Emptywithoutjesus.... complete moron. I pushed him on the origin of original sin and its, quite frankly, hilarious story and he gave me such a bullshit answer it was pityable. He's just another fool who presses the reset button everytime he's proved to be spouting nonsense and goes straight back to the start of an already debunked line of argument. He's a fool.
Twelve years of Catholic education for me, though I'm pretty sure that natural selection was a topic discussed in science classes. Also, while religious events were compulsory and we had prayers every morning, most students I knew treated religion classes as free grades. Just memorize and repeat and you'll pass. Belief was not a prerequisite for graduation. This was in the 1980s and 90s, though, and may simply be a product of the local curriculum. I really don't know if anything has changed.
their are just a few factors which make evoloution even feasable not adaptation or variation we have observed these things but never seen a change in species the points some of those scietist were scepticle on are the corner stones for evoloution funnily enough to prove evoloution their actually has to be evoloution fuck face, why do you cling to the hope that more results will yeild in your favor when key ones are allready shaky(you should think and say i dont no what to think) its where u are
@Areyoubeingfilmed This might be a good place to start. I'm not aware of amino acids being found but am of DNA analogues. If you go to google scholar and search for
@Areyoubeingfilmed "Could anyone direct me to the scientific paper that states amino acids have been found on meteorites?"
Researchers have found the amino acid Glycine on comets. Just google "comets glycine" to find some links to the discovery. While the glycine found on the comets was racemic (both left and right-handed structures) it is still evidence of abiogenic formation of amino acids.
I'm norwegian, and according to wikipedia we only have 2 percent regular church-goers in Norway. So I would be the freak, I would stand out if I had gone to church or preached christiabity in school. (By the way, the nut-case on the stage in the video here, Lee Strobel; is a lawyer with no credentials in any science at all. Why can't the creationists in America find biologists, zoologists, palaeontologists to defened their "case"?Oh,that's right, because they're all "darwinists" even over there!
@MrInseine Marriage between blood-related individuals was rather common place at the time, you can't hold it against him. Also, I'm only aware of only three of Darwin's children dying in infancy and one of them possibly of tuberculosis. The rest of them went on to live relatively long lives.
@MrInseine Still, I'm not sure how you figure that disproves the theory of evolution. The fact that a reduction of the gene pool will, over time, result in the accumulation of detrimental traits is well in line with our knowledge of genetic and evolution.
@Kalevala87 Although it's true that our knowlegde of genetics is improving somewhat, evolution remains only a theory. If it were true, than there would be all kinds of new creatures and missing links running around - why did it stop at Man? I don't want to hang around a further million years to see the outcome. Any hybrids are sterile and cannot therefore reproduce. So where does survival of the fittest come into this?
@MrInseine The status of "theory" is the highest a scientific hypothesis can achieve in science. A theory is a model that coherently explains observed evidence. New creatures? There are literally hundreds of new species discovered every year. National Geographic usually compiles a list of the top ten weirdest ones, you should check it out. As for missing link, if you're one of those creationists looking for a crocoduck, then you don't understand what a missing link is and how evolution works.
@Kalevala87 I believe a missing link to be evidence of an animal which crosses over from one species to another which creates another species i.e.how did homo erectus turn into homo sapiens. Surely for this to happen you need a male and female to develop sexually at exactly the same time - thousand of years apart will not do. Come on...what are the chances of that happening?
@MrInseine You mean much the same way your parents, my parents, probably most people's parents developed sexually roughly at the same age - aside from cases of considerable age differences? Speciation within one generation is extremely rare, although it does occur. In all other cases, divergence is a slow, gradual process, which concludes when interbreeding between two populations is no longer possible.
@MrInseine Acquiring an upright posture didn't happen within one generation. Upright posture requires skeletal modifications that evolved over time in apes and likely didn't cause any breeding barrier to arise for quite some time. By that time, populations with an upright-posture trait were large enough for mating not to be a problem.
@MrInseine Every single organism is a transitional form between the previous and the following generation, including you, me and everyone else on the planet. Evolution certainly did not stop at us. The mutational rate simply slows down the more complex an organism becomes, so that for higher animals new mutations arise less frequently. That doesn't mean we're immune from evolution. We're still evolving, just like every other organism on the planet.
@Kalevala87 Man is the same now, as he ever was. He still lies, cheats, murders, rapes, steals, envys etc. No evolutionary change there then. Surely behavioural differences should be included in evoluion. Is it because Darwin did'nt say that. IMHO it should be! The evidence of language change is there for starters.
@MrInseine You mean modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are the same now as they ever were. That's still incorrect. Divergence has occurred between different human populations, but not enough to reach the speciation threshold after which interbreeding is no longer possible. That's because no human population has been isolated for long enough. Space colonisation may eventually change that.
@Kalevala87 Will you stop telling me what I mean?? I Mean man still murders, cheats, lies, is greedy, etc. He will never alter .from this - ever. Dress it up as you wish to explain it away, but it has not changed since man walked the earth. Thee is no evidence of a change in he bassic human instinct..
@MrInseine Basic instincts are called basic for a reason. If anything they're all the more evidence of our descent from less complex representatives of the animal kingdom. You seem to be harbouring the misconception that evolution is a directional process somehow going from "worse" to "better." That's wrong. Evolution merely produces diversity.
@MrInseine As for behavioural changes they are a big area of research in evolutionary science. Ever heard of evolutionary psychology? Language is possibly the most exciting field of it. We're only starting to figure out the genetic substrate of language, but the fact that genes (e.g. FOXP2) can be more or less clearly linked to aspects of behaviour and communication is all the more confirmation for the theory of evolution.
@MrInseine Also, most plant hybrids are fertile and do pretty well, being a cornerstone of any human agrarian effort. Infertility is caused by excessive divergence between to species, which is perfectly in line with how evolution works. Not to mention that hybrids are extremely rare in the wild, and they're not a requirement for evolution as we know it. They're a human invention, you could say, and their viability says nothing about the validity of the theory of evolution.
I believe Lee Strobel is more blatantly deceptive and dishonest than most Christian speakers. Idk if he is a YEC but many YECs often are deceptive or outright lie b/c they have no solid evidence for their claims.
Rutgers? Temple? Why not mention Camden, NJ Liquor College?
(just teasing - I feel free to joke about schools I've taken courses at - and how Rutgers Camden and Temple in Philadelphia are not exactly world tourist attractions) :)
What would Darwin say if we tell him: "We have decoded the molecular blueprints for living organisms." Probably he won't even understand what we are refering to.
I've pretty much gotten to the point where I EXPECT anything that comes out of a creationist's mouth to be either a distortion, misrepresentation, or outright lie.
