicted by other verses. like 'don't test the lord ur god lest u dash ur foot upon the stone.' etc. u just can't pin him down and get real answers. oh, unless ur havin a near death experience (and most don't understand what the dying brain is actually doing @ the time so they think its out of body) or a dream (which is a REM cycle of memory dump)
cruelbusiness1984 10 months ago
@cruelbusiness1984 That is because they have had a very long time to listen to complaints made by unbelievers. They then write new scripture verses, or even whole books, to address those concerns. What you get, is just what you'd expect.... as mishmash of competing positions, statements, and sayings. No mystery.
yeshuahfullofit 10 months ago
Im a Bible believing Christian and I can't understand how I used to be so narrow minded like the rest of you. Instead of dismissing everything the Bible says, take all bias opinions you have (science) throw them out the window and study the Bible. Don't let one persons opinion be your own, challenge it by studying it for yourself. Don't get me wrong science is a great thing and we've made so many medical break throughs.
itsbenjamin 10 months ago
@itsbenjamin So accepting scientific facts based upon testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence is "narrow minded" but rejected evidence based claims in favor of faith based ones is open minded? You have to be stupendously spastic to make that statement. I hope you are a troll or what you said was to highlight how stupid Christians are cause other wise I dont hold out much hope for humanity.
myjizzureye 10 months ago
@itsbenjamin Yeah, the consensus opinion of tens of thousands of experts in a field, from all walks of life, from all kinds of differing faiths is "biased", while reading mythology (according to one group's interpretation of it) is open-minded? How backwards is that?
zeusrulestheheavens 10 months ago
Creationists - asking the question scientists never thought of!
BinkyHuckleback 10 months ago
also, its claimed that the chances of other life in the universe is 1 billion to one. Astonomers agree that there is easily over 1 billion stars in the universe ( possibly even our own galaxy). With stars having numerous planets, the chances of other life existing is an easy possibility
podoau 10 months ago
Nice work as usual.
I worked out that if someone played our local lotto using the minimum allowable games every week, that it would take 8000 years to statistically win the lotto. But, peole do win. People have been known to win teh first time they ever play. Just because statistics say it "could " take that long, doesnt mean it does.
podoau 10 months ago
Bob Ducko is like a person who doesn't know how to count trying to disprove mathematics.
emancoy 10 months ago
What's ridiculous is that people like Bob Dutko seriously think that the evolutionary biologists haven't found an explanation for this; he seems to think that us "evolutionists" just accepted the model and then went "oops, we forgot about that bit, ah well, let's continue." He seriously thinks that evolution would be accepted even if there wasn't an explanation, he's worse than dumb.
HoratioWatson 10 months ago
You people have to realize that Dutko is speaking out of personal experience:
no brain entered his skull hence evolution is flawed.
DiogeneshoKunikos 10 months ago
I can't believe Bob Dutko expects idiots to pay for his "Proofs." For one things, you can get all of these things for free from Ray Comfort. Do these creationists ever think for themselves?
underpantssquirrel 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've got a question, and I posed it to AronRa (the smartest human on Youtube). I had an epiphany the other day when my kids and I spotted a bunny on the canal trail. It was nearly dusk as my son tried to sneak as close to it as he could. Of course the bunny would not let him get to close and would hop away. It was, however very easy to follow the bunny, as it had a bright white bushy tail. Clearly evolution wouldn't have done that. This must be proof of god's existence. NO?
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub And what did AronRa say?
brettppalmer 10 months ago 4
@brettppalmer No answer yet, I'll update you when I get one (if).
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@brettppalmer that the way the tail comes loose saves the bunny's life since it is so much brighter than the rest of the animal perhaps?
kyrior 10 months ago
@brettppalmer that the way the tail comes loose saves the bunny's life when it (not the body of the bunny) is attacked- since it is so much brighter that the rest of the bunny? a clear evolutionary advantage.
kyrior 10 months ago
@brettppalmer
How is this a negative comment people? You guys hate God..... fine, i'll say what all you guys hate to hear ;)))
123mrskinnyboy 10 months ago
@123mrskinnyboy Who is God?
peasantsoul 10 months ago
Comment removed
doddilus 10 months ago
@doddilus why remove? "@veggiescrub
Apparently it warns others of danger
Better camouflage doesn't always have to be the "best" trait"
My only response to this is it sounds like you are saying bunnies are commie socialist pinkos. I was talking about American bunnies, not some educated European Socialist kinda bunny.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub That's awesome. I would guess there are many different variables to an animals coloring. Are the genetics of the bunny still in transition from a snowy climate? Was it truly necessary for the tail to not be white? Maybe it aides in sexual selection. I have thoughts like yours all the time, I guess that's what makes learning about evolutionary biology so interesting. I do know that just because I don't personally know the answer to something doesn't mean a god did it.
