Back when I followed the christian faith my congregation used to openly and avidly engage in what was called 'witnessing for the lord', praise and good deeds, not demonising or ridiculing perceived enemies. Witnessing was considered a christian thing to do. I suggest you 'witness for jesus' or even just 'debunk evolution' rather than display your wilful spitefulness...I rather fancy JC, if he really is watching, would not approve of what you practice now.
Hey, "DebunkingEvolution", the only two videos you've posted are 10 seconds quote-mining videos of Richard Dawins. When will you actually post videos "debunking envolution"? Or are those the best you can do?
The best argument a theist can produce to discredit Dawkins is to mash together a few clips out of their original context and then infer they are representative of his intellect. No wonder most people think you are moronic. Just look at your videos ratings to prove that.
@hungryman211 Looked like he was encouraging penis sucking in this clip. Wouldn't you agree? Well ...suppose we will never know. Just curious, why won't he debate Craig, or Zacharias? Scared?
@NOISLAMINUSA Richard Dawkins mentioned in one of his videos he would talk to "people on the fence" primarily. I fully agree with him. It´s no use to talk to brainwashed religious people. They wouldn´t listen.
@Iotar99 Good for you. Meanwhile the Intellectuals of this world will remain convinced of his inability to debate anyone of intellectual and theistic substance. So lets give Dawkins a great big F, for failure and fear. The man wouldn't last five minutes with C.S Lewis, Craig or Zacharias. So ....he should simply put up, or shut up.
@NOISLAMINUSA Tell me, oh evidently intellectual one: How does someone argue with a man not willing to let you speak without interrupting you, who ignores anything remotely resembling fact, quotes the exact same religious text repeatedly, and uses that same religious text to prove the accuracy of that religious text?
Answer? = You can't.
If you're not willing to listen, you're not worth talking to.
Anyone with common sense could tell you that talking to a wall gets you nothing.
@DeathsHood You obviously have never listened to Ravi Zacharias or William Lane Craig. If you had, you would know they rarely quote scriptures in debate and frankly are more intellectual than Dawkins. Even atheists think he is a coward. There is no excuse for avoiding debate with leading apologists, unless your just scared. I listen to Atheists quite frequently and Common sense isn't a term, that one would apply to them. Dogmatic perhaps.
@NOISLAMINUSA No, I haven't listened to them, because it disgusts me that people who seem so intelligent are so pathetic.
I don't listen to Dawkins either, for the record.
I think religion is a pathetic escape from responsibility, and reality, but I don't care that others worship and I don't care if they disagree with me.
It's their choice.
The problem lies in the arguments "proving' and "Disproving" a negative.
I believe the same of Atheists, who cant grasp the magnitude of evidence for creation. That being said, I also concur it is not important and it is impossible to prove or disprove intelligent design. Point I made is; if he builds a career on denigrating faith, then he should stand up as a man to those capable of debating him. O Reilly is hardly an adversary. Wouldn't you agree? Ironically I believe Atheism is a pathetic escape from biblical accountability. You have free will
@NOISLAMINUSA I understand where your argument is coming from, but tell me: HOW is Atheism a pathetic escape from biblical accountability?
The first humans were natural Atheists. Religion was created around the extremely limited knowledge we had of EVERYTHING at that time. We now know clouds form, lightning strikes, fires start, etc, etc...
None of that is because of religion.
We have free will, yes, but religion tries to eliminate it by saying 'Believe as we do, or burn forever'.
Hard to reply in such a limited space. Well first let me say that the religion your familiar with is not one shared by me. Christ was opposed to the religion of man and called it a synagogue to Satan. No man can obtain eternity in heaven based on his own power, goodness etc... The bible was written as a guide to how we should live, but Christ said: No man can obtain heaven based on his deeds. We are saved by Grace and Christ was our atonement for sin. This is complicated to:
to explain. But I once thought as you did. I have to be perfect, otherwise I will burn in hell for eternity and I am just not that perfect. Well there are many Churches that would love you to believe that, but it isn't Historical and Jesus never said that. You might be surprised to find he wanted a personal relationship with man and not a Religion dictating its will on Man. For whatever its worth. Investigate the New Testament and come to your own conclusions. Believe or not.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
@Paumonsu 6. Micro Evolution (Variations within the kind (example:black people, white people brown people, etc))
The Big Bang = Cosmic Evolution.
