As a matter of fact, there is disagreement in all aspects of evolution, and it is not publicized. The lemur was corrected, because it was a flat lie. But, there is plenty of points made by others scientific in regards with all the "basis" of evolution.
@agfigueroaa Scientists debate the details of evolutionary theory, not evolution itself. They debate the individual mechanisms that cause it to happen, not the the main concept: that lifeforms change slowly from one form to another. This has already been shown to be true, and we have a very good clue as to how, but we haven`t figured out every last thing about what causes changes.
@shrikechan "Scientists debate the details of evolutionary theory, not evolution itself."
I agree. I mean the trend is that one. However, if they start re-thinking the theory, as normally scientist end-up doing, they will find out what I, and others scientists, say.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Welcome to science 101 where you get credit for ad hominem attacks, as this is the full extent to which today's "scientists," can claim any certainty (i.e., the latest and most creative slur).
I always find it funny how Christian apologists like Brock, love to harp on and on about a particular disagreement among scientists about some aspect of evolution, as some sort of "EVIDENCE" that this nullifies the truth of evolution, and yet when atheists highlight the multitude of disagreements that Christians have about the "perfect" word of the creator they don't see this as invalidating the truth of Christianity. Talk about being inconsistent.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It was not a disagreement. The scientists know that it can't be possible, they just don't want to accept that intelligent design had to have happened. Whats all this crap about monkeys evolving into a totally new species. If they did turn into humans, why are there still monkeys today?
is thaqt a serious question? are you actualy that ignorant to what science actually says? for the record, NO ONE saying that humans evolved from monkeys!!!!! what science ACTAULLY says is that humans and chimps shared a ancestor in the distant past and that humans are a type of primate.
@tooltime9901 I never got this argument. While human's most recent common ancestor with monkeys would not be identical to any modern monkeys, it would be a primate with grabby feet and a tail. If it's not a monkey, wouldn't that make monkeys paraphyletic?
@AceOfSevens Do you consider current "monkeys" as having descended from humans? Why not? It's the same argument. Are you just fixated on "grabby feet" while ignoring all other data? It basically comes down to how you define "monkey" and not thinking about humans as primates, despite the fact that we are.
@AceOfSevens Yes you are correct, what tooltime should have said is that we didn't evolve from the kind of monkeys that exist today. We ARE monkeys, and our ancestors were monkeys too. But when someone says "monkey" they are usually thinking of the kind you would see caged up in a zoo, and it is true that we did not evolve from those.
@tooltime9901 Does not matter the point is they will jump at anything that could be interpreted to be the missing link then when they are caught they fall back to oh we do not need Ida evolution is a fact and we have sufficient proof. I accept micro evolution just not macro evolution.
I think you need some serious studying in evolution. :P
when one race evolves, it doesn't mean that the earlier version of the race has to go extinct.
evolution doesn't say that we evolved directly from apes. apes evolved to one species, and that species evolved to another etc. this happens very... VERY slowly!
Why are there still monkeys today? Really? That's your question? You're telling me that the most brilliant Scientists in the world today would realize that we didn't come from "monkeys", if they had simply asked that question? Wow! I'm looking forward to your PEER REVIEWED paper that will change the theory of Evolution as we know it. HEADLINE: Evolution shattered!! You-tuber asked..."Why are there still monkeys?"
@evolutionist101 HAHA YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE "PLANET OF THE APES" COULD BE BASED ON A TRUE STORY AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
like a peer reviewed paper means shit to someone with a brain hahahahah
GET UR DAMN PAWS OFF OF ME U DAMN DIRTY APE HAHAHAHAHAHA
ok, i'll at least ask, could the Planet of the Apes movie actually happen one day millions of years from now?? Meaning, descendants of primates become more like us, ha ha ha ha? oh god, i mean oh BANG, if u say no that is pure hypocrisy
Could you define hypocrisy? I'm not positive you know what it means. Or at least, explain what point you're trying to make.
Peer reviewed papers are reviewed by people with a brain. Actually, a lot of people with a lot more brain power than your mid 50's IQ can generate. Make fun of the "BaNG" all you want. A creationist basically came up with the idea. It actually is the best "evidence" you have. It's a fact the Universe can be traced to a singularity. Like it, or not.
@evolutionist101 wow i'm amazed, a nerd dodges the question, HOW DID I GUESS THIS WAS GONNA HAPPEN, hahahaha YO U PEOPLE CRACK ME UP ALL THE TIME, I LOVE FUCKIN WIT U APES, only a fuckin nerd would bring an IQ into any discussion, hahahahaha that's pathetic, what does your IQ amount to when ur dead??? hahahah u actually think ur something, hahahaha, who gives a fuck who or what came up wit the idea of the BIG BANG? watch how u'll dodge this question.... AND WHAT IS THAT SINGULARITY???
We think there was a big bang because every f'n telescope aimed at the sky tells us everything in the universe is flying outward from a starting point. Plus, we know roughly when that happened by measuring the rate of that expansion, and measuring the background cosmic radiation left over from that event.
... and peer reviewed papers mean something because they're fact checked by people who know what the hell they're talking about... a group that obviously doesn't include you.
I know their credentials, and I've read their stuff. They're a lot more reasonable (and interesting) than your badly structured comments, Mr. ALLCAPSKING.
Bestiality is when a human has sex with a non-human. Whether humans are animals or not doesn't really matter for the term to be meaningful.
If you're too dumb and lazy to actually look around and answer your own questions when all the info you need is out there and available, why should I indulge you? What a waste of time.
Though it doesnt mean that humans isnt an animal. Bestialy is a human invention. And the fact that we didn't know we were animals from the beginning is a base for this. Today it means that a human have sex with a non-human (other animal)
... and you can't tell the difference between "=" and "≠", or you'd notice I don't say that. XD
Bestiality exists, and is defined as a human having sex with a non-human. Being a human and being an animal is not mutually exclusive. If humans aren't animals, given the scientific definition of animal, we'd have to be fungus, plants, or some other non-animal.
... and that's all the time I'll waste on a troll. ^^
... if we're not animals, we've gotta be one of those four. Which is it, Mr. King?
As for bestiality, we obviously have different definitions for what the word means, and thus can't agree on what it constitutes. Argument, therefore, is meaningless.
Fucktard, interpecies sex is interspecies sex, no matter the species. Humans aren't special okay? We're just animals like every other species. You might as well be saying monkeys are primates with tails and all these other anomals aren't and that's the difference. Do you really think that just because we're 'intelligent' makes us superior or seperate or above them or something?
"What is that singularity?" It think you were trying to ask what WAS the singularity. With all the available information on the internet...and you still don't know...my definition won't matter.
A question YOU dodged. Define hypocrisy. Then give an example of how I was a hypocrite. I'm sure you will.
Please ask a coherent question. Please explain what link beastiality and evolution you are trying to make.
Explain how I look dumb. You're the one asking incoherent questions. Your ignorance to what evolution explains, the development of complexity in nature, drives your EVEN MORE, ignorant questions. If you're going to ask questions....define what you believe evolution is. Then we can determine what your "knowledge" of the subject is.
Otherwise, you're just going to continue to look stupid.
As for being animals...we all are a part of the animal kingdom. If you're suggesting that since I believe we're animals, then that means bestiality can't exist. If that is your argument, then I over-estimated your mid 50's IQ. The sexual act of a Human animal, with a non-human animal is beastiality. Next ignorant Q?
Now...I will answer no more questions until you grow a pair and answer mine.
