@mariyababu Genetics, definitely. Darwin didn't even know how traits were inherited, so when genetics was founded, that could've easily falsified evolution. It didn't; everything we know was either predicted by or 100% compatible with evolution. Probably the best successful application was the merging of chromosomes between humans and their ape ancestors; google something like "chromosome 2 merging," or look at the Wikipedia article on chromosome 2 for details.
He's an idiot and reminds me of a slick willie. You know the kind that trys to sell you a $500 car for $5000. That smile is so fake reminds me of a serial rapist. Somebody start a fund and let's send him back to school. Like a real college this time. Didn't he go to school with Kent Hovind?
The Discovery Fox News Institute.It's a match made in thier imaginary Heaven,Man I swear both there enities are completely delusional and Insane,They may be functionally Insane but they are 100% Insane.
All the commenters here are wonderfully covering all the bases.
The reason *I* cannot watch this video is that I am absolutely nauseated by CL's permanent smile that I want to burn off his face with a blowtorch. It's just one more piece of evidence that these fanatics are trained ENTIRELY to think and care ONLY about appearance and not substance (of their arguments), to the point that they actually believe a continuous non-stop smile attracts more undecided viewer to their side.
Casey Luskin also discriminates against new scientific approaches, after I sent him a 46 page scientific abstract, in which I claim it to be a mathematical proof for intelligent design?
Dear Mr. Ruiz Garcia,
Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. I reviewed your material and determined that it is outside the scope of what we do at Discovery Institute. Thanks and all the best.
Sincerely, Casey Luskin
So what should be considered to be inside the scope of what they do at Discovery Institute????
@tuseroni Lol, that is true and the world may well be a better place if this was the of rule of law. But as it goes, doing anything of this nature will likely end in a lawsuit. Freedom of speech means you have to hear things you may not want to.
I see this video is also engaging in the fraudulent "all science is a single entity" tactic. If a person rejects evolution, then he is also automatically rejecting gravity, a spherical earth, atom and germ theory, heliocentricity, etc. You might as well throw holocaust denier into the mix as well. Pretty sad.
Here an excerpt from the Wikipedia Phylogenetic Tree page "Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. They do not necessarily accurately represent the species evolutionary history." Casey Luskin is correct, the tree along with the entire theory of evolution is a complete fraud.
"they present the tree of life as if its an adulterated fact". gee you mean the way god was presented to me when i was a kid and still is to millions of children every day?
@tnafguy And yet all you do is bash this person and don't actually use any logic or reasoning to disprove what he is saying in the video.. way to fail lol
No weaknesses regarding the Holocaust or gravity are taught in school because no such weaknesses exist. Photographs, video and written accounts prove the Holocaust, a simply raising and dropping a pencil proves gravity.
The same can't be said for Darwinian evolution, which, as those of us who follow the scientific literature know, is a total train wreck. Darwinists realize this, which is why they're attempting to ban critical thinking (read: scientific thought) from the classroom.
Photographs, video and written accounts would seem to me to be evidence for the holocaust whilst the falling pencil is evidence for gravity. Similarly, the preponderance of evidence points towards evolution; there is genetic evidence, fossil evidence and reproducible examples of microevolution occurring in laboratories. Alternatives to evolution aren't taught in schools because there isn't enough reliable evidence to support them.
@ReturnOfTheJam Also, there really isn't any such thing as a Darwinist; science holds no authorities and every point made must be backed up by reason and evidence. Darwinism isn't a religious doctrine, it simply refers to the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection.
@ReturnOfTheJam True, we have learned a lot about the mechanisms of evolution in the last 150 years and some of Darwin's ideas were inaccurate, but they were pretty good for the time. No true scientist would deny that these advances be taught in schools, why would they?
...that the tree of life was being, and I quote "annihilated". ROFL!! Dude I try that shit all the time in school. Trust me, even my second rate biology professors fail me when I use a one word quote. What the article probably said was "the tree of life has virtually "annihilated" creationist arguments with boundless evidence for evolution via natural selection".
Luskin may have accomplished the impossible by proving that someone actually is stupider than Steve Doocy. They both miss the main problem. Mathematicians make up imaginary numbers all the time, but the nattering nabobs of naturalism won't let designians do the same with causation even once! Bunch of B-big Brained B-bullies . . .
Someone should send these religitards a copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins, they may learn something, or laugh and deny cause they think stupidity is so smart
My Gaydar's off the chart and Casey Luskin is certainly a homosexual, which by the way is fine, if he weren't a member of an organization that openly preaches hate against his own closeted self. Another homosexual hiding behind religious faith. Sorry Luskin, your claims to be a christian aren't enough to distract us folks with super tuned gaydar.
Last week, That supposed reporter on fox news, a major network had this to say about filing peoples DNA for the government and other authorities...."besides when they go to swab your cheek you could just put someone elses DNA in there and pass.......GENIUS I tell ya!!!!
I agree. The old saying attributed to Haeckel of, "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" was disproved a long time ago. It is still useful though as a teaching tool because: one - it sounds pretty cool and kids like it; and two, it is basically correct with some additional explanation.
What does this say about the University of California - San Diego? How did someone like this acquire a BS and MS in Earth Sciences from that school? Plus a Law Degree?
@tbdonnelly67 A law degree may prove nothing more than the student's ability to stay awake and regurgitate facts on cue. I've sat in a courtroom and watched lawyers at work who were so stupid they probably had to have help tying their shoes. Having a law degree doesn't mean you're smart.
@Largo64 That may be so, depending on the law school, I guess. All of them have to pass the bar exam, though! Every lawyer I know is a pretty smart person. My niece is one of the smartest people I know.
I personally have a BS and MS in Biology from a state university - and I worked my ass off for them! I have a colleague whose degree is from UCSD. So where did this guy come from.....?
@tbdonnelly67 Luskin may, indeed, be smart, but he's also dishonest. Either he has concentrated so much on the law that he is fairly ignorant about biology, or he does understand biology, but wishes to discredit it no matter what it takes. It is not uncommon for true believers to disregard evidence in favor of doctrines for which there is no evidence.
GC-content with cytosine deamination and gentetic isochores, the thermodynamic barrier; Fox's scheme. Greater still the non probable sequential order within the DNA/RNA, these are incalculable. Even though evo's are clambering to claim that these highly improbable events are beneficial and would advance evolution the variables alone prohibit its validity....oh, yes, sprinkle time on it and it will work, that great lifesaver for evolutionism....time, time fixes everything.
"He doesn't understand the arguments in the first place." Absolutely correct. This is why they bring up so many red herrings, off the wall comparisons, phony issues and absurd non sequiturs. I've always wondered if people like this really believe their own absurd opinions.
I love it when evolutionists can't handle the fact that they have zero proof for their theory....and saying it is like gravity, not true...gravity is observable, testable and demonstrable; evolutionism meets none of these parameters. Therefore it does not even qualify as a theory just a hypothesis and a falsifiable one at that...
First, I do not troll, I watch videos that may interest me, read the comments and sometimes respond, which, by the way is what you did...which shows that you lack self awareness, or a sense irony. 2) I don't know what a "Jebus" is? whatever non-sensical slang you are using. 3) You appear to be the troll by following me around and reading my posts...you should find something more, to use your word, "purposefully" to do with your time and diminished intelligence.
No, I'm not following you. How in the fuck can I follow you? I saw your comment and username and remembered you were a completely retarded troll whom I'd owned in an arguement before.
The difference between you beinga troll and me not being a troll is that I don't go commenting on theist and Christian videos like you do to atheistic videos. You are a troll.
You know who Jebus is. You're just playing ignorant... like when denying evolution.
