@Floortjahh I reckon that's his point.Creationist arguments are always so simplistic any 5 year old can repeat them. I doubt AronRa expects any creationists to actually watch any of his videos anyway. I think his actual targets are people with some intelligence who might be questioning origins and this is his way of demonstrating that simplistic creationist answers are far too simple to be the truth.
And, as for classifying us as primates or mammals, that is one thing. Scholastics like St Thomas Aquinas defined man as Animal Rationale, and added that if Biped is not in the name it is because there is no Quadruped that is rationale.
Saying we are JUST animals, mammals, primates is another thing.
In admitting taxonomic classification, we are not accepting "common descent" any more than Linnaeus was.
Common ancestry is one explanation. Common creator, with a sense of artistic economy in his special creation, is another. Is it not dishonest of you to deny that alternative explanation? Or had you just never heard of it? It was that of Carolus Linnaeus himself! I have been arguing with atheists who dishonestly just answer "c'mon!!!" - or that accepting that explanation "presupposes belief in a creator". As true, yes, or is equivalent rather than presupposes. But ...
@hglundahl ... as possible? No, accepting a possibility as true and accepting it as possible is not same thing. And accepting it as possible refutes your proof.
Yet man does recognise himself [as an animal]. But I ask you and the whole world for a generic differentia between man and ape which conforms to the principles of natural history, I certainly know of none... If I were to call man ape or vice versa, I should bring down all the theologians on my head. But perhaps I should still do it according to the rules of science.
@AronRa Thanks for keeping this up. It is people like you, Thunderf00t and Professor Dawkins who stand up to religious zealots with a restrained, scientific rationality (and a healthy dose of dry as a bone humour) that give me a sliver of hope for this humanity of ours.
@nickmcV123 watching this tells you enough to explain the topic, but not enough to argue it with a determined creationist. what it DOES tell you is what topics you need to understand in order to have that argument. arguing with creationists is a special skill and it takes study. however, once you know what you need to know, the information is quite easy to find (eg google within the talkorigins site). creationists rarely understand ANY topic, so you can find some topic you can outclass them on
@thechessstick Ok, now I know you're trolling. And if not, why drag that pitiful excuse as a call for others to try rational thinking when, if you are serious, you obviously don't follow yourself? It's a sorry statement that only furthers others beliefs that creationists who are willfully ignorant and promote such behavior in their kids, are a detriment to furthering knowledge and society as a whole.
Evolutionists are such simple-minded dolts. They are just the little misfits who as children so wanted to fit in but could not. With this group of simpletons they fit right in and can actually act like bullies. Wake-up you simple cowardly fractions of men. Don't be such fools in this war for our souls.
Arguments made for the existence of extraterrestrial life are typically based around factors that ARE known about (or can be established by a realistic approximation). They are usually based on scientific knowledge and understanding.
None of that applies to "God". Well, unless you consider God to be a powerful alien creature who seeded life on Earth. I'm sure we can agree that's silly.
its like as with everything else we hear from the masses ... they say "god loves you" but if there is truly a god as they depict to us ... with all the lies.. religious, political, etc
how about something that recently popped into my consciousness:
what if .. "god hates you"
disclosure: i am Long agnostic and Short the Church
I'm rewatching this series. THis time with a firm hand on the pause/play button. It's like being bombarded with facts from a machine gun. I like it. Thanks Aron.
Aron, I have a question for you. By following the rules of monophyly, aren't humans and whales technically bony fish (osteichthyes)? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm thinking that human ego plays a role in the dismissal of evolution in favor of creation. Creationists see themselves as favored in God's eyes over all other lifeforms, and created in his image. The entire universe seems to revolve around the Earth (esp. the Middle East) in a figurative, if not literal sense. The idea that the human race came from far humbler origins is unthinkable and offensive to them.
i really liked the video, the only bad thing is it kinda messed up my computer. See once the video ended my head kinda exploded and my brain matter got all over the keyboard, which was a little tricky to clean up. Other than that it was good, just a little to "Mind-Blowish"
I'm standing up and clapping at the sheer effort and presentation of this. As unlikely as it may seem there ARE people trying to discredit AronRa's presentations. But they can't touch it, it's all about trying to deny this or that detail. AronRa comes out of it unscathed. Grats AronRa, you're truly a leader in the struggle for sanity.
Good presentation! I'll be very glad when Wells (a loonie Moonie) and Huckabee (an evangelical quasi-theocrat) and their ilk become extinct like the embarrassing anachronisms they are.
Creationist would never like to admit that Humans are Apes because their Holy (Un-Holy) Books have Denigrated and Demeaned all other forms of Life with respect to Themselves (Humans and that too specifically belonging to their family of religions caste system). They would prefer to die, then to accept them as equals. This is the same Phenomenon we had in our Past like "Slavery".
I don't know if this has been addressed, and I'm just wondering... where did you get all those folders with the names of different phyla and orders and families, etc? Is it something you made for the video to illustrate the nested hierarchy, or is it something that can be downloaded somewhere? I just think it's really cool.
I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.
Beneath? Many fossils are found on the surface. the sedimentary rock is then dated according to the fossil found in it. It always works perfectly because you date the layer by the fossils.
@mejc2 Yes, you're right - we actually have no method of working out how old (in absolute terms) particular layers are;, it's a huge conspiracy of science that only atheists are in on.
I've been trolled more than I'd like over the last few weeks, so I'm just gonna leave it at this:
I believe that evolutionists state the age of the earth and the universe in terms that support their nonsense story of mutations filtered by natural selection over millions of years. They disregard the empirical scientific evidence that refutes it. I believe that you are an evolutionist.
christains are the most arrogant scummy and ignroant people ever. i'll never be a christain and god still loves me more than you. honestly i dont think theres one christen out there who understands this fast essay being spewed to u
Wow, I almost ran out of breath *watching* this video. I can't imagine how exhausting it was listing all those classification groups in such a limited time.
In any case I think this video really does provide so much useful information that I did not know previously.