I need your definition of hypocrisy. You don't even understand the definition. What exactly have I claimed to show hypocrisy? Beastiality is a term humans came up with to describe Human animals having sex with other non-human animals. Non-humans R not bound by it, Again, I say...we created the word to describe it. Lions and tigers can reproduce with one another. Therefore, they are the SAME species. It would NOT be beastiality. You're a complete moron. You have no idea WTF you're talking about.
Oh and BTW. I never said animals having sex with other animals is NOT beastiality. We HUMANS only have a term for what WE do. Please indicate where I suggested such a thing.
Here's the rule...if you can't...you must slit your wrists. and please...NEVER reproduce.
@jeffbass999 This question is like asking "What's all this crap about a dog evolving into a poodle?" Humans are a subset of apes and apes are a subset of monkeys, all of which are primates. To quote AronRa, "Do you understand that all ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks? A human is a monkey in the same way a duck is a bird and for the same reason."
@DragonGreenFire wow you really thought I meant what I said... It was partially a joke just pointing out how there are similarities between humans and apes but we didn't come from them... we were created the way we are
Extinction and evolution are usually mutually exclusive terms. When a species evolves it doesn't mean something should go extinct. Extinction occurs when a species is unable to adapt to a negetive stimuli, such as deseise, enviornmenta/geographical changes, or a new predetor that does too well against the threatened species.
Over zealous evolutionist.... na, how could this be?? Please don't tell me piltdown man is phony also. All sarcasm aside I believe ultimately whether it takes many years for real science to expose this bullshit, it finally does happen. The same thing happened when so called junk dna was supposed to be infallible proof that these non coding regions were evolutionary useless remnants. Scientist finally destroyed that BS also, and now the modern synthesis is being revised by the Altenberg 16.
Tooltime, how can you even talk about science where there is PLENTY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports 9/11 being an inside job.
People don't have to get the vaccine but if you can afford it and have the medical to do so. Get it done. I don't have the medical to do it and I came down with it. Got sick for a good month then it finally went away.
they werent cut after words dude. The link is to support the claim that 9/11 was an inside job. If you can't understand any of the information in the video then I guess you have never achieved anything higher then a highschool education. I'm at a loss in trying to show you the other side.
Ok, I can tell you haven't even bothered to try and see the evidence on the video. I'm not a conspiracy kind of guy, for 4 years I believe the the blame laid only to Al Queda but now I see a more solid story that includes both parties. Tower 7 is what threw me off the most. I don't believe in any of the other things u have said. You would change your mind if AronRa back this. Think i'll pop him an email.
I know about the evidence, the fact is that it's all bullshit, like the evidence for the loch ness monster or intelligent design. And I definitely won't change my mind unless I find indisputible evidence pointing to a conspiracy :)
soo none of that phased u at all? Termite doesn't ring any bells? The test done to confirm how the buildings fell doesn't mean anything to you? You are just plain fucking stupid.
Such a troll you are. I'm focusing on how the towers fell. The planes cannot knock down a building the way it had happened. Are you really that stupid enough to believe fire did it?
Are you dumb enough to believe that the US government was able to transport hundreds of tons of explosives through one of the busiest cities in the world, and place them into 2 landmark buildings in manhattan, without anyone noticing any of the process? Maybe they had a teleportation device, or maybe the shapeshifting reptilians helped them with invisibility cloaks. Are you stupid enough to swallow conspiracy hogwash? I'm afraid the answer is YES.
It wouldn't take a lot of explosives to do it and there is plenty of time to get that done. I already told you faggot that I don't believe in the secondary bullshit that you have mentioned. The buildings shouldn't have fallen upon themselves at free fall speed. Fire doesn't do that. The entire structure would have had to been weakened for that to happen. Apply some fucking logic to it dude. I found nothing of what u said about cutting the beams after it fell. your full of it.
1. Ever seen a controlled demolition? You would need TONS of explosives and they would have been placed all over the building, and would have generated a tremendous sounds before the collapse, which weren't heard ! LOL 2. Correct, fire didn't make the towers fall to the ground, gravity did. 3. Perimeter columns, other solid debris, and dust were all falling down faster than the building itself, which disproves the free fall myth.
how is that even valid statement dude? Serious.... Want links? Do you seriously want me to link you up or are you going to be an ignorant fag and not bother to research your shit? Fuck you.
Actually, I think there is more evidence for sasquatch and chupacabra than there is for the 9/11 conspiracy horseshit.
There are always crackpots spewing conspiracy theories. The moon landing nuts. The birthers. The 9/11 conspiracy. No shortage of lunacy in this world.
Well said. Get well tooltime. I'd go watch the brock vid. But I just can't stomach that guy. Glad folks like you have stronger constitutions. Or maybe you're sick from over exposure. You're going to have to pace yourself. ;)
Also your video would have a lot more credibility if you did not whitewash the fact that this fossil was nursed and sat upon strategically for years. The media engine behind it was multifaceted and heavily financed.
THis was not some simple mistake that science then corrected. THis was a mindful attempt to mislead people with the clear intention of duplicity.
That you act as if these people are the exception to this new breed of intellectually inbred materialists is laughable.
Then surely you can provide evidence that the scientists who examined the fossil were, in fact, attempting to deceive people?
The media circus who trumped up its importance and said it was the "LAST MISSING LINK OF MANKIND" when it was only thought to be an early primate (the link between lemurs and other primates) was being retarded, but they're the media, so that's kind of their job. The scientists who examined it, though? Innocent until proven guilty, mate.
Tooltime this is a good video although we disagree. I don't have problem with science. I do believe in Evolution. You are firing your weapons at a Cardboard Village.
However, if I understand you correctly, your arching point (8:06) is that even if their are bad apples and frauds we should not be quick to dismiss the larger theme.
I ask you tooltime, are you and the new atheist movement not doing this very thing to the Christian faith? Are you not able to see this Irony?
If you believe in evolution, why do you try to "debunk" it by saying things like "Darwin was a racist" or come up with "Frauds"?
As for the Christian faith, it has more than bad apples. Its whole belief system is THE bad apple. It has caused the inquisition, Salem witch trials, the crusades, and even today it is still causing violence.
Evolution and atheism have nothing of the sort. Thre have only been atheists who have done horrible things, but never in the name of Atheism.
I like his videos man, but i hate the way he fucking looks. Looks like a god damn monkey man. This fucker is the missing link. Got a face that pisses me off. Don't know why.
@TheAtheistAntidote Do you realize that the only reason why frauds like this Ida get started is because they aren`t peer-reviewed? Are you aware that no qualified authority ever said this fossil was a link to humans? Do you know that it was identified quickly as a member of a long-extinct family? The people who recognized Ida as fake also accept evolution as a fact. The thing is, we already have found examples of links. But for some reason the only thing people care about are the frauds.
Something that the anti-science god botherer brigade seem to be unable to understand is that science is BASED on proving proposals to be incorrect. Religion clings to it error packed mythology in spite of contradictory evidence. Science moves on. Every time a scientific theory is proven wrong, that is a success for science because it expands our knowledge of the Universe we inhabit.
Tool you shouldn't get vaccinated. Have you ever looked at what they put in there? Do you think the corporations care if there are undesired side effects sometimes? Think about that. The flu is not that dangerous. It's not worth the risk of coming down with something you didn't count on as a result. My own grandmother got deathly ill one year from her yearly flu shot. The guy your arguing with has a few screws loose but you shouldn't take vaccines unless it's mandatory. Aids = YES!! flu=not me.
You realize what the actual threat is from H1N1, right? As H1N1 stands, it's about as dangerous as the seasonal flu, BUT it's about 5x more infectious. It infects people VERY easily. Viruses evolve VERY quickly. If H1N1 were to evolve and become more dangerous, it would still infect at top speed and cut a swath through the population. The whole point of getting the vaccine is to reduce the number of people it can infect, to slow it down so it's less likely to become deadly.
