"The bible is the divinely inspired written word of god. Because it is inspired throughout, it is completely free from error -- scientifically, historically, theologically and morally."
--Mark Ramsey
So what about them 438 contradictions, then? And the impossibility of the crossing by Moses? And all the other ridiculous bullshit in that book of myths?
Your god is a shitty author, and a shitty editor Mr. Ramsey, or it does not exist. Creationists are dishonest, brainwashed, liars.
That is something that is so inconsistent about creationists, "speciation" is what they use for Noah's ark. So lions and tigers share a common ancestor with each other and can only produce infertile hybrids because of the genetic difference they have accumulated. Saying that "mutations don't occur" would prevent this same phenomenon, so what is the mechanism that prevents an animal that is itself the result of micro to micro evolve some more? Just shouting big bang and atheist doesn't fix...
I have stated chromosome numbers as a definite boundary. Not only one, and boundary only upward, but yes, definite enough. In placental mammals that is, where polyploids spontaneously abort. On top of time scale being too short for evolution between kinds - unless we assume modern dating methods to be correct. Did you do a video on the dating methods? Which one? I started on nr 9.
Determining the kind of dinosaurs would be easier if: a) we had their genes, not just bones b) we knew they were ever kinds as opposed to genetically engineered misfits.
Of course, you might argue that the _mere possibility_ of a young earth and misdating and dinos being within human chronology presupposes _definite belief_ in a young earth. Is that honest, on your criteria, see "falsehood n. 9"?
Furthermore, there is chromosome numbers. THey do not drift, unlike chromosome content.
Taking a Creationist's definition of Macroevolution literally, would mean that the transition from Dinosaurs to birds gradually over thousands of generations is not macro, but if a child is born with a mole neither of it's parents had, than it is.
I didn't understand (i've got a bad english) why we say that lions and tigers are different species (they are,right?) that cannot interbreed since we can see a "liger" right after that.
Does it mean that this "liger" ,the "donkey-horse",as well as the "lama-camel" are only able to live because we helped them genetically ?
Couldt it happend naturally,in a zoo, or are they now too different for that ?
@nemotyrannus2 " lions and tigers are different species" Different species are normally considered to be animals that do not breed naturally in the wild.
Closely related species can however be bred artificially or in captivity, but their offspring are often sterile.
It is actually possible for species such as donkeys and horses or different species of bear to breed together and produce fertile offspring, it is incredibly improbable though, and obviously can only occur when the species are very closely related. Thanks for these videos by the way AronRa!
@Anuojat Deer and horses are on very different lines. Deer are more closely related to cattle while horses are more closely related to rhinoceros. But a video on the 'cattle kind' (+ deer etc) would be a good one I think.
@AronRa My thanks Aron, this confused me for a while :P
Who, knows maybe someday we shall have page on wikipedia or ´similiar site where there full obserable taxamony of all fossils, current species and their FULL links to one another so any laymen might get it :P
Though your videos will always be an inspiration regardless. ;)
@AronRa That would be a VERY good video! I've been reading some of your online debates recently, is there a place I can find an archive of them or something?
As someone living in a country where evolution is not contested(or at least not by anyone hoping to be taken seriously) it's refreshing to see that there is still hope for America. Even if I knew the basic concepts of evolution, since there is close to noone to discuss it with, I was unaware of much of what is taught in these vids. @AronRa, if you ever find yourself in Sweden, come visit the pub where I work and I'll buy you a Franziskaner weissbier. thanks for your great vids.
Can anyone show me some evidence be it fossils or DNA of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into the iconic example of evolution, the giraffe? A jump of 4 meters in height (1.5m to 5.5m) from an ancestor seems magical to me.
@TheZooCrew I thought you banished and went digging for fossils. Dig some more for another 100 years until you have something to show. For the second time you come up with nothing to support INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into the iconic example of evolution, the giraffe.
@daogdaog So doag answer me this: Why is it that NO creationist knows how to use a search engine like google? You could learn a lot by looking up things for yourself rather than expecting others to do your work for you, or are you just another lazy creationist?
Oh no need to answer that it was rhetorical - we all know the answer!
@mtbee9 No need to drag creationists here. I am interested in scientific evidence be it fossils or DNA to support claims of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into the iconic example of evolution, the giraffe. I spent years searching on the internet and end up with nothing leading me to believe that maybe giraffe did not evolve at all.
@daogdaog Ok Ignore the creationists comments. No problem
So how do YOU explain the fossil record that shows the gradual change from earlier animals with shorter necks progressively getting longer necks over time. This is what the fossil record shows!
@mtbee9 There was no progressively getting longer necks over time. Again dont depend too much in wikipedia. Read some scientific papers showing existence of those animals in million years leading to giraffe. This is not possible because results research papers stated that Samotherium existed before Climacoceras and okapi which is a supposed relative of giraffe existed before Climacoceras and Samotherium.
@TheZooCrew I know that evolutionists always resort to IQ, liar, shoe sizes when they run out of arguments. So far, you have not shown me any evidence be it fossils or DNA of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into a giraffe. From a 1.5m deer-like animal to 5.5m giraffe is a 4-meter jump in height with all its body parts elongated, not an incremental change at all.
I didn't "run out of arguments." Myself, mtbee, odinata, and several others have provided your demanded evidence over several videos and you have chosen to pretend it doesn't exist anywhere.
@TheZooCrew No, they did not. They have not shown me any evidence be it fossils or DNA of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into a giraffe. They all went away after they realized that what they provided did not make any sense at all or maybe they have not understood what INCREMENTAL changes means.
"maybe they have not understood what INCREMENTAL changes means."
In your case it means that you can shift the goalposts whenever you want. You could be shown vertebra-by-vertebra extension in the fossil record and you'd still deny that it was "incremental."
Again, you still ignore the fact that fossilization is an extremely rare event. Maybe YOU don't understand what RARE means.
"They all went away"
Most people have no interest in discourse with dishonest people.
Climacoceras was the first known giraffid. Palaeotragus and Samotherium were next, but those terms describe whole genera, not just two species. Eventually only the modern giraffe and the okapi were the only two species left.
Also, whatever questions you may ask about giraffes do nothing to detract from the 290,000+ peer-reviewed publications on evolution, nor the incredibly evidence from ERVS, atavisms, vestiges, ontogeny, and molecular biology.
@TheZooCrew You must read some results of biology research papers stating exactly when those species first existed in million years. Samotherium existed before Climacoceras and okapi the relative of giraffe existed before both Climacoceras and Samotherium. Making evolution of a giraffe neck a seesaw impossibility.
"Making evolution of a giraffe neck a seesaw impossibility."
These are the KNOWN fossils.
FOSSILIZATION IS A RARE EVENT. This has been pounded into your head a dozen times; why can't you grasp this? Because of the rarity, we will never have every single intermediate.
Furthermore, Climacoceras is now considered an earlier branch off of what was Giraffidae, meaning there's an as-yet undiscovered giraffid before Samotherium.
You reading and clearly misunderstanding the findings of a couple of research does jack shit to evolution. It takes a special kind of stupid to draw that conclusion from these supposed research papers.
@TheZooCrew Wikipedia provides very little about giraffe evolution. Show me any other research papers that show existence of those animals in million years, not just stating early, mid and late Miocene epoch. When a research paper states that animal A existed since this date and became extinct around this date and confirmed by research papers from other biologists, there is not much misunderstanding in such findings. There is no conclusion to draw. It is plain and simple.