This is the level of complexity that creatards can't handle, so they insert a diety to make it less abstract and more like every day life. simple, predictable, static for all of eternity. I love you, you love me, lets all do the same thing forever! And ever, because people who believe in an after life have no concept of even 1000 years. let alone 1000000, or an eternity. Neither do I, but I still try instead of godddidit
I wish there were more Christians, Muslims, etc. on YouTube that stood up for evolution. It just seems to me that all of these bozo fundamentalists that dominate the Internet drastically misrepresent the majority of people who are intelligent people as well as religious. (Just so you know, this is coming from a freethinking skeptic.)
@Dumbfoundedification It is always the vocal minority that gets the most attention. This is the point AronRa makes in his first video of this series. Most religious people are not silly enough to deny what is evidently true.
@bjam89 The scenes with armless and legless people came from the 1932 thriller, Freaks. It's an interesting flick, and is still available for immediate view on Google video.
To paraphrase the description by switching the order round, this is the "most compelling and overwhelming" "introductory primer to cladistic phylogenetics" =) I love rewatching these vids.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution explains it all because everything is viewed through evolutionary paradyme. Evolutionist transpose their viewpoint onto the classification system. Geology is interpreted thru uniformitarianism, which has trouble explaining the vast number of fossils we find(Catastrophism is the ony thing that explains it) Embryology does not paralell ontogeny with philogeny. That was Haeckel fudging drawings. Different genes can express similiar structure and vice versa.
@CrownIdeas: OK, then, whence the "classification system" that you say evolutionists are suborning? That creationist Karl of Linne (Linnaeus) was responsible for that, and he based it upon morphology - that is, a comparison of archetypal bodily features, that being all that 18th century science understood. He made man a primate, because of the forms of the head and hand, mainly; at that time fossils were not yet known or understood. So, tell me, what better basis should they have used?
... Indeed, classification was the only system that Darwin could use, but in the last 30 years we have developed what is probably a better one - genome analysis. But it turns out that genomics agrees with Linneaus at least 90% of the time, so what was the problem with using it in the first place? If your theoretical system purports to change animals a small amount at a time, why wouldn't they be morphologically similar?
@puncheex Carolus Linnaeus was a creationist and believed he was catergorizing organisms by similarity of design and perhaps even the progressive process of the designer.(God) As I have stated before here, the ceolacanth was considered a transitional form between fish and anphibians until they found them alive off the coast of antartica. When they studied the live specimens they realized they didn't use ther boney fins to try an crawl on land.
@CrownIdeas: Haeckel turned out to be right in principle, though not in the detail he thought. Human embryos do develop gill folds, and do develop pelts during their gestation, later erased. Do you have an explanation?
Geology is both uniformitarian globally over long periods, with catastrophes happening globally rarely and locally often. It has taken a while to achieve a balance, but that is where it is today.
You seem to have trouble with science advancing over time. Get over it.
@CrownIdeas: You're absolutely right. They don't function as gills; the fetus has no need of gills. You're absolutely right about where they go, functionally. Evolution often reuses obsolete structures for new functions, and that's where the gills went (or at least in that direction, to get shaped later) when the tetrapods stepped out on land. Not even Haeckel said they were gills; he only pointed out that in a fish embryo that's where they go; in humans they have other functions.
@CrownIdeas Catastrophism explains nothing I see in the fossil record, and creationism can't account for any of the facts listed in this video. Give it a try.
@AronRa Your kidding right? You don't bellive fossilization takes place from slow gradual laying down of setement, do you? You know and organism must be buried quickly in order to fossilize don't you? Otherwise it would be broken down by micro- org. and completely destroyed very rapidly.
@AronRa Actually, it is possible to construct a creationist narrative that explains all geological observations. The problem for creationism is that future observations will require ad hoc adjustments to that narrative.
Catastrophism was only buried in the cartoon version of geology. Reality is more complex. At one point in the history of geological science, uniformitarian principles were used to explain catastrophes, which caused the old distinction to collapse.
@AronRa Hey I'm new to your videos and I just wanna say great work. I can't believe that someone could watch these videos and still think creationism is right I mean how stupid and ignorant do you have to be to deny facts and logic.These people should be ridiculed and criticised and should also be ashamed of themselves to think what the ancient greeks could have done if they had just half of the knowledge we do now but no our species embraces the disease of religion as if it is a cure. PEACE
@CrownIdeas Catastrophism also has no explanation as to why plants are found dispersed throughout the fossil record as evenly as animals. If the flood created the fossil record, the plants should be the exception. But there not. Plants are good at doing many things. But running to higher ground to avoid a flood isnt one of them.
@commdude0621 No, they can't run, but they grow everywhere and rushing water could redistribute them anywhere. Also when I say Catastrophism I don't necessarily mean one event. Large local events would be included in that too. It makes no sense that setiment would be laid down over millions of years. Normal weather erodes setiment, but Catastopics events redistribute and lay down setiment. You must know that rapid burial has to take place in order to cause fossilization.
@CrownIdeas Why then are the animals evenly dispersed as to give the impressions of ages? Ancient animals are found in the same layer as other animals which are thought to have lived during the same age and so on. Also, no example of coprolite (fossilized poo) has been found from an 'ancient' animal with the remains of a 'modern' one in it or vice versa. So they also only ate other animals and plants from the same 'age' or era that we now superimpose on the fossil record?
@commdude0621 we shouldn't even be addressing 'catastrophism'- it's an insult to anyone with eyes to see the fossil record. there is no controversy here.
@Juxtaroberto And what does that ridiculous statement have to do with catastrophism.. Catastrophism is not exclusively based on one global flood, but that large scale disasters have happened periodically throughout earths history. These disasters would explain the geologic column much better than uniformitarianism.
@CrownIdeas It was in answer to an equally ridiculous statement about the "evolutionary paradigm."
Evolution isn't some unproved ideology into which all things are made to fit, that would be creationism. The theory of evolution, as Darwin put it forth, was based on the available evidence. It was formulated in response to the creationist paradigm. Like all things of science, religion got it wrong.
@Juxtaroberto Darwin got his ideas about natural selection from Edward Blyth.. Blyth was a theist and a creationist.. Blyth's ideas on species gave place for stasis which was later confirmed by Stephen Gould.. So who really got it wrong?
@Juxtaroberto No, punctuated equilibrium was proposed to explain why there wasn't the evidence evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record. Stasis is what is commonly found not gradual change. Gould theorized that long periods of stasis must be followed by periods of rapid change. So he was putting forth a theory to fit the viewpoint he had already accepted.
