Creationists don't hesitate to ask an atheist, who might not claim any special knowledge at all, to answer questions in -many- different fields of science.
I'm not saying these guys did, but that is the usual thing I have seen.
I'm learning how to make videos so I can make one titled - "Why ask an atheist (scientific questions)?"
Let me know if there is already one available. Thanks
@csnowutube Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
@csnowutube What is DNA then? A time chance process of Information, IMPOSSIBLE!! Children born with defects is common, and there is all kinds of reasons for it like drug abuse, smoking alcohol, mutations, which are always harmful. Lets see amino acids assembling themselves?? Lets see natural processes to show Chirality???
@5tonyvvvv To use your computer analogy, DNA would be more like biological hardware. "Children born with defects..." Right. where is the intelligence, since it did not design a system which could guarantee reproduction with no errors? Mutations are definitely -not- always harmful. The harmful ones get eliminated. Whoever said amino acids assemble themselves?
@csnowutube Yeah because you have clue what Homochirality is!! You are just another Indoctrinated person who believes abiogenesis and evolution is a fact!!
@5tonyvvvv Yes, I have a clue about homochirality, thanks. It was the structure of your question I did not understand: "Lets see natural processes to show Chirality??? " Natural processes are the only thing(s) we see that -do- show chirality. So, I did not understand your question. thanks.
@csnowutube No you dont understand Homochirality, you would know that right and left handed amino acids have never separated and self assembled EVER!!
@csnowutube Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@5tonyvvvv When you quote someone else, it is considered polite to use quote marks. I.E.: from -
ht creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem " Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral (all its component monomers having the same handedness. Another term used is optically pure or 100 % optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’."
@5tonyvvvv It makes two great differences. One, leaving out "Nearly all" distorts the meaning of the words, and two, by not giving the source, you are showing that you have no trouble being dishonest as you flail about trying to make your point. Poor showing.
@5tonyvvvv Let's see, looking into your intellectual tool box, we see, copy and paste, distortion of others words, and ad hominem. I guess we're through here. Let me know if you would like to discuss something honestly and without the shouting all caps and double exclamation points.
@5tonyvvvv Also, please note that you are doing -exactly- what I was referring to in my original post:
"Why ask an atheist (scientific questions)?"
I never claimed to know anything about chirality or any other subject. Now I know exactly as much as you after reading the site you plagiarized. I also know that it is a creationist, I mean "ID" argument which has been soundly refuted by actual scientists.
Yeah you think you got it bad. Try to debate economics or philosophy with people who don't know what they are talking about. I think you have an easy time with biology.
Oh my god. It is possible to have an intelligent and civilized conversation with Creationists. I almost don't want to call them Creationists because I don't want to put them in the same circle.
@uknowispeaksense Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
this is stupid. If they are going too use the """Naturalism cant explain everything about this yet, therefore, supernaturalism (and the specific supernaturalism I believe in) is more plausible."""
If they think a mind created the universe, then what created the mind. If the mind wasnt created, then how the fuck can they say thats a simpler explanation. Its a stupid explanation, thats what it is.
That was one of the better conversations I've heard against creationists. To be honest, I did not grasp some of it, not being what you would call...well...bright...lol. But it was quite cool to hear a simple back and forth without outright idiocy. Kudos to the speakers on that station.
@SupremeChimp Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
Yes the most prominent scientist 50-500 years ago were Christians, so what? They only helped developed a testable method to determine what is reality, it has no bearing on religion, what we find however, is that the things we have determined by science to be reality completely contradicts these thousands of years old myths. Who would have thought?
I am not arguing who is right or wrong in this discussion. However, I don't think this is a fair critique or attack.
DonExodus is not talking directly to the person that made the previous statements he is critiquing. Furthermore, he is talking biological evolution with a Philosopher and Astrophysicist. I also noticed the follow up discussion three weeks later, the same situation occurs.
He also seems to throw a barrage of questions at them. It is unfair to expect them to have a full answer.
I stand by my belief that the reason people don't accept evolution is because they don't understand what it actually is. Religion plays a huge role in preventing people from understanding it.
It seems that in some cases, both sides of the evolution dispute are willing to compromise to accommodate one another's viewpoints. When science does this they are of course compromising their integrity, but when religion does it, they are compromising their god! Explaining god or his works in any naturalistic way, diminishes from his grandeur and this is ultimately not the god religion wants to believe in...
@DuykRuyk I don't know, but if somebody made the same mistake as a parent and put a burrito in the crib, I'd hate to think about what ended up in the microwave.
Well done Don! Way to keep your cool when debating ignorant, dishonest people. I swear, it's amazing how good they've all gotten at worming their way around issues and blurring the focus.
We're going to dump everything our religion has ever said. Yeah, -those- people were incorrect. Since you've disproven everything that has been said about life and existence according to Genesis, we'll take our god and apply it to these new facts you've discovered.
That way we can still have our god and not look like imbeciles.
Why should we hold unscientific claims equally with scientific claims? The fossil record does not correlate with the Genesis story. Birds are scientifically classified as dinosaurs, fail. They are ignoring dorminant genes because it goes against the Genesis story. Genetics is the best evidence of evolution.