"Show me any other research papers that show existence of those animals in million years, not just stating early, mid and late Miocene epoch."
This would be a colossal waste of time, as you're entirely fixated on this and will deny any and all evidence provided, as you have already done. You have shifted the goalposts repeatedly and are clearly not interested in learning a damn thing. Your argument is "If giraffes didn't evolve, nothing evolved" which is ridiculous.
@TheZooCrew Do some more reading on scientific results of research about giraffe evolution made by evolutionists themselves. Dont rely too much on wikipedia. Think outside the box otherwise you get stuck with Climacoceras mindset.
@TheZooCrew I know it is a torture for your brain when you lack the knowledge of when exactly Climacoceras, okapi and Samotherium first existed. It is pity.
@mtbee9 Dont depend too much in wikipedia. Read some scientific papers showing existence of those animals in million years leading to giraffe. This is not possible because results research papers stated that Samotherium existed before Climacoceras and okapi which is a supposed relative of giraffe existed before Climacoceras and Samotherium.
@daogdaog I didn't even mention Wiki. Although it does have useful information. I research all aspects of a subject.
You asked for some information on how evolution occurred. I gave you some for starters! I have not researched the giraffe linage in detail myself but remember this. One lineage does not simply stop and another takes over, they overlap just as there are many species of antelope today. Evolution is a continuous process with many branches we do not have fossils of all intermediates.
@daogdaog I didn't even mention Wiki. Although it does have useful information. I research all aspects of a subject.
You asked for some information on how evolution occurred. I gave you some for starters! I have not researched the giraffe linage in detail myself but remember this. One lineage does not simply stop and another takes over, they overlap just as there are many species of antelope today. Evolution is a continuous process with many branches we do not have fossils of all intermediates.
@sonykroket That is not the point. Use whatever research papers you have and show me some evidence be it fossils or DNA of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that gradually transformed into the iconic example of evolution, the giraffe
"Read some scientific papers showing existence of those animals in million years leading to giraffe."
You probably didn't understand a damn word. You've proven before that you have no interest in learning. Like mtbee said, life is a bush with a bunch of intertwining lineages. Fossilization is a very rare process, which is a fact you've been told like 80 times and still ignore. We can't run DNA tests on fossils, otherwise the historical phylogeny would be much more complete.
"Read some scientific papers showing existence of those animals in million years leading to giraffe."
You probably didn't understand a damn word. You've proven before that you have no interest in learning. Like mtbee said, life is a bush with a bunch of intertwining lineages. Fossilization is a very rare process, which is a fact you've been told like 80 times and still ignore. We can't run DNA tests on fossils, otherwise the historical phylogeny would be much more complete.
At 01:39. Maybe I am wrong but when two breeds of dogs interbreed their traits don't just meld together to form a single phenotype. Instead their genes are recombined in several ways, possible resulting in features not found in either breed before. At least that was the outcome of the wolf-poodle crosses performed in Kiel, Germany, in the 1980s and 90s.
That wasn't the point. The point is that when populations are genetically isolated, but not long enough to speciate, then recombined, the genetic distance between members then decreases with each generation because the populations are no longer isolated.
I also say that life isn't a circle, it's a spiral. A very, very slow spiral. This both answers the question "Which came first the chicken or the egg" and debunks "the goose remains a goose". Transitional forms would eventually mean individual generations if the creationists remains so unyielding to evidence.
@AronRa Might I ask where the list of "Peer-Reviewed and Documented Instances of Observed Speciation" at 7:25 can be found, or is that a list you put together? I've already tried searching for it on Google with no luck, and it's something I would very much like to have more information about. I've managed to find other lists, but none seem as consummate as the one in your video. Also, thanks so much for all your efforts in making these videos; they are extraordinarily eloquent and informative.
@Axiomatize The list of observed speciation events shown in this video is a composite of two published lists with at least one peripheral addition, being the mice of Madeira.
I think the only problem with these videos is that they are too informative. The people who you really need to reach the most simply cannot hold this much information in their brains all at once, and if they could they wouldn't have the ability to understand all of it. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic:-)
You are one of the most clear-thinking-scientifically-minded people creating videos on youtube today AronRa! Your videos are simply soaked with perfectly applied facts and a sheer distain for willful ignorance. Keep it up!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
and for the record.....
Evolution and Creationism have BOTH been shown to be wrong.
This is clear in modern observation, study of the DNA code barrier, and what is known about genetic engineering.
The ONLY process that can produce a radically different species is GENE HYBRIDIZATION.
And anyone with a brain knows who is doing it and it aint God. The ones responsible for the genetic engineering are what are moronic ancestors worshipped as mini-gods, but they arent "gods"
My channel will tell you everything you need to know.
Stop by and check out the page.
The BEST info on human origin comes from Llyod Pye. And he has many videos on here that use real science to explain the flaws in evolution and creationism. The "3rd option" is the truth.
Lloyd Pye is a cryptozoologist with nothing more than a Bachelor's in psychology. He's a total crackpot; all of his arguments are ad hoc at their roots and most are based off either urban myths or gross misrepresentations of science (human brain use, gene "defects," Starchild bullshit). When criticized, he has not hesitated to invent data and falsehoods on the spot (cheetah genetics, 10% of brain usage, plate tectonics, amino acids).
@buffboynick Also, there is no DNA "code barrier". Hybridization has little to do with the production of new species. Four other methods of speciation are now known, proving evolution. But if you imagine evolution was ever disproved, it would be amusing to see you try and cite when, how, and by whom.
I wouldn't hold your breath. buffoonboynick doesn't answer the questions you ask, do citations for his claims, or acknowledge his failure when you destroy his arguments (yes, he's one of THOSE people). He'll just repeatedly post a list of about half a dozen scientists that believe in ancient astronauts/panspermia (he hates it when you compare this to Scientology) and claims time-travelling aliens are making documentaries and posting them on the internet.
@buffboynick WHAT! That is one of the most clueless things I've ever heard anyone say. I am a research scientist, and I can assure you that Iam totally unaware of the most powerful-biological-scientific theory being "shown to be wrong." If you think the theory of evolution IS wrong, or has been shown to BE wrong, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION! I seriously doubt you understand anything having to do with science.
Gravity and Gravtions have BOTH been shown to be wrong.
This is clear in modern observations, study of the GRAVITON code barrier, and what is known about gravitianic engineering.
The ONLY process that can produce attraction is pullation by INTELLIGENCE.
And any one with a brain knows who is doing it and IT IS the FSM. The ones responsible for the gravitiation attraction are moronic ancestors worshipping gravity as mini-gravity, but they aren't gravitons.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video is one giant STRAW MAN
Variations within a species is NOT an example of macroevolution/drastic speciation (whatever terminology evolutionists use these days)
Not only have the majority of species currently on Earth been here for MILLIONS of years (like the Chimp for example, which is at least 2 MILLION years old) but no NEW species have ever come from them!
This includes us humans (which are at least 200,000 years old)
Only different variations of the species. No macroevolution
@buffboynick I guess you missed the list of new species which emerged under direct observation. You also missed the part where leading creationists employ the same definitions I use here. You should go to an actual evolutionary science source and look up the definitions of micro and macro evolution. I said Berkeley University's website, 'evolution101'.