Tigerpawzs 10 months ago
@veggiescrub Have you ever heard of "god of the gaps"? Thats what this self proclaimed 'epiphany' sounds like.
nett103 10 months ago
@nett103 No I hadn't heard of god of the gaps - did a yahoo on it and got this on Wiki, 'the phrase is generally derogatory, and is inherently a direct criticism of a tendency to postulate acts of God to explain phenomena for which science has yet to give a satisfactory account." So what your saying is, just because it may not make sense to me, I don't have to attribute it to god? Whew, I can remain a devote Atheist then. Thank you (I still want to know why they have white tails see @doddilus
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub I understand your thoughts. There are a lot of things on this planet that I personally do not understand but I expect that there are logical answers for all of them. You just have to do the research, which is the fun part.
nett103 10 months ago
@veggiescrub the white tail is visible so predators go for it rather than the head. This is not fatal, and can let it slip away, so it survives and reproduces better. Just a guess based on observation.
itbevee 10 months ago
@itbevee Hmmm, very possible, though I would think to be able to out maneuver and out run, and then not be seen would be better. I have 2 good responses, but I'm still leaning towards god created them so we'd think they were so damn cute. I think that's why they wiggle their noses, too. I just don't which god did it. Any insights on that one? Oh well I'd better get some sleep.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub yes the bunny may be easy to follow, but not so easy to catch. in-spite of its bushy white tail, the specie still manages to live long enough to reproduce because they have other strategies to escape from predation. The cute bunny is still evidence for evolution, not against it.
emancoy 10 months ago
@emancoy Yeah but just think of how many more bunnies there could be if they didn't have those cute white tails. They could rule the world. I definitely detect the hand of the FSM in all this. It is just the kind of nonsensical thing s/he would do. Krisna does these kinda things, too, I'm told. Well at least I've got it narrowed down to 2 possible valid explanations, at least until I hear from AronRa.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub If you think evolution is with purposeful direction, you are incorrect. The bunny's survival technique is not its ability to disguise itself or hide, it is the speed it has to evade predators. Evolution favors traits that are favorable for the survivability of a species. While the bunny may be easy to spot, good luck catching it.
dallased25 10 months ago
@dallased25 Yes, I know evolution doesn't have a plan, what survives survives, but I am still wondering wouldn't have been more advantages to have brown tails. There must be a reason that white tails survived better than bunnies with brown ones. There have been some interesting responses here. It still might have been the FSM, though.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub maybe it would have, but again, evolution is about what is best suited to survive, not about what is the "most evolved". Take Bumble Bees for example. When they sting someone, they die...not very advantageous, yet they thrive due to sheer numbers. Natural selection is the key. If the brown bunnies are better suited to survive, the white bunnies numbers will dwindle and disappear. Clearly this is not the case though with the speed of the bunny, combined with the rapid breeding.
dallased25 10 months ago
@veggiescrub I see you trollin.
Loustrikesagain 10 months ago
@Loustrikesagain What me trollin? I don't think of it as trollin' so much as bringing levity to the discussion. Though the story of walking with the kids and watching the bunny were true, and my wondering why the bunny would evolve such a trait is true, and I have been given some good answers here, though I am hoping AronRa responds. But you are right, that I never really suspected divine intervention as the true explanation, but it still could be the FSM, NO?
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub I'm no expert, but my wildlife teacher in highschool once told me that the majority of animals can't distinguish color, and I'm not sure how well a predator could benefit from peter's cotton tail. Maybe rabbits can see it better than predators, and it might help mates find each other? It's not uncommon to find evolutionary vagaries, traits that don't particularly help, and sometimes possibly hurt the animals, often with origins we don't yet understand. /:
Loustrikesagain 10 months ago
@Loustrikesagain Yes, Humans, Cats, Birds and some Monkeys are some of the few animals that see color, but that only makes the tail stand out more. If all you saw was gray scale the white tail would be very prominent. Birds have colorings for mating reasons that clearly don't help them hide from predators. I'm going to have to write AronRa again.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub Good luck scrub nub.