My parents wanted me to go to christian school. Fortunately for me, there was no christian school in the new district where I lived. So I got a public school education. Learning about evolution in school convinced me at a young age, about 10 or so, that religion was false. I constantly challenged my parents about it, I hated going to church, used to do all kinds of things to try to make us late, so we wouldn't have to go. At 13 I flatly refused to go anymore.
@nancy6ify I went to a Christian school myself and obviously they never mentioned evolution, I had to wait until my public secondary school until I finally studied it. I believe that a deity created the world but these modern day creationists are just plain crazy
@nancy6ify Pardon if someone has already stated this. The theory of evolution does not discredit religion. Religious loonies thinks evolution discredits their religion. Religion is remarkable in that you can acquaint anything into it - even the theory of evolution. That is, if you're not thick like most religious persons seems to be.
@Schneboll The theory of evolution DOES discredit at least some religions. For instance, the ones based on the idea of original sin of Adam and Eve. What it does not do is disprove god (it does make most notions of god practically unnecessary).
@greenjelly01 That is not discrediting religion. As I said you can't ever really touch religion because religion is ever adaptable. It is the various people that make up the religion you discredit if you show them to be wrong - say if they interpret Adam and Eve as literal as that.
DonExodus2 analysied that ''dissent from darwinism'' link and found something like TWO out of the hundred and thirty names on that list were actually ''dissenters'' from evolutionary biology.
The rest actually SUPPORTED biology or where mathmaticians, park rangers, engineers and creationist DI morons.
So Lee strobel is full of shit. But then again I already knew that.
Far from being just complete idiots, creationists are desperate people trying to protect their very being. I imagine it must be very much like finding out that your dad or hero was a child molester. That level of truth tends to shake people to their very core and some simply wish that knowledge away. Again, creationists are simply incapable of accepting that their beliefs are even remotely wrong, to do so would be akin to losing a limb or loved one, which many lack the strenght to endure
if they want up to date, go look up Stephen Hawking's new concept of a black hole smaller than a neutron popping into existence, and exploding in the big bang. Since we have observed sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence, so a black hole popping into existence. And if what we understand of black holes is true, time doesn't exist in black holes, so there was nothing before the big bang, before it, time simply didn't exist
Am I the only person creeped out by EmptyWithoutJesus' smile at the end?
"That's why my kids will never go to public school." Yes, so they'll be as ignorant and close minded as you when they grow up. Public schools are dangerous to the fundamentalists - they are full of new ideas that threaten their stranglehold over their children's minds. How pathetic and dispicable.
@andromidius: "Am I the only person creeped out by EmptyWithoutJesus' smile at the end?"
Not by a long shot. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It's the same kind of smile you see on someone telling a little boy, "Climb into my truck and I'll give you some candy."
its great that the hsitorical figures are being proven wrong, that means we thinking people arent like theists, we actually look at the evidence and test it unlike theists do with the bible. we admit when were wrong and we do more experiments and come up with something far greater.
The worst thing is these creationists aren't stupid, they're actually pretty clever in the way they distort, quote mine and downright lie to gullible idiots.
I'd rather deal with honest stupidity than dishonest creationist scum.
damn my memory fails me but disnt some1 before darwin had the same idea. maybe my mind plays tricks on me but i think i saw documentary were they said darwin got all fame, that actually belonged to some1 else
@IBOUGHTYAMOM There was another co-discoverer who had stumbled upon the same idea, but where he failed to explain it more, Darwin picked it up. I wish I could remember his name, Richard Dawkins touches on it in "The Greatest Show on Earth". They actually ended up writing to each other on the discovery of a plant with an 11 inch tube leading to it's nectar. They predicted there would have to be an insect with a long enough proboscis to reach that nectar. Sure enough, the Hawk Moth was found.
Tycho Brahe was the greatest scientist ever, because he had a pet moose. Newton comes a close second because of his invention of the cat-flap. Schrodinger's attitude to cats is best swept under the carpet.
The grin on his face when he says, "That's why they will never go to public school" is very disturbing. I feel sorry for his kids. Social services should take over to ensure those children have a reasonable shot at life.
These creationists (or should I say CREATARDS) are IDIOTS. Geology is not the only evidence for intermediary links. Besides, they're only debunking a dead scientists. They don't even consider the fact that scientific knowledge changes overtime. Today's scientists know more about evolution than Charles Darwin.
@MrFareddy They only think something is legitimate if you write only one edition of it and fervently refuse to make any subsequent changes to it whatsoever. If you listen to some of the ones who don't even know their own biblical history, they will argue that their holy book is the inerrant word of God (TM).
god dammit, that is why my kids will never go to public school, i bet you also send them to be indoctrinated and tortured at Jesus Camp, that is no work for child services that is a crime againts humanity, shame on this ass hole
One of the best examples of utter stupidity I've heard is a creationist saying to children that the teeth of the T-Rex were clearly designed to - get this - shred and tear VEGETABLES!
They actually teach children that teeth like that is proof of a HERBIVORE!
I love it! If we discovered an authentic pamphlet tomorrow by Darwin which said "I was wrong, natural selection is utter bullshit" it wouldn't make any difference!
He sorta was, although no one makes the claim he was somehow nascent in math, he clearly knew algebra among other things.He himself admitted that he wasn't adept as he could have been in the field.
@ 9:31 The most sickening, discussing and quite frankly saddening thing I’ve heard in a long time. I really hope his poor kids might one day be able to escape from the mental prison imposed by this disgraceful creature they have for a farther.
At 8:53, Albert Einstein was actually very good at mathematics, did well in mathematics (excelled even) in school and considered becoming a mathematician. As a physicist, he would often consult gifted mathematicians about his theories. That he was bad at mathematics is a myth that had started even while he was alive. Just an irritating little error in an overall great video.
Evoluton real name is evil illusion. Wake up, Evidence of discovery, does not mean that we are all of the sudden know the truth. This narrator is by far one of most ignorant be if have heard in my life, and those that are being brain washed with trash. Wake up
@mylivingwater Bibbel real name is story book. Sleep now. Faith of assumption, does not mean that we are all of the expected belief the fairytale. This projector is by close one of fewest irony be if have tasted in my life, and those that are being wouth washep with soap. Sleep now.
At least Darwin had doubts, unlike his counterparts who have no doubts at all because "THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO" and the bible was written by religious intellectuals? Wait a minute, isn't that an oxymoron or at least some sort of moron to say the least . Bottom line is religion and intellect don't go hand in hand.
The 30 something seconds following 1:39 are brilliant. I never thought of it that way, but you are obviously right. These guys' brains are formed to rely on a book and this is also why they are so interested in what people hade SAID instead of being interested of what has been proven or disproven.
You're quite wrong on a point. Equilibrium does not say that it doesn't happen by gradual change, as you seem to imply in the vid, but that the gradual changes happen in rather fast geological times. And Darwin was aware that it wouldn't be continious like phyletic gradualism.