@buffboynick You are beyond confused! Macroevolution is just microevolution plus time, a few million years is recent on geological and evolutionary time scales, and we did not come from chimps. Chimpanzees and we evolved from a common ancestor. You believe that humans have been humans for over 200, 000 years, which is true to a certain extent, but you don't think we evolved?! What is wrong with you? How many species, alive today, were here 300,000,000 years ago? ....how about 65,000,000?
Don't worry about buffboynick. Look at his channel, and look up Lloyd Pye on Wikipedia. These people are absolutely unreachable. They're severely disturbed and need professional help, but will never seek it.
LOL so tell us the advanced aliens that created us all, WHO created them? They need a creator more than we do. Also are you a raliaen, scientologist where do you get your crap from?
@buffboynick A Straw Man is a fallacy in which someone argues, not against the actual subject at hand, but against a substitute subject that appears to be similar to the real subject, but clearly isn't. This substitute is easily refutable by the person, usually because it's illogical or flawed, even by the original subject's standards. The person then claims that the original subject is refutable, because the substitute was as well.
@buffboynick It's fun how there are three different sub-species of chimps, with some recognizible different traits, able to interbreed, and the are two really close related species of chimps, the bonobo and common chimp, unable to interbreed. There's no fossil of 2 million years of them.
I am astounded that creationists have the petulance to say that scientists (yes, scientists, people that value knowledge and accurate information, as opposed to creationists who value faith, superstition, supernatural and magical thinking) believe things by faith, it's obviously a psychological projection.
I must confess though that the idea of seeing scientist making a discovery in the lab then praying, singing an dancing, learning to be ignorant and paying tithes is quite hilarious.
I'm confused @ 2:50, are you saying that Evolution can't develop dogs bigger & bigger indefinitely, or that it cannot develop dogs as big as elephants? I don't see why it could not do the latter. ...though of course by that point they would be a completely different species than what we refer to as a "dog"... is that what you meant?
@AronRa I love your videos, I use them on the Atheist Facebook page that I admin to destroy stupid Creationist debates when I don't feel like playing elementary school science teacher myself.
Where is that clip at 8:16 - 8:22 from? I saw that stupid Creationist video before, I want to use it for my page's "Facepalm Of The Day" series.
My father claims that evolution has been proven to be wrong scientifically and he said he will watch only ONE video I can find to try and show him otherwise. So of course I thought of the FFoC...but which ONE do you think would be best?
@kbslicky2k From this series, I would say that this one would be a good one, but my favorite would be the one just before this one. What I would find more interesting is if your father would explain how he thinks evolution was disproved, and why doesn't anyone in the scientific community know about it?
@AronRa - I'd say my favourite FFOC is #6. But it changes every now and again depending on who I'm debunking! But my fav video of all? Well thats "An Archaeological Moment in Time" - which I come back to often.
@jclsfgicl Oh wow 2 hoaxes out of dozens of REAL transitional fossils. Congratulations!!!
Thats like saying there are Muslims and Jews so that must mean Christianity is wrong. We know Christianity is wrong but thats not why. You are saying because 2 transitional fossils were faked means that all transitional fossils are fake. The people that faked them were most likely creationists trying to damage evolutions reputation. However those attempts all failed because evolution has been proven FACT
@jclsfgicl I list hundreds of definite transitionals in the 9th episode of this series. Learn the truth about Piltdown Man and Nebraska man in the 13th episode, and see how creationism itself is a hoax in the two-part 14th FFoC.
There [evidently] is no god to "bless" (magically enchant) me.
@jclsfgicl So much fail, so little time! So you name two hoaxes that the scientific community, once they studied them, realized were hoaxes, then make the astonishingly ignorant claim that there are no transitional fossils... So Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Pezosiren portelli, Moeritherium, Dimetrodon, Sinornis, or Odontochelys semistestacea never existed huh? Or did you not take the time to research the subject yourself?
You name 2 cases that have been disproved by scientists themselves before they even got media-coverage.
What about the other 1000s of cases or fossilization(sp?)? You have any idea how rare it is for organism to even reach the process it takes to become fossils? We're lucky with the (tons of)evidence that already exists.
STFU, you reli-muppet. Stop reading yer ole nonsense off of creationist/ID-websites.
@rolingpingu The bacteria camel thing is explained in his video "ArronERRata" /watch?v=uzVbfVDDpok
The difference between a wing and an arm is very minor. The digits that make up other tetrapod claws have been streamlined into only a few digits (or just one). The other major bones of the arm are still there in the wings. The joints also bend in very much the same fasion.
the first use of wings, feather especially, was for warmth, not flight.
Closed minds gather in the same closet and speak about how beautiful the walls are, then turn & spew venomous hate, on all who dare to suggest, that a beautiful world truly exist outside of those precious 4 walls. The sad part is, no one wants to risk their closet clout, so no one dares to rise and open the door. Lol WAKE-UP non-believers! Bless The Lord Jesus!
@rolingpingu I have no problem with science my problem is with people using scientific advancements as evidence to prove God's non- existence. I do and always will enjoy science, because for me it further glorifies God's love for men.
The god that approves of slavery, is sexist, thinks you should kill your kids for being naughty and oh yer slaughtered everyone on earth for being as he made them, that god?
What a lie. i know you are an ignornat cretard and will deny the sexism and gods rules for slaves, and his pusnishments for killing a slave and stealing a slave (can you name them? maybe goiogle the answer so u can learn about your god?)
But now you deny the ark myth? LOL do you really do that?
@gorilla199uncensored Why don't you try reading the whole thing, instead of just reading certain verses recommended by google! Do you realize how goofy you are? you call me ignorant and spell the word wrong! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! LOL
@gorilla199uncensored ARE YOU SERIOUS? Who was around when the world was created, to write down the date? The ark story is very true! Bro there are tons of scientific proof to prove God's word! All you have to do is research and stop being afraid of the obvious! GOD IS REAL!
"Who was around when the world was created, to write down the date? "
You forget your story book has 2 genoligies ignoring the fact they are 241 diffenrece in length for the same time period, its 4000 years from adam to jesus! LOL
"The ark story is very true! "
LOL not according to every university!
Notice the bible version is different from the ones it was copied from? LOL
@gorilla199uncensored So are you admitting that you believe the bible? Honestly sir, i don't know the exact date of the flood, and i doubt that you know that exact info either. What do you find misleading about the bible? did you realize that we are supposed to study bible? The book is inspired by God's Holy Spirit, when 1 truly prays for understanding, his eyes are opened to new revelations, and he is led through the mysteries. If you truly desire to understand, it's gonna take prayer! Rise
"i don't know the exact date of the flood, and i doubt that you know that exact info either. "
According to the bible and little of averaging it comes to 2502 BC, your welcome to pretend ot was 3000 years either side if that makes u happy.
Then you talk religious crap, and forget to mention all the things god got wrong in the bible, including creation and his stupidly dum designs of animals and faking of evolution.
@gorilla199uncensored My beliefs are based on God's love and power! You believe in scientific facts, yet you deny the fact that there is far more that we don't understand! You choose your road based on popular belief which changes with every discovery, how reliable is that? lol
Based on nothing as thats whats the definition of religion is baseless belief.
No need to believe in scientific Facts or facts in general, just accept the truth.
Yes science improves and gets better, where as relkgiion as in the fundy case such as yourself, you still have to claim the ark is true LOL but you do lie about whats in the bible when you cant defend it any more.
