Creationist stupidity as it's best thank you for uploading this video. These guys have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, they have no scientific credentials and simply state repeatedly what other creationist pseudoscientists have stated and simply repeat that mantra all over again while having their ears and eyes closed to the evidence which is everywhere. Good job God!
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
These creationists will bend themselves over backwards and sideways to fit their "logic" through the eye of the needle. Sorry believer folks, but without EVIDENCE to back up your magical claims you all fail.
@jklein17 It is not the EVIDENCE that is in question. We all use the same evidence. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue. The creation model does a better job at explaining the evidence. The evolutionary model is full of the many magical claims you put on creation.
@rstevewarmorycom No, I have not abandoned the scientific method. The scientific method is good and was developed by Godly men. Unfortunately evolutionary scientist do not use the scientific method. Rather then test their idea, the beleive it regardless of the evidence and odds stacked against it. And when the evidence proves them wrong they don't say that evolution didn't happen, they just rewrite the story. We have see it time and again. First evolution happened to quickly to be detected
We are not evolving...but in a few years we will look back and see evolution in the text books...beside the other outdated and outmoded scientific models like the raisin-bun model of the atom and laugh!
Acually there was alot happening in the middle ages. It wasn't some dark place, there was a lot of thought happening at the time as history now tells.
@rstevewarmorycom We are not evolving. What you are talking about is natural selection. Godly men were talking of Natural Selection long before Darwin used it as and engine to propell his hypothesis evolution. Since we can only detect Natural Selection and have yet to detect evolution, lets throw out the tired and wanting hypothesis of evolution. evolution needs natural selection not the other way around.
BTW I have a jar of black death you can drink since you are nearly immune to the stuff
@rstevewarmorycom "nearly immune"... I see you have been reading evolutionary "scientific" liturature. Hah, those words do not even go together anymore; "evolution" and "scientific".
@rstevewarmorycom Such a catch word; "delusional". It is just an ad hominen attack to appear educated because it is used by the ilks of Dawkins, but it is a frantic attack and not a valid arguement!
@rstevewarmorycom Then it dosen't apply to me. I have looked at reality and the evidence points to a recent creation. So, anyone who believes in evolution is delusional based on your definition.
Remember: evolution is a poorly supported hypothesis full of conjecture. It is impossible, implausible, inconceivable, a facade, a week arguement, verbal diarrhea, of no value to the scientific comunity other then the postscript required to get further funding and grants. evolution does not match the evidence and requires a boat load of faith to believe when truthfully looked at.
both sides are pure religion. ima hedge my bets and go with the oldest, tried and true religion...evolution. wait...thas only been around for about 160 yrs or so?
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
"He (Satan) was over the world, and the dinosaurs took on the nature of Satan and they became very ferocious"
Dinosaurs became mean to other animals because the devil made them do it?
If this is true, then your Biblical God is NOT an all powerful being because he allowed evil to pollute the minds of the dinosaurs before tempting Eve.
"He (Satan) was over the world, and the dinosaurs took on the nature of Satan and they became very ferocious"
So..Satan made the dinosaurs ferocious after he fell to earth?
Dinosaurs became mean to other animals because the devil made them do it?
Funny how Creatards come up with outlandish claims. It's like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster trying to link the worsening global warming with the declining pirate population. Creationists are just as CRAZY.
*scratching head quizzically* ...umm... why would anyone think that 'dino' in the word dinosaur is rooted in the word dynamite? Dino is Greek for terrible. Dyna means power. Regardless... what the fuck does this have to do with exploding lizards?? What a maroon.
First animal live in separate zones like ocean dwelling animal will not be found with rabbits. Seccond with water there is hydrolification which separates materials of different densities. Try it with dirt and water in a soda bottle, shake it and layers will form. Third is that the fossils in the fossil reccord sometimes are found in multiple layers matching the global flood senario and not the evolutionary one. In fact the fossil reccord is an embarassment to the evolutionist.
I am a creationist, and this video does not show what we believe. If however, you say that creation is not scince, you are correct, but in the same light neither is evolution. Both are explanations of the past. But both rely upon the evidence of today to prove whether they are true or not. Creation is a better match for the evidence that we observe in nature!
@Mapariensis Yes I troll (to play) by arguing against your religion (evolution)! I don't start arguements for arguements sake, but I will comment on a video.
@elinikk Ok I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but I will. What evidence? Obviously this video takes some of the more ridiculous claims of creationists, so to a degree does take it out of context, but as yet I haven't seen any real "proof" for creationism that doesn't work better when looked at from an evolutionary perspective.
@fatmikecj I agree, you bite. Not from an evolutionary perspective..but rather view the evidence from an non-biased perspective and you will see that the evidence fits the creation model better. For example, fossils don't form from slow deposition like evolutionist often say. Look to the mississipi delta and there are no fossils, but where there is rapid burial by aquious borne sediment and there you have fossils. Just like the flood of Noah'
@elinikk No you see you've got your facts twisted. The reason there are no fossils around the mississpi delta is because it's only been there for a few thousand years. That's not enough time to fossilize something, but you'd probably dig up plenty of skeletons if you tried. That also disproves Noahs flood as the cause of fossils, because it wouldn't have happened long enough ago (according to the bible).
@fatmikecj Fossilization only requires 50 years or less. It is not time that is the requirement, but the right conditions. Noah's flood produced the right conditions. Evolution does not support the right conditions over the entire earth all the time. The evidence points to one catastrophic global event in the past.
@elinikk Fossils aren't found over the entire earth. The majority of places you dug you would find nothing. I'm also not sure how you work out that fossils only take 50 years to form. Do you have any evidence for this claim, or did someone just tell you and you accepted it? And one event? Why then are there so many layers of organisms of different complexity that follow the evolutionary scale if they all died at the same time? Noahs flood? Where'd all the water come from?
@fatmikecj Yes, fossils are found all over the earth, not uniformly over the earth, but everywhere. 50 yrs is based on a town that was covered in Austrailia by volcanic ash 50-60 years prior to being dug up. In this town there are many things that are fossilized. Further when we study the lake beds below Mt St Hellen, after it errupted there were mud slides. In these quick depositions we find fossils. And that was a recent erruption. Layering in the fossil reccord is due to many things.
@fatmikecj The flood waters came from the same place they now reside, in the oceans. The techtonic plates brook prior to the flood. All of the ocean waters then came in contact with molten lava below causing great steam jets to form thrusting the oceanic water into the atmosphere. These jets continue to rain water on the earth so that the earth was covered for many months. When the water/lava junctures crusted over the jets ceased and the water returned to the oceans.
@elinikk Again though, fossils are an almost irrelevant point when it comes to evolution, they just help illustrate the point with a visual prop. When you look at genetic maps it is pretty obvious how species evolved.
@fatmikecj Or were designed by a common designer! However the evidence is in favor of a common designer. The lack of evidence to support evolution is overwelming!
@elinikk OK, Ignoring your misinterpretations of fossilisation, You're genuinely going to argue that there is no evidence for evolution, but there is for Noahs ark? So why then are Marsupials only found in Australasia? How come we don't find any sheep fossils mixed in with the T-rex? How exactly did an old man build a boat big enough to fit 5,000,000 (conservative estimate) animals on board, plus food for 40 days? I could go on, but don't want to bore anyone with 30 or 40 pages of questions.
