I've read many comments here, and once again, find the same talking points and protests among Darwinists who are butt-hurt that their precious theory is exposed as the religious fraud it is.
Secondly If you look at the layers of the fossiles ,and look at the cretures from one layer to the next you see no in between fossiles ,which is what you would expect if evolution were true.
Also fossiles don't take millions of years to form ,because they have found a fossile of a miners hat made of solid stone.
Scientist look at fossile layers and state that the creatures on the lower layers evolves into more complex cretures over time but their are many issues with that theory. First is that their are many fossiles found verticle through many layers ,and many sets of layers all over the world. How could something die and wait millions of years for sediment to cover it without it breaking down it hast to happen instantly (clear evedence of a great flood).
The Theory of Evolution sais that a creature takes in a piece of information and passes it down to the next generation and, that over the chorse of millions of years it cahnges into another spieces. How could this be? If it takes millions of years for someting to evolve how does it survive? Some Evolutionist state that evolution can happen in sudden burst ,but why havent we seen any evolutionairy canged ,so that cant be so either.
If we had found all fossils completley random (without a timeline) if we had no system of Information-copieing, if breeding would not work, if there were no tracks of DNA of older lifeforms in other animals, if we woud not see a slow change of attributes if a kind changes its habitat, or every year knew versions of Viruses...we could say that
Evolution cant predict...But we cant predict which solution will be the most successful, like nobody can say which music will be popular next decade.
We will find diffrent kind of animals types in diffrent layers and we will find a Timeline...which means we wont find dinosaurs 1000 Years ago and no dogs 200 Mio Years ago.
This only make sense if animal evolved not if they were created.
It predicts that there must be a Stuff inside lifeforms that have the potential to copy information, and that this copy-process is failable.
Darwinism is a term that is regarded as pejorative by fundamentalist organizations mostly in the US but not not as much by others. Especially in Europe. As someone how delights in petty word play, you seize on the opportunity to associate it with established scientists who only use it to describe the basic idea of evolution theory. It's not that they are unaware that you use it as a derogatory slur. They just don't care what you think.
First off, Darwinsism is a stupid name for evolutionary theory. It's not an ideology so how can it be an ism? Secondly, it's no longer Darwins theory. Thirdly, it's extremely falsifiable. Just find an organism that doesn't fit in the phylogenetic tree, or a rabbit in pre-cambrian rock.
Then again, people believe in God because they can't handle the fact they themself are simply a part of a life cycle, that they are NO MORE special then any other living creature at the end of their life. Once your dead, you may keep your sanctity of soul with your God but your body will rot and give nourishment to other creatures.
@IAreNarutard Humans are created in the image of God, as Genesis says., That includes you. But you are born sinful, as I am. You need to seek God. God will not override free will, but will come into your life if you seek him as a little child.
@saynotodarwinyeah Good One, made me chuckle! But being serious, some people do think like this, I always feel sorry for Darwin; nobody ever has a dig at Newton or Einstein in this way!
I don't know why we have to mix darwinism and creationism. if you want to be darwinist then be, if you wanna be creationist say so. after all, in this universe there is much space for all ideas. am I right?
However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories, sometimes called "NeoDarwinism", from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period.
The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.For example, Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?
Having looked at Darwinism and the claims made to show it's valid.
I don't understand how anyone should accept Darwinism just because there is no better alternative. The transitional fossils do not have any significant line to support Darwinism. There is contradictory evidence against evolution. I'm refering to material scientists.
Darwin's prediction's have been one of the biggest failures of Darwinism.
Darwinism is rejected because it's a system that requires faith.
1-) İT'SA A BLULLSHİT CREATED BY LİTTLE-BRAİNED CHARLES DARWİN
2-) İT WAS CREATED TO MAKE PEOPLE TO BELİEVE DARWİN LİKE A GOD
3-)İSLAM İS THE TRUEST RELİGİON
4-)WE NOT COME FROM MONKEY'S WERE ALL SİS AND BRO'S SON AND DAUGHTERS OF PROPHET ADAM
5-)İF YOU RELİGİOUS OR WHO DO NOT BELİEVE İSLAM JUST LOOK İNTO YOUR HANDS AND YOU WİLL SEE THERE'S A ALLAH WRİTTEN ON YOUR HANDS. BUT NOT LİKE ''ALLAH'' İTS LİKE الله when you GET YOUR HANDS TOGETHER RİGHT AND LEFT YOU WİLL WİTNESS .
@gakkovakko I'm not sure you're able to post that name on here. Think of it from a religious point of view, Islam does not teach foul mouthing other theories. I am Muslim myself, but I believe that there are more logical approaches towards the topic. I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think that by making a statement such as that, you are going to have a positive effect.
P.s. I don't see that on my hands. I see the Arabic numerics for 81 on my left hand and 18 on the right - making 99
Social Darwinism doesn't apply to homo sapiens as it does to all other animals. Since humans are conscious and have the ability to communicate, those with knowledge can teach those without, the strong can protect the weak, thereby elevating the entire human race. Therefore survival of the fittest simply doesn't apply to a species that can consciously choose to cooperate instead of dominate.
@IChIDH .... cooperating is also a sing of being the "fittest". sinse survival of the fittest dusn't meen the strongest or most inteligant will survive, but the one that is most adapt to change.
@ptwob yes but a group of the 'fittest' can choose to help the "non-fittest" to survive. the non-fit survive by the actions of the fit. if the fit choose to do that survival of the fittest is null and void by conscious choice.
Dawkins wrote The God delusion in which he explains that anyone who believes in God shares a common delusion. Dawkins also accepts Darwinism as being factual. But please consider this... Darwin was a christian (he died a while back) and therefore should be considered to have been delusional by Dawkins own argument, and seeing that Dawkins accepts Darwinism must therefore share in Darwins delusion.
A few points: Dawinism is not the modern term since much knowledge has been discovered since Darwins' time. We call it Evolutionary Theory and is the cornerstone of modern biology. It is falsifiable by finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layers, which nothing like that has ever happened. Lastly and more devastating is that even if you did find a real flaw in evolution, that does not prove creationism any more than proving that if this car is not a Chevy then it imust a Ford.
This video was awesome I hope you don't mind me downloading and adding to my propaganda collection do you? I mean this is a piece of art, really it is, you lie so convincingly If i did not know better I probably would have believed you.
look guys all i want to say to the people who believe in darwinism is this: I have a grandfather and he's name is so ans so BUT i'm incredibly ashamed that your grandfather is a monkey.
@PiggywiggyZone7 first humans are not form moneys we are from Apes, our closest common ancestors with chimps was an Ape. It gets even worse not only did we come form apes, we still are apes, so yes my grandfather was an ape, but so is your grandfather and the rest of your family including yourself. Before we start blaming Darwin it was a christian scientist long before Darwin that placed us in the family of Great apes, we are apes if god made us or we evolved.
@PiggywiggyZone7 You hold common misconceptions about the theory of evolution. Let me help.
1) Darwinism is a term used by creationists. Science calls the modern theory, "Evolution", since many discoveries have added to our knowledge since Darwin.
2) No scientists claims we evolved from monkeys, the theory states that all primates evolved from a common ancestor. Different.
3) Creationists claim we did not come from apes. Not true since we ARE one of the great apes by definition.
Darwinism is a fantasy. It cannot happen. The laws of the universe make it impossible. It belongs in the same league as tarot reading, astrology and phrenology. Anybody who espouses it is an idiot.
when you say Darwinism, do you mean the 19th century theory, or the
post-theoretical evolution? Becourse Darwins original theory had holes, the post-theoretiacal have been proven with 100% certainty through the genetic mapping method. And the Transitional forms you speak of, guess what, we have them, not the way you represent them, but we have them.
Darwinian evolution is observed scientific fact. There are 1000s of fundamentalists desparate to prove it wrong, and you can bet if they had any evidence they'd have presented something by now.
Instead of addressing all the straw man arguments I'm going to ask you to run through your origin theory and your explanation of biodiversity. This is where you find creationists run for the nearest exit. I have never had a creationist explain the steps in relation to how man came to be, the beginning of disease and the diversity of life. I think it's because you could discredit it by replacing Darwinism with creationism through most of this video.
Darwinism is false. Charles Darwin said (and im paraphrasing) that if a cell were to be more than a single organism, his theory would fall apart. And we found out that cells were not single organisms, they were much more. So if Darwin himself said that his theory would be wrong if this is so, then he is wrong. He is the one who made the theory so he would know when it would be wrong.
what does this video suggest? that we should reject the theory of evolution and remain agnostic about the origin of the human being? or, even better, should we believe in adam and eva and that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago? if you believe this you are either ignorant, dumb, or both. read a book about darwinism. don't ridicule yourself and accept the obvious. please do that and stop whining because the content of your bible has been proven untrue.