First of all...you have never "owned me" as I keep records of decent discussions and have not spoken with you before...so you are delusional. I comment on any videos and comments that I find interesting or of merit. And no I do not know what you mean by "Jebus" i would not have said that I did not know if I knew. Also, evolutionism is a sad and dying religion...1 day you will discover that, & to study all sides of an argument is not a troll it is scholarly, u wouldn't know that.
Also from reading your current comments...it doesn't appear that you would have the intellectual capacity to "own" anyone...no matter how hard you tried...you might tell yourself you can so that you can sleep at night...but since ignorance is bliss..it suits you well...obviously.
Again, we have never spoken before...and never debated, it is you who lies. You act like you are some prepubescent adolescent...are you even out of middle school? If this is how you try to rationalize your evolutionary theology then you are the best kind of opponent, one who can't put two arguments together to defend their believe system... keep up the good work of making your opponents look great...nicely done.
@apathy7170- I said I was done with you and your foolishness. But I had to make this one point to show how stupid you are. There is no such thing as a "prepubescent adolescent". That's a contradiction, since adolescence doesn't begin until to start of puberty. If you can't understand that, it's no wonder you're a psuedo-science cheerleader.
I will not reply, or read, anymore of your lieing comments. It would be a waste oyour time.
You obviously could not comprehend the intent of the statement "prepubescent adolescent", with that I am unable to assist you. And by the way...stop saying that we spoke before, as that is incorrect. I am very glad that you will not respond, it is a waste of my time to speak with you...to throw pearls before swine as yourself; is useless.
Evolution does not meet the parameters of being testable, observable, or demonstrable? A statement this ignorant could only come from someone that did not know the first thing about evolution. Could you please define evolution in a biological context and prove me wrong?
I don't have to prove you wrong...you have to show evidence that it is observable, testable and demonstrable...the parameters of science. It is only ignorant to believe that evolutionism meets those requirements, the burden of proof is not on me it is on those that believe in evolutionism. I am still waiting for any evidence that is not easily falsifiable or refutable by both evolutionists and non evolutionists...so far it does not exist. The burden of proof falls to you not me.
It appears that my prediction was correct; you did not know the first thing about evolution. However, this could be that you did not understand what I was saying. The point I was making is that you did not know the first thing about evolution (the first thing being its biological definition). Until you can give me the biological definition of evolution, a discussion with you would be pointless.
If there is ignorance, it is yours. I have degrees in science from secular universities, not to mention that anyone educated in the western world grew up using evolutionary textbooks since they were in grammar school thru higher education. So, I might have some knowledge of evolution. The ignorance lies in believing that step 1, life from non life happened, then believing the incalculable odds of even one species beneficially evolving successively, not to mention, all of them.
Welcome to the club. I also have a Bachelors of Science; however, just because one has a BS does not mean they are qualified to comment on every aspect of science. Please define evolution in a biological context. Your evasion of this is quite telling, but not unexpected. In my experience, the only people that argue against evolution are the people that do not know the first thing about it, and your actions have shown that to be the case here.
I have more than a bachelors...and anyone educated in the west has studied evolution since they began public school. Explaining evolution in its biological context is a stupid question...anyone can look up an answer, you should have to define it for me...evolution involves more than just biology, it must be chemical and stellar (cosmology), not to mention Macro (which it isn't) it is merely micro or variation...the definition of biological evolution...hmm! shall I send u a link
Again, your evasion of this very simple question is quite telling, but not unexpected. Until you define evolution in a biological context, a discussion with you would be pointless.
In addition, conflating evolution with abiogenesis and cosmology also goes a long way in exposing your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.
It also seems you have a flawed definition of macro and microevolution, again not unexpected.
You cannot have evolution without biogenesis, just because evolutionism wants to start at "B" and ignore the fact that "A" cannot happen, it means that they have more faith than those that believe in an ultimate cause. To say that life came from non life is to deny known science...that is called faith and evolutionism has more of it than any other religious believe system...even though they claim it as science...it is a worldview that defines origins, which defines religion.
This is actually growing rather pathetic, so I think I will just define it for you since this is your fourth comment to me avoiding the question. Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in a population over time. From that definition, do you see how evolution does not deal with abiogenesis? It is simple really.
I might as well correct your definition of macro and microevolution now that I am here. Microevolution is change within a species whereas macroevolution is change at or above the species level. Both have been observed in the field and lab.
We both accept abiogenesis, since abiogenesis is simply the study of life coming from non-life. We cannot have continuous biogenesis because that would lead to an infinite regress, thus life had to have begun from a non-living source. A god(s) creating life falls within this definition since a god(s) is not alive based on the biological definition of the word life. Both of us accept abiogenesis, you just believe it came about from a supernatural agent and I believe it was natural agent.
@apathy7170 Yes, Evolution deals with biogenesis. Good job. What's your point? Evolution is not a theistic debate in the least.. not any more than discovery of a heliocentric universe was. You simply refuse to differentiate. The bible has many lies, and is therefore fallible, but that alone doesn't discredit the existence of a god. Your simple minded belligerence is the only obstacle in such simple understanding
Evolutionism is a theistic debate,it is a believe system on the origin of all living things...the cosmos...the universe...to say that evolution is merely "change over time" does not do the hypothesis justice or its proponents or dissidents any realistic good. Variation within the genome is limited...over .0003% change in the nucleotides usually is fatal, that is out of aprox. 3 billion nucleotides. It is not realistic, the big bang alone relies on a perfection of chance incalculable.
You couldn't even compete with the debate, so its safest for you to attempt a petty ridicule and hide behind the fact that you have nothing to say, duly noted...you are out. Sweet!
What? Creationists do not lie, the see the science from a worldview that is different than yours, therefore due to the presuppositions the outcome are dissimilar.
Science is NOT a worldview, science is the explanation of how the natural world works. That's lie number one creationists use right there. And how is donexodus a moron? He happens to be studyin to be a doctor, someone who helps people who are sick and injured. The medicine he makes use of are what people like you take for granted.
I'm sorry I was not specific enough, I did not mean that he or you were morons, only that the arguments put forth were, I should have been more specific.(although someones studies/profession have very little bearing on their intelligence or altruistic goodness). It is a worldview issue, we all use the same science, it is how we evaluate the evidence based upon our world views that influence our predictions and outcomes. Both are religions, both are world views, both are science.
I see. Thing is though science is not religion. It has no holy scriptures or deities, or even a pope. There are many scholars but they devote themselves to study the natural world and to enhance our knowledge and understanding. Religion is not science, as it remains static, is never changing, and the maniacs of the far right have always tried to supress free thinkers.
Science is not religion, but evolutionism is historical not scientific. You cannot test, repeat or demonstrate history, therefore it is not science. Creationism does not meet the qualifications either, they are both belief systems super imposed onto the evidence to fit a world view...it is still not science as the term is defined. Evolutionism and Creationism are both religious. Religion has to do with origins and the belief involved with where we came from and why we are here.
Evolution is a natural process, the idea you think it's a beleif shows you are a liar, or just misinformed. Donexodus2 has hundreds of videos on this subject, and so do other users such as rabidape, shanedk, and others. Why is that so hard for people like you to accept that things change over time?
@apathy7170 What is you definition of science (and please don't use a dictionary)? Sounds to me like you need to sign up for a philosophy of science course at a good university if you are sincerely interested in an honest debate. Science is not purely experimental--plenty of good sound science is observational (and no that doesn't mean we have to justify every theory by actually observing). Evolution has been demostrated and supported by both experimetal and observational science.
Creationism is NOT a science - it IS a religious BELIEF - however ridiculous.