@fatmikecj Same old arguements based on ignorance. God created kinds of animals like we still see today. For example the dog kind. Whether it is a great dane or a boxer you know they are dogs! Only two dogs went on the ark. Get off of "species". Sheep and T-rex didn't live together just like whales and rabbits don't live together, so we don't expect to find them together. But sometimes we do find odd things like this in the fossil reccord. This is dismissed by the evolutionist!
@fatmikecj The various types of animals are found where they are because they migrated there as they moved from the mt. ranges of mount arrarat. Some after migrating to better pastures, etc. were blocked return by physical barriers (ie. a river or mountain range). Some animals were moved by humans etc.
@elinikk So what you're essentialy saying then is that until the flood there were no mountains, no deep oceans, just near sea level plains and shallow seas (since that's the only way a global flood could occur). When it subsided each species travelled to certain areas, generally journeys of thousands oif miles, crossing other areas that would have been perfectly habitable. Mountain ranges and valleys have sprung up in just 4000 or so years from nothing.
@fatmikecj There were some mountains prior to the flood since the bible refers to these mountains, but they were not the Himilayas or Alps of today. After the flood the surface of the earth was ripped off and dumped into the oceans (that is why we can do off shore drilling and find oil, since the remains of millions of plants and animals were dumped there). So, the land was quite barren and animal migrated then just as animals migrate today.
@elinikk And I never mentioned breeds, I'm talking about species ie one type of animal which is physicaly incapable of breeding with another type of animal. Do you realise how many species of insect alone there are? Millions, many of which remain undiscovered today. And you're saying that they all filed up to the ark, crossing thousands of miles, got on a little wooden boat, with enough food for everything for at least 40 days then disembarked and crossed thousands more miles to continue living.
@fatmikecj No insects were on the ark (on purpose at least). Further no Fish or Whales or any other sea creature was on the ark. You are a little confused with the history of what happened. Further species are not what Noah put on the ark. He put "kinds" of animals on the ark. Dog kind when on the ark and since they came off the ark we have many breeds of dog, but these breeds are all just dog. Put them all back into a room and in a couple of generations have original dog.
@fatmikecj Some species can inter-breed BTW. For example the donkey, Zebra and horse can all interbreed. Indicating an original horse kind made up of these animals. Sometimes the offspring are sterile, but only in some cases. This is why bioligists have falsely separated them as different spicies.
@fatmikecj BTW, the ark was not a little boat. The dimensions that the bible gives is in the range of 75' x 450' x 45' tall (using the 18" cubit). It was more like a barge then a boat (since all it had to do was float while the global flood occured). So to say the ark was small is misleading and very ignorant on your part. It would rival some of the largest ocean going vessels of today.
@elinikk You do realize that 450' long boats aren't even half as long as most of todays largest ocean going vessels right? Heck the CMA CGM Andromeda is 1,909' long. It would still take a floatilla of many Andromeda's just to carry the food required for two of every species of animals, not to even mention how many would be needed to carry the animals. Oh and how did animals from other continents get to the middle east in order to board the mythical ark, just curious?
@jklein17 Yes there are some large vessels on the ocean today, moot point. The ark did not take two of each species, it took two of each kind (akin to family). You should do a little work before sticking your ignorant foot in your mouth. Animal that left the ark (the mountain rages of arrarat) migrated to where we find them today. Animals did not have to migrate to the middle east!?
@elinikk How did Noah happen to get marsupials on the ark? How did complete ecosysytems as complex as the Amazon or the Congo happen to arrange themselves by the animals roaming around afterwards? Why is there no evidence of genetic bottlenecks in every species.
You're claiming that after the ark, evolution went forward at an incredibly fast pace from a common ancestor at the family level to all modern species in 600 years (when you get pictures of lions and house cats), then stopped?
@HConstantine All animals come from Noah's ark after the flood. So marsupials migrated from the mt ranges of arrarat (the resting place of the ark)to where we find them today.
evolution never occured, so it did not have to go fast! Natural selection has occured (BTW is not evolution) since the flood. That is why we see some changes in each kind of animal (like the finches). But the finches are still finches and the beak variation has more to do with seasonal changes then to evolution.
@elinikk And why didn't marsupials migrate to anywhere else? Did they hop across the water to Australia? Did the saltwater fish or the fresh water fish survive? What did they eat when they got off the Ark and everything was covered with mud?
@elinikk Funny how you revisionists come up with a term like "kind" which really means nothing when people try to pin you down on it. You should really come up with something better than that if you want to sound as though you have a brain that you use to think and what not. As for large ships of today being moot as you put it. No really they are not. You still can't explain how todays ships still can't do what the magical ark supposedly did.
@jklein17 Kind is a vaild category. It is similar to family in the classification system. We say kind like dog-kind which includes all dogs from the Great Dane to the Terrier. I said that the ark was large like a modern vessel. To say that today we have larger vessels then the ark I agree with, but the arguement is moot. The ark is sufficient in size to house two of each kind of animal (aprox 2500 animals with supplies and eight people). The animals did not have to be full adult versions.
@gregrutz Neanderthals are just humans. They buried their dead, made tools, were religious and burried their dead with modern humans which means that they knew they were family to modern humans. It is interesting to note that many of Neanterthal trait are found in modern europeans. So, they rather became part of the standard population then went extinct. Just humans that's all they are. The sabertooth is just an extinct form of the cat. The cat-kind was on the ark!
@gregrutz Neandertals were us/are us. Just like three toed and one toed horses both lived at the same time, both are horse. Many animals have died. Some of the traits that they posessed are now gone. That is the results of sin and this sin/cursed world. It is a loss of information. Which of course goes against evolution and shows that the creation model beter explains what we observe in nature.
@elinikk 2500 animals? are you on crack???? where did you get that number? Please don't think you can stroll in here and talk about there being only 2500 animals on a boat and that encompases all the species on the planet. See what happens when you people develop a term like "kind" which you then fit thousands of species into so that your numbers can even remotely work. Sorry without a detailed description of "kind" you are out of luck here.
@jklein17 I have told you that kind associates with the classification of family. Species is a poorly defined tern anyways. The number 2500 is a standard estimate for the number of animal required to produce all of the species that we see around us. Most of these species were generated within the first few generation anyways. All humans regardless of our skin, eye, hair color not to menton body types all come from the eight people on the ark. So you can see how all the variety arose quickly
@elinikk There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. DNA Code itself proves how all life is related to all life.
There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
@gregrutz Yes, many scientist get their funding by noting evolution. This does not prove evolution is true. Natural selection does occure, but unfortunately this is not evolution. Evolution can not be scrutinize scientifically because it is not science. Evolution is just an idea of how the evidence can be interpreted. Evolution constantly evolves in order to side step the science that does not back it. Evolution is NOT the backbone of biology.
@rstevewarmorycom It does not matter how many people said the kings clothes looked great, the fact is he wore no clothes at all. Consensus does not a truth make, truth is the truth regardless. BTW evolutionary scientist are not true scientists, rather they are just fantastic story tellers.
@elinikk No, the geologic columns contains more than water borne sediments. There are ash layers, wind blown sand, coral reefs, chalk layers, etc. Floods don't sort fossils. Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order. In other words there was no global flood, no evidence for one at all.
@gregrutz Yes I agree that we do find some subsequent layers of ash and sand etc. This happened post flood (there has been 4500 years since the flood), but the majority of the geological column is the reccord of the flood. And yes it is evidence for it. The column is infact evidence against slow deposition. Layers that are supposed millions of years apart touch at places with no evidence of errossion between. Layers that supposedly are later then layers are found underneath (or earlier).