I'm kinda sick of hearing Creationists prove how uneducated they are. I've laughed at them just about as much as I can. I think I'm ready to move on. How can modern western people go through life in such ignorance? They don't even have a high school level understanding of the very thing that proves they're on the wrong track! *sheesh*
@patrickledford420 Is it not an honest answer to say "We don't know" and use that instead of making up stories? Atavism does not prove anything, it can't prove anything. If atavism is important, then the theory would be dead if there was no atavism right? Truth is however that if you had none your theory would still be golden, at least in your own eyes and ears.
@Mekelsior uhhh no if there was no genes for making the atavisms then the theory would be dead but the fact is that EVERY atavism is EXACTLY where it should the fossils, dna, homologies, phylogonies all back this up and yes we dont know where evrything came from but we do know beyond a doubt that we evolved that is more certain than even atoms do you know what it takes to be a theory and that even germs are "only" a theory
@patrickledford420 Not all, your theory is not dependent on atavism, if it was then your theory would have no support. Atavism does not prove anything at all, just works if you assume evolution, any number of possibilities as to why there are such forms exist, simple birth defects is one of them. No we don't know without a doubt that we evolved, some people claim it but that doesn't make it so. I guess I have to high standards when it comes to evidence and what I can accept.
@Mekelsior to high of standerds well shit apparently there very high because evolution is backed up by all of the evidence and no atavisms point toward evolution and no the theory does need those if any one was out of place then the theory would be wrong and you say birth defects then why are none ever out of place and when humans are born with tails they work also with whale and snakes legs they work
@patrickledford420 Nah, I just don't find the evidence convincing and I have looked at it very carefully. Once you remove all the assumptions and conjectures you are left with.. nothing. Atavism does not prove anything buddy, you are unable to see that I understand and I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, however if there is even the slightest chance that there is another explanation of why they exist other than evolution then that is a possibility correct? Thus your theory falls.
@patrickledford420 So you claim that there are humans born with working tails? That they can move around, hang from a tree etc? That is what it means to be a "working tail" or whales walking on land, since you say they have been found to be born with "legs" Strange that none of these amazing freaks of nature have not been on the television or being the center of attention for the media?
Never out of place? Do you know how many birth defects there are? Some are bound to end up at similar spots.
theistic scientists are a joke... its like being a medical clown, just more illogical. these people can actually 'double think' - that mind trick from the book '1984'...
theist didnt help or come up with the scientific method the greeks came up with it. the religious people were the ones who railed against it but burning the library of alexandria more than once. puting mankind back at least 1000 years mind you lol...and they still fight against it
Hahaha, the radio hosts use such words as to appear intelligent but never actually say anything that has value. On the other hand, the guy calling in does have valuable points and sounds intelligent at the same time (probably because he is).
Their answer to atavism is interesting. We don't fully understand everything so there might be a hidden cop out we haven't found yet. Pretty much sums up the whole philosophy of creationism oO
1sapere, Atavism is simply assumed, it proves nothing nor does it disprove anything. You do not know if the creature is gaining a feature or if it is loosing a feature. =) Since you cannot demonstrate either the entire idea of Atavism is a fail.
@Mekelsior its pretty good evidence and all atavisms are always in place like whales growing legs exactly the same as there ancestors the same with us growing tails and snakes growing legs and you can demonstrate that there not gaining legs but the gene is being activated again because all the ones that are born without the legs still have the genes and as in people with our tails
@patrickledford420 Ah, well Atavism's is only usable as evidence if you assume evolution and that they actually are "whales growing legs exactly the same as there ancestors" now if you could prove that they were growing legs, or not loosing them then you would have something. It could just as easy be a birth defect and nothing more than that, so no atavism doesn't prove anything. =)
@Mekelsior they had the genes to grow legs they are just expressing these genes when they are born with legs and its the pattern that these ALWAYS are PERFECT to there ancestors just like us we have the genes for tails and they are NOT birth defects
@patrickledford420 I'm just curious, can the whales actually use the legs? Can the poor humans that are born with a "tail" use it in any way? No? Then how do you know it's legs and tails? Grow a tail that you can use, grow some legs that the whale can walk then you have what is called empirical evidence for evolution, if you can't use it then it does not need to be what you want it to be. Did you know, they thought humans had gill slits while an embryo.. :)
@Mekelsior whales are not losing legs , those bones are for sexual reproduction all whales today have the same exact bones in the exact proportion as the oldest fossils of whales.
I love these calls. There should be more people who know what they are talking about call these stations, whether radio or TV and call them on their BS.
Why the fuzz? A guy talking about genes with an astrophysicist and a philosopher... "Oh yes, we have busted them!" - when it's not their field! Making a deal out of this is to me a bit embarrassing.
you guys all crack me up... nobody with an interesting thought in their head ever says the words "owned" "pwned" or "fail" in a video or comment... so if you just said that in a comment, or created the video above, you're not qualified to make a judgment, because you're a really unclever teenager who says stuff like "owned"... think about it.
@empbac well, you really got me there... my inability to capitalize things has really proven that I don't have the stuff to be here in this den of intellectuals... next time i'll "keep up" and maybe all the truth here will dawn on me. You should get out of your mom's basement.
