Wishful thinking in my opinion, is the biggest reason for this problem. I get it. I am terrified of death and the ceasing of existence. Every time some nut predicts the apocalypse and return of god I want it to be true; I want an afterlife too. I know that it's not true based on what I know about the natural world.
and how did the first cell appear randomly by chance?
andandand: why is there absolutely no mechanism that is documented to be able to provide the extreme complexity you need for the human body from molecules?
@xXsakkelaoXx The fact that some things just happen without any understandable or detectable cause doesn't make those that accept these occurances look like retards. Inventing causes for these things makes people look like retards, especially if said retardation is dramatically emphasised. DeepAstronomy "What Caused the Big Bang"
She e-mails a few friends about the day's plans, then climbs into her hybrid car, punches in the GPS coordinates she needs, and using the voice activated cell phone, calls her mother, all before arriving at a rally to hear a sermon on how SCIENCE LIES and the BIBLE SPEAKS THE TRUTH.
A woman wakes to music from her satellite clock radio, showers with water from her new flash heater, then grabs a coffee from the pre-programmed drip machine and slices up a fresh mango from South America. Remembering to take her heart condition medicine, she catches the news on the satellite TV system over breakfast, digitally recording an item of interest before setting the PVR to save the noon news. ...cont'd
On the list of "arguments Creationists should not use"; I don't see how gold being found in a coal vein would have any impact on the issue at hand. At most, it would be a co-incidence.
6:44 'GOD DID IT --- CASE CLOSED." don't think I've EVER seen something more ignorant than that phrase. it's like these people WANT to remain uneducated and stay in their dark little room with their faith and imaginary gods. it's truly sad to see stuff like this in the 21st century, makes me lose faith in humanity.
@mimikawaii7386 God did it, not because we want to believe him, but because he actually did, and who gave you the impression that thats the end of science? heck! all scientists leading up to today were god believing christians (newton, keppler) only now everyone want to believe an explosion from nothing made everything, LOL talk about humanity, wtf are we? advanced apes??? lmao
Was that every creationist straw man rolled into two posts? Holy shit. I realize that you're forced to lie about science because you can't refute it with actual arguments, but normally there's at least a hint of subtlety.
@TheZooCrew was that comment for the less informed so that they might actually believe you, because when I checked, your comment didn't say a shit about what was wrong with mine, your just trying to boost the already pathetic faith of atheists that we somehow, from something you can't even make happen in a testtube (life from non-life) came from random chance ?? although what we actually observe in nature is losses of information
Aron...i dont know if you've done this already, but PLEASE turn these FFoC into one single book, with a little bit more detail on each topic...these are amazing videos plz make a book
@jb0433628 Just from reading your comments and the website you spammed, I can tell that you know very little about the theory of evolution. You should learn how something works before you try to discredit it or prove it wrong. The theory of evolution is the backbone of modern biology.
@jb0433628 At least you admit you're ignorant. Too bad you have no idea why biochemistry works. You know how it works in it's present state but don't know where it came from. For the record, I wasted my time reading the garbage you spammed on here. My conclusion from reading it was that you obviously didn't even know how evolution works and I was right. How you find yourself qualified to discredit the theory of evolution absolutely baffles me.
Haha, this is funny to read how arrogant atheists are. You are probably a dropout from high school, while I am studying for a master's degree in artificial intelligence and computer vision, with classes in neurology. But it's useless to argue with evolutionists, because you are pretending that evolution is a real science like maths or physics, while it's a pseudo-science theory based on no physical evidence. I just feel sad for you.
Well, except for the nested hierarchies of biology, and the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, and so on.
@jb0433628 I'm starting to doubt you're a student of any type. From what you've shown me, even high school students know more about science than you. You don't even seem to know what science is or how it works, never mind biology or any other field. You think math is science? Do you think mathematicians use the scientific method? And how can you call evolution a pseudo-science, when you don't even know how it works? They do apply the scientific method to evolution, that's because it's science.
@jb0433628 You're a sad, lying, ignorant hypocrite. You call me arrogant and a drop out. When you clearly know nothing about the topic of your comments and boast about an education you are receiving, which is most likely just a lie. You are truly pathetic and so is your school if you aren't lying about your education.
@jb0433628 A lot of the knowledge you claim to have about biochemistry and neurology comes from the understanding of the theory of evolution. Remember you're ignorant of the theory of evolution, so would you know if that was true?
P.S. - Hey Jungle I got an idea for you. Go on the Magic Sandwich Show with your junk science. Go up against them, and puke out your worthless theories. I would love to watch them hand your ass to you on a silver platter. AronRa is just one of the hosts. Go there I freaking triple dog dare you. No . . . not so sure of your ignorant hypothesis. You won't though cause just like most theists, put them or their bullshit to the test and it falls apart.
Wow this JungleJargan idiot gets around. You might as well give up trying to pull this moron out of the dark ages. He's a complete lost cause, and full blown theist propagandist. He posts the same shit on every page I have come across. The sediment shit, and then something about mechanisms. Has he talked that ignorant shit yet? Jungle your a total creationist moron. If your hypothesis are correct, where are you published? You still waiting for that Nobel in the mail? You fucking idiot.
@zfan2591 Venomfangx, aka Shawn Karon, who is on youtube one of the oldest known and exposed YEC cyber-frauds. Entering his username into any search engine should tell you all you need to know about him.
This one was set up for you by [not me] but someone who thought you should have a fakebook page. Facebook will be the new media interface. A place where comments are allowed and not suppressed. I'm all for you and a fb page.
Time consuming.
Keep up the GREAT WORK AronRa. I just spent two days digesting this marvelous video "class." There was a great hole left when dear Christopher Hitchens passed. I thought of you as one to fill the void.
Creationists have no shame when it comes to snappy comebacks. That Index to Creationist claims? CreationWiki has it's own index trying to refute their refutations. It's really just repeating itself and moving the goalposts, and it really only showed me how dedicated they are to being wrong.
I absolutely LOVE that Aron-Ra has included screen caps from chirstianforums. the people in the creation vs. evolution forum there are ridiculous. Within the course of a one week experiment there, I debated several creationists and was met with threats of banning, threats of hell, insults, and zero coherent arguments in favour for creation.
Aaaawww - you used The Young Ones in that clip. The Young Ones are generally used much too little throughout YouTube - well throughout the Internet - well, the world then - ah heck! Throughout the Universe it is!
God did it is good enough for them? Well it certainly is not good enough for me. The way to find out what's true is to examine things. See what happens when you do this or that. Think about things with common sense and an open mind. Learn about things from others and work with them. Be skeptical of claims that have not met there burden of proof.
At 07:15 there is shown an illustration to the Dinotopia series. Now, do the creationists he talk about actually believe that this picture reflects actual events?
Sarah Palin believes that we were ridiing around on dinosaurs 4,000 years ago!(Like at the creationist museum/theme park) The scary thing about this is, the fact that a considerable portion of our populas would actually like to elect her.
There is observable evidence of a Maker. Yes, Christians go about arriving at the truth through the word of God and that does not mean that they did not arrive at knowing the truth.
The function that hydrogen has shows there is a Maker of the universe and He, Himself, in person is the only One who can do anything for us.
What function does hydrogen have? You have been asked this on multiple videos and have never provided an answer.
It's as if you're saying the existence of forces proves they were made by a Maker. But then you're stuck...you either have to ask what made the Maker or it turns into a special pleading fallacy.
@TheZooCrew Hydrogen runs motors that turn shafts that fabricate ATP so we can exist. It is no small function and it is not the only function that hydrogen has in life forms. Forces by themselves are not able to order life forms. The forces have to be ordered by an intelligent being and before that, the forces themselves have to be made to function.
I don't care to watch someone lie their ass off for 15 minutes.