@elinikk The flood caused great upheval of material, so we would naturally expect to find layers of coral, sand and chalk embeded. And this is true. The flood model is a better model then the evolutionary or slow deposition model. In fact when we look to places of slow deposition like the Mississippi delta we find no evidence of fossilization what so ever. Quick submersion by aquious borne sediment like the flood is the only way to produce fossils of they kind we find.
@elinikk Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV in the exact same location. Common ancestor?
@elinikk ''both rely upon the evidence of today to prove whether they are true ''
No, creation does not look at the fossil record or geology because both prove you wrong.
Standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon and saying. ''A little water over a long period of time or a lot of water over a short period of time'' is not the question. The question is where did 5000 feet of sediment come from and how did it get to 8000 feet above sea level. And not all the layers are from water !
It was hilarious to see Hovind define a line between what's unintelligent and what's not. Believing that the devil placed dinosaur bones in the ground is unintelligent, but believing that their apparent age is wrong is OK.
If lizards live for a long time, they get big, people hunted them. Thats solid fact. "they have footprints with man footprints and dinosaur footprints in the same place." Again, that proves god. For those who want an example of sarcasm.
@DDDDamien if you think about the moon cycle, there is about 13.07 moon cycles in a year. 969 divided by 13.07 = about 74 years old.....very old for the time. Maybe they counted moon cycles? I dunno, just a thought
@Dreamerx47 But you are a real idiot if you believe that the devil put dinosaur bones into the ground or something like that. I think he is completly right.
So the highest rated comment on this video is the one advocating killing people for ideological differences. I've seen this behavior before, but can't quite place my finger on it. Hmmm... Says a lot about you people doesn't it? Assholes.
Don't bother responding to me with your excuses. They won't work.
@zimgirfreak Why? And what exactly do you mean by that? Should they have their own children taken away?
I think it's best that children are exposed to all belief systems. Keeping children away from any ideologies, right or wrong, is the exact opposite of education and leads to people not understanding each other. So you too are putting forward an extremist assertion and deciding truth for children. I'm not sure I trust you with something like that, but I'm glad you don't want to kill anybody.
@dyz12003 I've seen the damage that this kind of brainwashing does to people, mostly children, in my mother's familiy and my husband's familiy. It is okay to expose children to different religions as long as it is stressed that they are fiction, like Greek and Roman mythology. Anything else is cruel.
I also get mad when others don't think the way I do. I wish that I could just do everybody's thinking for them. I wish that I could decide truth for the whole world. Then everybody would be happy. Nobody would be brainwashed if they just listened to me. Why won't people listen to me? Is it cause I assume I'm the only one using my brain?
I wish people would just listen to me when I condescend and act like an expert in all fields of knowledge.
@dyz12003 No, that's exactly the problem. People listening to other people without question. Ideas need to be examined. When someone states a claim without evidence it needs to be examined and, if unproven or unreal, rejected. People need to think for themselves.
The people represented in this video are blind followers. No one would come to these beliefs on thier own.
@zimgirfreak What are you talking about? People come to all sorts of beliefs on their own. And people of all beliefs think that their beliefs are supported by evidence. This whole thing is not a battle over evidence but epistemology or how we know what we know.
And just out of curiosity, how is that other side of your family you mentioned harmed by having a different belief? And how is teaching your child that your beliefs are true constitute as "cruel"?
@dyz12003 Children believe without questioning. It's helpful to our safety if we blindly listen to our parents when they tell us not to run into the street et al. So telling them things that aren't true is immoral. Brainwashing them into believing a fairy tale out of hope and fear is cruel. It breeds anxiety, fear, intolerance, and hate. Children are victims. but adults should know better. People who are not first told they must believe or else don't read the bible and believe it to be fact.
@zimgirfreak I agree. Telling kids things that are false is immoral. Which is why I only tell things I believe are true. I don't object to disclaimers like, "not everyone believes this" but your proposition that bringing kids up under certain faith systems is immoral is preposterous. I see I'm dealing with the typical fundie atheist mindset here that thinks only her particular belief should be taught as fact. If this is true, then I can't help you. The conversation ends here.
the only thing appealing is...how stupid these creationist women must be. Hell...all I would have to do is find some bible line so she would obey. Then again...they may taken shard of light shining through my window as providence to kill me...so...maybe not so much
Just look at the number of views on any video featuring Dawkins. You would not have seen that ten years ago. Religion is dwindling worldwide as education becomes universal. Primitive man thought that thunder was the shouting of gods, that lightning was the spears of gods, that the eclipse was god turning out the lights. As science explains more and more natural phenomena there are fewer and fewer dark corners of ignorance for god(s) to hide in. Education dissolves Religion.
If its THAT unclear to you how they are wrong, why Evolution has been an accepted theory for over 125 years, then I honestly don't know what to say to you...
JAYFROMFIN... this is a rhetorical video. Such that the arguments against these people-- and the nature of the tings they obviously know nothing about-- "I believe that God created..." "I believe Satan was over the world of dinosaurs..." These are just incredibly... frustrating, untrue statements. People are not entitled to their own facts. These people are reporting falsehoods.
Wow, I never realized religious nuts were so sensiitve to criticism ....... BWAAAAhahahahahaHAAAAA! Sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face saying that.
Anyone can cherry pick statements to make a whole group of people look stupid. Richard Dawkins is also on record as saying that our planet may have been seeded by aliens. Does that factor into the point you are trying to make?
Wow, you are one hacked off dude. I'm sorry that you are so angry towards anyone religious. My only point is that Dawkins is willing to consider the possibility of one type of intelligent design, but not any others. It doesn't seem to truly honor academic freedom to act in such a manner.
It's okay if you come back with another snarky comment... I can take it. I'd prefer a calm, rational discussion... but, I honor your freedom of speech to say whatever you wish.
@daveyjazz72 The hypothesis that life can be seeded is something completely different then ID.
Humans can probably do the same thing in a few years. All you need to do is detect an extrasolar planet with earthlike atmosphere, send a rocket with a good computer that can take control once its close to the target and a colony of bacteria that survive beeing frozen for a long time.
I understand that they look slightly different in the nature of their ideas. How does that make the possibility of a designer any less of a credible pursuit? We allow evolutionists to pursue their theory. Why squelch the opinions of "religious people" because you don't like them?
Well its different because the origins of life still need to be explained. But not by evolution because it only explains how life evolves once its there. Theorys or hypotheses on the origins of life are called abiogenesis.
To me however it seems strange to believe in evolution by natural laws but at the same time believe that the transition from chemistry to a simple replicating molecule somehow needs the help of a supernatural god.
I hear what you are saying. The only error I'd point out is calling the process of replicating "simple". There are microbiologists who look at these basic building blocks and are realizing that they are far from simple. So, some are starting to think that the evolutionary process is way too complex to happen spontaneously without some outside force to put everything in order. Calling it "simple" seems to degrade what research has discovered and really is attempting to base it on science.
I have to agree with you on that, but its still simple in comparison with life, and other processes of which we know happen by natural processes and without supernatural 'help'. It just seems that if there was a god or intelligence responsible for everything we know then it has to be one that designed the universe in a way that it operates by itself. And that would mean that we could never find proof by looking at evolution.
But, that's the point. If it's not so simple to begin with... then it compounds the unlikeliness of evolution, since those process appear even more complex. By the way, creationists who claim that there is absolute and conclusive proof in science are fooling themselves. I fully admit that it's my "faith". It just bothers me when evolutionists also claim that there is absolute and conclusive proof.