@gorilla199uncensored You feel that you have proven a point, when in fact, the point has proven you!.. lol// You don't understand the small parts of the bible you know, and you expect me to prove something to you? STOP IT! Read the prophets and the new testament 1st! lol.. you sir are under a strong delusion, If you believe that all we have is right here and right now, I feel sorry for you! You view is indeed HOPELESS! WOW!
@gorilla199uncensored You don't listen, you hear what you want to hear! I BELIEVE EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE!Noah's ark included! You should google "archaeological biblical evidence noahs ark".. i suggest that you dive in and have an open mind! You can find a ton of lies pro/con for both sides, but if you truly wanna know you will find it. God bless
@gorilla199uncensored Just like i thought! AFRAID TO SEEK!!! LOL... it's safer for you to believe in nothing, because it requires you to do NOTHING! But little do you realize, It also reduces you to NOTHING!
You would rather believe that, billions of people throughout time, have all been delusional and less educated than you are, than to open your mind up to the possibility of God! LOL.. The bible says that "in the last days, men will be lovers of themselves more than lovers of God"
the picture at 32 seconds is that actually a breed of dog or is it Photoshopped?
Froish 1 day ago
"The bible is the divinely inspired written word of god. Because it is inspired throughout, it is completely free from error -- scientifically, historically, theologically and morally."
--Mark Ramsey
So what about them 438 contradictions, then? And the impossibility of the crossing by Moses? And all the other ridiculous bullshit in that book of myths?
Your god is a shitty author, and a shitty editor Mr. Ramsey, or it does not exist. Creationists are dishonest, brainwashed, liars.
DaToNyOyO 6 days ago
@AronRa Once you get the time, could you make a video on radiometric dating methods?
pat5168 1 month ago 3
cdk007 did a good video on it: watch?v=iGDrq8rikJc
He's sarcastically acting like a creationist at the beggining so dont be put off from watching the rest :)
EatMyLeadMD 3 weeks ago
@pat5168 I second that. And talk a bit slower because I don't listen fast.
DaToNyOyO 6 days ago
@DaToNyOyO If you have problems listening quickly, go to the link of his script.
pat5168 5 days ago
@pat5168 Touche...
DaToNyOyO 5 days ago
@pat5168 I'd like to see that too...
kusalaviro 2 days ago
lol I found a funny typo. At 2:08, the camel is labeled bacteria XD
Bastro3000 1 month ago
@Bastro3000
hahahahahaha that's a GREAT catch.
jrockzmyv382 1 day ago
@Bastro3000 He's acknowledged that before. It's a Bactrian camel, and he just made a typo.
It's still kind of funny, though.
Eosimias100 6 hours ago
That is something that is so inconsistent about creationists, "speciation" is what they use for Noah's ark. So lions and tigers share a common ancestor with each other and can only produce infertile hybrids because of the genetic difference they have accumulated. Saying that "mutations don't occur" would prevent this same phenomenon, so what is the mechanism that prevents an animal that is itself the result of micro to micro evolve some more? Just shouting big bang and atheist doesn't fix...
pegasusfreedom 1 month ago
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 1 month ago
What the fuck are new "kinds"?
HimesInu 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@HimesInu That's the point. If they actually had a standardized definition, they wouldn't use the term.
Trenta002 1 month ago
I have stated chromosome numbers as a definite boundary. Not only one, and boundary only upward, but yes, definite enough. In placental mammals that is, where polyploids spontaneously abort. On top of time scale being too short for evolution between kinds - unless we assume modern dating methods to be correct. Did you do a video on the dating methods? Which one? I started on nr 9.
hglundahl 1 month ago
@hglundahl look up o-x (dot) fr (slash) lsf, the message subseries starting with karyogrammata. (It is a short link to my blog's English index page)
hglundahl 1 month ago
Determining the kind of dinosaurs would be easier if: a) we had their genes, not just bones b) we knew they were ever kinds as opposed to genetically engineered misfits.
Of course, you might argue that the _mere possibility_ of a young earth and misdating and dinos being within human chronology presupposes _definite belief_ in a young earth. Is that honest, on your criteria, see "falsehood n. 9"?
Furthermore, there is chromosome numbers. THey do not drift, unlike chromosome content.
hglundahl 1 month ago
If you wrote all this stuff down you'd have enough material for a whole book. Nice videos.
ThePresident001 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Taking a Creationist's definition of Macroevolution literally, would mean that the transition from Dinosaurs to birds gradually over thousands of generations is not macro, but if a child is born with a mole neither of it's parents had, than it is.
pat5168 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
I didn't understand (i've got a bad english) why we say that lions and tigers are different species (they are,right?) that cannot interbreed since we can see a "liger" right after that.
Does it mean that this "liger" ,the "donkey-horse",as well as the "lama-camel" are only able to live because we helped them genetically ?
Couldt it happend naturally,in a zoo, or are they now too different for that ?
At 3:40
:)
nemotyrannus2 2 months ago
@nemotyrannus2 " lions and tigers are different species" Different species are normally considered to be animals that do not breed naturally in the wild.
Closely related species can however be bred artificially or in captivity, but their offspring are often sterile.
mtbee9 2 months ago
@mtbee9 Ok,thank you for answering.
nemotyrannus2 2 months ago
It is actually possible for species such as donkeys and horses or different species of bear to breed together and produce fertile offspring, it is incredibly improbable though, and obviously can only occur when the species are very closely related. Thanks for these videos by the way AronRa!
Ginoitaliano 2 months ago
Hmmm this might be a dumb point, but how about deers? :)
What theyre relation to say ancestor species of horses? :)
Anuojat 3 months ago 2
@Anuojat Deer and horses are on very different lines. Deer are more closely related to cattle while horses are more closely related to rhinoceros. But a video on the 'cattle kind' (+ deer etc) would be a good one I think.
AronRa 3 months ago 11
@AronRa My thanks Aron, this confused me for a while :P
Who, knows maybe someday we shall have page on wikipedia or ´similiar site where there full obserable taxamony of all fossils, current species and their FULL links to one another so any laymen might get it :P
Though your videos will always be an inspiration regardless. ;)
Anuojat 3 months ago
@AronRa That would be a VERY good video! I've been reading some of your online debates recently, is there a place I can find an archive of them or something?
Ostrasize 1 month ago
:)
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
Comment removed
pat5168 3 months ago
Comment removed
pat5168 3 months ago
As someone living in a country where evolution is not contested(or at least not by anyone hoping to be taken seriously) it's refreshing to see that there is still hope for America. Even if I knew the basic concepts of evolution, since there is close to noone to discuss it with, I was unaware of much of what is taught in these vids. @AronRa, if you ever find yourself in Sweden, come visit the pub where I work and I'll buy you a Franziskaner weissbier. thanks for your great vids.
sirridan 3 months ago
GIANT RABBITS?
b33p3rz 4 months ago
0:31 that is a big ass dog D:
iPriestHolmes 4 months ago
Can anyone show me some evidence be it fossils or DNA of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into the iconic example of evolution, the giraffe? A jump of 4 meters in height (1.5m to 5.5m) from an ancestor seems magical to me.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog
You are a cock.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew I thought you banished and went digging for fossils. Dig some more for another 100 years until you have something to show. For the second time you come up with nothing to support INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into the iconic example of evolution, the giraffe.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog So doag answer me this: Why is it that NO creationist knows how to use a search engine like google? You could learn a lot by looking up things for yourself rather than expecting others to do your work for you, or are you just another lazy creationist?
