Ah cuuuuute. You think evolution isn't true 'cause it scares you. That's adorable. Your problem though isn't with Evolution. Evolution does say we have been changing from simple organisms to more complex ones over billions of years. That's Geology as it's physically seen in the fossil record. Evolution is just the theory we use to explain how this obvious FACT happened.
So we have: a contest that's a feeble imitation of the pwnage olympics. arranged by a dim bulb lifetime achievement award winner. With PCS and one of the most insane and dishonest christians on youtube as two of the judges. I am not sure if I'm supposed to be amused at this or embarassed for everyone involved.
This has been a rather dismal turnout. The fact that one of the videos showing in the replies is about the second law of thermodynamics pretty much says it all.
At the moment there are about 13 - 14 eligible (2 minutes or less) videos and they are all dreadful. Unless someone submits a "decent" entry in the next day, Juby will have to declare no winner or pick something very embarrassing. Maybe they'll give it to Nephi's friend Shock even though his nonsense about fossils is over 2 minutes long.
If the fear is that if Evolution is true and therefore God does not exist, you would imagine that the God believers would do all they could to defend God.
Instead, from the submissions here, not only does God not exist, but his defenders have pretty well surrendered to unintellectual feeble pleas to emotion and ignorance.
If God existed, he would be ashamed at the level of feebleness exhibited by his followers.
Who would of thought that God would disappear in a poof of embarrassment.
@DeityDestroyer Naturalist evolution is an Ad Hoc theory. It has no power over metaphysics. It requires an abiogenesis and that I presume will never be found as life arose from life. So evolution is ultimately powerless to defeat God. If you want to falsify God give us abiogenesis. I'll trade it for a precambrian rabbit. So no fear here. Deductively evolution (taking into account randomness as epistemic, God needs no efficiency) is still a possible proof of a theist God.
@MereChristianLogic You have that backwards, 'god did it' is a completely useless non-answer. You can invoke the intangible supernatural to 'explain' anything IE pixies with strings = gravity but this is empirically meaningless.
@TheScienceFoundation I know that you are not claiming evolution as part of empiricism. Or that it could ever be empirical science. Pretty much the same thing is true of this mystic evolution. Universes? Cosmic evolution, Gravity force evolution, Heavy elements? Elemental alchemy in stars evolution. Seems like evolution is a tool of all trades like an adjustable wrench. You know what uses tools? So again evolution is a proof of God.
@MereChristianLogic Not only would I claim it, it's been made clear by the last 150 years of research that not only does evolution empirically explain the diversity of life, but it is alone in doing so. 'cosmic evolution' etc are using the colloquial evolution which means general change or progression over time. When referring to evolution as pertaining to biology, it specifically means the change in allele frequencies in populations.
@MereChristianLogic Evolution is not proof of god because there's nothing that couldn't be equally and as uselessly attributed to the power of an intangible omnipotent being.
Evolution? God
Not evolution? God
Big bang? God
Universe was poofed into existence 6000 years ago? God
@MereChristianLogic Yes Evolution by Natural Selection is an Ad Hoc theory. By definition Ad Hoc is a something that is arranged for a particular purpose. That purpose is to explain the variety of life we see on planet earth.
You say it is no match for Metaphysics. By definition metaphysics is talk or a philosophy with no basis in reality. MORON
We don't need abiogenesis to falsify your God. Darwin did that singlehanded 150 years ago.
Sorry Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Your God is OBSOLETE.
@DeityDestroyer And if you had enough credible evidence yourself to back up your rant then perhaps you may have something here but you don't. Fact is there is no credible evidence and some folks such as yourself just can not be reasoned with no matter how much evidence is thrown your way. If your defense is in this video alone then that is just silly on your part.
Interesting that the videos will be judged by content, creativity and artistic value but not reference to accuracy or even testability of the evidence given. This is exactly the problem real scientists have with creationist arguments in general.
@FHomeBrew Hovind only refutes the 1st 5 fairy tales. He objects to the term "micro E," but readily agrees that adaptation and variance within kind (or species) happens, as it is observable. He also refutes the notion that micro E + the Fuzzy Magic of milllions of years = macro E.
Such faith-based ideas&preconceived biases are ok to coddle in the privacy of ones own home,but should be kept out of the lab,off the lectern,& out of the textbook of any truly objective scientific study.
@WilliamTyndale1 No, he completely strawmans the term, then expresses his ignorance in such egregious ways as reading from a textbook about star formation when talking about the big bang.
Hovind never had any idea what he was talking about at any point, and he certainly never refuted anything. Though really he was probably just lying to bilk money from people like you.
@WilliamTyndale1 "[Creationists] misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak." Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould
"Such faith-based ideas&preconceived biases are ok to coddle in the privacy of ones own home"
And here I see an immediate difference between you and me:
You seem to think that these are just "ideas" that people are having "in the privacy of their own home" when I - also a layman btw - occassionally see or read what evolutionary scientists are acutally working on when "in the lab". Hint: It's not just inventing "ideas".
@TheScienceFoundation Well I'd pefer to see it from the DR's Kent hovind debated. I thought we were talking about him. Seriously some YT kid knows more about this subject than the evolutionist that debate Kent hovind. give me a break
@TheScienceFoundation Like I said funny that the Dr's he debates can never call him out on the spot... but some YT kid can. curious, if only the world were run by YT commentators we wouldn't have so many issues.
@Lacocacolaman That's part of the problem. You're paying attention to whoever sounds better live as opposed to who presents the best data. Live debates are not particularly useful in scientific methodology as science is about empirical accuracy, not sounding good for a crowd.
seriously? that's your responce? During the debates kent hovind wasn't pulling rabbits out of hats. they were going over data publicly, academic debates is an amazing forum and to just ridicule it is laughable. It should be so easy for the right person to present a strong and valid case against the opposition. Seriously I can't believe you'd say it isn't useful.
@Lacocacolaman Kent Hovind employed what was known as Gish gallops, he would spout so much fallacy it would clog up the debate. The case has already been presented against Hovind and the like, in actual science, peer review.
To give you an example; What's an argument or data set from Hovind that you think is particularly strong?
@pjnlsn No the shame and lies from his opposition. Also the lack of a challenge, you'd think in those debates they would be able to "put him to shame" but the response from evolutionist is always "He says so many wrong things that they dont have the time" seriously!? LOL
@pjnlsn Oh because you obviously know more about evolution than the guys that kent hovind debated? LOL, you know more about evolution than mike shermer?
@Lacocacolaman Again, live debate is pretty much the least useful form of scientific exhibition. The problem being, someone like Hovind can just clog it up with a wall of fallacy, all of which has already been refuted.
@Lacocacolaman You're still confusing 'better public speaker and congested the discussion with fallacy' for 'won the debate'
I've asked you before for a single one of Hovind's arguments that you think can withstand scrutiny, you mysteriously became silent upon this request. That pretty much tells me that you think sounding better publicly is better than being accurate upon scrutiny.