Natural selection isn't a thing, it's a process. A machination. Like addition or multiplication. It's not the source or the result but the happenings between the two. How can such an abstract concept be held up as a supernatural being? Well, it's not a being as I said.
wow, amazing how a "what is darwinism?" video can get so many of the basic facts about evolution wrong. The idea that evolution and common descent are non-scientific and untestable ideas is absurd. People, do some research, don't take this crack's word. He has a serious religious agenda, don't expect any kind of scientific view. Just a bit of quote mining and really misunderstanding some basic scientific concepts.
bigwhammyRocks: You seem pretty confident that there is more evidence contradictory to evolution. So what the hell are you waiting for? Write a paper on it. Get the paper peer-reviewed. Get it published. Then collect your nobel prize, your millions of dollars, and your countless followers who will remember you for centuries.
It is very cute how you are trying to make a science out to be a myth. Evolution is science; testable, observable, and falsifiable.
One man feels that evolution could replace christianity as a religion, so what? That only proves that people are corrupt. One can accept evolution and a god, any god they want. They are not mutually exclusive ideas, no matter how much people on both sides try to make them. One can be a christian and still accept evolution because they are not mutually exclusive.
Natural selection is not random, could you define natural selection. For that matter, could you define evolution in a biological context?
Quote mining. I just finished reading Dawkins and that quote is not talking about the beginning of life. He is talking about complex structures that we see, e.g. eye. That is quite pathetic, and it makes me question the other quotes you have used in this video. No biological scientist would say something as ignorant as natural selection is the cause of life.
The first half of this video is only quotes from scientists. Seems like an argument from authority. It is also not true that evolution is only a historical science. Evolution is used my doctors in creations of vaccines and antibiotics. Evolution is testable observable and falsifiable, that is what makes it good science.
You are exactly right; Dawkins and Gould are both wrong for calling it that.
This is probably one of the most extremely horrible quote-mined misinformational, ill-defined video concerning the topics of evolution, natural selection, and Darwin.
Evolution is falsifiable, any good biologist would agree. If they found say, a rabbit dated to 100 million years ago, evolution would be in trouble. Just find one piece of evidence against evolution. And no the bible doesnt count, and it never will again.
The Cambrian explosion pretty much did that already. So all the Darwinist faithful ran back to the drawing board and changed the gradualist models of Charlie Darwin - now they claim evolution happens in quick spurts kind of like what you would expect to see in a well eh CREATION model. lol
You have to understand that people who believe in creation on the whole are ignorant of scientific principals and really don't know how science works. If they did, they would realize how absolutely stupid the arguments for creation are.
The problem is that they are unwilling to accept reason because they believe in God so hard that it's blinding them to whats right in their face.
Those who deny don't learn. Those who don't learn are ignorant of the subject.
Actually DNA evidence supports Noah's Ark and utterly refutes Darwinism. We can trace human origins back much further on the female side than the male. Because Noah and his sons had wives from different families - thus mitochondrial eve is much older than the oldest male evidence because male bottlenecks at Noah - sons share the fathers. Your best evidence refutes you're own position - time to get a new worldview.
@bigwhammyRocks So, assuming that the female lineage has a longer thread then males, how does that prove it HAS to be because of Noah's ark? And what about sedimentary layers? If there really was a global flood, should we not have one layer jam packed with tons of fossils from virtually any animal?
@bigwhammyRocks Darwinism is a stupid word. As I see it, you could call Darwinism religion, the word says you believe Darwin was right on everything. A lot of what he said has been disproven, but Not The Theory of Evolution. If you can, your name will go over in history.
Furthermore, I would contend that the people who say "there is insufficient evidence to support evolution" are the same people who have not investigated that evidence and/or do not understand the evidence through scientific illiteracy.
Let me show you an example.
Man 1: The theory of a round earth cannot be real.
Man 2: Why is that?
Man 1: The people in Australia do not fall off the world.
They simply do not understand why their "objections" are not valid scientifically.
It really aggravates me to see such blatant dishonesty in the Creationist community. They have a conviction, and force reality to fit it. How can any one really believe such fantasies of Gods? Gods are ridiculous; they contradict experience and logic in all regards. And don't pretend you are at all interested in the truth; don't pretend the truth is considered at all when you argue the creationist agenda.
Design is so utterly obvious that to deny it is just desperate and pathetic, you simply refuse to be accountable for sin. It has nothing to do with reason or science.
@ Rundvelt. Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life-Law of Biogenesis. Did u study evolution? U r taught that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation" -life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a Fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible. Don't drink the Atheist punch, it's ignorant!
> Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life-Law of Biogenesis.
I suggest you re-read what the Law of Biogenesis says.
> Did u study evolution?
No, I studied biology. You know, the proper term.
> U r taught that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told).
You need to do some research. This isn't the case.
@rundvelt, you are a pure worldy genius. You have cracked the code that all atheist yearn for...NON-SENSE. Are you proud of that? You say i am not qualified to comment, so you limit my freedom. you say re-read law of biogenesis so you limit my intelligence. you say biology is the proper term for evolution so you limit my comprehension. your delusional evolutionary theory has faded ur logic, so you limit my conversation. You have lost the atheistic war, now lose ur pride 2.(checkmated an atheist)
Did you study evolution; if you did then you would know that evolution does not deal with the origin of life, which is a different field of science called abiogenesis. The way life started has no effect on whether evolution happens or not. A god(s) could have started life and it would not affect the theory of evolution one bit. Furthermore, one does not have to be an atheist to accept evolution. Anyone from any faith can accept evolution just as they can accept any aspect of science.
judas6kryst, thanks 4 replying. i havent talked to anyone much lately, since they realized evolution is simply a belief. Yet U still hold on to a detrimental belief that can ruin your life forever. And, anyone who understands evolution knows that Darwin -the proposer of the theory of evolution -wrote about evolution's starting point in 'the origin of species' book. Have you read it? my guess is that u haven't. either creation or (evolution or more nonsense) occurred. know d truth 2 set u free.
Evolution is not a belief; it is fact. Define evolution in a biological context, because it seems obvious that you do not know the first thing about it. I say this because evolution knows Darwin proposed natural and sexual selection, not evolution. The idea of evolution was around before Darwin.
You are right that I have not read On the Origin of Species, but I do know that the last statement made by Darwin in that book was about how life was breath into existents. So my guess is that you have not read it either. The reason for that is that evolution does not comment on the origin of life, that is a different field of science.
@bigwhammyRocks The theory really having nothing to do with reason or science is design, and its really pathetic that defenders of design allways try the same lame tricks. How often do you have to get refuted and proven wrong till you get it?
Another interesting question, why do you ID defenders lie so often ? If you really think you had proof on your side you wouldnt need to lie. So that you lie prooves that not even the defenders believe in ID. The real scientists dont lie, they dont need to.
But the most pathetic point about you is that you still dont get that disprooving evolution wont help you cause to proove design. The only thing you achieve by that is embarassing yourself. >But even if you could disproofevolution :
THAT DOES NOT PROOF ID IS CORRECT. You have to proove ID to get it accepted, not disproof ET. But i guess you know thats impossible, so you dont even try. You prefer to attack evolution instead and make a fool of yourself.
Excellent video, put together very well. It refutes the most common talking points you will get (and have already gotten, by the looks of it) about Darwinian evolution by the nonthinking herd who will comment without even watching the video.
kalfjak's comments are all that is needed to validate this video. Saying Darwinism is not a word is just a demonstrable lie. Anyone can look it up in the dictionary! But I don't believe they are as ignorant as it would seem. I believe kalfjak is intentionally deceptive. Masking lies with arrogant incredulity reveals a desperate need to discredit the troublesome terminology. Troublesome why? It can really only be fear of exposure. cont.
Pretending Darwinism does not exist infers a deeper pathology to kalfjak's denial neurosis. Dawkins is arguably the top evolutionary scientist and he not only uses the term in this video, he juxtaposes it with religious faith. Everyone understood what he meant quite clearly. A juxtaposition is only coherent if the 2 items have categorical equivalence.He has unwittingly revealed that It is religion for atheists. At least doesn't pretend it doesn't exist. To deny Darwinism exists is pathetic.