Evolution is NOT religious - it IS a scientific FACT.
Your confusion with beliefs and facts, fantasy and reality, is something Freud would tackle with an abundance of glee.
.
I would love to know how you reconcile 'god' with evolution - you did say that Evoulution is "theistic" - Creationists are idiots - but you are really going out of your way to prove the point !!
Evolutionism is as much a belief as is Creationism, the science is the same, not different, the worldviews and the basis of origins is different, but the the science.
Evolutionism is theistic, any belief system that is concerned with origins is called religious, take it up with the dictionary.
So often, evo's just ridicule and say nothing of worth, the "creationist are idiots" statements shows that you appeal to authority that believes as you do, but you don't think for yourslelf
@apathy7170 EVOLUTION IS NOT A BELIEF. It IS a FACT. There is NO debate on this issue - other than in the minds of deluded individuals such as yourself. AND ... Creationism has ABSOLUTELY NO Scientific basis. Creationism = religious belief (fantasy) Science = reality . Science does NOT comment on the "supernatural".. . I , unlike you DO "Think for myself" - Daily I query religious idiocy ... . And please translate: "basis of origins is different, but the the science" ??
One last thing, to get back to the reason I commented in the first place. You claimed that evolution was not testable, observable, or demonstrable, yet based on its biological definition it is testable, observable, and demonstrable. Thus, you were wrong.
I do not feel the need to chase comments around in the comment section of youtube videos (plus the limitation on characters is annoying) so this will be my last comment to you, seeing as how I have already proven you wrong, but if you wish to go forward with this discussion feel free to drop by my channel page and leave me a comment or message.
You have proven your inability to prove anything except your ineptness in debating on matters and hiding behind definitions...that you yourself have not defined...how inane, how juvenile...sad really. Good bye, thanks for losing so quickly and easily, sleep well.
@apathy7170 No, he SHOULDN'T have to define it for you. YOU should make sure you understand what you are contesting before you contest it. That'd be like me saying the 1st law of thermodynamics is fiction because I know energy can be created because otherwise we wouldn't be able to drive cars, etc. Basing my refutation off the misconception of transference of energy from one form to another.
Concerning the 1st law...where did the energy for the singularity come from....from nothing? That''s illogical. So, is the reversal of the 2nd law by evolutionism; whether in a closed or open system. I know the definitions, that is the easy part, making them less than easily falsifiable is not easy for evolutionists...it's impossible.
@apathy7170 Thanks for once again affirming my assertion of your logical fallacy. I.E. you obviously don't understand evolution so you have no grounds to contest it. My example of 1st Law is saying that since I was ignorant of what 1st Law meant, my argument was moot. Also, 2nd Law is inapplicable to evolution. Abiogenesis is an entirely separate issue from evolution.
I love how when evo's cannot refute an argument they claim that their opponent does not understand science. That's so that they can believe their silly hypothesis, they try to negate any alternate viewpoint. It is sad that ridicule and belittlement is the best evo;s have in their arsenal. All sides have the same science, it is the worldview starting with the presuppositions that determine the outcome, not the lack of knowledge.
@apathy7170 So now you simply change the subject and partake in the evasive maneuverings you are projecting on "evos"
EVOLUTION can only occur once an organism exists. YOU are trying to correlate evolution with abiogenesis. You have NOT, in any way, refuted evolution--instead focusing on a topic that is not entirely understood at this time(although, I know there ARE individuals with a great deal of knowledge about theory/hypotheses concerning abiogenesis)
Biogenesis can never be a separate issue, the reason evolutionism claims that it is, is because it negates that theory of evolutionism. They know it, we know it...any thinking person knows it...so you evo;s claim that it has nothing to do with evolutionism...you cannot start at point "B". The second law is valid, we are degenerating not beneficially generating, we are deteriorating with each successive genome replication; such as
@apathy7170 I've already stated that biogenesis is an integral part of evolution.. but.. being a willful idiot you simply wish to flex your strawman "skills".
You CAN have evolution without abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an entirely separate issue, as i've said
"Deteriorating" is an idiotic statement. Familiarize yourself with reproduction. Since you refuse to acknowledge anything said and just keep reiterating your own ignorance, I'll leave you to your bliss
I present no strawmen or logical fallacies or any other logic argumentations.. The truth is that evolutionism must have a starting point, so must matter and energy and time itself....the answer by evolutionism denies natural laws and also relies on a precision so unfathomable that if non directed it would at greater odds than all of the atoms in the universe....now that takes faith to believe in...random undirected chance...how did it "evolve" perfectly in .ooo1 microseconds?
Thank you for purporting your lack on knowledge and inability to debate at a scholarly level....move on to simpletons who believe the lie of evolutionism...
darwin thought that the earth is 600 million years old, and?
i think its quite funny because this example of an argument shows actually how religious people think...they think of darwin as a atheist god who gaved us scriptures with errors, so now the religion of darwin is disproved
fucking unbelievable. You have to live in this world to believe how stupid the human race can be
hurr durr if evolution was so stupid then u could just throw that aside in schools instead of taking it down, because it's sto0pid right? clearly ur god is real and we're all wrong, so u can just dismiss the theory! herp
hahaha venom! damn that idiot got owned hardcore! If you know about venomfangx check out this asshole :) Eye2EyeIIIV seriously i cant tell if he is satire or just the dumbest shit out there.
I would love to see this guy in a movie ... like Saw VII where he is strapped to one of those saw mills and the clowns head says in a deep distorted voice "you have spent your life lying, distorting the truth ... now is the chance to redeem yourself ... if you can provide a simple and comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on earth ... you will be set free" Yikes!
At what level do you think they actually believe what they are saying? If they don't believe it at all, what do these people stand to gain from disinforming the public?
"The drawings are obscure to make it look like........ " For one, the comment makes no sense. Second, we have PICTURES which show the similarities even more poignantly. I don't give a crap if luskin is gay. (And I agree that he certainly appears to be). He is a lying bitch however.
Casey is taking on an enemy he stands no chance of understanding. Whats more he's clearly a closet homosexual. Basically religion has fucked his mind up and turned him into one huge lying machine
@mythinktube Yeah its pretty much blatantly clear that he's also a deeply closeted gay. He probably is living with his "girlfriend" in an arranged relationship under threat of hellfire.
@karlkarlkarl1234 I said you were not to far away from imposing your views on others karl even if that takes the form of violence, and here you are talking about killing.....and like a coward to while the man is asleep.
"See, God---see the lengths to which I'll go to defend your Holy Word? Doesn't that prove to you I'm not gay?"
"It's just Satan attacking me because I'm such a strong voice for your Truth. Those thoughts aren't mine, they come from Satan. I'm not gay, I'm not, I'm not, I'm NOT"1
I had the unfortunate experience of conversing with this dolt via email. He is truly a work of art as far as pushing the envelope of hypocrisy and idiocy! He is a shill, tool for the Discovery Institute and nothing more. I'm sure they pay him well.
I had the unfortunate experience of conversing with this dolt via email. He is truly a work of art as far as pushing the envelope of hypocrisy and idiocy! He is a shill, tool for the Discovery Institute and nothing more. I'm sure they pay him well.
Subculanioues(i know i mispelled it, chock it up to typos) layer of fat *cough, all aquatic mammals possess it *cough retards, natural selection (eye lids *cough) fucking idiots at fox.
I'm sure Luskin and McLeroy stroke more than each others' egos. Unfortunately, McLeroy is on the state school board and his academic resume is a disgrace: college drop-out who teaches his kids at home. Social studies = jeezus, literature=bible, math=not needed, science=because god made it that way. I am pleased other states are banning the newly minted school text books destined for TX.