Loustrikesagain 10 months ago
@veggiescrub : It's not proof of anything. I suppose it depends on how one looks at it that they could try to use it as evidence as something. I would say from an evolution stand point that the white tail would stick out and make in vulnerable to predators that see in the light spectrum. But it has it's advatages too. We about to celebrate Easter, named after a fertility goddess. We have the Easter Bunny because of their rapid repopulation. That white tail is a target for sex.
DansLookingGlass 10 months ago
@veggiescrub "Clearly evolution wouldn't have done that." You say this like evolution has a plan that it is sticking to, a design that needs to be reached? Please go and read about evolution. There is no grand design evolution is working to. Only pressures put onto living systems cause diversity and natural selection for traits that provide a survival advantage. This sounds very much like the Ray Comfort "god's designed banana" argument.
ethurial 10 months ago
@ethurial Ah, exactly my point. I was going to pass this epiphany onto Ray Comfort, so he could add it to his awesome arsenal. ;-}
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub Wow, I think I just had an epiphany. You just trolled all of these people so hard. Congrats!
ethurial 10 months ago
@ethurial Awe, man I didn't mean to. It started out as a true story. Can I help it if I have an odd sense of humor?
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub: Why clearly? Were you able to catch the bunny? But, despite that, were you able to follow it and could you have gone into the burrow it has somewhere? What if *you* were a bunny? You merely need to stop thinking in human terms to see advantage in many things.
RyuDarragh 10 months ago
@RyuDarragh Well I couldn't catch the bunny, but get a group of people together with slings or bolas, or a group of coyotes, and you got one dead bunny. Clearly something is wrong here. Or like you pointed out I wouldn't have to catch it, just merely follow it till it went down, and then dig, I get the whole lot of 'em. I'm vegetarian, but the vast number of things following bunnies are not.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub: And you're still thinking like a person. All that is needed is enough advantage in that poofy white signal of a tail to ensure more bunnies are born and survive for it to be selected for. In a bunch of bunnies, which one do you follow when they all go BOING? Baby bunnies and distracted bunnies find the burrow hopefully before they get caught and so on. Go to Australia and you can see what happens when there are not enough predators to keep the bunnies in check...
RyuDarragh 10 months ago
@veggiescrub I'm no lagomorphologist, but the bright white fluffy tail probably aids in sexual selection. This is usually the case when the identifier is on the specimen's behind.
Nonefrog 10 months ago
@Nonefrog Well, I don't know about you, but if I'm choosing a mate, I'm gonna choose one that ain't gonna get eatin'. Ya know one that will stick around help with the house keeping and bills and all that. Not one that looks like it might be cute in bed, and then split. Even if it doesn't get eatin' by a coyote, it would probably pretend to have been, just so it doesn't have to come back around, while it goes huntin more tail.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub No. It is similar to the White-Tailed deer. When the deer is frightened, it raises its tail as it runs. It is a visible signal to other deer that danger is near. Same with the cottontail rabbit. Evolution isn't 'smart' or 'clever', or operating with 'intent'. Maybe the one rabbit/deer is in danger of being caught because of the white 'flag', but it alerts many others to the danger and allows the majority to survive. I wouldn't think that so hard to figure out, since it 'evolved'.
yeshuahfullofit 10 months ago
@veggiescrub Think of a woman's response to danger. She screams in a high-pitched voice. That would alert all of the predators within earshot. God to the rescue? No. Men that also heard her scream, 'to the rescue'. Why does anybody take these creationists' arguments, seriously? Seriously? Why?
yeshuahfullofit 10 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit First off, maybe you shouldn't be so serious, seriously. Second, read the whole discussion. Third, I don't get your analogy. When a woman screams for help, she is hoping that there are a thousand good people around to come save her. If she was a Jewish woman trying to sneak out of Nazis Germ., she might not choose to scream, but look for another option out of the situation. Bringing attention to oneself is not always the best survival mode, when amongst wolves and coyotes.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub You are talking about situations that exist now, or, in the recent past. I am talking about situations that existed at the time these behaviors were evolved.