Darwinism is in fact a word. Unlike what Kalfjak asserts. Darwinism is a word used by creationists to somehow imply that understanding evolution and accepting it is based on "faith".
For the most part, virtually every single "darwinism" video demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Darwin's Theory. And this video is no different.
It's worth noting that the theory of evolution is used today to make predictions for vaccines, where to find fossils, etc which are validated.
Darwinists have taken a page from Joseph Goebbels play book. Tell the same lies again and again, soon people will begin to believe. This video is a good primer for anyone williing to think critically and look to unbiased sources for information.
And what lies have 'Darwinists' told? The lie that scientists just might know more about science than your pastor who thinks evolution is the idea that "the universe exploded from nothing"? How DARE they lie like that!
"good primer for anyone williing to think critically and look to unbiased sources for information."
Yeah, nobody more unbiased and informed than right-wing preachers with a political axe to grind. Please. You creationists aren't fooling anybody. Nobody with any intelligence is going to go to you guys for unbiased or even slightly accurate information.
You justify your blind acceptance of a pseudoscience - Darwinist faith- by falsely claiming any one that is critical of it gets their information from a "right wing" preacher.
This video featured the views of a respected biochemist, probably the most respected authority on the scientific method Dr Popper (called evolution a "metaphysical research program") and Dr Lennox now specializes in philosophy of science at Oxford U. - not one pastor were quoted.
You realize that Karl Popper later on changed his mind about evolution and that it could be tested, right (let me know if you need the source)? No, of course not because creationists are only interested in evidence and scientific opinions AGAINST evolution, even if they don't exist.
And why listen to only the scientists who deny evolution? Less than 1% of all biologists say evolution is wrong. There are 4 times more historians who deny the holocaust than scientists who deny evolution.
Also, you accuse me of false claims, yet you claim I engage in "blind acceptance" of "Darwinist faith"? Sorry, but have we met? Do you know anything about me or what my beliefs are? I don't really care if Darwin was right or not, he just happened to BE right. Just because I'm sick of superstitious scientific illiterates pretending to know more about science than actual scientists who have actually made discoveries about this world outside of religious fables, that doesn't mean I have "faith".
Poppers observation is absolutely valid on Darwinism. The subject is Darwinism not evolution. Nobody denies things change over time. You Darwinian fundamentalists need to stop fallaciously equivocating common ancestry and other faith based initiatives with evolution.
There isn't even any such thing as "Darwinism". Is there a Newtonism? Einsteinism? Teslaism? Creationists are the ones constantly nitpicking everything Darwin said and supposedly believed, not scientists or atheists. You're the ones who have made a religion/cult object out of him, not us. Think about it.
As for your opinion of common ancestry, it is merely that: an opinion, no more valid than that of any other uneducated conspiracy theory whackjob.
dude your videos suck and give me no information. You sound so bias that i can't pay attetion to what your saying. and the music sounds like your trying to subliminally convice us about your ranting.
Ok. Now where is the video about the "Neo Creationist paradigm"? Full of Compelling unrefutable evidence that will shock the world....... Oh yeah. There isn't any.
Again, another "Evolution is wrong because ......" video. Imagine if science worked like this. Einstine delivers his new theory entitled. Newton Was Relatively Wrong.
Just thought I'd note that the term "Darwinism" has a different meaning over here in Britain, So when Richard Dawkins uses it, he not using it in the American sense...so it's a bit unfair to use it in this video/argument.
It's hilarious how ashamed embarrassed you are to be associated with Darwin's name. Run tell Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet that they need t get with the program because they call it Darwinism exclusively.
Embarrased? No, it just doesn't make any sense. I don't dispute his findings nor do I dispute the findings of Einstein, Newton or Faraday, but there's no such thing as Einsteinism, Newtonism, or Faradayism, nor am I "faithful" to their findings, jackass. I don't care if Darwin is right or not, he just happened to BE right.
I don't know why Dawkins et al. use the word "Darwinism". You are either in favor of the scientific method or you're not, and no one scientist owns the scientific method.
You compare the falsifiability of the big bang - falsifiable by predictions of what the physical evidence should be found if the big bang happened in the past - to the falsifiability of evolution.
You claim evolution is not falsifiable because it cannot predict exactly what future changes would be the result of evolution. Typical creationist goal-post repositioning. Evolution does make predictions about what should be found in the lab and the field if it occurred. It is falsifiable.
Anyone intellectually curious enough to learn, you can do a google search with the terms 'evolution' and 'predictive' and you will find that evolution is used to make predictions about what will be found in the field and what will be found in the lab.
I believe in evolution, but not darwinism, his theory is filled with holes and those holes have been sealed over the years, howver darwinism is noth the same as evolution
Good thinking!That's my position too. Atheists will try to trap you with the evolution = Darwinism trick. No everyone knows things change over time. But that doesn't prove common ancestry etc.
But those sort of conclusion you draw from morphology say are completely subjective and open to interpretations. They only seem significant because you your presuppositions. A creationist sees the same thing and see's a common designer. There's no true evidence that makes one better than the other - its just your preference. That's not what I call scientific. its your faith.
"But those sort of conclusion you draw from morphology say are completely subjective and open to interpretations."
So you don't believe paternity tests have any accuracy? We really can't tell who the father is - after all it could just be "common design" right?
Given our understanding of genetics, the genetic similarity between different animals is very significant. It's not faith in the slightest - it's science.
I know there some valid work being done in Biology. I do respect that. But paternity tests are on live creatures in the same room together. It's just not relevant to the Tree of Life conjecture. That is the real significant difference between evolution and Darwinism.
I mean the evidence that a horse and sponge share a common ancestor just isn't there with out a load of assumptions and basically just pure faith.
"I mean the evidence that a horse and sponge share a common ancestor just isn't there with out a load of assumptions and basically just pure faith"
You need to drop that word. There's no "faith" regarding the theories of evolution. It's the most probable explanation given the evidence - and there is overwhelming evidence to support it.
"It's just not relevant to the Tree of Life conjecture."
Chimpanzees share enough DNA with us for us to conclude they are closer relatives than dogs.
Well, the first 3 minutes or so were very good. A very clear, succinct explanation of the Scientific Method and it's strengths and weaknesses.
However, Darwinistic Evolution being unfalsifiable is well... bullshit, and the video goes downhill from there. There are plenty of ways Evolution could be tested and falsified, and we know there's no lack of people trying.
Sorry but Karl Popper is the expert on thew scientific method and he says that evolutionary biology is not a proper scientific theory - it is a metaphysical research program.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying Kent Hovind is the expert on the Bible, and he says the Earth is 6000 years old. Look, humans are primates, and all primates have a common ancestor. If you disagree, you're probably not a scientist working in this field. Don't let it bother you. Go to your job, and do what you do. Let the schools teach children science at school. If you want to tell them that they are going to burn in Hell for eternity after they die if they don't accept Jesus, well..
Haha! What a load of crap this video is! Both evolution by natural selection AND common descent are falsifiable theories.
If we observe creatures consistently evolving in a way that DOESN'T follow natural selection of genes, natural selection is falsified. If we find an eagle fossil in the same rock strata as a triceratops then common descent is falsified.
darwinism has failed in the lab with the moth and fruit fly experiments,the fossil record has disproved darwinism,the complexity of the cell and dna has falsified darwinism, darwinism is a tautology ,it is full of circular reasoning, it only survives because it is the only naturalistic explanation on the table,but the underwhelming evidence for it and the evidence against it, indeed does show that this pagan religion masquerading as science days are numbered.
If you believe other wise, tell me how DNA casme to be without a cell or a cell without DNA. All structures in an organism are code-based, including the DNA molecule itself. I'm not interseted in ideas, hust show me the scientific evidence that it can or has occurrred. Show me the lab reprot that did it, not imaginative scenarios. Science. Not fantasy. Stick to science.
when you ask them to drop the conjecture and show the actual lab data where they show that evolution can occur above the macro level,they have nothing,when you ask them to produce evidence that mutations and natural selection have lead to these great macro evolutionary changes, again they have nothing, natural selection is a tautology and the mutation experiments for macro change :ie fruit flies were a massive failure.
"when you ask them to drop the conjecture and show the actual lab data where they show that evolution can occur above the macro level,they have nothing"
So your argument is that because we've never sent a man to Mars, it's impossible for us to ever do so? You idiot.
By the way, you're wrong. If by "macroevolution" you mean the evolution of a new species, then we have witnessed it many times. Google "observed instances of speciation".
The pathetic part is there's really not even a stable definition of the word species in biology yet. A new species is NOT macro evolution. When two finches stop breeding with each other they declare a new species of finch. But they are still finches! And more important they are still birds.