@planeshaperman I think Luskin understands, but he doesn't care. He has a 'higher' relationship, and he doesn't care about us at all.
Voltaire said 'if you can get people to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities.' I believe this is a major threat to the modern world.
As a kid, people around me believed the kind of sleaze that comes out of Luskin's mouth due to sheer, unavoidable (for many) ignorance. But, some had the honor - even a "call" - to speak against outright lies, deception, and manipulation.
Now I feeling that honor as forever lost. I can't help wondering if Cameron, Comfort, Discovery Institute and their horrid spawn must, at some level, feel those lies spreading in their veins, corrupting everything.
Who cares about Haeckels Embryos? My textbook acctually has each embryo lined up against each other (real pics, not drawings) and its the same. Evolution wins
Even if everything those FOX guys are saying were true and good, where does creationism come into this? They don't even mention or advocate creationism but the text keeps saying "creationism vs. evolution" and stuff!
3 minute classes, sweet! So if we did that, then this would be school. the teacher would walk in say "any questions?" the kids would all raise their hand, he would say "God did it" and the bells rings
8:12 Luskin says "we don't support the teaching of creationism but we do support the teaching of good science". If that was true it'd be great. The reality is it's a stinking lie which a lot of viewers may not detect.
How irresponsible of FOX news to let this moron have some air time.
One thing struck me most about this guy: the incredible similarity he has to a dude in my class who describes himself as a "Jesus freak." Same eyes, same big mouth, same shrill voice. It's almost like they're a completely separate species of their own.
How do these people get on tv? I mean, there are people who can see right through this guy. But what about people who will be misguided by this bs? Can I get on tv by saying the world is flat?
Creationism is not backed up by science and should not be introduced in a public school as such. If it was in a class about philosophy, that might be a different story.
why why does this go on..fox news needs taking down
drugnort 3 days ago
Criminal views? No bias here.
clubadv 2 weeks ago
Venomfangx got fucked by mummy and daddy? That's harsh...
DaToNyOyO 3 weeks ago
what are the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution???
mariyababu 1 month ago
@mariyababu If you type either of these two YouTube users into your search bar, you'll see plenty of factual info about evolution evidence:
cdk007
DonExodus
ndrthrdr1 4 weeks ago
@mariyababu Genetics, definitely. Darwin didn't even know how traits were inherited, so when genetics was founded, that could've easily falsified evolution. It didn't; everything we know was either predicted by or 100% compatible with evolution. Probably the best successful application was the merging of chromosomes between humans and their ape ancestors; google something like "chromosome 2 merging," or look at the Wikipedia article on chromosome 2 for details.
ianmathwiz7 3 weeks ago
@mariyababu
Probably human chromosome number 2. Look up "Kenneth Miller human evolution".
anglicantian 3 weeks ago
He's an idiot and reminds me of a slick willie. You know the kind that trys to sell you a $500 car for $5000. That smile is so fake reminds me of a serial rapist. Somebody start a fund and let's send him back to school. Like a real college this time. Didn't he go to school with Kent Hovind?
21shasiti 2 months ago 2
The Discovery Fox News Institute.It's a match made in thier imaginary Heaven,Man I swear both there enities are completely delusional and Insane,They may be functionally Insane but they are 100% Insane.
copycoonie 2 months ago
The Fox News anchor was clearly helping him along and feeding him arguments to help his creationist agenda. Embarrassing.
skovaretta 2 months ago
All the commenters here are wonderfully covering all the bases.
The reason *I* cannot watch this video is that I am absolutely nauseated by CL's permanent smile that I want to burn off his face with a blowtorch. It's just one more piece of evidence that these fanatics are trained ENTIRELY to think and care ONLY about appearance and not substance (of their arguments), to the point that they actually believe a continuous non-stop smile attracts more undecided viewer to their side.
mphello 3 months ago 2
Casey Luskin also discriminates against new scientific approaches, after I sent him a 46 page scientific abstract, in which I claim it to be a mathematical proof for intelligent design?
Dear Mr. Ruiz Garcia,
Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. I reviewed your material and determined that it is outside the scope of what we do at Discovery Institute. Thanks and all the best.
Sincerely, Casey Luskin
So what should be considered to be inside the scope of what they do at Discovery Institute????
amarugarcia 3 months ago
The problem with this video is that it legitimatizes Casey Luskin. We should just all ignore him.
friedie1jeff 4 months ago
Comment removed
friedie1jeff 4 months ago
Can you be sued for hypocrisy?
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK no but you can be beaten with a club....
just sayin...
tuseroni 2 months ago
@tuseroni Lol, that is true and the world may well be a better place if this was the of rule of law. But as it goes, doing anything of this nature will likely end in a lawsuit. Freedom of speech means you have to hear things you may not want to.
TCupUK 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see this video is also engaging in the fraudulent "all science is a single entity" tactic. If a person rejects evolution, then he is also automatically rejecting gravity, a spherical earth, atom and germ theory, heliocentricity, etc. You might as well throw holocaust denier into the mix as well. Pretty sad.
theabiotictheory 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here an excerpt from the Wikipedia Phylogenetic Tree page "Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. They do not necessarily accurately represent the species evolutionary history." Casey Luskin is correct, the tree along with the entire theory of evolution is a complete fraud.
theabiotictheory 5 months ago
"they present the tree of life as if its an adulterated fact". gee you mean the way god was presented to me when i was a kid and still is to millions of children every day?
itsuyo211 5 months ago
The force of stupid is strong with Luskey. I see insanity in his, well, insane grinning :)
Baerchenization 5 months ago
@tnafguy And yet all you do is bash this person and don't actually use any logic or reasoning to disprove what he is saying in the video.. way to fail lol
Celll212 5 months ago
169 people are retarded.
Celll212 5 months ago
No weaknesses regarding the Holocaust or gravity are taught in school because no such weaknesses exist. Photographs, video and written accounts prove the Holocaust, a simply raising and dropping a pencil proves gravity.
The same can't be said for Darwinian evolution, which, as those of us who follow the scientific literature know, is a total train wreck. Darwinists realize this, which is why they're attempting to ban critical thinking (read: scientific thought) from the classroom.
Disgusting.
ReturnOfTheJam 5 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam
Photographs, video and written accounts would seem to me to be evidence for the holocaust whilst the falling pencil is evidence for gravity. Similarly, the preponderance of evidence points towards evolution; there is genetic evidence, fossil evidence and reproducible examples of microevolution occurring in laboratories. Alternatives to evolution aren't taught in schools because there isn't enough reliable evidence to support them.
MrWinderlich 5 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam Also, there really isn't any such thing as a Darwinist; science holds no authorities and every point made must be backed up by reason and evidence. Darwinism isn't a religious doctrine, it simply refers to the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection.
MrWinderlich 5 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam True, we have learned a lot about the mechanisms of evolution in the last 150 years and some of Darwin's ideas were inaccurate, but they were pretty good for the time. No true scientist would deny that these advances be taught in schools, why would they?
MrWinderlich 5 months ago
...that the tree of life was being, and I quote "annihilated". ROFL!! Dude I try that shit all the time in school. Trust me, even my second rate biology professors fail me when I use a one word quote. What the article probably said was "the tree of life has virtually "annihilated" creationist arguments with boundless evidence for evolution via natural selection".
BaldingCypress 5 months ago
@tnafguy LMAO!! You must be trolling!
pololopo23 6 months ago
The intermedium and the ulnare?
Dud he mean the humerus and the ulna? I'd wonder if he was confused with the femur, but I can't really see where he'd get 'intermedium'.