Uh... you were the one claiming the caller in the video was unintelligent. I'm just showing you the hypocrisy of your position. Getting called stupid by a blatant idiot isn't considered to be a serious insult in my book. Maybe you should try to look intelligent when calling others unintelligent; otherwise, you look like an oblivious jackass. That was my point.
Their attempt to muddy the waters regarding what we know about genes is disingenuous. Cetaceans have genes for making hips and legs and in several fossils showing evolution from mesonychids to modern whales, there is reduction in hip and leg bones in the various transitional fossils until they are vestigial in modern whales. Additionally, the comparative gene analysis shows that hippos and whales share a common ancestor. So it is not ambiguous as to what the genes represent.
@crocaduck Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
@JMSofSweden "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance!
@5tonyvvvv I'm not going to pretend (unlike you) that I know anything about RNA. But the fact that you think think evolution is just chance and time shows by itself that you don't know what you're talking about.
@JMSofSweden Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
In all fairness, I wish you could have had time to discuss this issue with Mr Rana? I might not agree with RTB (discussing if there is a god has always interested me) but I've always found that when they have their top guys together, they're quite interesting, especially Hugh Ross. Maybe you'll have a chance someday to discuss the matter and forward the conversation. Thanks for the vid...
Re: the end, there was a good 2 seconds more of stammering, then he pretty much added filler, the subject changed briefly to theistic evolution, and the call ended (too much 'Im not an expert'). They were very polite, and asked me to call back next week. Nothing interesting happened after, so Im keeping it at what it is :)
There is no difference between ID and creationism. Aliens could not have designed the earth because that would beg the question "Who designed the planet the aliens came from?" ID implies something supernatural made the Earth.
"we don't fully understand DNA and all it's function, so we can't make any definitive assertions as to what does what, so God did it, but we're not using the god-of-the-gaps"... Ughh. Good job calling in and keeping the discussion calm and objective.. I would've started laughing my head off at those nut-bars.
There is not an evaluation in this position.....the creationist dogma is baseless. There is no proof in its favor nor does it rely on anything but conjecture and empty faith in a bronze aged book of secrets
Holy shit what a pile of fucktards. Hey lets host a show about science and not know anything about it. Basically they're replacing "god dunnit". With "only Dr. Whatshisface has this knowledge you speak of"
This is a new one for me. That a god created life at different times. Like I suppose he created the HIV virus in the last century...or did Satan? dun dun dun
Creatonists are just fighting for an idea they think is true and will assert it with confusion, extraordinay claims and by twisting facts. They dont care about science (because they dont 'really' know what science actually is).
All their care about is proving the bible and their god true and will blindly believe that.
i love how calm the caller is. that is definitely the way to argue against the creationists. i'm a fan of Richard Dawkins but his methods are far to 'sledgehammer' to ever be effective. this caller just owns them in every way but never try's to be obnoxious or offencive... brilliant vid
Hmm, it still comes down to argument from complexity. It's odd that he says that we should wait for more information, but he's willing now to say that God introduced the species. Perhaps a little bias there.
At the end, where the host is trying to suggest that creationism gave birth to modern scientific inquiry. Maybe?
For example It's a fact that Alchemy gave birth to what eventually developed into modern Chemistry ( the idea of distiling things with glass retorts, twiddling with different substances, ect ), but is Alchemy a true representation of how the valence electrons of different atoms interact with each other? Alchemy inspired curiosity, but Chemistry satisfied it with real evidence.
Not trying to make a joke here, but then could we point the finger at witchcraft as an earlier form of chemistry? The combining of elements to create something else (albeit otherworldly)?
Or is cooking really the first form of chemistry?
"UGA!!!! My Brontosaurus burger needs more salt !!"
Damn! I wish someone had told me this a long time ago; You don't know how many rock-tumblers I've ruined trying polish butt-nuggets to sell as jewelry :P
If that last moment wasn't and "owned" moment, I don't know what is.
SonOfNye 3 weeks ago
Like most creationists, claiming a single scientific discovery in a field means the entire field becomes uncertain.
d007ization 1 month ago
Biologist--"I think you are confusing evolution with atheism..."
Creationist moron--"uh...wha..."
bloodties1 3 months ago
Did you have any notes for this or are you just a god damned genius?
no pun intended.
Bloodnihilism 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creationists don't hesitate to ask an atheist, who might not claim any special knowledge at all, to answer questions in -many- different fields of science.
I'm not saying these guys did, but that is the usual thing I have seen.
I'm learning how to make videos so I can make one titled - "Why ask an atheist (scientific questions)?"
Let me know if there is already one available. Thanks
csnowutube 4 months ago
Comment removed
csnowutube 4 months ago
@csnowutube Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@5tonyvvvv DNA is not a software code. Where is the intelligence when a baby is born with its heart outside its chest?
csnowutube 3 months ago
@csnowutube What is DNA then? A time chance process of Information, IMPOSSIBLE!! Children born with defects is common, and there is all kinds of reasons for it like drug abuse, smoking alcohol, mutations, which are always harmful. Lets see amino acids assembling themselves?? Lets see natural processes to show Chirality???