Oh no need to answer that it was rhetorical - we all know the answer!
mtbee9 4 months ago
@mtbee9 No need to drag creationists here. I am interested in scientific evidence be it fossils or DNA to support claims of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into the iconic example of evolution, the giraffe. I spent years searching on the internet and end up with nothing leading me to believe that maybe giraffe did not evolve at all.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog Ok Ignore the creationists comments. No problem
So how do YOU explain the fossil record that shows the gradual change from earlier animals with shorter necks progressively getting longer necks over time. This is what the fossil record shows!
mtbee9 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mtbee9 There was no progressively getting longer necks over time. Again dont depend too much in wikipedia. Read some scientific papers showing existence of those animals in million years leading to giraffe. This is not possible because results research papers stated that Samotherium existed before Climacoceras and okapi which is a supposed relative of giraffe existed before Climacoceras and Samotherium.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog
"I spent years searching on the internet and end up with nothing"
You're either a liar or have an IQ no greater than my shoe size.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew I know that evolutionists always resort to IQ, liar, shoe sizes when they run out of arguments. So far, you have not shown me any evidence be it fossils or DNA of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into a giraffe. From a 1.5m deer-like animal to 5.5m giraffe is a 4-meter jump in height with all its body parts elongated, not an incremental change at all.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog
I didn't "run out of arguments." Myself, mtbee, odinata, and several others have provided your demanded evidence over several videos and you have chosen to pretend it doesn't exist anywhere.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew No, they did not. They have not shown me any evidence be it fossils or DNA of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that transformed into a giraffe. They all went away after they realized that what they provided did not make any sense at all or maybe they have not understood what INCREMENTAL changes means.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog
"maybe they have not understood what INCREMENTAL changes means."
In your case it means that you can shift the goalposts whenever you want. You could be shown vertebra-by-vertebra extension in the fossil record and you'd still deny that it was "incremental."
Again, you still ignore the fact that fossilization is an extremely rare event. Maybe YOU don't understand what RARE means.
"They all went away"
Most people have no interest in discourse with dishonest people.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew So which animals from the earliest known giraffid did giraffe evolve from?
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog
Climacoceras was the first known giraffid. Palaeotragus and Samotherium were next, but those terms describe whole genera, not just two species. Eventually only the modern giraffe and the okapi were the only two species left.
Also, whatever questions you may ask about giraffes do nothing to detract from the 290,000+ peer-reviewed publications on evolution, nor the incredibly evidence from ERVS, atavisms, vestiges, ontogeny, and molecular biology.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew You must read some results of biology research papers stating exactly when those species first existed in million years. Samotherium existed before Climacoceras and okapi the relative of giraffe existed before both Climacoceras and Samotherium. Making evolution of a giraffe neck a seesaw impossibility.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog
"Making evolution of a giraffe neck a seesaw impossibility."
These are the KNOWN fossils.
FOSSILIZATION IS A RARE EVENT. This has been pounded into your head a dozen times; why can't you grasp this? Because of the rarity, we will never have every single intermediate.
Furthermore, Climacoceras is now considered an earlier branch off of what was Giraffidae, meaning there's an as-yet undiscovered giraffid before Samotherium.
Plus, you're borderline illiterate in science.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@daogdaog
You reading and clearly misunderstanding the findings of a couple of research does jack shit to evolution. It takes a special kind of stupid to draw that conclusion from these supposed research papers.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew Wikipedia provides very little about giraffe evolution. Show me any other research papers that show existence of those animals in million years, not just stating early, mid and late Miocene epoch. When a research paper states that animal A existed since this date and became extinct around this date and confirmed by research papers from other biologists, there is not much misunderstanding in such findings. There is no conclusion to draw. It is plain and simple.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog
"Show me any other research papers that show existence of those animals in million years, not just stating early, mid and late Miocene epoch."
This would be a colossal waste of time, as you're entirely fixated on this and will deny any and all evidence provided, as you have already done. You have shifted the goalposts repeatedly and are clearly not interested in learning a damn thing. Your argument is "If giraffes didn't evolve, nothing evolved" which is ridiculous.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew Do some more reading on scientific results of research about giraffe evolution made by evolutionists themselves. Dont rely too much on wikipedia. Think outside the box otherwise you get stuck with Climacoceras mindset.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog
I'm done here. I've wasted enough time dealing with dickheads.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@TheZooCrew I know it is a torture for your brain when you lack the knowledge of when exactly Climacoceras, okapi and Samotherium first existed. It is pity.
daogdaog 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog "when exactly Climacoceras, okapi and Samotherium first existed. "
You still out there BS'ing about giraffes dogdog.
Climacoceras, was in the Miocene
Okapi was Pleistocene, Pliocene and Holocene
Samotherium was in Pliocene and Miocene.
Next
mtbee9 4 months ago
@daogdaog How's this for starters...
Fossil genera (each of which include many species) in the family Giraffoidea include:
* Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene);
* Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene);
* Paleomeryx (early Miocene);
* Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid genus with many species, complete with short skin-covered horns;
* Giraffokeryx (mid to late Miocene);
* Bramatherium (mid to late Miocene);
* Samotherium (late Miocene);
Next!
mtbee9 4 months ago
@mtbee9 Dont depend too much in wikipedia. Read some scientific papers showing existence of those animals in million years leading to giraffe. This is not possible because results research papers stated that Samotherium existed before Climacoceras and okapi which is a supposed relative of giraffe existed before Climacoceras and Samotherium.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog I didn't even mention Wiki. Although it does have useful information. I research all aspects of a subject.
You asked for some information on how evolution occurred. I gave you some for starters! I have not researched the giraffe linage in detail myself but remember this. One lineage does not simply stop and another takes over, they overlap just as there are many species of antelope today. Evolution is a continuous process with many branches we do not have fossils of all intermediates.
mtbee9 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog I didn't even mention Wiki. Although it does have useful information. I research all aspects of a subject.
You asked for some information on how evolution occurred. I gave you some for starters! I have not researched the giraffe linage in detail myself but remember this. One lineage does not simply stop and another takes over, they overlap just as there are many species of antelope today. Evolution is a continuous process with many branches we do not have fossils of all intermediates.
mtbee9 4 months ago
@daogdaog
You think we/they use wiki only?
LOL get lost
sonykroket 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sonykroket That is not the point. Use whatever research papers you have and show me some evidence be it fossils or DNA of INCREMENTAL changes from four legged short necked deer-like animal that gradually transformed into the iconic example of evolution, the giraffe
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog
"Read some scientific papers showing existence of those animals in million years leading to giraffe."
You probably didn't understand a damn word. You've proven before that you have no interest in learning. Like mtbee said, life is a bush with a bunch of intertwining lineages. Fossilization is a very rare process, which is a fact you've been told like 80 times and still ignore. We can't run DNA tests on fossils, otherwise the historical phylogeny would be much more complete.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
@daogdaog
"Read some scientific papers showing existence of those animals in million years leading to giraffe."