The so called "mountains of evidence" just doesn't come anywhere close to the enormous extrapolation proposed by the tree of life.
"When two finches stop breeding with each other they declare a new species of finch. But they are still finches! And more important they are still birds."
... what are you expecting? For them to become dragons or something overnight?
"The pathetic part is there's really not even a stable definition of the word species in biology yet"
That's not pathetic - the reason there's no stable definition in terminology is because there's no stable definition in nature! Species kind of meld into each other.
OK Granted - I said pathetic for both sides really - because this debate goes in circles because the terms aren't even stable. You guys say "evolution evidence" and postulate small changes over millions of years made all forms but it just not that compelling that it really happened.
"You guys say "evolution evidence" and postulate small changes over millions of years made all forms but it just not that compelling that it really happened."
Why not? We can show you the mechanics that allow for it exist with lab experiments, and a fossil record that suggests that it did. Why is that not compelling?
You really mean this huge tree of life when you say evolution. And you really don't have the evidence for that. You believe that what you have seen could do it. I think life was planted by God in something like what we see in the Cambrian explosion a lot of variety at once and evolved within the set phylum. But man has some similar design features but he has a spirit and vastly different abilities. There's nothing close to us. There should be if the tree of life were true.
I must als realize that God has revealed himself to me so I know I can trust that his word contains the truth. I don't care about winning this debate really. I would rather pull someone out of the fire.
Without you having an experience with God it isn't fair for me to think you can understand. So I suppose evolution is the only thing that makes sense to you. Naturalism isn't true. I encourage you to attempt to reach out to God. I really hope you do.
You're trying to disprove common ancestry despite the overwhelming evidence from different scientific fields by claiming man has a spirit? Where's your evidence for this spirit?
No matter how much you delude yourself, god hasn't revealed himself to you.
Do you have any idea how many different people from different cultures and religions who all believe in different gods have said the exact same thing?
I know you want it all to be true but it's just not, you're living in a fairy tale.
bigW. "There's nothing close to us. There should be if the tree of life were true." There was. He was called the Neandertal. And I'm not even mentioning the over stated genetic closeness of Chimps and Humans.
thats because they were selected against at an earlier stage in evolution, just because only one species survives on their branch doesnt mean the tree of life. look at phenogenetic trees to see how we are all related
All fossils are not found in ten feet of depth. Fossils go down to over 1 mile deep. Coal is palnt material gathered by water and rapidly buried. most of the world's coal is deep, meaning over several hundred yards down at the least. Coal is even found lying agains Cambrian basement rock.
Most DINOSAUR fossils are found in ten feet of depth, not most fossils. Fossils of all kinds of life are found at great depth in the Earth.
On the falsifiabilty of evolution, sorry, Darwinism, here's a quote from Darwin himself:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
How funny that creationists such as Micheal Behe set out to find such organs, and so falsify evolution; meanwhile other creationists maintain evolution can not be falsified.
Good effort. The more you read original source materials, the more you understand the men who shaped history were influenced by Satan. It's the ultimate conspiracy theory - the war for souls. It's much more "interesting" than any Hollywood blockbuster movie - and we are living it! Unfortunately, most people who think they are Christian don't see the war, much less fight the good fight.
I've read many comments here, and once again, find the same talking points and protests among Darwinists who are butt-hurt that their precious theory is exposed as the religious fraud it is.
Entropy56 3 days ago
Darwinism = religion
Entropy56 3 days ago
Ha ha in our 6th grade class Darwinism means survival of the fittest
caterroxs12 4 weeks ago
Secondly If you look at the layers of the fossiles ,and look at the cretures from one layer to the next you see no in between fossiles ,which is what you would expect if evolution were true.
Also fossiles don't take millions of years to form ,because they have found a fossile of a miners hat made of solid stone.
7420Ideasman 1 month ago
Scientist look at fossile layers and state that the creatures on the lower layers evolves into more complex cretures over time but their are many issues with that theory. First is that their are many fossiles found verticle through many layers ,and many sets of layers all over the world. How could something die and wait millions of years for sediment to cover it without it breaking down it hast to happen instantly (clear evedence of a great flood).
7420Ideasman 1 month ago
The Theory of Evolution sais that a creature takes in a piece of information and passes it down to the next generation and, that over the chorse of millions of years it cahnges into another spieces. How could this be? If it takes millions of years for someting to evolve how does it survive? Some Evolutionist state that evolution can happen in sudden burst ,but why havent we seen any evolutionairy canged ,so that cant be so either.
7420Ideasman 1 month ago
there are 82 darwinist watching
xPray2die2dayx 2 months ago
If we had found all fossils completley random (without a timeline) if we had no system of Information-copieing, if breeding would not work, if there were no tracks of DNA of older lifeforms in other animals, if we woud not see a slow change of attributes if a kind changes its habitat, or every year knew versions of Viruses...we could say that
Evolution cant predict...But we cant predict which solution will be the most successful, like nobody can say which music will be popular next decade.
DerGuteHut 2 months ago
Biology don't make predictions?
Sure it does.
Like the following:
We will find diffrent kind of animals types in diffrent layers and we will find a Timeline...which means we wont find dinosaurs 1000 Years ago and no dogs 200 Mio Years ago.
This only make sense if animal evolved not if they were created.
It predicts that there must be a Stuff inside lifeforms that have the potential to copy information, and that this copy-process is failable.
It also predicts that all creatures are related.
DerGuteHut 2 months ago
Darwinism is a term that is regarded as pejorative by fundamentalist organizations mostly in the US but not not as much by others. Especially in Europe. As someone how delights in petty word play, you seize on the opportunity to associate it with established scientists who only use it to describe the basic idea of evolution theory. It's not that they are unaware that you use it as a derogatory slur. They just don't care what you think.
foxlake02 3 months ago
First off, Darwinsism is a stupid name for evolutionary theory. It's not an ideology so how can it be an ism? Secondly, it's no longer Darwins theory. Thirdly, it's extremely falsifiable. Just find an organism that doesn't fit in the phylogenetic tree, or a rabbit in pre-cambrian rock.
maskofsan1ty 3 months ago
Then again, people believe in God because they can't handle the fact they themself are simply a part of a life cycle, that they are NO MORE special then any other living creature at the end of their life. Once your dead, you may keep your sanctity of soul with your God but your body will rot and give nourishment to other creatures.
IAreNarutard 4 months ago
@IAreNarutard Humans are created in the image of God, as Genesis says., That includes you. But you are born sinful, as I am. You need to seek God. God will not override free will, but will come into your life if you seek him as a little child.
saynotodarwinyeah 3 months ago
darwinism is a faith system that exists only because it offers sinful man an opportunity to deny God and live apart from a loving God.
saynotodarwinyeah 4 months ago
@saynotodarwinyeah Good One, made me chuckle! But being serious, some people do think like this, I always feel sorry for Darwin; nobody ever has a dig at Newton or Einstein in this way!
mrpamayer 4 months ago
mental retards
karikon11 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you should feel bad becouse your Imaginary gone whith the wind. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits
this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail,
whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and
over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of
one group
There is no Evolution, ((but)) that does not means that the Bible is true
Findsomthingright 4 months ago
I don't know why we have to mix darwinism and creationism. if you want to be darwinist then be, if you wanna be creationist say so. after all, in this universe there is much space for all ideas. am I right?
7Daizy 7 months ago
What an absolutely retarded video.
JonnyPxN 7 months ago
However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories, sometimes called "NeoDarwinism", from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period.
PunkymickBlah 8 months ago
The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.For example, Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?
PunkymickBlah 8 months ago
spending so much time to promote so much nonsense is the height of insanity.
krashellmet 8 months ago
Having looked at Darwinism and the claims made to show it's valid.
I don't understand how anyone should accept Darwinism just because there is no better alternative. The transitional fossils do not have any significant line to support Darwinism. There is contradictory evidence against evolution. I'm refering to material scientists.
Darwin's prediction's have been one of the biggest failures of Darwinism.
Darwinism is rejected because it's a system that requires faith.