It's a brilliant theory... yes. But, with the discovery of more complexity at the level of microbiology... it's making the theory more and more unlikely. I don't use that as a platform to "prove" creation theories. I'm just saying that we can't be calling evolution absolute fact. I'm even up for allowing people to entertain a totally separate idea about the origins of life aside from evolution and creation. That's allowing true academic freedom.
I dont think complexity in microbiology is a problem as long as it could be explained by gradual steps. Real irreducible complexity would disprove evolution and its never been found. And look at it from the other side: if creation was true, shouldnt irreducible complexity be everywhere around us? Wouldnt you expect systems everywhere that were impossible to explain by gradual steps?
@daveyjazz72 please stop using "origins of life" and evolution in the same context. Those are two separate subjects. Abiogenesis (the theory around the origins of life) isn't even biology: it's chemistry!
Evolution is how the various lifeforms are ganatically related to each other through ancestry. It doesn't even TRY to explain where life came from in the first place.
I wish I could make up my own reality.
worktosser 2 months ago
Creationist stupidity as it's best thank you for uploading this video. These guys have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, they have no scientific credentials and simply state repeatedly what other creationist pseudoscientists have stated and simply repeat that mantra all over again while having their ears and eyes closed to the evidence which is everywhere. Good job God!
oliver2k94 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
These creationists will bend themselves over backwards and sideways to fit their "logic" through the eye of the needle. Sorry believer folks, but without EVIDENCE to back up your magical claims you all fail.
jklein17 5 months ago
@jklein17 It is not the EVIDENCE that is in question. We all use the same evidence. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue. The creation model does a better job at explaining the evidence. The evolutionary model is full of the many magical claims you put on creation.
elinikk 5 months ago
@elinikk Wishy-washy wishful thinking. That's like
asserting 2+2 = 5 is just "another interpretation"!!
Going back to some magical creature to create
everything is just like having to explain what created
THAT creature. It's simpler to simply realize that
Reality itself is "magical" and that it has no more
need to be created than some Gawd-being as YOU
would assert. Otherwise, "it's turtles all the way
down!", an infinite regress that truly answers nothing
and only pretends knowledge.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@elinikk Now if you wanted to assert that Reality itself is
"magical" and in a sense an "Infinite Being", then you'd have
to lose all the biblical trash that doesn't go with that and
instead join up with the eastern philosophies in not holding
to a Gawd-creature at all, precisely. Buddhists and Taoists
and even Hindus say that the Atman, the Self, and the
Brahman creative energy are one and the same, we're
secretly the Atman having adventures in all possible
lives, which = Many Worlds QM!
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom No, I do not want to. Reality is not magical, it is real. God is real and the story of macro evolution is false.
elinikk 3 months ago
@elinikk For you to think that you have to have abandoned
the scientific method and assumed that you know the entire
nature of Reality, which is infinite. That's the same thing that
religionists do. When we have evolved into a higher species
don't you think that we will look upon our beliefs now as totally
simplistic and wrong, just as we do those in the middle ages?
Leave room in your philosophy or you will wind up trying to
live without wonder and in too small a mind.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom No, I have not abandoned the scientific method. The scientific method is good and was developed by Godly men. Unfortunately evolutionary scientist do not use the scientific method. Rather then test their idea, the beleive it regardless of the evidence and odds stacked against it. And when the evidence proves them wrong they don't say that evolution didn't happen, they just rewrite the story. We have see it time and again. First evolution happened to quickly to be detected
elinikk 3 months ago
@elinikk "Godly men"? You're delusional. There aren't any.
Even if there were a God, men wouldn't know a thing about it.
Your pretense that you even understand the scientific method
is laughable. Your notion that creationists are scientists would
be humorous if it wasn't so pitiful.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom Now it happens too slow to be detected.
We are not evolving...but in a few years we will look back and see evolution in the text books...beside the other outdated and outmoded scientific models like the raisin-bun model of the atom and laugh!
Acually there was alot happening in the middle ages. It wasn't some dark place, there was a lot of thought happening at the time as history now tells.
elinikk 3 months ago
@elinikk Of course we're evolving. Blue eyes occurred only
within the last 20,000 years, and the gene for tolerance of
milk was only selected for in Europeans in the last 10,000.
Red hair is similarly rather young as a gene, and we are now
nearly immune to the bacteria that caused the black death,
because it killed half of Europe. And more recently something
like AIDS hit Scandinavia and some small percentage of
white blue eyed people are immune to a specific range
and kind of HIV.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom We are not evolving. What you are talking about is natural selection. Godly men were talking of Natural Selection long before Darwin used it as and engine to propell his hypothesis evolution. Since we can only detect Natural Selection and have yet to detect evolution, lets throw out the tired and wanting hypothesis of evolution. evolution needs natural selection not the other way around.
BTW I have a jar of black death you can drink since you are nearly immune to the stuff
elinikk 3 months ago
@elinikk You're confused. The mechanism for evolution *IS* natural
selection, and there are no "gawdly men". Your pretense that we
haven't 'detected' evolution yet requires you to ignore gigantic piles
of evidence and science, and to write off obvious transformations
of species into other species evidenced in fossils, from whales
to bacteria, and to ignore the obvious tale told by the genetics.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom "nearly immune"... I see you have been reading evolutionary "scientific" liturature. Hah, those words do not even go together anymore; "evolution" and "scientific".
elinikk 3 months ago
@elinikk You're still delusional. You can't even successfully read
English anymore without distorting it to meet your delusional needs.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom Such a catch word; "delusional". It is just an ad hominen attack to appear educated because it is used by the ilks of Dawkins, but it is a frantic attack and not a valid arguement!
elinikk 3 months ago
@elinikk No, it's an important term to use for someone whose
beliefs don't match with reality.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom Then it dosen't apply to me. I have looked at reality and the evidence points to a recent creation. So, anyone who believes in evolution is delusional based on your definition.
elinikk 3 months ago
@elinikk If you're just going to be stubbornly obtuse to the
understandings of others, and not accept their examinations
of your notions, then they won't talk to you anymore. Bye.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom OK then goodbye.
Remember: evolution is a poorly supported hypothesis full of conjecture. It is impossible, implausible, inconceivable, a facade, a week arguement, verbal diarrhea, of no value to the scientific comunity other then the postscript required to get further funding and grants. evolution does not match the evidence and requires a boat load of faith to believe when truthfully looked at.
elinikk 3 months ago
@elinikk The diarrhea is yours. You can convince yourself
of your trash if you try hard enough, the rest of us are not so
defective.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elinikk You're still delusional. You can't even successfully read
English anymore without distorting it to meet your delusional needs.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
There is a lot of funny about this video.
wosh11 5 months ago
both sides are pure religion. ima hedge my bets and go with the oldest, tried and true religion...evolution. wait...thas only been around for about 160 yrs or so?
never mind
ultrakool 5 months ago
@ultrakool I am sticking with Zues, he has been around longer.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz ha, that made me chuckle
ultrakool 5 months ago
i could make an evolutionist video and edit it to make evolutionist look stupid this video proves nothing and is pointless
CDUTT360 5 months ago
disliked this because you had to throw lame-ass feminem in there...
bushiyo2 5 months ago
When reptiles live for 900 years they get big and we get legends of dragons, but people who live for 900 years don't get big, they stay normal size.
Wait...
What?
pyrobryan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
""Dinosaurs became 900 years""" muhahahahahah, fucking epic
gulbirk 6 months ago
"He (Satan) was over the world, and the dinosaurs took on the nature of Satan and they became very ferocious"
Dinosaurs became mean to other animals because the devil made them do it?