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@5tonyvvvv To use your computer analogy, DNA would be more like biological hardware. "Children born with defects..." Right. where is the intelligence, since it did not design a system which could guarantee reproduction with no errors? Mutations are definitely -not- always harmful. The harmful ones get eliminated. Whoever said amino acids assemble themselves?
I don't understand your last sentence. peace.
csnowutube 3 months ago
@csnowutube Yeah because you have clue what Homochirality is!! You are just another Indoctrinated person who believes abiogenesis and evolution is a fact!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Yes, I have a clue about homochirality, thanks. It was the structure of your question I did not understand: "Lets see natural processes to show Chirality??? " Natural processes are the only thing(s) we see that -do- show chirality. So, I did not understand your question. thanks.
csnowutube 3 months ago
@csnowutube No you dont understand Homochirality, you would know that right and left handed amino acids have never separated and self assembled EVER!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@csnowutube Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@5tonyvvvv When you quote someone else, it is considered polite to use quote marks. I.E.: from -
ht creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem " Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral (all its component monomers having the same handedness. Another term used is optically pure or 100 % optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’."
You left off "Nearly..."
csnowutube 3 months ago
@csnowutube LOL..What difference does it make, I was giving you a definition, because you have no clue what Homochirality is! dummy!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@5tonyvvvv It makes two great differences. One, leaving out "Nearly all" distorts the meaning of the words, and two, by not giving the source, you are showing that you have no trouble being dishonest as you flail about trying to make your point. Poor showing.
csnowutube 3 months ago
@csnowutube LOL. You show your IGNORANCE WELL!! You have no clue what Homochirality is MORON!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Let's see, looking into your intellectual tool box, we see, copy and paste, distortion of others words, and ad hominem. I guess we're through here. Let me know if you would like to discuss something honestly and without the shouting all caps and double exclamation points.
csnowutube 3 months ago
@csnowutube LOL. Good luck on arguing some thing you have ZERO knowledge on!! Go learn Chirality MORON!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv Also, please note that you are doing -exactly- what I was referring to in my original post:
"Why ask an atheist (scientific questions)?"
I never claimed to know anything about chirality or any other subject. Now I know exactly as much as you after reading the site you plagiarized. I also know that it is a creationist, I mean "ID" argument which has been soundly refuted by actual scientists.
csnowutube 3 months ago
I mean, Thanks for uploading this!
AEVautomatic 4 months ago
Yeah you think you got it bad. Try to debate economics or philosophy with people who don't know what they are talking about. I think you have an easy time with biology.
AEVautomatic 4 months ago
Oh my god. It is possible to have an intelligent and civilized conversation with Creationists. I almost don't want to call them Creationists because I don't want to put them in the same circle.
HimesInu 7 months ago
Damn evolutionists! watch?v=7A6qtrDGiXI
uknowispeaksense 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uknowispeaksense Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
Comment removed
mikked82 8 months ago
this is stupid. If they are going too use the """Naturalism cant explain everything about this yet, therefore, supernaturalism (and the specific supernaturalism I believe in) is more plausible."""
If they think a mind created the universe, then what created the mind. If the mind wasnt created, then how the fuck can they say thats a simpler explanation. Its a stupid explanation, thats what it is.
gulbirk 8 months ago
That was one of the better conversations I've heard against creationists. To be honest, I did not grasp some of it, not being what you would call...well...bright...lol. But it was quite cool to hear a simple back and forth without outright idiocy. Kudos to the speakers on that station.
skywize 9 months ago
"I think you're confusing Evolution with Atheism"
PWNT!
...."DURP!"
SupremeChimp 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@SupremeChimp Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
Yes the most prominent scientist 50-500 years ago were Christians, so what? They only helped developed a testable method to determine what is reality, it has no bearing on religion, what we find however, is that the things we have determined by science to be reality completely contradicts these thousands of years old myths. Who would have thought?
M3t4lManiac 10 months ago 6
It doesn't even make fucking sense "adaptation of the genes to a certain extent" are they fucking retarded?
M3t4lManiac 10 months ago
Reality is natural. Fuck off flatearthers.
M3t4lManiac 10 months ago
I am not arguing who is right or wrong in this discussion. However, I don't think this is a fair critique or attack.
DonExodus is not talking directly to the person that made the previous statements he is critiquing. Furthermore, he is talking biological evolution with a Philosopher and Astrophysicist. I also noticed the follow up discussion three weeks later, the same situation occurs.
He also seems to throw a barrage of questions at them. It is unfair to expect them to have a full answer.
MorePreciousThan 10 months ago
I stand by my belief that the reason people don't accept evolution is because they don't understand what it actually is. Religion plays a huge role in preventing people from understanding it.
leifey 10 months ago
@leifey Right, religion is pretty much an excuse for why/how things work/happen.
meshuggahismylife 10 months ago
There's a Creation "Science" radio show? Good grief!
trapfish 11 months ago
lol... LOL!!! great video, thanks for sharing.. :)
frackcha 11 months ago
It seems that in some cases, both sides of the evolution dispute are willing to compromise to accommodate one another's viewpoints. When science does this they are of course compromising their integrity, but when religion does it, they are compromising their god! Explaining god or his works in any naturalistic way, diminishes from his grandeur and this is ultimately not the god religion wants to believe in...
thenatureinme 11 months ago
Oh shit ! It's a real Biologist ! Quick hang-up ! Too late, I will just ramble my way out of this.
gregrutz 1 year ago 11
pwnd
vw77 1 year ago
@ 7:27
Wait how the fuck do you confuse a burrito with a baby?