Just his entire... 'paper'... just... I don't even...
F-- !
TheSkunkCat 6 months ago
THIS SHIT NEEDS TO STOP!THESE ARE THE SAME ASSHOLES THAT ARE IN MOST PUBLIC OFFICE!!
tiamat1296 6 months ago
Luskin may have accomplished the impossible by proving that someone actually is stupider than Steve Doocy. They both miss the main problem. Mathematicians make up imaginary numbers all the time, but the nattering nabobs of naturalism won't let designians do the same with causation even once! Bunch of B-big Brained B-bullies . . .
alivingock 6 months ago
Someone should send these religitards a copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins, they may learn something, or laugh and deny cause they think stupidity is so smart
deathman1021 7 months ago
Casey Luskin is a fucktard.
Hornadayfan 8 months ago
:applause!:
I especially liked your ending. :) Jon Stewart would be proud. <3
laDy8A5737 9 months ago
My Gaydar's off the chart and Casey Luskin is certainly a homosexual, which by the way is fine, if he weren't a member of an organization that openly preaches hate against his own closeted self. Another homosexual hiding behind religious faith. Sorry Luskin, your claims to be a christian aren't enough to distract us folks with super tuned gaydar.
ThePuzzler81 9 months ago 13
Last week, That supposed reporter on fox news, a major network had this to say about filing peoples DNA for the government and other authorities...."besides when they go to swab your cheek you could just put someone elses DNA in there and pass.......GENIUS I tell ya!!!!
screat 10 months ago
Is Fox News run by creationists?
HeatherSpoonheim 10 months ago 2
@HeatherSpoonheim
Yes
oliverquincy23 9 months ago
@HeatherSpoonheim yes
hwd123456789 8 months ago
@HeatherSpoonheim well its run by morons that make things up and continually deny reality to suit their own purpose. So in short, yes
deathman1021 7 months ago
I agree. The old saying attributed to Haeckel of, "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" was disproved a long time ago. It is still useful though as a teaching tool because: one - it sounds pretty cool and kids like it; and two, it is basically correct with some additional explanation.
What does this say about the University of California - San Diego? How did someone like this acquire a BS and MS in Earth Sciences from that school? Plus a Law Degree?
tbdonnelly67 11 months ago
@tbdonnelly67 A law degree may prove nothing more than the student's ability to stay awake and regurgitate facts on cue. I've sat in a courtroom and watched lawyers at work who were so stupid they probably had to have help tying their shoes. Having a law degree doesn't mean you're smart.
Largo64 11 months ago
@Largo64 That may be so, depending on the law school, I guess. All of them have to pass the bar exam, though! Every lawyer I know is a pretty smart person. My niece is one of the smartest people I know.
I personally have a BS and MS in Biology from a state university - and I worked my ass off for them! I have a colleague whose degree is from UCSD. So where did this guy come from.....?
tbdonnelly67 11 months ago
@tbdonnelly67 Luskin may, indeed, be smart, but he's also dishonest. Either he has concentrated so much on the law that he is fairly ignorant about biology, or he does understand biology, but wishes to discredit it no matter what it takes. It is not uncommon for true believers to disregard evidence in favor of doctrines for which there is no evidence.
Largo64 11 months ago
GC-content with cytosine deamination and gentetic isochores, the thermodynamic barrier; Fox's scheme. Greater still the non probable sequential order within the DNA/RNA, these are incalculable. Even though evo's are clambering to claim that these highly improbable events are beneficial and would advance evolution the variables alone prohibit its validity....oh, yes, sprinkle time on it and it will work, that great lifesaver for evolutionism....time, time fixes everything.
apathy7170 11 months ago
I hate Luskin. He is such a slimy little shit. I think that I hate him more than Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.
biggingeryeti 11 months ago
"He doesn't understand the arguments in the first place." Absolutely correct. This is why they bring up so many red herrings, off the wall comparisons, phony issues and absurd non sequiturs. I've always wondered if people like this really believe their own absurd opinions.
smb12321 1 year ago
I love it when evolutionists can't handle the fact that they have zero proof for their theory....and saying it is like gravity, not true...gravity is observable, testable and demonstrable; evolutionism meets none of these parameters. Therefore it does not even qualify as a theory just a hypothesis and a falsifiable one at that...
apathy7170 1 year ago
@apathy7170- I see you are still trolling-for-Jebus... and still a completely, purposefully, ignorant fool.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind
First, I do not troll, I watch videos that may interest me, read the comments and sometimes respond, which, by the way is what you did...which shows that you lack self awareness, or a sense irony. 2) I don't know what a "Jebus" is? whatever non-sensical slang you are using. 3) You appear to be the troll by following me around and reading my posts...you should find something more, to use your word, "purposefully" to do with your time and diminished intelligence.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170 - Awww... stupid, stupid child.
No, I'm not following you. How in the fuck can I follow you? I saw your comment and username and remembered you were a completely retarded troll whom I'd owned in an arguement before.
The difference between you beinga troll and me not being a troll is that I don't go commenting on theist and Christian videos like you do to atheistic videos. You are a troll.
You know who Jebus is. You're just playing ignorant... like when denying evolution.
Goodbye.
besidemymind 11 months ago
@besidemymind
First of all...you have never "owned me" as I keep records of decent discussions and have not spoken with you before...so you are delusional. I comment on any videos and comments that I find interesting or of merit. And no I do not know what you mean by "Jebus" i would not have said that I did not know if I knew. Also, evolutionism is a sad and dying religion...1 day you will discover that, & to study all sides of an argument is not a troll it is scholarly, u wouldn't know that.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@besidemymind
Also from reading your current comments...it doesn't appear that you would have the intellectual capacity to "own" anyone...no matter how hard you tried...you might tell yourself you can so that you can sleep at night...but since ignorance is bliss..it suits you well...obviously.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170- I said, "Goodbye." That means I am finished talking to you.
I'll no waste my time with a psudo-intellectual, Especially one who lies and whom I've already "killed" in an argument.
besidemymind 11 months ago
@besidemymind
Again, we have never spoken before...and never debated, it is you who lies. You act like you are some prepubescent adolescent...are you even out of middle school? If this is how you try to rationalize your evolutionary theology then you are the best kind of opponent, one who can't put two arguments together to defend their believe system... keep up the good work of making your opponents look great...nicely done.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170- I said I was done with you and your foolishness. But I had to make this one point to show how stupid you are. There is no such thing as a "prepubescent adolescent". That's a contradiction, since adolescence doesn't begin until to start of puberty. If you can't understand that, it's no wonder you're a psuedo-science cheerleader.