If you didn't know that Evolutionists link the Big Bang to their theory to explain the Origin of the Universe, you're either mentally handicapped yourself, or willingly ignorant.
Darwin only discribes Natural Selection, Macro Evolution and Micro Evolution.
The rest is lateron added to become the Evolution theory.
@TheLightedDarkness You are incorrect on this one. Evolution is a biological theory that doesn't include cosmology, abiogenesis, or the origins of our universe. Evolution is change in alleles over time. Start with the Wikipedia page. That will at least give you a basic understanding of the theory. Good luck!
@BrooklynRagtag Do contemplate on the fact that Evolutionary scientists as Richard Dawkins and others made up these terms with their definitions, I did not. Cosmic evolution is the Big Bang, the Big Bang is part of the Evolution theory, since it needs to have a beginning in order to work.
If you're saying that what Charles Darwin wrote is the Evolution theory, you're sadly mistaken, he only talked about the Macro-Evolution and Natural Selection side of the entire theory.
@TheLightedDarkness I'm not trying to argue with you. This is a point of correction. You are mistaken on this point. Big bang cosmology is in an entirely different branch of science. If we use your approach, Big Bang cosmology would be a part of every scientific theory ever constructed as every scientific theory requires a universe with time and space. Please acquiesce to my simple request and skim the Wiki article. It will give you a good introduction to the theory.
@BrooklynRagtag ''Big Bang cosmology is in an entirely different branch of science''
The Big Bang theory is NOT science. It's an assumption.
Also, I've studied Creationism vs Evolution for about a year already, and seen dozens of debates, I don't think I'd gain any information from reading a downgraded ''everyone-can-fill-it-in'' site.
@TheLightedDarkness If you have studied evolution for about a year, you should know better than to say that the Big Bang is related to Evolutionary Theory. It sounds like you have been watching Kent Hovind rather than listening to scientists talk on the matter. I suspect you would gain quite a bit of information from an introduction to Evolutionary Theory. If you find Wikipedia offensive, try a high-school science book.
@TheLightedDarkness What are you talking about? The Big Bang Theory is "useful" only to the extent that it best explains the available evidence. This is completely independent of whether or not we understand the fact of evolution. The goal of science is to explain our universe as best it can using the most reliable data and a rigorous method of analyzing and retesting that data. Maybe you ought to start with the scientific method before you acquaint yourself with evolutionary theory.
@BrooklynRagtag ''The Big Bang Theory is "useful" only to the extent that it best explains the available evidence.'' What evidence are you talking about?
''The goal of science..'' Only Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection are deemed as science.
All the other forms of Evolution (including the Big Bang) are faith-based.
"Only Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection are deemed as science."
Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection and a myriad of other things are all part of evolutionary science such as bottlenecking, mutation, clads, Descent with Modification, phylogeny...
"All the other forms of Evolution (including the Big Bang) are faith-based."
No. They are fact-based and The Big Bang is not evolution. Your Sky Daddy is faith based.
@TheLightedDarkness I have to be honest, I chuckled at this one. Some evidence for the big bang? The observable expansion of the universe, the forward arrow of entropy and therefore physical laws, microwave background radiation...
"Only Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection are deemed as science?" Deemed by whom?
I'm not sure I'm interested in continuing this conversation if you aren't even interested in trying to understand the basic concepts being discussed.
@BrooklynRagtag The expansion of Space, and not of the Universe, is not able to be concluded that it came from a theory specifically seen as the Big Bang.
Neither does saying ''Look at everything around us, truly this is evidence that G'd exists'' prove that that's evidence for G'ds existence.
@TheLightedDarkness This is getting a little frustrating. I'm not going to continue trying to help you learn some basics about science, while meeting nothing but obstinate resistance. I'm not trying to convince you of some controversial opinion that I hold. I'm trying to inform you that you need to do some really basic homework before you talk about any field.