@CrownIdeas No, stasis and punctuated equilibrium go against gradualism, not evolution. "Evolutionists" thought that evolution happens always and gradually, but it's not the case. Genetic drift is what may happen when the environment is for the most part stable, but environments can sometimes change rather rapidly and this is when organisms must also change rapidly, although a rapidly changing environment need not stem from a catastrophic event. Global warming is enough to set it off.
@Juxtaroberto Interesting hypothesis.. So if you're right we should see some rapid drastic changes in life on earth right now before our very eyes. Calling genetic drift evolution is debateable. Ofcourse, evolution is such a vague term it is hard to pin it down. When people say evolution they are usually thinking of some origin of life theory. When they are supporting it they use variations caused by enviromental selection of traits in a organisms gene pool.
@CrownIdeas No, don't put words in my mouth. All global warming and cooling events of the past have been natural and relatively gradual, despite their outcomes being extreme. The current warming trend has not been gradual and hasn't even been taking place for very long. A lot of organisms will adapt, of course, but far more will die out simply because there won't be enough time for them to evolve. I didn't call genetic drift evolution either, I said that when an environment is stable the only
@CrownIdeas thing that happens to the population in terms of genetics is genetic drift, just neutral mutations randomly accumulating in any direction. It isn't until the environment changes or the population moves to a different environment that certain mutations that weren't favorable before are now favorable, or brand new favorable mutations spring up that drive natural selection. No, that's abiogenesis, actual evolutionary scientists think of it as the origin of species, not life.
@Juxtaroberto accumulations of neutral mutations causing rapid change is a theory. Most genetic drift is natural selection working on the gene pool that is in an organism. Species is another term that is vaguely defined. Used to be a species was a group that could interbreed and produce fertile offspring. With that defintion all big cats would be one species. Ever herd of a Liger or a Tigon? They are not a joke they are real. All dogs and wolves would be 1 species by htat definition as well.
@Juxtaroberto Well if its not vague than are hybrids new species or do they fall under the category of one of the parent species? you said, neutral mutations randomly accumulating in any direction. I copy pasted that
@CrownIdeas House dogs (C. Lupus Familiaris) and wolves (C. Lupus) are the same species. And Tigons and Ligers are real, just like Mules are hybrids of Donkeys and Horses. However, you left out the rather important fact that tigons ligers and mules are all sterile. No fertile offspring, different species.
@Zeroethorder well, ok dogs are the same species different sub-species. But Tigons and Ligers are not infertile.. I think you need to check that out.. And mules are not always infertile just in most cases.. And I think they are most often one gender..
@CrownIdeas Ok my mistake, but only the liger females have been documented as being fertile, and their offspring usually show poor health. So the species are close enough to mate but not quite close enough that it's a good idea. Doesn't sound like cuddly wuddly special creation to me, gives a pretty good case for slowly graduated change over time within the allele frequency of a population.... someone should come up with a name for that... I got it! Revolution?... naw, I'll think of one later..
@Zeroethorder No, I don't think so I think both male and females are fertile.. Their offspring does do better if it mates with another full breed, but that maybe because of in-breeding. Most of the known cases have happened in captivity where there is a small gene-pool to begin with. You can also hybridize Zebras and horses and Donkeys and Zebras. Speciation does not prove microbes to mamal evolution. Proves variation in a species may be seperated by extint lineage. Ever herd of Ring species?
@CrownIdeas Considering the fact that you have no idea what half of the things you mentioned mean, I can't believe that AronRa and many others wasted their times answering your ridiculous diatribe. Frankly, I can't believe I'm typing this either. I will say this, though: you are using "uniformitarianism" erroneously. It isn't even the correct definition of it. The actual definition states that all natural processes and laws present now have been here throughout time. Educate yourself.
Despite all this evolution, the narrator must have some sort of different, hyper-evolved lung system. I felt like I was asphyxiating just listening to him at times.
Hey, guess what, I threw rocks at the beehive and was told I should be killed... what the heck?... All I get is death threats... Isn't the internet suppose to be fun?
sorry for any double, triple, or quadruple posts on here but youtube was screwing up on me and I thought it just wasn't posted my comments, apparently it was, they just cannot be seen... that's just great isn't it?...
I admire ur work and the gathering of evidence u show us.... BUT WHY SPEEK IT IN THIS UNSERIOUS WAY... I CANT PRESENT THIS TO ANYONE... ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO LISTEN TO UR FASTER THAN FAST MONOLOG WHILE INTERPETING ALL THE THINGS U SHOW US AT THE SAME TIME..... SLOW DOWN TO REACH UR AUDIENCE......
It's true that he could slow down a bit but these vids are limited to 10min and to slow down would double or triple the number of vids to be made.
They're also made to be watched several times and paused frequently to digest the text. Perfect for youtube but yes, not so great for an outside presentation.
On the "unserious" mode..that's maybe a fair point but it does make the vid a little more fun IMHO.
@Venator70 "unserious" is a wrong word here, excuse my limited vocabulary. The way mr. AronRa approach theese subjects it is fun for "us" (very much so), and can be consumed in bits as u describe.. But I have had a look at the transcripts, and found that there is room for some revision or "shortening" of the subjects presented. A revision and a calm presentation in "double episodes" could reach alot more people. These videos COULD become very good/exelent tools in the education of the masses,
creationist just developed as one gigantic anus.
iculus1972 1 day ago
do you have the actual folder set up seen at 6:52?
creektimothy 4 days ago
8:07 - 8:48 : Is there anywhere I can see that sentence in text?
MultiPaulinator 1 week ago
I would really love to see a creationist try to argue with this.
XxI3ioHazardxX 1 week ago 2
great :-)
Mee551able 1 week ago
What is the program or software you use to show the clades in this video?
rainkeltoia 3 weeks ago
@rainkeltoia He's just making files with those names and going into the window on your computer showing files within files, and filming it
psychomantiskiller 3 weeks ago
@psychomantiskiller Thanks, I could hope it'd be something I could find! But sadly not. Thank you for responding.
rainkeltoia 3 weeks ago
do you ever BREATHE in your videos?