"Hydrogen runs motors"
This a result of life adapting to use available resources, not the other way around. There's no evidence life outside of Earth couldn't exist without hydrogen. Your whole spiel is utterly tautological.
@TheZooCrew Evolution is not able to order any lesser functions. All lesser functions have a maker. What makes you believe that evolution is able to order the highest technology known to man?
See, that is the problem. You are not willing to hear or learn about what the facts are because your attention span is too short.
You need to really consider what the facts are.
Scientists have never told us where the sediments in the strata came from.
@JungleJargon your question makes no sence,you are asking me to find something with an ordered function that doesnt have a creater.the elements arent ordered they are as random and fierce as a cyclone
@werewolf873 The genome has a fixed order that it maintains for the sake of the viability of the species.
Try as they might, they cannot get mutations to accumulate. That means that the random nature of mutations is not able to make anything. That is the reason there is no evolution because the information is not there in the genome.
The variation that is in the genome never makes a new creature because the information available is limited so what the genome can do is also limited.
@JungleJargon "That means that the random nature of mutations is not able to make anything." So people with Cystic Fibrosis don't exist, since that would be a mutation of Chromosome 7? What about colorblindness which has been attributed to mutations of the X Chromosome?
"The variation that is in the genome never makes a new creature because the information available is limited so what the genome can do is also limited." Yet we have multiple examples of speciation. You are wrong.
@lhvinny The variation of species is what the genome does. Mutations are not responsible for uniform variations.
Sixtyfive roses is a horrible example of what mutations do and so is colorblindness. Mutations only destroy existing information because that is all they can do.
@JungleJargon "Sixtyfive roses is a horrible example of what mutations do and so is colorblindness. Mutations only destroy existing information because that is all they can do." Wrong. You only demonstrate that you aren't aware of the types of genetic mutations there are. Tell me, how does a gene duplication mutation destroy existing information if none of the previous bases were removed? How does an insertion mutation remove information? HINT: They don't.
@JungleJargon For more information on the types of mutations there are and also to learn what information is, I suggest you go to a university, take a course in biology and another that covers Shannon Theory. Education is the best way to correct your errors.
@lhvinny You have only given bad examples of mutations (which do not count as being a beneficial mutations) and information requires design of the elements, fabrication of the elements and it requires the ordering of the elements all of which require a Maker.
...and you need to be able to explain in your own words what it is that you believe.
@JungleJargon "You have only given bad examples of mutations (which do not count as being a beneficial mutations)" At what point did I claim they were beneficial? You claimed that mutations are not responsible for uniform variation, beneficial or otherwise. My examples directly refuted that claim. If you wish for me to provide examples of beneficial mutations, I can do so. Until then, stop being fallacious.
@JungleJargon In your definition of information, what do you mean by "the elements?" It appears that you are talking about what the observer or analyst of the information does with the information, not the information itself.
At any rate, you have again only demonstrated that you have not studied Sharron theory and thus show little understanding of what information is. Please go study.
What do my beliefs and my ability to explain them have to do with anything? Do you like non-sequitors?
@lhvinny Your inability to explain what your beliefs are means that you don't know what you are talking about.
Elements are things like hydrogen and most of the most common elements obeying the directives in life forms as directed by the preexisting word in the genome. That word, that orders the elements, is not only information, it is actively speaking and the elements obey what it says.
Information and information gathered require a maker. A robot that gathers information was made to do so.
@JungleJargon "Your inability to explain what your beliefs are means that you don't know what you are talking about." Where did I say I was unable to explain my beliefs? I simply said that they are not relevant to the topic at hand. Your attempt again to introduce a non-sequitor is recognized.
"Information and information gathered require a maker." No, information gathering requires a mind. There is a difference.
@JungleJargon "Elements are things like hydrogen and most of the most common elements" Thank you for clearing that up. It means that your definition of information is flawed.
Design of the elements requires no maker. Atoms are held together by natural forces (the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear forces) all which do their work without a supernatural influence.
Fabrication of the elements occurs naturally in stars through fusion. No supernatural being needed.
@JungleJargon Please, take a few courses at a university on Information Theory, chemistry, and biology.
With your misconception corrected, I am more than willing to share with you my beliefs. I will need to know, however, what category or type of beliefs you are inquiring about.
@JungleJargon What do you mean by "credit for their own existence?" At what point did I even claim that objects get this credit?
I currently have no belief when it comes to how existence began. This is because no experiment we've done so far gives any conclusive evidence indicating what that origin might be. I don't give credit to a "Maker" because there is no evidence that there was a maker.
@JungleJargon "Are you aware that there are 60 million cubic miles of sediments that covered all life on earth?" No, I'm not aware of that. So what? What does that have to do with anything?
@lhvinny So, you are very eager to change the subject from biology to geology.
Yes, there are 60 million cubic miles of sediments still covering all life that was living on earth that no one can explain where it all came from or how it came to cover all life forms on earth apart from a global flood.
That is a big elephant in the room that no one is seeing.
You failed in biology and you have failed in geology. Do you want to go to math or cosmology next?
@JungleJargon "So, you are very eager to change the subject from biology to geology." Not at all! You're the one who brought up the sediment thing. Stop projecting.
"no one can explain where it all came from or how it came to cover all life forms on earth apart from a global flood." LOL. There is an entire branch of geology that studies the origin of sedimentary layers called sedimentology. Claiming that no one's been able to explain it is horribly false.
@JungleJargon Sediment occurs for many reasons. One can be runoff from lakes and rivers. Other sedimentation occurs due to suspended particles in the atmosphere settling over time. Some sedimentary layers originate from areas of high vegetation, such as an ancient swamp, that accumulates over time.
There was no global flood. There is zero geological evidence indicating that it took place. Besides, what does any of this have to do with what our discussion was about?
@JungleJargon All I've seen from you so far is a jump from topic to topic, in each case ignoring that you have not refuted a single one of the presentations I've made without resorting to misrepresentation, outright lies, or projection. It becomes tiresome after a while.
@JungleJargon "The 60 million cubic miles of sediments is one of them." I already provided examples of how sediment is formed even though you claim no one knows. All evidence indicates that most of the layers formed over many years and could not have been laid down in one event as you claim.
"The fossils buried under the sediments is another." If you don't know how fossils are formed, we're done. That is elementary knowledge.
@JungleJargon "The ordered functions of most of most common elements in life forms is another one." I already explained this to you. The elements are ordered according to the electromagnetic force, the weak force and the strong force. Nothing supernatural about it.
"Mutations not accumulating or amounting to anything is another." I refuted this one in the first comment to you! It is clear that you aren't paying attention.
@JungleJargon "Historical and archeological findings of biblical evidence is another." Please...the "historical and archeological findings" indicate that the Bible used real places and talked about some real people within its pages. This does not, in any way, mean that everything in the Bible is historically correct.
Making that claim is similar to saying that since the Spiderman comics take place in New York City and there are Peter Parkers living there, then Spiderman is a real person.
@JungleJargon "Cosmological evidence of the depletion of the sun" Seriously? Exactly how many Hovindisms do you plan to throw out today? The sun has lost less than 1% of its total mass since the time it formed. To claim that the sun's depletion rate shows anything other than the approximate 4.5 billion year age is a flat out lie.
@JungleJargon "the distance of the moon" The moon recedes from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year. The moon's mean distance from the earth is 3.85x10^10 cm. Do the math; it would take billions of years for the moon to be a problem.
"existence of comets is another." Some comets do fully evaporate if they have been in the inner solar system long enough. However, some comets that say in the Kuiper belt never evaporate due to lack of energy necessary.
@JungleJargon You are also ignoring that new comets have been found to enter our solar system. Their existence does nothing to back the claim I think you're trying to make.