DuykRuyk 1 year ago
@DuykRuyk I don't know, but if somebody made the same mistake as a parent and put a burrito in the crib, I'd hate to think about what ended up in the microwave.
NoNamesLeft0102 1 year ago
Well done Don! Way to keep your cool when debating ignorant, dishonest people. I swear, it's amazing how good they've all gotten at worming their way around issues and blurring the focus.
Zeuts85 1 year ago 4
wuh..?. wuhehh..?¿
mtdeezy 1 year ago
owned
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
How on earth is inferring a "MIND" behind the universe an inference to the best explanation? You have to explain this "MIND" now.
nontheistdavid 1 year ago 3
How come using the term "Creation Science" doesn't crash the internet?
iSketchFender 1 year ago 3
@iSketchFende LOL
ebilly99 1 year ago
Pathetic squirming is pathetic.
Roseh77 1 year ago
This is just pathetic.
We're going to dump everything our religion has ever said. Yeah, -those- people were incorrect. Since you've disproven everything that has been said about life and existence according to Genesis, we'll take our god and apply it to these new facts you've discovered.
That way we can still have our god and not look like imbeciles.
Llynok 1 year ago
Why should we hold unscientific claims equally with scientific claims? The fossil record does not correlate with the Genesis story. Birds are scientifically classified as dinosaurs, fail. They are ignoring dorminant genes because it goes against the Genesis story. Genetics is the best evidence of evolution.
HybridD91 1 year ago
I love how it ends with "Well um..."
Royaleah 1 year ago
Owned!
Leonid3s 1 year ago
I'm kinda sick of hearing Creationists prove how uneducated they are. I've laughed at them just about as much as I can. I think I'm ready to move on. How can modern western people go through life in such ignorance? They don't even have a high school level understanding of the very thing that proves they're on the wrong track! *sheesh*
warren52nz 1 year ago
The cake was a lie !!!
The vids are great tho :p
Azotadeth 1 year ago
Always love a good ending ! Good work Don.
gregrutz 1 year ago
funny how they can't even tell you what they belive they have to refer you to the expert... but they def DON'T accept a natural explanation.
jasonoatmeal 1 year ago
damn there answers boiled down to we dont know we need to keep looking and duck and dodge
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 Is it not an honest answer to say "We don't know" and use that instead of making up stories? Atavism does not prove anything, it can't prove anything. If atavism is important, then the theory would be dead if there was no atavism right? Truth is however that if you had none your theory would still be golden, at least in your own eyes and ears.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior uhhh no if there was no genes for making the atavisms then the theory would be dead but the fact is that EVERY atavism is EXACTLY where it should the fossils, dna, homologies, phylogonies all back this up and yes we dont know where evrything came from but we do know beyond a doubt that we evolved that is more certain than even atoms do you know what it takes to be a theory and that even germs are "only" a theory
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 Not all, your theory is not dependent on atavism, if it was then your theory would have no support. Atavism does not prove anything at all, just works if you assume evolution, any number of possibilities as to why there are such forms exist, simple birth defects is one of them. No we don't know without a doubt that we evolved, some people claim it but that doesn't make it so. I guess I have to high standards when it comes to evidence and what I can accept.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior to high of standerds well shit apparently there very high because evolution is backed up by all of the evidence and no atavisms point toward evolution and no the theory does need those if any one was out of place then the theory would be wrong and you say birth defects then why are none ever out of place and when humans are born with tails they work also with whale and snakes legs they work
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 Nah, I just don't find the evidence convincing and I have looked at it very carefully. Once you remove all the assumptions and conjectures you are left with.. nothing. Atavism does not prove anything buddy, you are unable to see that I understand and I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, however if there is even the slightest chance that there is another explanation of why they exist other than evolution then that is a possibility correct? Thus your theory falls.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 So you claim that there are humans born with working tails? That they can move around, hang from a tree etc? That is what it means to be a "working tail" or whales walking on land, since you say they have been found to be born with "legs" Strange that none of these amazing freaks of nature have not been on the television or being the center of attention for the media?
Never out of place? Do you know how many birth defects there are? Some are bound to end up at similar spots.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
You rule DonExodus!
Do they really have an expert and why doesn't evolution have its own radio station? Oh that's right, because its a scientific theory NOT a theology.
IDisnotscience 1 year ago
theistic scientists are a joke... its like being a medical clown, just more illogical. these people can actually 'double think' - that mind trick from the book '1984'...
EternallyExistent 1 year ago 2
theist didnt help or come up with the scientific method the greeks came up with it. the religious people were the ones who railed against it but burning the library of alexandria more than once. puting mankind back at least 1000 years mind you lol...and they still fight against it
MrDasmaster 1 year ago
religious people are funny!