If this is true, then your Biblical God is NOT an all powerful being because he allowed evil to pollute the minds of the dinosaurs before tempting Eve.
MrFareddy 6 months ago
"He (Satan) was over the world, and the dinosaurs took on the nature of Satan and they became very ferocious"
So..Satan made the dinosaurs ferocious after he fell to earth?
Dinosaurs became mean to other animals because the devil made them do it?
Funny how Creatards come up with outlandish claims. It's like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster trying to link the worsening global warming with the declining pirate population. Creationists are just as CRAZY.
MrFareddy 6 months ago
*scratching head quizzically* ...umm... why would anyone think that 'dino' in the word dinosaur is rooted in the word dynamite? Dino is Greek for terrible. Dyna means power. Regardless... what the fuck does this have to do with exploding lizards?? What a maroon.
StevenBee2 7 months ago
WHAT IS THE SONG CALLED!
1009541074brb 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creationists never fail to prove just how stupid they really are.
Rary113 7 months ago
Yes it's factual
pojotyler 8 months ago
First animal live in separate zones like ocean dwelling animal will not be found with rabbits. Seccond with water there is hydrolification which separates materials of different densities. Try it with dirt and water in a soda bottle, shake it and layers will form. Third is that the fossils in the fossil reccord sometimes are found in multiple layers matching the global flood senario and not the evolutionary one. In fact the fossil reccord is an embarassment to the evolutionist.
elinikk 8 months ago
I recieved my degree in exploding dinosaur theory from harvard...
crockoduckevolved 10 months ago
"do you want this to be in our schools?" it already is in many schools in the USA and USA is the only country to which i am aware of
UjioSatashi 11 months ago
I am a creationist, and this video does not show what we believe. If however, you say that creation is not scince, you are correct, but in the same light neither is evolution. Both are explanations of the past. But both rely upon the evidence of today to prove whether they are true or not. Creation is a better match for the evidence that we observe in nature!
elinikk 11 months ago
@elinikk Bullshit. Troll much?
Mapariensis 11 months ago
@Mapariensis Yes I troll (to play) by arguing against your religion (evolution)! I don't start arguements for arguements sake, but I will comment on a video.
elinikk 11 months ago
@Mapariensis Eat it and die! No I do not troll, I tell the truth!
elinikk 8 months ago
@elinikk Ok I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but I will. What evidence? Obviously this video takes some of the more ridiculous claims of creationists, so to a degree does take it out of context, but as yet I haven't seen any real "proof" for creationism that doesn't work better when looked at from an evolutionary perspective.
fatmikecj 8 months ago
@fatmikecj I agree, you bite. Not from an evolutionary perspective..but rather view the evidence from an non-biased perspective and you will see that the evidence fits the creation model better. For example, fossils don't form from slow deposition like evolutionist often say. Look to the mississipi delta and there are no fossils, but where there is rapid burial by aquious borne sediment and there you have fossils. Just like the flood of Noah'
s day!
elinikk 8 months ago
@elinikk No you see you've got your facts twisted. The reason there are no fossils around the mississpi delta is because it's only been there for a few thousand years. That's not enough time to fossilize something, but you'd probably dig up plenty of skeletons if you tried. That also disproves Noahs flood as the cause of fossils, because it wouldn't have happened long enough ago (according to the bible).
fatmikecj 8 months ago
@fatmikecj Fossilization only requires 50 years or less. It is not time that is the requirement, but the right conditions. Noah's flood produced the right conditions. Evolution does not support the right conditions over the entire earth all the time. The evidence points to one catastrophic global event in the past.
elinikk 8 months ago
@elinikk Fossils aren't found over the entire earth. The majority of places you dug you would find nothing. I'm also not sure how you work out that fossils only take 50 years to form. Do you have any evidence for this claim, or did someone just tell you and you accepted it? And one event? Why then are there so many layers of organisms of different complexity that follow the evolutionary scale if they all died at the same time? Noahs flood? Where'd all the water come from?
fatmikecj 8 months ago
@fatmikecj Yes, fossils are found all over the earth, not uniformly over the earth, but everywhere. 50 yrs is based on a town that was covered in Austrailia by volcanic ash 50-60 years prior to being dug up. In this town there are many things that are fossilized. Further when we study the lake beds below Mt St Hellen, after it errupted there were mud slides. In these quick depositions we find fossils. And that was a recent erruption. Layering in the fossil reccord is due to many things.
elinikk 8 months ago
@fatmikecj The flood waters came from the same place they now reside, in the oceans. The techtonic plates brook prior to the flood. All of the ocean waters then came in contact with molten lava below causing great steam jets to form thrusting the oceanic water into the atmosphere. These jets continue to rain water on the earth so that the earth was covered for many months. When the water/lava junctures crusted over the jets ceased and the water returned to the oceans.
elinikk 8 months ago
@elinikk Are you really trying to argue that Noah's Arc is a factual story?
JohnGolbunny 8 months ago
@elinikk Again though, fossils are an almost irrelevant point when it comes to evolution, they just help illustrate the point with a visual prop. When you look at genetic maps it is pretty obvious how species evolved.
fatmikecj 8 months ago
@fatmikecj Or were designed by a common designer! However the evidence is in favor of a common designer. The lack of evidence to support evolution is overwelming!
elinikk 8 months ago
@elinikk OK, Ignoring your misinterpretations of fossilisation, You're genuinely going to argue that there is no evidence for evolution, but there is for Noahs ark? So why then are Marsupials only found in Australasia? How come we don't find any sheep fossils mixed in with the T-rex? How exactly did an old man build a boat big enough to fit 5,000,000 (conservative estimate) animals on board, plus food for 40 days? I could go on, but don't want to bore anyone with 30 or 40 pages of questions.
fatmikecj 8 months ago
@fatmikecj Same old arguements based on ignorance. God created kinds of animals like we still see today. For example the dog kind. Whether it is a great dane or a boxer you know they are dogs! Only two dogs went on the ark. Get off of "species". Sheep and T-rex didn't live together just like whales and rabbits don't live together, so we don't expect to find them together. But sometimes we do find odd things like this in the fossil reccord. This is dismissed by the evolutionist!
elinikk 8 months ago
@fatmikecj The various types of animals are found where they are because they migrated there as they moved from the mt. ranges of mount arrarat. Some after migrating to better pastures, etc. were blocked return by physical barriers (ie. a river or mountain range). Some animals were moved by humans etc.
elinikk 8 months ago
@elinikk So what you're essentialy saying then is that until the flood there were no mountains, no deep oceans, just near sea level plains and shallow seas (since that's the only way a global flood could occur). When it subsided each species travelled to certain areas, generally journeys of thousands oif miles, crossing other areas that would have been perfectly habitable. Mountain ranges and valleys have sprung up in just 4000 or so years from nothing.
fatmikecj 8 months ago
@fatmikecj There were some mountains prior to the flood since the bible refers to these mountains, but they were not the Himilayas or Alps of today. After the flood the surface of the earth was ripped off and dumped into the oceans (that is why we can do off shore drilling and find oil, since the remains of millions of plants and animals were dumped there). So, the land was quite barren and animal migrated then just as animals migrate today.
elinikk 8 months ago
@elinikk And I never mentioned breeds, I'm talking about species ie one type of animal which is physicaly incapable of breeding with another type of animal. Do you realise how many species of insect alone there are? Millions, many of which remain undiscovered today. And you're saying that they all filed up to the ark, crossing thousands of miles, got on a little wooden boat, with enough food for everything for at least 40 days then disembarked and crossed thousands more miles to continue living.