If your plan from here on out is to simply repeat Kent Hovind's garbage, then we're done. None of his claims are accurate and some are flat out lies. It is clear, from your laundry list, that you haven't even bothered to listen to what I have said, nor clearly read what was written.
@JungleJargon "It is an assumption that comets enter our solar system and it has never been proven." Oh really? Go research Comet Elenin. You are wrong.
"You haven't said anything for me to respond" Are you seriously that blind? Refer to my reply to you from 1 week ago, 4 days ago, 2 days ago, 18 hours ago, and the massive reply 1 hour ago. I have responded to all of your claims, showing why they are wrong, and have received no rebuttal; just a list of new claims.
@JungleJargon "I have even made up "a list" of things you cannot respond to." And yet in the last hour I have responded to every single one of them. You aren't bothering to read.
"Kent Hovind didn't plant the evidence." Nor did I claim he did. Hovind lies about the existence of the evidence. He didn't plant anything because there is nothing to plant.
@JungleJargon "You should also know that atheists and evolutionist always lose in a debate with Creationists when the Creationist knows what the facts are." Who wins a debate is subjective to the audience and is an appeal to populum. I find it hilarious that you even bring up debate, since it is obvious your position has failed to convince the scientific community. If your position is valid, then kindly explain why there is absolutely no scientific papers backing it up.
@lhvinny For one thing, there has never been a paper addressing the issues like 60 million cubic miles of sediments that would be eroded into the ocean by now with billions of years.
It is that same "scientific community" that is afraid to debate creationists because they already know that they will lose the debate. (LOL!)
We have the truth backing us which is so much better than papers with rambling words.
It is not because we are skilled debaters, it is because what we are saying is true.
@JungleJargon "We have the truth backing us which is so much better than papers with rambling words." Truth is demonstrated by evidence. Not by words on any page.
"It is that same "scientific community" that is afraid to debate creationists because they already know that they will lose the debate." Afraid? No. Simply not willing wanting to give attention to people who don't know what they're talking about.
@JungleJargon "there has never been a paper addressing the issues like 60 million cubic miles of sediments that would be eroded into the ocean by now with billions of years." Whose to say it would have? Are you not aware that rainfall does not fall uniformly in all locations? Yes, in some areas the erosion would be enough to remove the sediment, and we see that. However, that does not mean it would happen in all areas. Your black and white thinking is hindering you again.
@JungleJargon Of course there's going to be a bunch of sand in the ocean from the Sahara Desert. That desert borders miles upon miles of coastline.
Yes, rainfall patterns change, which only continues to show that anyone claiming that the erosion would have eliminated all sediment deposits is still only conjecture.
Of course we don't see billions of years worth of erosion. Who claimed that we did?
Where was I wrong? I have no problem admitting if I'm wrong.
@lhvinny Think about your belief in evolution. It says the earth is billions of years old and there is not billions of years of erosion showing on any of the continents.
What is showing is 60 million cubic miles of sediments that would be in the oceans if the earth was billions of years old and there are no similar layers of sediments on the ocean floors.
The only conjecture is that sediments were laid down in uniform consecutive layers over millions of years largely without being disturbed.
@JungleJargon "It says the earth is billions of years old " Wrong. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the divergent pattern of life on this planet. It says nothing about the age of the earth. You don't even know what evolution is yet alone what I may accept or not about it.
@lhvinny It is geology, astronomy, and chemistry that shows us that the earth is billions of years old. Your beef, it seems, is with pretty much every major branch of science out there, only part of which being biology. Even that is hilarious considering that it is knowledge gained through use of evolutionary biology that allows us to survive things like the flu virus, and manufacture things like antibiotics, vaccines and medicines that help sick people become well again.
@JungleJargon "there is not billions of years of erosion showing on any of the continents." So you're going to ignore the fact that the earth's crust renews itself through the shifting of tectonic plates? Of course there's no erosion pattern going back that far, nor does anyone with a sane mind think there should be.
"60 million cubic miles of sediments that would be in the oceans if the earth was billions of years old" According to whom? You are making up a problem without justification.
@lhvinny Tectonic activity does not add 60 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive layers of sediments.
I agree there was no erosion going back billions of years because it did not rain before the flood so the lack of erosion is not a problem for me as it is for those of you who believe that the earth is billions of years old in its present form.
If the earth was millions or billions of years old, the sediments would be in the oceans by now with the present rate of erosion.
@JungleJargon "Tectonic activity does not add 60 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive layers of sediments." Nor did I say it did.
"it did not rain before the flood" Then how did the plants grow?
"the sediments would be in the oceans by now with the present rate of erosion." Repeating an assertion without evidence doesn't make it any more than just an assertion. Who says this has to be the case? I won't ask you again.
@JungleJargon P.S. Do you realize that most of the claims you're making can be found on Creation Ministries International's "Arguments we think creationists should not use" webpage? Figured you would enjoy the fyi.
@JungleJargon "Scientist's publications mean nothing when they lose in a debate." The publications would not be in the journals if they had lost. It's called peer-review. Look it up.
"All creationists know that it did not rain before the flood." Yet I just showed you a website that directly contradicted this claim. There are creationists who believe there was rain before the flood. It is you, sir, who continues to show faulty thinking, which I have pointed out to you time and time again.
@JungleJargon Claim 5: Information requires design of the elements and that design can only come from your version of a maker. I showed this false by clarifying that you meant the chemical elements and then the process of nuclear synthesis and electromagnetic forces which are naturalistic reasons why the elements exist they way they do. There's nothing supernatural about it.
Claim 6: The sediment should have eroded. You have yet to share who says so and why.
@JungleJargon Claim 7: There is historical evidence backing up the Bible. As I mentioned, there is as much historical evidence backing up the supernatural claims of the bible as there is historical evidence that spider man actually exists and lives in New York City.
Claim 8: Sun depletion. The sun has lost very little of its mass and won't lose the majority of it even before it explodes.
Claim 9: Moon recession. The recession rate is too slow for it to contribute anything to help your view
@JungleJargon Claim 10: Comet existence shows a young earth. No, it doesn't. Comets only lose mass when close enough to the sun to burn up. Most comets are on long trajectories so they burn very little compared to their full cycle.
Claim 11: We've never seen a new comet enter the solar system. Yes, we have and I cited an example.
Claim 12: There was no rain before the flood. You still have not answered my question about how plants grew without rain.
@JungleJargon Claim 13: All creationists know there was no rain before the flood. I cited a web page that directly says the opposite.
Saying I'm not addressing the issues is an outright lie. It is clear that you have not paid any attention to what I have written over the past week. You clearly have no interest in what is being discussed.
I am interested in the facts and have showed them to you as I understand them. You chose to ignore that. We're done since you are not willing to listen.
@TomFynn OK, everybody, we have an "expert" here who says that the sedimentary rock is 125 million cubic miles. I actually had the estimate up to 120 million cubic miles and I wasn't sure so I brought it back down to 60 million cubic miles to be conservative so my original estimate was right. (Thanks)
My point is that these "many distinct thin layers" of sediments covering all living things on earth did not fall from the sky.
No geologist has ever accounted for the "where from" or the "how".
@JungleJargon Yes, geologists have explained the movement of sediment, as it can be remembered from any fifth grade science class. It is such a stupendously unsupported rebuttal that it can be found nowhere in arguments supporting evolution, since it does not deserve to be confirmed. Soil is deposited by bodies of moving or stationary water. The shape of bodies of water is determined by the shape of the earth. Thus the surface of Earth is always changing.
@JungleJargon The argument defends itself against this rebuttal. Water always takes the easiest path across the land. As it does so, it reshapes the land. Due to the reshaping of the land, the water again takes the easiest path, which reshapes the land further. If the land is always changing, the water is always changing paths. Thus where there once was water there is now land. And this is without even considering glaciers and wind.