I was digging in the backyard today & I made an incredible discovery! I FOUND a Fossilised copy of the BIBLE. This is TRUE.And it now proves beyond doubt that it is, as I always suspected it must be, a FOSSIL. But I can now also use it to prove GOD EXISTS! Because every single page could be separately oppened. God therefore must have written it and preserved it for we who came after his 10 thousandth attempt at creating his likeness - Dinosaurs were his 6000th. Mega Fauna were a later attempt.
The channels shown in the YT system of SS successor organization, and their children in 1 and 2 Generation as well as some fragments of the former Stasi structures (Schinzel, Mach, Strien, Treichel, Hase, Kaspersky, Havelka, Thörmer etc.), set the quota of the worldwide operating ALKAIDA - organization
Why does Stroebel reference the more updated evidence of Earth's early atmosphere to disprove the Urey-Miller experiment, when he doesn't even believe or accept that either...?
What I hate is how they try to show that Origin of Species is the be all and end all of evolution. It doesn't prove evolution just as the bible doesn't prove god. However, the shit load of research that he himself performed and the subsequent 150years of scientific research and evidence does. The bible has had 2000 years to prove itself and even now it can't even provide credible evidence that it's main character ever even existed in the first place.
It's so sad that grown men dedicate their lives to attacking science. All because of the religious beliefs that were pounded into their brains as children. Pathetic.
'When an environment changes, organisms change very quickly in response.'
From what I have learned from donexodus, external stimuli doesn't have any bearing on the organism passing adaptations on to its descendants. All that the environment does is select organisms that have advantageous traits and kill those which don't have sufficiently suited traits to survive.
@oliverscott2007 What you seem to be missing is that a change in the environment can change what counts as "sufficiently suited traits". With this change, you have a change in which organisms survive and reproduce. And with that, you have the organisms changing quickly in response.
@oliverscott2007 What he was saying, as i understand it, was that rapid environmental changes would help this process by, and this is just how i understand the events, killing off those that cannot survive after the changes, and allowing for those with the traits that can to breed and pass on their successful genes.
I could be misinterpreting but thats what it looks like to me
I felt that this was a compassionate reflection on the division between dogmatism and rational thought.
The best that can be said for those who do not think rationally about scientific advances and ideas and theories is that they are non-rational. There are many things that cannot be explored scientifically - faith, hope, love (although their are theories about what chemicals in our brains activate these experiences) I liked the statement its the ideas not the scientists we need to examine. WD!
You are all wrong. The great god NIP NIP ( the god I just found) created everything. My great religion NIP NIPIAN requires no evidence, no preaching and your scriptures will be random emails.
@Marineforgod2016 I dont think is adhominem at all, it deals with the propositions made by each of the creationists and the respective refutations. sometimes it inserts some sarcasm and irony, but that's only for entertainment.
WE DO NOT NEED DARWIN - he is NOT a messiah - would we have gravity without Newton? orbit around the sun withut Kepler? time dialation without Einstein? Of course we would. These people get credit cause they figured out and explaination for the observed events. We knew about evolution long before darwin, He just figured out how it happens and 150 years of science has only proven him right. ANYONE that thinks that without darwin we wouldn't know about evolution is in SEVERE denial . . .
einstein was not bad at math.. its just an urban myth relating to different grade systems in swiss and germany (he got grade 6 in his math classes in school in switzerland which is the worst one in german and the best one in the swiss)
wow, so emptywithoutjesus is afraid to let his kids go to school because he thinks they might learn some new things? holy shit you need the award for worst parent in the world!!!! how stupid and ignorant do you have to be to try and oppress your children learning and exploration of life you sir should have been banned from procreating
The tactics thumpers use remind me of 911 truthers. Some1 with an agenda perverts docs by knowingly taking it out of context. People who dream in a US without the likes of Bush take them at their word without checking the doc thru 4 contexual errors. The myth pulls itself up by its bootstraps & the cycle perpetuates. Xtians regurgitate these myths assuming that the perverted leaders who asserted them r God's ordained ministers that can't lie, so they perpetuate the myths as if they were gospel.
CREATIONISTS!!! KEEP LYING TO YOURSELF, DONT SPREAD LIES AND BS TO EVERYONE ELSE. ESPECIALLY KIDS. I GUESS CREATIONISTS NEED TO CONVINCE THEMSELVES OF THEIR LIES. PROBABLY WHY THEY NEED TO MEET EACH WEEK TO RE-INSTILL THE BULLSHIT THEY "BELIEVE"
I cant be bothered watching this but if anything, Charles Darwin himself trying to critisize and idenitfy flaws in his own theory only he proves he was impartial, honest and had no agenda. Therefore both he and his theories deserve only more credibility in light of this, epecially when compared to inteligent design propenets who turn a blind eye to the most obvious problems with their theories and only seek evidence to affirm a predetermined conclusion
@1982mockingbird1982: Actually, that is not what Darwin was doing at all. He was employing a rhetorical method to both pursue his argument didactically and to forestall objections from other knowledgeable scientists. He's demonstrating that he has considered their likely objections. I don't think he ever imagined the mindlessness and churlishness of fundamentalists, or that they would even ever read his book.
punctuated equilibria is not incorrect. each writer has his preference on whether it us "equilibria" or "equilibrium". Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker for example uses the former.
@johndebbra With respect, some of these people are so artfully cherry-picking their Darwin quotes--conveniently neglecting the text that blows gaping holes in their claims--that they must be intentionally, willfully distorting the facts.
Thus, as is so often the case with the guilty, when they accuse scientists of making bad faith arguments FOR evolution, they are surely expressing the prick of their own consciences.
what we need is more scientist in the community because peope like this are a dime a dozen and people not knowing any better not because they are dumb just that they do not know see someone with colledge degree in something figure he must know,if more scientist went out in the communities to debunk these boneheads more people will know the truth,until then "unitentional ignorance" like i like to say will no longer happen.
I doubt it would take more than a week to get a list of more than 1.000.000 scientists who would sign that they chuckle loudly when listening the creationist BS ^^
@Kwinnky Which generally means that, like Strobel here, they end up attacking some out of date hypothesis that no reputable scientist believes anymore.
Strobel is so intellectually dishonest that he makes my teeth itch. He's a lawyer that argues like a lawyer about things that he does either not understand or deliberately mischaracterizes for his purposes. Anyone that does that should be mocked, ridiculed, and ignored.
Anyone else see the irony of Stroebel criticizing the Miller-Urey experiment based on science having since determined a different make-up for the primordial atmosphere, when the very fact that the early atmosphere WAS different at one time (no matter HOW, exactly), disproves creationism? He concedes the trees, but not the forest.
@ajeckell: The NCSE's Project Steve has signed up 1151 scientists to a document supporting the ToE, each of who's first name is Steve (or Stephen or Stephanie, etc). Since about 1% of the American/European population tends to have that first name, this is a sampling that reflects the explicit disposition of over 110,000 scientists.