If it became deadly I agree not getting one would just be stupid. The regular flu has been around for a long time and is no threat. Only to old people and very young children.
The point Satanic is that A. The ingredients (as many people have explained) are not dangerous in these quantities despite how scary they look. and B. You're not just getting the vaccination to protect yourself. It is your duty to those old people and young women (and people with weak immune systems) to take the vaccination. Because you are not just protecting yourself, you are decreasing their chances of coming into contact with it, you are helping safeguard the lives of others.
No, no, you don't get it. The point is not to wait until it's dangerous and THEN do something about it. The point is to nip it in the bud NOW, BEFORE it becomes deadly. The whole point is that this ISN'T the regular flu.
People keep saying that every time a disease appears, the government makes a big deal and gets people to take precautions and then the disease doesn't do anything. The reason it doesn't do anything is BECAUSE THEY TOOK PRECAUTIONS.
It's like building a wall around a city to deter raiders. You build the wall, and then raiders don't attack you. People keep acting like we shouldn't have bothered to build the wall because the raiders don't attack, when THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF BUILDING THE DAMN WALL. The raiders WOULD be attacking if we DIDN'T build the wall, but because we built the wall FIRST, the raiders DON'T ATTACK.
Sorry but I don't think this is gonna get through to him. Not for lack of trying. He's just willfully ignorant and arrogant. A very huge hurdle for anyone who's trying to convince someone as such to overcome. The best thing to do with him is to just let him drive off the cliff so he can realize he fucked up, if he will even allow himself to realize it is the question.
I love watching these videos so much, and I can't realize why. It's like a constant back and forth bickering between people online that no one in the so called real world has ever heard of, about obscure things yet it's so addicting.
Simple reason, he *will* not listen. Not that he can not listen. He *will* not. His target audience is *not* Atheists or Agnostics. He knows they have decent BS detectors. He is aiming his drivel at OTHER THEISTS. He is a cheerleader for Tru Believers.
The only reason they jump on the Ida thing is because they are desperate for anything they percieve as a weakness, while not grasping the fact that this is actually a strength: That we can identify and correct mistakes, whereas creationism is built exclusively upon mistakes which are protected.
my first comment didn't get through, making the second part non sensical. thats anoying :D
basicly, is this the same fossel that some atribute to the "giant ground sloth"? either way, other then sloths being part of the relevent family, or so they thought at the time, how did they take a limb bone and conclude that this animal that is clearly disigned to live on the ground is a larger verson of an spiecies that almost be definition is disigned to live almost exlusively in trees?
I just have to say it. Brock is a stupid cunt. He's obnoxious, willfully ignorant, and arrogant. He is a venomfangx clone. Divorced from reality and believes he is absolutely right about everything. The only productive way to argue with that stupid cunt is to just punch him in the mouth. Every possible avenue of rationality and evidence has been exhausted and he's still desperately clinging to his quaint apologetics.
What do you expect? Creationism is based on disinformation.
Anecdotally, I have never spoken with a Creationist who knows even the basics of evolution which is easily obtainable. All I hear is "evolution says life came from a puddle of mud, why are there monkeys today?" Then comes the conspiracy theory about an evil atheist cover up to blow up the world.
Please tell me you don't ACTUALLY think Brock doesn't understand this? Brock doesn't understand this in the same sense that someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn bridge actually believes he owns it.
The Hitler diaries scandal was in 1983 and it was NOT made up by scientists, but by an overzealous reporter of a German weekly magazine. There's a hilarous movie about it called "Schtonk!"
You attack people who live by faith, yet you live on faith that the scientists that publish their opinions are fact, when indeed they are opinion. If you bothered to research Darwin, and compare that with the standard findings of paleontologists, you would discover that what Darwin expected to find has not been discovered. Half one species, half the other. He expected there to be many discovered, when in fact there are none. Plus, intelligent design is overwhelming at a microscopic level.....
We do not have faith in evidence. To believe something on faith is by little or no evidence. I do not believe in gravity by faith.
Hundreds of in between fossils have been found.
Intelligent design is not scientific. It makes no predictions and no tests. The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's. Everything claimed to be irreducibly complex by ID has already been debunked many times.
We, or at least not I, have "faith" in scientists, but rather TRUST the scientific method as a means to obtain knowledge - and so because the overwhelming amounts of results it has produced show that it works.
And the rest of what you said is, to put it bluntly, wrong, and you are full of shit.
"yet you live on faith that the scientists that publish their opinions are fact"
the mainstream media is one thing, but in actual, peer reviewed science, you cannot just publish whatever you want.
also, when are creationists going to get the fact that evolution does not begin or end with Darwin and that this "half one species, half the other" business is BS! only creationists think that's what science is looking for.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why do you think Dr. Flew changed his mind about intelligent design after all those years of being a championed atheist debater and lecturer? Something so compelling as to cause a person to change their mind after such an illustrious career (same as C.S. Lewis) must at least be considered...The point is this. Fossils are evidence. Evidence of animals that died. Not evidence of anything else other than just a single dead body. DNA doesn't change per species. Fish that "partially leave water" die
Fossils and taxonomy show general lineage and the species-to-species transition. Such as animals with birds and teeth, reptiles with hair, etc. We do not jut find one single fossil per group, but thousands.
//DNA doesn't change per species//
Have you ever heard of genetic drift? seriously, do you do any research?
Why Flew changed his mind? Easy. He's senile and was exploited by dishonest fucktard evangelicals who were so into making money that they wrote a book for him and published it in his name. Richard Carrier has written a lot about this sick propaganda stunt. Fact is, Flew wasn't even able to remember what the book contained.
"So compelling" indeed...
Not that it matters what Flew thinks. Even if he changed his mind without brain damage, it would just show that he was an idiot.
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Interesting how Tooltime can't even avoid admitting how similar Evolutionary Science is to religion and how it's high priest argue over it's doctrine...2:40
Every so called "find" from Lucy, Ida to Ardi doesn't fill in the gaps, but only creates a new denomination of the Atheistic faith.
Furthermore each new find only furthers the collective knowledge of the scientific community, it does not create new splinter cells. Indeed there are disagreements, but each disagreement is backed with evidence, that little thing that separates reality from fantasy, and Science from religion.
You can argue about scripture, but ultimately it has no bearing on anything factual and real. Science only deals with the factual and real.
Ok, it's not "faith". There is no such thing as the "Atheist faith". It just so happens that many Atheists excepts evolution as sound science. The comparison is simply that . . . a comparison. While both science and theology are both analytical, I don't see theology as anywhere near the same category as biology or anthropology.
Interesting how Sablechicken can't find a greater insult to Atheism than branding it with the trademark of her own ignorance "faith".
It's the pattern of the phylogenetic tree that's the evidence for evolution Sable, one does not expect to form a continuous series of fossils. However, all the fossils you mention do flesh out the tree of life and make the theory of evolution more solid. Also note how it's actual evidence these things lived - you can't even demonstrate that Jesus was real.
by your lights EVERY discipline in which scholars and researchers have disagreements is a religion. you clearly have no idea how science or academia of any sort works.
and I love when the religious use the word religion as a pejorative.
I have learned not to argue over religion no more, because you eill never be able to talk to a fanatic in a normal way and even if it is not a fanatical, many people have not expanded their minds yet and they just dont get you point of view.
I have learned to stay quiet and only talk when someobdy messes with me.
when i was 16 i loved arguing with christians, now that i've had a discussion about everything possible concerning christianity i don't really find it so interesting. i know i'm right, it's really hard to lose a debate from a christian.. ;)
i also found looking for a discussion point with christians doesn't make you a likable person.
wow, fascinating to see how i've changed in only 2 years xD
i used to be religious........then i took an arrow to the knee.