You probably didn't understand a damn word. You've proven before that you have no interest in learning. Like mtbee said, life is a bush with a bunch of intertwining lineages. Fossilization is a very rare process, which is a fact you've been told like 80 times and still ignore. We can't run DNA tests on fossils, otherwise the historical phylogeny would be much more complete.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
At 01:39. Maybe I am wrong but when two breeds of dogs interbreed their traits don't just meld together to form a single phenotype. Instead their genes are recombined in several ways, possible resulting in features not found in either breed before. At least that was the outcome of the wolf-poodle crosses performed in Kiel, Germany, in the 1980s and 90s.
inotaishu1 5 months ago
@inotaishu1
That wasn't the point. The point is that when populations are genetically isolated, but not long enough to speciate, then recombined, the genetic distance between members then decreases with each generation because the populations are no longer isolated.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
so much breath wasted my man.. you are talking, and the ones who should be listening stick their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalala"
realbojay 5 months ago in playlist AmonRa 19
I also say that life isn't a circle, it's a spiral. A very, very slow spiral. This both answers the question "Which came first the chicken or the egg" and debunks "the goose remains a goose". Transitional forms would eventually mean individual generations if the creationists remains so unyielding to evidence.
pythor2 6 months ago
You cannot have "micro" without "macro". That's what I always say to creationists.
pythor2 6 months ago
@pythor2 I know right, It's like saying I can walk to the kitchen but not the the store. Lmao
nextgenvids 5 months ago
@pythor2 At least creationists believe in 'small' evolution.
gregrutz 5 months ago
Dunno if you wrote the captions on the pics, Aron, but at 2:12 it should read "Bactrian" not "Bacteria" camel. Great videos!
JonasSalk 6 months ago
@JonasSalk
Bacteria camels. Bahahaha.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@AronRa Might I ask where the list of "Peer-Reviewed and Documented Instances of Observed Speciation" at 7:25 can be found, or is that a list you put together? I've already tried searching for it on Google with no luck, and it's something I would very much like to have more information about. I've managed to find other lists, but none seem as consummate as the one in your video. Also, thanks so much for all your efforts in making these videos; they are extraordinarily eloquent and informative.
Axiomatize 6 months ago
@Axiomatize
TalkOrigins. This is an excellent resource for everything surrounding this subject matter.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@Axiomatize The list of observed speciation events shown in this video is a composite of two published lists with at least one peripheral addition, being the mice of Madeira.
AronRa 6 months ago 10
what the bugger happened to all the other foundational falsehoods of creationism videos?
SamyazaLovatt 6 months ago
Why do creationists refuse to accept the fact that a lot of small change over a long time inevitably leads to big change???
I like these videos a lot!
marianbordadora 7 months ago
I think the only problem with these videos is that they are too informative. The people who you really need to reach the most simply cannot hold this much information in their brains all at once, and if they could they wouldn't have the ability to understand all of it. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic:-)
chedillychedilly1 7 months ago
You are one of the most clear-thinking-scientifically-minded people creating videos on youtube today AronRa! Your videos are simply soaked with perfectly applied facts and a sheer distain for willful ignorance. Keep it up!!
chedillychedilly1 7 months ago
I playlisted it.
iwanttocrashmybike 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and for the record.....
Evolution and Creationism have BOTH been shown to be wrong.
This is clear in modern observation, study of the DNA code barrier, and what is known about genetic engineering.
The ONLY process that can produce a radically different species is GENE HYBRIDIZATION.
And anyone with a brain knows who is doing it and it aint God. The ones responsible for the genetic engineering are what are moronic ancestors worshipped as mini-gods, but they arent "gods"
buffboynick 7 months ago
@buffboynick I guess I must not have a brain because I have no idea what you're talking about.
323guiltyspark 7 months ago
@323guiltyspark
My channel will tell you everything you need to know.
Stop by and check out the page.
The BEST info on human origin comes from Llyod Pye. And he has many videos on here that use real science to explain the flaws in evolution and creationism. The "3rd option" is the truth.
buffboynick 7 months ago
@buffboynick
Lloyd Pye is a cryptozoologist with nothing more than a Bachelor's in psychology. He's a total crackpot; all of his arguments are ad hoc at their roots and most are based off either urban myths or gross misrepresentations of science (human brain use, gene "defects," Starchild bullshit). When criticized, he has not hesitated to invent data and falsehoods on the spot (cheetah genetics, 10% of brain usage, plate tectonics, amino acids).
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@buffboynick
Sweet Christ on a cracker. Looking at your channel, you're even nuttier than most scientologists. You need serious, serious help.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew
Has buffoonboy told you about his time-travelling alien documentaries yet? He throws a tantrum if you make fun of them.
Atriviality 7 months ago
@Atriviality
I've seen a few of their samples on his channel. I don't know if I've ever seen someone work so hard at being batshit nuts.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@buffboynick Also, there is no DNA "code barrier". Hybridization has little to do with the production of new species. Four other methods of speciation are now known, proving evolution. But if you imagine evolution was ever disproved, it would be amusing to see you try and cite when, how, and by whom.
AronRa 7 months ago 17
@AronRa
I wouldn't hold your breath. buffoonboynick doesn't answer the questions you ask, do citations for his claims, or acknowledge his failure when you destroy his arguments (yes, he's one of THOSE people). He'll just repeatedly post a list of about half a dozen scientists that believe in ancient astronauts/panspermia (he hates it when you compare this to Scientology) and claims time-travelling aliens are making documentaries and posting them on the internet.
Atriviality 7 months ago
@buffboynick WHAT! That is one of the most clueless things I've ever heard anyone say. I am a research scientist, and I can assure you that Iam totally unaware of the most powerful-biological-scientific theory being "shown to be wrong." If you think the theory of evolution IS wrong, or has been shown to BE wrong, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION! I seriously doubt you understand anything having to do with science.
chedillychedilly1 7 months ago
@buffboynick and for the record....
Gravity and Gravtions have BOTH been shown to be wrong.
This is clear in modern observations, study of the GRAVITON code barrier, and what is known about gravitianic engineering.
The ONLY process that can produce attraction is pullation by INTELLIGENCE.
And any one with a brain knows who is doing it and IT IS the FSM. The ones responsible for the gravitiation attraction are moronic ancestors worshipping gravity as mini-gravity, but they aren't gravitons.
4FunPlayin 6 months ago
@buffboynick
And for the record, you're retarded.
mecher3k 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is one giant STRAW MAN
Variations within a species is NOT an example of macroevolution/drastic speciation (whatever terminology evolutionists use these days)
Not only have the majority of species currently on Earth been here for MILLIONS of years (like the Chimp for example, which is at least 2 MILLION years old) but no NEW species have ever come from them!
This includes us humans (which are at least 200,000 years old)
Only different variations of the species. No macroevolution
buffboynick 7 months ago
@buffboynick I guess you missed the list of new species which emerged under direct observation. You also missed the part where leading creationists employ the same definitions I use here. You should go to an actual evolutionary science source and look up the definitions of micro and macro evolution. I said Berkeley University's website, 'evolution101'.
AronRa 7 months ago 14
@AronRa I have to commend you on the way you conduct you dialect=-)
iwanttocrashmybike 7 months ago
@buffboynick You are beyond confused! Macroevolution is just microevolution plus time, a few million years is recent on geological and evolutionary time scales, and we did not come from chimps. Chimpanzees and we evolved from a common ancestor. You believe that humans have been humans for over 200, 000 years, which is true to a certain extent, but you don't think we evolved?! What is wrong with you? How many species, alive today, were here 300,000,000 years ago? ....how about 65,000,000?
chedillychedilly1 7 months ago
@chedillychedilly1
Don't worry about buffboynick. Look at his channel, and look up Lloyd Pye on Wikipedia. These people are absolutely unreachable. They're severely disturbed and need professional help, but will never seek it.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@buffboynick
LOL so tell us the advanced aliens that created us all, WHO created them? They need a creator more than we do. Also are you a raliaen, scientologist where do you get your crap from?
gorilla199uncensored 6 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored
He claims to be an abductee.