Further, DonExosu2 has gone to the trouble of researching the DI's list. Of the 100, only 2 were biologists who categorically denied the ToE. See his vid for info.
evolution happens quickly ..well isn't that the greatest flip flop in logic...this whole thing sounds like a weak response to evolutions many falsehoods and assumptions...always using comparisions and things like evidence and research....has the guy seen the latest of any of the said evidence like biological system study hasn't shown how complex the simple cell is. rna would be destroyed by photosynthesis in your early oceans....constantfunction/biologicalsystems/cycles/mechanisms all free..
Emptywithoutjesus.... complete moron. I pushed him on the origin of original sin and its, quite frankly, hilarious story and he gave me such a bullshit answer it was pityable. He's just another fool who presses the reset button everytime he's proved to be spouting nonsense and goes straight back to the start of an already debunked line of argument. He's a fool.
Drweavil 2 days ago
fuck potholer... you make me laugh!
I just love your razor sharp humour... every time I turn on the youtubes I hope you've posted another video.
Three cheers mate!
bernzeppi 4 days ago
Twelve years of Catholic education for me, though I'm pretty sure that natural selection was a topic discussed in science classes. Also, while religious events were compulsory and we had prayers every morning, most students I knew treated religion classes as free grades. Just memorize and repeat and you'll pass. Belief was not a prerequisite for graduation. This was in the 1980s and 90s, though, and may simply be a product of the local curriculum. I really don't know if anything has changed.
dwkjo 1 week ago
their are just a few factors which make evoloution even feasable not adaptation or variation we have observed these things but never seen a change in species the points some of those scietist were scepticle on are the corner stones for evoloution funnily enough to prove evoloution their actually has to be evoloution fuck face, why do you cling to the hope that more results will yeild in your favor when key ones are allready shaky(you should think and say i dont no what to think) its where u are
listenup345 2 weeks ago
"That's why they'll never go to public school...I buried them in my backyard." *creepy smile*
RoobeeBlue 1 month ago 2
Can someobody give me the correct name (spelling) of what sounds like "Hwanoro's" experiment (8 years after Miller that got adenine)?.
pilgrimpater 1 month ago
@pilgrimpater That would be: Juan Oro. See this link:
chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
oldsynner 1 month ago
@oldsynner Sorry, that should ahve been Joan Oró.
oldsynner 1 month ago
Hello there . . . . (end)
yxrcbszg 1 month ago
Could anyone direct me to the scientific paper that states amino acids have been found on meteorites? I'm really intrigued by that.
Areyoubeingfilmed 2 months ago
@Areyoubeingfilmed This might be a good place to start. I'm not aware of amino acids being found but am of DNA analogues. If you go to google scholar and search for
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1106493108
Hope this helps
uknowispeaksense 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Areyoubeingfilmed "Could anyone direct me to the scientific paper that states amino acids have been found on meteorites?"
Researchers have found the amino acid Glycine on comets. Just google "comets glycine" to find some links to the discovery. While the glycine found on the comets was racemic (both left and right-handed structures) it is still evidence of abiogenic formation of amino acids.
Greyclouds40 3 weeks ago
I'm norwegian, and according to wikipedia we only have 2 percent regular church-goers in Norway. So I would be the freak, I would stand out if I had gone to church or preached christiabity in school. (By the way, the nut-case on the stage in the video here, Lee Strobel; is a lawyer with no credentials in any science at all. Why can't the creationists in America find biologists, zoologists, palaeontologists to defened their "case"?Oh,that's right, because they're all "darwinists" even over there!
winterstellar 2 months ago
well said.
sugarcanegray 2 months ago
That guy at the end pisses me off. Poor children.. Kids all over the world are victims of this idiotic way of parenting!
omgwtfbbqxD 2 months ago 4
an ape learnt to walk upright...... LOL!
creationist's misconception of Evolution Number 46
mczeljk 2 months ago
Darwin's children proved that evolutionb does NOT work - survival of the fittest - PAH!!
MrInseine 2 months ago
@MrInseine How so?
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 He married his cousin which resulted in at least six of the ten developing inbred genetic faults.
MrInseine 2 months ago
@MrInseine Marriage between blood-related individuals was rather common place at the time, you can't hold it against him. Also, I'm only aware of only three of Darwin's children dying in infancy and one of them possibly of tuberculosis. The rest of them went on to live relatively long lives.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@MrInseine Still, I'm not sure how you figure that disproves the theory of evolution. The fact that a reduction of the gene pool will, over time, result in the accumulation of detrimental traits is well in line with our knowledge of genetic and evolution.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 Although it's true that our knowlegde of genetics is improving somewhat, evolution remains only a theory. If it were true, than there would be all kinds of new creatures and missing links running around - why did it stop at Man? I don't want to hang around a further million years to see the outcome. Any hybrids are sterile and cannot therefore reproduce. So where does survival of the fittest come into this?
MrInseine 2 months ago
@MrInseine The status of "theory" is the highest a scientific hypothesis can achieve in science. A theory is a model that coherently explains observed evidence. New creatures? There are literally hundreds of new species discovered every year. National Geographic usually compiles a list of the top ten weirdest ones, you should check it out. As for missing link, if you're one of those creationists looking for a crocoduck, then you don't understand what a missing link is and how evolution works.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 I believe a missing link to be evidence of an animal which crosses over from one species to another which creates another species i.e.how did homo erectus turn into homo sapiens. Surely for this to happen you need a male and female to develop sexually at exactly the same time - thousand of years apart will not do. Come on...what are the chances of that happening?
MrInseine 2 months ago
@MrInseine You mean much the same way your parents, my parents, probably most people's parents developed sexually roughly at the same age - aside from cases of considerable age differences? Speciation within one generation is extremely rare, although it does occur. In all other cases, divergence is a slow, gradual process, which concludes when interbreeding between two populations is no longer possible.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 NOT AT ALL
An ape learnt to walk upright and would need another who could do the same to mate with. Pleae give evidence of this happening.
MrInseine 2 months ago
@MrInseine Acquiring an upright posture didn't happen within one generation. Upright posture requires skeletal modifications that evolved over time in apes and likely didn't cause any breeding barrier to arise for quite some time. By that time, populations with an upright-posture trait were large enough for mating not to be a problem.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@MrInseine Every single organism is a transitional form between the previous and the following generation, including you, me and everyone else on the planet. Evolution certainly did not stop at us. The mutational rate simply slows down the more complex an organism becomes, so that for higher animals new mutations arise less frequently. That doesn't mean we're immune from evolution. We're still evolving, just like every other organism on the planet.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 Man is the same now, as he ever was. He still lies, cheats, murders, rapes, steals, envys etc. No evolutionary change there then. Surely behavioural differences should be included in evoluion. Is it because Darwin did'nt say that. IMHO it should be! The evidence of language change is there for starters.