1) Most physicists agree with the Big Bang model as it fits all available evidence.
Creationism is NOT science. It's just the idea that your Judeo-Christian notion of God created life. Do you have evidence to support that? If your evidence is the Bible, then how do you know that it's accurate?
Even if evolution weren't true, at least has multiple sources to back it up.
Um...ok. Comparison or not, I really don't see how you can talk about a religious belief in the same context as a scientific theory backed up by many decades of credible scientific evidence.
Why don't you just admit that you don't like evolution because it contradicts your faith?
New genetic complexity being added to the Genome, is impossible.
It either can be duplicated or re-shuffled, by means of mutation, but adding new genetic complexity by its own is impossible. Chickens will stay chickens, no matter how long you give them time to supposedly ''evolve''. There has never been observed one case where the genetic complexity in the Genome is being additioned by new information. Because it isn't possible.
Irreduceable Complexity tells us that if some things were to have ''evolved'', multiple organs or otherwise, would have to ''evolve'' simultaneously, which is impossible in the Evolution theory, because it takes millions of years for just 1 adeptation. Also, Time and Space were created simultaneously, where does the Big bang say that they created Time and Space, hmm?
Spontaneous Generation (Evolving non-organic matter towards an organic lifeform)
is impossible. Scientists have tried for over a 1000 years, and were unsuccesful, aswel as that non-organic lifeforms have no proteïns in them at all, being the building block of a lifeform.
The Big Bang (Everything being exploded into existence by nothing) is impossible.
Even if you'd add billions of years, nothing stays nothing.
''According to Evolutionists, cows evolved into whales.''
1. I'll now introduce Irreduceable Complexity, which tells us that multiple essential organs have to be simultaneously created in order for the ''whale'' to stay alive.
If a Cow would lose its legs or even some of them, it couldn't drink nor eat, it would die. If a Cow were to develop a whale's nose, it'd probably die from sufficating.
''It rained on the rocks and made Primordial Soup, in which then began the first Evolution from non-organic matter towards the first simple organism, being the single-cellular organism.''
1. Spontaneous Generation has been proven by scientific means that it's not possible. (Making organic life from non-organic matter).
2. There's no such thing as a ''simple'' organism, if you'd pick a tinier one, it'd be even more complex.
''The Earth was formed, and it was filled with lava.''
1. How then did water come upon Earth when there's lava?
2. Why did scientists confirm that the Earth always had oxygen?
(Evolutionists claim that the Primordial Earth had no oxygen, because else the first non-organic towards organic matter would oxidize, or without oxygen they'd sufficate).
@nichtmuttersprachler Okay, I'll teach you some reasons why Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE to have occured.
1. Big Bang (Cosmic and lateron Stellar/Planetairy Evolution)
''In the beginning there was nothing. And from this state of nothingness, a ''Big Bang'' occured, creating all elements, that would lateron fly against eachother to make the simpler more used atoms we use today.''
1. Where did the energy and matter come from?
2. You can't fuse past Iron, where did the other elements come from?
@TheLightedDarkness Lol, what has eveolution have to do with Big Bang, energy, matter, and nuclear fusion? You're fucking retarded man. Just take the Darwin book and read it.
Lol I'm laughing so hard right now, evolution is Biology, Big Bang,nuclear, fusion, energy and matter are physics. Are you mentaly challenged?
@TheLightedDarkness How ignorant can you be? Homo sapiens are primates. If you had even the faintest understanding of taxonomy, you would recognize that fact.
Pretty sure his channel is sarcastic - everyone calm down. These are pretty funny clips of Richard The Great, just enjoy them.
electrolyfe 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from DebunkingEvolution
Love how the videos to show his 'sophistication' (attempting to discredit his intellect) are of him poking fun at Christians!
These are examples of him quoting prolific and ignorant creationist Ray Comfort and also quoting hate filled Christians sending him hate mail.
No wonder they seem unintelligible and unsophisticated!