@psychomantiskiller You still don't understand, there are unbroken consecutive layers that go down over a mile deep around the world and that only exists on land.
@lhvinny You really shouldn't loose your time on this ape. He has shit were his brain should be. I discussed with him before and he is just an old man blessed with his ignorance, and content with his lies.
@assalane I feel bad that I confused him by posting more than 500 character's worth of reply to his misconceptions and falsehoods. It appears that finding and reading more than 500 characters at a time in difficult for him.
In any case, I am done, since talking with brick walls is counterproductive.
@assalane What is your excuse for giving all of the credit to objects for designing, making and ordering themselves all by themselves before they even existed?
@JungleJargon Spelling is the least of your problems. Your problem is the you are speaking complete nonsense. Start making sense and we can adress issues.
@JungleJargon You obviously can't tell the difference between square miles and cubic miles and have the gall to talk down to people? Don't tell, let me guess: You are a Creatard?
hahaha why do they always call evolution racist? It makes it clear that our evolution began in Africa, so we all have common ancestors in Africa... How are they getting away with all this? I have watched america for a while, and it is slowly turning into a theocracy...
It's because Darwin used the word "race" to refer to "species" in a few instances and creationists are religiously opposed to dictionaries and Google searches.
@AronRa i love ur channel, have u ever debated a creationist live? if u have do u have a video for it? great work man i have seen most of ur stuff even on the atheist experience....
@AronRa you made a really interesting work here,the research is well done, congrats !!... If you put Spanish subtitles on series of videos a lot of people will wake up...it might be a great work to share with Latin America where the church has power and there is no division church/state.Thanks
@AronRa you made a really interesting work here,the research is well done, congrats !!... If you put Spanish subtitles on series of videos a lot of people will wake up...it might be a great work to share with Latin America where the church has power and there is no division church/state.Thanks
@Aronra you made a really interesting work here,the research is well done, congrats !!... If you put Spanish subtitles on series of videos a lot of people will wake up...it might be a great work to share with Latin America where the church has power and there is no division church/state.Thanks
@recontrasurfer Translating these videos would be a job and a half. I speak Spanish and wouldn't even know where to begin in translating all the scientific terms used.
@Retrieverman1 Blaphemy! Beavis and Butthead would be insulted by such a comparison! Beavis and Butthead may have been idiots, but at least they were entertaining. Hovind and his ilk are not nearly as enjoyable to watch and far less funny.
That giant foot at the end... Was that taken from the video "Bambi Meets Godzilla"?
TrueDenamos 4 hours ago
1:59 i did the same exact thing O.O
momopup01 17 hours ago
Wishful thinking in my opinion, is the biggest reason for this problem. I get it. I am terrified of death and the ceasing of existence. Every time some nut predicts the apocalypse and return of god I want it to be true; I want an afterlife too. I know that it's not true based on what I know about the natural world.
hybriddefect 17 hours ago
Comment removed
hybriddefect 18 hours ago
okokok:
what caused the big bang?
and how did the first cell appear randomly by chance?
andandand: why is there absolutely no mechanism that is documented to be able to provide the extreme complexity you need for the human body from molecules?
atheists are retards, lmao
xXsakkelaoXx 1 day ago
@xXsakkelaoXx The fact that some things just happen without any understandable or detectable cause doesn't make those that accept these occurances look like retards. Inventing causes for these things makes people look like retards, especially if said retardation is dramatically emphasised. DeepAstronomy "What Caused the Big Bang"
dj092768 18 hours ago
Cont'd from below:
She e-mails a few friends about the day's plans, then climbs into her hybrid car, punches in the GPS coordinates she needs, and using the voice activated cell phone, calls her mother, all before arriving at a rally to hear a sermon on how SCIENCE LIES and the BIBLE SPEAKS THE TRUTH.
EVERY creationist is a hypocrite.
carmium 1 day ago
A woman wakes to music from her satellite clock radio, showers with water from her new flash heater, then grabs a coffee from the pre-programmed drip machine and slices up a fresh mango from South America. Remembering to take her heart condition medicine, she catches the news on the satellite TV system over breakfast, digitally recording an item of interest before setting the PVR to save the noon news. ...cont'd
carmium 1 day ago
On the list of "arguments Creationists should not use"; I don't see how gold being found in a coal vein would have any impact on the issue at hand. At most, it would be a co-incidence.
dj092768 1 day ago
6:44 'GOD DID IT --- CASE CLOSED." don't think I've EVER seen something more ignorant than that phrase. it's like these people WANT to remain uneducated and stay in their dark little room with their faith and imaginary gods. it's truly sad to see stuff like this in the 21st century, makes me lose faith in humanity.
mimikawaii7386 3 days ago
@mimikawaii7386 God did it, not because we want to believe him, but because he actually did, and who gave you the impression that thats the end of science? heck! all scientists leading up to today were god believing christians (newton, keppler) only now everyone want to believe an explosion from nothing made everything, LOL talk about humanity, wtf are we? advanced apes??? lmao
xXsakkelaoXx 1 day ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
Was that every creationist straw man rolled into two posts? Holy shit. I realize that you're forced to lie about science because you can't refute it with actual arguments, but normally there's at least a hint of subtlety.
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
@TheZooCrew was that comment for the less informed so that they might actually believe you, because when I checked, your comment didn't say a shit about what was wrong with mine, your just trying to boost the already pathetic faith of atheists that we somehow, from something you can't even make happen in a testtube (life from non-life) came from random chance ?? although what we actually observe in nature is losses of information
xXsakkelaoXx 1 day ago
Comment removed
dj092768 18 hours ago
Comment removed
xXsakkelaoXx 9 hours ago
@dj092768 you have??? could you send me the internet link please :D
yes, what mechanisms caused inflation? and what made the galaxies cluster (give some proper answer here bro, I might believe you :D )
xXsakkelaoXx 9 hours ago
@TheZooCrew GO ON: so that everyone can see your retardedness, wtf was strawman about my first comment?
and wtf caused the big bang?? SAY IT, SAY IT!!!!!!
xXsakkelaoXx 1 day ago
I wonder what's the difference between this guy and other atheists.... OH! he's American...
sinachiniforoosh 1 week ago
Aron...i dont know if you've done this already, but PLEASE turn these FFoC into one single book, with a little bit more detail on each topic...these are amazing videos plz make a book
SuckMikeHunt 1 week ago
Evolution theory is a pseudo-science.
jb0433628 1 week ago
@jb0433628 Just from reading your comments and the website you spammed, I can tell that you know very little about the theory of evolution. You should learn how something works before you try to discredit it or prove it wrong. The theory of evolution is the backbone of modern biology.
urantivirus 1 week ago
@urantivirus
Sorry, I did not have time to waste. But I know how biochemistry works, as well as human neurology.
jb0433628 1 week ago
@jb0433628 At least you admit you're ignorant. Too bad you have no idea why biochemistry works. You know how it works in it's present state but don't know where it came from. For the record, I wasted my time reading the garbage you spammed on here. My conclusion from reading it was that you obviously didn't even know how evolution works and I was right. How you find yourself qualified to discredit the theory of evolution absolutely baffles me.
urantivirus 1 week ago
@urantivirus
Haha, this is funny to read how arrogant atheists are. You are probably a dropout from high school, while I am studying for a master's degree in artificial intelligence and computer vision, with classes in neurology. But it's useless to argue with evolutionists, because you are pretending that evolution is a real science like maths or physics, while it's a pseudo-science theory based on no physical evidence. I just feel sad for you.
jb0433628 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jb0433628
« based on no physical evidence »
Well, except for the nested hierarchies of biology, and the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, the numerous morphological intermediates in the fossil record, numerous atavisms, ERV distribution patterns, human chromosome #2, and so on.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
@jb0433628 I'm starting to doubt you're a student of any type. From what you've shown me, even high school students know more about science than you. You don't even seem to know what science is or how it works, never mind biology or any other field. You think math is science? Do you think mathematicians use the scientific method? And how can you call evolution a pseudo-science, when you don't even know how it works? They do apply the scientific method to evolution, that's because it's science.
urantivirus 1 week ago
@jb0433628 You're a sad, lying, ignorant hypocrite. You call me arrogant and a drop out. When you clearly know nothing about the topic of your comments and boast about an education you are receiving, which is most likely just a lie. You are truly pathetic and so is your school if you aren't lying about your education.
urantivirus 1 week ago
@urantivirus
It's useless to argue with someone who deny evidence and reality like you. I hope you have a happy life in your imaginary world.
jb0433628 1 week ago
@jb0433628 Was the irony of your last comment intentional? It was funny none the less.
urantivirus 1 week ago
@jb0433628 A lot of the knowledge you claim to have about biochemistry and neurology comes from the understanding of the theory of evolution. Remember you're ignorant of the theory of evolution, so would you know if that was true?
urantivirus 1 week ago
@jb0433628 No it isn't.
