boyles gas law applies to a closed system! its funny you try to use parts of science to disprove the parts of science that you disagree with! fusing elements is called nucleosynthesis, and its a very well understood process that we can recreate on earth.. your not interested in truth or reality, like so many others your only interested in confirming what you want or hope to be true, stop deluding yourself, instead REALLY try figuring out whats going on, its a much more enriching way to live :)
Hi, when are you going to answer the question I made about how to join your pod cast?
And if you like to discuss evidence for evolution I like to discuss the origin of the Chiwawa:
Surely no Chiwawa come from wolfs as wolf only breads wolf. Liek we all know, nobody ever seen a Chiwawa been born by a wolf, not eve from a dog, say a cross between Podell and St Bernad. So where did the Chiwawa came from? May the Chiwawa is its not a dog but it own kind, what do you think?
@compendiumgravemind "so how is over thousands of transitional fossils not count as evidence?"
Dot ask him silly question ;-) the answer is obvious: he doesn't accept it as evidence (which also holds true for virtually anything else that is counted as an evidence for evolution). The right question to ask is why he doesn't accept it as evidence, and what he possible would or could accept as evidence.
I want to hear your thoughts on Creationism not Kent Hovind's Views. CreationLiberty, do you believe the earth is 6000 years old? I would like to have an intelligent conversation about this if possible. I am not here to slam you, or play "Oh my look at the crazy Christian" game. You ask us, (obviously I'm an evolutionist) for evidence, but let's just narrow this down to easy things, age of the Earth + your evidence for it. I have a lot of questions in due time =)
@slauzon11 Wait a second... you saw my presentation, and Kent Hovind's presentation, and you saw a similarity. You IMMEDIATELY concluded a common designer. You just demonstrated that you have to defy logic to believe similarties prove common ancestry. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Answer the question. Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old?
Also c'mon man...I meant no disrespect in the sense that your presentation is a re-hash of Hovind's views which is a re-hash of just about every creationist argument ever used. I was hoping to hear something original. You seem well spoken and I was hoping to spur a back and forth conversation that I might learn something from.
@epsilon8998 "Dogs came from wolves. Last time I checked, wolves are not dogs. Therefore a non-dog, over several millennia, empirically produced a dog."
Good point, wolf does not breed dogs still there are dogs. I wonder how a denier if evolution explains that?
I got a question for you: We both know that is a concept "dogs" only that describes an abstract "kind" that doe snto exist. A dog can not bread. But Pomeranian and Rottweiler can bread. However I have never seen Pomeranian pair give raise to anything else than Pomeranian's and I have never seen a Rottweiler pair give raise to anything else than Rottweiler's. In particular I have never seen a Rottranian or a Pomerweiler. Does that mean Pomeranin and Rottweiler are not the same kind?
@jomen112 I'll tell ya what: It's obvious you believe in evolution. If you think you have scientific evidence for evolution, would you like to come on our show and present it? Every evolutionist I've talk to dodges my question when I ask them this (yes, all of them so far have done so), so a simple yes or no would do. It's not bad if you say no, but please be direct.
"I can provide evidence that the bible is true but I can not do it scientifically".
Then it follows you can not prove it is true, because 'provide evidence' require you to show it objectively - as facts. But you already know you cant do that and you admitted that. Therefor you either lie when you say you can provide evidence or it is just wishful thinking that you can provide such evidence. To say anything else would be dishonest either towards your self or others.
@jomen112 All you're doing is showing everyone that you don't know the difference between historical evidence and scientific evidence. Read the first couple chapters of "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow, and that'll help clear that up.
"The book Bones of Contention, by Marvin Lubenow (1992), is considered by many creationists to be the definitive creationist treatment of the claimed evidence for human evolution" - from talk origin
And how does this give raise to evidence that the Bible is true?
"I don't care what you believe. Believing it doesn't make it science."
Nobody has to believe anything. We know humans are apes as a fact. These facts are independent of evolution. We are apes based on physiological facts! We know as a fact that humans are apes from every single physiological examinations done for the past 200 year or so. We know this just as we know human are mammals. To claim otherwise would require more than belief -a blank denial of tens of thousands of medical documented.
"There is no observation and no experimentation that has ever show use that a dog can come from a non dog."
Good boy, you finally understood what the theory of evolution is about. Mammals bread mammals, and reptiles breads reptiles. Cats bread cats and dogs breads dog. Diversity with in groups with unique characters; dog are dogs and will only bread dogs. Things does not magical pop into existence with out a common history of traits. Which is what we observe and the theory says we should see.
Chris, do you ever have your own thoughts, or are you just gonna quote Kent Hovind all day? I mean, right down to your analogies. It's pathetic. Your understanding of evolution is markedly poor.
Creation took place in less than a week. & then after that began the rest of God's ongoing creation: the process of Divine Selection. The Lord explains: "for many are called but few are chosen". If you want to become part of the next advancement, the "new creature in Christ Jesus", just pray this little born-again prayer: "Jesus, forgive me of my sins, come into my heart and save my soul. In Your Name, in Jesus' Name I ask it. Amen". Then u will become transformed while the rest go extinct.
This vid is a perfect example of an idiot , trying to explain ( and re-define ) his incredibly twisted view of reality and semantics. Every other sentence shows his lack of understanding of anything scientific.
Sorry, are you permanently high? So anything you don't believe now is religion, while your religion is science?
lol, Christians are tyring to transform their religion in science, and actual science in religion. I am just happy that such a cancer has not spread out of the US, and that actual scientists are allowed to do their job.
This guy is just a Kent hovind clone, no matter what evidence you provide he will just ignore it and pretend like it doesnt exist...oh yeah and hes a moron too.
What is it you don't understand and would like to. where to begin I feel like a mosquito in a nudist camp. Know what I ought to be doing just don't know where to start.
SO hundreds of years of advances and discoveries by millions of scientists some of the brightest minds on the planet and you think you can prove it all wrong by wishing it was not so. Well lets see test of knowledge so far displayed. mmmm
Shall we start with how to tie your own shoelaces.
He has a donate option on his website, me thinks a new huckster is trying to rise from the deceptive slime infested world of religion and cash in on the gulible. Make a name, go on speaking tours at churched of cash laden DVD buying fools.
Well he sure proved conclusively that he has not got a clue and understands nothing of the subjects on which he speaks. No wonder he got a golden crockoduck nomination.
As for Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist not exactly qualified in any of the areas of science that are mentioned here.
There is nothing here that is not well understood, documented, tested and proven.
Why can't shit for brains do some research in the real world, beggers belief.
Creationists are funny. And not only funny, but they are liars as well. OK, some of them are not liars since they might genuinely believe what they say. In that case they are merely stupid. Consider educating yourself before talking about something you obviously have no clue about. Oh, and come up with original arguments, instead of repeating what someone else has said. Word for word. *cough*Kent Hovind*cough*
Chris dear, you're an idiot. Even if evolution was a religion (which it's not - what a stupid idea), it wouldn't make it false. It remains fact no matter what sort of nonsense you want to say about it.
@AuntieDiluvian Just because you BELIEVE evolution is science, doesn't make it part of science. Just because you BELIEVE evolution is not a religion, doesn't dispel its religious foundation. You gotta' prove what you're saying, like I did in the 2-part video, not just state a mantra over and over like 500 other evolutionists have done.