@Lacocacolaman Yes, seriously, that's the point of the Gish gallop fallacy that Hovind employs, to congest the discussion. If you notice when time is not an issue, Hovind's arguments are utterly destroy. You seem to be focused on who makes a better public speaker, not who brings the data.
@TheisticScuffles Oh man. Some friendly advice. Just ignore TheScienceFoundation. He's a troll and he's just looking for a fight but has no interest in actual logic or facts. He just tried to tell me that 'soft tissue' has to be literally 'soft' in order to be considered 'soft tissue'. I'm not kidding. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen put down in a reply and he'll call himself 'scientific'. Keep doing vids but ignore any and all replies he posts.
@Equestions What do you think soft tissue means? Also, you've still only dodged my questions regarding population growth and the correlation to the advancement of industry.
I REALLY like your use of logic and the facts, buuut, just as a "Creation Teacher" myself, I may caution you on using VenomFangX in..well, anything, simply because of his previous...problems, and poor use of logic. God bless!
lol you have Nephilimfree as a judge? you do know he's an alcoholic who saves prostitution websites to his favourites and hit on girls who are still in their teen and early twenties, lol
@neil182sr True, but none of those disqualify him as a judge. What does diqualify him is his lack of knowledge on EVERY scientific discipline you can think of. He starts with a false premiss, straw mans other peoples arguments and works from that without EVER admitting he is wrong. Scientists LIKE to be shown wrong..it means there is more work to be done. Nephy is a disgrace and so are the other judges btw.
its the "unbelievers" excuse to reject God, deny His existence, and license to sin.But all wicked things must come to end soon.whether you believe it or not you will stand before Him and have to give an account of your lifes actions.I cannot stand the thought of you suffering eternally in hell and would hope you would work to convince me if we were on opposite sides.i have nothing to lose if I'm wrong-but you,if you do not know the one way to heaven-Scripture says you die once and face judgement
Do creationists have any idea how stupid they sound? Do they? Do they realize they are the laughing stock of the entire scientific community, and even the majority of christians know that evolution is a fact and don't take the genesis creation story literally. Its so unbelievably childish, I wonder sometimes where the hell these people went to school. I'm an atheist, myself, but my father was a christian who also accepted evolution as fact.
@8698gil you mam believe "everything came from nothing"...and that doesn't?? Whoever laughs most is right right? Sorry can't see your logic - what does laughing have to do with it??
@TheScienceFoundation Of course thats what you're claiming: "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billions years ago after the universe EVOLVED OUT OF LITERALLY NOTHING is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." Oh and that was your best evolution expert Richard Dawkins, The Ancestors Tale
@TheSuperwhy No, that's a completely ridiculous strawman. That means you've constructed a misrepresentation to attack because you either can't address the issue or you're not actually informed enough on the matter to know what it is.
The big bang was an expansion of space/time, this is cosmogony. Evolution is biology, specifically the change in heritable traits in populations.
@TheScienceFoundation really? well here's another so called misrepresentation then: "It is now becoming clear that everything can -and probably did-come from nothing." Roberts A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University England.
& another "The initial paucity of information is consistent with the notion that the universe sprang from nothing." --Programming the Universe, Seth LLoyd Physicist.
Do you really not know what you believe? You believe everything came from nothing.
@TheSuperwhy The term nothing in cosmogony is misused, it does not mean a literal nothingness. The big bang as we can map its regression began at an extremely dense point known as a singularity.
Also, this was not my point, the point was that you were trying to conflate cosmogony with biology, two completely different fields of science.
@TheScienceFoundation I don't want to cause a debate. But This nothing we keep talking about. I have a philosophical idea of nothing as in infinitely without property or potential. Nothing is so nothing concepts like math are crushed under its weighty nothingness. So what exactly is the other nothing and where am I wrong? Am I understanding that the singularity is infinite? So at least when I say from nothing nothing comes you would get my drift. Pm Me if u want.
"Do you really not know what you believe? You believe everything came from nothing."
- I know this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, but unlike with religions, atheism isn't a hierarchy. Each atheist is free to choose what they want to believe and it won't make any difference to any other atheist. The ONLY thing that all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in any gods because that's what being an atheist is.
@themsfightinwoids but according to your views whats wrong with being that?? if society says its ok then its ok right to be that way right - according to your view?
Who said society says it's ok to be a pedophile? Where do you get your information?
Sexual perversions against children are socio-biologically discouraged and attacked in the evolutionary process, so if you're clumsily trying to say the atheists can have no morals, that just shows how juvenile your thinking is.
Decency is in our genes, not implanted by a vengeant old wizard. Grow a brain and try to say something intelligent instead of repeating your indoctrinations.
@themsfightinwoids Exactly.Its called a conscience and its a gift from God.In your worldview you have nothing to base right and wrong unless you lean on the Bible. Tell me according to your "gene morals"...what human age is child porn no longer child porn? How do you decide? Hitlers "decency genes" said to kill Jews. God's moral law is written in your heart and since you do know right from wrong and since no one is good you are doomed (unless you can find someone who can pay your fine).
@TheSuperwhy "Its called a conscience and its a gift from God" Reference sorely required. And what is "God" anyway?
"In your worldview you have nothing to base right and wrong "
I explained the basics of the evolution of morality. You simply pretend to ignore it. We don't need God for morals. Society and culture determine what is acceptable. Our morality is not absolute. It is man made.
You really are boring and childish in your regurgitated absolutism. Try thinking for yourself.
"Exactly.Its called a conscience and its a gift from God."
- The same god that threw his kids out and cursed them for eating fruit and told the security guard to keep them out? The same god that killed all bar 8 people and a boatload of animals because he didn't like what everyone else was doing? The same god that had his flunkies kill the 1st born children of an entire country because 1 guy was being a jerk? This is the god you got your conscience from?
@Atriviality Yes, and the same way my God will EITHER be your Redeemer (undeserved mercy) or Judge. Regardless of what you think is right or wrong in your worldview you will stand before Him and give an account for everything you EVER did. I understand that makes you nervous knowing that every deed and thought has been recorded and you must give account at death. You deserve NO mercy from God but for some reason He has provided you 1 way to get to heaven if you can find it.
"Regardless of what you think is right or wrong in your worldview you will stand before Him and give an account for everything you EVER did."
- Then what are you waiting for? Why aren't you out there murdering children? He's watching you, you know. If you don't try and be like him, how do you think he's going to judge you? He's going to throw you into the pit of fire forever if you don't start murdering people in his name, and you know it.
@TheSuperwhy God (and his cuntboy Jesus) can suck my fat cock and then lick my dirty cumstained asshole clean. And that "virgin" cunt Mary can service man after man after man in HELL where she rides Satan's cock.
“Avoid debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences.”
“And you will probably get beaten.”
Eugenie Scott (1996) The funny part: she led NCSE and leading critic of creationism and intelligent design! Thanks Ian for your willingness to address this issue. Evolutionists lose every time and have NO proof.