ThePresident001 1 week ago
I honestly can't watch creationist videos anymore. I feel too embarrassed for humanity.
CommitToFocus 1 week ago
FATHER TED and THE YOUNG ONES ftw!
GoblinXXX 1 week ago
P.S. - Hey Jungle I got an idea for you. Go on the Magic Sandwich Show with your junk science. Go up against them, and puke out your worthless theories. I would love to watch them hand your ass to you on a silver platter. AronRa is just one of the hosts. Go there I freaking triple dog dare you. No . . . not so sure of your ignorant hypothesis. You won't though cause just like most theists, put them or their bullshit to the test and it falls apart.
XchristianHeathen 2 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism by AronRa
Wow this JungleJargan idiot gets around. You might as well give up trying to pull this moron out of the dark ages. He's a complete lost cause, and full blown theist propagandist. He posts the same shit on every page I have come across. The sediment shit, and then something about mechanisms. Has he talked that ignorant shit yet? Jungle your a total creationist moron. If your hypothesis are correct, where are you published? You still waiting for that Nobel in the mail? You fucking idiot.
XchristianHeathen 2 weeks ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism by AronRa
Does anybody know who 5:16 is?
zfan2591 2 weeks ago
@zfan2591 Venomfangx, aka Shawn Karon, who is on youtube one of the oldest known and exposed YEC cyber-frauds. Entering his username into any search engine should tell you all you need to know about him.
whitefox998 2 weeks ago
@zfan2591 Pretty sure it's venonfangx
Eniacbc 1 week ago
Comment removed
zfan2591 2 weeks ago
This one was set up for you by [not me] but someone who thought you should have a fakebook page. Facebook will be the new media interface. A place where comments are allowed and not suppressed. I'm all for you and a fb page.
Time consuming.
Keep up the GREAT WORK AronRa. I just spent two days digesting this marvelous video "class." There was a great hole left when dear Christopher Hitchens passed. I thought of you as one to fill the void.
facebook dot com/pages/AronRa
bdsf1 1 month ago in playlist More videos from AronRa 7
@bdsf1
Ah Ha. You did get your "identity" back
aronra dot com
good for you sir.
bdsf1 1 month ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
"God did it" may be good enough for creationists but I would like to know how God did it.
davidsfriend01 1 month ago
Creationists have no shame when it comes to snappy comebacks. That Index to Creationist claims? CreationWiki has it's own index trying to refute their refutations. It's really just repeating itself and moving the goalposts, and it really only showed me how dedicated they are to being wrong.
pat5168 2 months ago
I absolutely LOVE that Aron-Ra has included screen caps from chirstianforums. the people in the creation vs. evolution forum there are ridiculous. Within the course of a one week experiment there, I debated several creationists and was met with threats of banning, threats of hell, insults, and zero coherent arguments in favour for creation.
SeireiNoRyu 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
I had to stop each slide to read them, then rewind to hear AronRa. A ten minute video magically turned into twenty minute video. It's a miracle!
kaduisaui 3 months ago
Where is 4:35 from?
Toastishott 3 months ago
Aaaawww - you used The Young Ones in that clip. The Young Ones are generally used much too little throughout YouTube - well throughout the Internet - well, the world then - ah heck! Throughout the Universe it is!
partypagan 3 months ago
gota love the aronra...oh yea
managarm1349 3 months ago
atheists. winning.
MoralRapist 3 months ago 19
@MoralRapist
To all atheists :
w w w . cosmicfingerprints . com / dna-atheists /
jb0433628 1 week ago
well said, best video I have watched in a long time
theGroveMan 3 months ago
Are you saying enzyte doesn't work O.o?
b33p3rz 4 months ago
God did it is good enough for them? Well it certainly is not good enough for me. The way to find out what's true is to examine things. See what happens when you do this or that. Think about things with common sense and an open mind. Learn about things from others and work with them. Be skeptical of claims that have not met there burden of proof.
jeremythehuman 4 months ago
At 07:15 there is shown an illustration to the Dinotopia series. Now, do the creationists he talk about actually believe that this picture reflects actual events?
inotaishu1 4 months ago
OH Great AronRa, bless us mere ignorant mortals with a link/name of the video that starts at 4:35, so we can laugh our asses off.
May Joe Pesci bless you&family and your small winged friend.
Jokes aside, thank you for these wonderful videos of pure ownage of stupidity,ignorance and hypocrisy.
May you live forever (if wanted).
mihaimoldo 5 months ago
Sarah Palin believes that we were ridiing around on dinosaurs 4,000 years ago!(Like at the creationist museum/theme park) The scary thing about this is, the fact that a considerable portion of our populas would actually like to elect her.
somethingdiffereable 6 months ago
Bambi - VS - Godzilla ! :)
NoFearOfGod 6 months ago
(You have to like VenomFangX)
JungleJargon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon
Why should i believe in your religious creationism, if you can't explain AB resistance or Plant speciation without using evolution theory?
transtlantic 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon I have no idea what you are on about.
TomFynn 5 months ago
Strawman alert!
There is observable evidence of a Maker. Yes, Christians go about arriving at the truth through the word of God and that does not mean that they did not arrive at knowing the truth.
The function that hydrogen has shows there is a Maker of the universe and He, Himself, in person is the only One who can do anything for us.
That is the gospel according to Science.
watch?v=t0dcH9RFfX8
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
What function does hydrogen have? You have been asked this on multiple videos and have never provided an answer.
It's as if you're saying the existence of forces proves they were made by a Maker. But then you're stuck...you either have to ask what made the Maker or it turns into a special pleading fallacy.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew Hydrogen runs motors that turn shafts that fabricate ATP so we can exist. It is no small function and it is not the only function that hydrogen has in life forms. Forces by themselves are not able to order life forms. The forces have to be ordered by an intelligent being and before that, the forces themselves have to be made to function.
watch?v=yAL-jRO6hjE
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
I don't care to watch someone lie their ass off for 15 minutes.
"Hydrogen runs motors"
This a result of life adapting to use available resources, not the other way around. There's no evidence life outside of Earth couldn't exist without hydrogen. Your whole spiel is utterly tautological.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew Evolution is not able to order any lesser functions. All lesser functions have a maker. What makes you believe that evolution is able to order the highest technology known to man?
See, that is the problem. You are not willing to hear or learn about what the facts are because your attention span is too short.
You need to really consider what the facts are.
Scientists have never told us where the sediments in the strata came from.
What makes you think they can tell you the age?
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon and what are the facts? please direct me to the website (not venomfagx video-he has 0 credibility) where these facts are shown
werewolf873 5 months ago
@werewolf873 There are 60 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive layeres of sediments covering all life forms on earth.