SANHEDRIN666 1 month ago 2
@AronRa how can you expect creationists to keep up with this?!?!
Floortjahh 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
@Floortjahh I reckon that's his point.Creationist arguments are always so simplistic any 5 year old can repeat them. I doubt AronRa expects any creationists to actually watch any of his videos anyway. I think his actual targets are people with some intelligence who might be questioning origins and this is his way of demonstrating that simplistic creationist answers are far too simple to be the truth.
uknowispeaksense 1 month ago
most words per minute ever captured on video :)
managarm1349 1 month ago 2
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa @8:13 ... Boolin' Heck Dude! =O
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
What is that program you're using to branch through all the types of living things? Looks interesting.
Roly426 1 month ago
AronRa... why did you say "you are primates" as opposed to "we are primates".
faro0485 1 month ago
And, as for classifying us as primates or mammals, that is one thing. Scholastics like St Thomas Aquinas defined man as Animal Rationale, and added that if Biped is not in the name it is because there is no Quadruped that is rationale.
Saying we are JUST animals, mammals, primates is another thing.
In admitting taxonomic classification, we are not accepting "common descent" any more than Linnaeus was.
hglundahl 1 month ago
@hglundahl
Holy shit. Make more inane comments.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
Common ancestry is one explanation. Common creator, with a sense of artistic economy in his special creation, is another. Is it not dishonest of you to deny that alternative explanation? Or had you just never heard of it? It was that of Carolus Linnaeus himself! I have been arguing with atheists who dishonestly just answer "c'mon!!!" - or that accepting that explanation "presupposes belief in a creator". As true, yes, or is equivalent rather than presupposes. But ...
hglundahl 1 month ago
@hglundahl ... as possible? No, accepting a possibility as true and accepting it as possible is not same thing. And accepting it as possible refutes your proof.
hglundahl 1 month ago
I know I'm probably going to word this poorly, but who is the little guy at 9 minutes and where do his people come from?
ummnowwhat 2 months ago
@ummnowwhat And why does he have a carrot in his penis?
ummnowwhat 2 months ago
Primate nails are made of keratin, no? Not Chitin, but you say Chitinous nails, or at least that's what I hear.
pdblouin33 2 months ago
@pdblouin33 Nope - he said keratinous at about 8:40
ummnowwhat 2 months ago
@ummnowwhat "Keratinized dermis and chitinous nails" he says. Yes, our skin is keratinized, but so are our nails.
pdblouin33 2 months ago
Respond to this video... Sorry - keratinized**
ummnowwhat 2 months ago
2:12 wow. just wow.
robokill387 3 months ago
So much sweet sweet knowledge! I freakin love it
Thealltimegreat1 3 months ago
YOU RULE!
partypagan 3 months ago
I thought platypus and echidnaa were both monotremes?
verted45 3 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
At 8:00 I was waiting for you to take a breath. Well done!
fdasherv 3 months ago
Did anyone else listen to his description of primates and think, "For gods' sakes, man, breathe!"? :-) Thoroughly enjoying this series.
419Films 3 months ago
Silly AronRa - thinking God didn't want to trick us.
Is my sarcasm coming through?
ChipArgyle 4 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
Yet man does recognise himself [as an animal]. But I ask you and the whole world for a generic differentia between man and ape which conforms to the principles of natural history, I certainly know of none... If I were to call man ape or vice versa, I should bring down all the theologians on my head. But perhaps I should still do it according to the rules of science.
— Carolus Linnaeus
Letter to Johann Gmelon (14 Jan 1747),
gamesbok 4 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
This is my favourite video in the series :-)
@AronRa Thanks for keeping this up. It is people like you, Thunderf00t and Professor Dawkins who stand up to religious zealots with a restrained, scientific rationality (and a healthy dose of dry as a bone humour) that give me a sliver of hope for this humanity of ours.
KipMagnusJansson 4 months ago
8:04 Plain fucking win...
b33p3rz 4 months ago
Top of the line explanations and graphics............better than most of the stuff produced by networks with LARGE budgets.
Bravo, great job................
AutoBahnForever 4 months ago
This video remindee me why I loved biology in high school
MrBeiragua 4 months ago
i argued with your points and my grandpa simply said oh you only know this because someone told you you dont know if thats true or not
nickmcV123 5 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
@nickmcV123 watching this tells you enough to explain the topic, but not enough to argue it with a determined creationist. what it DOES tell you is what topics you need to understand in order to have that argument. arguing with creationists is a special skill and it takes study. however, once you know what you need to know, the information is quite easy to find (eg google within the talkorigins site). creationists rarely understand ANY topic, so you can find some topic you can outclass them on
5naxalotl 5 months ago
@nickmcV123 Tell her you read them in a really old book :D Or make her sit her ass down and watch a few, and check out the research behind it.
b33p3rz 4 months ago
Well said.
AtheistExplains 5 months ago
Well that's a neat way to use Windows Explorer :P
MarkArandjus 5 months ago
You are the Primate Aron (the Man)! You rock the evolutionary world! Take that Creationists!
I love the double punch at the end, "...because evolution is the only explanation that accounts for any of this and it explains it all!"
Thank you Aron!
Peace,
\A/
Awwa1 5 months ago
What's the name of that Darwin movie I keep seeing clips of?
TechnicallyTechnical 5 months ago
@TechnicallyTechnical it might be "creation" with paul bettany as charles darwin?
twiistaaa 5 months ago
@TechnicallyTechnical Darwin's Dangerous Idea
(a PBS documentary written by Daniel Dennet)
/watch?v=910dz5sCb1I
AronRa 5 months ago 10
@thechessstick Ok, now I know you're trolling. And if not, why drag that pitiful excuse as a call for others to try rational thinking when, if you are serious, you obviously don't follow yourself? It's a sorry statement that only furthers others beliefs that creationists who are willfully ignorant and promote such behavior in their kids, are a detriment to furthering knowledge and society as a whole.
Spocktacular96 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolutionists are such simple-minded dolts. They are just the little misfits who as children so wanted to fit in but could not. With this group of simpletons they fit right in and can actually act like bullies. Wake-up you simple cowardly fractions of men. Don't be such fools in this war for our souls.
thechessstick 6 months ago
@onesweetasuzy You said extra-terrestrial and he was wondering why you brought that up lmao.
pythor2 6 months ago
@onesweetasuzy You're still not making any sense. What relevance do your comments have to this video, or to the comments of others here?