I will not reply, or read, anymore of your lieing comments. It would be a waste oyour time.
besidemymind 11 months ago
@besidemymind
You obviously could not comprehend the intent of the statement "prepubescent adolescent", with that I am unable to assist you. And by the way...stop saying that we spoke before, as that is incorrect. I am very glad that you will not respond, it is a waste of my time to speak with you...to throw pearls before swine as yourself; is useless.
apathy7170 11 months ago
Evolution does not meet the parameters of being testable, observable, or demonstrable? A statement this ignorant could only come from someone that did not know the first thing about evolution. Could you please define evolution in a biological context and prove me wrong?
jebus6kryst 11 months ago
@jebus6kryst
I don't have to prove you wrong...you have to show evidence that it is observable, testable and demonstrable...the parameters of science. It is only ignorant to believe that evolutionism meets those requirements, the burden of proof is not on me it is on those that believe in evolutionism. I am still waiting for any evidence that is not easily falsifiable or refutable by both evolutionists and non evolutionists...so far it does not exist. The burden of proof falls to you not me.
apathy7170 11 months ago
It appears that my prediction was correct; you did not know the first thing about evolution. However, this could be that you did not understand what I was saying. The point I was making is that you did not know the first thing about evolution (the first thing being its biological definition). Until you can give me the biological definition of evolution, a discussion with you would be pointless.
jebus6kryst 11 months ago
@jebus6kryst
If there is ignorance, it is yours. I have degrees in science from secular universities, not to mention that anyone educated in the western world grew up using evolutionary textbooks since they were in grammar school thru higher education. So, I might have some knowledge of evolution. The ignorance lies in believing that step 1, life from non life happened, then believing the incalculable odds of even one species beneficially evolving successively, not to mention, all of them.
apathy7170 11 months ago
Welcome to the club. I also have a Bachelors of Science; however, just because one has a BS does not mean they are qualified to comment on every aspect of science. Please define evolution in a biological context. Your evasion of this is quite telling, but not unexpected. In my experience, the only people that argue against evolution are the people that do not know the first thing about it, and your actions have shown that to be the case here.
jebus6kryst 11 months ago
@jebus6kryst
I have more than a bachelors...and anyone educated in the west has studied evolution since they began public school. Explaining evolution in its biological context is a stupid question...anyone can look up an answer, you should have to define it for me...evolution involves more than just biology, it must be chemical and stellar (cosmology), not to mention Macro (which it isn't) it is merely micro or variation...the definition of biological evolution...hmm! shall I send u a link
apathy7170 11 months ago
Again, your evasion of this very simple question is quite telling, but not unexpected. Until you define evolution in a biological context, a discussion with you would be pointless.
In addition, conflating evolution with abiogenesis and cosmology also goes a long way in exposing your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.
It also seems you have a flawed definition of macro and microevolution, again not unexpected.
jebus6kryst 11 months ago
@jebus6kryst
You cannot have evolution without biogenesis, just because evolutionism wants to start at "B" and ignore the fact that "A" cannot happen, it means that they have more faith than those that believe in an ultimate cause. To say that life came from non life is to deny known science...that is called faith and evolutionism has more of it than any other religious believe system...even though they claim it as science...it is a worldview that defines origins, which defines religion.
apathy7170 11 months ago
Ignorance is bliss, no?
This is actually growing rather pathetic, so I think I will just define it for you since this is your fourth comment to me avoiding the question. Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in a population over time. From that definition, do you see how evolution does not deal with abiogenesis? It is simple really.
jebus6kryst 11 months ago
I might as well correct your definition of macro and microevolution now that I am here. Microevolution is change within a species whereas macroevolution is change at or above the species level. Both have been observed in the field and lab.
jebus6kryst 11 months ago
We both accept abiogenesis, since abiogenesis is simply the study of life coming from non-life. We cannot have continuous biogenesis because that would lead to an infinite regress, thus life had to have begun from a non-living source. A god(s) creating life falls within this definition since a god(s) is not alive based on the biological definition of the word life. Both of us accept abiogenesis, you just believe it came about from a supernatural agent and I believe it was natural agent.
jebus6kryst 11 months ago
@apathy7170 Yes, Evolution deals with biogenesis. Good job. What's your point? Evolution is not a theistic debate in the least.. not any more than discovery of a heliocentric universe was. You simply refuse to differentiate. The bible has many lies, and is therefore fallible, but that alone doesn't discredit the existence of a god. Your simple minded belligerence is the only obstacle in such simple understanding
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
@xESOTERlC
Evolutionism is a theistic debate,it is a believe system on the origin of all living things...the cosmos...the universe...to say that evolution is merely "change over time" does not do the hypothesis justice or its proponents or dissidents any realistic good. Variation within the genome is limited...over .0003% change in the nucleotides usually is fatal, that is out of aprox. 3 billion nucleotides. It is not realistic, the big bang alone relies on a perfection of chance incalculable.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170
Anyone who starts with:
"Evolutionism is a theistic debate ...."
is unworthy of any further consideration.
tellnet 11 months ago 18
@tellnet
You couldn't even compete with the debate, so its safest for you to attempt a petty ridicule and hide behind the fact that you have nothing to say, duly noted...you are out. Sweet!
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170
.
What in the name of Dog are you raving about ???
.
tellnet 10 months ago
@apathy7170
Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. Donexodus here explains the whole issue in his videos. Try watching them and avoid making creationist lies.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
What? Creationists do not lie, the see the science from a worldview that is different than yours, therefore due to the presuppositions the outcome are dissimilar.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170
Science is NOT a worldview, science is the explanation of how the natural world works. That's lie number one creationists use right there. And how is donexodus a moron? He happens to be studyin to be a doctor, someone who helps people who are sick and injured. The medicine he makes use of are what people like you take for granted.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
I'm sorry I was not specific enough, I did not mean that he or you were morons, only that the arguments put forth were, I should have been more specific.(although someones studies/profession have very little bearing on their intelligence or altruistic goodness). It is a worldview issue, we all use the same science, it is how we evaluate the evidence based upon our world views that influence our predictions and outcomes. Both are religions, both are world views, both are science.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170
I see. Thing is though science is not religion. It has no holy scriptures or deities, or even a pope. There are many scholars but they devote themselves to study the natural world and to enhance our knowledge and understanding. Religion is not science, as it remains static, is never changing, and the maniacs of the far right have always tried to supress free thinkers.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Science is not religion, but evolutionism is historical not scientific. You cannot test, repeat or demonstrate history, therefore it is not science. Creationism does not meet the qualifications either, they are both belief systems super imposed onto the evidence to fit a world view...it is still not science as the term is defined. Evolutionism and Creationism are both religious. Religion has to do with origins and the belief involved with where we came from and why we are here.
apathy7170 10 months ago
@apathy7170
Evolution is a natural process, the idea you think it's a beleif shows you are a liar, or just misinformed. Donexodus2 has hundreds of videos on this subject, and so do other users such as rabidape, shanedk, and others. Why is that so hard for people like you to accept that things change over time?
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
@apathy7170 What is you definition of science (and please don't use a dictionary)? Sounds to me like you need to sign up for a philosophy of science course at a good university if you are sincerely interested in an honest debate. Science is not purely experimental--plenty of good sound science is observational (and no that doesn't mean we have to justify every theory by actually observing). Evolution has been demostrated and supported by both experimetal and observational science.
cjcscuba1984 10 months ago
@apathy7170
Creationism is NOT a science - it IS a religious BELIEF - however ridiculous.
Evolution is NOT religious - it IS a scientific FACT.
Your confusion with beliefs and facts, fantasy and reality, is something Freud would tackle with an abundance of glee.
.
I would love to know how you reconcile 'god' with evolution - you did say that Evoulution is "theistic" - Creationists are idiots - but you are really going out of your way to prove the point !!
tellnet 10 months ago
@tellnet
Evolutionism is as much a belief as is Creationism, the science is the same, not different, the worldviews and the basis of origins is different, but the the science.
Evolutionism is theistic, any belief system that is concerned with origins is called religious, take it up with the dictionary.
So often, evo's just ridicule and say nothing of worth, the "creationist are idiots" statements shows that you appeal to authority that believes as you do, but you don't think for yourslelf
apathy7170 10 months ago
tellnet 10 months ago
@apathy7170
.
Do not know what nursery rhyme you are using to define reality....
.