Discoveringmotion 2 weeks ago
lol now thats funny now for more comedic Dawkins clips i sub
RVGmetallicasaw 3 weeks ago
I find it amusing Dawkins managed to create another dumb religion lol. Irony.
buffboynick 3 weeks ago
@buffboynick the words head on nail come to mind when reading your post.
borgoff55 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well that does it! Evolution is now fact.
gr8vibes2 3 weeks ago
I love Richard Dawkins, but that was hilarious!
rickysims212 4 weeks ago
Haha, I love Dawkins!
BenjaminGoose 4 weeks ago
if dawkins can be misquoted to look stupid, imagine how worse you can be made to look like, you simpleton...
satyu131089 4 weeks ago
Maker of this video is the biggest retard in the Universe.
SpicaAndromeda 1 month ago
Back when I followed the christian faith my congregation used to openly and avidly engage in what was called 'witnessing for the lord', praise and good deeds, not demonising or ridiculing perceived enemies. Witnessing was considered a christian thing to do. I suggest you 'witness for jesus' or even just 'debunk evolution' rather than display your wilful spitefulness...I rather fancy JC, if he really is watching, would not approve of what you practice now.
Grinseed 1 month ago
@Grinseed nobody needs to debunk evolution as it is just a theory. Too many holes and missing links to be taken as fact.
borgoff55 3 weeks ago
Come on, I'm an atheist and I laughed out loud at this.
Blurtex33 1 month ago 2
@Blurtex33
So am I, and so did I, but I am sure that was not the intention of the uploader.
Mesdriver 1 month ago
Stupid
jcarlospdyt 1 month ago in playlist Más vídeos de DebunkingEvolution
Out of the four clips there, he was mimicking a creationist in two of them and quoting an email from a creationist in another.
Andromedonian 1 month ago
I'm a massive fan of Dawkins and this is hilarious
bObbyOhhbOy 1 month ago
Acting like the monkey that he is....
borgoff55 1 month ago
Hey, "DebunkingEvolution", the only two videos you've posted are 10 seconds quote-mining videos of Richard Dawins. When will you actually post videos "debunking envolution"? Or are those the best you can do?
Wotanraven 1 month ago 2
Dr. Dawkins imitating a creationist "hOUH HOUh HOoUH hOUh"
youthank8 1 month ago 3
So this is the best argument for 'DebunkingEvolution'?
Atheists win.
TonneofAsh 1 month ago 6
This video is a good litmus test to see which atheists have a sense of humor.
mkraeftig7 1 month ago
I love Dawkins, but I gotta admit, I laughed pretty hard.
hubomba 1 month ago
Congratulations, you can badly mash together videos to make intelligent people look stupid. You can now consider your life complete.
TyloniusKnight 2 months ago
LOL Dawkins is funny
iowntwocats 2 months ago
@DebunkingEvolution
Now when do you start debunking evolution? We can't wait !
drijfkip1 2 months ago
@drijfkip1 Huh? I thought evolution had already been disproven?
AcAwSk8Vids 2 months ago
Why is Dawkins acting like a theist? lol sry had to
A801506 2 months ago
Does the nasty Wichard Dawkins scare da ickle cwistian, den? Aw.
USERNAMEfieldempty 2 months ago
I'm an atheist, and I like RD.
I thought this video was funny as hell.
imperator332 3 months ago
The best argument a theist can produce to discredit Dawkins is to mash together a few clips out of their original context and then infer they are representative of his intellect. No wonder most people think you are moronic. Just look at your videos ratings to prove that.
hungryman211 4 months ago 40
@hungryman211 Looked like he was encouraging penis sucking in this clip. Wouldn't you agree? Well ...suppose we will never know. Just curious, why won't he debate Craig, or Zacharias? Scared?
NOISLAMINUSA 2 months ago
@NOISLAMINUSA Richard Dawkins mentioned in one of his videos he would talk to "people on the fence" primarily. I fully agree with him. It´s no use to talk to brainwashed religious people. They wouldn´t listen.