Most of the most common elements are are essential working parts in life forms that require having a Maker.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon and i repeat where are the facts saying that the elements require a maker
werewolf873 5 months ago
@werewolf873 Function always requires having a maker in the real world.
Show me another ordered function that does not have a maker.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon your question makes no sence,you are asking me to find something with an ordered function that doesnt have a creater.the elements arent ordered they are as random and fierce as a cyclone
werewolf873 5 months ago
@werewolf873 The genome has a fixed order that it maintains for the sake of the viability of the species.
Try as they might, they cannot get mutations to accumulate. That means that the random nature of mutations is not able to make anything. That is the reason there is no evolution because the information is not there in the genome.
The variation that is in the genome never makes a new creature because the information available is limited so what the genome can do is also limited.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "I don't care to watch someone lie there ass off for 15 minuts"
and niether do i. if youve watched this series than youre refusal to accept evolution is nothing more than idiocy. good bye.
werewolf873 5 months ago
@werewolf873 watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
You need to address facts and issues.
You can call someone a mule all day long and it will never prove anything.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "That means that the random nature of mutations is not able to make anything." So people with Cystic Fibrosis don't exist, since that would be a mutation of Chromosome 7? What about colorblindness which has been attributed to mutations of the X Chromosome?
"The variation that is in the genome never makes a new creature because the information available is limited so what the genome can do is also limited." Yet we have multiple examples of speciation. You are wrong.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny The variation of species is what the genome does. Mutations are not responsible for uniform variations.
Sixtyfive roses is a horrible example of what mutations do and so is colorblindness. Mutations only destroy existing information because that is all they can do.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "Sixtyfive roses is a horrible example of what mutations do and so is colorblindness. Mutations only destroy existing information because that is all they can do." Wrong. You only demonstrate that you aren't aware of the types of genetic mutations there are. Tell me, how does a gene duplication mutation destroy existing information if none of the previous bases were removed? How does an insertion mutation remove information? HINT: They don't.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon For more information on the types of mutations there are and also to learn what information is, I suggest you go to a university, take a course in biology and another that covers Shannon Theory. Education is the best way to correct your errors.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny You have only given bad examples of mutations (which do not count as being a beneficial mutations) and information requires design of the elements, fabrication of the elements and it requires the ordering of the elements all of which require a Maker.
...and you need to be able to explain in your own words what it is that you believe.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "You have only given bad examples of mutations (which do not count as being a beneficial mutations)" At what point did I claim they were beneficial? You claimed that mutations are not responsible for uniform variation, beneficial or otherwise. My examples directly refuted that claim. If you wish for me to provide examples of beneficial mutations, I can do so. Until then, stop being fallacious.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon In your definition of information, what do you mean by "the elements?" It appears that you are talking about what the observer or analyst of the information does with the information, not the information itself.
At any rate, you have again only demonstrated that you have not studied Sharron theory and thus show little understanding of what information is. Please go study.
What do my beliefs and my ability to explain them have to do with anything? Do you like non-sequitors?
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny Your inability to explain what your beliefs are means that you don't know what you are talking about.
Elements are things like hydrogen and most of the most common elements obeying the directives in life forms as directed by the preexisting word in the genome. That word, that orders the elements, is not only information, it is actively speaking and the elements obey what it says.
Information and information gathered require a maker. A robot that gathers information was made to do so.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "Your inability to explain what your beliefs are means that you don't know what you are talking about." Where did I say I was unable to explain my beliefs? I simply said that they are not relevant to the topic at hand. Your attempt again to introduce a non-sequitor is recognized.
"Information and information gathered require a maker." No, information gathering requires a mind. There is a difference.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "Elements are things like hydrogen and most of the most common elements" Thank you for clearing that up. It means that your definition of information is flawed.
Design of the elements requires no maker. Atoms are held together by natural forces (the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear forces) all which do their work without a supernatural influence.
Fabrication of the elements occurs naturally in stars through fusion. No supernatural being needed.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Please, take a few courses at a university on Information Theory, chemistry, and biology.
With your misconception corrected, I am more than willing to share with you my beliefs. I will need to know, however, what category or type of beliefs you are inquiring about.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny You need to take a course on addressing the issues.
You need to explain your belief that objects get the credit for their own existence and ordered functions rather than a Maker.
Are you aware that there are 60 million cubic miles of sediments that covered all life on earth?
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon What do you mean by "credit for their own existence?" At what point did I even claim that objects get this credit?
I currently have no belief when it comes to how existence began. This is because no experiment we've done so far gives any conclusive evidence indicating what that origin might be. I don't give credit to a "Maker" because there is no evidence that there was a maker.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "Are you aware that there are 60 million cubic miles of sediments that covered all life on earth?" No, I'm not aware of that. So what? What does that have to do with anything?
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny So, you are very eager to change the subject from biology to geology.
Yes, there are 60 million cubic miles of sediments still covering all life that was living on earth that no one can explain where it all came from or how it came to cover all life forms on earth apart from a global flood.
That is a big elephant in the room that no one is seeing.
You failed in biology and you have failed in geology. Do you want to go to math or cosmology next?
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "So, you are very eager to change the subject from biology to geology." Not at all! You're the one who brought up the sediment thing. Stop projecting.
"no one can explain where it all came from or how it came to cover all life forms on earth apart from a global flood." LOL. There is an entire branch of geology that studies the origin of sedimentary layers called sedimentology. Claiming that no one's been able to explain it is horribly false.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Sediment occurs for many reasons. One can be runoff from lakes and rivers. Other sedimentation occurs due to suspended particles in the atmosphere settling over time. Some sedimentary layers originate from areas of high vegetation, such as an ancient swamp, that accumulates over time.
There was no global flood. There is zero geological evidence indicating that it took place. Besides, what does any of this have to do with what our discussion was about?
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon All I've seen from you so far is a jump from topic to topic, in each case ignoring that you have not refuted a single one of the presentations I've made without resorting to misrepresentation, outright lies, or projection. It becomes tiresome after a while.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny There are a lot of big elephants in the room that you are not talking about.
If you had anything to say about them, you would have said it already.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Because they aren't the topic of discussion. Staying on topic during a discussion is an important and expected trait during discourse.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny The big elephants in the room are on topic.
The 60 million cubic miles of sediments is one of them.
The fossils buried under the sediments is another.
The ordered functions of most of most common elements in life forms is another one.
Mutations not accumulating or amounting to anything is another.
Historical and archeological findings of biblical evidence is another.
Cosmological evidence of the depletion of the sun, the distance of the moon and existence of comets is another.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "The 60 million cubic miles of sediments is one of them." I already provided examples of how sediment is formed even though you claim no one knows. All evidence indicates that most of the layers formed over many years and could not have been laid down in one event as you claim.
"The fossils buried under the sediments is another." If you don't know how fossils are formed, we're done. That is elementary knowledge.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "The ordered functions of most of most common elements in life forms is another one." I already explained this to you. The elements are ordered according to the electromagnetic force, the weak force and the strong force. Nothing supernatural about it.
"Mutations not accumulating or amounting to anything is another." I refuted this one in the first comment to you! It is clear that you aren't paying attention.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "Historical and archeological findings of biblical evidence is another." Please...the "historical and archeological findings" indicate that the Bible used real places and talked about some real people within its pages. This does not, in any way, mean that everything in the Bible is historically correct.
Making that claim is similar to saying that since the Spiderman comics take place in New York City and there are Peter Parkers living there, then Spiderman is a real person.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "Cosmological evidence of the depletion of the sun" Seriously? Exactly how many Hovindisms do you plan to throw out today? The sun has lost less than 1% of its total mass since the time it formed. To claim that the sun's depletion rate shows anything other than the approximate 4.5 billion year age is a flat out lie.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "the distance of the moon" The moon recedes from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year. The moon's mean distance from the earth is 3.85x10^10 cm. Do the math; it would take billions of years for the moon to be a problem.