But,
The actual definition of "religious" is:
' relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity '
tellnet 10 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Besides, don exodus is so falsifiable and often moronic that to use him as an example shows your lack of knowledge.
apathy7170 11 months ago
One last thing, to get back to the reason I commented in the first place. You claimed that evolution was not testable, observable, or demonstrable, yet based on its biological definition it is testable, observable, and demonstrable. Thus, you were wrong.
jebus6kryst 11 months ago
I do not feel the need to chase comments around in the comment section of youtube videos (plus the limitation on characters is annoying) so this will be my last comment to you, seeing as how I have already proven you wrong, but if you wish to go forward with this discussion feel free to drop by my channel page and leave me a comment or message.
jebus6kryst 11 months ago
@jebus6kryst
You have proven your inability to prove anything except your ineptness in debating on matters and hiding behind definitions...that you yourself have not defined...how inane, how juvenile...sad really. Good bye, thanks for losing so quickly and easily, sleep well.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170 No, he SHOULDN'T have to define it for you. YOU should make sure you understand what you are contesting before you contest it. That'd be like me saying the 1st law of thermodynamics is fiction because I know energy can be created because otherwise we wouldn't be able to drive cars, etc. Basing my refutation off the misconception of transference of energy from one form to another.
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
@xESOTERlC
Concerning the 1st law...where did the energy for the singularity come from....from nothing? That''s illogical. So, is the reversal of the 2nd law by evolutionism; whether in a closed or open system. I know the definitions, that is the easy part, making them less than easily falsifiable is not easy for evolutionists...it's impossible.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170 Thanks for once again affirming my assertion of your logical fallacy. I.E. you obviously don't understand evolution so you have no grounds to contest it. My example of 1st Law is saying that since I was ignorant of what 1st Law meant, my argument was moot. Also, 2nd Law is inapplicable to evolution. Abiogenesis is an entirely separate issue from evolution.
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
@xESOTERlC
I love how when evo's cannot refute an argument they claim that their opponent does not understand science. That's so that they can believe their silly hypothesis, they try to negate any alternate viewpoint. It is sad that ridicule and belittlement is the best evo;s have in their arsenal. All sides have the same science, it is the worldview starting with the presuppositions that determine the outcome, not the lack of knowledge.
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170 So now you simply change the subject and partake in the evasive maneuverings you are projecting on "evos"
EVOLUTION can only occur once an organism exists. YOU are trying to correlate evolution with abiogenesis. You have NOT, in any way, refuted evolution--instead focusing on a topic that is not entirely understood at this time(although, I know there ARE individuals with a great deal of knowledge about theory/hypotheses concerning abiogenesis)
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
@xESOTERlC
Biogenesis can never be a separate issue, the reason evolutionism claims that it is, is because it negates that theory of evolutionism. They know it, we know it...any thinking person knows it...so you evo;s claim that it has nothing to do with evolutionism...you cannot start at point "B". The second law is valid, we are degenerating not beneficially generating, we are deteriorating with each successive genome replication; such as
apathy7170 11 months ago
@apathy7170 I've already stated that biogenesis is an integral part of evolution.. but.. being a willful idiot you simply wish to flex your strawman "skills".
You CAN have evolution without abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an entirely separate issue, as i've said
"Deteriorating" is an idiotic statement. Familiarize yourself with reproduction. Since you refuse to acknowledge anything said and just keep reiterating your own ignorance, I'll leave you to your bliss
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
@xESOTERlC
I present no strawmen or logical fallacies or any other logic argumentations.. The truth is that evolutionism must have a starting point, so must matter and energy and time itself....the answer by evolutionism denies natural laws and also relies on a precision so unfathomable that if non directed it would at greater odds than all of the atoms in the universe....now that takes faith to believe in...random undirected chance...how did it "evolve" perfectly in .ooo1 microseconds?
apathy7170 11 months ago
@xESOTERlC
Thank you for purporting your lack on knowledge and inability to debate at a scholarly level....move on to simpletons who believe the lie of evolutionism...
apathy7170 11 months ago
@jebus6kryst
Either his degree was purchased, or his education was in an institution such as Liberty University - where such appaling ignorance is promoted !
tellnet 10 months ago
lol, Heckle's embryos.
You know, I have never heard of Heckles Embryos until I watched a creationist video here on YouTube.
LiveTheWild 1 year ago
darwin thought that the earth is 600 million years old, and?
i think its quite funny because this example of an argument shows actually how religious people think...they think of darwin as a atheist god who gaved us scriptures with errors, so now the religion of darwin is disproved
fucking unbelievable. You have to live in this world to believe how stupid the human race can be
Serpico261 1 year ago
Fox News is fair and balanced as much as Luskin supports the teaching of good science.
TuucciZ 1 year ago
Casey Luskin is one of the more articulate members of the Disco Tute
sol3a1 1 year ago
If creationists told the truth, they would never say anything at all.
ShaggyShagz13 1 year ago
hurr durr if evolution was so stupid then u could just throw that aside in schools instead of taking it down, because it's sto0pid right? clearly ur god is real and we're all wrong, so u can just dismiss the theory! herp
Hav0cAttack 1 year ago
I had a fun email exchange with Luskin a couple years ago. He is really a moron and a liar.
heathdwatts 1 year ago 3
hahaha venom! damn that idiot got owned hardcore! If you know about venomfangx check out this asshole :) Eye2EyeIIIV seriously i cant tell if he is satire or just the dumbest shit out there.
pandorachild 1 year ago
He doesn't even understand the word eponymous.
truthiness2010 1 year ago
I would love to see this guy in a movie ... like Saw VII where he is strapped to one of those saw mills and the clowns head says in a deep distorted voice "you have spent your life lying, distorting the truth ... now is the chance to redeem yourself ... if you can provide a simple and comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on earth ... you will be set free" Yikes!
vohshkab 1 year ago 22
At times like these, I wish hell actually existed, just so assholes like Luskin would go there
UseYerEFFINBrain 1 year ago 3
Bubble Boy Casey Luskin has the kind of head you want to punch doesn't he!?
blade004 1 year ago
Oh jeeze, not the discovery institute. The fact they're based in Seattle makes me ashamed to be a Seattlite, at times.
metaserve 1 year ago
At what level do you think they actually believe what they are saying? If they don't believe it at all, what do these people stand to gain from disinforming the public?
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
I hope luskin gets killed by a bacteria that evolves resistance.
it would be a suitable ironic death for such an asstard.
TheLostGuitarist 1 year ago 16
"The drawings are obscure to make it look like........ " For one, the comment makes no sense. Second, we have PICTURES which show the similarities even more poignantly. I don't give a crap if luskin is gay. (And I agree that he certainly appears to be). He is a lying bitch however.
jmcanoy1860 1 year ago 2
Casey is taking on an enemy he stands no chance of understanding. Whats more he's clearly a closet homosexual. Basically religion has fucked his mind up and turned him into one huge lying machine
mythinktube 1 year ago
@mythinktube Yeah its pretty much blatantly clear that he's also a deeply closeted gay. He probably is living with his "girlfriend" in an arranged relationship under threat of hellfire.
ccheng21 1 year ago
Imagine if you were a father and Casey Luskin was your son...... WHOA!
You would have to kill him in his sleep or something.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 I said you were not to far away from imposing your views on others karl even if that takes the form of violence, and here you are talking about killing.....and like a coward to while the man is asleep.
con2477 1 year ago
Comment removed
gupsphoo 1 year ago
"I'm not gay, I'm not, I'm not , I'm NOT!"
"See, God---see the lengths to which I'll go to defend your Holy Word? Doesn't that prove to you I'm not gay?"