TransformersMH 1 month ago
@TransformersMH Was the arrow from Cupid?
meaninter03 1 month ago
ahahah i loved the plucky creationist impersonation
MNSDaz 1 year ago
EVOLUTION = HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
_
Religious faggots hate evolution.
_
Monogamy is a meme of religious tyranny.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution lol, looks like you havent evolved from a cave man. you still look the same.
kevdaskater 1 year ago
As a matter of fact, there is disagreement in all aspects of evolution, and it is not publicized. The lemur was corrected, because it was a flat lie. But, there is plenty of points made by others scientific in regards with all the "basis" of evolution.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
@agfigueroaa Scientists debate the details of evolutionary theory, not evolution itself. They debate the individual mechanisms that cause it to happen, not the the main concept: that lifeforms change slowly from one form to another. This has already been shown to be true, and we have a very good clue as to how, but we haven`t figured out every last thing about what causes changes.
shrikechan 1 year ago
@shrikechan "Scientists debate the details of evolutionary theory, not evolution itself."
I agree. I mean the trend is that one. However, if they start re-thinking the theory, as normally scientist end-up doing, they will find out what I, and others scientists, say.
agfigueroaa 1 year ago
damn i was trying to do something funny (i believe in evolution)
Lallapalalable 1 year ago
Evilution is just a theory HURR DURR!
Lallapalalable 1 year ago
ooops, you corrected yourself
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
it said cat sized, not cat like
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
wooooooo dayquil
aglewi41 2 years ago
many creationists are just stupid.
Deagra940 2 years ago 17
not stupid. just ignorant.
aglewi41 2 years ago 2
and the rest are just dishonest.
mortensjoegren 2 years ago
Wow it sounds like you need to research the vaccinations!
truthbeknowen 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Welcome to science 101 where you get credit for ad hominem attacks, as this is the full extent to which today's "scientists," can claim any certainty (i.e., the latest and most creative slur).
TheRealDeathToLies 2 years ago
Your a good dude. We reason. They spread propaganda. When we reason for the truth. They attack as fast as they can.
abbasmith123 2 years ago 2
I always find it funny how Christian apologists like Brock, love to harp on and on about a particular disagreement among scientists about some aspect of evolution, as some sort of "EVIDENCE" that this nullifies the truth of evolution, and yet when atheists highlight the multitude of disagreements that Christians have about the "perfect" word of the creator they don't see this as invalidating the truth of Christianity. Talk about being inconsistent.
alphacause 2 years ago 3
3:38 - 3:41
Greatest voice ever.
jpmgmpj 2 years ago
some people are dumb like monkeys
asskirk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It was not a disagreement. The scientists know that it can't be possible, they just don't want to accept that intelligent design had to have happened. Whats all this crap about monkeys evolving into a totally new species. If they did turn into humans, why are there still monkeys today?
jeffbass999 2 years ago
is thaqt a serious question? are you actualy that ignorant to what science actually says? for the record, NO ONE saying that humans evolved from monkeys!!!!! what science ACTAULLY says is that humans and chimps shared a ancestor in the distant past and that humans are a type of primate.
tooltime9901 2 years ago 20
@tooltime9901 I never got this argument. While human's most recent common ancestor with monkeys would not be identical to any modern monkeys, it would be a primate with grabby feet and a tail. If it's not a monkey, wouldn't that make monkeys paraphyletic?
AceOfSevens 1 year ago
@AceOfSevens Do you consider current "monkeys" as having descended from humans? Why not? It's the same argument. Are you just fixated on "grabby feet" while ignoring all other data? It basically comes down to how you define "monkey" and not thinking about humans as primates, despite the fact that we are.
rrpostalagain 1 year ago
@AceOfSevens Yes you are correct, what tooltime should have said is that we didn't evolve from the kind of monkeys that exist today. We ARE monkeys, and our ancestors were monkeys too. But when someone says "monkey" they are usually thinking of the kind you would see caged up in a zoo, and it is true that we did not evolve from those.
lIThorIl 1 year ago
@tooltime9901 Does not matter the point is they will jump at anything that could be interpreted to be the missing link then when they are caught they fall back to oh we do not need Ida evolution is a fact and we have sufficient proof. I accept micro evolution just not macro evolution.
glendaweil 1 year ago
@tooltime9901 what is thaqt?
jeffbass999 1 month ago
@jeffbass999 internet logic; cannot respond to a intelligent rebuttal, make fun of his grammar.
TheSameDamnGuy 4 weeks ago in playlist Peter Contra TheAtheistAntidote
hey jeff... chough... sorry... arhghem... hahahahahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!
"why are ther still monkeys today?"
hahahahahahhahaha!
omg! omg! so funny!
I think you need some serious studying in evolution. :P
when one race evolves, it doesn't mean that the earlier version of the race has to go extinct.
evolution doesn't say that we evolved directly from apes. apes evolved to one species, and that species evolved to another etc. this happens very... VERY slowly!
HemsefromdesreveR 2 years ago
"If they did turn into humans, why are there still monkeys today? "
Sigh....Humans and modern apes share a common ancestor. "Monkeys" didn't magically "turn" into humans.
Get a science book and a clue.
siefertma 2 years ago
Why are there still monkeys today? Really? That's your question? You're telling me that the most brilliant Scientists in the world today would realize that we didn't come from "monkeys", if they had simply asked that question? Wow! I'm looking forward to your PEER REVIEWED paper that will change the theory of Evolution as we know it. HEADLINE: Evolution shattered!! You-tuber asked..."Why are there still monkeys?"
Jeez...you people.
evolutionist101 2 years ago
@evolutionist101 HAHA YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE "PLANET OF THE APES" COULD BE BASED ON A TRUE STORY AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
like a peer reviewed paper means shit to someone with a brain hahahahah
GET UR DAMN PAWS OFF OF ME U DAMN DIRTY APE HAHAHAHAHAHA
ok, i'll at least ask, could the Planet of the Apes movie actually happen one day millions of years from now?? Meaning, descendants of primates become more like us, ha ha ha ha? oh god, i mean oh BANG, if u say no that is pure hypocrisy
CommentsKing 2 years ago
Could you define hypocrisy? I'm not positive you know what it means. Or at least, explain what point you're trying to make.
Peer reviewed papers are reviewed by people with a brain. Actually, a lot of people with a lot more brain power than your mid 50's IQ can generate. Make fun of the "BaNG" all you want. A creationist basically came up with the idea. It actually is the best "evidence" you have. It's a fact the Universe can be traced to a singularity. Like it, or not.
evolutionist101 2 years ago
@evolutionist101 wow i'm amazed, a nerd dodges the question, HOW DID I GUESS THIS WAS GONNA HAPPEN, hahahaha YO U PEOPLE CRACK ME UP ALL THE TIME, I LOVE FUCKIN WIT U APES, only a fuckin nerd would bring an IQ into any discussion, hahahahaha that's pathetic, what does your IQ amount to when ur dead??? hahahah u actually think ur something, hahahaha, who gives a fuck who or what came up wit the idea of the BIG BANG? watch how u'll dodge this question.... AND WHAT IS THAT SINGULARITY???
CommentsKing 2 years ago
We think there was a big bang because every f'n telescope aimed at the sky tells us everything in the universe is flying outward from a starting point. Plus, we know roughly when that happened by measuring the rate of that expansion, and measuring the background cosmic radiation left over from that event.
... and peer reviewed papers mean something because they're fact checked by people who know what the hell they're talking about... a group that obviously doesn't include you.