Akira625 6 months ago
@onesweetasuzy Huh? Who's talking about extra-terrestrials here?
Akira625 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onesweetasuzy
Arguments made for the existence of extraterrestrial life are typically based around factors that ARE known about (or can be established by a realistic approximation). They are usually based on scientific knowledge and understanding.
None of that applies to "God". Well, unless you consider God to be a powerful alien creature who seeded life on Earth. I'm sure we can agree that's silly.
AnonymousDiv0 6 months ago
I'm waiting for the massive intake of breath at the end of this video after talking that fast for 10 mins
mancno1 6 months ago
its like as with everything else we hear from the masses ... they say "god loves you" but if there is truly a god as they depict to us ... with all the lies.. religious, political, etc
how about something that recently popped into my consciousness:
what if .. "god hates you"
disclosure: i am Long agnostic and Short the Church
xkamikaze78 6 months ago
@Chance480 I think this will best answer your question: /watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU
AronRa 6 months ago
I'm rewatching this series. THis time with a firm hand on the pause/play button. It's like being bombarded with facts from a machine gun. I like it. Thanks Aron.
NBM397 6 months ago 2
Aron, I have a question for you. By following the rules of monophyly, aren't humans and whales technically bony fish (osteichthyes)? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
LeSeigneurDuMalin 7 months ago
@LeSeigneurDuMalin
**... aren't humans and whales technically bony fish (osteichthyes)?**
In a strict cladistic sense (and the happy, refined clarity that it presents us ;-) we are indeed osteichthyans...
but I feel a bit uncomfortable calling people 'bony fish'.
TheHatefulDead 7 months ago
I'm thinking that human ego plays a role in the dismissal of evolution in favor of creation. Creationists see themselves as favored in God's eyes over all other lifeforms, and created in his image. The entire universe seems to revolve around the Earth (esp. the Middle East) in a figurative, if not literal sense. The idea that the human race came from far humbler origins is unthinkable and offensive to them.
Akira625 7 months ago
8:04 -> 8:48... a flurry of pwnage.
linkuei83 7 months ago
i really liked the video, the only bad thing is it kinda messed up my computer. See once the video ended my head kinda exploded and my brain matter got all over the keyboard, which was a little tricky to clean up. Other than that it was good, just a little to "Mind-Blowish"
matt1523 7 months ago
This video just took my breath away. One of the most beautiful educational videos I've ever seen.
hammyzone 7 months ago
@AronRa
03:43 "Every vertebrate has red blood." Be carefull here, cause Prasinohaema have green blood due to an accumulation of biliverdin.
Channichthyidae might be a better example since they don't have hemoglobin.
There are other diseases which cause orange and or a green color:
Sulfhemoglobinemia and other anemia. So I understand why people judge by color, but it probably opens you up for criticisms.
AlainG80 7 months ago
@AlainG80 I accounted for some deviations in blood color (such as the one you just mentioned) in my AronERatta video.
AronRa 7 months ago 4
@AlainG80 So Prasinohaema are Volcans?
BloodSweatTiers 1 month ago
I'm standing up and clapping at the sheer effort and presentation of this. As unlikely as it may seem there ARE people trying to discredit AronRa's presentations. But they can't touch it, it's all about trying to deny this or that detail. AronRa comes out of it unscathed. Grats AronRa, you're truly a leader in the struggle for sanity.
warren52nz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
I had to keeps stopping the video so I could write down the definition of a primate. That is quite a mouthful.
oaajbs 8 months ago
You should add an understated "bitch!" at the end.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
your videos are absolutely amazing! you can tell how much work is going into them. please, keep doing what you are doing! :D
horeajoldes 8 months ago
BREATHE MAN! BREATHE!
redwolf602 9 months ago 46
Is the database with the tree downloadable somewhere? Because it's perfect biology stuff.
Bishop38f8 9 months ago
Good presentation! I'll be very glad when Wells (a loonie Moonie) and Huckabee (an evangelical quasi-theocrat) and their ilk become extinct like the embarrassing anachronisms they are.
SuperImready 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creationist would never like to admit that Humans are Apes because their Holy (Un-Holy) Books have Denigrated and Demeaned all other forms of Life with respect to Themselves (Humans and that too specifically belonging to their family of religions caste system). They would prefer to die, then to accept them as equals. This is the same Phenomenon we had in our Past like "Slavery".
sidharth0384 9 months ago
When. Do. You. BREATHE?
wptte 9 months ago
@wptte
BREATHING IS FOR THE WEAK. ARONRA IS A VIKING.
thissystemneeds 8 months ago
one word : GREAT!!!
(what is the software used to make the tree-structure? Is that a self-made folder tree or is it an existing package?)
Patrick
gh778jk 9 months ago
WOW. Excellent video.
Lots of work that went into this video.
Thanks AronRa.
Trinitics 9 months ago
Can anyone else with at least a decorum of functional brains say it with me:
Pure Epic Über Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn?!?
Thank you, thank you very much.
toulouse666 10 months ago
Holly crap, the diversity us OVERWHELMING!
Carutsu 10 months ago
How come that all the creationistes always look like morons :)
CasusBelli1000 10 months ago
I don't know if this has been addressed, and I'm just wondering... where did you get all those folders with the names of different phyla and orders and families, etc? Is it something you made for the video to illustrate the nested hierarchy, or is it something that can be downloaded somewhere? I just think it's really cool.
Juxtaroberto 10 months ago
@Juxtaroberto I second this question. I would really like to know. If it's a program of some sort, I want it. It looks massively informative.
Anomalous59 10 months ago
wao for 8:02 to 8:41
thelion2430 10 months ago
I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.
Carl Linnaeus 1747
gamesbok 10 months ago 2
Probably my favorite of this series so far, amazing work, AronRa
bernlin2000 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all you have done is observe and arrange your observations into groups. this explans nothing of their origin.
mejc2 11 months ago
@mejc2 You wouldn't find it "interesting" if all the fossils beneath any given branch only appeared in the fossil record after a certain time?
roohif 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roohif
Beneath? Many fossils are found on the surface. the sedimentary rock is then dated according to the fossil found in it. It always works perfectly because you date the layer by the fossils.
mejc2 11 months ago
@mejc2 Yes, you're right - we actually have no method of working out how old (in absolute terms) particular layers are;, it's a huge conspiracy of science that only atheists are in on.