@TheSuperwhy Now, instead of quote mining, try actually pasting what she meant by 'get beaten'
Live debates are generally only preferred by those who would rather sound good as opposed to being accurate. Written debates are where its at, as these comment sections bear out
@TheScienceFoundation Evolution is simply your attempt to reject God and allow you the pleasures of your sins.It doesn't take brain to realize that everything cannot come from nothing. Design and complexity can be seen in everything. You've lied and you hate your Creator. Scripture says liars will go to hell.Hell is described in the Bible: everlasting contempt, everlasting punishment, weeping, fire unquenchable ,eternal fire.I heard of another death this week - get right with God while you can.
@TheSuperwhy No, evolution is simply the sole empirical explanation for biodiversity. It also doesn't take a brain to realize 'everything came from nothing' is an egregious strawman. 'Design and complexity' are simply your attempts to justify your belief in god when no such justification actually exists. It's funny you talk about liars being sent to hell when most of the people that believe that are lying for jesus.
@Cactarpus Bad logic: You can't use Christian and reject God in the same sentence. If a Christian ignorantly believes in macroevolution, belief in evolution doesn't remove their eternal destiny in heaven (vs eternal hell to those that think they can get to heaven by good works...) Christ promised (John 16:13) that the Holy Spirit will lead Believers into all truth - over time his/her theology will become sound as he studies God's Word - His revelation to mankind.
Well Ian Juby is lying on facebook still, yeah I looked at his facebook after I found out there was one, he is saying this video got vote-botted lawl.
@TheScienceFoundation Well what do you expect from a creationist, they do tend to distort the truth and/or lie. I am not saying that skeptics don't just see it much, much more in creationists.
@TheScienceFoundation Actually, the pestering was the fact that you originally said that Pasteur's work disproved creationism. Which of course demonstrates just how clueless you are. It's not worth arguing with someone who does not want to understand, as you have demonstrated repeatedly.
@wazooloo If you're going to project your inability/unwillingness to learn onto anyone, you might be better served trying it on someone who hasn't already shown you to be completely and utterly dishonest, devoid of intellectual honesty and someone who seems only interested in a modicum of internet popularity at the expense of completely abandoning logic reason and empirical data.
For instance, you completely ignored carrying capacity in your video regarding the population 'problem'
@TheScienceFoundation My "outright lie" of 14C dating was actually your flagrant and blatant misrepresentation of the RATE book. So I was quite pleased to see your response, as I've had lots of comments from people who saw right through your claims and misrepresentation.
@wazooloo Actually your outright lie was a demonstrable quote mine. The very next line of your own source completely contradicted you in what you claimed the article said.
Just for everyone's edification, what did the last line of the article you cited say?
... is the objective to MOTIVATE people to take part in the contest, or to turn them away?
I can't imagine anyone actually wanting any of the crap in this video. And if I wanted fifty Canadian dollars, I'd go to work and actually earn the money, rather than sell My soul by contributing to the inevitable downfall of society by embracing pseudo-scientific crap.
@curtsphobias You just demonstrated that you neither understand the core of the argument made from the location of retroviruses within the DNA sequence or understand how retroviruses are passed on to the next generation. Double fail, congratulations. Look at a high school textbook, please!
Truth Superman. Why are there dislikes on this video?? It didn't say anything! Now if you want to dislike the videos made with facts against evolution go for it!
@pntblnguitarists The video is not made to disprove evolution. There are plenty of others out there doing that. This is announcing a contest, or are you too stupidified by hate to notice that small detail?
It would be easier to explain things in a video than to actually try to reason with evolutionists. But then, I suspect that they often comment without having watched videos, just like they comment on articles without having even read those.
You claim that you can't reason with evolutionists - could that be because you just can't reason? I wonder how many scientific papers you ever read to establish your very scientific assessment that evolution is wrong. Last time I checked, scientific literature supports evolution overwhelmingly. But who cares about the scientific consensus if you can make you your own whacky ideas...
@usertripppleA Wrong-O! The philosophical aspect of evolutionism is supported by rabid, orthodox fundies like yourself. The scientific aspect is disputed, even among evolutionists. Now drop the ad-homs and learn to reason, Bubbles.
@PiltdownSuperman "The scientific aspect is disputed" Well, proof it! Show me the scientific data indicating that evolution is wrong? Which scientific papers and experiments do you have to proof your claim? I am more than curious? There are more papers published supporting evolution every day but I never read any showing the opposite. So please, proof your claims!
@curtsphobias lol i do not claim to KNOW there is no god, your the one claiming YOU KNOW THERE IS A GOD :P
and my point was intelligent design is not instantly 100% certain if evolution wasn't true, because we do not know everything :P we do not know something in the universe didn't come from nothing, and BTW you claim a being made something from nothing with MAGIC :P
lol even if you disproved evolution somehow... I'm just curious how that jumps from not knowing to knowing?
If you prove we do not know something...
We know something else?
My point is you still have to prove you have been everywhere in the universe and know everything to claim the universe needs a creator. You can claim that with current knowledge, but current knowledge is not 100% certain -_-
@curtsphobias Your face when Islam is by far the fastest growing religion. I said religious people, not Christians. As a whole about 90% of all religious people in the world and 80% of all Christians world-wide accept evolution.
Well, at least we have the comfort of consistency in the many HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC and insightful slander and insults from the folks who reject critical thought and rely on mockery and hatred for their form of (evolutionary) worship! Because (you know) Once upon a time, there was nothing, and then it suddenly exploded for noi reason, and then one day, something came ALIVE! Yay, science! XD
@taratorah "Well, at least we have the comfort of consistency in the many HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC and insightful slander and insults from the folks who reject critical thought and rely on mockery and hatred for their form of (evolutionary) worship!" when the cretos keep on distorting what science is it gets to us
The cretos lie, misquote on purpose, bring up things that were from the 19th century and were showed to be a lie
So suck it up and as long as you use creto lies, you'll be mocked
Only by people who are sucking up the lies -- and allowing their brains to be sucked dry by the con artists who don't want others to think for themselves, or examine the evidence critically! I'm aware that mockery is the tool of the hopeless -- the people who have no leg to stand on when it comes to the facts. But why you should be so willfully ignorant -- and downright rude to people who share information you either cannot understand or will not examine is beyond me.
@taratorah By all means think for yourself, but don't confuse rejecting the mountains of evidence for evolution for open mindedness and once your questions have been legitimately and empirically answered, you don't have to ask them anymore.
Daaahhhling, where on EARTH do you find so much time for bothering people? I don't believe all the questions have been answered yet, so (sorry) am not willing to close my mind down! Am still waiting for some evolutionary strong man (or woman) to present evidence that makes life from nonlife seem likely, or to provide a mechanism/model for the steps that would be required to get from nonlife to ....anything living. Waiting! ;)
@taratorah The problem here is you're still conflating abiogenesis with evolution, they're different fields. Organic chemistry and biology respectively. You're also employing a type of argument from ignorance, you try to pretend you're open minded then call supposed negative evidence for naturalistic causes as evidence for yours. This is not how it works, no one can call themselves completely open minded and theistic.