He's a cryptozoologist. Lloyd Pye is his idol, who is clearly an attention whore and little more.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
@TheZooCrew I can find you a comment he says he's an alien himself that he wrote 2 years ago.
4FunPlayin 6 months ago
@buffboynick
Hey whack job ever think you might be annoying the aliens so they will dissapear you?
gorilla199uncensored 6 months ago
@buffboynick A Straw Man is a fallacy in which someone argues, not against the actual subject at hand, but against a substitute subject that appears to be similar to the real subject, but clearly isn't. This substitute is easily refutable by the person, usually because it's illogical or flawed, even by the original subject's standards. The person then claims that the original subject is refutable, because the substitute was as well.
Now how is this video like that?
PsychoticSnake 6 months ago
@buffboynick It's fun how there are three different sub-species of chimps, with some recognizible different traits, able to interbreed, and the are two really close related species of chimps, the bonobo and common chimp, unable to interbreed. There's no fossil of 2 million years of them.
MrBeiragua 5 months ago
smh.... creationist
Wordlaw12 7 months ago
I am astounded that creationists have the petulance to say that scientists (yes, scientists, people that value knowledge and accurate information, as opposed to creationists who value faith, superstition, supernatural and magical thinking) believe things by faith, it's obviously a psychological projection.
I must confess though that the idea of seeing scientist making a discovery in the lab then praying, singing an dancing, learning to be ignorant and paying tithes is quite hilarious.
carlosewm 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
carlosewm 7 months ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 7 months ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 7 months ago
Hot for teacher ftw :D
bloodghost327metal 7 months ago
chill man, just chill. You need to give the creationist a chance hahah :-)
spatch8806 8 months ago
And breathe...
Awesome video series, but I wish you would slow down a fraction.
ralph17p 8 months ago
Why don't these videos have a MILLION views???
gatomjp 8 months ago
I'm confused @ 2:50, are you saying that Evolution can't develop dogs bigger & bigger indefinitely, or that it cannot develop dogs as big as elephants? I don't see why it could not do the latter. ...though of course by that point they would be a completely different species than what we refer to as a "dog"... is that what you meant?
StevenBee2 8 months ago
@StevenBee2 I think he was referring to the bigger and bigger indefinitely.
lhvinny 8 months ago
@lhvinny That would make sense... his wording was uncharacteristically ambiguous.
StevenBee2 8 months ago
YEC's don't change their minds? I did, (I'm still a Christian btw)
ThePuppyTurtle 8 months ago
Does anyone know where the clip at 6:23 is from?
kairobinson 9 months ago
@kairobinson The clip at 6:23 is from 'Walking with Prehistoric Monsters'.
AronRa 9 months ago
@AronRa I love your videos, I use them on the Atheist Facebook page that I admin to destroy stupid Creationist debates when I don't feel like playing elementary school science teacher myself.
Where is that clip at 8:16 - 8:22 from? I saw that stupid Creationist video before, I want to use it for my page's "Facepalm Of The Day" series.
KJRUSS0 7 months ago
Comment removed
sonykroket 9 months ago
My father claims that evolution has been proven to be wrong scientifically and he said he will watch only ONE video I can find to try and show him otherwise. So of course I thought of the FFoC...but which ONE do you think would be best?
kbslicky2k 9 months ago
@kbslicky2k Potholiers The Theory of Evolution made Easy
/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
ganados0 9 months ago
@kbslicky2k From this series, I would say that this one would be a good one, but my favorite would be the one just before this one. What I would find more interesting is if your father would explain how he thinks evolution was disproved, and why doesn't anyone in the scientific community know about it?
AronRa 9 months ago 10
@AronRa - I'd say my favourite FFOC is #6. But it changes every now and again depending on who I'm debunking! But my fav video of all? Well thats "An Archaeological Moment in Time" - which I come back to often.
KarlHeinzofWpg 9 months ago
@kbslicky2k i support you efforts to help your father, but don't be disheartened when he doesn't change his mind. faith is a hard habit to break!
cruciphile 8 months ago
Sorry, but you made an outrageous logical fallacy, you assumed that Ben Stein had a mind to loose in the first place.
He didn't loose his mind, he simply never had it so could much less found, being way too retarded in the first place and all...
toulouse666 10 months ago
my favorite part is when people post comments that he refutes in the current video.
sevsquad 10 months ago
@AronRa could you please point me to the source of the beautiful tree at 19:20?
Carutsu 10 months ago
@Carutsu The tree at 9:20 was the one Haeckel drew.
AronRa 9 months ago
@AronRa Thank you!
I do wonder how accurate the tree is, I mean Haeckel doesn't have the brightest reputation.
Carutsu 9 months ago
U m m ...
No Transitional Fossils Whatsoever
Piltdown Man (HOAX).
Nebraska Man (HOAX).
Type in "Evolution Hoax Exposed" in search box above.
God bless you :)
jclsfgicl 10 months ago
@jclsfgicl "No Transitional Fossils Whatsoever"
There is plenty of transitional evidence. You just choose to ignore it.
So there have been a couple of hoaxes - thrown out by science - these don't invalidate the millions of valid fossils that prove evolution is true.
Sorry religious fairy stories are still lacking any evidence whereas Science has plenty - your choice to ignore the facts. Good luck.
mtbee9 10 months ago
@jclsfgicl Oh wow 2 hoaxes out of dozens of REAL transitional fossils. Congratulations!!!
Thats like saying there are Muslims and Jews so that must mean Christianity is wrong. We know Christianity is wrong but thats not why. You are saying because 2 transitional fossils were faked means that all transitional fossils are fake. The people that faked them were most likely creationists trying to damage evolutions reputation. However those attempts all failed because evolution has been proven FACT
buckinfitches 10 months ago
@jclsfgicl I list hundreds of definite transitionals in the 9th episode of this series. Learn the truth about Piltdown Man and Nebraska man in the 13th episode, and see how creationism itself is a hoax in the two-part 14th FFoC.
There [evidently] is no god to "bless" (magically enchant) me.
AronRa 10 months ago 24
This has been flagged as spam show
@AronRa
Dude, is that B/W-clip starting at 0:06 from Van Halens' Hot for Teacher? I could be wrong though
DLR FTW yo!!!
sonykroket 9 months ago
@jclsfgicl So much fail, so little time! So you name two hoaxes that the scientific community, once they studied them, realized were hoaxes, then make the astonishingly ignorant claim that there are no transitional fossils... So Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Pezosiren portelli, Moeritherium, Dimetrodon, Sinornis, or Odontochelys semistestacea never existed huh? Or did you not take the time to research the subject yourself?
Your god doesn't exist, so how would it bless us?
TheSkepticalApe 9 months ago
@jclsfgicl
You name 2 cases that have been disproved by scientists themselves before they even got media-coverage.
What about the other 1000s of cases or fossilization(sp?)? You have any idea how rare it is for organism to even reach the process it takes to become fossils? We're lucky with the (tons of)evidence that already exists.
STFU, you reli-muppet. Stop reading yer ole nonsense off of creationist/ID-websites.