"existence of comets is another." Some comets do fully evaporate if they have been in the inner solar system long enough. However, some comets that say in the Kuiper belt never evaporate due to lack of energy necessary.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon You are also ignoring that new comets have been found to enter our solar system. Their existence does nothing to back the claim I think you're trying to make.
If your plan from here on out is to simply repeat Kent Hovind's garbage, then we're done. None of his claims are accurate and some are flat out lies. It is clear, from your laundry list, that you haven't even bothered to listen to what I have said, nor clearly read what was written.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny It is an assumption that comets enter our solar system and it has never been proven.
You haven't said anything for me to respond to while I have even made up "a list" of things you cannot respond to.
Kent Hovind didn't plant the evidence.
You should also know that atheists and evolutionist always lose in a debate with Creationists when the Creationist knows what the facts are.
It is one of the facts of life.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "It is an assumption that comets enter our solar system and it has never been proven." Oh really? Go research Comet Elenin. You are wrong.
"You haven't said anything for me to respond" Are you seriously that blind? Refer to my reply to you from 1 week ago, 4 days ago, 2 days ago, 18 hours ago, and the massive reply 1 hour ago. I have responded to all of your claims, showing why they are wrong, and have received no rebuttal; just a list of new claims.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "I have even made up "a list" of things you cannot respond to." And yet in the last hour I have responded to every single one of them. You aren't bothering to read.
"Kent Hovind didn't plant the evidence." Nor did I claim he did. Hovind lies about the existence of the evidence. He didn't plant anything because there is nothing to plant.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "You should also know that atheists and evolutionist always lose in a debate with Creationists when the Creationist knows what the facts are." Who wins a debate is subjective to the audience and is an appeal to populum. I find it hilarious that you even bring up debate, since it is obvious your position has failed to convince the scientific community. If your position is valid, then kindly explain why there is absolutely no scientific papers backing it up.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny For one thing, there has never been a paper addressing the issues like 60 million cubic miles of sediments that would be eroded into the ocean by now with billions of years.
It is that same "scientific community" that is afraid to debate creationists because they already know that they will lose the debate. (LOL!)
We have the truth backing us which is so much better than papers with rambling words.
It is not because we are skilled debaters, it is because what we are saying is true.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "We have the truth backing us which is so much better than papers with rambling words." Truth is demonstrated by evidence. Not by words on any page.
"It is that same "scientific community" that is afraid to debate creationists because they already know that they will lose the debate." Afraid? No. Simply not willing wanting to give attention to people who don't know what they're talking about.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "there has never been a paper addressing the issues like 60 million cubic miles of sediments that would be eroded into the ocean by now with billions of years." Whose to say it would have? Are you not aware that rainfall does not fall uniformly in all locations? Yes, in some areas the erosion would be enough to remove the sediment, and we see that. However, that does not mean it would happen in all areas. Your black and white thinking is hindering you again.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny Are you aware that there is a bunch of sand in the ocean from the Sahara Desert?
...and rainfall paterns change.
...and you do not see billions of years worth of erosion.
You would have been better off just admitting that you were wrong.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Of course there's going to be a bunch of sand in the ocean from the Sahara Desert. That desert borders miles upon miles of coastline.
Yes, rainfall patterns change, which only continues to show that anyone claiming that the erosion would have eliminated all sediment deposits is still only conjecture.
Of course we don't see billions of years worth of erosion. Who claimed that we did?
Where was I wrong? I have no problem admitting if I'm wrong.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny Think about your belief in evolution. It says the earth is billions of years old and there is not billions of years of erosion showing on any of the continents.
What is showing is 60 million cubic miles of sediments that would be in the oceans if the earth was billions of years old and there are no similar layers of sediments on the ocean floors.
The only conjecture is that sediments were laid down in uniform consecutive layers over millions of years largely without being disturbed.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "It says the earth is billions of years old " Wrong. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the divergent pattern of life on this planet. It says nothing about the age of the earth. You don't even know what evolution is yet alone what I may accept or not about it.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny It is geology, astronomy, and chemistry that shows us that the earth is billions of years old. Your beef, it seems, is with pretty much every major branch of science out there, only part of which being biology. Even that is hilarious considering that it is knowledge gained through use of evolutionary biology that allows us to survive things like the flu virus, and manufacture things like antibiotics, vaccines and medicines that help sick people become well again.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "there is not billions of years of erosion showing on any of the continents." So you're going to ignore the fact that the earth's crust renews itself through the shifting of tectonic plates? Of course there's no erosion pattern going back that far, nor does anyone with a sane mind think there should be.
"60 million cubic miles of sediments that would be in the oceans if the earth was billions of years old" According to whom? You are making up a problem without justification.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny Tectonic activity does not add 60 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive layers of sediments.
I agree there was no erosion going back billions of years because it did not rain before the flood so the lack of erosion is not a problem for me as it is for those of you who believe that the earth is billions of years old in its present form.
If the earth was millions or billions of years old, the sediments would be in the oceans by now with the present rate of erosion.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "Tectonic activity does not add 60 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive layers of sediments." Nor did I say it did.
"it did not rain before the flood" Then how did the plants grow?
"the sediments would be in the oceans by now with the present rate of erosion." Repeating an assertion without evidence doesn't make it any more than just an assertion. Who says this has to be the case? I won't ask you again.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon P.S. Do you realize that most of the claims you're making can be found on Creation Ministries International's "Arguments we think creationists should not use" webpage? Figured you would enjoy the fyi.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny You are not addressing the issues.
Scientist's publications mean nothing when they lose in a debate.
All creationists know that it did not rain before the flood.
Your arguments and your beliefs fall short of what the truth is.
You have failed to face what the facts are.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "Scientist's publications mean nothing when they lose in a debate." The publications would not be in the journals if they had lost. It's called peer-review. Look it up.
"All creationists know that it did not rain before the flood." Yet I just showed you a website that directly contradicted this claim. There are creationists who believe there was rain before the flood. It is you, sir, who continues to show faulty thinking, which I have pointed out to you time and time again.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "You are not addressing the issues." Oh really? Let's review, shall we?
Claim 1: Mutations are not able to make anything new. I showed this false with examples and have plenty more if you wish to see them.
Claim 2: Variation cannot make new creatures. I refuted this with observed speciation events.
Claim 3: Mutations only destroy information by removing from the genome. I showed this false through duplication mutations and insertions.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny You did not prove anything. You are just saying you proved something.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Claim 5: Information requires design of the elements and that design can only come from your version of a maker. I showed this false by clarifying that you meant the chemical elements and then the process of nuclear synthesis and electromagnetic forces which are naturalistic reasons why the elements exist they way they do. There's nothing supernatural about it.
Claim 6: The sediment should have eroded. You have yet to share who says so and why.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Claim 7: There is historical evidence backing up the Bible. As I mentioned, there is as much historical evidence backing up the supernatural claims of the bible as there is historical evidence that spider man actually exists and lives in New York City.
Claim 8: Sun depletion. The sun has lost very little of its mass and won't lose the majority of it even before it explodes.
Claim 9: Moon recession. The recession rate is too slow for it to contribute anything to help your view
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Claim 10: Comet existence shows a young earth. No, it doesn't. Comets only lose mass when close enough to the sun to burn up. Most comets are on long trajectories so they burn very little compared to their full cycle.
Claim 11: We've never seen a new comet enter the solar system. Yes, we have and I cited an example.
Claim 12: There was no rain before the flood. You still have not answered my question about how plants grew without rain.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Claim 13: All creationists know there was no rain before the flood. I cited a web page that directly says the opposite.