Tigranis 2 years ago
@Tigranis
HOW MANY SCIENTISTS HAVE U SPOKEN TO OR MET OR KNOW THAT IS AMONG THESE PEER REVIEWS??
PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION, I WANT U TO
CommentsKing 2 years ago
I know their credentials, and I've read their stuff. They're a lot more reasonable (and interesting) than your badly structured comments, Mr. ALLCAPSKING.
Bestiality is when a human has sex with a non-human. Whether humans are animals or not doesn't really matter for the term to be meaningful.
If you're too dumb and lazy to actually look around and answer your own questions when all the info you need is out there and available, why should I indulge you? What a waste of time.
Tigranis 2 years ago
@Tigranis so ur dumb ass agrees there's no difference between a horse having sex with a donkey and you having sex with a monkey?
EXPERIENCE THE HYPOCRISY
stupid bitch, it has everything to do with ur foolish belief
CommentsKing 2 years ago
How can I say that when I said the exact opposite of that?
Bestiality = human having sex with non human. We're intelligent animals, they aren't... that's the difference.
Horse (non-human) + Donkey (non-human) ≠ beastiality.
Monkey (non-human) + Donkey (non-human) ≠ beastiality.
Monkey (non-human) + Horse (non-human) ≠ beastiality.
Human (human) + any of the above = ... you guessed it, beastiality!
Idiot.
Tigranis 2 years ago
@Tigranis
when did i say a monkey and a donkey = beastiality??? DON'T PUT FUCKIN WORDS IN MY MOUTH
HUMAN = AN ANIMAL U SAY
SO IT'S (beastiality) JUST A FUCKIN ANIMAL HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER ANIMAL, STOP BEING A PUSSY AND JUST FACE IT
A LESSON IN COMMON SENSE:
THESE HAVING SEX....
HUMAN + MONKEY = ANIMAL + ANIMAL
HORSE + DONKEY = ANIMAL + ANIMAL
u stupid fuckin ape, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, look how intelligent u are not to see that
CommentsKing 2 years ago
@CommentsKing
now back to the original question, does beastiality exist? or is it the same thing as a horse and a donkey having sex?
dumb ass fuckin niggers
CommentsKing 2 years ago
I would say that, yes.
Though it doesnt mean that humans isnt an animal. Bestialy is a human invention. And the fact that we didn't know we were animals from the beginning is a base for this. Today it means that a human have sex with a non-human (other animal)
peronkop 2 years ago
... and you can't tell the difference between "=" and "≠", or you'd notice I don't say that. XD
Bestiality exists, and is defined as a human having sex with a non-human. Being a human and being an animal is not mutually exclusive. If humans aren't animals, given the scientific definition of animal, we'd have to be fungus, plants, or some other non-animal.
... and that's all the time I'll waste on a troll. ^^
Tigranis 2 years ago
@Tigranis
hahah u lost
Beastiality would ONLY exist if man wasn't an animal
THE KING OF COMMENTS DEFEATS TIGRANIS
CURRENT RECORD: 17-0
CommentsKing 2 years ago
Again, I ask... if we aren't animals, are we...
1) Plants?
2) Fungi?
3) Protozoa?
4) Prokaryotes?
... if we're not animals, we've gotta be one of those four. Which is it, Mr. King?
As for bestiality, we obviously have different definitions for what the word means, and thus can't agree on what it constitutes. Argument, therefore, is meaningless.
Tigranis 2 years ago
Fucktard, interpecies sex is interspecies sex, no matter the species. Humans aren't special okay? We're just animals like every other species. You might as well be saying monkeys are primates with tails and all these other anomals aren't and that's the difference. Do you really think that just because we're 'intelligent' makes us superior or seperate or above them or something?
COUGHmcCOUGH 2 years ago 6
Could you please ask a coherent question?
"What is that singularity?" It think you were trying to ask what WAS the singularity. With all the available information on the internet...and you still don't know...my definition won't matter.
A question YOU dodged. Define hypocrisy. Then give an example of how I was a hypocrite. I'm sure you will.
evolutionist101 2 years ago
@evolutionist101 u can't even follow simple logic, NOW WONDER YOU BELIEVE UR APES
CommentsKing 2 years ago
What do you mean..."I believe in my Apes?"
Apes exist...they are real. Your magic daddy in the sky however.....no evidence. Would love to see it...what is it?
evolutionist101 2 years ago
@evolutionist101
oh my BANG, ur so dumb!!!!!!!!! i'm gonna have so much fun toying with u
HEY MR. EVOLUTIONIST I'LL MAKE U LOOK DUMB NOW, READY????
PROVE TO ME BEASTIALITY EXISTS SINCE EVOLUTION IS TRUE
CommentsKing 2 years ago
Please ask a coherent question. Please explain what link beastiality and evolution you are trying to make.
Explain how I look dumb. You're the one asking incoherent questions. Your ignorance to what evolution explains, the development of complexity in nature, drives your EVEN MORE, ignorant questions. If you're going to ask questions....define what you believe evolution is. Then we can determine what your "knowledge" of the subject is.
Otherwise, you're just going to continue to look stupid.
evolutionist101 2 years ago
@evolutionist101
wow ur done. u really don't get it???
you people believe ur animals. now does beastiality exist? HOW DUMB DO U HAVE TO BE NOT TO GET THIS SIMPLE QUESTION?
CommentsKing 2 years ago
Give me your definition of beastiality.
Define Hypocrisy.
Demonstrate your claim that I'm a hypocrite.
As for being animals...we all are a part of the animal kingdom. If you're suggesting that since I believe we're animals, then that means bestiality can't exist. If that is your argument, then I over-estimated your mid 50's IQ. The sexual act of a Human animal, with a non-human animal is beastiality. Next ignorant Q?
Now...I will answer no more questions until you grow a pair and answer mine.
evolutionist101 2 years ago
"The sexual act of a Human animal, with a non-human animal is beastiality."
=
HYPOCRISY
what is the sexual act between a lion and tiger called? hahahahah
animal A has sex with animal B = beastiality???
are you fuckin serious u fuckin hypocrite?
u claim humans are animals, so if a human has sex with ANIMAL B, that's beastiality, CORRECT
so tell me... why the fuck would any other animal substituting the human having sex with another animal not be the same thing??? u fuckin hypocrite
CommentsKing 2 years ago
@CommentsKing
TO U, A HUMAN HAVING SEX WITH AN ANIMAL IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ANIMAL HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER ANIMAL
PATHETIC
CommentsKing 2 years ago
I need your definition of hypocrisy. You don't even understand the definition. What exactly have I claimed to show hypocrisy? Beastiality is a term humans came up with to describe Human animals having sex with other non-human animals. Non-humans R not bound by it, Again, I say...we created the word to describe it. Lions and tigers can reproduce with one another. Therefore, they are the SAME species. It would NOT be beastiality. You're a complete moron. You have no idea WTF you're talking about.
evolutionist101 2 years ago
I really wish stupidity was painful. You wouldn't even be able to roll out of bed.
evolutionist101 2 years ago
Oh and BTW. I never said animals having sex with other animals is NOT beastiality. We HUMANS only have a term for what WE do. Please indicate where I suggested such a thing.
Here's the rule...if you can't...you must slit your wrists. and please...NEVER reproduce.
evolutionist101 2 years ago
@jeffbass999 This question is like asking "What's all this crap about a dog evolving into a poodle?" Humans are a subset of apes and apes are a subset of monkeys, all of which are primates. To quote AronRa, "Do you understand that all ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks? A human is a monkey in the same way a duck is a bird and for the same reason."
BiggestOfDaddies 1 year ago
@jeffbass999 "If they did turn into humans, why are there still monkeys today?"