I've been trolled more than I'd like over the last few weeks, so I'm just gonna leave it at this:
stratigraphy. google.
roohif 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roohif
Now you're starting to understand the truth. Be careful, the truth hurts. You might find out that you aren't as smart as you thought you were.
mejc2 11 months ago
@mejc2 I've got a simple way to ensure I don't waste any more time on you. Do you believe that the age of the earth (and/or the universe) is:
a) In the order of a few thousand?
b) in the order of a few billion?
If you answer a), then you are clearly retarded, or a troll, or a retarded troll. If you answer b) then you are most certainly a troll.
roohif 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roohif
I believe that evolutionists state the age of the earth and the universe in terms that support their nonsense story of mutations filtered by natural selection over millions of years. They disregard the empirical scientific evidence that refutes it. I believe that you are an evolutionist.
mejc2 11 months ago
@mejc2 mmmmmmmkay then. No interest in talking about this further. Peace and good luck to you!
roohif 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roohif
You're welcome.
mejc2 11 months ago
This should be piped into Kent Hovinds cell 24/7 until he melts, screaming "I`m sorrrrrrrry " as his internal organs disintegrate
ilikezappa 11 months ago 2
This is one of my all time favourites... I especially love the part where you sum up all the characteristics of primates :). Thank you!
jnoort 11 months ago
Comment removed
Gods0n1 11 months ago
@Gods0n1 It's just you.
floyd084 11 months ago
christains are the most arrogant scummy and ignroant people ever. i'll never be a christain and god still loves me more than you. honestly i dont think theres one christen out there who understands this fast essay being spewed to u
yourallstoopid 11 months ago
Wow, I almost ran out of breath *watching* this video. I can't imagine how exhausting it was listing all those classification groups in such a limited time.
In any case I think this video really does provide so much useful information that I did not know previously.
Thanks AronRa
Encryptsan 1 year ago
How stupid does Mike Huckabee sound at 8:45?
captain150 1 year ago
This is the level of complexity that creatards can't handle, so they insert a diety to make it less abstract and more like every day life. simple, predictable, static for all of eternity. I love you, you love me, lets all do the same thing forever! And ever, because people who believe in an after life have no concept of even 1000 years. let alone 1000000, or an eternity. Neither do I, but I still try instead of godddidit
OpiatedBliss 1 year ago
from 8:03 to 8:48... WOW! My brain just exploded. In a good way. What would it take to get this entire series on a DVD?
authorless 1 year ago 3
@authorless Tottally Agree need a DVD of this series!!!!
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago 4
I feel like I gain a few IQ points every time I watch one these.
MrDidjcripey 1 year ago 24
The old school willy wonka clip clip was probably the most well placed non-aronra piece of commentary in the series.
asdfbobbyasdf 1 year ago
Thank you for stating the obvious :-))))))))
bersa888 1 year ago
I wish there were more Christians, Muslims, etc. on YouTube that stood up for evolution. It just seems to me that all of these bozo fundamentalists that dominate the Internet drastically misrepresent the majority of people who are intelligent people as well as religious. (Just so you know, this is coming from a freethinking skeptic.)
Dumbfoundedification 1 year ago
@Dumbfoundedification It is always the vocal minority that gets the most attention. This is the point AronRa makes in his first video of this series. Most religious people are not silly enough to deny what is evidently true.
lhvinny 1 year ago
"come on Aron... breathe..... BREATHE!!!!!"
:)
scottpastry 1 year ago 6
AronRa: Amen brother.
sol3a1 1 year ago
Wow. I want a Phylogenetic tree on my desktop too.
VaeSapiens 1 year ago
@VaeSapiens ME TOO! Is there one to download somewhere? Imma start lookin' for one.
fonoflux1 1 year ago
hey, @anonra what program did you use (i assume it's a program) where it was showing/hiding all the taxonomy levels?
rey9006 1 year ago
where is the clip of the human without arms and legs, and the one walking with his arms from?
bjam89 1 year ago
@bjam89 The scenes with armless and legless people came from the 1932 thriller, Freaks. It's an interesting flick, and is still available for immediate view on Google video.
AronRa 1 year ago 7
@AronRa thanks for the info
bjam89 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AronRa Or as a playlist on my channel! (Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam...)
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
@bjam89 The guy without any limbs is Prince
jazzmanzoot 9 months ago
i thougth thunderf00t made me feel dumb............. AronRa, you win
Trbitt213 1 year ago 2
believe in Jesus or burn forever in hell
fuckmania07 1 year ago
@fuckmania07
A man named 'fuckmania07' preaches to us about Jesus?
June28July 1 year ago
6:20. Wig!
davewatcher 1 year ago
To paraphrase the description by switching the order round, this is the "most compelling and overwhelming" "introductory primer to cladistic phylogenetics" =) I love rewatching these vids.
8DX 1 year ago 2
I dont buy it ,but you sound real smart .
Is it possible God exists ?
Is it possible the earth was created in 6 days ?
Is it possible you dont know jack squat.
blowbackinevitable 1 year ago
@blowbackinevitable The answers to your questions are, in order: Yes, no, and no.
lhvinny 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution explains it all because everything is viewed through evolutionary paradyme. Evolutionist transpose their viewpoint onto the classification system. Geology is interpreted thru uniformitarianism, which has trouble explaining the vast number of fossils we find(Catastrophism is the ony thing that explains it) Embryology does not paralell ontogeny with philogeny. That was Haeckel fudging drawings. Different genes can express similiar structure and vice versa.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas: OK, then, whence the "classification system" that you say evolutionists are suborning? That creationist Karl of Linne (Linnaeus) was responsible for that, and he based it upon morphology - that is, a comparison of archetypal bodily features, that being all that 18th century science understood. He made man a primate, because of the forms of the head and hand, mainly; at that time fossils were not yet known or understood. So, tell me, what better basis should they have used?
puncheex 1 year ago
... Indeed, classification was the only system that Darwin could use, but in the last 30 years we have developed what is probably a better one - genome analysis. But it turns out that genomics agrees with Linneaus at least 90% of the time, so what was the problem with using it in the first place? If your theoretical system purports to change animals a small amount at a time, why wouldn't they be morphologically similar?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Carolus Linnaeus was a creationist and believed he was catergorizing organisms by similarity of design and perhaps even the progressive process of the designer.(God) As I have stated before here, the ceolacanth was considered a transitional form between fish and anphibians until they found them alive off the coast of antartica. When they studied the live specimens they realized they didn't use ther boney fins to try an crawl on land.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas: Haeckel turned out to be right in principle, though not in the detail he thought. Human embryos do develop gill folds, and do develop pelts during their gestation, later erased. Do you have an explanation?