You are inventing things for me to believe, but that will not make your inventions anything close to fact. And making sweeping declarations about who is open minded and who is not is....breathtakingly ignorant! Unless you're God......
When you examine the links that are provided to you by the many considerate and helpful theists on YT, I will consider bothering with yours. You have been rebutted MANY times by people far more educated and informed than yourself, but you dismiss them out of hand. You think highly of yourself to the extend that anyone who doesn't worship your personal belief system MUST be ignorant. Why would this attitude inspire anyone to take you seriously?
You will end up offended and frustrated every time if you continue to troll and call it science. Believing things that fly in the face of known and tested logical and scientific processes strikes me as crazy -- and a crazy mind will not understand logic when it is presented, so.....hmmmmm..... I guess even *this* comment is futile! XD
What is useful about rebutting insanity? It's met with more, and BIGGER insanity!
@taratorah And now you're projecting your empty assertions.
I don't know if you've noticed but I've asked for the supposed evidence that you claim I've dismissed without consideration and you have yet to present a single example.
@taratorah Hah, funny you'd put it that way when the only thing that has occurred for months in our discussion is me asking you for evidence and you not presenting it.
So basically you're saying expecting you to have evidence is equivalent to make-believe.
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution has been PWNED so many times now that the RELIGION of evolutionism is an utter joke at this point.
Only brainwashed members of the evotard cult (aka atheist nutballs) still believe in it.
DisprovingEvolution 4 days ago
Ah cuuuuute. You think evolution isn't true 'cause it scares you. That's adorable. Your problem though isn't with Evolution. Evolution does say we have been changing from simple organisms to more complex ones over billions of years. That's Geology as it's physically seen in the fossil record. Evolution is just the theory we use to explain how this obvious FACT happened.
VeritasLiber 1 week ago
Trololololol.
TheSaturnalia 2 weeks ago
EPIC Gravity PWNage!!! Present your best evidence against gravity and win fantastic prizes and t-shirts and gang-bangs!!
knightd00b 3 weeks ago
LoLZ it will be EPIC!!!.... fail
knightd00b 3 weeks ago
this is satire ...right?
JESUStheATHEIST1 3 weeks ago
test
CreationstCrapMirror 1 month ago
I know it must be really difficult determining a winner, but can you tell us who won the Captain Antagonator costume?
DialecticKaos 1 month ago
So we have: a contest that's a feeble imitation of the pwnage olympics. arranged by a dim bulb lifetime achievement award winner. With PCS and one of the most insane and dishonest christians on youtube as two of the judges. I am not sure if I'm supposed to be amused at this or embarassed for everyone involved.
mrdarkevilme 1 month ago
This has been a rather dismal turnout. The fact that one of the videos showing in the replies is about the second law of thermodynamics pretty much says it all.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
At the moment there are about 13 - 14 eligible (2 minutes or less) videos and they are all dreadful. Unless someone submits a "decent" entry in the next day, Juby will have to declare no winner or pick something very embarrassing. Maybe they'll give it to Nephi's friend Shock even though his nonsense about fossils is over 2 minutes long.
DialecticKaos 1 month ago
If the fear is that if Evolution is true and therefore God does not exist, you would imagine that the God believers would do all they could to defend God.
Instead, from the submissions here, not only does God not exist, but his defenders have pretty well surrendered to unintellectual feeble pleas to emotion and ignorance.
If God existed, he would be ashamed at the level of feebleness exhibited by his followers.
Who would of thought that God would disappear in a poof of embarrassment.
Pity.
DeityDestroyer 1 month ago 28
@DeityDestroyer You are absolutely correct.
18 out of the 36 responses FAIL completely to qualify under the 2 minutes or less rule.
50% FAIL right from the get go.
No wonder creationism is on its last legs, these creationists FAIL at even the basics.
And they think they are any match for the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
parallelsdumaurier 1 month ago 6
@DeityDestroyer Naturalist evolution is an Ad Hoc theory. It has no power over metaphysics. It requires an abiogenesis and that I presume will never be found as life arose from life. So evolution is ultimately powerless to defeat God. If you want to falsify God give us abiogenesis. I'll trade it for a precambrian rabbit. So no fear here. Deductively evolution (taking into account randomness as epistemic, God needs no efficiency) is still a possible proof of a theist God.
MereChristianLogic 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic You have that backwards, 'god did it' is a completely useless non-answer. You can invoke the intangible supernatural to 'explain' anything IE pixies with strings = gravity but this is empirically meaningless.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation I know that you are not claiming evolution as part of empiricism. Or that it could ever be empirical science. Pretty much the same thing is true of this mystic evolution. Universes? Cosmic evolution, Gravity force evolution, Heavy elements? Elemental alchemy in stars evolution. Seems like evolution is a tool of all trades like an adjustable wrench. You know what uses tools? So again evolution is a proof of God.
MereChristianLogic 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic Not only would I claim it, it's been made clear by the last 150 years of research that not only does evolution empirically explain the diversity of life, but it is alone in doing so. 'cosmic evolution' etc are using the colloquial evolution which means general change or progression over time. When referring to evolution as pertaining to biology, it specifically means the change in allele frequencies in populations.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic Evolution is not proof of god because there's nothing that couldn't be equally and as uselessly attributed to the power of an intangible omnipotent being.
Evolution? God
Not evolution? God
Big bang? God
Universe was poofed into existence 6000 years ago? God
It tells us nothing more than 'magic did it'
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic Mm.
If you have proof of god, give it to us.
First off, describe precisely and specifically what this god you speak of is, and we'll see if your proof follows necessarily.
pjnlsn 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic Yes Evolution by Natural Selection is an Ad Hoc theory. By definition Ad Hoc is a something that is arranged for a particular purpose. That purpose is to explain the variety of life we see on planet earth.
You say it is no match for Metaphysics. By definition metaphysics is talk or a philosophy with no basis in reality. MORON
We don't need abiogenesis to falsify your God. Darwin did that singlehanded 150 years ago.
Sorry Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Your God is OBSOLETE.
DeityDestroyer 1 month ago
@MereChristianLogic
"It requires an abiogenesis and that I presume will never be found as life arose from life."
1. Relevant user name. Not sure if ironic or...
2. You probably wanted to say the opposite?
3. The Theory of Evolution doesn't "require" abiogenesis because it does not TRY to explain the start of life.
Some deity could have created the first life and Evolution could still have happened afterwards?
I don't think you understand how scientific theories work.
chrisxy123 1 month ago
@DeityDestroyer And if you had enough credible evidence yourself to back up your rant then perhaps you may have something here but you don't. Fact is there is no credible evidence and some folks such as yourself just can not be reasoned with no matter how much evidence is thrown your way. If your defense is in this video alone then that is just silly on your part.
NanoPlinket 1 month ago
Interesting that the videos will be judged by content, creativity and artistic value but not reference to accuracy or even testability of the evidence given. This is exactly the problem real scientists have with creationist arguments in general.
foxlake02 1 month ago 4
I hope someone makes a video referencing Kent Hoving and refutes all 6 forms of evolution. That'll be hilarious.