If America came from Great Britian, why is there still Great Britian?
If Chrsitianity came from Jewdism, why are there still Jews?
If houses are built out of wood, why is there still wood?
If inventions come from ideas, why are there still ideas?
If light came from the sun, why is there still the sun?
If English came from German, why is there still German?
Your idea is almost self refuting.
DragonGreenFire 1 year ago 3
@DragonGreenFire wow you really thought I meant what I said... It was partially a joke just pointing out how there are similarities between humans and apes but we didn't come from them... we were created the way we are
jeffbass999 1 year ago
@jeffbass999 you're a disgrace.
DerrenBrown100 1 month ago
@jeffbass999
Extinction and evolution are usually mutually exclusive terms. When a species evolves it doesn't mean something should go extinct. Extinction occurs when a species is unable to adapt to a negetive stimuli, such as deseise, enviornmenta/geographical changes, or a new predetor that does too well against the threatened species.
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
Over zealous evolutionist.... na, how could this be?? Please don't tell me piltdown man is phony also. All sarcasm aside I believe ultimately whether it takes many years for real science to expose this bullshit, it finally does happen. The same thing happened when so called junk dna was supposed to be infallible proof that these non coding regions were evolutionary useless remnants. Scientist finally destroyed that BS also, and now the modern synthesis is being revised by the Altenberg 16.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Big chief tooltime. Kickin ass and making medicine out of lizards.
SolidSnakeRules 2 years ago
it just now occurred to me that atheist videos are greatly better rated and have many more views than christian videos. coincidence, i think not.
sunkistman1 2 years ago 2
Tooltime, how can you even talk about science where there is PLENTY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports 9/11 being an inside job.
People don't have to get the vaccine but if you can afford it and have the medical to do so. Get it done. I don't have the medical to do it and I came down with it. Got sick for a good month then it finally went away.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
What evidence is there that supports the WTC tower's collapse was an inside job?
PissedOffAtheist 2 years ago
there's as much evidence for the inside job as there is for the sasquatch and the chupacabra
ec5 2 years ago
yes let's ignore the cut support beams, and Bush commenting on the first plane even though the footage did not surface until the next day.
metalsaw666 2 years ago
the support beams were cut AFTERWARDS to CLEAR THE RUBBLE.
ec5 2 years ago
they werent cut after words dude. The link is to support the claim that 9/11 was an inside job. If you can't understand any of the information in the video then I guess you have never achieved anything higher then a highschool education. I'm at a loss in trying to show you the other side.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
you know where your conspiracies are? on the same shelf as astrology, alien abductions, the illuminati and creationism. irrational bullshit.
ec5 2 years ago
Ok, I can tell you haven't even bothered to try and see the evidence on the video. I'm not a conspiracy kind of guy, for 4 years I believe the the blame laid only to Al Queda but now I see a more solid story that includes both parties. Tower 7 is what threw me off the most. I don't believe in any of the other things u have said. You would change your mind if AronRa back this. Think i'll pop him an email.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
I know about the evidence, the fact is that it's all bullshit, like the evidence for the loch ness monster or intelligent design. And I definitely won't change my mind unless I find indisputible evidence pointing to a conspiracy :)
ec5 2 years ago
soo none of that phased u at all? Termite doesn't ring any bells? The test done to confirm how the buildings fell doesn't mean anything to you? You are just plain fucking stupid.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
No,anyone with an ounce of common sense doesn't swallow that kind of bullshit. I'm afraid you are the one lacking anything here :)
ec5 2 years ago
Such a troll you are. I'm focusing on how the towers fell. The planes cannot knock down a building the way it had happened. Are you really that stupid enough to believe fire did it?
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
Are you dumb enough to believe that the US government was able to transport hundreds of tons of explosives through one of the busiest cities in the world, and place them into 2 landmark buildings in manhattan, without anyone noticing any of the process? Maybe they had a teleportation device, or maybe the shapeshifting reptilians helped them with invisibility cloaks. Are you stupid enough to swallow conspiracy hogwash? I'm afraid the answer is YES.
ec5 2 years ago
It wouldn't take a lot of explosives to do it and there is plenty of time to get that done. I already told you faggot that I don't believe in the secondary bullshit that you have mentioned. The buildings shouldn't have fallen upon themselves at free fall speed. Fire doesn't do that. The entire structure would have had to been weakened for that to happen. Apply some fucking logic to it dude. I found nothing of what u said about cutting the beams after it fell. your full of it.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
True, I forgot the aliens provided more advanced explosives. Maybe only a kilo of it would have sufficed ! I'm convinced !
ec5 2 years ago
1. Ever seen a controlled demolition? You would need TONS of explosives and they would have been placed all over the building, and would have generated a tremendous sounds before the collapse, which weren't heard ! LOL 2. Correct, fire didn't make the towers fall to the ground, gravity did. 3. Perimeter columns, other solid debris, and dust were all falling down faster than the building itself, which disproves the free fall myth.
ec5 2 years ago
learn about gravity, thermodynamics, building structure and get some fucking common sense and skepticism.
ec5 2 years ago
I should be telling you the same.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
i don't believ in conspiracies. i believe in profit, and people will do anything for it.
metalsaw666 2 years ago
that' not evidence of a US involvment
ec5 2 years ago
how is that even valid statement dude? Serious.... Want links? Do you seriously want me to link you up or are you going to be an ignorant fag and not bother to research your shit? Fuck you.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
are you going to send me a link to loose change? you pathetic moronic crackpot.
ec5 2 years ago
Actually, I think there is more evidence for sasquatch and chupacabra than there is for the 9/11 conspiracy horseshit.
There are always crackpots spewing conspiracy theories. The moon landing nuts. The birthers. The 9/11 conspiracy. No shortage of lunacy in this world.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
Well said. Get well tooltime. I'd go watch the brock vid. But I just can't stomach that guy. Glad folks like you have stronger constitutions. Or maybe you're sick from over exposure. You're going to have to pace yourself. ;)
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
Well said. Get well tooltime.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
shave.........
lugiatrain3r 2 years ago
So either way the Scientists were right.
soulf2 2 years ago
Also your video would have a lot more credibility if you did not whitewash the fact that this fossil was nursed and sat upon strategically for years. The media engine behind it was multifaceted and heavily financed.
THis was not some simple mistake that science then corrected. THis was a mindful attempt to mislead people with the clear intention of duplicity.
That you act as if these people are the exception to this new breed of intellectually inbred materialists is laughable.
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
rant rant rant a wizard did it. etc etc
Samakain 2 years ago
Then surely you can provide evidence that the scientists who examined the fossil were, in fact, attempting to deceive people?
The media circus who trumped up its importance and said it was the "LAST MISSING LINK OF MANKIND" when it was only thought to be an early primate (the link between lemurs and other primates) was being retarded, but they're the media, so that's kind of their job. The scientists who examined it, though? Innocent until proven guilty, mate.
KriimIanga 2 years ago
Inbred materialists? Your hubris knows no bounds. Get over yourself, Brock.
underpantssquirrel 2 years ago
lol i thought this dude was satire. untill know i get he is for real. lol
eurabio 2 years ago
"THis was not some simple mistake that science then corrected. THis was a mindful attempt to mislead people with the clear intention of duplicity."
ASSUMING that it was a "mindful attempt to mislead", science exposed the "conclusion" as false. Isn't that amazing?
If you are right on it being deliberate, then science, on its own, survived and exposed an incorrect view. Score 2 for science.
onijester56 2 years ago 2
Tooltime this is a good video although we disagree. I don't have problem with science. I do believe in Evolution. You are firing your weapons at a Cardboard Village.
