dear desertpedofile, why is it that people like you just cant understand that god created science long before humans even knew how to make fire, how could He have made EVERYTHING unless he knew just a little bit more than you living out in the desertpile , I just hate it when materialism makes itself more important than our almighty saviour and god, thank you very much for not interupting
Ghosts, God, and the afterlife can't be debunked. That's why scientists are stupid. They come up with horrible excuses trying to debunk these three things but they can't. The thing is, that there are things in this world we just can't explain, and they will always be that way.
But you of course have an explanation for those unexplainable things! Ghosts and gods did them! Anything we can't explain (even the things we can and have), are the work of gods, ghosts, devils, pixies, unicorns, spaghetti monsters, spirits, psychics, magicians, sorcerers, leprechauns, or the great juju of the sky.
Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. Science will never be able to explain that.
This is a good response. However, I disagree with your use of "gay-dar". Atheists like you and I are widely hated in society, so I disagree with the oppression of other minorities, particularly those minorities that are heredity based.
This is CRAP.. I cannot post what i think here, says (Error,Try again) Fucking filters.. good job on assholes who .. allow to post swearing but actual points and facts.. assholes
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
dear desertpedofile, why is it that people like you just cant understand that god created science long before humans even knew how to make fire, how could He have made EVERYTHING unless he knew just a little bit more than you living out in the desertpile , I just hate it when materialism makes itself more important than our almighty saviour and god, thank you very much for not interupting
Greetings. "People like me" do not "understand" fgairy tales because we are adults who grew up and got an education; we matured emotionally and intellectually. You're welcome.
I certainly don't agree with anything the Discovery Institute has to say. But I don't see how his being gay or straight has anything to do wih his arguments. Don't attack the person, attack his ideas. You didn't have any evidence to refute any of Luskin's claims. I rated this a 1 only because there is no zero.
But it's placing parallels between creationism and homosexuality, which is just unneeded. I completely agree though. The DI need to be closed down for the sanity and progression of us all.
I repeat, get a sense of humor. Not everything has to be politically correct. Just grow a thicker skin. If someone calls something gay, it doesn't mean they are bashing gays. Just laugh. Ha ha ha! And move on.
Yes, they do. They really do need to be closed down.
Heh, the "get a sense of humour" supposed insult. I would have expected more maturity from someone who opposes the Discovery Institute.
Regardless, he was referring to his sexuality and not calling his actions "gay" in order to call them "stupid". There's the difference. I didn't really mind, but it's not a scholarly approach and it's the kind of things that gets to your credibility.
I have plenty of maturity. And that's exactly why I have the ability to laugh it off and move on. A lot of what he does it is with a comedic approach. If he was truly, truly interested in being as professional as he could and leaving his personality out of it, do you think he'd be doing this on youtube? No, I don't think so. So really, stop investing so much in the gay comment. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it.
"But it's placing parallels between creationism and homosexuality, which is just unneeded."
Is going too far?
To become "professional" at such things, a doctorate is mandatory. I just find that the time he spent calling him gay, he could have spent actually debunking his arguments. In other words, it was wasted time and wasted space. There is so much to say, Luskin is an easy target really. You don't need cheap insults to bring him down at all, it only lowered the tone of the conversation.
THIS. IS. YOUTUBE. He did it for a few laughs. Nothing more. Nobody, "professional" or not, would post their argument on youtube if they were serious about making a real academic impact. Why are you making such a big deal about this?
Is it going to far? No. Is it making you look like an overly politically correct douchebag without a sense of humor who is ruining everyone's laugh? Yes.
LOL. Ahh, rather than referring to the matter at hand, we'll all ascend into simply attempting to personally insult others. Yes, very tasteful.
We shall never agree. I don't think the creationism Vs. evolution debate is very "amusing" and he shouldn't fool himself into thinking that he's helping the cause by doing so. His video, therefore, was only for like-minded people which is just preaching to the choir.
I think you're missing the point. Nobody cares what YOU think is amusing or not. Nobody cares what offends you. If you don't like it, you can watch some other videos with less humor. If you're truly that incapable of shrugging something off, I have to say, life must suck for you. Either that, or you live a very sheltered existence. And for the record, I find the creationism vs. science debate absolutely hilarious.
I think you're missing the point. Preaching to the choir achieves nothing and he should not fool himself into thinking he's helping the cause. I did shrug something off. I was making the point of how others may receive it and it was just offhanded. It was you that took it further than neccasary.
And again, you're missing the point. What exactly do you think is ultimately going to be "achieved" by ANYTHING on youtube? This is a website for entertainment. If you learn something personally, fine. But this is not a place of authority or academic discourse. There are peer reviewed journals for that. If you're not entertained, if you want professionalism, go read one of those journals and stop making this such a big deal.
Surely the public medium is far more powerful and influential than a small sector of the public who will read peer reviewed articles, but let's not go there. I think I shall drop this now, it just seems utterly pointless. It was an offhanded comment. I agree with his point and yet this immediately just made me face palm and inclines me not to subscribe or watch any further videos made by him.
No, let's go there, because they're not. Thew advancement of scientific research and understanding is not left up to the "public medium." It is left up to those who have the knowledge, experience and credentials necessary to shoulder such decisions. Its examination is left up to those who are capable of examining such things. If our understanding of science was left up to the "public medium," we'd still be in the dark ages.
If you don't want to watch his videos anymore, that's up to you.
Precisely, but many actually obtain their information from a public medium and so the less misinformation floating about, the better. To say otherwise, is just downright foolish. Most people do not have the "knowledge, experience or credentials necessary" and even if they read peer reviewed articles may get the science completely wrong.
Where did I claim we all did as such? Really, drop the agenda.
Welcome to the internet, m0ufin. The greatest source of misinformation in the world. Regardless of whether or not most people get their information here, that doesn't make it an academically sound process. Much less so if they actively come to youtube for their information. Regardless of where people get their information, regardless of what is true and false here, this is not the kind of forum that decides our academic direction. It never was. It never will be.
Essentially what you're saying is that I should never dislike a video or user, because they express views I dislike and in a manner which I dislike as "this is the internet and should not follow academic processes." Many here on Youtube do, take thunderf00t, dprjones , ZOMGitsCriss or DefenderOfReason. They may occasionally sway from this, but constructive arguments are made as such. This is they style I like, so I subscribe. I stumbled upon this video and expressed my opinion.
You can dislike a video and the maker of the video if you want, but don't blow things out of proportion because of a "lack of professionalism" on youtube, especially when you haven't seen the rest of his videos and haven't seen nearly enough to make any judgments about his entire message. I never said it should not follow academic processes. I said that you shouldn't expect it to, and that there are better places for it.