yeshuahfullofit 10 months ago
@veggiescrub As for your "Jewish woman trying to sneak out of Nazis Germ." analogy, you are correct. Her scream for help may not do her any good at all as an individual, any more than the white tail helped the individual rabbit. However, her scream did alert others to her plight. When enough screams were heard, the world rose up to stop it, thereby ensuring the health and life of countless others. It's not always about 'you' or 'I'.
yeshuahfullofit 10 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit Oh, there you edumacated people go again. I'm not talking about some edumacated socialist, commie French bunny that might sacrifice itself for the good of his commie buddies. This is a red blooded American like bunny.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub You mean like the red-blooded American bunnies at the 'Alamo'? XD
yeshuahfullofit 10 months ago
@veggiescrub
The climate mixed with natural selection can have a significant effect on an animal's coat. If you were in a colder climate, cold enough for snow, then the white could be used for camouflage during winter, which would explain the white tail. If the climate isn't cold enough, it's very likely that it migrated or that it is domesticated.
atheistvstheist 10 months ago
@atheistvstheist these rabbits have been the rabbits that live in this region since before man documented them. The climate hasn't changed much here, and they go under for the winter. They would be absolute sitting ducks in the snow with their brown coats. Clearly their tails are for our viewing pleasure. Praise be to the almighty FSM. By the way people if you don't know the FSM please look him up, he will change your life.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub
Yes, praise Him. May us all be blessed by the touch of his noodle appendages.
atheistvstheist 9 months ago
@veggiescrub rabbits have other ways to survive, ie High breeding rate/adaptable diet (that white tail probably helps attract partners). When an animal (such as a peacock) has a very non-camouflaged body, it helps them breed in other ways ( getting all the sex ), Or look dangerous to predators (bright colours usually means poisonous) To survive a species only need attain equilibrium between births and deaths.
emikochan13 10 months ago
@veggiescrub considering the many colour varieties of domesticated rabbits we have today, you can't deny that artificial selection is powerful enough to at least change the colours of rabbits over successive generations, based on artificial human selection. It must be obvious then that since all wild rabbits have white tails, it must be beneficial, or at least have no effect on the rabbits chances of survival, otherwise rabbits would have more camouflaged tails.
CRAGIFICATION 10 months ago
@CRAGIFICATION That's exactly my point. Clearly rabbits do well, but wouldn't a rabbit that ran as fast as the others, was just as shifty, but once it got a 10-20 foot lead into the brush was invisible as well, wouldn't that rabbit have a much better chance of survival? Clearly the FSM gave them white tails for our viewing pleasure, not to help the rabbits survival.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub No. You assume evolution wouldn't produce this without any scientific enquiry then assume that if evolution didn't do it, then magical sky father must have. That is a massive leap, and no less preposterous than saying it was Frith the rabbit god who did it and also created all life on Earth (see Watership Down). In this story the god Frith gave rabbits their white tails so their bobbing when fleeing predators could warn other rabbits to flee also. Clever god that Frith...
Hamulus8 10 months ago
@veggiescrub Notice also, that a question arising "why would rabbits have white tails?" if raised by a scientist would initiate a long line of enquiry and testing to try to discover a satisfactory answer. When such a question arises for a creationist, "God done it" quickly puts an end to any and all enquiry which is why science increases understanding and religion keeps its followers pig-ignorant of even a basic understanding of the world around them.
Hamulus8 10 months ago
@Hamulus8 Best answer yet. Of all the things I've written on Utube, this is the one I get the most response too? Go figure. Anyway the original story and question are true. My crediting it to a diety was a joke.
veggiescrub 10 months ago
@veggiescrub Clearly an intelligent being would not have designed them that way, so it would have to be proof of either God's nonexistence or his stupidity, no?
jgoemat 10 months ago
@veggiescrub This bunny example is a joke right? If the tail is not beneficial, evolution will eventually select against it. However, you do understand that evolution is a process - right? No creature is yet in a perfect form. Evolution WOULD and DOES contain THOUSANDS of imperfections. Humans have wind pipes too close to food pipes, so we can choke. Eventually, Evolution should take care of those problems - but the very existence of them points AWAY from a perfect creator and TOWARDS a process.