@creationliberty you may soon be Wildwoodclaire1's Dim Bulb of the week and one of Potholer54's nominees for his Golden Crocoduck award. You will receive much more than mantras from them.
@creationliberty and while you're laughing at science and facts, we are laughing at things like Leviticus 11, 13-19 and Deuteronomy 14, 6-7. Enjoy being cracked up. You will be cracked up, chewed up and spat out by reality.
@creationliberty Kent Hovints ideas where stupid to begin with, they don´t get any smarter because you reread them to your audience.
How would you know if evolution is scientific or not ? Do you have any science degree whatsoever ? No you have not. You are like a quack who wants to tell doctor what the best options to treat an illness is.
The Theory of Evolution in the science community, not Kent Hovind's world, is about the changes of life over time, like Origin of Species started.
You know, like the dinosaurs changing and 'evolving' into differents kinds over 160 million years. The process we can observe and the theory explains.
@gregrutz You did not define evolution, just as I have pointed out to evolutionists time and time again. When you said "Evolution is Biology," you meant MICRO-evolution. Which no one here disagrees with. But then you said "Humans are still Apes," in which you CHANGED the defintion to MACRO-evolution. You switch from science to religion mid-sentence. If you want to BELIEVE that's not religion, you're welcome to that believe. I don't care what you believe. Believing it doesn't make it science.
Wow, this guy is an idiot. All you need to debunk him is a dictionary. He doesn't even give his own opinion. He just quotes creationist after creationist. He constantly tries to look for flaws in science without even trying to look at the evidence for science. Trying to fit reality into your religion makes you look like an idiot to the rest of us.
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, US Atomic Energy Commission, USA is somehow to be taken more seriously in his newspaper quote from 1959 than the science of Biology?
The problem here is two fold. First, you are indeed pointing out to a religious group the fact that their beliefs are indeed religious. One tenet of their belief system is to deny that it is a belief system, or a religion. You can't get very far with that kind of psychological denial at play. Second, these people believe that science is theirs, and that it supports their metaphysics. That being said, you gotta try, even though you know they will just equivocate on terms like science/evolution.
Religion involves belief in a supernatural & worshipping that entity.
I'm confused. Who am i supposed to be worshipping. How can any science be a religion? If a dog can produce a non dog then this would disprove Evolution. The fossil record is so clear and palaeontology is still a science. Science looks at the fact and draws a conclusion but a religion starts with the conclusion and then manufactures "facts" to fit. You have no proof of Christianity scientifically or not. Please Learn Science.
@pilgrimpater I didn't say science was a religion. That's your words. I said EVOLUTION is a religion. You need to get that straight. (check title!)
You've also used a logical fallacy called: Reification. That's where you give an abstract concept concrete qualities. (e.g. "Science look at..." & "Science draws a conclusion...") People look at... and people draw conclusions, but science does not do these things.
Come join our podcast if you get some real scientific evidence. I'd love to see it.
@creationliberty You did, even in your title. Evolution is a branch (or should i say many independent branches) of science. Among all the scientific theories, evolution is the one that is almost certainly 100% fact (even if we don't know everything as to the mechanisms). Science, of course, does look at the facts & draw a conclusion. OK that's not a complete description of the scientific method but that is what it is in a nutshell. I'm afraid you have NO scientific evidence for your religion.
@pilgrimpater Our next show's on the 10th. (check our website for details) Join us and give us the best piece of evidence for evolution you are aware of. I would love to see it because I am still waiting for any scientific evidence for evolution.
Actually, evolution is a theoretical framework that is built on multiple assumptions. Some hypotheses within this framework are likely true. If that were all this debate were about, you wouldn't need to even make the comment you did. But it's not, you are trying to assert metaphysics here, sneak them in under the pretense of science, in order to eliminate the validity of the opposing framework before it is even presented. Just admit it.
@circusOFprecision Actually evolution is a Scientific Theory (accepted by scientists as one of the strongest) that utilises basic observation and predictions. But of course you know all of this but can't admit it because you are well and trully stuck with your unmoveable dogma. Just think how more difficult that gets for you creotards as science unravels more and more.
@circusOFprecision Hmm... I show textbooks that teach all these different definitions, and then you claim I'm the one using equivocation? Hahahaha! I'll have to mention that on our show. That was funny.
@circusOFprecision Whoops, I got confused. Sorry. I thought that was pilgrmpater talking. Youtube is really weird on how it sends messages. I don't get all of them. It picks and chooses. So I might get a random message in the middle of a debate that I think is directed at me. I'll try to look more closely in the future.
After reading his comments, he's also arguing from scientific authority, and arguing from majority opinion. Both logical fallacies to add to the one you pointed out.
No problem, I figured such. No big deal. Yes, you are absolutely right. Although these logical fallacies do extend into the realm of science and academia because of certain prominent individuals forcing their opinions down our throats, I find that it is on youtube where they are overly used to the point of exhaustion. Not even much the authority and/or majority they pretend to represent would back them, certainly not in an honest scientific discussion.
About the Brief History of Time quote; are you aware that in that very same paragraph that he explains how we can tell stars apart without needing to see them by simply looking at the spectrum of light they posses? The book was also published two years before the Hubble Telescope was launched. Since then we've been able to observe more than just a pinpoint of light. We can look at stars at extreme distances away with detail. nasa(dot)gov/images/content/185587main_v-516.jpg Here is a star
I am not sure why people in the 21st century still put their particular god over and above proven facts.
What is really bad is that people still try to find scientific sounding stupidity and feed gullible and uneducated people. And these simpletons lap this up just to satisfy their wishful thinking.
LOL! I really enjoy watching Creationists try to act smart because in EVERY case, the make complete IDIOTS of themselves with the ridiculous things they say. Creationists need to realize that there is truly NO DEBATE within the Scientific community or in Academics as to the reality of Evolution. Evolution has very much been proven and is the basis for ALL BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ON THE PLANET. Creationism or 'intelligent design' remains a laughable superstitious belief just like the Bible.
Science: Knowledge gained through experimentation and observation
Evolution - observable in the fossil record and through DNA evidence
Experimentation - E. Coli long term evolution experiment, and I believe in "The Greatest Show on Earth" is details of an experiment in which tropical lizards were moved from their home, to a completely different island, and in only a few decades developed a new diet, changed stomach to cope with this diet, and a structurally changed jawline.
If you've truly disproved evolution (as well as several other unrelated theories) as you claim to have done, you must be one of the smartest people alive. Go to university, where I'm sure you'll excel, get a phd, and publish the findings you've made. You'll surely get a nobel prize, you'll be rich and famous and you can upload a video in which you gloat about how you were right and us atheists were wrong, forcing us to hang our heads in shame.
check out his argument in the top comment. " So, you ARE saying that similarity proves a common designer. " no u fool he's saying that you just coppied it all. not once in that paragraph did he agree with that in any way
But when you cite Hawking, I just have to get out my copy of A Brief History of Time and read the rest of page 39 to see what he really said re: what we can know about stars from their light.
As it turns out, we can know a great deal by looking at the entire light spectrum!
I'll save you the pain of explaining lightwaves. You wouldn't understand it any more than the concept of gravity which you don't seem to be aware of at all.
Evolution is a religion (it's also a contrived word). The Bible describes it as a religion in Jeremiah 2:27-28: Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the number of thy cities are thy gods...
The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is only knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification... So that means religion is a set of BELIEFS that aren't justified whereas science is systematic KNOWLEDGE gained through observation and experimentation...
Knowledge is truth, that is what scientists search for.
Holding a belief is just a psychological state wherein a person THINKS something is truth.
Evolution is supported by loads of physical evidence and has endured scientific scrutiny over and over. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge it's obvious credibility is living with their head in the sand.
@creationliberty HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH. Please remove your videos they are of negative value on the internet
When a man starts every ‘lecture’ he has ever given with two known and verifiable lies:
“Hi my name is Dr. Kent Hovind. I taught high school science for 15 years.”
It doesn’t bode well for the rest of the bullshit that follows. And this is the idiot that you are parroting. Has it never occurred to you to learn your science from real scientists? Or at least do a little fact checking of the words of a known fraud?
@mythinktube You saw my presentation, and Kent Hovind's presentation, and immediately concluded there was a common author. So are you saying that similarity proves a common designer?
@creationliberty your presentation is word-for-word the same. Evolution and just makes you look twice as stupid the fact that you publicly display the fact you have zero understanding its process and a child-like brainwashed mind that has to copy the teachings of a convicted fraudster in able to have an opinion which isn't even valid
@mythinktube So, you ARE saying that similarity proves a common designer. So you believe in evolution against your own logic. You know there is a Designer to all that we see in nature, because you just demonstrated that similarities logically prove common design, but you reject that logic, and reject that Designer, because you don't want a "thou shalt not" in your life. I appreciate your time to demonstrate that, so others can see it for themselves.
@creationliberty listen before you start with "you love sin that's why you won't accept God" nonsense.. I won't discuss what you're trying to assert until you at least admit how you are shamelessly copying Hovind. Remember lying is against the 9th commandment
@creationliberty No we don't, Kent Hovind has already been ripped apart beyond belief for his silly assertions. This video was almost a word for word copy of a Kent Hovind video, meaning this guy did no research, and made a fool of himself, or knows it's wrong and is lying.
@creationliberty "similarity proves a common designer"...just the most dishonest thing I've ever heard. So much of creationism is this type of distorted semantic game intended to produce appeals to emotion. You make me sad, creationliberty. Mostly because you're just so obvious.
@creationliberty You fail at..everything.Similarity in HUMAN CONSTRUCTS (like your word for word copy of Hovind's presentations) might prove a common designer.Cells and animals are NOT human constructs thus laws about human constructs cannot be so easily applied to non human.
I'm sure that you also believe that since DNA contains information-someone placed it there.Well if you do, pull your head out of your ass.
Creationists fail to produce any scientific evidence for supporting their beliefs, and will often instead attack scientists for holding the view that the universe, life, and human beings have developed slowly over billions of years through the evolutionary process. Just once, I would like a creationist to produce actual evidence for the view that there was a universal creation a few thousand years ago, complete with talking snakes testing gullible humans to eat forbidden apples. Just once!
HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF GRAVITY. And the fact is after the big bang the heaviest element was lithium. But the stars made heavier elements, and as you said the fusion stops at iron. But then the stars exploded (supernova) and this created most of the heavier elements. But (this happens in nuclear reacters) neutrons and protons, and even electrons and neutrinos ( but they must be absorbed at about the same time) can make even heavier elements if they are absorbed by the nuclei of the atom.
And don't you say that scientists only have speculation for the origine of energy because your answers to the origine of energy is completly impossible
The amount of copy and pastes you do is unbelievable. If the people who said those exact lines copywrited them you would be selling your bdy for money
Evolutionary changes occur over different time spans. Evolutionary theory does predict, as you imply, that two dogs would spontaneously produce a non-dog. The only person who came close to claiming such a thing in the last 100 yrs was TD Lysenko, whose theories have long been discredited (to put it mildly). The definition of evolution as changes in gene pools over time is only "vague" if you don't know anything about biology.
@scientiaarsvita1 I think you meant to say "doesn't." I never said evolution says that two dogs would spontaneously produce a non-dog. Get the facts straight before you accuse people of lying. Evolution says that all the dogs in the world came from something non-dog, over whatever period of time you want to put on it. The problem is, when put in simple terms, it sounds completely stupid, and the average person can use their common sense and realize that we have no scientific evidence for that.
@creationliberty Yes, it's "doesn't." Thanks for catching my typo.
You say, "when put in simple terms," but what you are doing is distorting the theory to imply what it doesn't. Common sense leads one to believe in a flat earth and geocentric universe. Common sense is not scientific evidence. Where are your 100 MY old fossil Terriers? If actual evidence is irrelevant, i.e. if you believe a literal, inerrant interpretation of the bible, you must find human slavery acceptable. Do you?
@scientiaarsvita1 Nothing you just put in your statement addressed the topic. You said I distort the "theory to imply what it doesn't" say. Yet, you never told us directly what it says. This is common among evolutionists. They tell me I'm wrong, then change the subject. Or they bring up a bunch of other topics all packed close together, like what you've just done, so no one can respond to them all. That's avoiding the issue.
@JohnGaltx64 we afre triing to spread good scinece which copuld be very important in the futur. and why do you care about helpping homeless people all you need to do to enter your kindom, in a cloud is belive in the catholic god. And dont tell me your doing it by good will because i wont belive a word of it
I think you need to pay Kent Hovind a royalty. You are clearly stealing his material. He probably could use the money considering his imprisonment for tax fraud. I wonder though. Have you ever really investigated evolutionary theory from sources outside Christian apologetics?
@creationliberty A copycat is not a designer. You are not adding anything new to the debate. You are merely stating what Mr. Hovind said 10 years ago. Your dog analogy is almost word for word from one of his "seminars". Oh, and before you make some assumptions about me, I do happen to believe in God.
On MW definition, you use the definition which has examples such as "Hockey is a religion in Canada.". To claim it is a religion such as Islam or Christianity and use that definition is the fallacy of equivocation.
Yes, dogs produce dogs every time. If the mating of 2 dogs ever produced a non-dog, common descent/theory of evolution would have a serious problem.
"Evolution" in your definitions 1-3 are unrelated to CD/ToE, so rather meaningless in a discussion of evolution.
@JustAnotherMutant That's incorrect. Think about it for a second: Hockey is observed. That's not a belief. MACRO-evolution is NOT observed. Evolutionists only give examples of MICRO-variation, and then take the giant leap of faith to say that it has no limitations, which is NOT observed. Your example is extremely flawed. It's the same mistake they make when they compare evolution with gravity or cell theory. Gravity and cell theory have observations to go with them. Macro-evolution does not.
creationliberty, that is your example, not mine. You are using the #4 definition from MW's online dictionary, and that quote of mine is one of the examples fro the #4 definition.
Gravity has never been observed.
CD and ToE, like Universal Gravitation and Cell Theory, make predictions. If they are correct, observations should match their predictions. If observations do not match, then the theory is disproven, or needs some more detail (depending on how bad the problem is).
@Duplex0r The link and reference is updated in the comments. It's right there if you just type in religion. Definition #4.
If that is the extent of research that you do, how can anyone believe you when you say you know what you're talking about concerning evolution? I know you don't want advice from a "bogus" creationist, but I would highly suggest reading first before you make comments like this.
@creationliberty it wasn't obvious from your video description that the quoted sentences referred to a descrption of religion, as thewy where preceded by "ALL OF THESE DESCRIBE EVOLUTION:"
You simply where not accurate weither these descriptions should describe religion or evolution. that's all.
Where did i say anything about my knowledge of evolution in order for you to question it, solely based on my miscomprehension of your video descripton (i'm not a native english speaker btw)?
And I'm sorry but Einstein's equation E=MC^2 means that matter can and does form spontaneously when you have large amounts of energy this is one of the things the LHC depends upon to run it's experiments.
Why do all creationists look inbred and like they've got a couple of extra chromosomes?
Ecologicalification 2 weeks ago
boyles gas law applies to a closed system! its funny you try to use parts of science to disprove the parts of science that you disagree with! fusing elements is called nucleosynthesis, and its a very well understood process that we can recreate on earth.. your not interested in truth or reality, like so many others your only interested in confirming what you want or hope to be true, stop deluding yourself, instead REALLY try figuring out whats going on, its a much more enriching way to live :)
eelick1978 2 weeks ago
Still waiting man....
slauzon11 3 weeks ago
Hi, when are you going to answer the question I made about how to join your pod cast?
And if you like to discuss evidence for evolution I like to discuss the origin of the Chiwawa:
Surely no Chiwawa come from wolfs as wolf only breads wolf. Liek we all know, nobody ever seen a Chiwawa been born by a wolf, not eve from a dog, say a cross between Podell and St Bernad. So where did the Chiwawa came from? May the Chiwawa is its not a dog but it own kind, what do you think?
jomen112 3 weeks ago
so how is over thousands of transitional fossils not count as evidence?
compendiumgravemind 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@compendiumgravemind "so how is over thousands of transitional fossils not count as evidence?"
Dot ask him silly question ;-) the answer is obvious: he doesn't accept it as evidence (which also holds true for virtually anything else that is counted as an evidence for evolution). The right question to ask is why he doesn't accept it as evidence, and what he possible would or could accept as evidence.
jomen112 3 weeks ago
I want to hear your thoughts on Creationism not Kent Hovind's Views. CreationLiberty, do you believe the earth is 6000 years old? I would like to have an intelligent conversation about this if possible. I am not here to slam you, or play "Oh my look at the crazy Christian" game. You ask us, (obviously I'm an evolutionist) for evidence, but let's just narrow this down to easy things, age of the Earth + your evidence for it. I have a lot of questions in due time =)
slauzon11 3 weeks ago
@slauzon11 Wait a second... you saw my presentation, and Kent Hovind's presentation, and you saw a similarity. You IMMEDIATELY concluded a common designer. You just demonstrated that you have to defy logic to believe similarties prove common ancestry. Thank you, I appreciate that.
creationliberty 3 weeks ago
@creationliberty
Answer the question. Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old?
Also c'mon man...I meant no disrespect in the sense that your presentation is a re-hash of Hovind's views which is a re-hash of just about every creationist argument ever used. I was hoping to hear something original. You seem well spoken and I was hoping to spur a back and forth conversation that I might learn something from.
slauzon11 3 weeks ago
Dogs came from wolves. Last time I checked, wolves are not dogs. Therefore a non-dog, over several millennia, empirically produced a dog.
epsilon8998 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@epsilon8998 "Dogs came from wolves. Last time I checked, wolves are not dogs. Therefore a non-dog, over several millennia, empirically produced a dog."
Good point, wolf does not breed dogs still there are dogs. I wonder how a denier if evolution explains that?
jomen112 3 weeks ago
@epsilon8998 so what would you consider the liger?
compendiumgravemind 3 weeks ago
@compendiumgravemind A cross between two genetically similar species that is infertile and therefore not a new species. Kind of like a mule
epsilon8998 3 weeks ago
I got a question for you: We both know that is a concept "dogs" only that describes an abstract "kind" that doe snto exist. A dog can not bread. But Pomeranian and Rottweiler can bread. However I have never seen Pomeranian pair give raise to anything else than Pomeranian's and I have never seen a Rottweiler pair give raise to anything else than Rottweiler's. In particular I have never seen a Rottranian or a Pomerweiler. Does that mean Pomeranin and Rottweiler are not the same kind?
jomen112 3 weeks ago
@jomen112 I'll tell ya what: It's obvious you believe in evolution. If you think you have scientific evidence for evolution, would you like to come on our show and present it? Every evolutionist I've talk to dodges my question when I ask them this (yes, all of them so far have done so), so a simple yes or no would do. It's not bad if you say no, but please be direct.
creationliberty 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@creationliberty " It's obvious you believe in evolution."
I don't "believe" in evolution - I don't have to as evolution is an observed fact.
"would you like to come on our show"
Did not know abut that, just find your channel. What show is that, and how do one
join it?
"If you think you have scientific evidence for evolution, would you like to come on our show and present it? "
It is not a matter of thinking there exists evidence, it is a matter of not denying them.
jomen112 3 weeks ago
@creationliberty
What would you count as evidence for evolution?
jomen112 3 weeks ago
@creationliberty you have a mental illness, and you need help asap.
darksonic360 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
"I can provide evidence that the bible is true but I can not do it scientifically".
Then it follows you can not prove it is true, because 'provide evidence' require you to show it objectively - as facts. But you already know you cant do that and you admitted that. Therefor you either lie when you say you can provide evidence or it is just wishful thinking that you can provide such evidence. To say anything else would be dishonest either towards your self or others.
jomen112 3 weeks ago
@jomen112 All you're doing is showing everyone that you don't know the difference between historical evidence and scientific evidence. Read the first couple chapters of "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow, and that'll help clear that up.
creationliberty 3 weeks ago
"The book Bones of Contention, by Marvin Lubenow (1992), is considered by many creationists to be the definitive creationist treatment of the claimed evidence for human evolution" - from talk origin
And how does this give raise to evidence that the Bible is true?
jomen112 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@creationliberty ""I can provide evidence that the bible is true "
I am still waiting for your to provide these evidence.
jomen112 3 weeks ago
"I don't care what you believe. Believing it doesn't make it science."
Nobody has to believe anything. We know humans are apes as a fact. These facts are independent of evolution. We are apes based on physiological facts! We know as a fact that humans are apes from every single physiological examinations done for the past 200 year or so. We know this just as we know human are mammals. To claim otherwise would require more than belief -a blank denial of tens of thousands of medical documented.
jomen112 3 weeks ago
"There is no observation and no experimentation that has ever show use that a dog can come from a non dog."
Good boy, you finally understood what the theory of evolution is about. Mammals bread mammals, and reptiles breads reptiles. Cats bread cats and dogs breads dog. Diversity with in groups with unique characters; dog are dogs and will only bread dogs. Things does not magical pop into existence with out a common history of traits. Which is what we observe and the theory says we should see.
jomen112 3 weeks ago
Chris, do you ever have your own thoughts, or are you just gonna quote Kent Hovind all day? I mean, right down to your analogies. It's pathetic. Your understanding of evolution is markedly poor.
jont43 1 month ago
Creation took place in less than a week. & then after that began the rest of God's ongoing creation: the process of Divine Selection. The Lord explains: "for many are called but few are chosen". If you want to become part of the next advancement, the "new creature in Christ Jesus", just pray this little born-again prayer: "Jesus, forgive me of my sins, come into my heart and save my soul. In Your Name, in Jesus' Name I ask it. Amen". Then u will become transformed while the rest go extinct.
qt4lo 1 month ago
this guy is the biggest and best evidence i have ever seen against the theory of evolution
ever
he could destroy science and save himself six minutes just by saying
''want irrefutable evidence that shows 'evolution through natural selection equates to a betterment of the species' is nonsense? well, TA-DAH!!!''
al3699 1 month ago
This vid is a perfect example of an idiot , trying to explain ( and re-define ) his incredibly twisted view of reality and semantics. Every other sentence shows his lack of understanding of anything scientific.
curiousgeorge1940 1 month ago
Sorry, are you permanently high? So anything you don't believe now is religion, while your religion is science?
lol, Christians are tyring to transform their religion in science, and actual science in religion. I am just happy that such a cancer has not spread out of the US, and that actual scientists are allowed to do their job.
TWSYFree 1 month ago
LOL!!.... fail.... keep reading a crazy mans ramblings..
drnekodr 1 month ago
Had to let you know that you are retarded.
Chriscrockersux 1 month ago
This guy is just a Kent hovind clone, no matter what evidence you provide he will just ignore it and pretend like it doesnt exist...oh yeah and hes a moron too.
TheJdecka 1 month ago
What is it you don't understand and would like to. where to begin I feel like a mosquito in a nudist camp. Know what I ought to be doing just don't know where to start.
SO hundreds of years of advances and discoveries by millions of scientists some of the brightest minds on the planet and you think you can prove it all wrong by wishing it was not so. Well lets see test of knowledge so far displayed. mmmm
Shall we start with how to tie your own shoelaces.
VideoAudioDisco09 2 months ago
He has a donate option on his website, me thinks a new huckster is trying to rise from the deceptive slime infested world of religion and cash in on the gulible. Make a name, go on speaking tours at churched of cash laden DVD buying fools.
Playing the part Or is he just that stupid.
What say you.
VideoAudioDisco09 2 months ago
Well he sure proved conclusively that he has not got a clue and understands nothing of the subjects on which he speaks. No wonder he got a golden crockoduck nomination.
As for Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist not exactly qualified in any of the areas of science that are mentioned here.
There is nothing here that is not well understood, documented, tested and proven.
Why can't shit for brains do some research in the real world, beggers belief.
VideoAudioDisco09 2 months ago
We have way more than one iota of fact.
Forallilovebook 2 months ago
*Sigh* Can't wait to get my masters and move to Sweden where people accept facts over sky fairies.
flammingbutter 2 months ago
Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain it!
Zereniti77 3 months ago
@Zereniti77 He sure can....It is the "Will of God".
jknengr796 2 months ago
Creationists are funny. And not only funny, but they are liars as well. OK, some of them are not liars since they might genuinely believe what they say. In that case they are merely stupid. Consider educating yourself before talking about something you obviously have no clue about. Oh, and come up with original arguments, instead of repeating what someone else has said. Word for word. *cough*Kent Hovind*cough*
Zereniti77 3 months ago
Chris dear, you're an idiot. Even if evolution was a religion (which it's not - what a stupid idea), it wouldn't make it false. It remains fact no matter what sort of nonsense you want to say about it.
AuntieDiluvian 3 months ago
@AuntieDiluvian Just because you BELIEVE evolution is science, doesn't make it part of science. Just because you BELIEVE evolution is not a religion, doesn't dispel its religious foundation. You gotta' prove what you're saying, like I did in the 2-part video, not just state a mantra over and over like 500 other evolutionists have done.
creationliberty 3 months ago
@creationliberty you may soon be Wildwoodclaire1's Dim Bulb of the week and one of Potholer54's nominees for his Golden Crocoduck award. You will receive much more than mantras from them.
AuntieDiluvian 3 months ago
@AuntieDiluvian Oh noes! Don't sick the big bad evolutionists on me! Hahahaha... oh wow... you guys crack me up...
creationliberty 3 months ago
@creationliberty and while you're laughing at science and facts, we are laughing at things like Leviticus 11, 13-19 and Deuteronomy 14, 6-7. Enjoy being cracked up. You will be cracked up, chewed up and spat out by reality.
AuntieDiluvian 3 months ago
@creationliberty
Not a case of belief, it is science and a result of the scientific method.
You proved nothing but your own lack of knowledge of the subject.
Repeating debunked retoric is what you are doing, surley you realise this.
Remember "Thou shall not bear false wittness", I think it means don't lie.
VideoAudioDisco09 2 months ago
@creationliberty Kent Hovints ideas where stupid to begin with, they don´t get any smarter because you reread them to your audience.
How would you know if evolution is scientific or not ? Do you have any science degree whatsoever ? No you have not. You are like a quack who wants to tell doctor what the best options to treat an illness is.
MrRichardQED 1 month ago
So what is an evolutionist?
The Theory of Evolution in the science community, not Kent Hovind's world, is about the changes of life over time, like Origin of Species started.
You know, like the dinosaurs changing and 'evolving' into differents kinds over 160 million years. The process we can observe and the theory explains.
gregrutz 3 months ago
Religion is defined as a dogma and rituals that centers around the belief in the supernatural, a deity or both.
Science does not use the supernatural or a deity.
Therefore, logic follows> this might be new to you, Science is not a Religion.
Biology is a science.
Evolution is Biology.
Same Kind>>YES.
Dogs produce dogs, apes produce apes. That is why Humans are still Apes! Still mammals, still cordates. You can't outgrow your ancestry.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz You did not define evolution, just as I have pointed out to evolutionists time and time again. When you said "Evolution is Biology," you meant MICRO-evolution. Which no one here disagrees with. But then you said "Humans are still Apes," in which you CHANGED the defintion to MACRO-evolution. You switch from science to religion mid-sentence. If you want to BELIEVE that's not religion, you're welcome to that believe. I don't care what you believe. Believing it doesn't make it science.
creationliberty 3 months ago
@creationliberty ''Humans are still Apes'' has nothing to do with 'big' or ''little'' evolution.
That is what we are classified as.
Are you a mammal? Do humans have live birth, give milk, have finger nails, etc.?
Are you a tetrapod? Do you have 4 limbs?
gregrutz 3 months ago
You fucking suck at facts.
Stop home-schooling yourself and get a legitimate education.
PROTOGgouki 3 months ago
you understand nothing
DDazzle1 4 months ago
Oh boy, he's sucking god cock but good!
Rockster969 4 months ago
@Rockster969 abraham is workin it up the rear end at the same time, hes a lucky boy. lol.
kram83au 3 months ago
Wow, this guy is an idiot. All you need to debunk him is a dictionary. He doesn't even give his own opinion. He just quotes creationist after creationist. He constantly tries to look for flaws in science without even trying to look at the evidence for science. Trying to fit reality into your religion makes you look like an idiot to the rest of us.
urantivirus 4 months ago
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, US Atomic Energy Commission, USA is somehow to be taken more seriously in his newspaper quote from 1959 than the science of Biology?
odinata 5 months ago
The problem here is two fold. First, you are indeed pointing out to a religious group the fact that their beliefs are indeed religious. One tenet of their belief system is to deny that it is a belief system, or a religion. You can't get very far with that kind of psychological denial at play. Second, these people believe that science is theirs, and that it supports their metaphysics. That being said, you gotta try, even though you know they will just equivocate on terms like science/evolution.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
Religion involves belief in a supernatural & worshipping that entity.
I'm confused. Who am i supposed to be worshipping. How can any science be a religion? If a dog can produce a non dog then this would disprove Evolution. The fossil record is so clear and palaeontology is still a science. Science looks at the fact and draws a conclusion but a religion starts with the conclusion and then manufactures "facts" to fit. You have no proof of Christianity scientifically or not. Please Learn Science.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater I didn't say science was a religion. That's your words. I said EVOLUTION is a religion. You need to get that straight. (check title!)
You've also used a logical fallacy called: Reification. That's where you give an abstract concept concrete qualities. (e.g. "Science look at..." & "Science draws a conclusion...") People look at... and people draw conclusions, but science does not do these things.
Come join our podcast if you get some real scientific evidence. I'd love to see it.
creationliberty 5 months ago
@creationliberty You did, even in your title. Evolution is a branch (or should i say many independent branches) of science. Among all the scientific theories, evolution is the one that is almost certainly 100% fact (even if we don't know everything as to the mechanisms). Science, of course, does look at the facts & draw a conclusion. OK that's not a complete description of the scientific method but that is what it is in a nutshell. I'm afraid you have NO scientific evidence for your religion.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Our next show's on the 10th. (check our website for details) Join us and give us the best piece of evidence for evolution you are aware of. I would love to see it because I am still waiting for any scientific evidence for evolution.
creationliberty 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Actually, evolution is a theoretical framework that is built on multiple assumptions. Some hypotheses within this framework are likely true. If that were all this debate were about, you wouldn't need to even make the comment you did. But it's not, you are trying to assert metaphysics here, sneak them in under the pretense of science, in order to eliminate the validity of the opposing framework before it is even presented. Just admit it.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision Actually evolution is a Scientific Theory (accepted by scientists as one of the strongest) that utilises basic observation and predictions. But of course you know all of this but can't admit it because you are well and trully stuck with your unmoveable dogma. Just think how more difficult that gets for you creotards as science unravels more and more.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Classical equivocation. That's all you do, ever, period.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
All you ever do is bitch and moan.
Young Earth Creationism is indefensible, and you certainly do prove that.
odinata 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision Hmm... I show textbooks that teach all these different definitions, and then you claim I'm the one using equivocation? Hahahaha! I'll have to mention that on our show. That was funny.
creationliberty 5 months ago
@creationliberty
No, read the rest of my comments. I'm pretty much on your side. I was saying that pilgrimpater is the one who equivocates, like a bad habit.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision Whoops, I got confused. Sorry. I thought that was pilgrmpater talking. Youtube is really weird on how it sends messages. I don't get all of them. It picks and chooses. So I might get a random message in the middle of a debate that I think is directed at me. I'll try to look more closely in the future.
After reading his comments, he's also arguing from scientific authority, and arguing from majority opinion. Both logical fallacies to add to the one you pointed out.
creationliberty 4 months ago
@creationliberty
No problem, I figured such. No big deal. Yes, you are absolutely right. Although these logical fallacies do extend into the realm of science and academia because of certain prominent individuals forcing their opinions down our throats, I find that it is on youtube where they are overly used to the point of exhaustion. Not even much the authority and/or majority they pretend to represent would back them, certainly not in an honest scientific discussion.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow you cant even make up your own lies you stupid fuckhead
Unguidedone 5 months ago
you are a fucking idiot lol
Namyttem 5 months ago
About the Brief History of Time quote; are you aware that in that very same paragraph that he explains how we can tell stars apart without needing to see them by simply looking at the spectrum of light they posses? The book was also published two years before the Hubble Telescope was launched. Since then we've been able to observe more than just a pinpoint of light. We can look at stars at extreme distances away with detail. nasa(dot)gov/images/content/185587main_v-516.jpg Here is a star
Deathyman 5 months ago
you have no idea please check your facts.
MrChristainchris 5 months ago
if evolution is a religion then... dont question my beliefs?
Why the hell would the bible be any more holy than the origin of species....
there is only one god and darwin (peace be upon him) is his messenger, now if you question this il call it blashemy and il burn down your house.
Hmm gaining all the priviliges of religion seems great
unfad1ng 5 months ago
I am not sure why people in the 21st century still put their particular god over and above proven facts.
What is really bad is that people still try to find scientific sounding stupidity and feed gullible and uneducated people. And these simpletons lap this up just to satisfy their wishful thinking.
StopSpamming1 5 months ago
1. This guy is retarded.
2. This guy should have paid attention in Biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry.
3.This guy needs to do his laundry instead of talking out of his ass.
acallen101 5 months ago
this is like watching a car wreck, it's so bad and I want to turn it off, but I can't force myself to look away.
JMU24AZP 5 months ago
LOL! I really enjoy watching Creationists try to act smart because in EVERY case, the make complete IDIOTS of themselves with the ridiculous things they say. Creationists need to realize that there is truly NO DEBATE within the Scientific community or in Academics as to the reality of Evolution. Evolution has very much been proven and is the basis for ALL BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ON THE PLANET. Creationism or 'intelligent design' remains a laughable superstitious belief just like the Bible.
ColonPal 6 months ago
hahaha fucking wanker....
partypoison485 6 months ago
Idiot...
Gamer1010101 6 months ago
What a retard :(
Evolution a religion - hahahah and basketball is a game played with triangle objects on flying brooms
Who created You? He wasn't intelligent designer !!! -
If something is a FACT like EVOLUTION is a FACT you LEARN IT and KNOW IT you DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT!!!
YOU BELIEVE in FAIRY TALES - Superman, Spiderman, Yahwe, Zeus, Budda .... - no evidence = NOT a FACT there fore BELIEVE is NEEDED!!
Overkillerr 6 months ago
Evolution is not a religion. Evolution is backed facts and religion is based on FAITH.
TheLogicalHuman 6 months ago
how does it feel to entirely rip someone else off without posting the video of them actually saying it : D
osiris6669 6 months ago
Were you Kent Hovind's pet parrot at some point?
hitballfootler 6 months ago
Oh, and with Boyle's law, it's only applicable under two circumstances
1. The temperature of the system remains constant
2. It is a closed system
As you even admitted yourself at 6:09 "The heat is increased..." so Boyle's law is non-applicable
Space is not a closed system, therefore (again) Boyle's law is non-applicable.
Next.
OpinionatedAussie 6 months ago
Science: Knowledge gained through experimentation and observation
Evolution - observable in the fossil record and through DNA evidence
Experimentation - E. Coli long term evolution experiment, and I believe in "The Greatest Show on Earth" is details of an experiment in which tropical lizards were moved from their home, to a completely different island, and in only a few decades developed a new diet, changed stomach to cope with this diet, and a structurally changed jawline.
OpinionatedAussie 6 months ago
You dont understand evolution, that's why it doesn't make sense to you.
TheAstroSteve 6 months ago
How old is this 2nd Kent Hovind?
4FunPlayin 6 months ago
If you've truly disproved evolution (as well as several other unrelated theories) as you claim to have done, you must be one of the smartest people alive. Go to university, where I'm sure you'll excel, get a phd, and publish the findings you've made. You'll surely get a nobel prize, you'll be rich and famous and you can upload a video in which you gloat about how you were right and us atheists were wrong, forcing us to hang our heads in shame.
PooGGay 7 months ago
Wait, planets evolve? Like.. rock evolves? This shit is excellent. Lemme light up my bong and I'll get right back to your video.
mrdaym 7 months ago
check out his argument in the top comment. " So, you ARE saying that similarity proves a common designer. " no u fool he's saying that you just coppied it all. not once in that paragraph did he agree with that in any way
mrcool9191 7 months ago
you sir, are an idiot. good day.
DeathNote207 7 months ago
hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaa! kent Hovind parrot! Dude Kent is full of shit and you fell for his lies.
pandorachild 7 months ago
The problem here is that Hovind would probably LIKE that this guy is plagiarizing the fuck out of him.
alphaenemy 7 months ago
@creationliberty So, you plagarize Hovind... fine.
But when you cite Hawking, I just have to get out my copy of A Brief History of Time and read the rest of page 39 to see what he really said re: what we can know about stars from their light.
As it turns out, we can know a great deal by looking at the entire light spectrum!
I'll save you the pain of explaining lightwaves. You wouldn't understand it any more than the concept of gravity which you don't seem to be aware of at all.
Qillz 7 months ago
I think you need to learn more about physics and cosmology. Save biology for later.
berniebay 7 months ago
typical of creationists... certainty without proof...
Xero555000 7 months ago
Evolution is a religion (it's also a contrived word). The Bible describes it as a religion in Jeremiah 2:27-28: Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the number of thy cities are thy gods...
qt4lo 7 months ago
The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is only knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification... So that means religion is a set of BELIEFS that aren't justified whereas science is systematic KNOWLEDGE gained through observation and experimentation...
Knowledge is truth, that is what scientists search for.
Holding a belief is just a psychological state wherein a person THINKS something is truth.
Can't you just accept that we might not know?
sconesnjam 7 months ago
Cut Copy Paste
zabukazar 7 months ago
you should feel sorry for him and pray for him he means well but is telling lies.
MrChristainchris 7 months ago
Why do creationists try to discredit evolution by calling it a religion? What does it say about your beliefs when you use them as an insult?
doombuggy123 7 months ago
@doombuggy123 When did evolution get credibility? lol
creationliberty 7 months ago
@creationliberty Is that supposed to be an answer?
Evolution is supported by loads of physical evidence and has endured scientific scrutiny over and over. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge it's obvious credibility is living with their head in the sand.
doombuggy123 7 months ago
@creationliberty HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH. Please remove your videos they are of negative value on the internet
Xero555000 7 months ago
@creationliberty yeah because your argument of a man on a cloud clapped his hands is pretty credible
mrcool9191 7 months ago
OK so a atomic physicist says evolutution is wrong. BEST ARGUMENT EVER. best because evolution is biology
WAZZA1235 7 months ago
Nice Kent Hovind impersonation.
neomysterio 7 months ago
Give me a G, R, and an A! VITY!!!! Gooooooo GRAVITY!! And a star is born!
aden302000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When a man starts every ‘lecture’ he has ever given with two known and verifiable lies:
“Hi my name is Dr. Kent Hovind. I taught high school science for 15 years.”
It doesn’t bode well for the rest of the bullshit that follows. And this is the idiot that you are parroting. Has it never occurred to you to learn your science from real scientists? Or at least do a little fact checking of the words of a known fraud?
stewpotb62 7 months ago
Comment removed
stewpotb62 7 months ago
hahahahha wow this may have the highest fallacy per second ratio of any youtube video. you had to TRY to be this stupid.
trogdor20X6 8 months ago
I nominate yo fro the Cocoduck winner.
77Totems 8 months ago
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about you dim witted Kent Hovind copy-paste knob
mythinktube 8 months ago
@mythinktube You saw my presentation, and Kent Hovind's presentation, and immediately concluded there was a common author. So are you saying that similarity proves a common designer?
creationliberty 8 months ago
@creationliberty your presentation is word-for-word the same. Evolution and just makes you look twice as stupid the fact that you publicly display the fact you have zero understanding its process and a child-like brainwashed mind that has to copy the teachings of a convicted fraudster in able to have an opinion which isn't even valid
mythinktube 8 months ago
@mythinktube So, you ARE saying that similarity proves a common designer. So you believe in evolution against your own logic. You know there is a Designer to all that we see in nature, because you just demonstrated that similarities logically prove common design, but you reject that logic, and reject that Designer, because you don't want a "thou shalt not" in your life. I appreciate your time to demonstrate that, so others can see it for themselves.
creationliberty 8 months ago
@creationliberty listen before you start with "you love sin that's why you won't accept God" nonsense.. I won't discuss what you're trying to assert until you at least admit how you are shamelessly copying Hovind. Remember lying is against the 9th commandment
mythinktube 8 months ago
@creationliberty LOL U R SO SMRT!!!!!!!!!!111111111112
trogdor20X6 8 months ago
@creationliberty That is a straw-man.
nextgenvids 7 months ago
@creationliberty No we don't, Kent Hovind has already been ripped apart beyond belief for his silly assertions. This video was almost a word for word copy of a Kent Hovind video, meaning this guy did no research, and made a fool of himself, or knows it's wrong and is lying.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@creationliberty "similarity proves a common designer"...just the most dishonest thing I've ever heard. So much of creationism is this type of distorted semantic game intended to produce appeals to emotion. You make me sad, creationliberty. Mostly because you're just so obvious.
alphaenemy 7 months ago
@alphaenemy Ya big dud.
alphaenemy 7 months ago
@creationliberty You fail at..everything.Similarity in HUMAN CONSTRUCTS (like your word for word copy of Hovind's presentations) might prove a common designer.Cells and animals are NOT human constructs thus laws about human constructs cannot be so easily applied to non human.
I'm sure that you also believe that since DNA contains information-someone placed it there.Well if you do, pull your head out of your ass.
Stevoukos 6 months ago
@creationliberty u are a space cadet
specialk9203 5 months ago
Wow... Your beliefs and views are so distorted, I cannot even begin to describe how blatantly wrong you are... But whatever I respect your faith.
KfourD3 8 months ago
Creationists fail to produce any scientific evidence for supporting their beliefs, and will often instead attack scientists for holding the view that the universe, life, and human beings have developed slowly over billions of years through the evolutionary process. Just once, I would like a creationist to produce actual evidence for the view that there was a universal creation a few thousand years ago, complete with talking snakes testing gullible humans to eat forbidden apples. Just once!
jackdeath 8 months ago
HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF GRAVITY. And the fact is after the big bang the heaviest element was lithium. But the stars made heavier elements, and as you said the fusion stops at iron. But then the stars exploded (supernova) and this created most of the heavier elements. But (this happens in nuclear reacters) neutrons and protons, and even electrons and neutrinos ( but they must be absorbed at about the same time) can make even heavier elements if they are absorbed by the nuclei of the atom.
WAZZA1235 8 months ago
And we can see stellar evolution everywhere with strong telescopes. We've seen stars forming you stupid peice of ....
WAZZA1235 8 months ago
And don't you say that scientists only have speculation for the origine of energy because your answers to the origine of energy is completly impossible
WAZZA1235 8 months ago
The amount of copy and pastes you do is unbelievable. If the people who said those exact lines copywrited them you would be selling your bdy for money
WAZZA1235 8 months ago
Evolutionary changes occur over different time spans. Evolutionary theory does predict, as you imply, that two dogs would spontaneously produce a non-dog. The only person who came close to claiming such a thing in the last 100 yrs was TD Lysenko, whose theories have long been discredited (to put it mildly). The definition of evolution as changes in gene pools over time is only "vague" if you don't know anything about biology.
Feigning knowledge is a lie. Lying is a sin.
scientiaarsvita1 8 months ago
@scientiaarsvita1 I think you meant to say "doesn't." I never said evolution says that two dogs would spontaneously produce a non-dog. Get the facts straight before you accuse people of lying. Evolution says that all the dogs in the world came from something non-dog, over whatever period of time you want to put on it. The problem is, when put in simple terms, it sounds completely stupid, and the average person can use their common sense and realize that we have no scientific evidence for that.
creationliberty 8 months ago
@creationliberty:
I like how you never address the reality of ring species that completely destroys your entire fallacy-centric belief system.
JohnGaltx64 8 months ago
@creationliberty Yes, it's "doesn't." Thanks for catching my typo.
You say, "when put in simple terms," but what you are doing is distorting the theory to imply what it doesn't. Common sense leads one to believe in a flat earth and geocentric universe. Common sense is not scientific evidence. Where are your 100 MY old fossil Terriers? If actual evidence is irrelevant, i.e. if you believe a literal, inerrant interpretation of the bible, you must find human slavery acceptable. Do you?
scientiaarsvita1 8 months ago
@scientiaarsvita1 Nothing you just put in your statement addressed the topic. You said I distort the "theory to imply what it doesn't" say. Yet, you never told us directly what it says. This is common among evolutionists. They tell me I'm wrong, then change the subject. Or they bring up a bunch of other topics all packed close together, like what you've just done, so no one can respond to them all. That's avoiding the issue.
creationliberty 8 months ago
First of all, congratulations and thank you for leaving the comments open on your video. You are to be commended on it.
Secondly. You are a fucking idiot. Please get yourself an education and open your eyes to your own stupidity and gullibility.
Chancer50 8 months ago
LOL word for word spouting of Kent Hovind bullshit.
You will eventually lock comments and disable ratings. It's guaranteed. ALL idiot creationists do it.
Primordialfan1 8 months ago
Did you enjoy Potholer's debunking of your idiocy?
warren52nz 8 months ago
Why do you think our God would be happy with you spreading lies and misinformation instead of love and compassion?
Could you not have donated your time to a homeless shelter or a mission trip instead of making this video full of inaccuracies?
JohnGaltx64 8 months ago
@JohnGaltx64 we afre triing to spread good scinece which copuld be very important in the futur. and why do you care about helpping homeless people all you need to do to enter your kindom, in a cloud is belive in the catholic god. And dont tell me your doing it by good will because i wont belive a word of it
WAZZA1235 8 months ago
@WAZZA1235:
How about you shut up and learn to spell before critiquing the student that is majoring in physics?
JohnGaltx64 8 months ago
@JohnGaltx64 I'm FRench asshole. i've only none english since 1.5years
WAZZA1235 7 months ago
And you say critisizing not critiquing. Stupid hypocrite.
WAZZA1235 7 months ago
I think you need to pay Kent Hovind a royalty. You are clearly stealing his material. He probably could use the money considering his imprisonment for tax fraud. I wonder though. Have you ever really investigated evolutionary theory from sources outside Christian apologetics?
BorgMX5 8 months ago
@BorgMX5 Wait... are you saying that similarities logically prove a common author (designer)?
creationliberty 8 months ago
@creationliberty A copycat is not a designer. You are not adding anything new to the debate. You are merely stating what Mr. Hovind said 10 years ago. Your dog analogy is almost word for word from one of his "seminars". Oh, and before you make some assumptions about me, I do happen to believe in God.
BorgMX5 8 months ago
@BorgMX5 "A copycat is not a designer." So... are you saying the similarity does not prove a common designer?
How then did you come to the conclusion that there is a connection between the two due to similarity?
Why could these two presentations not have formed randomly and coincidentally sound similar?
creationliberty 8 months ago
Congrats. You made British Centre for Science Education site. Maybe congratulations is the wrong word.
csadler 8 months ago
On MW definition, you use the definition which has examples such as "Hockey is a religion in Canada.". To claim it is a religion such as Islam or Christianity and use that definition is the fallacy of equivocation.
Yes, dogs produce dogs every time. If the mating of 2 dogs ever produced a non-dog, common descent/theory of evolution would have a serious problem.
"Evolution" in your definitions 1-3 are unrelated to CD/ToE, so rather meaningless in a discussion of evolution.
JustAnotherMutant 8 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant That's incorrect. Think about it for a second: Hockey is observed. That's not a belief. MACRO-evolution is NOT observed. Evolutionists only give examples of MICRO-variation, and then take the giant leap of faith to say that it has no limitations, which is NOT observed. Your example is extremely flawed. It's the same mistake they make when they compare evolution with gravity or cell theory. Gravity and cell theory have observations to go with them. Macro-evolution does not.
creationliberty 8 months ago
creationliberty, that is your example, not mine. You are using the #4 definition from MW's online dictionary, and that quote of mine is one of the examples fro the #4 definition.
Gravity has never been observed.
CD and ToE, like Universal Gravitation and Cell Theory, make predictions. If they are correct, observations should match their predictions. If observations do not match, then the theory is disproven, or needs some more detail (depending on how bad the problem is).
JustAnotherMutant 8 months ago
As a side note, Universal Gravitation was disproven.
JustAnotherMutant 8 months ago
its like Kent Hovind but his mother cuts his hair.
NefariousVirtuoso88 8 months ago
Bunkum!
andygray 8 months ago
in the descrption you say
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
-Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010
This is wrong. The dictionary as no such defintion, look it up.
merriam-webster com
Where do you get this bogus stuff from?
Duplex0r 8 months ago
@Duplex0r The link and reference is updated in the comments. It's right there if you just type in religion. Definition #4.
If that is the extent of research that you do, how can anyone believe you when you say you know what you're talking about concerning evolution? I know you don't want advice from a "bogus" creationist, but I would highly suggest reading first before you make comments like this.
creationliberty 8 months ago
@creationliberty it wasn't obvious from your video description that the quoted sentences referred to a descrption of religion, as thewy where preceded by "ALL OF THESE DESCRIBE EVOLUTION:"
You simply where not accurate weither these descriptions should describe religion or evolution. that's all.
Where did i say anything about my knowledge of evolution in order for you to question it, solely based on my miscomprehension of your video descripton (i'm not a native english speaker btw)?
Duplex0r 8 months ago
And I'm sorry but Einstein's equation E=MC^2 means that matter can and does form spontaneously when you have large amounts of energy this is one of the things the LHC depends upon to run it's experiments.
viper100200 8 months ago
Can you show us your PHD?
therabbitrevolution 8 months ago
Everyone go to potholer54's youtube channel and look for a video titled "How to confuse a creationist - 1"
This guy is a joke
TheMasteratLink 8 months ago
@Creationliberty if dogs produce dogs, apes produce apes etc. etc. why does the bible say that the first woman was created by a rib-bone?
Ptondus 8 months ago
@Ptondus , from adma's rib bone duh. still human create human :)
ladyboylizard 8 months ago
@ladyboylizard that does not make sense, and the fact that you really cant write doesnt make it better..
Ptondus 8 months ago
@Ptondus , it does. is adam not a human?
ladyboylizard 8 months ago