"It's just Satan attacking me because I'm such a strong voice for your Truth. Those thoughts aren't mine, they come from Satan. I'm not gay, I'm not, I'm not, I'm NOT"1
JPTill 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
I had the unfortunate experience of conversing with this dolt via email. He is truly a work of art as far as pushing the envelope of hypocrisy and idiocy! He is a shill, tool for the Discovery Institute and nothing more. I'm sure they pay him well.
phatcheck 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I had the unfortunate experience of conversing with this dolt via email. He is truly a work of art as far as pushing the envelope of hypocrisy and idiocy! He is a shill, tool for the Discovery Institute and nothing more. I'm sure they pay him well.
phatcheck 1 year ago
Comment removed
phatcheck 1 year ago
I am so happy to be an atheist and a firm believer in Evolution, Bronze Age Bullshit is just that - Bullshit!
I just don't understand why these Creation Idiots want to bring us back to Bronze Age Beliefs when we could have such a Bright Future in Science.
Man Made god, Not, god Made Man - The bible was made to make people Stupid in realm of Reality...
stevethul1 1 year ago 5
BTW the people that disproved the validity of those fraudulent dino fossils were evolutionary biologists... also ironic hehe
PaGaNM0nK 1 year ago
Yeah, no credence is given to the theory of intelligent design, which says that the law of the universe is
Mass+energy=God dun did it squared. sorry, that's creationists. Intelligent agent dun did it
arachnophile01 1 year ago
0:37 "Evolution vs. Creationism, debate rages over scientific theories"
WTF?
What scientific theories? Do they mean the proven fact of evolution and the myth of creationism?
Plopkap 1 year ago 3
It's awesome how the foxnews reporter knows exactly what the interviewee is gonna say. It's like it's prewritten!
deadasfak 1 year ago 5
Subculanioues(i know i mispelled it, chock it up to typos) layer of fat *cough, all aquatic mammals possess it *cough retards, natural selection (eye lids *cough) fucking idiots at fox.
Ethercloud 1 year ago
You forgot to add, epicycles to explain why the universe doesn't revolve around earth *cough
Ethercloud 1 year ago
heres the cure burn bible pushers at the stake, I'm sick of all this brain washing bullshit
Ethercloud 1 year ago 2
2:40 He says "but we've known for hundreds of years... decades.."
Should they really have a representative that doesn't know what decades are?
A decade= a period of ten years. "Decades" means for a few periods of ten years..
If it was really known for "hundreds of years" shouldn't he have said centuries?
queentrissa 1 year ago 4
two of the biggest cavemen ever.
aguteempasil 1 year ago
Luskin tented his shorts when the host said that "creationism vs. darwinism is white hot these days"
freethinker923 1 year ago 3
DMCA = #FAIL. Free speech = WIN.
freethinker923 1 year ago 2
It's the inane, winsome smirk he wears while demonstration classic passive aggressive behavior that makes me want to burn it off with a blow torch.
lowcomedy 1 year ago 10
I know they say 'Don't judge a book by it's cover', but come on. The first time I saw and heard this Casey Luskin guy I burst out laughing.
THIS IS THEIR GUY!!?. This is the man chosen to represent DI!??
The fact that people somewhere can listen to what these guys here are saying and not know that they're full of shit, is very worrying.
Education systems around the world have a lot to answer for.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago 4
Luskin looks remarkably like Tommy Davis, spokesperson for the "Church" of $cientology. Davis is also a pathelogical liar. Hm...
4G3NTanon 1 year ago
I'm sure Luskin and McLeroy stroke more than each others' egos. Unfortunately, McLeroy is on the state school board and his academic resume is a disgrace: college drop-out who teaches his kids at home. Social studies = jeezus, literature=bible, math=not needed, science=because god made it that way. I am pleased other states are banning the newly minted school text books destined for TX.
xavierartorivs 1 year ago
@xavierartorivs Is that true about schoolbooks? That's very good news.
gamesbok 1 year ago
Poor Casey Luskin
he probably doesn't have the mental capacity to understand that people hate him
I think we should take pity on him and have him euthanized
planeshaperman 1 year ago 15
@planeshaperman would be the humane thing to do
themooddisorders 1 year ago
@planeshaperman I think Luskin understands, but he doesn't care. He has a 'higher' relationship, and he doesn't care about us at all.
Voltaire said 'if you can get people to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities.' I believe this is a major threat to the modern world.
gamesbok 1 year ago 3
As a kid, people around me believed the kind of sleaze that comes out of Luskin's mouth due to sheer, unavoidable (for many) ignorance. But, some had the honor - even a "call" - to speak against outright lies, deception, and manipulation.
Now I feeling that honor as forever lost. I can't help wondering if Cameron, Comfort, Discovery Institute and their horrid spawn must, at some level, feel those lies spreading in their veins, corrupting everything.
But no.
This is the power of faith.
KnowKnot 1 year ago
"We don't support the teaching of creationism..."
ROFLMAO!!!! (ysst)
queenastilon 1 year ago 2
@queenastilon epic facepalm
freethinker923 1 year ago
hahaha you really like that word inept
rphamning 1 year ago
Reality has a slight liberal bias
simsoy55 1 year ago 3
Who cares about Haeckels Embryos? My textbook acctually has each embryo lined up against each other (real pics, not drawings) and its the same. Evolution wins
daftpunkrulerfan1 1 year ago
Discovery Institute, the name itself is a lie.
jakefree24 1 year ago
@maroci64 and to sell crummy books and give failed GOP politicians and talk radio hosts some TV air time too
jakefree24 1 year ago
Even if everything those FOX guys are saying were true and good, where does creationism come into this? They don't even mention or advocate creationism but the text keeps saying "creationism vs. evolution" and stuff!
Fungo4 1 year ago
Haeckel's embryos weren't even in my textbook.
Daruqe 1 year ago
Roffling at the VenomFangX thing. I had no idea.
imperiumdiaboli 1 year ago
As of now, 163 people mistakenly clicked the "thumbs-down" button on this video page. Be more careful, people.
RafaelEnvoy 1 year ago
So in the text books we will simple put
"God Did it" case close everone go home.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
3 minute classes, sweet! So if we did that, then this would be school. the teacher would walk in say "any questions?" the kids would all raise their hand, he would say "God did it" and the bells rings
grimmangel25 1 year ago
@GForceSammy
Lol, well put my dear sir/madam
Vostoek 1 year ago
These are all Chris Jericho style curse words, lol.
ElDiablo173 1 year ago
8:12 Luskin says "we don't support the teaching of creationism but we do support the teaching of good science". If that was true it'd be great. The reality is it's a stinking lie which a lot of viewers may not detect.
How irresponsible of FOX news to let this moron have some air time.
LAnonHubbard 1 year ago 87
@LAnonHubbard Faux news is not responsible at all...Never was.
TheGoodColonel 1 year ago
@LAnonHubbard Are you telling me that FOX news are sometimes not irresponsible??
crocock123 1 year ago
One thing struck me most about this guy: the incredible similarity he has to a dude in my class who describes himself as a "Jesus freak." Same eyes, same big mouth, same shrill voice. It's almost like they're a completely separate species of their own.
Vostoek 1 year ago 4
@Vostoek Their embryos probably look exactly like "mini them." That's why Luskin's so upset about Haeckels embryos.
MaximusRelaximus 1 year ago
This guys not real is he? Surely not! He can barely string a sentence together.
biggingerdude 1 year ago 50
@biggingerdude
He's not only real, he got into law school
Balian49 1 year ago
How do these people get on tv? I mean, there are people who can see right through this guy. But what about people who will be misguided by this bs? Can I get on tv by saying the world is flat?
Swiftlygothedays 1 year ago
Creationism is not backed up by science and should not be introduced in a public school as such. If it was in a class about philosophy, that might be a different story.
Browned79 1 year ago 4
all the stuff at 5:05.... SO true
chattiestspike2 1 year ago