FHomeBrew 1 month ago
@FHomeBrew Hovind only refutes the 1st 5 fairy tales. He objects to the term "micro E," but readily agrees that adaptation and variance within kind (or species) happens, as it is observable. He also refutes the notion that micro E + the Fuzzy Magic of milllions of years = macro E.
Such faith-based ideas&preconceived biases are ok to coddle in the privacy of ones own home,but should be kept out of the lab,off the lectern,& out of the textbook of any truly objective scientific study.
/EmIse3gqUSk
WilliamTyndale1 1 month ago
@WilliamTyndale1 No, he completely strawmans the term, then expresses his ignorance in such egregious ways as reading from a textbook about star formation when talking about the big bang.
Hovind never had any idea what he was talking about at any point, and he certainly never refuted anything. Though really he was probably just lying to bilk money from people like you.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WilliamTyndale1 "[Creationists] misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak." Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould
foxlake02 1 month ago
@WilliamTyndale1
"Such faith-based ideas&preconceived biases are ok to coddle in the privacy of ones own home"
And here I see an immediate difference between you and me:
You seem to think that these are just "ideas" that people are having "in the privacy of their own home" when I - also a layman btw - occassionally see or read what evolutionary scientists are acutally working on when "in the lab". Hint: It's not just inventing "ideas".
chrisxy123 1 month ago
@FHomeBrew What's hilarious is people still think Kent Hovind ever refuted anything.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation talk all the nonsense you want but you'd think out of all the debates they would put him to shame but they never
Lacocacolaman 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman
Why doesn't science agree with you?
odinata 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman He's already been put to shame, Ian just has no problem regurgitating the same nonsense over and over.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation really? can you show me a debate whee this happened?
Lacocacolaman 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman I personally debunked his latest video in detail; /watch?v=-xpUlKGjWBs
Start at page one of the comments, time tags were included for convenience.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Well I'd pefer to see it from the DR's Kent hovind debated. I thought we were talking about him. Seriously some YT kid knows more about this subject than the evolutionist that debate Kent hovind. give me a break
Lacocacolaman 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman Kent Hovind is even more clueless than Ian here
/user/ExtantDodo
that user has a great series correcting hours and hours of Hovind's fallacies.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Like I said funny that the Dr's he debates can never call him out on the spot... but some YT kid can. curious, if only the world were run by YT commentators we wouldn't have so many issues.
Lacocacolaman 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman That's part of the problem. You're paying attention to whoever sounds better live as opposed to who presents the best data. Live debates are not particularly useful in scientific methodology as science is about empirical accuracy, not sounding good for a crowd.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation
seriously? that's your responce? During the debates kent hovind wasn't pulling rabbits out of hats. they were going over data publicly, academic debates is an amazing forum and to just ridicule it is laughable. It should be so easy for the right person to present a strong and valid case against the opposition. Seriously I can't believe you'd say it isn't useful.
Lacocacolaman 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman Kent Hovind employed what was known as Gish gallops, he would spout so much fallacy it would clog up the debate. The case has already been presented against Hovind and the like, in actual science, peer review.
To give you an example; What's an argument or data set from Hovind that you think is particularly strong?
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman They're not particularly useful, next to writing an actual scientific paper.
pjnlsn 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman So what should be the judge of Kent Hovind's public appearences? The number of people clapping?
pjnlsn 1 month ago
@pjnlsn No the shame and lies from his opposition. Also the lack of a challenge, you'd think in those debates they would be able to "put him to shame" but the response from evolutionist is always "He says so many wrong things that they dont have the time" seriously!? LOL
Lacocacolaman 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman Are we to assume that two wrongs make a right?
pjnlsn 1 month ago
@pjnlsn Oh because you obviously know more about evolution than the guys that kent hovind debated? LOL, you know more about evolution than mike shermer?
Lacocacolaman 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman What?
You said that we should judge these appearences of kent hovind's by the "shame and lies" of his opposition.
So: Are we to assume two wrongs make a right? If everyone but Kent Hovind is wrong, does that automatically make him right?
pjnlsn 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman Again, live debate is pretty much the least useful form of scientific exhibition. The problem being, someone like Hovind can just clog it up with a wall of fallacy, all of which has already been refuted.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation cry me a river. what a horrible excuse to hand out to the evoutionist he debated.
Me "Kent clearly won the debates"
YOU "That's because he said so many fallacies they couldn't even call him out on one!"
Me"???????"
Lacocacolaman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lacocacolaman You're still confusing 'better public speaker and congested the discussion with fallacy' for 'won the debate'
I've asked you before for a single one of Hovind's arguments that you think can withstand scrutiny, you mysteriously became silent upon this request. That pretty much tells me that you think sounding better publicly is better than being accurate upon scrutiny.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lacocacolaman Kent has never won anything, you're still confusing 'sounding better for a layman audience' for 'winning'
I'll ask again for an instance of an argument of Hovind's which you think can stand up to legitimate scrutiny.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@Lacocacolaman No, he never won anything, throwing up a wall of fallacy to stifle the discussion does not constitute winning.
As I've asked before; What is an argument of Hovind's that you think stands up to scrutiny?
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lacocacolaman Yes, seriously, that's the point of the Gish gallop fallacy that Hovind employs, to congest the discussion. If you notice when time is not an issue, Hovind's arguments are utterly destroy. You seem to be focused on who makes a better public speaker, not who brings the data.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
Well this has been a rather pathetic display, even for creationists.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Awww, quit your whining. How many original (homemade) videos promoting your evolution theory do you have up? :)
TheisticScuffles 2 months ago
@TheisticScuffles It's not so much whining as pointing out that the turnout by creationists has been pitiful and the arguments have been even worse.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheisticScuffles Oh man. Some friendly advice. Just ignore TheScienceFoundation. He's a troll and he's just looking for a fight but has no interest in actual logic or facts. He just tried to tell me that 'soft tissue' has to be literally 'soft' in order to be considered 'soft tissue'. I'm not kidding. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen put down in a reply and he'll call himself 'scientific'. Keep doing vids but ignore any and all replies he posts.
Equestions 2 months ago
@Equestions I second that motion!
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@Equestions What do you think soft tissue means? Also, you've still only dodged my questions regarding population growth and the correlation to the advancement of industry.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Equestions
I think you have decided to ignore all the scientific evidence that shows you are wrong.
Doesn't matter though.
Notice your religoius opinions haven't replaced science.
I don't think they are going to.
odinata 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation I will upload a few more videos for you to exercise your ultra-sharp wit on (ho!ho!ho!).
TheisticScuffles 2 months ago
@TheisticScuffles I appreciate it, I like people who don't mind being made an example of.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
Who won ?
MsBounia 2 months ago
@MsBounia In the race to the bottom of the barrel, don't worry, you're still in the running.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Is that your best argument for evolutionism, Science Foundation?