Stairc 10 months ago 2
@Stairc Yes, I was joking about attributing a bunny tail to a creator, but I was curious about how a white bunny tail evolved to advantageous. The consensus on the web seems to be that it confuses predators in two ways. It gives them a false (and expendable target), and when a group of bunnies flee, the predator sees nothing but a flurry of white bouncing things going in all directions, and it is hard to focus on one. But of course only a god would have been smart enough to come up with that.
veggiescrub 9 months ago
@veggiescrub Interesting. Either way, even if it's not beneficial, the bunny's other survival characteristics might outweigh it to such an extent that the tail comes along for the ride. Regardless, it doesn't come close to invalidating evolution.
Stairc 9 months ago
I would say "stupid alert"! Dutko has revealed his utter ignorance.
It is the same as to ask how the words appear in a language...
btw if by any chance his surname has ukrainian roots than it would be roughly translated as "blower" or "blown up", "inflated" or in a slang "fake","empty".
Funny this, isn't it?
SEThatered 10 months ago
@SEThatered the stupid...it burns, doesn't it?:D love your translation of his name, too....
practicalmagic9 10 months ago
They're certainly not evidence against evolution, let alone for a god of any sort. But the question of how the various organs and systems developed are among the most fascinating inn science, imo.
Maxdwolf 10 months ago
Crabs, Lobsters, Cockroaches. Three non vertebrates that have no complete system of veins and arteries but all have a heart. Their blood does not just spill out it circulates freely. Its not that complicated.
tinylittlegnat2 10 months ago 2
@tinylittlegnat2 Well, they do have arteries of varying complexity. But it's a good point.
Maxdwolf 10 months ago
@Maxdwolf You are right thats why I said complete system. For the most part it is free flowing with some direction. If I remember correctly roaches have no real veins or arteries because they dont need them they are small enough to not need them with their body structure
tinylittlegnat2 10 months ago
I read some of the comments first, and I knew that something stupid was going to come late in the video... but it STILL surprised me.
SmallGreenPlanetoid 10 months ago
Suddenly Dutko dropped to the level of Oh'Really with his 10% veins gushing blood hypothesis. FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU**!!!
Paxmax 10 months ago
Dutko isn't even talking about evolution. He's talking about creationism minus god. WTH?
ProfoundReality2 10 months ago 2
@ProfoundReality2 I know, right? I've met several people who'd ask me how all the stuff in the Biblical creation could've happened if God wasn't real. @_@ Some people just don't make the link...
SmallGreenPlanetoid 10 months ago
I'm glad this video has "0" dislikes...
Every one whou dislikes this video proves he is a moron...
Greetz from Poland :)
Dryndal 10 months ago
After hearing what Dutko says at in this particular "proof"... Why are we dealing with this moron? Dutko's not worth it!
barkatthemoon6 10 months ago
That is some powerful stupid right there.
dlandon2000 10 months ago
They should show the blood and vein argument to every pupil and student once a year and remind them why education and knowing things in general is important.
MisterDax 10 months ago
Bob Dutko: professional MORON.
Puchicas9 10 months ago
Of all the things ever said on the internets, this section by Dutko may be the DUMBEST. That was mind-numbingly, face-meltingly, moronic. It does make one wonder if he REALLY believes that horseshit, or he simply knows his audience and is spoon feeding them the horseshit they've become accustomed to. Either way, I think we're all a little stupider for having been subjected to that ranting...
GeauxTiger 10 months ago
Pick any integer number, and then calculate the probability of picking THIS very number:
you just picked 1 element out of a set composed of an infinity of elements, which makes a probability of (1:infinity)=0. Using creationist "logic", we can determine that picking THIS number is impossible...
Conclusion: You just did something impossible !! Congratulations: you're God !!
yaesenkole 10 months ago
Comment removed
yaesenkole 10 months ago
I don't think he believes the proofs himself, he's probably trying to make some money off of the gullible. Most people know the expression "A fool and his money are soon parted."
rykoodasr 10 months ago
Nothing has made me face palm harder then Dutko trying to understand arteries
DeceptiveSoul 10 months ago
it scares me that with the amount of information that we have with all the books and just the internet itself, that there can be this many stupid people out there that believe the same things this fool does.
kiddhitta 10 months ago
brettppalmer, How can you sound so serious?
Several of the arguments for a god, makes me laugh out loud in front of my computer.
Very well done.
rusle 10 months ago