TheLogic1010 9 months ago
WHAT İS DARWİNİSM ;
1-) İT'SA A BLULLSHİT CREATED BY LİTTLE-BRAİNED CHARLES DARWİN
2-) İT WAS CREATED TO MAKE PEOPLE TO BELİEVE DARWİN LİKE A GOD
3-)İSLAM İS THE TRUEST RELİGİON
4-)WE NOT COME FROM MONKEY'S WERE ALL SİS AND BRO'S SON AND DAUGHTERS OF PROPHET ADAM
5-)İF YOU RELİGİOUS OR WHO DO NOT BELİEVE İSLAM JUST LOOK İNTO YOUR HANDS AND YOU WİLL SEE THERE'S A ALLAH WRİTTEN ON YOUR HANDS. BUT NOT LİKE ''ALLAH'' İTS LİKE الله when you GET YOUR HANDS TOGETHER RİGHT AND LEFT YOU WİLL WİTNESS .
gakkovakko 10 months ago
@gakkovakko I'm not sure you're able to post that name on here. Think of it from a religious point of view, Islam does not teach foul mouthing other theories. I am Muslim myself, but I believe that there are more logical approaches towards the topic. I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think that by making a statement such as that, you are going to have a positive effect.
P.s. I don't see that on my hands. I see the Arabic numerics for 81 on my left hand and 18 on the right - making 99
NotyouraverageNoob 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gakkovakko Hey you, You worship a paedophile. Shut the fuck up.
TomahawkTerror 7 months ago
Well that was 3:07 of my life im never going to get back. Please don't produce videos on your own ignorance....its really pointless.
xkoenigseggx 10 months ago
Social Darwinism doesn't apply to homo sapiens as it does to all other animals. Since humans are conscious and have the ability to communicate, those with knowledge can teach those without, the strong can protect the weak, thereby elevating the entire human race. Therefore survival of the fittest simply doesn't apply to a species that can consciously choose to cooperate instead of dominate.
IChIDH 11 months ago
@IChIDH .... cooperating is also a sing of being the "fittest". sinse survival of the fittest dusn't meen the strongest or most inteligant will survive, but the one that is most adapt to change.
ptwob 10 months ago
@ptwob yes but a group of the 'fittest' can choose to help the "non-fittest" to survive. the non-fit survive by the actions of the fit. if the fit choose to do that survival of the fittest is null and void by conscious choice.
IChIDH 10 months ago
Spooky music + Cheap Editing = FACT
AnonymousComrade 11 months ago
Henry F Schaeffer... a 5 time Nobel nominee
Really?..
Like to see proof of that please.
No mention of the Discovery Institute... hmmm.. why not try.. honesty?
Roper122 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins wrote The God delusion in which he explains that anyone who believes in God shares a common delusion. Dawkins also accepts Darwinism as being factual. But please consider this... Darwin was a christian (he died a while back) and therefore should be considered to have been delusional by Dawkins own argument, and seeing that Dawkins accepts Darwinism must therefore share in Darwins delusion.
Solitarious2011 1 year ago
Comment removed
Solitarious2011 1 year ago
@bigwhammyrocks Is this a spoof?
splicedenergy 1 year ago
A few points: Dawinism is not the modern term since much knowledge has been discovered since Darwins' time. We call it Evolutionary Theory and is the cornerstone of modern biology. It is falsifiable by finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layers, which nothing like that has ever happened. Lastly and more devastating is that even if you did find a real flaw in evolution, that does not prove creationism any more than proving that if this car is not a Chevy then it imust a Ford.
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
North Korea and religion have a lot in common. Check it out. Brainwashing, killing, etc. It's pretty interesting to compare and contrast the two.
afb90 1 year ago
@KKKSuperFan That's why they call it con-science.
GhostofCliffGullett 1 year ago
bla bla bla just wanted to here it put simply lmao
sandycheeks2372 1 year ago
This video was awesome I hope you don't mind me downloading and adding to my propaganda collection do you? I mean this is a piece of art, really it is, you lie so convincingly If i did not know better I probably would have believed you.
fireflygirl246 1 year ago
look guys all i want to say to the people who believe in darwinism is this: I have a grandfather and he's name is so ans so BUT i'm incredibly ashamed that your grandfather is a monkey.
PiggywiggyZone7 1 year ago
@PiggywiggyZone7 first humans are not form moneys we are from Apes, our closest common ancestors with chimps was an Ape. It gets even worse not only did we come form apes, we still are apes, so yes my grandfather was an ape, but so is your grandfather and the rest of your family including yourself. Before we start blaming Darwin it was a christian scientist long before Darwin that placed us in the family of Great apes, we are apes if god made us or we evolved.
fireflygirl246 1 year ago
@PiggywiggyZone7 You hold common misconceptions about the theory of evolution. Let me help.
1) Darwinism is a term used by creationists. Science calls the modern theory, "Evolution", since many discoveries have added to our knowledge since Darwin.
2) No scientists claims we evolved from monkeys, the theory states that all primates evolved from a common ancestor. Different.
3) Creationists claim we did not come from apes. Not true since we ARE one of the great apes by definition.
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
Darwinism is a fantasy. It cannot happen. The laws of the universe make it impossible. It belongs in the same league as tarot reading, astrology and phrenology. Anybody who espouses it is an idiot.
Xenogeek2 1 year ago
Ohh god, Please do explain how "The laws of the universe" make Darwinism impossible.
saratogapusscorps 1 year ago
How can anyone not believe in Evolution? One look at a Nigger is MORE than enough proof.
P.S.I know i said Nigger,why?Well because i believe in a little thing called "FREEDOM OF SPEECH".
heimdall46 1 year ago
@heimdall46 You know the word Negro right?
If you're willing to be so free you should call ''white'' people, WHITHEYS, =)
What a monron...
tsonukarabocado 1 year ago
@tsonukarabocado Negro is Spanish/Portruguese for Black.
The word WHITHEYS,is from,Severe Mental Retardation,which is highly common among Negros.
heimdall46 1 year ago
when you say Darwinism, do you mean the 19th century theory, or the
post-theoretical evolution? Becourse Darwins original theory had holes, the post-theoretiacal have been proven with 100% certainty through the genetic mapping method. And the Transitional forms you speak of, guess what, we have them, not the way you represent them, but we have them.
Multimorten 1 year ago
Darwinian evolution is observed scientific fact. There are 1000s of fundamentalists desparate to prove it wrong, and you can bet if they had any evidence they'd have presented something by now.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
Instead of addressing all the straw man arguments I'm going to ask you to run through your origin theory and your explanation of biodiversity. This is where you find creationists run for the nearest exit. I have never had a creationist explain the steps in relation to how man came to be, the beginning of disease and the diversity of life. I think it's because you could discredit it by replacing Darwinism with creationism through most of this video.
ptango101 1 year ago
The stupid... it burns.
TheAtheistSwede 1 year ago
Darwinism is false. Charles Darwin said (and im paraphrasing) that if a cell were to be more than a single organism, his theory would fall apart. And we found out that cells were not single organisms, they were much more. So if Darwin himself said that his theory would be wrong if this is so, then he is wrong. He is the one who made the theory so he would know when it would be wrong.
Obitatis 1 year ago
@Obitatis
What nonsense. Even in Darwins time they were already aware that a cell is not a 'single' organism.
ScepticalCynic 1 year ago
what does this video suggest? that we should reject the theory of evolution and remain agnostic about the origin of the human being? or, even better, should we believe in adam and eva and that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago? if you believe this you are either ignorant, dumb, or both. read a book about darwinism. don't ridicule yourself and accept the obvious. please do that and stop whining because the content of your bible has been proven untrue.
ShowtekGER 1 year ago
@ShowtekGER
One more pile of religio-feces thrown at the wall of truth out of the ongoing desperation to retain a supernatural mythical worldview.
There are SO many (typical) problems with the dialogue... one example...
5:44 "Everything is based on random natural processes called natural selection"
Mutations?... are random, but THERE IS NOTHING RANDOM ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION -Fuckidiots.
Aren't you tired of the science illiterates of the world trying to explain science to other illiterates?
nolobede 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The biggest problem with Darwinism is that it makes ruthlessness and reason kissing cousins, when in truth they are mutually exclusive.
GhostofCliffGullett 1 year ago
Theory of Evolution is science.
Darwinism is religion.
Andy97009814 1 year ago
Natural selection isn't a thing, it's a process. A machination. Like addition or multiplication. It's not the source or the result but the happenings between the two. How can such an abstract concept be held up as a supernatural being? Well, it's not a being as I said.
hoodamman 1 year ago
wow, amazing how a "what is darwinism?" video can get so many of the basic facts about evolution wrong. The idea that evolution and common descent are non-scientific and untestable ideas is absurd. People, do some research, don't take this crack's word. He has a serious religious agenda, don't expect any kind of scientific view. Just a bit of quote mining and really misunderstanding some basic scientific concepts.
froopyguy 1 year ago
Dumbass creationist propaganda. You're increasing global stupidity.
Scorpion4hours 1 year ago
bigwhammyRocks: You seem pretty confident that there is more evidence contradictory to evolution. So what the hell are you waiting for? Write a paper on it. Get the paper peer-reviewed. Get it published. Then collect your nobel prize, your millions of dollars, and your countless followers who will remember you for centuries.
kossxf 1 year ago
So, if evolution is not scientific, why do a vast majority of scientists support it?
This video is so wrong, it's really not funny anymore.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
You,, are an idiot. Do some research, educate yourself. I beg you!
rudge12000 2 years ago
It is very cute how you are trying to make a science out to be a myth. Evolution is science; testable, observable, and falsifiable.
One man feels that evolution could replace christianity as a religion, so what? That only proves that people are corrupt. One can accept evolution and a god, any god they want. They are not mutually exclusive ideas, no matter how much people on both sides try to make them. One can be a christian and still accept evolution because they are not mutually exclusive.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Natural selection is not random, could you define natural selection. For that matter, could you define evolution in a biological context?
Quote mining. I just finished reading Dawkins and that quote is not talking about the beginning of life. He is talking about complex structures that we see, e.g. eye. That is quite pathetic, and it makes me question the other quotes you have used in this video. No biological scientist would say something as ignorant as natural selection is the cause of life.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
The first half of this video is only quotes from scientists. Seems like an argument from authority. It is also not true that evolution is only a historical science. Evolution is used my doctors in creations of vaccines and antibiotics. Evolution is testable observable and falsifiable, that is what makes it good science.
You are exactly right; Dawkins and Gould are both wrong for calling it that.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
ALSO
This is probably one of the most extremely horrible quote-mined misinformational, ill-defined video concerning the topics of evolution, natural selection, and Darwin.
toragpoons 2 years ago
WHOAH
Natural Selection isn't random.
Mutations are. But the process of natural selection favors the mutations that help the organism survive.
toragpoons 2 years ago
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)
- Charles Darwin
Matthew23and9 2 years ago
I've seen this video before but it is ..just great. Just great job! I congratulate you!
MavericKLongRange 2 years ago
pausing at 3:05 to point this out.
Evolution is falsifiable, any good biologist would agree. If they found say, a rabbit dated to 100 million years ago, evolution would be in trouble. Just find one piece of evidence against evolution. And no the bible doesnt count, and it never will again.
Allking4 2 years ago
The Cambrian explosion pretty much did that already. So all the Darwinist faithful ran back to the drawing board and changed the gradualist models of Charlie Darwin - now they claim evolution happens in quick spurts kind of like what you would expect to see in a well eh CREATION model. lol
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
You have to understand that people who believe in creation on the whole are ignorant of scientific principals and really don't know how science works. If they did, they would realize how absolutely stupid the arguments for creation are.
The problem is that they are unwilling to accept reason because they believe in God so hard that it's blinding them to whats right in their face.
Those who deny don't learn. Those who don't learn are ignorant of the subject.
Rundvelt 2 years ago
Last post. I promise.
Why is it that I accept evolution as a scientifically proven principal? The reasons are simple.
A) There are transitional fossils that show speciation. And I'm not talking about that idiot Kirk Cameron's crocoduck. Man, what a moron.
B) There is NO (none, zippo) evidence to contradict evolution.
C) It makes predictions that are shown to be valid. For example, locations of fossils, vaccine production, medical research.
Don't reject something out of ignorance.
Rundvelt 2 years ago
This video is NOT about evolution. Things change over time - that has nothing to do with the claims of Darwinism.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
This video is about evolution. You just like to segment the concept into different pieces so you can pick and choose what you like and don't.
Whether you like it or not, the tree of life has been proven. Through genome sequencing we can trace our ancestors back.
To deny this is to deny the following as well...
- DNA as a source of evidence
- Paternity tests
Stories like Noah's Ark, Creation and Exodus have been shown not to have happened. For noah's ark, genetics refutes the event entirely
Rundvelt 2 years ago
Actually DNA evidence supports Noah's Ark and utterly refutes Darwinism. We can trace human origins back much further on the female side than the male. Because Noah and his sons had wives from different families - thus mitochondrial eve is much older than the oldest male evidence because male bottlenecks at Noah - sons share the fathers. Your best evidence refutes you're own position - time to get a new worldview.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Name me the paper that you are talking about.
Furthermore, given your own evidence, explain to me why we do not see the same genetic trend in humans that we do in cheetahs.
Your own evidence is not consistent with observed fact. Perhaps you should take off your blinders.
Rundvelt 2 years ago
@bigwhammyRocks So, assuming that the female lineage has a longer thread then males, how does that prove it HAS to be because of Noah's ark? And what about sedimentary layers? If there really was a global flood, should we not have one layer jam packed with tons of fossils from virtually any animal?
Rundvelt 1 year ago
@Rundvelt tree of life is worshiped by pagans of old in babylon/sumer
it is an illuminati thing see movie avatar.
search-real noahs ark discovered
search-real mt sinai
search-sodom and gomora
search-evolution and freemasons
search-manly p hall
search-bill cooper
search-john todd
j400wel 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks Darwinism is a stupid word. As I see it, you could call Darwinism religion, the word says you believe Darwin was right on everything. A lot of what he said has been disproven, but Not The Theory of Evolution. If you can, your name will go over in history.
Andy97009814 1 year ago
Furthermore, I would contend that the people who say "there is insufficient evidence to support evolution" are the same people who have not investigated that evidence and/or do not understand the evidence through scientific illiteracy.
Let me show you an example.
Man 1: The theory of a round earth cannot be real.
Man 2: Why is that?
Man 1: The people in Australia do not fall off the world.
They simply do not understand why their "objections" are not valid scientifically.
Rundvelt 2 years ago
It really aggravates me to see such blatant dishonesty in the Creationist community. They have a conviction, and force reality to fit it. How can any one really believe such fantasies of Gods? Gods are ridiculous; they contradict experience and logic in all regards. And don't pretend you are at all interested in the truth; don't pretend the truth is considered at all when you argue the creationist agenda.
Mattprole 2 years ago
Design is so utterly obvious that to deny it is just desperate and pathetic, you simply refuse to be accountable for sin. It has nothing to do with reason or science.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
It's so utterly obvious to those who accept God as the default position. The true default is "I do not know".
This is your position.
"Because I have read the bible, I know that God is responsible for creation. It's obvious that the world is created."
If I was to accept this as fact, I'd have to accept the following...
"Islam is the only true faith" Muslim believer.
"Auditing works!" Scientology believer.
"There are next lives" Buddist believer.
Each are just as valid as your point.
Rundvelt 2 years ago
@ Rundvelt. Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life-Law of Biogenesis. Did u study evolution? U r taught that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation" -life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a Fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible. Don't drink the Atheist punch, it's ignorant!
FearingGodAlways 2 years ago
> Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life-Law of Biogenesis.
I suggest you re-read what the Law of Biogenesis says.
> Did u study evolution?
No, I studied biology. You know, the proper term.
> U r taught that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told).
You need to do some research. This isn't the case.
> Evolution is therefore built...
It's obvious you're not qualified to comment.
Rundvelt 2 years ago
@rundvelt, you are a pure worldy genius. You have cracked the code that all atheist yearn for...NON-SENSE. Are you proud of that? You say i am not qualified to comment, so you limit my freedom. you say re-read law of biogenesis so you limit my intelligence. you say biology is the proper term for evolution so you limit my comprehension. your delusional evolutionary theory has faded ur logic, so you limit my conversation. You have lost the atheistic war, now lose ur pride 2.(checkmated an atheist)
FearingGodAlways 2 years ago
A bit too much on the nonsense.
Semi-good job trolling.
Rundvelt 2 years ago
Did you study evolution; if you did then you would know that evolution does not deal with the origin of life, which is a different field of science called abiogenesis. The way life started has no effect on whether evolution happens or not. A god(s) could have started life and it would not affect the theory of evolution one bit. Furthermore, one does not have to be an atheist to accept evolution. Anyone from any faith can accept evolution just as they can accept any aspect of science.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
judas6kryst, thanks 4 replying. i havent talked to anyone much lately, since they realized evolution is simply a belief. Yet U still hold on to a detrimental belief that can ruin your life forever. And, anyone who understands evolution knows that Darwin -the proposer of the theory of evolution -wrote about evolution's starting point in 'the origin of species' book. Have you read it? my guess is that u haven't. either creation or (evolution or more nonsense) occurred. know d truth 2 set u free.
FearingGodAlways 2 years ago
Evolution is not a belief; it is fact. Define evolution in a biological context, because it seems obvious that you do not know the first thing about it. I say this because evolution knows Darwin proposed natural and sexual selection, not evolution. The idea of evolution was around before Darwin.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
You are right that I have not read On the Origin of Species, but I do know that the last statement made by Darwin in that book was about how life was breath into existents. So my guess is that you have not read it either. The reason for that is that evolution does not comment on the origin of life, that is a different field of science.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Your notions have nothing to do with reason or science. If you were honest thinkers, you wouldn't be Creationist.
Mattprole 2 years ago
Comment removed
Andy97009814 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks Prove it.
And what has design to do with sin? Why should the designer care if we sin or not? And what is sin?
Andy97009814 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks The theory really having nothing to do with reason or science is design, and its really pathetic that defenders of design allways try the same lame tricks. How often do you have to get refuted and proven wrong till you get it?
Another interesting question, why do you ID defenders lie so often ? If you really think you had proof on your side you wouldnt need to lie. So that you lie prooves that not even the defenders believe in ID. The real scientists dont lie, they dont need to.
MrRichardQED 1 year ago
But the most pathetic point about you is that you still dont get that disprooving evolution wont help you cause to proove design. The only thing you achieve by that is embarassing yourself. >But even if you could disproofevolution :
THAT DOES NOT PROOF ID IS CORRECT. You have to proove ID to get it accepted, not disproof ET. But i guess you know thats impossible, so you dont even try. You prefer to attack evolution instead and make a fool of yourself.
MrRichardQED 1 year ago
Excellent video, put together very well. It refutes the most common talking points you will get (and have already gotten, by the looks of it) about Darwinian evolution by the nonthinking herd who will comment without even watching the video.
angryoldfatman 2 years ago
An EXCELLENT analysis of the religion that is Neo-Darwinism.
BreshiBaraElohim 2 years ago
kalfjak's comments are all that is needed to validate this video. Saying Darwinism is not a word is just a demonstrable lie. Anyone can look it up in the dictionary! But I don't believe they are as ignorant as it would seem. I believe kalfjak is intentionally deceptive. Masking lies with arrogant incredulity reveals a desperate need to discredit the troublesome terminology. Troublesome why? It can really only be fear of exposure. cont.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Pretending Darwinism does not exist infers a deeper pathology to kalfjak's denial neurosis. Dawkins is arguably the top evolutionary scientist and he not only uses the term in this video, he juxtaposes it with religious faith. Everyone understood what he meant quite clearly. A juxtaposition is only coherent if the 2 items have categorical equivalence.He has unwittingly revealed that It is religion for atheists. At least doesn't pretend it doesn't exist. To deny Darwinism exists is pathetic.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Darwinism is in fact a word. Unlike what Kalfjak asserts. Darwinism is a word used by creationists to somehow imply that understanding evolution and accepting it is based on "faith".
For the most part, virtually every single "darwinism" video demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Darwin's Theory. And this video is no different.
It's worth noting that the theory of evolution is used today to make predictions for vaccines, where to find fossils, etc which are validated.
Rundvelt 2 years ago
Why does this video have 4 stars?
kalfjak 2 years ago
Is this satire?
Philipisgr8 2 years ago
Darwinists have taken a page from Joseph Goebbels play book. Tell the same lies again and again, soon people will begin to believe. This video is a good primer for anyone williing to think critically and look to unbiased sources for information.
nottebaccio 2 years ago
"Tell the same lies again and again"
And what lies have 'Darwinists' told? The lie that scientists just might know more about science than your pastor who thinks evolution is the idea that "the universe exploded from nothing"? How DARE they lie like that!
kalfjak 2 years ago
"good primer for anyone williing to think critically and look to unbiased sources for information."
Yeah, nobody more unbiased and informed than right-wing preachers with a political axe to grind. Please. You creationists aren't fooling anybody. Nobody with any intelligence is going to go to you guys for unbiased or even slightly accurate information.
kalfjak 2 years ago
You justify your blind acceptance of a pseudoscience - Darwinist faith- by falsely claiming any one that is critical of it gets their information from a "right wing" preacher.
This video featured the views of a respected biochemist, probably the most respected authority on the scientific method Dr Popper (called evolution a "metaphysical research program") and Dr Lennox now specializes in philosophy of science at Oxford U. - not one pastor were quoted.
cdputnam 2 years ago
You realize that Karl Popper later on changed his mind about evolution and that it could be tested, right (let me know if you need the source)? No, of course not because creationists are only interested in evidence and scientific opinions AGAINST evolution, even if they don't exist.
And why listen to only the scientists who deny evolution? Less than 1% of all biologists say evolution is wrong. There are 4 times more historians who deny the holocaust than scientists who deny evolution.
kalfjak 2 years ago
Also, you accuse me of false claims, yet you claim I engage in "blind acceptance" of "Darwinist faith"? Sorry, but have we met? Do you know anything about me or what my beliefs are? I don't really care if Darwin was right or not, he just happened to BE right. Just because I'm sick of superstitious scientific illiterates pretending to know more about science than actual scientists who have actually made discoveries about this world outside of religious fables, that doesn't mean I have "faith".
kalfjak 2 years ago
you do believe in a fable if you think the tree of life is valid.
cdputnam 2 years ago
Poppers observation is absolutely valid on Darwinism. The subject is Darwinism not evolution. Nobody denies things change over time. You Darwinian fundamentalists need to stop fallaciously equivocating common ancestry and other faith based initiatives with evolution.
cdputnam 2 years ago
There isn't even any such thing as "Darwinism". Is there a Newtonism? Einsteinism? Teslaism? Creationists are the ones constantly nitpicking everything Darwin said and supposedly believed, not scientists or atheists. You're the ones who have made a religion/cult object out of him, not us. Think about it.
As for your opinion of common ancestry, it is merely that: an opinion, no more valid than that of any other uneducated conspiracy theory whackjob.
kalfjak 2 years ago
Comment removed
cdputnam 2 years ago
dude your videos suck and give me no information. You sound so bias that i can't pay attetion to what your saying. and the music sounds like your trying to subliminally convice us about your ranting.
rastafrog12sucku 2 years ago
I agree with your sentiment, but your comment is equally lacking in information.
PintoBoonPictures 2 years ago
Ok. Now where is the video about the "Neo Creationist paradigm"? Full of Compelling unrefutable evidence that will shock the world....... Oh yeah. There isn't any.
Again, another "Evolution is wrong because ......" video. Imagine if science worked like this. Einstine delivers his new theory entitled. Newton Was Relatively Wrong.
864208642 2 years ago
Now where is the video about the "Neo Creationist paradigm"?
Right here : watch?v=ZkpzLg0R29g
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Hello from Britain :-)
Just thought I'd note that the term "Darwinism" has a different meaning over here in Britain, So when Richard Dawkins uses it, he not using it in the American sense...so it's a bit unfair to use it in this video/argument.
julestherat 2 years ago
You should be embarrased to have this garbage on your channel.
nakedapedude 2 years ago
if only Darwinists actually exisited
hollowpoint84 2 years ago
If only "Darwinist" was a word.
kalfjak 2 years ago
It's hilarious how ashamed embarrassed you are to be associated with Darwin's name. Run tell Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet that they need t get with the program because they call it Darwinism exclusively.
I guess you just call it "your faith".
cdputnam 2 years ago
Embarrased? No, it just doesn't make any sense. I don't dispute his findings nor do I dispute the findings of Einstein, Newton or Faraday, but there's no such thing as Einsteinism, Newtonism, or Faradayism, nor am I "faithful" to their findings, jackass. I don't care if Darwin is right or not, he just happened to BE right.
I don't know why Dawkins et al. use the word "Darwinism". You are either in favor of the scientific method or you're not, and no one scientist owns the scientific method.
kalfjak 2 years ago
You compare the falsifiability of the big bang - falsifiable by predictions of what the physical evidence should be found if the big bang happened in the past - to the falsifiability of evolution.
You claim evolution is not falsifiable because it cannot predict exactly what future changes would be the result of evolution. Typical creationist goal-post repositioning. Evolution does make predictions about what should be found in the lab and the field if it occurred. It is falsifiable.
octarhaberee 2 years ago
Anyone intellectually curious enough to learn, you can do a google search with the terms 'evolution' and 'predictive' and you will find that evolution is used to make predictions about what will be found in the field and what will be found in the lab.
octarhaberee 2 years ago
Schaefer a five time nobel nominee? As these nominations are NEVER made public, you are either misiformed or dishonest.
octarhaberee 2 years ago
I believe in evolution, but not darwinism, his theory is filled with holes and those holes have been sealed over the years, howver darwinism is noth the same as evolution
RAGGAPUNK33 2 years ago
Good thinking!That's my position too. Atheists will try to trap you with the evolution = Darwinism trick. No everyone knows things change over time. But that doesn't prove common ancestry etc.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"But that doesn't prove common ancestry etc."
Nope, but studying anatomy, morphology, and genetic heredity can (well actually, science is never "proven". Proof only exists in mathematics).
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
But those sort of conclusion you draw from morphology say are completely subjective and open to interpretations. They only seem significant because you your presuppositions. A creationist sees the same thing and see's a common designer. There's no true evidence that makes one better than the other - its just your preference. That's not what I call scientific. its your faith.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"But those sort of conclusion you draw from morphology say are completely subjective and open to interpretations."
So you don't believe paternity tests have any accuracy? We really can't tell who the father is - after all it could just be "common design" right?
Given our understanding of genetics, the genetic similarity between different animals is very significant. It's not faith in the slightest - it's science.
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
I know there some valid work being done in Biology. I do respect that. But paternity tests are on live creatures in the same room together. It's just not relevant to the Tree of Life conjecture. That is the real significant difference between evolution and Darwinism.
I mean the evidence that a horse and sponge share a common ancestor just isn't there with out a load of assumptions and basically just pure faith.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"I mean the evidence that a horse and sponge share a common ancestor just isn't there with out a load of assumptions and basically just pure faith"
You need to drop that word. There's no "faith" regarding the theories of evolution. It's the most probable explanation given the evidence - and there is overwhelming evidence to support it.
"It's just not relevant to the Tree of Life conjecture."
Chimpanzees share enough DNA with us for us to conclude they are closer relatives than dogs.
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
Well, the first 3 minutes or so were very good. A very clear, succinct explanation of the Scientific Method and it's strengths and weaknesses.
However, Darwinistic Evolution being unfalsifiable is well... bullshit, and the video goes downhill from there. There are plenty of ways Evolution could be tested and falsified, and we know there's no lack of people trying.
CharBroiled04 2 years ago
Sorry but Karl Popper is the expert on thew scientific method and he says that evolutionary biology is not a proper scientific theory - it is a metaphysical research program.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
That's ridiculous. That's like saying Kent Hovind is the expert on the Bible, and he says the Earth is 6000 years old. Look, humans are primates, and all primates have a common ancestor. If you disagree, you're probably not a scientist working in this field. Don't let it bother you. Go to your job, and do what you do. Let the schools teach children science at school. If you want to tell them that they are going to burn in Hell for eternity after they die if they don't accept Jesus, well..
odinata 2 years ago
Haha! What a load of crap this video is! Both evolution by natural selection AND common descent are falsifiable theories.
If we observe creatures consistently evolving in a way that DOESN'T follow natural selection of genes, natural selection is falsified. If we find an eagle fossil in the same rock strata as a triceratops then common descent is falsified.
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
darwinism has failed in the lab with the moth and fruit fly experiments,the fossil record has disproved darwinism,the complexity of the cell and dna has falsified darwinism, darwinism is a tautology ,it is full of circular reasoning, it only survives because it is the only naturalistic explanation on the table,but the underwhelming evidence for it and the evidence against it, indeed does show that this pagan religion masquerading as science days are numbered.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
You are defending darwinism and then claiming you are not a darwinist.
Your cowardice is already showing.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
You can almost? Much less likely? You're spouting fanstasy kid, not science. Go study.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
If you believe other wise, tell me how DNA casme to be without a cell or a cell without DNA. All structures in an organism are code-based, including the DNA molecule itself. I'm not interseted in ideas, hust show me the scientific evidence that it can or has occurrred. Show me the lab reprot that did it, not imaginative scenarios. Science. Not fantasy. Stick to science.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Exactly neph
when you ask them to drop the conjecture and show the actual lab data where they show that evolution can occur above the macro level,they have nothing,when you ask them to produce evidence that mutations and natural selection have lead to these great macro evolutionary changes, again they have nothing, natural selection is a tautology and the mutation experiments for macro change :ie fruit flies were a massive failure.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
"when you ask them to drop the conjecture and show the actual lab data where they show that evolution can occur above the macro level,they have nothing"
So your argument is that because we've never sent a man to Mars, it's impossible for us to ever do so? You idiot.
By the way, you're wrong. If by "macroevolution" you mean the evolution of a new species, then we have witnessed it many times. Google "observed instances of speciation".
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
The pathetic part is there's really not even a stable definition of the word species in biology yet. A new species is NOT macro evolution. When two finches stop breeding with each other they declare a new species of finch. But they are still finches! And more important they are still birds.
The so called "mountains of evidence" just doesn't come anywhere close to the enormous extrapolation proposed by the tree of life.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"When two finches stop breeding with each other they declare a new species of finch. But they are still finches! And more important they are still birds."
... what are you expecting? For them to become dragons or something overnight?
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
Yes show me dragons from finches and i will believe!
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"The pathetic part is there's really not even a stable definition of the word species in biology yet"
That's not pathetic - the reason there's no stable definition in terminology is because there's no stable definition in nature! Species kind of meld into each other.
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
OK Granted - I said pathetic for both sides really - because this debate goes in circles because the terms aren't even stable. You guys say "evolution evidence" and postulate small changes over millions of years made all forms but it just not that compelling that it really happened.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"You guys say "evolution evidence" and postulate small changes over millions of years made all forms but it just not that compelling that it really happened."
Why not? We can show you the mechanics that allow for it exist with lab experiments, and a fossil record that suggests that it did. Why is that not compelling?
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
You really mean this huge tree of life when you say evolution. And you really don't have the evidence for that. You believe that what you have seen could do it. I think life was planted by God in something like what we see in the Cambrian explosion a lot of variety at once and evolved within the set phylum. But man has some similar design features but he has a spirit and vastly different abilities. There's nothing close to us. There should be if the tree of life were true.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
I must als realize that God has revealed himself to me so I know I can trust that his word contains the truth. I don't care about winning this debate really. I would rather pull someone out of the fire.
Without you having an experience with God it isn't fair for me to think you can understand. So I suppose evolution is the only thing that makes sense to you. Naturalism isn't true. I encourage you to attempt to reach out to God. I really hope you do.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
You're trying to disprove common ancestry despite the overwhelming evidence from different scientific fields by claiming man has a spirit? Where's your evidence for this spirit?
No matter how much you delude yourself, god hasn't revealed himself to you.
Do you have any idea how many different people from different cultures and religions who all believe in different gods have said the exact same thing?
I know you want it all to be true but it's just not, you're living in a fairy tale.
nakedapedude 2 years ago
bigW. "There's nothing close to us. There should be if the tree of life were true." There was. He was called the Neandertal. And I'm not even mentioning the over stated genetic closeness of Chimps and Humans.
864208642 2 years ago
I meant now.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
thats because they were selected against at an earlier stage in evolution, just because only one species survives on their branch doesnt mean the tree of life. look at phenogenetic trees to see how we are all related
DeemotheAtheist 2 years ago
I mean occur above the micro level
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Go study.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
ahahhahahha
a darwinist talking about circular reasoning, what a joke
ahahahhaha
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
All fossils are not found in ten feet of depth. Fossils go down to over 1 mile deep. Coal is palnt material gathered by water and rapidly buried. most of the world's coal is deep, meaning over several hundred yards down at the least. Coal is even found lying agains Cambrian basement rock.
Most DINOSAUR fossils are found in ten feet of depth, not most fossils. Fossils of all kinds of life are found at great depth in the Earth.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
On the falsifiabilty of evolution, sorry, Darwinism, here's a quote from Darwin himself:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
How funny that creationists such as Micheal Behe set out to find such organs, and so falsify evolution; meanwhile other creationists maintain evolution can not be falsified.
pang00lin 2 years ago
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program" ~ Karl Popper
Philosophy of Science By Yuri Balashov, Alexander Rosenberg p. 302
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Hello-
Good effort. The more you read original source materials, the more you understand the men who shaped history were influenced by Satan. It's the ultimate conspiracy theory - the war for souls. It's much more "interesting" than any Hollywood blockbuster movie - and we are living it! Unfortunately, most people who think they are Christian don't see the war, much less fight the good fight.
patrickmcintyre 2 years ago