Iotar99 2 months ago
@Iotar99 Good for you. Meanwhile the Intellectuals of this world will remain convinced of his inability to debate anyone of intellectual and theistic substance. So lets give Dawkins a great big F, for failure and fear. The man wouldn't last five minutes with C.S Lewis, Craig or Zacharias. So ....he should simply put up, or shut up.
NOISLAMINUSA 2 months ago
@NOISLAMINUSA Tell me, oh evidently intellectual one: How does someone argue with a man not willing to let you speak without interrupting you, who ignores anything remotely resembling fact, quotes the exact same religious text repeatedly, and uses that same religious text to prove the accuracy of that religious text?
Answer? = You can't.
If you're not willing to listen, you're not worth talking to.
Anyone with common sense could tell you that talking to a wall gets you nothing.
DeathsHood 2 months ago
@DeathsHood You obviously have never listened to Ravi Zacharias or William Lane Craig. If you had, you would know they rarely quote scriptures in debate and frankly are more intellectual than Dawkins. Even atheists think he is a coward. There is no excuse for avoiding debate with leading apologists, unless your just scared. I listen to Atheists quite frequently and Common sense isn't a term, that one would apply to them. Dogmatic perhaps.
NOISLAMINUSA 2 months ago
@NOISLAMINUSA No, I haven't listened to them, because it disgusts me that people who seem so intelligent are so pathetic.
I don't listen to Dawkins either, for the record.
I think religion is a pathetic escape from responsibility, and reality, but I don't care that others worship and I don't care if they disagree with me.
It's their choice.
The problem lies in the arguments "proving' and "Disproving" a negative.
Why does it matter who is right or wrong?
What does that prove?
DeathsHood 2 months ago
I believe the same of Atheists, who cant grasp the magnitude of evidence for creation. That being said, I also concur it is not important and it is impossible to prove or disprove intelligent design. Point I made is; if he builds a career on denigrating faith, then he should stand up as a man to those capable of debating him. O Reilly is hardly an adversary. Wouldn't you agree? Ironically I believe Atheism is a pathetic escape from biblical accountability. You have free will
NOISLAMINUSA 2 months ago
@NOISLAMINUSA I understand where your argument is coming from, but tell me: HOW is Atheism a pathetic escape from biblical accountability?
The first humans were natural Atheists. Religion was created around the extremely limited knowledge we had of EVERYTHING at that time. We now know clouds form, lightning strikes, fires start, etc, etc...
None of that is because of religion.
We have free will, yes, but religion tries to eliminate it by saying 'Believe as we do, or burn forever'.
DeathsHood 2 months ago
Hard to reply in such a limited space. Well first let me say that the religion your familiar with is not one shared by me. Christ was opposed to the religion of man and called it a synagogue to Satan. No man can obtain eternity in heaven based on his own power, goodness etc... The bible was written as a guide to how we should live, but Christ said: No man can obtain heaven based on his deeds. We are saved by Grace and Christ was our atonement for sin. This is complicated to:
NOISLAMINUSA 2 months ago
to explain. But I once thought as you did. I have to be perfect, otherwise I will burn in hell for eternity and I am just not that perfect. Well there are many Churches that would love you to believe that, but it isn't Historical and Jesus never said that. You might be surprised to find he wanted a personal relationship with man and not a Religion dictating its will on Man. For whatever its worth. Investigate the New Testament and come to your own conclusions. Believe or not.
NOISLAMINUSA 2 months ago
@NOISLAMINUSA Being Atheist, I'm not afraid of what happens to me after death, nor do I care about being perfect in any way.
According to you (no offense) I could be a murderer, rapist, thief, etc... and still get into heaven if I'm genuinely devout? That makes no sense.
Wouldn't good deeds appeal to your God? Wouldn't being a genuinely good person appeal to Him?
I've read the New Testament.. and the Old Testament.
I didn't like either one. They're ancient, backwards babble to me.
DeathsHood 1 month ago
@NOISLAMINUSA Neither book presents any good reason to follow God.
A) He's jealous and violent, promising punishment for any transgressions.
B) He seems to have no problem with his chosen being alcoholic, violent, incestuous, etc...
C) He's fickle and petty, destroying his creations on a whim, because he was displeased with the way they turned out.
Call me cynical, but I refuse to follow a God who allowed sin, and them wiped the planet clean because of Sin, and then killed his son.
DeathsHood 1 month ago
Well, taken out of context, you can make anyone look stupid..
daniellundqvist84 4 months ago 22
@daniellundqvist84 Dawkins even in this video is more concise, reasoned and erudite than the majority of theists I've encountered.
BrendanIsCool 4 weeks ago
Great video -- thanks for uploading!
1GodOnlyOne 4 months ago
That was hilarious!!! hahahaha :D
mexicandruglord 4 months ago
this is an amazingly funny video!
but you're still a dick.
whosthisguythinkheis 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
So just because someone is smart and British doesn't mean they can't be goofy once in a while!
bearchewtoy75 5 months ago in playlist More videos from DebunkingEvolution
HE'S ALWAYS INTELLECTUAL RETARDS. LOL But Dawkins has a sense of humour.
retrogamerist 5 months ago in playlist More videos from DebunkingEvolution
@Paumonsu 6. Micro Evolution (Variations within the kind (example:black people, white people brown people, etc))
The Big Bang = Cosmic Evolution.
If you didn't know that Evolutionists link the Big Bang to their theory to explain the Origin of the Universe, you're either mentally handicapped yourself, or willingly ignorant.
Darwin only discribes Natural Selection, Macro Evolution and Micro Evolution.
The rest is lateron added to become the Evolution theory.
2/2
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness You are incorrect on this one. Evolution is a biological theory that doesn't include cosmology, abiogenesis, or the origins of our universe. Evolution is change in alleles over time. Start with the Wikipedia page. That will at least give you a basic understanding of the theory. Good luck!
Best.
-BR
BrooklynRagtag 5 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag Do contemplate on the fact that Evolutionary scientists as Richard Dawkins and others made up these terms with their definitions, I did not. Cosmic evolution is the Big Bang, the Big Bang is part of the Evolution theory, since it needs to have a beginning in order to work.
If you're saying that what Charles Darwin wrote is the Evolution theory, you're sadly mistaken, he only talked about the Macro-Evolution and Natural Selection side of the entire theory.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness I'm not trying to argue with you. This is a point of correction. You are mistaken on this point. Big bang cosmology is in an entirely different branch of science. If we use your approach, Big Bang cosmology would be a part of every scientific theory ever constructed as every scientific theory requires a universe with time and space. Please acquiesce to my simple request and skim the Wiki article. It will give you a good introduction to the theory.
Best,
BR
BrooklynRagtag 5 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag ''Big Bang cosmology is in an entirely different branch of science''
The Big Bang theory is NOT science. It's an assumption.
Also, I've studied Creationism vs Evolution for about a year already, and seen dozens of debates, I don't think I'd gain any information from reading a downgraded ''everyone-can-fill-it-in'' site.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness If you have studied evolution for about a year, you should know better than to say that the Big Bang is related to Evolutionary Theory. It sounds like you have been watching Kent Hovind rather than listening to scientists talk on the matter. I suspect you would gain quite a bit of information from an introduction to Evolutionary Theory. If you find Wikipedia offensive, try a high-school science book.
Best,
BR
BrooklynRagtag 5 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag Without the Evolutionary Theory, the Big Bang would be useless.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness What are you talking about? The Big Bang Theory is "useful" only to the extent that it best explains the available evidence. This is completely independent of whether or not we understand the fact of evolution. The goal of science is to explain our universe as best it can using the most reliable data and a rigorous method of analyzing and retesting that data. Maybe you ought to start with the scientific method before you acquaint yourself with evolutionary theory.
Best,
BR
BrooklynRagtag 5 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag ''The Big Bang Theory is "useful" only to the extent that it best explains the available evidence.'' What evidence are you talking about?
''The goal of science..'' Only Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection are deemed as science.
All the other forms of Evolution (including the Big Bang) are faith-based.
Science =/= Evolutionary Theory.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness
"Only Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection are deemed as science."
Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection and a myriad of other things are all part of evolutionary science such as bottlenecking, mutation, clads, Descent with Modification, phylogeny...