fatmikecj 8 months ago
@fatmikecj No insects were on the ark (on purpose at least). Further no Fish or Whales or any other sea creature was on the ark. You are a little confused with the history of what happened. Further species are not what Noah put on the ark. He put "kinds" of animals on the ark. Dog kind when on the ark and since they came off the ark we have many breeds of dog, but these breeds are all just dog. Put them all back into a room and in a couple of generations have original dog.
elinikk 8 months ago
@fatmikecj Some species can inter-breed BTW. For example the donkey, Zebra and horse can all interbreed. Indicating an original horse kind made up of these animals. Sometimes the offspring are sterile, but only in some cases. This is why bioligists have falsely separated them as different spicies.
elinikk 8 months ago
@fatmikecj BTW, the ark was not a little boat. The dimensions that the bible gives is in the range of 75' x 450' x 45' tall (using the 18" cubit). It was more like a barge then a boat (since all it had to do was float while the global flood occured). So to say the ark was small is misleading and very ignorant on your part. It would rival some of the largest ocean going vessels of today.
elinikk 8 months ago
@elinikk You do realize that 450' long boats aren't even half as long as most of todays largest ocean going vessels right? Heck the CMA CGM Andromeda is 1,909' long. It would still take a floatilla of many Andromeda's just to carry the food required for two of every species of animals, not to even mention how many would be needed to carry the animals. Oh and how did animals from other continents get to the middle east in order to board the mythical ark, just curious?
jklein17 5 months ago
@jklein17 Yes there are some large vessels on the ocean today, moot point. The ark did not take two of each species, it took two of each kind (akin to family). You should do a little work before sticking your ignorant foot in your mouth. Animal that left the ark (the mountain rages of arrarat) migrated to where we find them today. Animals did not have to migrate to the middle east!?
elinikk 5 months ago
@elinikk How did Noah happen to get marsupials on the ark? How did complete ecosysytems as complex as the Amazon or the Congo happen to arrange themselves by the animals roaming around afterwards? Why is there no evidence of genetic bottlenecks in every species.
You're claiming that after the ark, evolution went forward at an incredibly fast pace from a common ancestor at the family level to all modern species in 600 years (when you get pictures of lions and house cats), then stopped?
Please!
HConstantine 5 months ago
@HConstantine All animals come from Noah's ark after the flood. So marsupials migrated from the mt ranges of arrarat (the resting place of the ark)to where we find them today.
evolution never occured, so it did not have to go fast! Natural selection has occured (BTW is not evolution) since the flood. That is why we see some changes in each kind of animal (like the finches). But the finches are still finches and the beak variation has more to do with seasonal changes then to evolution.
elinikk 5 months ago
@elinikk And why didn't marsupials migrate to anywhere else? Did they hop across the water to Australia? Did the saltwater fish or the fresh water fish survive? What did they eat when they got off the Ark and everything was covered with mud?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@elinikk Funny how you revisionists come up with a term like "kind" which really means nothing when people try to pin you down on it. You should really come up with something better than that if you want to sound as though you have a brain that you use to think and what not. As for large ships of today being moot as you put it. No really they are not. You still can't explain how todays ships still can't do what the magical ark supposedly did.
jklein17 5 months ago
@jklein17 Kind is a vaild category. It is similar to family in the classification system. We say kind like dog-kind which includes all dogs from the Great Dane to the Terrier. I said that the ark was large like a modern vessel. To say that today we have larger vessels then the ark I agree with, but the arguement is moot. The ark is sufficient in size to house two of each kind of animal (aprox 2500 animals with supplies and eight people). The animals did not have to be full adult versions.
elinikk 5 months ago
@elinikk Neanderthals were a KIND of human, where they on the Ark? What about sabertooth tigers?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz Neanderthals are just humans. They buried their dead, made tools, were religious and burried their dead with modern humans which means that they knew they were family to modern humans. It is interesting to note that many of Neanterthal trait are found in modern europeans. So, they rather became part of the standard population then went extinct. Just humans that's all they are. The sabertooth is just an extinct form of the cat. The cat-kind was on the ark!
elinikk 5 months ago
@elinikk Yes, Neanderthals were Humans, but DNA Proves they were not us. Africans don't share any DNA with Neaderthals, Europians only 5%,
Yes they lived the same time as our ancestors, there were 2 kinds of humans on the earth at the same time.
What about trilobites and dinosaurs and and I could go on sinse 98% of the species that every lived are Extinct.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz Neandertals were us/are us. Just like three toed and one toed horses both lived at the same time, both are horse. Many animals have died. Some of the traits that they posessed are now gone. That is the results of sin and this sin/cursed world. It is a loss of information. Which of course goes against evolution and shows that the creation model beter explains what we observe in nature.
elinikk 5 months ago
@elinikk No, DNA proves Neanderthals are not us, they are a different kind of human.
You said animals lose information when they Sin?!? LOL
What has more information, a big wolf or a little wolf?
Creation can't explain the fossil record. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years, explain that.
Trilobites? When did they live?
gregrutz 5 months ago
@elinikk 2500 animals? are you on crack???? where did you get that number? Please don't think you can stroll in here and talk about there being only 2500 animals on a boat and that encompases all the species on the planet. See what happens when you people develop a term like "kind" which you then fit thousands of species into so that your numbers can even remotely work. Sorry without a detailed description of "kind" you are out of luck here.
jklein17 5 months ago
@jklein17 I have told you that kind associates with the classification of family. Species is a poorly defined tern anyways. The number 2500 is a standard estimate for the number of animal required to produce all of the species that we see around us. Most of these species were generated within the first few generation anyways. All humans regardless of our skin, eye, hair color not to menton body types all come from the eight people on the ark. So you can see how all the variety arose quickly
elinikk 5 months ago
@elinikk There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. DNA Code itself proves how all life is related to all life.
There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
There is no evidence for a global flood, none.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz Yes, many scientist get their funding by noting evolution. This does not prove evolution is true. Natural selection does occure, but unfortunately this is not evolution. Evolution can not be scrutinize scientifically because it is not science. Evolution is just an idea of how the evidence can be interpreted. Evolution constantly evolves in order to side step the science that does not back it. Evolution is NOT the backbone of biology.
elinikk 4 months ago
@elinikk Actually, it is. Actually you need to go back to school
because your misunderstandings and mis-perceptions are
simply too numerous to count. When you see tens of thousands
of people, 99+% of scientists, in fact,.opposing and contradicting
you, doesn't it make you feel the least bit uncomfortable? It should!
Just like when a large number of people tell you not to step out in
front of that bus! (SMACK!)
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom It does not matter how many people said the kings clothes looked great, the fact is he wore no clothes at all. Consensus does not a truth make, truth is the truth regardless. BTW evolutionary scientist are not true scientists, rather they are just fantastic story tellers.
elinikk 3 months ago
@gregrutz The entire geological column is the evidence of a global flood!
elinikk 4 months ago
@elinikk No, the geologic columns contains more than water borne sediments. There are ash layers, wind blown sand, coral reefs, chalk layers, etc. Floods don't sort fossils. Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order. In other words there was no global flood, no evidence for one at all.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz Yes I agree that we do find some subsequent layers of ash and sand etc. This happened post flood (there has been 4500 years since the flood), but the majority of the geological column is the reccord of the flood. And yes it is evidence for it. The column is infact evidence against slow deposition. Layers that are supposed millions of years apart touch at places with no evidence of errossion between. Layers that supposedly are later then layers are found underneath (or earlier).
elinikk 4 months ago
@elinikk The flood caused great upheval of material, so we would naturally expect to find layers of coral, sand and chalk embeded. And this is true. The flood model is a better model then the evolutionary or slow deposition model. In fact when we look to places of slow deposition like the Mississippi delta we find no evidence of fossilization what so ever. Quick submersion by aquious borne sediment like the flood is the only way to produce fossils of they kind we find.
elinikk 4 months ago
@elinikk We find fossils in desert sands, volcanic ash and tar pits.