However, if I understand you correctly, your arching point (8:06) is that even if their are bad apples and frauds we should not be quick to dismiss the larger theme.
I ask you tooltime, are you and the new atheist movement not doing this very thing to the Christian faith? Are you not able to see this Irony?
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
"I ask you tooltime, are you and the new atheist movement not doing this very thing to the Christian faith? Are you not able to see this Irony?"
i think that's a fair question that deserves a fair answer. look for a video soon.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
If you believe in evolution, why do you try to "debunk" it by saying things like "Darwin was a racist" or come up with "Frauds"?
As for the Christian faith, it has more than bad apples. Its whole belief system is THE bad apple. It has caused the inquisition, Salem witch trials, the crusades, and even today it is still causing violence.
Evolution and atheism have nothing of the sort. Thre have only been atheists who have done horrible things, but never in the name of Atheism.
underpantssquirrel 2 years ago
Yeah, Brock, all that time you spend talking about how evolutionists are stupid and wrong really shows you have a "belief" in evolution.
You lie.
Tyrtamus 2 years ago
I like his videos man, but i hate the way he fucking looks. Looks like a god damn monkey man. This fucker is the missing link. Got a face that pisses me off. Don't know why.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
God did it. Now stop.
deathxninja 2 years ago
No, natural selection did it. You stop.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
@TheAtheistAntidote Do you realize that the only reason why frauds like this Ida get started is because they aren`t peer-reviewed? Are you aware that no qualified authority ever said this fossil was a link to humans? Do you know that it was identified quickly as a member of a long-extinct family? The people who recognized Ida as fake also accept evolution as a fact. The thing is, we already have found examples of links. But for some reason the only thing people care about are the frauds.
shrikechan 1 year ago
theres a replica of a fossil in a museum? jesus christ thats boring
raptoresque 2 years ago
I think you are wasting your time on TheAtheistAntidote. There is so much he doesn't understand.
thepoet82 2 years ago
omg you had swine flu!? OMG YOU SHOULD BE dead! Its the Virus of Death, like the black plague or cholera
WKaliberr 2 years ago
im pretty sure its easily cureable
raptoresque 2 years ago
i was being sarcastic
WKaliberr 2 years ago
i know lol
raptoresque 2 years ago
@ 3:38 were you channeling jesusophile? (DayQuil related ?)
SaintCog 2 years ago
Comment removed
JoakimfromAnka 2 years ago
this guy could not be more thorough and clear about his ideas!
EvilFluff85 2 years ago
Something that the anti-science god botherer brigade seem to be unable to understand is that science is BASED on proving proposals to be incorrect. Religion clings to it error packed mythology in spite of contradictory evidence. Science moves on. Every time a scientific theory is proven wrong, that is a success for science because it expands our knowledge of the Universe we inhabit.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago 3
Well done TT.
ReverendAtomSmasher 2 years ago
Tool you shouldn't get vaccinated. Have you ever looked at what they put in there? Do you think the corporations care if there are undesired side effects sometimes? Think about that. The flu is not that dangerous. It's not worth the risk of coming down with something you didn't count on as a result. My own grandmother got deathly ill one year from her yearly flu shot. The guy your arguing with has a few screws loose but you shouldn't take vaccines unless it's mandatory. Aids = YES!! flu=not me.
Satanicallyfree 2 years ago
You realize what the actual threat is from H1N1, right? As H1N1 stands, it's about as dangerous as the seasonal flu, BUT it's about 5x more infectious. It infects people VERY easily. Viruses evolve VERY quickly. If H1N1 were to evolve and become more dangerous, it would still infect at top speed and cut a swath through the population. The whole point of getting the vaccine is to reduce the number of people it can infect, to slow it down so it's less likely to become deadly.
KriimIanga 2 years ago
If it became deadly I agree not getting one would just be stupid. The regular flu has been around for a long time and is no threat. Only to old people and very young children.
Satanicallyfree 2 years ago
The point Satanic is that A. The ingredients (as many people have explained) are not dangerous in these quantities despite how scary they look. and B. You're not just getting the vaccination to protect yourself. It is your duty to those old people and young women (and people with weak immune systems) to take the vaccination. Because you are not just protecting yourself, you are decreasing their chances of coming into contact with it, you are helping safeguard the lives of others.
KonijNx2 2 years ago
No, no, you don't get it. The point is not to wait until it's dangerous and THEN do something about it. The point is to nip it in the bud NOW, BEFORE it becomes deadly. The whole point is that this ISN'T the regular flu.
People keep saying that every time a disease appears, the government makes a big deal and gets people to take precautions and then the disease doesn't do anything. The reason it doesn't do anything is BECAUSE THEY TOOK PRECAUTIONS.
KriimIanga 2 years ago 2
It's like building a wall around a city to deter raiders. You build the wall, and then raiders don't attack you. People keep acting like we shouldn't have bothered to build the wall because the raiders don't attack, when THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF BUILDING THE DAMN WALL. The raiders WOULD be attacking if we DIDN'T build the wall, but because we built the wall FIRST, the raiders DON'T ATTACK.
KriimIanga 2 years ago 2
Kriimlanga, i hear ya man.
THEoldy 2 years ago
Sorry but I don't think this is gonna get through to him. Not for lack of trying. He's just willfully ignorant and arrogant. A very huge hurdle for anyone who's trying to convince someone as such to overcome. The best thing to do with him is to just let him drive off the cliff so he can realize he fucked up, if he will even allow himself to realize it is the question.
christopher81818 2 years ago
i dont agree that natural selection and creationism are mutually exclusive.
ScrapGoldBass 2 years ago
alos, i love how atheists will actually own up to failings in their beliefs, when christians only cover theirs up or lie. mmhm. favorite this video.
JIMMYguitar07 2 years ago
THE FLU OF DOOOOOOOOM!
JIMMYguitar07 2 years ago
I love watching these videos so much, and I can't realize why. It's like a constant back and forth bickering between people online that no one in the so called real world has ever heard of, about obscure things yet it's so addicting.
metabog 2 years ago
metabog-totaly agree youtube is so addicting!
ScrapGoldBass 2 years ago
A lot of the "mistakes" he mentioned weren't even done by scientists anyway.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
You. Can. Not. Convince. Brock.
Simple reason, he *will* not listen. Not that he can not listen. He *will* not. His target audience is *not* Atheists or Agnostics. He knows they have decent BS detectors. He is aiming his drivel at OTHER THEISTS. He is a cheerleader for Tru Believers.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago 2
falls nights, halloween, sexy costumes and whips.. guess what my boyfriend is excited for?
jennbootz349 2 years ago
The only reason they jump on the Ida thing is because they are desperate for anything they percieve as a weakness, while not grasping the fact that this is actually a strength: That we can identify and correct mistakes, whereas creationism is built exclusively upon mistakes which are protected.
Staunts 2 years ago
my first comment didn't get through, making the second part non sensical. thats anoying :D
basicly, is this the same fossel that some atribute to the "giant ground sloth"? either way, other then sloths being part of the relevent family, or so they thought at the time, how did they take a limb bone and conclude that this animal that is clearly disigned to live on the ground is a larger verson of an spiecies that almost be definition is disigned to live almost exlusively in trees?
fyphfoko 2 years ago
wouldn't an anteater have been a safer bet?
fyphfoko 2 years ago
Great video, I failed to notice any DayQuil effects.
hermanoarnoldo 2 years ago
I just have to say it. Brock is a stupid cunt. He's obnoxious, willfully ignorant, and arrogant. He is a venomfangx clone. Divorced from reality and believes he is absolutely right about everything. The only productive way to argue with that stupid cunt is to just punch him in the mouth. Every possible avenue of rationality and evidence has been exhausted and he's still desperately clinging to his quaint apologetics.