"All the other forms of Evolution (including the Big Bang) are faith-based."
No. They are fact-based and The Big Bang is not evolution. Your Sky Daddy is faith based.
bearchewtoy75 5 months ago
@bearchewtoy75 Name one ''fact'' of your Evolution theory (Besides Natural Selection and Micro-Evolution) and I will gladly debunk it for you.
Big Bang is Cosmic Evolution, it is part of the Evolution theory.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness
Genetic Mutation.
"Big Bang is Cosmic Evolution, it is part of the Evolution theory."
Um... no. It is not. Evolutionary theory has to do with biology, not astronomy.
bearchewtoy75 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness
"Name one ''fact'' of your Evolution theory (Besides Natural Selection and Micro-Evolution) "
I just named several in another comment: bottlenecking, mutation, clads, Descent with Modification, phylogeny...
Go.
bearchewtoy75 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness
And when you're done debunking, please present evidence for Creationism.
bearchewtoy75 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness I have to be honest, I chuckled at this one. Some evidence for the big bang? The observable expansion of the universe, the forward arrow of entropy and therefore physical laws, microwave background radiation...
"Only Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection are deemed as science?" Deemed by whom?
I'm not sure I'm interested in continuing this conversation if you aren't even interested in trying to understand the basic concepts being discussed.
Be Well,
BR
BrooklynRagtag 5 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag The expansion of Space, and not of the Universe, is not able to be concluded that it came from a theory specifically seen as the Big Bang.
Neither does saying ''Look at everything around us, truly this is evidence that G'd exists'' prove that that's evidence for G'ds existence.
Deemed by most Physicists.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness This is getting a little frustrating. I'm not going to continue trying to help you learn some basics about science, while meeting nothing but obstinate resistance. I'm not trying to convince you of some controversial opinion that I hold. I'm trying to inform you that you need to do some really basic homework before you talk about any field.
1) Most physicists agree with the Big Bang model as it fits all available evidence.
2) PHYSICISTS DON"T STUDY EVOLUTION!!!
BrooklynRagtag 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness
Creationism is NOT science. It's just the idea that your Judeo-Christian notion of God created life. Do you have evidence to support that? If your evidence is the Bible, then how do you know that it's accurate?
Even if evolution weren't true, at least has multiple sources to back it up.
bearchewtoy75 5 months ago in playlist More videos from DebunkingEvolution
@bearchewtoy75 I never said that Creationism was science, also wasn't even talking to you either.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness
So then what is it? You compared to Evolution, and you've claimed you've "studied" it.
bearchewtoy75 5 months ago
@bearchewtoy75 It's a belief. I did not ''compare'' it to Evolution, I merely said I watched Creationism vs Evolution debates.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness
Um...ok. Comparison or not, I really don't see how you can talk about a religious belief in the same context as a scientific theory backed up by many decades of credible scientific evidence.
Why don't you just admit that you don't like evolution because it contradicts your faith?
bearchewtoy75 5 months ago
@bearchewtoy75 It's not a matter of liking or not.
It's a lie, and I think they should stop teaching it to children in public schools by using taxpayers money to do so.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness
It's not a lie. There is evidence to back it up. The same cannot be said for Creationism.
bearchewtoy75 5 months ago
@Paumonsu The Big Bang is Cosmic and eventually Stellar and Planetary Evolution.
The word Evolution has 6 different definitions:
1. Cosmic Evolution (The Big Bang)
2. Chemical Evolution (Formation of elements from basic chemicals as supposed in the Evolution theory)
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution (Formation of stars and planets)
4. Organic Evolution (Non-organic matter creating organic-life)
5. Macro Evolution (Evolving from one kind (example:ape) to another (example:human).
1/2
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
I'm an atheist but that was actually funny lol
Paumonsu 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler Was that enough intelligence to make you see that Evolution is pure assumption, and to be quite honest, bullshit?
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler
New genetic complexity being added to the Genome, is impossible.
It either can be duplicated or re-shuffled, by means of mutation, but adding new genetic complexity by its own is impossible. Chickens will stay chickens, no matter how long you give them time to supposedly ''evolve''. There has never been observed one case where the genetic complexity in the Genome is being additioned by new information. Because it isn't possible.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler
Irreduceable Complexity tells us that if some things were to have ''evolved'', multiple organs or otherwise, would have to ''evolve'' simultaneously, which is impossible in the Evolution theory, because it takes millions of years for just 1 adeptation. Also, Time and Space were created simultaneously, where does the Big bang say that they created Time and Space, hmm?
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler
Spontaneous Generation (Evolving non-organic matter towards an organic lifeform)
is impossible. Scientists have tried for over a 1000 years, and were unsuccesful, aswel as that non-organic lifeforms have no proteïns in them at all, being the building block of a lifeform.
The Big Bang (Everything being exploded into existence by nothing) is impossible.
Even if you'd add billions of years, nothing stays nothing.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness stanley miller experiment proved that you can create organic compounds from non organic compounds
henrycazaux 5 months ago
@henrycazaux That's not spontaneous generation.
Also, the mix contained about 85% Tar, 13% Carboxlic Acid, and 2% worth of Amino Acids.
So 98% of the mixture was poisonous to creating life.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler Fast forwarding >>
''According to Evolutionists, cows evolved into whales.''
1. I'll now introduce Irreduceable Complexity, which tells us that multiple essential organs have to be simultaneously created in order for the ''whale'' to stay alive.
If a Cow would lose its legs or even some of them, it couldn't drink nor eat, it would die. If a Cow were to develop a whale's nose, it'd probably die from sufficating.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler
''It rained on the rocks and made Primordial Soup, in which then began the first Evolution from non-organic matter towards the first simple organism, being the single-cellular organism.''
1. Spontaneous Generation has been proven by scientific means that it's not possible. (Making organic life from non-organic matter).
2. There's no such thing as a ''simple'' organism, if you'd pick a tinier one, it'd be even more complex.
3. Where did oxygen come from?
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler
''The Earth was formed, and it was filled with lava.''
1. How then did water come upon Earth when there's lava?
2. Why did scientists confirm that the Earth always had oxygen?
(Evolutionists claim that the Primordial Earth had no oxygen, because else the first non-organic towards organic matter would oxidize, or without oxygen they'd sufficate).
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler
''Elements were drawn to eachother to make other elements, and perhaps even planets and galaxies as a whole''.
1. Without gravity, things wouldn't float together, especially just after a distributing bang occured.
2. Where did Earth's atmosphere come from?
3. Where did Gravity come from? (No, Gravity isn't made out of elements).
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler Okay, I'll teach you some reasons why Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE to have occured.
1. Big Bang (Cosmic and lateron Stellar/Planetairy Evolution)
''In the beginning there was nothing. And from this state of nothingness, a ''Big Bang'' occured, creating all elements, that would lateron fly against eachother to make the simpler more used atoms we use today.''
1. Where did the energy and matter come from?
2. You can't fuse past Iron, where did the other elements come from?
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness Lol, what has eveolution have to do with Big Bang, energy, matter, and nuclear fusion? You're fucking retarded man. Just take the Darwin book and read it.
Lol I'm laughing so hard right now, evolution is Biology, Big Bang,nuclear, fusion, energy and matter are physics. Are you mentaly challenged?
Paumonsu 5 months ago
@danesbenoit DNA proves 98% simularity (if you compare a chimpansee and a human).
You have about 1.000.000.000.000.000 DNA strings that make up your entire body.
So you think 2% really is that few with that number in mind?
Really, go back to school.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan No.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness Yes, DNA proves it.
danesbenoit 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness How ignorant can you be? Homo sapiens are primates. If you had even the faintest understanding of taxonomy, you would recognize that fact.
nichtmuttersprachler 5 months ago
I lol'd. Apparently only he DID actually evolve from a primate. (intelligence-wise)
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness humans are all primates
wearestarstuffsagan 5 months ago
BoshRat fu
lolippi 5 months ago