MrDasmaster 1 year ago 2
Creationists are dumb-asses, plain and simple! ID is just superstitious shit v2.0
TheMightySwe 1 year ago
I love the ending...."I think you're confusing evolution with atheism" They sounded kinda like huh? what do you mean?
mgt247 1 year ago
"Out of my league to respond to you". This guy is out of his league to walk and chew gum at th same time.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago 2
Hahaha, the radio hosts use such words as to appear intelligent but never actually say anything that has value. On the other hand, the guy calling in does have valuable points and sounds intelligent at the same time (probably because he is).
jjdagdelen 1 year ago
Their answer to atavism is interesting. We don't fully understand everything so there might be a hidden cop out we haven't found yet. Pretty much sums up the whole philosophy of creationism oO
1SapereAude1 1 year ago
1sapere, Atavism is simply assumed, it proves nothing nor does it disprove anything. You do not know if the creature is gaining a feature or if it is loosing a feature. =) Since you cannot demonstrate either the entire idea of Atavism is a fail.
Mekelsior 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mekelsior "Atavism is simply assumed,
it proves nothing nor does it disprove
anything. You do not know if the creature is
gaining a feature or if it is loosing a feature."
I don't think you have any clue what you are
talking about. Gaining a feature? WTF?
1SapereAude1 1 year ago
@Mekelsior its pretty good evidence and all atavisms are always in place like whales growing legs exactly the same as there ancestors the same with us growing tails and snakes growing legs and you can demonstrate that there not gaining legs but the gene is being activated again because all the ones that are born without the legs still have the genes and as in people with our tails
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 Ah, well Atavism's is only usable as evidence if you assume evolution and that they actually are "whales growing legs exactly the same as there ancestors" now if you could prove that they were growing legs, or not loosing them then you would have something. It could just as easy be a birth defect and nothing more than that, so no atavism doesn't prove anything. =)
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior they had the genes to grow legs they are just expressing these genes when they are born with legs and its the pattern that these ALWAYS are PERFECT to there ancestors just like us we have the genes for tails and they are NOT birth defects
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 I'm just curious, can the whales actually use the legs? Can the poor humans that are born with a "tail" use it in any way? No? Then how do you know it's legs and tails? Grow a tail that you can use, grow some legs that the whale can walk then you have what is called empirical evidence for evolution, if you can't use it then it does not need to be what you want it to be. Did you know, they thought humans had gill slits while an embryo.. :)
Mekelsior 1 year ago
@Mekelsior whales are not losing legs , those bones are for sexual reproduction all whales today have the same exact bones in the exact proportion as the oldest fossils of whales.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks Yes, it is not the beauty in nature that proves evolution, it is the oddities.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The very last sentence was awesome! :D
"I think you are confusing evolution with atheism"
FatLingon 1 year ago
I love these calls. There should be more people who know what they are talking about call these stations, whether radio or TV and call them on their BS.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
Why the fuzz? A guy talking about genes with an astrophysicist and a philosopher... "Oh yes, we have busted them!" - when it's not their field! Making a deal out of this is to me a bit embarrassing.
Bobathefish 1 year ago
I have my own opinion but it would be too much to add here.
RJL738 1 year ago
@RJL738 So why write anything at all?
kusalaviro 1 year ago
I think they are ... just confused.
Poor sods.
Nice vid. :O)
fishypaw 1 year ago
you guys all crack me up... nobody with an interesting thought in their head ever says the words "owned" "pwned" or "fail" in a video or comment... so if you just said that in a comment, or created the video above, you're not qualified to make a judgment, because you're a really unclever teenager who says stuff like "owned"... think about it.
instereovideos 1 year ago
So you stopped listening as soon as you saw "owned"? If you had kept up, you would have realized that DonExodus2 is apparently smarter than you are.
And this, coming from one who doesn't capitalize anything. Dumbass.
empbac 1 year ago
@empbac well, you really got me there... my inability to capitalize things has really proven that I don't have the stuff to be here in this den of intellectuals... next time i'll "keep up" and maybe all the truth here will dawn on me. You should get out of your mom's basement.
instereovideos 1 year ago
Uh... you were the one claiming the caller in the video was unintelligent. I'm just showing you the hypocrisy of your position. Getting called stupid by a blatant idiot isn't considered to be a serious insult in my book. Maybe you should try to look intelligent when calling others unintelligent; otherwise, you look like an oblivious jackass. That was my point.
empbac 1 year ago
@empbac "Uh..." you care too much, and you're not making sense. You're a douche, and you shouldn't be talking.
instereovideos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@instereovideos
" "Uh..." you care too much, and you're not making sense. You're a douche, and you shouldn't be talking"
good point bitch now GTFO and take a big slice of STFU stupid
johnny1893 1 year ago
I had to turn off my LCD to hear this, the damn pictures were hilarious.
BusinessIDBAI 2 years ago
the end was just perfect
neoarcadezr 2 years ago 3
Owned....
stevnik50 2 years ago 2
Their attempt to muddy the waters regarding what we know about genes is disingenuous. Cetaceans have genes for making hips and legs and in several fossils showing evolution from mesonychids to modern whales, there is reduction in hip and leg bones in the various transitional fossils until they are vestigial in modern whales. Additionally, the comparative gene analysis shows that hippos and whales share a common ancestor. So it is not ambiguous as to what the genes represent.
crocaduck 2 years ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
@crocaduck Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
They sure become evasive when cornered, don't they? Then they pass the buck to another one of their so-called experts, who is not there.