TheisticScuffles 2 months ago
@TheisticScuffles If I were going to go for one single best argument, I'd go for ERV's
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
I REALLY like your use of logic and the facts, buuut, just as a "Creation Teacher" myself, I may caution you on using VenomFangX in..well, anything, simply because of his previous...problems, and poor use of logic. God bless!
jaydil 2 months ago
@jaydil Where did Ian use logic and facts?
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Ian uses plenty of logic and facts, ScienceFoundation. You just have to open your closed mind.
TheisticScuffles 2 months ago
@TheisticScuffles That was the claim, I then asked what facts or logic Ian used, there was no reply.
Don't confuse being unwilling to accept Ian's nonsense with no support for being closed minded.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
Next time you should make a contest refuting gravity.
itsjustameme 2 months ago
a cash prize that not physical... therefor not cash... its would be classed as monetary, or since its going through paypal, a funds transfer...
not cash...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
how very terribly odd.
achtungcircus 2 months ago
...and the winner is?
acyberguy 2 months ago
@acyberguy The guy that has the proof! How could the guy with video evidence of the land before time not win!
MereChristianLogic 2 months ago
lol you have Nephilimfree as a judge? you do know he's an alcoholic who saves prostitution websites to his favourites and hit on girls who are still in their teen and early twenties, lol
neil182sr 2 months ago 16
@neil182sr True, but none of those disqualify him as a judge. What does diqualify him is his lack of knowledge on EVERY scientific discipline you can think of. He starts with a false premiss, straw mans other peoples arguments and works from that without EVER admitting he is wrong. Scientists LIKE to be shown wrong..it means there is more work to be done. Nephy is a disgrace and so are the other judges btw.
DutchLiam84 2 months ago
Raising the idea of "nothing" itself as god is an insult to atheism.
Smarten up.
TheAngryAtheistShow 2 months ago
You can tell it's nonsense just by the title and the info.
Evidence? ROFL! When will you learn.
TheAngryAtheistShow 2 months ago
My video got deleted...i wonder why.
Cactarpus 2 months ago
Ian and evan look a lot alike. Act a lot alike. Probably don't get laid in equal amounts either.
meatloaf808 2 months ago
@wazooloo
For your museum do you mean the cole harbor place in Dartmouth N.S
johnbgroovy 2 months ago
its the "unbelievers" excuse to reject God, deny His existence, and license to sin.But all wicked things must come to end soon.whether you believe it or not you will stand before Him and have to give an account of your lifes actions.I cannot stand the thought of you suffering eternally in hell and would hope you would work to convince me if we were on opposite sides.i have nothing to lose if I'm wrong-but you,if you do not know the one way to heaven-Scripture says you die once and face judgement
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy Actually it's the biologically literate peoples conclusion based on the data.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy According to NephilimFree, you're an atheist.
TadRaunch 2 months ago
Do creationists have any idea how stupid they sound? Do they? Do they realize they are the laughing stock of the entire scientific community, and even the majority of christians know that evolution is a fact and don't take the genesis creation story literally. Its so unbelievably childish, I wonder sometimes where the hell these people went to school. I'm an atheist, myself, but my father was a christian who also accepted evolution as fact.
8698gil 2 months ago
@8698gil you mam believe "everything came from nothing"...and that doesn't?? Whoever laughs most is right right? Sorry can't see your logic - what does laughing have to do with it??
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy You think anyone is claiming that 'everything came from nothing' and you're trying to accuse others of poor logic?
The fact that your only tactic thus far is strawmanning should tell you something.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Of course thats what you're claiming: "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billions years ago after the universe EVOLVED OUT OF LITERALLY NOTHING is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." Oh and that was your best evolution expert Richard Dawkins, The Ancestors Tale
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy No, that's a completely ridiculous strawman. That means you've constructed a misrepresentation to attack because you either can't address the issue or you're not actually informed enough on the matter to know what it is.
The big bang was an expansion of space/time, this is cosmogony. Evolution is biology, specifically the change in heritable traits in populations.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation really? well here's another so called misrepresentation then: "It is now becoming clear that everything can -and probably did-come from nothing." Roberts A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University England.
& another "The initial paucity of information is consistent with the notion that the universe sprang from nothing." --Programming the Universe, Seth LLoyd Physicist.
Do you really not know what you believe? You believe everything came from nothing.
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy The term nothing in cosmogony is misused, it does not mean a literal nothingness. The big bang as we can map its regression began at an extremely dense point known as a singularity.
Also, this was not my point, the point was that you were trying to conflate cosmogony with biology, two completely different fields of science.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I don't want to cause a debate. But This nothing we keep talking about. I have a philosophical idea of nothing as in infinitely without property or potential. Nothing is so nothing concepts like math are crushed under its weighty nothingness. So what exactly is the other nothing and where am I wrong? Am I understanding that the singularity is infinite? So at least when I say from nothing nothing comes you would get my drift. Pm Me if u want.
MereChristianLogic 2 months ago
@MereChristianLogic It was infinite in the sense that it contained an indefinite amount of 'stuff' as in space/time.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy
"It is now becoming clear that everything can -and probably did-come from nothing."
- You never actually read the article that's from, have you. What he is talking about is something with the initials "Q.V." What is it?
"The initial paucity of information is consistent with the notion that the universe sprang from nothing."
- You haven't read this one either, have you. Otherwise you'd know why it was considered "nothing".
Atriviality 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy
"Do you really not know what you believe? You believe everything came from nothing."
- I know this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, but unlike with religions, atheism isn't a hierarchy. Each atheist is free to choose what they want to believe and it won't make any difference to any other atheist. The ONLY thing that all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in any gods because that's what being an atheist is.
Atriviality 2 months ago
Juby looks just like astereotypical pedofile.
themsfightinwoids 2 months ago
@themsfightinwoids but according to your views whats wrong with being that?? if society says its ok then its ok right to be that way right - according to your view?
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy
Who said society says it's ok to be a pedophile? Where do you get your information?
Sexual perversions against children are socio-biologically discouraged and attacked in the evolutionary process, so if you're clumsily trying to say the atheists can have no morals, that just shows how juvenile your thinking is.
Decency is in our genes, not implanted by a vengeant old wizard. Grow a brain and try to say something intelligent instead of repeating your indoctrinations.
themsfightinwoids 2 months ago
@themsfightinwoids Exactly.Its called a conscience and its a gift from God.In your worldview you have nothing to base right and wrong unless you lean on the Bible. Tell me according to your "gene morals"...what human age is child porn no longer child porn? How do you decide? Hitlers "decency genes" said to kill Jews. God's moral law is written in your heart and since you do know right from wrong and since no one is good you are doomed (unless you can find someone who can pay your fine).
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy "Its called a conscience and its a gift from God" Reference sorely required. And what is "God" anyway?
"In your worldview you have nothing to base right and wrong "
I explained the basics of the evolution of morality. You simply pretend to ignore it. We don't need God for morals. Society and culture determine what is acceptable. Our morality is not absolute. It is man made.