MrInseine 2 months ago
@MrInseine You mean modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are the same now as they ever were. That's still incorrect. Divergence has occurred between different human populations, but not enough to reach the speciation threshold after which interbreeding is no longer possible. That's because no human population has been isolated for long enough. Space colonisation may eventually change that.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 Will you stop telling me what I mean?? I Mean man still murders, cheats, lies, is greedy, etc. He will never alter .from this - ever. Dress it up as you wish to explain it away, but it has not changed since man walked the earth. Thee is no evidence of a change in he bassic human instinct..
MrInseine 2 months ago
@MrInseine Basic instincts are called basic for a reason. If anything they're all the more evidence of our descent from less complex representatives of the animal kingdom. You seem to be harbouring the misconception that evolution is a directional process somehow going from "worse" to "better." That's wrong. Evolution merely produces diversity.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@MrInseine As for behavioural changes they are a big area of research in evolutionary science. Ever heard of evolutionary psychology? Language is possibly the most exciting field of it. We're only starting to figure out the genetic substrate of language, but the fact that genes (e.g. FOXP2) can be more or less clearly linked to aspects of behaviour and communication is all the more confirmation for the theory of evolution.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 That would explain why Darwin was a prodigy of his Grandfather Erasmus.
MrInseine 2 months ago
@MrInseine Also, most plant hybrids are fertile and do pretty well, being a cornerstone of any human agrarian effort. Infertility is caused by excessive divergence between to species, which is perfectly in line with how evolution works. Not to mention that hybrids are extremely rare in the wild, and they're not a requirement for evolution as we know it. They're a human invention, you could say, and their viability says nothing about the validity of the theory of evolution.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 Well when I was in school we were told the common ancetor was the 'horsetail'
MrInseine 2 months ago
@sngcoach What? Perhaps it's because they're human?
MrInseine 2 months ago
My favourite argument against evolution is 'Darwin was a racist' LOL!!!!
shawndimery 2 months ago
Now THIS is a brilliant video. Thanks Potholer, once again you show why reason, evidence, and science will always win the day.
ltflermy 2 months ago
Potholer45 - You sound exatly like Pat Condell or is it he who sounds like you?
MrInseine 3 months ago
I believe Lee Strobel is more blatantly deceptive and dishonest than most Christian speakers. Idk if he is a YEC but many YECs often are deceptive or outright lie b/c they have no solid evidence for their claims.
tekbarrier 3 months ago
9m31s it is sickening that subhuman trash like this has kids.
Religionists should be castrated without anestesia by law.
mphello 3 months ago
Rutgers? Temple? Why not mention Camden, NJ Liquor College?
(just teasing - I feel free to joke about schools I've taken courses at - and how Rutgers Camden and Temple in Philadelphia are not exactly world tourist attractions) :)
mphello 3 months ago
I know that the religious people the principle: the older, the better! applies to books and knowledge.
They obviously assume that is the same with science and quote solely from the oldest book available on the subject from Darwin, God of Evilutionists.
mehja1 4 months ago
Darwin said.. blablabla
What would Darwin say if we tell him: "We have decoded the molecular blueprints for living organisms." Probably he won't even understand what we are refering to.
AndrusPr8 4 months ago
Wow Darwin is dumb. Why would he write something that could be quote mined by stupid creationists 100 years later?
shagoosty 4 months ago
@shagoosty even the most brilliant people will never foresee what the future holds for them and their work
NateXzX 3 months ago
@NateXzX I was being sarcastic.
shagoosty 3 months ago
@shagoosty Sorry its really hard to tell the difference between a smart person being sarcastic and a dumb person being serious :)
NateXzX 3 months ago
@NateXzX Sad, but very true.
shagoosty 3 months ago
@NateXzX Poe's Law, eh? Yeah, that can be a tough one sometimes...
SenMysrana 3 months ago
I've pretty much gotten to the point where I EXPECT anything that comes out of a creationist's mouth to be either a distortion, misrepresentation, or outright lie.
tekbarrier 4 months ago
@tekbarrier And that's before their lips start moving.
R4t10n4L 4 months ago
My parents wanted me to go to christian school. Fortunately for me, there was no christian school in the new district where I lived. So I got a public school education. Learning about evolution in school convinced me at a young age, about 10 or so, that religion was false. I constantly challenged my parents about it, I hated going to church, used to do all kinds of things to try to make us late, so we wouldn't have to go. At 13 I flatly refused to go anymore.
nancy6ify 4 months ago 37
@nancy6ify I went to a Christian school myself and obviously they never mentioned evolution, I had to wait until my public secondary school until I finally studied it. I believe that a deity created the world but these modern day creationists are just plain crazy
cfcalexhs123 1 month ago
@nancy6ify Pardon if someone has already stated this. The theory of evolution does not discredit religion. Religious loonies thinks evolution discredits their religion. Religion is remarkable in that you can acquaint anything into it - even the theory of evolution. That is, if you're not thick like most religious persons seems to be.
Schneboll 2 weeks ago
@Schneboll The theory of evolution DOES discredit at least some religions. For instance, the ones based on the idea of original sin of Adam and Eve. What it does not do is disprove god (it does make most notions of god practically unnecessary).
greenjelly01 2 weeks ago
@greenjelly01 That is not discrediting religion. As I said you can't ever really touch religion because religion is ever adaptable. It is the various people that make up the religion you discredit if you show them to be wrong - say if they interpret Adam and Eve as literal as that.
Schneboll 2 weeks ago
Darwin this, Darwin that, Darwin hit my faith with a wiffleball bat.
AmericanAviator 4 months ago
DonExodus2 analysied that ''dissent from darwinism'' link and found something like TWO out of the hundred and thirty names on that list were actually ''dissenters'' from evolutionary biology.
The rest actually SUPPORTED biology or where mathmaticians, park rangers, engineers and creationist DI morons.
So Lee strobel is full of shit. But then again I already knew that.
Primordialfan1 4 months ago
Far from being just complete idiots, creationists are desperate people trying to protect their very being. I imagine it must be very much like finding out that your dad or hero was a child molester. That level of truth tends to shake people to their very core and some simply wish that knowledge away. Again, creationists are simply incapable of accepting that their beliefs are even remotely wrong, to do so would be akin to losing a limb or loved one, which many lack the strenght to endure
VincitOmniaVerit 4 months ago 3
I think it would be more accurate to say: "Lee Strobel, The idiot's idiot"....
HonestMan395 5 months ago
Comment removed
HonestMan395 5 months ago
Those guys are nuts
friedie1jeff 5 months ago
if they want up to date, go look up Stephen Hawking's new concept of a black hole smaller than a neutron popping into existence, and exploding in the big bang. Since we have observed sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence, so a black hole popping into existence. And if what we understand of black holes is true, time doesn't exist in black holes, so there was nothing before the big bang, before it, time simply didn't exist
cards4izzy1 5 months ago
Am I the only person creeped out by EmptyWithoutJesus' smile at the end?
"That's why my kids will never go to public school." Yes, so they'll be as ignorant and close minded as you when they grow up. Public schools are dangerous to the fundamentalists - they are full of new ideas that threaten their stranglehold over their children's minds. How pathetic and dispicable.
andromidius 5 months ago
@andromidius: "Am I the only person creeped out by EmptyWithoutJesus' smile at the end?"
Not by a long shot. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It's the same kind of smile you see on someone telling a little boy, "Climb into my truck and I'll give you some candy."
mikefromwa 5 months ago 23
@mikefromwa YEs, that was rather. Creepy:
"Yes, i am deliberatile goign to indoctirnate my child to fit what i BELIEVE to be the reality."
Anuojat 2 months ago
@mikefromwa Paedosmile.
DaToNyOyO 1 week ago
@DaToNyOyO: "Paedosmile"
Lol, bingo. I'm not sure I'd trust him alone with my dog.
mikefromwa 1 week ago
@mikefromwa I'm not sure I'd even trust him alone with himself.
DaToNyOyO 1 week ago
@andromidius Yes, that smile is creepy. However, more worrying is this nutcase is responsible for the education and welfare of children!
Tapiola2007 1 week ago
its great that the hsitorical figures are being proven wrong, that means we thinking people arent like theists, we actually look at the evidence and test it unlike theists do with the bible. we admit when were wrong and we do more experiments and come up with something far greater.
carniboy18 5 months ago
So many people get it in their head that they can argue a theory without proposing any tests.
Silentsam7532 5 months ago
Einstein was never bad at mathematics, he always excelled at it.
Timmay123456789 5 months ago
@Timmay123456789 He was bad at basic maths. Things like adding and subtracting. He was extremely good at complex formula, however.
andromidius 5 months ago
@andromidius
no, he had excellent basic and complex math abilities. Where did you hear the contrary, I assure you they are wrong.
Timmay123456789 5 months ago
The worst thing is these creationists aren't stupid, they're actually pretty clever in the way they distort, quote mine and downright lie to gullible idiots.
I'd rather deal with honest stupidity than dishonest creationist scum.
UnknownUserName4267 6 months ago
did this guy just happily say that his children are too stupid for public school?
robertgaudlitz 6 months ago
Comment removed
max2right 6 months ago
AgowTisro You are thinking of Alfred Russell Wallace.
SpaceOdyssey56 6 months ago
It's nice to know Einstein was bad at math. It makes me feel better lol.
AgowTisro 6 months ago
"Hello there-" Bang. Comic genius.
UnOxonien 6 months ago
Lee strobl once said "I...laugh...at...religion"
laserindie 6 months ago
damn my memory fails me but disnt some1 before darwin had the same idea. maybe my mind plays tricks on me but i think i saw documentary were they said darwin got all fame, that actually belonged to some1 else
IBOUGHTYAMOM 7 months ago
@IBOUGHTYAMOM There was another co-discoverer who had stumbled upon the same idea, but where he failed to explain it more, Darwin picked it up. I wish I could remember his name, Richard Dawkins touches on it in "The Greatest Show on Earth". They actually ended up writing to each other on the discovery of a plant with an 11 inch tube leading to it's nectar. They predicted there would have to be an insect with a long enough proboscis to reach that nectar. Sure enough, the Hawk Moth was found.
AgowTisro 6 months ago
"With my brains and your stupidity, we'll be unstoppable." - Lee Stroebel-
KidShoryuken 7 months ago
Lmao quote mining.
ShavedKnuckle 7 months ago
01:19 "Ah, ah, ah, life, ah, ah, finds a way."
Pazma1 7 months ago
Some creationists are retarded inbred cunts.
4FunPlayin 7 months ago
Tycho Brahe was the greatest scientist ever, because he had a pet moose. Newton comes a close second because of his invention of the cat-flap. Schrodinger's attitude to cats is best swept under the carpet.
gamesbok 7 months ago 3
I'm now legally scared. Somebody stop that guy doing this to his children ;/
r0galik 7 months ago
I'd be ashamed if Lee was an atheist. His stupidity fits in fine with religion, but he'd have no excuse to be that stupid outside of dogma.
mistereveready 7 months ago
The grin on his face when he says, "That's why they will never go to public school" is very disturbing. I feel sorry for his kids. Social services should take over to ensure those children have a reasonable shot at life.
bignastydragon 7 months ago
These creationists (or should I say CREATARDS) are IDIOTS. Geology is not the only evidence for intermediary links. Besides, they're only debunking a dead scientists. They don't even consider the fact that scientific knowledge changes overtime. Today's scientists know more about evolution than Charles Darwin.
Evidence can be found in the genes.
MrFareddy 7 months ago
@MrFareddy They only think something is legitimate if you write only one edition of it and fervently refuse to make any subsequent changes to it whatsoever. If you listen to some of the ones who don't even know their own biblical history, they will argue that their holy book is the inerrant word of God (TM).
damasta00138 7 months ago
@damasta00138
Lol "God (TM)"
LiveTheWild 7 months ago
how are you still sane after dealing with all those idiots?
steadwik 7 months ago
OMG his kids might learn something in public school! They might hear new theories and see new evidence and ........ dare i say it, THINK. Gawd.
lebeaubastion 7 months ago
god dammit, that is why my kids will never go to public school, i bet you also send them to be indoctrinated and tortured at Jesus Camp, that is no work for child services that is a crime againts humanity, shame on this ass hole
MrLuiS3rd 7 months ago
I love a good ol' fashion PWNAGE!!
chambasa2006 7 months ago
What if? None of this shit really matters? What if the truth is not worth the chase?
HybridDragons 7 months ago
One of the best examples of utter stupidity I've heard is a creationist saying to children that the teeth of the T-Rex were clearly designed to - get this - shred and tear VEGETABLES!
They actually teach children that teeth like that is proof of a HERBIVORE!
auritone 7 months ago
I love it! If we discovered an authentic pamphlet tomorrow by Darwin which said "I was wrong, natural selection is utter bullshit" it wouldn't make any difference!
PatRibsey 8 months ago 7
That's why THEY'LL NEVER GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL!?!?!!?!!!!
CHILD PROTECTION: HELLLLOOOOOOO, YOU AWAKE?!?!?!?! THERE'S A JOB FOR YOU!!!!
bbphnix 8 months ago 9
So what I conclude from this video is that creationist generally believe in 19th century science;
the irony is, that means they essentially argue the same way their ancestors did, the creationists of the 19th century;
so in circa 200 of science creationists arguments haven't change; weird;
bbphnix 8 months ago
Einstein wasn't bad at mathematics...
IoEstasCedonta 8 months ago
@IoEstasCedonta
He sorta was, although no one makes the claim he was somehow nascent in math, he clearly knew algebra among other things.He himself admitted that he wasn't adept as he could have been in the field.
turnipdaisy 8 months ago
@ 9:31 The most sickening, discussing and quite frankly saddening thing I’ve heard in a long time. I really hope his poor kids might one day be able to escape from the mental prison imposed by this disgraceful creature they have for a farther.
danielpeterg 8 months ago
God damn it the ending made me RAGE.
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.
WolfgangWhiplash 8 months ago
At 8:53, Albert Einstein was actually very good at mathematics, did well in mathematics (excelled even) in school and considered becoming a mathematician. As a physicist, he would often consult gifted mathematicians about his theories. That he was bad at mathematics is a myth that had started even while he was alive. Just an irritating little error in an overall great video.
vespidpants 8 months ago
Evoluton real name is evil illusion. Wake up, Evidence of discovery, does not mean that we are all of the sudden know the truth. This narrator is by far one of most ignorant be if have heard in my life, and those that are being brain washed with trash. Wake up
mylivingwater 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mylivingwater
"Evoluton"
"we are all of the sudden know the truth"
"one of most ignorant be if have heard"
I think i've been too brainwashed with trash, you're just making too much sense for my tiny primate brain.
mindwis3 8 months ago
@mylivingwater What is he ignorant of?!
SmallGreenPlanetoid 8 months ago
@mylivingwater Bibbel real name is story book. Sleep now. Faith of assumption, does not mean that we are all of the expected belief the fairytale. This projector is by close one of fewest irony be if have tasted in my life, and those that are being wouth washep with soap. Sleep now.
Turgor 8 months ago
@mylivingwater I agree. Just because we learn stuff doesn't mean we should replace our stone age myths.
Huttate1 8 months ago
Haha, it's hilarious.All the christtards seem to buy into the same lies from the same few preachers.
winterstellar 8 months ago
At least Darwin had doubts, unlike his counterparts who have no doubts at all because "THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO" and the bible was written by religious intellectuals? Wait a minute, isn't that an oxymoron or at least some sort of moron to say the least . Bottom line is religion and intellect don't go hand in hand.
TheDano1947 8 months ago
The 30 something seconds following 1:39 are brilliant. I never thought of it that way, but you are obviously right. These guys' brains are formed to rely on a book and this is also why they are so interested in what people hade SAID instead of being interested of what has been proven or disproven.
VincentandCoBxl 8 months ago
"Lee Strobel, the thinking man's idiot"... hahaha
MarlaisO 8 months ago 51
You're quite wrong on a point. Equilibrium does not say that it doesn't happen by gradual change, as you seem to imply in the vid, but that the gradual changes happen in rather fast geological times. And Darwin was aware that it wouldn't be continious like phyletic gradualism.
PhilNEvo 9 months ago
I was digging in the backyard today & I made an incredible discovery! I FOUND a Fossilised copy of the BIBLE. This is TRUE.And it now proves beyond doubt that it is, as I always suspected it must be, a FOSSIL. But I can now also use it to prove GOD EXISTS! Because every single page could be separately oppened. God therefore must have written it and preserved it for we who came after his 10 thousandth attempt at creating his likeness - Dinosaurs were his 6000th. Mega Fauna were a later attempt.
listen2meokidoki 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The channels shown in the YT system of SS successor organization, and their children in 1 and 2 Generation as well as some fragments of the former Stasi structures (Schinzel, Mach, Strien, Treichel, Hase, Kaspersky, Havelka, Thörmer etc.), set the quota of the worldwide operating ALKAIDA - organization
SIRSpikeHAWK 9 months ago
Why does Stroebel reference the more updated evidence of Earth's early atmosphere to disprove the Urey-Miller experiment, when he doesn't even believe or accept that either...?
PARADOX.
bluemoonrising26 9 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
"that's why they will never go to public school!"
This line was legitimately terrifying.
Applemangh 9 months ago
@Applemangh yeah, that comment of his and then that smile... I think I got brain cancer from him, just now
Sutskoen 8 months ago
What I hate is how they try to show that Origin of Species is the be all and end all of evolution. It doesn't prove evolution just as the bible doesn't prove god. However, the shit load of research that he himself performed and the subsequent 150years of scientific research and evidence does. The bible has had 2000 years to prove itself and even now it can't even provide credible evidence that it's main character ever even existed in the first place.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
It's so sad that grown men dedicate their lives to attacking science. All because of the religious beliefs that were pounded into their brains as children. Pathetic.
VesusSheist 10 months ago
3:27
'When an environment changes, organisms change very quickly in response.'
From what I have learned from donexodus, external stimuli doesn't have any bearing on the organism passing adaptations on to its descendants. All that the environment does is select organisms that have advantageous traits and kill those which don't have sufficiently suited traits to survive.
Am I missing or misunderstanding something here?
oliverscott2007 10 months ago
@oliverscott2007 What you seem to be missing is that a change in the environment can change what counts as "sufficiently suited traits". With this change, you have a change in which organisms survive and reproduce. And with that, you have the organisms changing quickly in response.
markermage 10 months ago
@markermage
Ah yes. It seems so obvious now you've pointed it out to be, but I wasn't quite understanding before.
Thanks for your help.
oliverscott2007 10 months ago
@oliverscott2007 What he was saying, as i understand it, was that rapid environmental changes would help this process by, and this is just how i understand the events, killing off those that cannot survive after the changes, and allowing for those with the traits that can to breed and pass on their successful genes.
I could be misinterpreting but thats what it looks like to me
deathman1021 9 months ago
I felt that this was a compassionate reflection on the division between dogmatism and rational thought.
The best that can be said for those who do not think rationally about scientific advances and ideas and theories is that they are non-rational. There are many things that cannot be explored scientifically - faith, hope, love (although their are theories about what chemicals in our brains activate these experiences) I liked the statement its the ideas not the scientists we need to examine. WD!
itsdodge 10 months ago
9:22 I've never felt the urge the "wipe the smile off someone's face" so strongly as just now.
SuxorAoeBj 10 months ago
helloe thar
viking977 10 months ago
You are all wrong. The great god NIP NIP ( the god I just found) created everything. My great religion NIP NIPIAN requires no evidence, no preaching and your scriptures will be random emails.
SANHEDRIN666 10 months ago
part of this seems like an Ad Hominum to me... BUT I absolutely agree with the last statement about evidence.
Marineforgod2016 10 months ago
@Marineforgod2016 I dont think is adhominem at all, it deals with the propositions made by each of the creationists and the respective refutations. sometimes it inserts some sarcasm and irony, but that's only for entertainment.
sirdelrio 10 months ago
WE DO NOT NEED DARWIN - he is NOT a messiah - would we have gravity without Newton? orbit around the sun withut Kepler? time dialation without Einstein? Of course we would. These people get credit cause they figured out and explaination for the observed events. We knew about evolution long before darwin, He just figured out how it happens and 150 years of science has only proven him right. ANYONE that thinks that without darwin we wouldn't know about evolution is in SEVERE denial . . .
UberLogic 10 months ago
god dun it jus cause he did
FUwogs 11 months ago
Every creationist video is the same, in the first 10 seconds they say, '' Evolutionists say....'' and then they fuck it up.
gregrutz 11 months ago 123
einstein was not bad at math.. its just an urban myth relating to different grade systems in swiss and germany (he got grade 6 in his math classes in school in switzerland which is the worst one in german and the best one in the swiss)
Puerk 11 months ago
Punctuated equilibrium is a crock. "Gradualism" is and was a straw man.
AbeChang2 11 months ago
wow, so emptywithoutjesus is afraid to let his kids go to school because he thinks they might learn some new things? holy shit you need the award for worst parent in the world!!!! how stupid and ignorant do you have to be to try and oppress your children learning and exploration of life you sir should have been banned from procreating
matt1523 11 months ago
Thanks potholer
Popperite 11 months ago
@Popperite Ditto.
dirtydonki 11 months ago
The tactics thumpers use remind me of 911 truthers. Some1 with an agenda perverts docs by knowingly taking it out of context. People who dream in a US without the likes of Bush take them at their word without checking the doc thru 4 contexual errors. The myth pulls itself up by its bootstraps & the cycle perpetuates. Xtians regurgitate these myths assuming that the perverted leaders who asserted them r God's ordained ministers that can't lie, so they perpetuate the myths as if they were gospel.
BrokenAeroVT 11 months ago
Don't bother me, I'm a quote mining for jesus! Hi-Ho-Hi-Ho.
mistereveready 11 months ago
Strange quick appearance by GSFY at the end!
strakha0 11 months ago
Curse you quote mining!
deathman1021 1 year ago
CREATIONISTS!!! KEEP LYING TO YOURSELF, DONT SPREAD LIES AND BS TO EVERYONE ELSE. ESPECIALLY KIDS. I GUESS CREATIONISTS NEED TO CONVINCE THEMSELVES OF THEIR LIES. PROBABLY WHY THEY NEED TO MEET EACH WEEK TO RE-INSTILL THE BULLSHIT THEY "BELIEVE"
xamot27 1 year ago 3
I cant be bothered watching this but if anything, Charles Darwin himself trying to critisize and idenitfy flaws in his own theory only he proves he was impartial, honest and had no agenda. Therefore both he and his theories deserve only more credibility in light of this, epecially when compared to inteligent design propenets who turn a blind eye to the most obvious problems with their theories and only seek evidence to affirm a predetermined conclusion
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982: Actually, that is not what Darwin was doing at all. He was employing a rhetorical method to both pursue his argument didactically and to forestall objections from other knowledgeable scientists. He's demonstrating that he has considered their likely objections. I don't think he ever imagined the mindlessness and churlishness of fundamentalists, or that they would even ever read his book.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Ohh. Sorry didnt no that. Thanx. Also they probably still havent read his book
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
punctuated equilibria is not incorrect. each writer has his preference on whether it us "equilibria" or "equilibrium". Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker for example uses the former.
WickedJargon 1 year ago
lol oops meant to say unitentional ignorance will spread and spread
johndebbra 1 year ago
@johndebbra With respect, some of these people are so artfully cherry-picking their Darwin quotes--conveniently neglecting the text that blows gaping holes in their claims--that they must be intentionally, willfully distorting the facts.
Thus, as is so often the case with the guilty, when they accuse scientists of making bad faith arguments FOR evolution, they are surely expressing the prick of their own consciences.
ChollieD 1 year ago
what we need is more scientist in the community because peope like this are a dime a dozen and people not knowing any better not because they are dumb just that they do not know see someone with colledge degree in something figure he must know,if more scientist went out in the communities to debunk these boneheads more people will know the truth,until then "unitentional ignorance" like i like to say will no longer happen.
johndebbra 1 year ago
carefull with quoting repetitive lies, because this just repeats the lie.
olllj 1 year ago
People fail to understand that even back then a scientific report MUST make a list of things that might conflict with it.
Sweddude 1 year ago
"The thinking man's idiot." That's gold.
DanThePropMan 1 year ago
I love your work, potholer =D
As an aside - what *is* the driving force behind evolution, if not mutation? Do you mean environmental factors?
Kaderie 1 year ago
I doubt it would take more than a week to get a list of more than 1.000.000 scientists who would sign that they chuckle loudly when listening the creationist BS ^^
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
@Kwinnky Which generally means that, like Strobel here, they end up attacking some out of date hypothesis that no reputable scientist believes anymore.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
Did they deliberately try to make the stage Stroebel's standing on look like a TED conference?
Sabohaque 1 year ago
Strobel is so intellectually dishonest that he makes my teeth itch. He's a lawyer that argues like a lawyer about things that he does either not understand or deliberately mischaracterizes for his purposes. Anyone that does that should be mocked, ridiculed, and ignored.
TheOmegadusk 1 year ago 3
Anyone else see the irony of Stroebel criticizing the Miller-Urey experiment based on science having since determined a different make-up for the primordial atmosphere, when the very fact that the early atmosphere WAS different at one time (no matter HOW, exactly), disproves creationism? He concedes the trees, but not the forest.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago 4
@GoblinXXX I hadn't even thought of that!
queenastilon 1 year ago
If 100,000 scientists signed a "scientific dissent from the bible", would that change the creationist mindset?
ajeckell 1 year ago
@ajeckell: The NCSE's Project Steve has signed up 1151 scientists to a document supporting the ToE, each of who's first name is Steve (or Stephen or Stephanie, etc). Since about 1% of the American/European population tends to have that first name, this is a sampling that reflects the explicit disposition of over 110,000 scientists.
Further, DonExosu2 has gone to the trouble of researching the DI's list. Of the 100, only 2 were biologists who categorically denied the ToE. See his vid for info.
puncheex 1 year ago
What a depressing ending
bobplatypus 1 year ago
The sheer win of this video makes me want to hug something.
KachuaOnWoW 1 year ago
Brains will get fried? Very specific complaint about public schooling there.
bluebeard2 1 year ago
evolution happens quickly ..well isn't that the greatest flip flop in logic...this whole thing sounds like a weak response to evolutions many falsehoods and assumptions...always using comparisions and things like evidence and research....has the guy seen the latest of any of the said evidence like biological system study hasn't shown how complex the simple cell is. rna would be destroyed by photosynthesis in your early oceans....constantfunction/biologicalsystems/cycles/mechanisms all free..
troyt47 1 year ago