And it's laughable at the end, when they get it competently wrong, confusing Evolution for Atheism.
Good stuff!
bigboy45454545 2 years ago 6
they seem to try to skirt the arguments alot.
bacchusreborn 2 years ago 4
Creationists being out of there league seems to be a recurring theme...
JMSofSweden 2 years ago 76
@JMSofSweden "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I'm not going to pretend (unlike you) that I know anything about RNA. But the fact that you think think evolution is just chance and time shows by itself that you don't know what you're talking about.
JMSofSweden 8 months ago
@JMSofSweden It's like the superman theme... you hear it at the beginning, middle and end.
no2religions 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JMSofSweden Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
In all fairness, I wish you could have had time to discuss this issue with Mr Rana? I might not agree with RTB (discussing if there is a god has always interested me) but I've always found that when they have their top guys together, they're quite interesting, especially Hugh Ross. Maybe you'll have a chance someday to discuss the matter and forward the conversation. Thanks for the vid...
robotwookie 2 years ago
I want to hear their rebuttle to the last statement... confusing atheism with evolution.
williafx 2 years ago 2
Nevermind i found it in the description:
Re: the end, there was a good 2 seconds more of stammering, then he pretty much added filler, the subject changed briefly to theistic evolution, and the call ended (too much 'Im not an expert'). They were very polite, and asked me to call back next week. Nothing interesting happened after, so Im keeping it at what it is :)
williafx 2 years ago
Whitney (DonExodus2),
at least these guys are willing to "debate" with you. where was that "expert" they were talking about?
Thanks and cheers ;)
-king mike
bubbamickmac 2 years ago
7:20 WE just don't understand"
Got that one from Dr.Butinski, "WE just don't know"
gregrutz 2 years ago
6:21, but if short changes can happen in a short period of time then huge changes can occur in a long period of time.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago 3
There is no difference between ID and creationism. Aliens could not have designed the earth because that would beg the question "Who designed the planet the aliens came from?" ID implies something supernatural made the Earth.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago 3
Is that how it ended, or is there a bit more?
Omnywrench 2 years ago
"we don't fully understand DNA and all it's function, so we can't make any definitive assertions as to what does what, so God did it, but we're not using the god-of-the-gaps"... Ughh. Good job calling in and keeping the discussion calm and objective.. I would've started laughing my head off at those nut-bars.
joebushido 2 years ago
appearently even Christians can pwn creationists lol
KarinMikazuki 2 years ago
There is not an evaluation in this position.....the creationist dogma is baseless. There is no proof in its favor nor does it rely on anything but conjecture and empty faith in a bronze aged book of secrets
hangthebastard 2 years ago
7:62, Boobs!!!
S00rabh 2 years ago
I love how it ends with 'well...eh...well...eh'
Andraste77 2 years ago
lol that was great
etatauri 2 years ago
"but it is now going to cost the taxpayer, as we will have to crime it, investigate it, and paint over it"
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
holy crap what a satisfying video
theeyeisblind 2 years ago
Oh man, I want to see part two of this; it was just getting good!
liddlefeesh 2 years ago
Nevermind; I just saw your description comment!
Well done on calling in :)
liddlefeesh 2 years ago
Wow. The number of times they danced around your questions is amazing. I wouldn't mind hearing your debate with Dr. Rahn though.
WaxItYourself 2 years ago
To be fair, I don't think most atheists would understand either :)
god be less.
Atheeizm 2 years ago 2
The host is a piece of work. "Um, I'm going to refer you to Dr. Rahn. He'll tell you what my opinion is".
FuckJesusFuck 2 years ago 5
you may deny it in your description, but that ending line was complete ownage
"I think your confusing evolution with atheism." "Guh, buh, wah wah......"
XD
archanfel650 2 years ago
That was skull crushing. The guy couldn't even speak. He was blown away. He kept saying call back later and fight my big brother.
MrBrainmold 2 years ago 3
"You're an astrophysicist talking about biological and genetic stuff"
They don't even know one branch of science from another. Fail.
At least they were polite. They could've pulled a Glenn Beck and started screaming.
pyxlated 2 years ago
hahaha fuckin creationists. Morons.
canuckman87 2 years ago
Holy shit what a pile of fucktards. Hey lets host a show about science and not know anything about it. Basically they're replacing "god dunnit". With "only Dr. Whatshisface has this knowledge you speak of"
kyebean 2 years ago
These guys are tools, just soft creationism. They dropped the truly idiotic beliefs and hold onto the really idiotic beliefs! :)
dlandon2000 2 years ago 2
This is a new one for me. That a god created life at different times. Like I suppose he created the HIV virus in the last century...or did Satan? dun dun dun
Lazl0r 2 years ago
Lol, "I understand this easy stuff so I'll believe that, but the other stuff is too hard fro me to understand so I say GOD DID IT"
What a retard, ahahahahaha.
ArchhereticK 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I cannot believe how moronic you people are.
You drown yourselves in obtuse and wholly irrelevant argument and completely miss the obvious logic.
DonExodus2 you are a complete buffoon but thanks for the laugh Im surprised you didn't plug your youtube videos
LittleBigBadDaddy 2 years ago
I don't get it.
Cellsplitter 2 years ago
State an arguement please. Name-calling doesn't count.
johnd94 2 years ago
why arent the biologist/creationsist here to answer these calls? lol
Key2daUnderground 2 years ago 3
That's my idea of a picnic! ;)
Good job on the radio show though.
CelineSaddern 2 years ago
The radio host keeps saying he can't answer because the subject is "out of his league, yet he's made up his mind evolution is wrong!
He doesnt understand the ideas of evolution but he knows they must be wrong?
Andylocksigma 2 years ago 52
Creatonists are just fighting for an idea they think is true and will assert it with confusion, extraordinay claims and by twisting facts. They dont care about science (because they dont 'really' know what science actually is).
All their care about is proving the bible and their god true and will blindly believe that.
... But you must already know that :P
Devilsnightforlife 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@Andylocksigma Thats called and argument of self increduality.
If i dont understand it, its stupid.
MrKevMan 1 year ago
don great fucking post way to bring up great rational points.
nobrainsleft75 2 years ago
i love how calm the caller is. that is definitely the way to argue against the creationists. i'm a fan of Richard Dawkins but his methods are far to 'sledgehammer' to ever be effective. this caller just owns them in every way but never try's to be obnoxious or offencive... brilliant vid
charliefake1234 2 years ago 4
'How' does god introduce new species through creative acts?
FreePrometheus 2 years ago 2
Do birds "have stuff" to create god?
jacobromu 2 years ago
dang this guy is tap dancing on a land mine...he did a great job of jabbering on and on though.
1n354a 2 years ago
wuh-wuh!
formerutuber 2 years ago
Hmm, it still comes down to argument from complexity. It's odd that he says that we should wait for more information, but he's willing now to say that God introduced the species. Perhaps a little bias there.
scepticalpreacher 2 years ago
Is the clip not complete? It ended with "I think you're confusing evolution with atheism" and "Wuh-wuh."
chert95 2 years ago
wish i could carry u around with me in my pocket so i can break u out when this topic comes up. so smart.
thedelta88 2 years ago 2
haha, "outta my league", exactly!
shangerboy 2 years ago 3
after listening I think that they don't even know what they believe
AZNGoSu 2 years ago
At the end, where the host is trying to suggest that creationism gave birth to modern scientific inquiry. Maybe?
For example It's a fact that Alchemy gave birth to what eventually developed into modern Chemistry ( the idea of distiling things with glass retorts, twiddling with different substances, ect ), but is Alchemy a true representation of how the valence electrons of different atoms interact with each other? Alchemy inspired curiosity, but Chemistry satisfied it with real evidence.
hekesuede 2 years ago
Not trying to make a joke here, but then could we point the finger at witchcraft as an earlier form of chemistry? The combining of elements to create something else (albeit otherworldly)?
Or is cooking really the first form of chemistry?
"UGA!!!! My Brontosaurus burger needs more salt !!"
mathiastheok 2 years ago
First it was "Creationism"
Then it was "Intelligent Design"
Now it's "Creation Science"
Same thinking as putting flame stickers on your car will make it go faster.
You cant polish a turd.
mathiastheok 2 years ago 9
I think "Creation Science" came before "Intelligent Design."
krzw92 2 years ago
"You cant polish a turd."
Damn! I wish someone had told me this a long time ago; You don't know how many rock-tumblers I've ruined trying polish butt-nuggets to sell as jewelry :P
BTW, That first thumbs-up is from me ;-)
hekesuede 2 years ago 4
"You cant polish a turd."
Tell that to the Mythbusters. XD
evilotakuneko 2 years ago 4
Now it is "teach the controversy."
LaVieSansDieu 2 years ago 3
LaVie "Now it is "teach the controversy." "
There IS a controversy. It's just that it's NOT a controversy among the people who actually STUDY biology, geology, and paleontology.
KonradAdenauer 2 years ago 4
7:05 Owned
zzyzx0788 2 years ago
The oxymoron of the 21st century.
Creation Science
DoucheBagster 2 years ago 10
Awesome video :)
boxant 2 years ago
Dr Hugh Ross (creationist) is a really nice guy and is always respectful to the person who disagrees with him.
Having said that, Ross needs to brush up on his arguments on evolution.
Thank You very much for posting, DE2.
God Bless
workingclasstheist 2 years ago 3
wait at like 10:20 did he just say that Newton was treated well by religion?
people need to think before they open their mouths :S
325982668 2 years ago 2
'god works in mysterious ways' theyll say and bang. Or theyll just throw in some fallacies.
YoeriYoeri 2 years ago
the entire thing was pwnage
YoeriYoeri 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why would a pro evolutionist post a video of himself getting spanked?
9pt9 2 years ago
Did you actually listen to the disscussion???
ndjm00 2 years ago 3
I fucking love the first fail video!
BleedTheBlind 2 years ago
Ha....I love the very last two lines...Wonderful Job. Thanks for the laugh, and the cohesive debate.
PerseusandDionysus 2 years ago 3