Saying I'm not addressing the issues is an outright lie. It is clear that you have not paid any attention to what I have written over the past week. You clearly have no interest in what is being discussed.
I am interested in the facts and have showed them to you as I understand them. You chose to ignore that. We're done since you are not willing to listen.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny The Bible says that it did not rain before the flood so I don't know what kind of creationist you are citing.
When did you address the 60 million cubic miles of sediments or say that only a flood could deposit that much sediment?
When did you address any of the list of things that I made?
You are not at all interested in facing the facts.
You have had many opportunities to say something and you have not addressed any of the issues because you don't have anything to say.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Radius of earth: 3959 mi
Thickness of crust 3 mi (ocean, 71% of surface), 20 mi (land, 29 %), both thickness lower estimates
Surface of Earth: 4*pi*3959*3959 sq mi
Volume of Crust: 1.56 billion cubic mi.
Amount of sedimentary rock in crust: 8% or 125 million cubic miles.
Distribution: Many distinct thin layers. (Example: Grand Canyon).
Containing: Fossils.
Dated (by radiometric methods): Up to 3.9 billion years.
Your point: None whatsoever
TomFynn 5 months ago
Comment removed
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@TomFynn OK, everybody, we have an "expert" here who says that the sedimentary rock is 125 million cubic miles. I actually had the estimate up to 120 million cubic miles and I wasn't sure so I brought it back down to 60 million cubic miles to be conservative so my original estimate was right. (Thanks)
My point is that these "many distinct thin layers" of sediments covering all living things on earth did not fall from the sky.
No geologist has ever accounted for the "where from" or the "how".
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Yes, geologists have explained the movement of sediment, as it can be remembered from any fifth grade science class. It is such a stupendously unsupported rebuttal that it can be found nowhere in arguments supporting evolution, since it does not deserve to be confirmed. Soil is deposited by bodies of moving or stationary water. The shape of bodies of water is determined by the shape of the earth. Thus the surface of Earth is always changing.
psychomantiskiller 3 weeks ago
@psychomantiskiller Your argument is not even almost logical because all of the sediment layers are primarily on land.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon The argument defends itself against this rebuttal. Water always takes the easiest path across the land. As it does so, it reshapes the land. Due to the reshaping of the land, the water again takes the easiest path, which reshapes the land further. If the land is always changing, the water is always changing paths. Thus where there once was water there is now land. And this is without even considering glaciers and wind.
psychomantiskiller 3 weeks ago
@psychomantiskiller You still don't understand, there are unbroken consecutive layers that go down over a mile deep around the world and that only exists on land.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@lhvinny You really shouldn't loose your time on this ape. He has shit were his brain should be. I discussed with him before and he is just an old man blessed with his ignorance, and content with his lies.
assalane 5 months ago
@assalane I feel bad that I confused him by posting more than 500 character's worth of reply to his misconceptions and falsehoods. It appears that finding and reading more than 500 characters at a time in difficult for him.
In any case, I am done, since talking with brick walls is counterproductive.
lhvinny 5 months ago
@lhvinny I can only respond to one post at a time.
Just tell me where the 120 million cubic miles of sediments came form and how they came to cover every living thing on earth.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@assalane What is your excuse for giving all of the credit to objects for designing, making and ordering themselves all by themselves before they even existed?
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon As Jacob Bronowski once put it: "Magic is a word that means nothing. It means that man has power, but what power?"
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn Again, with the jumping around... objects are not able to do any magic or order anything.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "ginging all of the credit to objects in nature you idol worshiper"
I'm sorry, I don't speak gibberish.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn That is the best you can do is to point out typos and completely ignore what the issues are.
...and what is this about not responding to the right post?
You must not want anyone to know what was being said.
That was a bad typo and I remember seeing it.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Spelling is the least of your problems. Your problem is the you are speaking complete nonsense. Start making sense and we can adress issues.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn Spelling is the least of my problems and yet it is what you seem to be most concerned about.
You are not making sense and you did not address anything
...object credit giver ascribing magical powers to things.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon You obviously can't tell the difference between square miles and cubic miles and have the gall to talk down to people? Don't tell, let me guess: You are a Creatard?
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn I can correct my errors, can you?
btw, you did not say or prove anything.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon And my errors are? Or can't you prove them?
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn You credit objects for their own design, manufacture and ordered functions.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon No, I don't you do credit. Wrongly, in the case of evolution.
TomFynn 5 months ago
Comment removed
JungleJargon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomFynn Yes, you are giving all of the credit to objects in nature you idol worshiper.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
If you cant even get cryptozoologists on your side on the matter of dinosaurs living alongside humans...
You might as well just stop trying.
Kabitu1 7 months ago
hahaha why do they always call evolution racist? It makes it clear that our evolution began in Africa, so we all have common ancestors in Africa... How are they getting away with all this? I have watched america for a while, and it is slowly turning into a theocracy...
CircusOfBedlam 7 months ago
@CircusOfBedlam
It's because Darwin used the word "race" to refer to "species" in a few instances and creationists are religiously opposed to dictionaries and Google searches.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
2:00
Your video editing is really funny. I like it. It's dry, but super funny.
BlckSbthMan 7 months ago
LOL! I love how racism comes off the evolution tree..
Ostrasize 8 months ago
Along with "Like" and "Dislike" they should have a "Love" category for ratings because this one would get that rating. Well done AronRa.
RockyRacoon18 8 months ago
@AronRa i love ur channel, have u ever debated a creationist live? if u have do u have a video for it? great work man i have seen most of ur stuff even on the atheist experience....
stress4rmbk 8 months ago
@AronRa, you made my day Sir! 1:58
Brilliant!
gahauria 8 months ago
LOL "evolutionists".........such a silly fuckin term.
Only superstitious reli-muppets have this urge to label anything they don't understand this way.
sonykroket 9 months ago
Who are those two idiots at 1:05? That's probably the most honest admission and most retarded reasoning I've ever heard.
wohodude100 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AronRa you made a really interesting work here,the research is well done, congrats !!... If you put Spanish subtitles on series of videos a lot of people will wake up...it might be a great work to share with Latin America where the church has power and there is no division church/state.Thanks
recontrasurfer 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AronRa you made a really interesting work here,the research is well done, congrats !!... If you put Spanish subtitles on series of videos a lot of people will wake up...it might be a great work to share with Latin America where the church has power and there is no division church/state.Thanks
recontrasurfer 10 months ago
@Aronra you made a really interesting work here,the research is well done, congrats !!... If you put Spanish subtitles on series of videos a lot of people will wake up...it might be a great work to share with Latin America where the church has power and there is no division church/state.Thanks
recontrasurfer 10 months ago
@recontrasurfer Translating these videos would be a job and a half. I speak Spanish and wouldn't even know where to begin in translating all the scientific terms used.
LordDoomable 9 months ago
"What this creationist doesn't know is that he's just cited known forgeries as evidence"
Hard to say wether he did, as he's been caught quote mining.
ganados0 10 months ago
you just make my day lol put all of this in a book put the words holy bibel on it and replace it silently with there bibel hahaha (armageddon)
amarath84 11 months ago
I just noticed the pic of Tertulian in this video. That guy was a dick.
GallusSapien 11 months ago
I sometimes just turn these videos on just for the heck of it, and that little creature opening his eyes wide at the creationist kills me every time.
Steenhorst 11 months ago
anyone else think its ironic that Ken Ham looks more like an ape than anyone ive ever seen?
itsuyo211 11 months ago
Eric Hovind and that other guy remind me of Beavis and Butthead.
Retrieverman1 11 months ago
@Retrieverman1 Blaphemy! Beavis and Butthead would be insulted by such a comparison! Beavis and Butthead may have been idiots, but at least they were entertaining. Hovind and his ilk are not nearly as enjoyable to watch and far less funny.
lhvinny 11 months ago