You really are boring and childish in your regurgitated absolutism. Try thinking for yourself.
themsfightinwoids 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy
"Exactly.Its called a conscience and its a gift from God."
- The same god that threw his kids out and cursed them for eating fruit and told the security guard to keep them out? The same god that killed all bar 8 people and a boatload of animals because he didn't like what everyone else was doing? The same god that had his flunkies kill the 1st born children of an entire country because 1 guy was being a jerk? This is the god you got your conscience from?
Atriviality 2 months ago
@Atriviality Yes, and the same way my God will EITHER be your Redeemer (undeserved mercy) or Judge. Regardless of what you think is right or wrong in your worldview you will stand before Him and give an account for everything you EVER did. I understand that makes you nervous knowing that every deed and thought has been recorded and you must give account at death. You deserve NO mercy from God but for some reason He has provided you 1 way to get to heaven if you can find it.
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSuperwhy
"Regardless of what you think is right or wrong in your worldview you will stand before Him and give an account for everything you EVER did."
- Then what are you waiting for? Why aren't you out there murdering children? He's watching you, you know. If you don't try and be like him, how do you think he's going to judge you? He's going to throw you into the pit of fire forever if you don't start murdering people in his name, and you know it.
Atriviality 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSuperwhy God (and his cuntboy Jesus) can suck my fat cock and then lick my dirty cumstained asshole clean. And that "virgin" cunt Mary can service man after man after man in HELL where she rides Satan's cock.
fdasherv 2 months ago
lol my video response got deleted.
Cactarpus 2 months ago
“Avoid debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences.”
“And you will probably get beaten.”
Eugenie Scott (1996) The funny part: she led NCSE and leading critic of creationism and intelligent design! Thanks Ian for your willingness to address this issue. Evolutionists lose every time and have NO proof.
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy Now, instead of quote mining, try actually pasting what she meant by 'get beaten'
Live debates are generally only preferred by those who would rather sound good as opposed to being accurate. Written debates are where its at, as these comment sections bear out
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Evolution is simply your attempt to reject God and allow you the pleasures of your sins.It doesn't take brain to realize that everything cannot come from nothing. Design and complexity can be seen in everything. You've lied and you hate your Creator. Scripture says liars will go to hell.Hell is described in the Bible: everlasting contempt, everlasting punishment, weeping, fire unquenchable ,eternal fire.I heard of another death this week - get right with God while you can.
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy No, evolution is simply the sole empirical explanation for biodiversity. It also doesn't take a brain to realize 'everything came from nothing' is an egregious strawman. 'Design and complexity' are simply your attempts to justify your belief in god when no such justification actually exists. It's funny you talk about liars being sent to hell when most of the people that believe that are lying for jesus.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy What about christians that accept evolution? do they use it to reject god?
Cactarpus 2 months ago
@Cactarpus Bad logic: You can't use Christian and reject God in the same sentence. If a Christian ignorantly believes in macroevolution, belief in evolution doesn't remove their eternal destiny in heaven (vs eternal hell to those that think they can get to heaven by good works...) Christ promised (John 16:13) that the Holy Spirit will lead Believers into all truth - over time his/her theology will become sound as he studies God's Word - His revelation to mankind.
TheSuperwhy 2 months ago
@TheSuperwhy So then why do Christians believe in evolution if the only real reason to is to reject god?
Cactarpus 2 months ago
Has my informative vid been removed?
acyberguy 2 months ago
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH... this is funny
Vogter616 2 months ago
@curtsphobias Hey - I gotta talk to you, but you've friend locked your email. I sent a friend request, please touch base with me. Thanks.
wazooloo 2 months ago
Well Ian Juby is lying on facebook still, yeah I looked at his facebook after I found out there was one, he is saying this video got vote-botted lawl.
Cactarpus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cactarpus which is perfectly acceptable by me, cause I got my own "vote bots" going as well. :)
wazooloo 2 months ago
@wazooloo Unfortunately there are no vote bots being used. We just genuinely hate your video.
Cactarpus 2 months ago
@Cactarpus It's worth noting that Ian's first instinct was to immediately resort to personal attacks.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I like how he pretends that he wants to understand.
Cactarpus 2 months ago
Also the 'pestering in private emails' would be a reference to me asking him which part of
'Pasteur's work regarding biogenesis involved exclusively modern life and had nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life'
He couldn't manage to understand.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Well what do you expect from a creationist, they do tend to distort the truth and/or lie. I am not saying that skeptics don't just see it much, much more in creationists.
Cactarpus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation Actually, the pestering was the fact that you originally said that Pasteur's work disproved creationism. Which of course demonstrates just how clueless you are. It's not worth arguing with someone who does not want to understand, as you have demonstrated repeatedly.
wazooloo 2 months ago
@wazooloo Pasteur's work involved showing that modern life does not arise from non-living medium, AKA creationism.
It had nothing to do with the generation of self replicating systems from organic chemicals, AKA abiogenesis.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@wazooloo If you're going to project your inability/unwillingness to learn onto anyone, you might be better served trying it on someone who hasn't already shown you to be completely and utterly dishonest, devoid of intellectual honesty and someone who seems only interested in a modicum of internet popularity at the expense of completely abandoning logic reason and empirical data.
For instance, you completely ignored carrying capacity in your video regarding the population 'problem'
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
lol @ Ian and his fans on facebook launching personal attacks instead of coming here and actually defending their position.
To whomever may run to copy and paste this on his wall, don't forget this link regarding his outright lie about 14C dating; /watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation My "outright lie" of 14C dating was actually your flagrant and blatant misrepresentation of the RATE book. So I was quite pleased to see your response, as I've had lots of comments from people who saw right through your claims and misrepresentation.
wazooloo 2 months ago
@wazooloo Actually your outright lie was a demonstrable quote mine. The very next line of your own source completely contradicted you in what you claimed the article said.
Just for everyone's edification, what did the last line of the article you cited say?
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
lol @ Ian on facebook talking about getting publicity out of the skeptics responses to this video.
Nice to know you're more interested in popularity than accuracy.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
... is the objective to MOTIVATE people to take part in the contest, or to turn them away?
I can't imagine anyone actually wanting any of the crap in this video. And if I wanted fifty Canadian dollars, I'd go to work and actually earn the money, rather than sell My soul by contributing to the inevitable downfall of society by embracing pseudo-scientific crap.
PrinceOfPlease 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists are just really dumb
HellsAtriumVEVO 2 months ago
... I think I just felt my IQ drop...
PestoPosta 2 months ago 2
@curtsphobias You just demonstrated that you neither understand the core of the argument made from the location of retroviruses within the DNA sequence or understand how retroviruses are passed on to the next generation. Double fail, congratulations. Look at a high school textbook, please!
usertripppleA 2 months ago
My last sentence on my first post was sort of sarcastic towards evolutionists..
pntblnguitarists 2 months ago
I was agreeing with you sir! Reread what I said! I meant truth as in your spot on.
pntblnguitarists 2 months ago
Truth Superman. Why are there dislikes on this video?? It didn't say anything! Now if you want to dislike the videos made with facts against evolution go for it!
pntblnguitarists 2 months ago
@pntblnguitarists The video is not made to disprove evolution. There are plenty of others out there doing that. This is announcing a contest, or are you too stupidified by hate to notice that small detail?