If the flood ''caused great upheval of material'' there would be some evidence for such a great catastrophy, there isn't.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@elinikk Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV in the exact same location. Common ancestor?
gregrutz 4 months ago
@elinikk ''both rely upon the evidence of today to prove whether they are true ''
No, creation does not look at the fossil record or geology because both prove you wrong.
Standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon and saying. ''A little water over a long period of time or a lot of water over a short period of time'' is not the question. The question is where did 5000 feet of sediment come from and how did it get to 8000 feet above sea level. And not all the layers are from water !
gregrutz 5 months ago
@elinikk You'd better ask some experts about that and have
them explain it all to you.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
i am so glad i live in australia and not america. in australia, the idea of creationism being taught in public schools is ludicrous.
i genuinely feel for any rational american who wishes for their children to grown up in a secular, indoctrination-free country.
the prospect that young children are going to be lied to by religious nuts in a PUBLIC school is frightening...
FormulaOneFan4Eva 1 year ago
It was hilarious to see Hovind define a line between what's unintelligent and what's not. Believing that the devil placed dinosaur bones in the ground is unintelligent, but believing that their apparent age is wrong is OK.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
dinOsaur, not dynasaur lmao
whitewalls1222 1 year ago 2
forget the dinosaurs there was millions of species before them; I want the cambrian explosion explain by this god.
jileel 1 year ago
Message to GOD:
Satin fell, other angels fell, Humans fell
Stop blaming us for you faults and get your shit together
From humanity
Cujoh 1 year ago 2
that song is so dumb....making atheist look bad bud
gerudgutierrez 1 year ago
AWSHUM!!!!
shandcunt 1 year ago
If lizards live for a long time, they get big, people hunted them. Thats solid fact. "they have footprints with man footprints and dinosaur footprints in the same place." Again, that proves god. For those who want an example of sarcasm.
DepartmentOfHate 1 year ago
omg... explosive lizard. That's a new one. *facepalm* Greek fail.
DarthVictive 1 year ago 11
Creatards are the only ones spewing this stuff. And other creatards are the only ones dumb enough to believe it.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
hey how did methuselah live to be 969 years old?
DDDDamien 1 year ago
@DDDDamien if you think about the moon cycle, there is about 13.07 moon cycles in a year. 969 divided by 13.07 = about 74 years old.....very old for the time. Maybe they counted moon cycles? I dunno, just a thought
themooddisorders 1 year ago
@themooddisorders i belive that over 969 years old hahaha
DDDDamien 1 year ago
@DDDDamien Nappa: Vegeta, what does the scouter say about her age?
Vegeta: IT'S OVER 900!!!!!
Nappa: WHAT!! THERE'S NO WAY THAT CAN BE RIGHT. CAN IT!?!?
Me: No. *calmly walks away*
CalicoVall 1 year ago
we are in danger!
Oshyoga 1 year ago
lol that last lady "IF U IRRITATE SOME ONE YOUR FAMILY WILL DIE!" lol
linkforever92 1 year ago
"youre gonna look like a real idiot when talking to anyone with normal intelligence when you say something like that"
O.o............i dont know what to say.........this guy is just wrong somehow
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47 But you are a real idiot if you believe that the devil put dinosaur bones into the ground or something like that. I think he is completly right.
Maniac7078 1 year ago
it just sounds so wrong coming from a complete and utter moron like him
EPIC STUPID
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
HEY...! Did anyone but me noticed the guy at 1:40 looked like the Flinstones?
No wonder.... HAHAHAHA
motardkool 1 year ago
its even embarrassing to watch this video
Somair6469 1 year ago
HILARIOUS!! I wish I could be like them and believe in Mickey Mouse and Santa. Damn reality!
Killjeser 1 year ago
Satan put bones to fool us i tell you, He's also in your bathroom stealing your toilet paper !
Go catch him now !!!
cr4yv3n 1 year ago
So the highest rated comment on this video is the one advocating killing people for ideological differences. I've seen this behavior before, but can't quite place my finger on it. Hmmm... Says a lot about you people doesn't it? Assholes.
Don't bother responding to me with your excuses. They won't work.
dyz12003 1 year ago
@dyz12003 I don't think they should be killed. I do think they should be kept away from children.
zimgirfreak 1 year ago
@zimgirfreak Why? And what exactly do you mean by that? Should they have their own children taken away?
I think it's best that children are exposed to all belief systems. Keeping children away from any ideologies, right or wrong, is the exact opposite of education and leads to people not understanding each other. So you too are putting forward an extremist assertion and deciding truth for children. I'm not sure I trust you with something like that, but I'm glad you don't want to kill anybody.
dyz12003 1 year ago
@dyz12003 I've seen the damage that this kind of brainwashing does to people, mostly children, in my mother's familiy and my husband's familiy. It is okay to expose children to different religions as long as it is stressed that they are fiction, like Greek and Roman mythology. Anything else is cruel.
zimgirfreak 1 year ago
@zimgirfreak Ahhh, poor baby. :(
I also get mad when others don't think the way I do. I wish that I could just do everybody's thinking for them. I wish that I could decide truth for the whole world. Then everybody would be happy. Nobody would be brainwashed if they just listened to me. Why won't people listen to me? Is it cause I assume I'm the only one using my brain?
I wish people would just listen to me when I condescend and act like an expert in all fields of knowledge.
dyz12003 1 year ago
@dyz12003 No, that's exactly the problem. People listening to other people without question. Ideas need to be examined. When someone states a claim without evidence it needs to be examined and, if unproven or unreal, rejected. People need to think for themselves.
The people represented in this video are blind followers. No one would come to these beliefs on thier own.
zimgirfreak 1 year ago
@zimgirfreak What are you talking about? People come to all sorts of beliefs on their own. And people of all beliefs think that their beliefs are supported by evidence. This whole thing is not a battle over evidence but epistemology or how we know what we know.
And just out of curiosity, how is that other side of your family you mentioned harmed by having a different belief? And how is teaching your child that your beliefs are true constitute as "cruel"?
dyz12003 1 year ago
@dyz12003 Children believe without questioning. It's helpful to our safety if we blindly listen to our parents when they tell us not to run into the street et al. So telling them things that aren't true is immoral. Brainwashing them into believing a fairy tale out of hope and fear is cruel. It breeds anxiety, fear, intolerance, and hate. Children are victims. but adults should know better. People who are not first told they must believe or else don't read the bible and believe it to be fact.
zimgirfreak 1 year ago
@zimgirfreak I agree. Telling kids things that are false is immoral. Which is why I only tell things I believe are true. I don't object to disclaimers like, "not everyone believes this" but your proposition that bringing kids up under certain faith systems is immoral is preposterous. I see I'm dealing with the typical fundie atheist mindset here that thinks only her particular belief should be taught as fact. If this is true, then I can't help you. The conversation ends here.
dyz12003 1 year ago
@dyz12003 troll much?