I'm all about professionalism, m0ufin. I'm a student and scholar in my own rite, and I can appreciate academic honesty and integrity as much as you can. But you forget where you are. There are places for professionalism, and there are places for individual personality. This is a place for entertainment and self expression, not objective discourse. And in that, you need to learn to deal with what you will see here. It is youtube. That's how it will always be here.
no. the 'deep feild' and 'ultra deep feild' (i believe you are referring to) were exerements to see if they would find anything very distant. they pointed it at a generaly empty looking par ofthe skt and exposed it for 10 days. the results are the deep feild. not a 'new universes' therre is YOUR eveidnce?
Well you just proved my point with that comment...plese try typing the word "you" instead "U" all the time. It makes any point you try to make seem as if it's not worth anyones time to read as you never took the time to use proper grammar.
I don't think I'm wrong by stating that I think Casey Luskin is a total bellend of the highest order. For those that don't know what a bellend is check out Urban Dictionary for a definition.
"My question was "Isn't it 'relativists' who agree energy is never created or destroyed?"
Until you explain to me how you take into account the abberations in Mercury's orbit without relativity I'm not interested in answering anything more. It's not a red herring, it's evidence that you are embracing ignorance and are proud of it. Conventional science has an answer to a problem that you are unable to deal with, yet you believe your understanding is superior. This is not rational behavior.
"It is a recycling local thing that happens all over the universe, forever" In your own mind, perhaps Here in reality we have abundant evidence that things work a different way.
"Where is your 'big bang'? Recycling is a constant thing"
Oh really? So how does the helium that stars make out of hydrogen get recycled? Oh, I forgot, you don't accept that stars even perform fusion, you think they use.. what was that.. a "plasma thingy". Right.
The big bang is experimentally supported. Once again, it predicted the existence of the cosmic background radiation which has since been found.
It must be frustrating to see false theories produce more results than your truth.
Indeed, the Big Bang came as a startling surprise to astronomers and cosmologists: the Catholic priest who first suggested it did not have enough evidence to support his hypothesis; since that time the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive. Not only did the Big Bang happen, it is still happening.
@Desertphile The big bang is based on the observation that, in relativity a static universe isn't possible. It is also observed that, with th exception of galaxies gravitationally bound to each other that the nearer they are the faster they are moving away from each other. It is also basd on observed background microwave radiation which has no other explanatory source. This, however does not mean this is the last two cents worth on the subject.
"wherever U point Hubble, it's full of stuff - even in what they THOUGHT were empty regions B 4"
Damn you're dense. They didn't think they were empty, they pointed it at those regions to find the distant, dim objects that they expected to find. You remember that bit about predictions, those things that you're unable to make despite your supposed knowledge? The predictions work because the theories apply to reality. Unlike yours.
"I'm not trying 2 or claiming 2 solve N E thing. Damn U R boring."
Oh yes you are. You are claiming to possess a unique knowledge that is superior to currently accepted scientific models. Yet you cannot apply this special knowledge to anything in reality, it allows you to do nothing any better than it can already be done.
As I've said before, you only possess the impression of a unique insight. You can't make it do anything outside of your own mind. It is a delusion.
"Give me an example - any example whatsoever, where motion is not preserved"
I'll give you a better one. I'll give you an example where motion is spontaneously created. Put a firecracker under a tin can. We start off with a system at rest. No motion. If you want to paint with a broad brush, heat energy is at a comparatively low level. Now light the firecracker. Look at all the motion that ensues.
And what problem have you solved? Nothing, you've just taped your fever dream "knowledge" over an existing theory and claimed victory.
Really, we're done here. I get it. You've got nothing except bluster and racism. You couldn't explore the inner recesses of your nose with your finger, you're certainly not capable of exploring nature.
Oh boy, you also deny basic stellar theory. Cripes. I had no idea how far gone you are. Once again, science gives us nuclear physics, complete with complete reaction chains and an understanding of the many layers of a star. You give us "plasma thingies"
Quick problem. Stars emit more light than they absorb. By a ridiculous margin, so ridiculous that for you to claim that they're just reflecting it is absurd.
Right then. You are bringing nothing to the table except pseudo-scientific woo. You cannot predict anything, you cannot explain anything that is not currently adequately explained, and your concepts would leave us understanding LESS than is already understood now.
I think we're done here. Your knowledge is about the same level as a pot head looking at his hands and going "woah, have you ever really LOOKED at your hands before". It means nothing outside of your mind.
Okay, you don't get to cite fallacies any more. You haven't understood a single one of the concepts you've brought up so far. You've applied post hoc to a phenomena that had never been witness before, you think a non sequitor is a red herring, and now you abuse poisoning the well.
Once again, even relativity could make predictions that have been verified. And you don't even think it exists. Surely your concept has similar capabilities.
You took a phenomenon that you already knew of and said your concept applied to it. We already have an understanding of it that works. I can't just say "my theory of Thor the thunder god says that Thor will hurl lightning bolts from the sky" and then say that a lightning strike proves it.
To clarify, first off you already knew about this and just said that your knowledge explained it. This is NOT a prediction. Secondly we already have an explanation for it that does not require your concepts. You add nothing, you improve nothing.
"Already gave the motor example a few times. U pretend not 2 C it."
Oh believe me I'm not pretending. Unless you buried it within a particularly dense cloud of babble and I missed it you gave no such example. So come on, give. Or else I'm really not interested. You may impress yourself, but what you say has no actual meaning or relevance to the real world. Despite how important you think it is.
Okay, enough of this pleasant banter. Time to put up or shut up. Name one prediction that this unique understanding that you claim to possess allows you to make, something that could be experimentally verified and that could be falsified if you are wrong.
For reference, the first such experimental test of relativity was gravity lensing. You know that it passed because you refuse to touch it and attempted to dismiss it with a false accusation.
"like if I kept asking U a different question about relativity"
Except I keep asking you the same question, it's just that you've run away from it consistently because you know you cannot deal with it. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I'm not listening" does not give oneself knowledge.
So simple question. I throw a ball 20mph. What is it's absolute speed?
You cannot answer that because THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE MOTION. So you shall instead try to run away to a new concept, just like you ran away to dark matter because you were woefully uninformed on relativity.
"It's inductive fallacy. Seriously - go 2 Wikipedia & look it up"
Uhuh... like your post hoc fallacy? You still haven't answered me, had gravity lensing been observed prior to the test in 1919 when it was used to test relativity?
"Sharing a common trait does not mean that trait is the fundamental nature of their existence "
Okay, list of questions. Relativity works in explaining observed phenomena. You claim it does not exist, yet motion cannot be predicted without it. This is a problem for you.
Without picking a RELATIVE reference point, speed cannot be determined. Motion is different with respect to different points of reference. How can it be absolute?
Then how do you explain the abberation of Mercury's motion that's not explained without invoking relativity? I've asked you this many times before. Relativity explains it. Your "bits of motion make magic men do things" explanation makes no predictions at all, and doesn't explain anything.
Okay. Two people sit in a train, not moving on their seats. The train is moving at 60 mph. Relative to each other they are motionless. Relative to the Earth they are moving at 60mph. Relative to the sun they are moving much faster still.
So what is their absolute speed, then? Zero? 60 mph? 18 and a half miles per second?
In any case, I'd like to ask again.. the laws of motion are broken without relativity. You say motion is predictable without it. This is a contradiction. How do you explain it?
I give you two objects in space, moving relative to each other. Are they both moving? Is one moving and one stationary? How do you determine their "bits of movement" without an absolute external reference?
Umm.. are you saying moving things should have more gravity than non moving things? How do you deal with the lack of an absolute reference to determine what has motion and what does not?
I ask you again. You say motion is predictable. Yet the laws of motion didn't explain Mercury's orbit, there was an abberation that was only explained once relativity came on the scene.
"The whole tenant of 'Dark Matter' is that it CAN'T B detected!"
So what do you call gravity lensing, then?
It CAN be detected. The whole tenent of it is that it cannot be directly observed. Indirectly, it's been detected many times. You cannot look at an electron, yet you've stated that you accept that they exist.
"Summary of the 'dark matter' crap they tack-on 2 try & make relativity work, 'cuz it doesn't really:"
Dark matter has been "tacked on" because it has been detected. Many times. Not to "make relativity work". Relativity already works. As I've been mentioning, and as you've been running away from as fast your little fingers can type.
Hey DP, just an aside here.. if you decide to delete this individual's comments because of his penchant for going off on racist tangents, you might as well delete mine too, they're meaningless without his comments around to explain them. I know I probably shouldn't have engaged him, but I can't help myself.. I have a serious case of "someone is wrong on the Internet".
It's just a remarkable coincidence. Last night I was reading up on a description of a website created by this individual who is INSANELY opposed to relativity. And now you show up, spouting the same nonsense. Both of you have a real problem with the basic concept of motion AND relativity.
"Like brean dead Christ-bait, U parrot nonsense, without understanding - a programmed machine"
You care to attempt to prove this? An atomic clock was put onto an airplane and flown about for a while. When it stopped a difference in time compared to a stationary clock could be detected. This difference fit in with the predicted values of delay caused by both gravity induced time dilation AND the relativistic time dilation.
Your explanation of these values would be.. what again?
"U don't even know what the theory (bad 1) of relativity states"
We do, and we are aware of instances where the predictions of the theory have been verified.
You're probably aware of them too, which is why you're trying to go on the offensive instead. You can't defend against the ways in which it's been verified, you can just make accusations to try to shift the focus elsewhere.
"Relativity is also a religion - nothing 2 do with science"
What the hell are you talking about? The laws of relativity have been shown to exist time and time again. Internal clocks on satellites have to be calibrated differently to account for the time dilation they experience.
And there IS a speed limit, because as matter approaches the speed of light its mass approaches infinity. You can't go BEYOND the speed of light and have an extrainfinite mass.
Is our species so well set intellectually that we can now start to relax and pass science over to the retards? This is beyond f***ed up.. I'd be seriously furious if I wasn't so agitated..
It's really refreshing to see people (like DP) standing up and calling out clowns like Casey Luskin and his occultist fellows at the Discovenry Institute for what they are. There really needs to be an investigation into this cult to find out why they are spending big money to fly people state to state for the purpose of corrupting science education-- in a country that is already falling behind the rest of the world in science. It's anti-science, anti-american, and it needs to be stopped.
"Hurnan beings"! LOL! Someone has sharp eyes! This error was copied and pasted all over the web! Anyone know if it was in the original wedge document?
Casey Luskin and DI goof this all up. But to their credit, so do a scary number of atheists.
"Materialism" is a philosophy-it isn't science. It's a metaphysical position, not a testable position.
Both these IDers and the materialists "plug" the unknowns with what their teeny tiny brains think is the "necessary" assumption. IDers think unknowns should be plugged with "intelligent designer", ie "god". The materialists think unknowns should be plugged with "conscious-less matter".
Yes indeed materialism is a philosophy; however, their document uses "scientific materialism" and "materialism" interchangably and they are talking about the scientific method: they object to it.
The Gaydar struck me as funny, and Rev Luskin moves and talks like a male homosexual (which a study or two has shown most people can observe). It makes me wonder if he knows he's homosexual, and /or if he knows Ted Haggard.
Well, technically the dark ages were the time from 468- about 1050, caused by the invasion of (often non-Christian) Germanic tribes in the (generally Christian) former Western Roman Empire, and not so much by the belief that science and religion should say the same.
Until well after 1600, it was the general opinion that science should contradict. The Renaissance was just the start of the seperation of science and religion, and was not known as the dark ages.
It is baffling how readily these guys will trample the ninth commandment from a list of only 10. Luskin Knows perfectly well and better than most that I.D. and Creationism are the same thing. Here he is on TV executing a thoughtfully designed campaign of lies and deception in an attempt to force the teaching of even more lies to children
Why do americans give this creationists so much space. I mean Swedish media ridicule them, when US media seem to embrace them and give them enormous amount of air time.
They should be shot in the face with dead bear vaginae, until they fall backwards off of a bridge into an active volcano.
Thanks to them, and everyone else who drives a Hummer, there should be a large supply of rotting polar bear vagina available, by as soon as next year.
Great video!!!! I love how these fucktards form the Creationist I mean Discovery Institute claim how Intelligent Design is science and is not Creationism.
LOL! The USA is no superpower. We only pretend to that lie. The DI has been vacuuming brains out of American children for 30 years or so. A few hundred thousand escapees from oral indoctrination, does not a superpower make. This nation has been stupefied to deaths door, ripe for the plucking.
Yes, but Freud is considered the father of modern psychiatry, and that profession can help people overcome or cope with strong delusional states, including those caused by involvement in fundamentalist religion. The DI is picking a figurehead, a scapegoat, if you will. In fact, all three are scapegoats for what the DI does not approve of.
Darwin did not unravel kin selection or sexual selection, but then to these people all selection is just natural selection which is (plays scary music) eviiiilution, Wooooooooooo! ;)
But yes, I concede Darwin got it freakily spot on.
The DI believes that first man was created from dust and the first woman from that man's rib. Keeping that in mind I don't think that their choice of a "trinity of enemies" really has to make that much sense.
It's also another measure of their collective hypocrisy.
When you read between the lines, and observe their behavior, you can see that closely following all of the more whacked out interpretations of the "trinity of enemies", is essential to their cult. It also diverts faithful (read as "blind-stupid" zombies) Eloi from reading "forbidden books", to keep them from understanding that they are mere cattle.
I see your point, but I don't think their motives are that devious. It seems to me that most people who view ID as a valid alternative are afraid of having their beliefs stripped from them by science. Yet they still view science as the cornerstone of modern society (gives us electricity, cars, tv, etc). ID provides a nice science-y sounding alternative and the DI provides a nice science-y sounding organization to promote it. Long story short, their motivation is fear.
It is an insult to good Wiccans everywhere, if they choose to take it as such. But, as the word coven would also apply to Skull and Bones, (with whom they're associated) as well as other Satanic covens (with whom they are not associated) the word is a good choice for the DI Morlocks.
don't make misstakes like calling someone gay as your opening argument. I really like your videos, and im sure it makes your fanbase "rofl" but really, it's hard for anyone else to take you serious like that.
This has been flagged as spam show
dear desertpedofile, why is it that people like you just cant understand that god created science long before humans even knew how to make fire, how could He have made EVERYTHING unless he knew just a little bit more than you living out in the desertpile , I just hate it when materialism makes itself more important than our almighty saviour and god, thank you very much for not interupting
animefan2k9 1 month ago
Ghosts, God, and the afterlife can't be debunked. That's why scientists are stupid. They come up with horrible excuses trying to debunk these three things but they can't. The thing is, that there are things in this world we just can't explain, and they will always be that way.
SuckDeezNutzBitch 11 months ago
@SuckDeezNutzBitch
But you of course have an explanation for those unexplainable things! Ghosts and gods did them! Anything we can't explain (even the things we can and have), are the work of gods, ghosts, devils, pixies, unicorns, spaghetti monsters, spirits, psychics, magicians, sorcerers, leprechauns, or the great juju of the sky.
Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. Science will never be able to explain that.
rkyeun 5 months ago
@SuckDeezNutzBitch It must be tough being uneducated and stupid and having so much you don't understand.
gregrutz 1 week ago
This is a good response. However, I disagree with your use of "gay-dar". Atheists like you and I are widely hated in society, so I disagree with the oppression of other minorities, particularly those minorities that are heredity based.
heathdwatts 1 year ago
i edited that idea many times, it says Error, Try again.!!!! smart filters i say
SuperInventer 1 year ago
see i posted that one.. but i cannot post what i wanted, and it had no swearing just facts... We are blocked and monitored.!!!!
SuperInventer 1 year ago
This is CRAP.. I cannot post what i think here, says (Error,Try again) Fucking filters.. good job on assholes who .. allow to post swearing but actual points and facts.. assholes
SuperInventer 1 year ago
It's not very nice to insult covens that way.
Naiant 1 year ago
you sound kinda slow. :/
redbulborb 1 year ago
What's with the gaydar? Being gay doesn't mean being stupid.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
I can't wait for america to go to sh*t once crazy consevertive christans take over and say bible > science.
raonak1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dear desertpedofile, why is it that people like you just cant understand that god created science long before humans even knew how to make fire, how could He have made EVERYTHING unless he knew just a little bit more than you living out in the desertpile , I just hate it when materialism makes itself more important than our almighty saviour and god, thank you very much for not interupting
gregelliselizabethno 2 years ago
Greetings. "People like me" do not "understand" fgairy tales because we are adults who grew up and got an education; we matured emotionally and intellectually. You're welcome.
Desertphile 2 years ago 13
"god created science..." You have proof of that? Let me guess, you read it in the Babble?
Your "Almighty savior and gawd" is a myth for the weak minded....such as yourself.
TheWad1959 2 years ago 3
Very funny! But don't be surprised if Casey Luskin sues you for libel over the "Gaydar" bits.
jamesjeffreypaul 2 years ago
I certainly don't agree with anything the Discovery Institute has to say. But I don't see how his being gay or straight has anything to do wih his arguments. Don't attack the person, attack his ideas. You didn't have any evidence to refute any of Luskin's claims. I rated this a 1 only because there is no zero.
8582Dave 2 years ago
He did attack his claims. And very effectively at that. The gay thing was for humor, of which I think you need to acquire a sense.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago 4
But it's placing parallels between creationism and homosexuality, which is just unneeded. I completely agree though. The DI need to be closed down for the sanity and progression of us all.
m0ufin 2 years ago
I repeat, get a sense of humor. Not everything has to be politically correct. Just grow a thicker skin. If someone calls something gay, it doesn't mean they are bashing gays. Just laugh. Ha ha ha! And move on.
Yes, they do. They really do need to be closed down.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
Heh, the "get a sense of humour" supposed insult. I would have expected more maturity from someone who opposes the Discovery Institute.
Regardless, he was referring to his sexuality and not calling his actions "gay" in order to call them "stupid". There's the difference. I didn't really mind, but it's not a scholarly approach and it's the kind of things that gets to your credibility.
m0ufin 2 years ago
I have plenty of maturity. And that's exactly why I have the ability to laugh it off and move on. A lot of what he does it is with a comedic approach. If he was truly, truly interested in being as professional as he could and leaving his personality out of it, do you think he'd be doing this on youtube? No, I don't think so. So really, stop investing so much in the gay comment. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
"But it's placing parallels between creationism and homosexuality, which is just unneeded."
Is going too far?
To become "professional" at such things, a doctorate is mandatory. I just find that the time he spent calling him gay, he could have spent actually debunking his arguments. In other words, it was wasted time and wasted space. There is so much to say, Luskin is an easy target really. You don't need cheap insults to bring him down at all, it only lowered the tone of the conversation.
m0ufin 2 years ago
THIS. IS. YOUTUBE. He did it for a few laughs. Nothing more. Nobody, "professional" or not, would post their argument on youtube if they were serious about making a real academic impact. Why are you making such a big deal about this?
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
I'll repeat myself.
Saying "But it's placing parallels between creationism and homosexuality, which is just unneeded" is going too far?
m0ufin 2 years ago
Is it going to far? No. Is it making you look like an overly politically correct douchebag without a sense of humor who is ruining everyone's laugh? Yes.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
LOL. Ahh, rather than referring to the matter at hand, we'll all ascend into simply attempting to personally insult others. Yes, very tasteful.
We shall never agree. I don't think the creationism Vs. evolution debate is very "amusing" and he shouldn't fool himself into thinking that he's helping the cause by doing so. His video, therefore, was only for like-minded people which is just preaching to the choir.
m0ufin 2 years ago
I think you're missing the point. Nobody cares what YOU think is amusing or not. Nobody cares what offends you. If you don't like it, you can watch some other videos with less humor. If you're truly that incapable of shrugging something off, I have to say, life must suck for you. Either that, or you live a very sheltered existence. And for the record, I find the creationism vs. science debate absolutely hilarious.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
I think you're missing the point. Preaching to the choir achieves nothing and he should not fool himself into thinking he's helping the cause. I did shrug something off. I was making the point of how others may receive it and it was just offhanded. It was you that took it further than neccasary.
/watch?v=FvDgnVSxQvw
m0ufin 2 years ago
And again, you're missing the point. What exactly do you think is ultimately going to be "achieved" by ANYTHING on youtube? This is a website for entertainment. If you learn something personally, fine. But this is not a place of authority or academic discourse. There are peer reviewed journals for that. If you're not entertained, if you want professionalism, go read one of those journals and stop making this such a big deal.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
Surely the public medium is far more powerful and influential than a small sector of the public who will read peer reviewed articles, but let's not go there. I think I shall drop this now, it just seems utterly pointless. It was an offhanded comment. I agree with his point and yet this immediately just made me face palm and inclines me not to subscribe or watch any further videos made by him.
m0ufin 2 years ago
No, let's go there, because they're not. Thew advancement of scientific research and understanding is not left up to the "public medium." It is left up to those who have the knowledge, experience and credentials necessary to shoulder such decisions. Its examination is left up to those who are capable of examining such things. If our understanding of science was left up to the "public medium," we'd still be in the dark ages.
If you don't want to watch his videos anymore, that's up to you.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
Precisely, but many actually obtain their information from a public medium and so the less misinformation floating about, the better. To say otherwise, is just downright foolish. Most people do not have the "knowledge, experience or credentials necessary" and even if they read peer reviewed articles may get the science completely wrong.
Where did I claim we all did as such? Really, drop the agenda.
m0ufin 2 years ago
Welcome to the internet, m0ufin. The greatest source of misinformation in the world. Regardless of whether or not most people get their information here, that doesn't make it an academically sound process. Much less so if they actively come to youtube for their information. Regardless of where people get their information, regardless of what is true and false here, this is not the kind of forum that decides our academic direction. It never was. It never will be.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
Essentially what you're saying is that I should never dislike a video or user, because they express views I dislike and in a manner which I dislike as "this is the internet and should not follow academic processes." Many here on Youtube do, take thunderf00t, dprjones , ZOMGitsCriss or DefenderOfReason. They may occasionally sway from this, but constructive arguments are made as such. This is they style I like, so I subscribe. I stumbled upon this video and expressed my opinion.
m0ufin 2 years ago
No, absolutely not. What I'm saying is this:
You can dislike a video and the maker of the video if you want, but don't blow things out of proportion because of a "lack of professionalism" on youtube, especially when you haven't seen the rest of his videos and haven't seen nearly enough to make any judgments about his entire message. I never said it should not follow academic processes. I said that you shouldn't expect it to, and that there are better places for it.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
I'm all about professionalism, m0ufin. I'm a student and scholar in my own rite, and I can appreciate academic honesty and integrity as much as you can. But you forget where you are. There are places for professionalism, and there are places for individual personality. This is a place for entertainment and self expression, not objective discourse. And in that, you need to learn to deal with what you will see here. It is youtube. That's how it will always be here.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
the gaydar could only be DP!
Wesleyfromindy2 2 years ago
its comments like this that make me want to cry...
polop1234 2 years ago
no. the 'deep feild' and 'ultra deep feild' (i believe you are referring to) were exerements to see if they would find anything very distant. they pointed it at a generaly empty looking par ofthe skt and exposed it for 10 days. the results are the deep feild. not a 'new universes' therre is YOUR eveidnce?
polop1234 2 years ago
In which universe did you learn to spell?
ftwsmp 2 years ago
:L i was like half asleep when i posted this, i cant even remember posting it lol.
polop1234 2 years ago
LOL @ 2:20
bigmike4758 2 years ago
By "honest facts" you mean "my bullshit opinions that have no basis in reality."
Desertphile 2 years ago
Well you just proved my point with that comment...plese try typing the word "you" instead "U" all the time. It makes any point you try to make seem as if it's not worth anyones time to read as you never took the time to use proper grammar.
mayrana2 2 years ago 2
I don't think I'm wrong by stating that I think Casey Luskin is a total bellend of the highest order. For those that don't know what a bellend is check out Urban Dictionary for a definition.
Zed1967 2 years ago
if yopur from the uk you should probably know that :) everyone says it nowdays
polop1234 2 years ago
DUDE CAPS DO NOT MAKE YOUR POINT ANYMORE VALID. You sound more like a troll I mean your even to lazy to type you instead of U and are instead of R.
mayrana2 2 years ago
love the beard, i know hot atheist girls like bald men, we'll see how facial hair goes, seems to be working for me lately, keep up the good work,
peace
325982668 2 years ago
"My question was "Isn't it 'relativists' who agree energy is never created or destroyed?"
Until you explain to me how you take into account the abberations in Mercury's orbit without relativity I'm not interested in answering anything more. It's not a red herring, it's evidence that you are embracing ignorance and are proud of it. Conventional science has an answer to a problem that you are unable to deal with, yet you believe your understanding is superior. This is not rational behavior.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"It is a recycling local thing that happens all over the universe, forever" In your own mind, perhaps Here in reality we have abundant evidence that things work a different way.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Where is your 'big bang'? Recycling is a constant thing"
Oh really? So how does the helium that stars make out of hydrogen get recycled? Oh, I forgot, you don't accept that stars even perform fusion, you think they use.. what was that.. a "plasma thingy". Right.
The big bang is experimentally supported. Once again, it predicted the existence of the cosmic background radiation which has since been found.
It must be frustrating to see false theories produce more results than your truth.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Indeed, the Big Bang came as a startling surprise to astronomers and cosmologists: the Catholic priest who first suggested it did not have enough evidence to support his hypothesis; since that time the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive. Not only did the Big Bang happen, it is still happening.
Desertphile 2 years ago
@Desertphile The big bang is based on the observation that, in relativity a static universe isn't possible. It is also observed that, with th exception of galaxies gravitationally bound to each other that the nearer they are the faster they are moving away from each other. It is also basd on observed background microwave radiation which has no other explanatory source. This, however does not mean this is the last two cents worth on the subject.
AggressiveAtheist 1 year ago
@Desertphile sorry for the typos, my keyboard is dying.
AggressiveAtheist 1 year ago
"wherever U point Hubble, it's full of stuff - even in what they THOUGHT were empty regions B 4"
Damn you're dense. They didn't think they were empty, they pointed it at those regions to find the distant, dim objects that they expected to find. You remember that bit about predictions, those things that you're unable to make despite your supposed knowledge? The predictions work because the theories apply to reality. Unlike yours.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"I'm not trying 2 or claiming 2 solve N E thing. Damn U R boring."
Oh yes you are. You are claiming to possess a unique knowledge that is superior to currently accepted scientific models. Yet you cannot apply this special knowledge to anything in reality, it allows you to do nothing any better than it can already be done.
As I've said before, you only possess the impression of a unique insight. You can't make it do anything outside of your own mind. It is a delusion.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Give me an example - any example whatsoever, where motion is not preserved"
I'll give you a better one. I'll give you an example where motion is spontaneously created. Put a firecracker under a tin can. We start off with a system at rest. No motion. If you want to paint with a broad brush, heat energy is at a comparatively low level. Now light the firecracker. Look at all the motion that ensues.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
These types of video are what really makes Desertphile such a sensation. Excellent and well done once again.
Blndrfist 2 years ago
"not problem solvers"
And what problem have you solved? Nothing, you've just taped your fever dream "knowledge" over an existing theory and claimed victory.
Really, we're done here. I get it. You've got nothing except bluster and racism. You couldn't explore the inner recesses of your nose with your finger, you're certainly not capable of exploring nature.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"not nuclear, but plasma thingies"
Oh boy, you also deny basic stellar theory. Cripes. I had no idea how far gone you are. Once again, science gives us nuclear physics, complete with complete reaction chains and an understanding of the many layers of a star. You give us "plasma thingies"
Quick problem. Stars emit more light than they absorb. By a ridiculous margin, so ridiculous that for you to claim that they're just reflecting it is absurd.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Right then. You are bringing nothing to the table except pseudo-scientific woo. You cannot predict anything, you cannot explain anything that is not currently adequately explained, and your concepts would leave us understanding LESS than is already understood now.
I think we're done here. Your knowledge is about the same level as a pot head looking at his hands and going "woah, have you ever really LOOKED at your hands before". It means nothing outside of your mind.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Okay, you don't get to cite fallacies any more. You haven't understood a single one of the concepts you've brought up so far. You've applied post hoc to a phenomena that had never been witness before, you think a non sequitor is a red herring, and now you abuse poisoning the well.
Once again, even relativity could make predictions that have been verified. And you don't even think it exists. Surely your concept has similar capabilities.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"seemz dey can't B predicted"
You took a phenomenon that you already knew of and said your concept applied to it. We already have an understanding of it that works. I can't just say "my theory of Thor the thunder god says that Thor will hurl lightning bolts from the sky" and then say that a lightning strike proves it.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Once again. Name one PREDICTION that this understanding you believe you possess allows you to make.
No more games. Without such a capability your alleged knowledge is meaningless and worthless.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
To clarify, first off you already knew about this and just said that your knowledge explained it. This is NOT a prediction. Secondly we already have an explanation for it that does not require your concepts. You add nothing, you improve nothing.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
No, I take it back, I get the reference. A stalled electric motor.
Post hoc fallacy. Try again.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Already gave the motor example a few times. U pretend not 2 C it."
Oh believe me I'm not pretending. Unless you buried it within a particularly dense cloud of babble and I missed it you gave no such example. So come on, give. Or else I'm really not interested. You may impress yourself, but what you say has no actual meaning or relevance to the real world. Despite how important you think it is.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Okay, enough of this pleasant banter. Time to put up or shut up. Name one prediction that this unique understanding that you claim to possess allows you to make, something that could be experimentally verified and that could be falsified if you are wrong.
For reference, the first such experimental test of relativity was gravity lensing. You know that it passed because you refuse to touch it and attempted to dismiss it with a false accusation.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"like if I kept asking U a different question about relativity"
Except I keep asking you the same question, it's just that you've run away from it consistently because you know you cannot deal with it. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I'm not listening" does not give oneself knowledge.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Would U like some tartar sauce with your Red Herring"
Your particular example is a non sequiter, not a red herring.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"I'm not gonna' talk about Mercury"
Because you cannot explain it without using relativity. I know. It's not that I expect you to answer, I keep asking to demonstrate that you cannot.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"motion is ABSOLUTE"
So simple question. I throw a ball 20mph. What is it's absolute speed?
You cannot answer that because THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE MOTION. So you shall instead try to run away to a new concept, just like you ran away to dark matter because you were woefully uninformed on relativity.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"It's inductive fallacy. Seriously - go 2 Wikipedia & look it up"
Uhuh... like your post hoc fallacy? You still haven't answered me, had gravity lensing been observed prior to the test in 1919 when it was used to test relativity?
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Sharing a common trait does not mean that trait is the fundamental nature of their existence "
Okay, list of questions. Relativity works in explaining observed phenomena. You claim it does not exist, yet motion cannot be predicted without it. This is a problem for you.
Without picking a RELATIVE reference point, speed cannot be determined. Motion is different with respect to different points of reference. How can it be absolute?
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"U don't need relativity 2 explain motion"
Then how do you explain the abberation of Mercury's motion that's not explained without invoking relativity? I've asked you this many times before. Relativity explains it. Your "bits of motion make magic men do things" explanation makes no predictions at all, and doesn't explain anything.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Their motion is ABSOLUTE"
Okay. Two people sit in a train, not moving on their seats. The train is moving at 60 mph. Relative to each other they are motionless. Relative to the Earth they are moving at 60mph. Relative to the sun they are moving much faster still.
So what is their absolute speed, then? Zero? 60 mph? 18 and a half miles per second?
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
In any case, I'd like to ask again.. the laws of motion are broken without relativity. You say motion is predictable without it. This is a contradiction. How do you explain it?
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"There U go with your straw man crap again - applying traits of RELATIVITY 2 me,"
I asked you how you would determine the "motion" of an object without an external reference. Or do you have an absolute external reference?
No, I asked you a question that you cannot answer. Because you're concept is fundamentally broken.
Also fundamentally contradictory.
"No, I am not saying moving things have more or less gravity"
"motion is attracted 2 other bits of motion"
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"BS - motion doesn't even need math 2 figure out"
I give you two objects in space, moving relative to each other. Are they both moving? Is one moving and one stationary? How do you determine their "bits of movement" without an absolute external reference?
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"If motion is attracted 2 other bits of motion"
Umm.. are you saying moving things should have more gravity than non moving things? How do you deal with the lack of an absolute reference to determine what has motion and what does not?
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Without relativity motion is NOT predictable. The laws of motion are broken without it.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
I ask you again. You say motion is predictable. Yet the laws of motion didn't explain Mercury's orbit, there was an abberation that was only explained once relativity came on the scene.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"The whole tenant of 'Dark Matter' is that it CAN'T B detected!"
So what do you call gravity lensing, then?
It CAN be detected. The whole tenent of it is that it cannot be directly observed. Indirectly, it's been detected many times. You cannot look at an electron, yet you've stated that you accept that they exist.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Motion is easy, simple, consistent, predictable - true"
And the aberration in Mercury's orbit that was finally explained by relativity? What about that?
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Summary of the 'dark matter' crap they tack-on 2 try & make relativity work, 'cuz it doesn't really:"
Dark matter has been "tacked on" because it has been detected. Many times. Not to "make relativity work". Relativity already works. As I've been mentioning, and as you've been running away from as fast your little fingers can type.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Hey DP, just an aside here.. if you decide to delete this individual's comments because of his penchant for going off on racist tangents, you might as well delete mine too, they're meaningless without his comments around to explain them. I know I probably shouldn't have engaged him, but I can't help myself.. I have a serious case of "someone is wrong on the Internet".
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"U don't believe a single fuking thing U ever say in your goddamn little pathetic emo self-hating existence"
Relativity. You say it doesn't happen, but it's been seen to happen again and again. Explain.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"U FUKING RETARD! I AM SUMMARIZING A CLAIM OF RELATIVITY, not MY theory, jackass."
You haven't summarized anything, you've just told us that we don't understand it.
Once again. Time has been observed to elapse at different rates in different frames of reference. You say it does not. Explain this contradiction.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Mind you the other guy has never displayed this element of racism that you're throwing into the mix. So I guess you've added something.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"I don't know who Louis is"
It's just a remarkable coincidence. Last night I was reading up on a description of a website created by this individual who is INSANELY opposed to relativity. And now you show up, spouting the same nonsense. Both of you have a real problem with the basic concept of motion AND relativity.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Most of the universe is these bits of matter that U can't C, or measure"
Oh it can be measured alright. Just because you don't know of it being done doesn't mean it isn't done.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Like brean dead Christ-bait, U parrot nonsense, without understanding - a programmed machine"
You care to attempt to prove this? An atomic clock was put onto an airplane and flown about for a while. When it stopped a difference in time compared to a stationary clock could be detected. This difference fit in with the predicted values of delay caused by both gravity induced time dilation AND the relativistic time dilation.
Your explanation of these values would be.. what again?
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"U don't even know what the theory (bad 1) of relativity states"
We do, and we are aware of instances where the predictions of the theory have been verified.
You're probably aware of them too, which is why you're trying to go on the offensive instead. You can't defend against the ways in which it's been verified, you can just make accusations to try to shift the focus elsewhere.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
"Motion is never created or destroyed"
"Relativity is BS!!"
Wait a minute.. this argument sounds familiar..
Louis Savain, is that you?
Okay, you've got a barrel on top of a hill held back by a block of wood. No motion. You remove the block and it rolls down the hill, you get motion.
Um.. then it stops rolling again at the bottom and you have no motion again..
if it's never destroyed, where does it go?
This is basic science, conservation of ENERGY, not motion.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Not everytrhing is motion, but ther ARE such things as the Speed limit.
if u say "Relativity is BS!!" than u are wrong.
There are to many thingsd that proof u wrong to list it ehre.
NoeLPZC allready told u 2 of those.
if u really belive what u say , than u are many things, but not well educated.
Go back to your "believers" or wherever u came from and keep your mouth shut.
ABaumstumpf 2 years ago
In Gaysey's defence, at least he's only a LITTLE lying pile of shit.
Good vid, thanks.
1Weemaryanne 2 years ago
"Relativity is also a religion - nothing 2 do with science"
What the hell are you talking about? The laws of relativity have been shown to exist time and time again. Internal clocks on satellites have to be calibrated differently to account for the time dilation they experience.
And there IS a speed limit, because as matter approaches the speed of light its mass approaches infinity. You can't go BEYOND the speed of light and have an extrainfinite mass.
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
Is our species so well set intellectually that we can now start to relax and pass science over to the retards? This is beyond f***ed up.. I'd be seriously furious if I wasn't so agitated..
afroschlan 2 years ago
HAHAHA THAT Gaydar thing was genius
Domtheredhead 2 years ago
It's really refreshing to see people (like DP) standing up and calling out clowns like Casey Luskin and his occultist fellows at the Discovenry Institute for what they are. There really needs to be an investigation into this cult to find out why they are spending big money to fly people state to state for the purpose of corrupting science education-- in a country that is already falling behind the rest of the world in science. It's anti-science, anti-american, and it needs to be stopped.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
I'm pleased with this video, perhaps even ecstatic!
The DI is probably one of the worst invisible threats to humanity today. Hooray for making the Morlocks more visible!
Though I'm assuming that the "gaydar" thing
is about creepy closeted homophobes? Speaking of Luskin and "gaydar"; does anyone else ever notice his striking resemblance to How The Turd Floats?
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
"Hurnan beings"! LOL! Someone has sharp eyes! This error was copied and pasted all over the web! Anyone know if it was in the original wedge document?
farvision 2 years ago
Yes indeed, the original document reads "hernan beings." I hope those aren't space aliens who eat human flesh.
Desertphile 2 years ago
Did you ever wonder why I call them Morlock,
and their sheep, Eloi?
I caught that error too, long ago.
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
Casey Luskin and DI goof this all up. But to their credit, so do a scary number of atheists.
"Materialism" is a philosophy-it isn't science. It's a metaphysical position, not a testable position.
Both these IDers and the materialists "plug" the unknowns with what their teeny tiny brains think is the "necessary" assumption. IDers think unknowns should be plugged with "intelligent designer", ie "god". The materialists think unknowns should be plugged with "conscious-less matter".
Geodge 2 years ago 2
Yes indeed materialism is a philosophy; however, their document uses "scientific materialism" and "materialism" interchangably and they are talking about the scientific method: they object to it.
Desertphile 2 years ago
Lulzworthy as always, DP.
I love how you pointed out the last time science was over ruled by religion was the Dark Ages.
But I wonder, why do you have a Gaydar? XD
KyoraMishiso 2 years ago
The Gaydar struck me as funny, and Rev Luskin moves and talks like a male homosexual (which a study or two has shown most people can observe). It makes me wonder if he knows he's homosexual, and /or if he knows Ted Haggard.
Desertphile 2 years ago
Well said , cowboy !
Flapjackbatter 2 years ago
The amazing thing is you do not have to look too far to find these groups!
wjkaiser65 2 years ago
One thing that royally pisses me off about the votaries of this pseudo-scientific bullshit is that, in order to fight science, that use science.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Well, technically the dark ages were the time from 468- about 1050, caused by the invasion of (often non-Christian) Germanic tribes in the (generally Christian) former Western Roman Empire, and not so much by the belief that science and religion should say the same.
Until well after 1600, it was the general opinion that science should contradict. The Renaissance was just the start of the seperation of science and religion, and was not known as the dark ages.
philip1201 2 years ago
If we go into another dark ages, I'm building a long ship and putting together a viking war band and going nuts on the creationists!
PragmaticHeathen 2 years ago
Can I join?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Hell yeah! Bring mead!
PragmaticHeathen 2 years ago
Who's gonna bring the grog?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
One of my Swedish friends will be on grog duty, but you can have it if you want.
PragmaticHeathen 2 years ago
Aaaaaannnddd iiiiits all for me mead
*GROG!*
Me jolly jolly mead
*GROG!*
All for me fermented honeeeey
*GROG! GROG!*
To wipe out the non-Poe
*GROG!*
On a longship we will go
When the mead is gone we'll drink of rum and waaaaaater!
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
Loks like you'e already been into the mead... and the grog... and the run.... LOL
PragmaticHeathen 2 years ago
Naa, I save my liquid sunshine for important times.
I put that in your comments but it dissapeared.
watch?v=IQofv26umfw&feature=related
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
It is baffling how readily these guys will trample the ninth commandment from a list of only 10. Luskin Knows perfectly well and better than most that I.D. and Creationism are the same thing. Here he is on TV executing a thoughtfully designed campaign of lies and deception in an attempt to force the teaching of even more lies to children
tomiontomion 2 years ago 4
LOL I love how he keeps refering to them as "The Coven"
mnewf2002 2 years ago 3
Why do americans give this creationists so much space. I mean Swedish media ridicule them, when US media seem to embrace them and give them enormous amount of air time.
Gripen1974 2 years ago 4
FO)X news does. FOX news is the most moronic TV statin in USA.
I mean they had a two hour debate on why the new president do not pay in pulic on their bog brprayer day .. MORONS and fucking hypocrtites!
Jesus told the fucktard christians NOT TO PAY ion fucking public as he saw it as being a hypocrite and yet they insist on it FUCKHEADS!
Vogter2100 2 years ago
Casey Luskin should be thrown off of a bridge.
TheDeLoreanFlux 2 years ago 3
Should be shot in the face.
carrierexchange 2 years ago
Or forced to eat out the rotten vagina of a dead bear... and THEN shot in the face.
TheDeLoreanFlux 2 years ago
They should be shot in the face with dead bear vaginae, until they fall backwards off of a bridge into an active volcano.
Thanks to them, and everyone else who drives a Hummer, there should be a large supply of rotting polar bear vagina available, by as soon as next year.
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
They could fly planes into outhouses. Or they could just do a nosedive into one without the plane.
8WholeThing 2 years ago
Know something scary? I was in Barnes and Noble and I saw there a "history" book which stated that the middle ages were the "real age of reason".
rjbonacolta 2 years ago
Great video!!!! I love how these fucktards form the Creationist I mean Discovery Institute claim how Intelligent Design is science and is not Creationism.
brokensoul70 2 years ago
You are all going to be amish?
Hmmm no more superpower USA?
Tempting.. ;-P
Vogter2100 2 years ago
LOL! The USA is no superpower. We only pretend to that lie. The DI has been vacuuming brains out of American children for 30 years or so. A few hundred thousand escapees from oral indoctrination, does not a superpower make. This nation has been stupefied to deaths door, ripe for the plucking.
Thanks Discovery Institute!
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago 2
That is what I am thinking too. But hey you need dumb people, or rather the government needs them. A nonthinking human makes a good drone.
Vogter2100 2 years ago
Their peers? 9/11 was an insid3 job.
peterliikedeeler 2 years ago
What's an insid three job?
Relyt22 2 years ago 4
A typical type of terrifying typo.
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
"Representing our nearly 1000 supporters and friends in Texas"
After George W Bush I am not surprised anymore at the shit that comes out of Texas, it seems to be a spawning ground for absolute imbeciles.
redtortoise76 2 years ago 4
Gaydar - I love it.....Blarp blarp Blarp blarp...oh shit.
Grimlythedwarf 2 years ago
where do you get that gaydar? i want one!
Trevie3 2 years ago
What film is that with the line "It's a cook book!"
Comptech224 2 years ago
Are you thinking of the Twilight Zone episode?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
It's a cookbook! "To Serve Man." It is available on YouTube.
Desertphile 2 years ago
ID Creationism masks their intent and their "reasoning." Their fundamental methodology is misdirection and misrepresentation.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Yeah, flying jets into skyscapers is so 2001.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago 2
'excuse me while I unplug my computer's gaydar'
ROFL!
ChrisJMoor 2 years ago
My favorite part of the Wedge Paper is were they name their trinity of enemies: Freud, Darwin, and Marx.
Freud's method of psychoanalysis enables to understand and correct the damage done by xian fundamentalists.
Darwin's theory of evolution puts the "truth" of the bible in question.
Marx wrote about rights for the working people and the controlling function of organized religion in a society.
All three of them provided us with means to escape the delusion that gave power to xian priests.
tmafkap 2 years ago 2
"Freud's method of psychoanalysis enables to understand and correct the damage done by xian fundamentalists."
Isn't Freud's ideas mostly dated bunk?
smaakjeks 2 years ago
Yes, but Freud is considered the father of modern psychiatry, and that profession can help people overcome or cope with strong delusional states, including those caused by involvement in fundamentalist religion. The DI is picking a figurehead, a scapegoat, if you will. In fact, all three are scapegoats for what the DI does not approve of.
ChrisJMoor 2 years ago 2
"Yes, but Freud is considered the father of modern psychiatry"
A-ha, okay.
"In fact, all three are scapegoats for what the DI does not approve of."
Except that Darwin was freakishly spot on with many of his hypotheses. Not really a scapegoat.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
Darwin did not unravel kin selection or sexual selection, but then to these people all selection is just natural selection which is (plays scary music) eviiiilution, Wooooooooooo! ;)
But yes, I concede Darwin got it freakily spot on.
ChrisJMoor 2 years ago 2
The DI believes that first man was created from dust and the first woman from that man's rib. Keeping that in mind I don't think that their choice of a "trinity of enemies" really has to make that much sense.
Sparkythedog2008 2 years ago 3
It's also another measure of their collective hypocrisy.
When you read between the lines, and observe their behavior, you can see that closely following all of the more whacked out interpretations of the "trinity of enemies", is essential to their cult. It also diverts faithful (read as "blind-stupid" zombies) Eloi from reading "forbidden books", to keep them from understanding that they are mere cattle.
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
I see your point, but I don't think their motives are that devious. It seems to me that most people who view ID as a valid alternative are afraid of having their beliefs stripped from them by science. Yet they still view science as the cornerstone of modern society (gives us electricity, cars, tv, etc). ID provides a nice science-y sounding alternative and the DI provides a nice science-y sounding organization to promote it. Long story short, their motivation is fear.
Sparkythedog2008 2 years ago
ouch, 9-11 reference. lol
rednecktrucker1969 2 years ago
I've even seen Creationists talking bad about Einsten... now that is just disrespectful.
PoetryRocksAlot 2 years ago
Isn t calling DI a "coven" an insult to good Wiccans everywhere?
MistertheSpike 2 years ago 5
The only good wiccan is one burnt at the stake, amirite?
JoanMichele 2 years ago
Pretty sure that Exodus 22 : 18 (or thereabouts) has something to say about that
MistertheSpike 2 years ago
It is an insult to good Wiccans everywhere, if they choose to take it as such. But, as the word coven would also apply to Skull and Bones, (with whom they're associated) as well as other Satanic covens (with whom they are not associated) the word is a good choice for the DI Morlocks.
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago
"gayness imminent" lol
MadSmokerBBQ 2 years ago
"Science consonant with christian and theistic convictions" is some seriously funny shit..
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
"To Serve Man"
hehehe....I haven't seen that in a LONG TIME. It's probably on youtube...
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Scary shit.
And hoping they will just go away won't work. We ignore them at our peril. I may have to start posting some videos on my channel.
Keep up the good work, Desertphile.
157626 2 years ago 4
don't make misstakes like calling someone gay as your opening argument. I really like your videos, and im sure it makes your fanbase "rofl" but really, it's hard for anyone else to take you serious like that.
dahutt 2 years ago 6
seriously*
dahutt 2 years ago