Geology is both uniformitarian globally over long periods, with catastrophes happening globally rarely and locally often. It has taken a while to achieve a balance, but that is where it is today.
You seem to have trouble with science advancing over time. Get over it.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Gill pouches in humans
The pouches never function as gills.
Gill pouches serve as intermediates in the development of other structures.
Derivatives of gill pouches
1st pair become Eustachian tubes from throat to middle ear behind eardrum.
2nd pair of pouches becomes the tonsils.
3rd pair becomes thymus gland.
4th pair the parathyraoids (Ca++ levels)
Taken from Rutgers University site
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas: You're absolutely right. They don't function as gills; the fetus has no need of gills. You're absolutely right about where they go, functionally. Evolution often reuses obsolete structures for new functions, and that's where the gills went (or at least in that direction, to get shaped later) when the tetrapods stepped out on land. Not even Haeckel said they were gills; he only pointed out that in a fish embryo that's where they go; in humans they have other functions.
puncheex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@puncheex Gill pouches in humans
The pouches never function as gills.
Gill pouches serve as intermediates in the development of other structures.
Derivatives of gill pouches
1st pair become Eustachian tubes from throat to middle ear behind eardrum.
2nd pair of pouches becomes the tonsils.
3rd pair becomes thymus gland.
4th pair the parathyraoids (Ca++ levels)
Taken from Rutgers University site
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Catastrophism explains nothing I see in the fossil record, and creationism can't account for any of the facts listed in this video. Give it a try.
AronRa 1 year ago 45
@AronRa Your kidding right? You don't bellive fossilization takes place from slow gradual laying down of setement, do you? You know and organism must be buried quickly in order to fossilize don't you? Otherwise it would be broken down by micro- org. and completely destroyed very rapidly.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@AronRa Actually, it is possible to construct a creationist narrative that explains all geological observations. The problem for creationism is that future observations will require ad hoc adjustments to that narrative.
Catastrophism was only buried in the cartoon version of geology. Reality is more complex. At one point in the history of geological science, uniformitarian principles were used to explain catastrophes, which caused the old distinction to collapse.
Lingula77 1 year ago
@AronRa Hey I'm new to your videos and I just wanna say great work. I can't believe that someone could watch these videos and still think creationism is right I mean how stupid and ignorant do you have to be to deny facts and logic.These people should be ridiculed and criticised and should also be ashamed of themselves to think what the ancient greeks could have done if they had just half of the knowledge we do now but no our species embraces the disease of religion as if it is a cure. PEACE
TheXman300 8 months ago
@CrownIdeas Catastrophism also has no explanation as to why plants are found dispersed throughout the fossil record as evenly as animals. If the flood created the fossil record, the plants should be the exception. But there not. Plants are good at doing many things. But running to higher ground to avoid a flood isnt one of them.
commdude0621 1 year ago 47
@commdude0621 No, they can't run, but they grow everywhere and rushing water could redistribute them anywhere. Also when I say Catastrophism I don't necessarily mean one event. Large local events would be included in that too. It makes no sense that setiment would be laid down over millions of years. Normal weather erodes setiment, but Catastopics events redistribute and lay down setiment. You must know that rapid burial has to take place in order to cause fossilization.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Why then are the animals evenly dispersed as to give the impressions of ages? Ancient animals are found in the same layer as other animals which are thought to have lived during the same age and so on. Also, no example of coprolite (fossilized poo) has been found from an 'ancient' animal with the remains of a 'modern' one in it or vice versa. So they also only ate other animals and plants from the same 'age' or era that we now superimpose on the fossil record?
commdude0621 1 year ago
@commdude0621 we shouldn't even be addressing 'catastrophism'- it's an insult to anyone with eyes to see the fossil record. there is no controversy here.
cruciphile 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas Watch the damn video before you spout nonsense.
bernlin2000 11 months ago
@bernlin2000 I thought I did, but that was months ago... where were you?
CrownIdeas 11 months ago
@CrownIdeas Oh yeah, catastrophism: Because flowering plants can outrun ferns, and ferns can outrun lichens and mosses.
Juxtaroberto 10 months ago
@Juxtaroberto And what does that ridiculous statement have to do with catastrophism.. Catastrophism is not exclusively based on one global flood, but that large scale disasters have happened periodically throughout earths history. These disasters would explain the geologic column much better than uniformitarianism.
CrownIdeas 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas It was in answer to an equally ridiculous statement about the "evolutionary paradigm."
Evolution isn't some unproved ideology into which all things are made to fit, that would be creationism. The theory of evolution, as Darwin put it forth, was based on the available evidence. It was formulated in response to the creationist paradigm. Like all things of science, religion got it wrong.
Juxtaroberto 10 months ago
@Juxtaroberto Darwin got his ideas about natural selection from Edward Blyth.. Blyth was a theist and a creationist.. Blyth's ideas on species gave place for stasis which was later confirmed by Stephen Gould.. So who really got it wrong?
CrownIdeas 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas I don't see your point... statis is accompanied by punctuated equilibrium, which still amounts to the same thing: evolution.
Juxtaroberto 10 months ago
@Juxtaroberto No, punctuated equilibrium was proposed to explain why there wasn't the evidence evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record. Stasis is what is commonly found not gradual change. Gould theorized that long periods of stasis must be followed by periods of rapid change. So he was putting forth a theory to fit the viewpoint he had already accepted.
CrownIdeas 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas No, stasis and punctuated equilibrium go against gradualism, not evolution. "Evolutionists" thought that evolution happens always and gradually, but it's not the case. Genetic drift is what may happen when the environment is for the most part stable, but environments can sometimes change rather rapidly and this is when organisms must also change rapidly, although a rapidly changing environment need not stem from a catastrophic event. Global warming is enough to set it off.
Juxtaroberto 10 months ago
@Juxtaroberto Interesting hypothesis.. So if you're right we should see some rapid drastic changes in life on earth right now before our very eyes. Calling genetic drift evolution is debateable. Ofcourse, evolution is such a vague term it is hard to pin it down. When people say evolution they are usually thinking of some origin of life theory. When they are supporting it they use variations caused by enviromental selection of traits in a organisms gene pool.
CrownIdeas 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas No, don't put words in my mouth. All global warming and cooling events of the past have been natural and relatively gradual, despite their outcomes being extreme. The current warming trend has not been gradual and hasn't even been taking place for very long. A lot of organisms will adapt, of course, but far more will die out simply because there won't be enough time for them to evolve. I didn't call genetic drift evolution either, I said that when an environment is stable the only
Juxtaroberto 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas thing that happens to the population in terms of genetics is genetic drift, just neutral mutations randomly accumulating in any direction. It isn't until the environment changes or the population moves to a different environment that certain mutations that weren't favorable before are now favorable, or brand new favorable mutations spring up that drive natural selection. No, that's abiogenesis, actual evolutionary scientists think of it as the origin of species, not life.
Juxtaroberto 10 months ago
@Juxtaroberto accumulations of neutral mutations causing rapid change is a theory. Most genetic drift is natural selection working on the gene pool that is in an organism. Species is another term that is vaguely defined. Used to be a species was a group that could interbreed and produce fertile offspring. With that defintion all big cats would be one species. Ever herd of a Liger or a Tigon? They are not a joke they are real. All dogs and wolves would be 1 species by htat definition as well.
CrownIdeas 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas I never said that. If they're neutral mutations, they won't cause change, that's what neutral means.
Species is hard to define, but it is not vaguely defined. There are lots of conditions.
Juxtaroberto 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Juxtaroberto Well if its not vague than are hybrids new species or do they fall under the category of one of the parent species? you said, neutral mutations randomly accumulating in any direction. I copy pasted that
CrownIdeas 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas House dogs (C. Lupus Familiaris) and wolves (C. Lupus) are the same species. And Tigons and Ligers are real, just like Mules are hybrids of Donkeys and Horses. However, you left out the rather important fact that tigons ligers and mules are all sterile. No fertile offspring, different species.
Zeroethorder 10 months ago
@Zeroethorder well, ok dogs are the same species different sub-species. But Tigons and Ligers are not infertile.. I think you need to check that out.. And mules are not always infertile just in most cases.. And I think they are most often one gender..
CrownIdeas 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas Ok my mistake, but only the liger females have been documented as being fertile, and their offspring usually show poor health. So the species are close enough to mate but not quite close enough that it's a good idea. Doesn't sound like cuddly wuddly special creation to me, gives a pretty good case for slowly graduated change over time within the allele frequency of a population.... someone should come up with a name for that... I got it! Revolution?... naw, I'll think of one later..
Zeroethorder 10 months ago
@Zeroethorder No, I don't think so I think both male and females are fertile.. Their offspring does do better if it mates with another full breed, but that maybe because of in-breeding. Most of the known cases have happened in captivity where there is a small gene-pool to begin with. You can also hybridize Zebras and horses and Donkeys and Zebras. Speciation does not prove microbes to mamal evolution. Proves variation in a species may be seperated by extint lineage. Ever herd of Ring species?
CrownIdeas 10 months ago
@CrownIdeas Considering the fact that you have no idea what half of the things you mentioned mean, I can't believe that AronRa and many others wasted their times answering your ridiculous diatribe. Frankly, I can't believe I'm typing this either. I will say this, though: you are using "uniformitarianism" erroneously. It isn't even the correct definition of it. The actual definition states that all natural processes and laws present now have been here throughout time. Educate yourself.
kulguyravero 10 months ago
Despite all this evolution, the narrator must have some sort of different, hyper-evolved lung system. I felt like I was asphyxiating just listening to him at times.
TheAdmiral 1 year ago
Hey, guess what, I threw rocks at the beehive and was told I should be killed... what the heck?... All I get is death threats... Isn't the internet suppose to be fun?
lordlandraid 1 year ago
sorry for any double, triple, or quadruple posts on here but youtube was screwing up on me and I thought it just wasn't posted my comments, apparently it was, they just cannot be seen... that's just great isn't it?...
lordlandraid 1 year ago
I fucking hate youtube sometimes... god this is stupid...
lordlandraid 1 year ago
I would really like to delete the fucking double posts but youtube is fucking up for me...
lordlandraid 1 year ago
Comment removed
lordlandraid 1 year ago
Comment removed
lordlandraid 1 year ago
I admire ur work and the gathering of evidence u show us.... BUT WHY SPEEK IT IN THIS UNSERIOUS WAY... I CANT PRESENT THIS TO ANYONE... ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO LISTEN TO UR FASTER THAN FAST MONOLOG WHILE INTERPETING ALL THE THINGS U SHOW US AT THE SAME TIME..... SLOW DOWN TO REACH UR AUDIENCE......
BrianBartholin 1 year ago
@BrianBartholin
It's true that he could slow down a bit but these vids are limited to 10min and to slow down would double or triple the number of vids to be made.
They're also made to be watched several times and paused frequently to digest the text. Perfect for youtube but yes, not so great for an outside presentation.
On the "unserious" mode..that's maybe a fair point but it does make the vid a little more fun IMHO.
Take Care and RAmen!
Ven
Venator70 1 year ago
@Venator70 "unserious" is a wrong word here, excuse my limited vocabulary. The way mr. AronRa approach theese subjects it is fun for "us" (very much so), and can be consumed in bits as u describe.. But I have had a look at the transcripts, and found that there is room for some revision or "shortening" of the subjects presented. A revision and a calm presentation in "double episodes" could reach alot more people. These videos COULD become very good/exelent tools in the education of the masses,
BrianBartholin 1 year ago