WillGo7 1 year ago
@WillGo7 nope
dyz12003 1 year ago
i hate to say it, but i'm going to side with Stalin on this one... Some of these people don't deserve to be alive.
GxrRoflstomp 1 year ago
the only thing appealing is...how stupid these creationist women must be. Hell...all I would have to do is find some bible line so she would obey. Then again...they may taken shard of light shining through my window as providence to kill me...so...maybe not so much
Unworshipediety 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Imaginefree69 1 year ago 2
I'm speechless....
bersa888 1 year ago
Ignoring your inherited beleifs and shifting focus from it will not make them more beleivable. Wage peace... Say no to religion... Please
ormonclark 1 year ago
I hate religious extremists dragging the rest of us down.
AdamShaw87 1 year ago 2
Before the flood..............What a moron.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
Evolution has a tough job on it's hands when looking at these people.
OTSTRETFORD 1 year ago
cant beleive there are still people like that
midnightmorning 1 year ago
lol these people proove evolution doesn't exist there sub chimp!
ironomega 1 year ago
Dynasaurs! BOOM!
Xgya2000 1 year ago
what song is this
dutchgangsta1 1 year ago
If its THAT unclear to you how they are wrong, why Evolution has been an accepted theory for over 125 years, then I honestly don't know what to say to you...
judaserebus 1 year ago
JAYFROMFIN... this is a rhetorical video. Such that the arguments against these people-- and the nature of the tings they obviously know nothing about-- "I believe that God created..." "I believe Satan was over the world of dinosaurs..." These are just incredibly... frustrating, untrue statements. People are not entitled to their own facts. These people are reporting falsehoods.
judaserebus 1 year ago
I'm glad I live in sweden, my children would never get exposed to these snakes.
Selfdeludedmonkey 1 year ago
well you've just put up some people, expressing how they think the world started.
you didn't say how they were wrong, you just implied that what they were saying is stupid. then you defined what science was in your own opinion.
this video is just ignorant and stupid.
MB1206 1 year ago
LOL.. exsplosive lisard
Chaostiger357 1 year ago
1;07
'after the flood the dinosaurs were taken on the ark'
?????
whitesquirrel7 1 year ago
Wow, I never realized religious nuts were so sensiitve to criticism ....... BWAAAAhahahahahaHAAAAA! Sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face saying that.
mikespulligan 1 year ago
Anyone can cherry pick statements to make a whole group of people look stupid. Richard Dawkins is also on record as saying that our planet may have been seeded by aliens. Does that factor into the point you are trying to make?
daveyjazz72 2 years ago 3
@daveyjazz72 Seeded by aliens is much more plausible than any creation myth I've ever heard, especially this one.
freakyphysicsguy 1 year ago
@daveyjazz72 He said its a hypothesis that cant be ruled out but that hasnt got any direct evidence.
Dawkins is a scientist and doesnt start crying about unprovable fairytales such as religious people do.
jamyfromfin 1 year ago
Wow, you are one hacked off dude. I'm sorry that you are so angry towards anyone religious. My only point is that Dawkins is willing to consider the possibility of one type of intelligent design, but not any others. It doesn't seem to truly honor academic freedom to act in such a manner.
It's okay if you come back with another snarky comment... I can take it. I'd prefer a calm, rational discussion... but, I honor your freedom of speech to say whatever you wish.
daveyjazz72 1 year ago
@daveyjazz72 The hypothesis that life can be seeded is something completely different then ID.
Humans can probably do the same thing in a few years. All you need to do is detect an extrasolar planet with earthlike atmosphere, send a rocket with a good computer that can take control once its close to the target and a colony of bacteria that survive beeing frozen for a long time.
jamyfromfin 1 year ago
I understand that they look slightly different in the nature of their ideas. How does that make the possibility of a designer any less of a credible pursuit? We allow evolutionists to pursue their theory. Why squelch the opinions of "religious people" because you don't like them?
daveyjazz72 1 year ago
Well its different because the origins of life still need to be explained. But not by evolution because it only explains how life evolves once its there. Theorys or hypotheses on the origins of life are called abiogenesis.
To me however it seems strange to believe in evolution by natural laws but at the same time believe that the transition from chemistry to a simple replicating molecule somehow needs the help of a supernatural god.
jamyfromfin 1 year ago
Especially if the designer part is based on nothing more then a book and the evolution part on science.
I dont say anything isnt worth investigating but i say science is the right way to do it.
jamyfromfin 1 year ago
I hear what you are saying. The only error I'd point out is calling the process of replicating "simple". There are microbiologists who look at these basic building blocks and are realizing that they are far from simple. So, some are starting to think that the evolutionary process is way too complex to happen spontaneously without some outside force to put everything in order. Calling it "simple" seems to degrade what research has discovered and really is attempting to base it on science.
daveyjazz72 1 year ago
I have to agree with you on that, but its still simple in comparison with life, and other processes of which we know happen by natural processes and without supernatural 'help'. It just seems that if there was a god or intelligence responsible for everything we know then it has to be one that designed the universe in a way that it operates by itself. And that would mean that we could never find proof by looking at evolution.
jamyfromfin 1 year ago
But, that's the point. If it's not so simple to begin with... then it compounds the unlikeliness of evolution, since those process appear even more complex. By the way, creationists who claim that there is absolute and conclusive proof in science are fooling themselves. I fully admit that it's my "faith". It just bothers me when evolutionists also claim that there is absolute and conclusive proof.
daveyjazz72 1 year ago
It's a brilliant theory... yes. But, with the discovery of more complexity at the level of microbiology... it's making the theory more and more unlikely. I don't use that as a platform to "prove" creation theories. I'm just saying that we can't be calling evolution absolute fact. I'm even up for allowing people to entertain a totally separate idea about the origins of life aside from evolution and creation. That's allowing true academic freedom.
daveyjazz72 1 year ago
I dont think complexity in microbiology is a problem as long as it could be explained by gradual steps. Real irreducible complexity would disprove evolution and its never been found. And look at it from the other side: if creation was true, shouldnt irreducible complexity be everywhere around us? Wouldnt you expect systems everywhere that were impossible to explain by gradual steps?
jamyfromfin 1 year ago 11
@jamyfromfin no.....
CDUTT360 5 months ago
@daveyjazz72 please stop using "origins of life" and evolution in the same context. Those are two separate subjects. Abiogenesis (the theory around the origins of life) isn't even biology: it's chemistry!
Evolution is how the various lifeforms are ganatically related to each other through ancestry. It doesn't even TRY to explain where life came from in the first place.
Xgya2000 1 year ago
It's time for the lizard on top of your television to explode.
davidls11 2 years ago
IT'S DARKS!DED!!!1!!
spideylover 2 years ago
hahahaha, explosive lizard XD
booksandvideos 2 years ago
DUUUUURRRRGGGGGGHHHHH This is one of the funniest and most retarded things i have ever seen hahaha
hanson666999 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
All Christians who turned atheist God will kill them, they are mere cowards
.
conceil8 2 years ago
Fuck yeah for explosive reptiles!
pain0is0a0paint 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Explosive........Lizard...........
Wow.
monkeymox 2 years ago
Five stars and a good /facepalm for all the stupidity out there! :)
Zephemus 2 years ago 2
yeah!
dynamite
dynasaurs!
fusionfusion 2 years ago
what about the "humans hunted dinosaurs into extinction" theory ha ha ha
FlatEarthFighter 2 years ago 2
I like the intro.
phoenix0333 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah right, take clips out of context or show the most extreme scenes. Way to make a case.
Shazoolo 2 years ago