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
that comment is full of WIN!
jethr088 2 years ago
Good speach man, and yes, Geerup is an idiot, Chrsitianity leads many people to things we may have never tought before.
It is because doctrines of fear are just perfect to control human beings and confuse them.
GloveMC 2 years ago
if they picked on ant eaters, they could at least say that their were giant ants or something, or called them prestoric rat eaters
bothered me for a while that
fyphfoko 2 years ago
geerup was right though from the beginning. Although I don't think he meant what the scientists meant.
philateliceun 2 years ago
I've always wondered why Creationists think hoaxes disprove evolution. They don't at all!
That's like saying the Turin Shroud is a medieval fraud, therefore Jesus didn't exist. It's faulty logic!
I don't believe Jesus Christ, Son of God, did exist, but the Turin Shroud doesn't support my belief at all.
bobble12221 2 years ago
What do you expect? Creationism is based on disinformation.
Anecdotally, I have never spoken with a Creationist who knows even the basics of evolution which is easily obtainable. All I hear is "evolution says life came from a puddle of mud, why are there monkeys today?" Then comes the conspiracy theory about an evil atheist cover up to blow up the world.
themanwhoknew 2 years ago
your videos are quality.. i could listen to you talk all day..
Yurg24 2 years ago
Please tell me you don't ACTUALLY think Brock doesn't understand this? Brock doesn't understand this in the same sense that someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn bridge actually believes he owns it.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago 2
The Hitler diaries scandal was in 1983 and it was NOT made up by scientists, but by an overzealous reporter of a German weekly magazine. There's a hilarous movie about it called "Schtonk!"
grebrim 2 years ago
I did not say they were made up by scientists. i was making an analogy.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
You attack people who live by faith, yet you live on faith that the scientists that publish their opinions are fact, when indeed they are opinion. If you bothered to research Darwin, and compare that with the standard findings of paleontologists, you would discover that what Darwin expected to find has not been discovered. Half one species, half the other. He expected there to be many discovered, when in fact there are none. Plus, intelligent design is overwhelming at a microscopic level.....
SpiritLedOne 2 years ago
We do not have faith in evidence. To believe something on faith is by little or no evidence. I do not believe in gravity by faith.
Hundreds of in between fossils have been found.
Intelligent design is not scientific. It makes no predictions and no tests. The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's. Everything claimed to be irreducibly complex by ID has already been debunked many times.
Feredir28 2 years ago
We, or at least not I, have "faith" in scientists, but rather TRUST the scientific method as a means to obtain knowledge - and so because the overwhelming amounts of results it has produced show that it works.
And the rest of what you said is, to put it bluntly, wrong, and you are full of shit.
DeusMortemEst 2 years ago
"yet you live on faith that the scientists that publish their opinions are fact"
the mainstream media is one thing, but in actual, peer reviewed science, you cannot just publish whatever you want.
also, when are creationists going to get the fact that evolution does not begin or end with Darwin and that this "half one species, half the other" business is BS! only creationists think that's what science is looking for.
"Plus, intelligent design is..."
ID have been blown out of the water long ago
tooltime9901 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why do you think Dr. Flew changed his mind about intelligent design after all those years of being a championed atheist debater and lecturer? Something so compelling as to cause a person to change their mind after such an illustrious career (same as C.S. Lewis) must at least be considered...The point is this. Fossils are evidence. Evidence of animals that died. Not evidence of anything else other than just a single dead body. DNA doesn't change per species. Fish that "partially leave water" die
SpiritLedOne 2 years ago
//Fish that "partially leave water" die.//
Not always true. Ever heard of the mudskipper?
Fossils and taxonomy show general lineage and the species-to-species transition. Such as animals with birds and teeth, reptiles with hair, etc. We do not jut find one single fossil per group, but thousands.
//DNA doesn't change per species//
Have you ever heard of genetic drift? seriously, do you do any research?
Feredir28 2 years ago
Why Flew changed his mind? Easy. He's senile and was exploited by dishonest fucktard evangelicals who were so into making money that they wrote a book for him and published it in his name. Richard Carrier has written a lot about this sick propaganda stunt. Fact is, Flew wasn't even able to remember what the book contained.
"So compelling" indeed...
Not that it matters what Flew thinks. Even if he changed his mind without brain damage, it would just show that he was an idiot.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
Flew did not accept ID, he accepted the cosmological argument. get your facts straight.
"Fish that "partially leave water" die"
have you ever heard of an amphibian?
tooltime9901 2 years ago
SpiritLedOne,
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins."
-- Antony Flew in a December 2004 interview
darktango78 2 years ago
So by your admission, one atheist changing his mind represents a positive argument for your position?
Then I have to ask you, what does it represent when statistics and polls show that non-theism has been on the rise in recent years in the US?
Have you considered that?
The rest of your message merely demonstrates how little you know about biology.
I hope you also consider that.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Brock Lawley criticizing others for getting ahead of them selves , ... Gotta love it!!! : )
M0THERKN0WSBEST 2 years ago
I like your plucky young creationist voice. lol
RagingConflagration 2 years ago
Another great, informative video from you. I feel thankful.
Lars0n 2 years ago
My BIOLOGY teacher thought Ida was a link between apes and humans -_-
TwilightAronXD 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Interesting how Tooltime can't even avoid admitting how similar Evolutionary Science is to religion and how it's high priest argue over it's doctrine...2:40
Every so called "find" from Lucy, Ida to Ardi doesn't fill in the gaps, but only creates a new denomination of the Atheistic faith.
sablechicken 2 years ago
Atheistic faith is a non-sense phrase.
Furthermore each new find only furthers the collective knowledge of the scientific community, it does not create new splinter cells. Indeed there are disagreements, but each disagreement is backed with evidence, that little thing that separates reality from fantasy, and Science from religion.
You can argue about scripture, but ultimately it has no bearing on anything factual and real. Science only deals with the factual and real.
jaynkay100 2 years ago
Ok, it's not "faith". There is no such thing as the "Atheist faith". It just so happens that many Atheists excepts evolution as sound science. The comparison is simply that . . . a comparison. While both science and theology are both analytical, I don't see theology as anywhere near the same category as biology or anthropology.
Maphisto86 2 years ago
Evolution is not atheistic, many Christians accept evolution and some atheists do not accept evolution.
Evolution is not a religion. Religions include rituals and sacraments, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power. Evolution does not.
Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts: Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist.
Feredir28 2 years ago
Interesting how Sablechicken can't find a greater insult to Atheism than branding it with the trademark of her own ignorance "faith".
It's the pattern of the phylogenetic tree that's the evidence for evolution Sable, one does not expect to form a continuous series of fossils. However, all the fossils you mention do flesh out the tree of life and make the theory of evolution more solid. Also note how it's actual evidence these things lived - you can't even demonstrate that Jesus was real.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
by your lights EVERY discipline in which scholars and researchers have disagreements is a religion. you clearly have no idea how science or academia of any sort works.
and I love when the religious use the word religion as a pejorative.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
I have learned not to argue over religion no more, because you eill never be able to talk to a fanatic in a normal way and even if it is not a fanatical, many people have not expanded their minds yet and they just dont get you point of view.
I have learned to stay quiet and only talk when someobdy messes with me.
GloveMC 2 years ago
same here.
when i was 16 i loved arguing with christians, now that i've had a discussion about everything possible concerning christianity i don't really find it so interesting. i know i'm right, it's really hard to lose a debate from a christian.. ;)
i also found looking for a discussion point with christians doesn't make you a likable person.
wow, fascinating to see how i've changed in only 2 years xD
TheCakeAintNoLie 2 years ago