PiltdownSuperman 2 months ago
It would be easier to explain things in a video than to actually try to reason with evolutionists. But then, I suspect that they often comment without having watched videos, just like they comment on articles without having even read those.
PiltdownSuperman 2 months ago
@PiltdownSuperman
You claim that you can't reason with evolutionists - could that be because you just can't reason? I wonder how many scientific papers you ever read to establish your very scientific assessment that evolution is wrong. Last time I checked, scientific literature supports evolution overwhelmingly. But who cares about the scientific consensus if you can make you your own whacky ideas...
usertripppleA 2 months ago
@usertripppleA Wrong-O! The philosophical aspect of evolutionism is supported by rabid, orthodox fundies like yourself. The scientific aspect is disputed, even among evolutionists. Now drop the ad-homs and learn to reason, Bubbles.
PiltdownSuperman 2 months ago
@PiltdownSuperman "The scientific aspect is disputed" Well, proof it! Show me the scientific data indicating that evolution is wrong? Which scientific papers and experiments do you have to proof your claim? I am more than curious? There are more papers published supporting evolution every day but I never read any showing the opposite. So please, proof your claims!
usertripppleA 2 months ago
@curtsphobias lol i do not claim to KNOW there is no god, your the one claiming YOU KNOW THERE IS A GOD :P
and my point was intelligent design is not instantly 100% certain if evolution wasn't true, because we do not know everything :P we do not know something in the universe didn't come from nothing, and BTW you claim a being made something from nothing with MAGIC :P
IronicAtheist 2 months ago
Don't forget to check out my entry. I compiled a comprehensive list of all evidences both against evolution and for creation.
/watch?v=fvvN0NjlN2A
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago 2
lol even if you disproved evolution somehow... I'm just curious how that jumps from not knowing to knowing?
If you prove we do not know something...
We know something else?
My point is you still have to prove you have been everywhere in the universe and know everything to claim the universe needs a creator. You can claim that with current knowledge, but current knowledge is not 100% certain -_-
IronicAtheist 2 months ago
@curtsphobias Your face when Islam is by far the fastest growing religion. I said religious people, not Christians. As a whole about 90% of all religious people in the world and 80% of all Christians world-wide accept evolution.
thor123422 2 months ago
Well, at least we have the comfort of consistency in the many HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC and insightful slander and insults from the folks who reject critical thought and rely on mockery and hatred for their form of (evolutionary) worship! Because (you know) Once upon a time, there was nothing, and then it suddenly exploded for noi reason, and then one day, something came ALIVE! Yay, science! XD
taratorah 2 months ago
@taratorah "Well, at least we have the comfort of consistency in the many HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC and insightful slander and insults from the folks who reject critical thought and rely on mockery and hatred for their form of (evolutionary) worship!" when the cretos keep on distorting what science is it gets to us
The cretos lie, misquote on purpose, bring up things that were from the 19th century and were showed to be a lie
So suck it up and as long as you use creto lies, you'll be mocked
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1
Only by people who are sucking up the lies -- and allowing their brains to be sucked dry by the con artists who don't want others to think for themselves, or examine the evidence critically! I'm aware that mockery is the tool of the hopeless -- the people who have no leg to stand on when it comes to the facts. But why you should be so willfully ignorant -- and downright rude to people who share information you either cannot understand or will not examine is beyond me.
taratorah 2 months ago
@taratorah By all means think for yourself, but don't confuse rejecting the mountains of evidence for evolution for open mindedness and once your questions have been legitimately and empirically answered, you don't have to ask them anymore.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Daaahhhling, where on EARTH do you find so much time for bothering people? I don't believe all the questions have been answered yet, so (sorry) am not willing to close my mind down! Am still waiting for some evolutionary strong man (or woman) to present evidence that makes life from nonlife seem likely, or to provide a mechanism/model for the steps that would be required to get from nonlife to ....anything living. Waiting! ;)
taratorah 2 months ago
@taratorah The problem here is you're still conflating abiogenesis with evolution, they're different fields. Organic chemistry and biology respectively. You're also employing a type of argument from ignorance, you try to pretend you're open minded then call supposed negative evidence for naturalistic causes as evidence for yours. This is not how it works, no one can call themselves completely open minded and theistic.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You are inventing things for me to believe, but that will not make your inventions anything close to fact. And making sweeping declarations about who is open minded and who is not is....breathtakingly ignorant! Unless you're God......
taratorah 2 months ago
@taratorah What are you talking about? We haven't even gotten to presenting data in our discussion.
It's not a sweeping declaration, it's based on the fact that there is literally zero evidence for any deity.
You also dodged my request for articles, pages or links that I dismissed without rebutting.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
When you examine the links that are provided to you by the many considerate and helpful theists on YT, I will consider bothering with yours. You have been rebutted MANY times by people far more educated and informed than yourself, but you dismiss them out of hand. You think highly of yourself to the extend that anyone who doesn't worship your personal belief system MUST be ignorant. Why would this attitude inspire anyone to take you seriously?
taratorah 2 months ago
@taratorah Cmon, name one I've rejected or dismissed without proper rebuttal.
Also name one time I've been rebutted on anything
You seem to keep confusing making bare assertion for an argument.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You will end up offended and frustrated every time if you continue to troll and call it science. Believing things that fly in the face of known and tested logical and scientific processes strikes me as crazy -- and a crazy mind will not understand logic when it is presented, so.....hmmmmm..... I guess even *this* comment is futile! XD
What is useful about rebutting insanity? It's met with more, and BIGGER insanity!
taratorah 2 months ago
@taratorah Your ignorance doesn't bother me, I rather enjoy exposing it
So what was a single example of a link I've dismissed without thorough rebuttal?
What was one instance of that 'staggering evidence against evolution'?
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Glad as always to bring you some giggles! Too bad you're playing games and making false assertions instead of approaching your claims with honesty.
taratorah 2 months ago
@taratorah And now you're projecting your empty assertions.
I don't know if you've noticed but I've asked for the supposed evidence that you claim I've dismissed without consideration and you have yet to present a single example.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Your game of make-believe has been going on for MONTHS! XD
taratorah 2 months ago
@taratorah Hah, funny you'd put it that way when the only thing that has occurred for months in our discussion is me asking you for evidence and you not presenting it.
So basically you're saying expecting you to have evidence is equivalent to make-believe.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@taratorah lol what did he falsely insert? A link? how do you falsely insert a link to a video :p
IronicAtheist 2 months ago
@IronicAtheist
See -- this is what I am talking about. Endless games. No interest in facts.
Anti-theists think any random link to an atheist site is "proof" for "evolution". That was my point; sorry you missed it!
taratorah 2 months ago