Say hi to the talking snake for me
sonykroket 9 months ago
Sorry about that little rant, Arona.
Never stop
sonykroket 9 months ago
At 05:05 isn,t the difference btween the winged animal and the non-winged one way to important?
I mean, was there a form in which the wing developped but was too small or inefficient to be useful?, like for austrichs
rolingpingu 10 months ago
Why is that camel called "bacteria"? XD
rolingpingu 10 months ago
@rolingpingu The bacteria camel thing is explained in his video "ArronERRata" /watch?v=uzVbfVDDpok
The difference between a wing and an arm is very minor. The digits that make up other tetrapod claws have been streamlined into only a few digits (or just one). The other major bones of the arm are still there in the wings. The joints also bend in very much the same fasion.
the first use of wings, feather especially, was for warmth, not flight.
lhvinny 10 months ago
@lhvinny Thanks, I'll watch it. Also, thanks for the clarification
rolingpingu 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Closed minds gather in the same closet and speak about how beautiful the walls are, then turn & spew venomous hate, on all who dare to suggest, that a beautiful world truly exist outside of those precious 4 walls. The sad part is, no one wants to risk their closet clout, so no one dares to rise and open the door. Lol WAKE-UP non-believers! Bless The Lord Jesus!
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist Same do religions, plus what's wrong about discussing about a scientific theory and what most of people don't know about it?
rolingpingu 10 months ago
@rolingpingu I have no problem with science my problem is with people using scientific advancements as evidence to prove God's non- existence. I do and always will enjoy science, because for me it further glorifies God's love for men.
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist Well it tells that many "proofs for god" are wrong, but no, it doesn't proove god doesn't exist.
rolingpingu 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
"glorifies God's love for men."
The god that approves of slavery, is sexist, thinks you should kill your kids for being naughty and oh yer slaughtered everyone on earth for being as he made them, that god?
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored No that's not the God i know! You have been misled
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
" that's not the God i know! "
What a lie. i know you are an ignornat cretard and will deny the sexism and gods rules for slaves, and his pusnishments for killing a slave and stealing a slave (can you name them? maybe goiogle the answer so u can learn about your god?)
But now you deny the ark myth? LOL do you really do that?
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored Why don't you try reading the whole thing, instead of just reading certain verses recommended by google! Do you realize how goofy you are? you call me ignorant and spell the word wrong! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! LOL
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
"Why don't you try reading the whole thing"
So some parts are wrong misleading?
I noticed yet again you are too embaressed about the bible to answer a couple of questions on it. LOL
Is the worlds 6000 years old?
Is the ark story true and happen 4500 years (ignoring the 241 year length difference between the 2 geneologies that should be same length)
LOL fail to defend your claims, and go for the ad hom, LOL its a typo retard anyway! DUH!
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored ARE YOU SERIOUS? Who was around when the world was created, to write down the date? The ark story is very true! Bro there are tons of scientific proof to prove God's word! All you have to do is research and stop being afraid of the obvious! GOD IS REAL!
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@detroitthebaptist
"Who was around when the world was created, to write down the date? "
You forget your story book has 2 genoligies ignoring the fact they are 241 diffenrece in length for the same time period, its 4000 years from adam to jesus! LOL
"The ark story is very true! "
LOL not according to every university!
Notice the bible version is different from the ones it was copied from? LOL
" tons of scientific proof to prove God's word!"
So many you didnt supply any! LOL
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
So do you think the ark was 4500 years ago as the bible genolgies claim?
Since we know from written record and many other things the Egyptians for one built the Great pyramid just after the flood! LOL
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored So are you admitting that you believe the bible? Honestly sir, i don't know the exact date of the flood, and i doubt that you know that exact info either. What do you find misleading about the bible? did you realize that we are supposed to study bible? The book is inspired by God's Holy Spirit, when 1 truly prays for understanding, his eyes are opened to new revelations, and he is led through the mysteries. If you truly desire to understand, it's gonna take prayer! Rise
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
"i don't know the exact date of the flood, and i doubt that you know that exact info either. "
According to the bible and little of averaging it comes to 2502 BC, your welcome to pretend ot was 3000 years either side if that makes u happy.
Then you talk religious crap, and forget to mention all the things god got wrong in the bible, including creation and his stupidly dum designs of animals and faking of evolution.
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored You should read my last comment again, if you truly want answers. Your blaspheme only shows your blindness!
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
"if you truly want answers."
Dont come to you because you cant even make up lies to pretend the bible is true, all you can do is lie to yourself about it.
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored My beliefs are based on God's love and power! You believe in scientific facts, yet you deny the fact that there is far more that we don't understand! You choose your road based on popular belief which changes with every discovery, how reliable is that? lol
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
"My beliefs are based on God's "
Based on nothing as thats whats the definition of religion is baseless belief.
No need to believe in scientific Facts or facts in general, just accept the truth.
Yes science improves and gets better, where as relkgiion as in the fundy case such as yourself, you still have to claim the ark is true LOL but you do lie about whats in the bible when you cant defend it any more.
most xtains know the bible is not true!
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored You feel that you have proven a point, when in fact, the point has proven you!.. lol// You don't understand the small parts of the bible you know, and you expect me to prove something to you? STOP IT! Read the prophets and the new testament 1st! lol.. you sir are under a strong delusion, If you believe that all we have is right here and right now, I feel sorry for you! You view is indeed HOPELESS! WOW!
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
LOL you are to ashamed to ever talk about the ark fairy tale, you know its wrong and even better science proves it wrong in many many ways.
Not to mention maths, medicine, immunology, engineering, astronomy, geology common sence and many other sciences prove the bible wrong.
Thats why even the majority of xtains know the bible is not true.
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored You don't listen, you hear what you want to hear! I BELIEVE EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE!Noah's ark included! You should google "archaeological biblical evidence noahs ark".. i suggest that you dive in and have an open mind! You can find a ton of lies pro/con for both sides, but if you truly wanna know you will find it. God bless
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
"I BELIEVE EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE!
Apart from the things you cant defend those one yous just lie and deny are in the bible.
So do you agree with your gods rules for punishments for
Stealing a slave?
Killing a slave? LOL
"Noah's ark included! "
Which is proven wrong in many many ways
So when one genology is 241 yeras longer than the other how can they be for the same period of time? LOL
EXPLAIN PLEASE!
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
"but if you truly wanna "
If people really want to they can pretend your god and rleigion is real? WOW great selling point.
If you wanted too you could do it for another religion and god.
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
"archaeological biblical evidence noahs ark"
So much evidence the ark has been found in 12 different locations and counting! LOL
You crazy xtians want to pretend so much, yous just go insane.
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
@gorilla199uncensored Just like i thought! AFRAID TO SEEK!!! LOL... it's safer for you to believe in nothing, because it requires you to do NOTHING! But little do you realize, It also reduces you to NOTHING!
You would rather believe that, billions of people throughout time, have all been delusional and less educated than you are, than to open your mind up to the possibility of God! LOL.. The bible says that "in the last days, men will be lovers of themselves more than lovers of God"
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
@detroitthebaptist
WOW you talk crap.
Care to explain the 2 genologies of jesus to adam, why one is 241 years longer than the other? LOL
So the earth sit on pillars?
The doesnt moveth? True or False
Will the earth last forever?
Does the sun travell around the earth?
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago