Given that Szostak has created proto cells that has metabolism and able to replicate (these are the two criteria of life) in mere decades, what do you think he can do if he were able to continue his experiment for a billion years (the amount of time that took the earth to "produce" life)
why dont creationists understand that the human lifespan is so minuscule in comparison to the existence of the this planet. even 5000 years is a small fraction of our planet's history. the earliest sign of life existed about 3.5 billion years ago and the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago.
Moral of the story, rationality--free markets and free minds--have made more progress in 200 years than irrationality--government and religion--have made in over 6000 years.
@53dumey Actually there is. wired(dot)com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
And don't say that this proves that life is created intelligently because that is not what the study did, they observed what happened in the experiment. Now, this doesn't show the exact process of how life began on Earth but it does show that it is possible.
@biggingeryeti Most relevant quote: "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."
Creationists will try to worm their way out by saying that the scientists intelligently designed the RNA. That's just wrong. They set up the conditions, and watched the chemistry take place. They have no more room to maneuver.
@shanedk I agree, but they will still worm some response of a lengthy volume that actually says very little. We know that abiogenesis is possible. Evolution is fact. They won't accept it and they will keep spouting the same tired debunked crap. Theres a great video on here by nonstampcollector about debating creationists. Check him out he's great.
"The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, " " wikipedia
I could'nt access the website your refered !
The problem with all these hypotheses is that none of them explain where the information came from.
Some have proposed the idea of a metorite carrying a primative lifeform hitting earth, but the heat from entering our atmosphere would have killed any lifeforms.
@53dumey "none of them explain where the information came from."
Do you know what information IS in a scientific concept? Why don't you give us the scientific definition of information, and the three types of content, if you're so knowledgeable. Go on--time to show your "research" includes things other than just browsing creationist websites.
"the heat from entering our atmosphere would have killed any lifeforms."
There are life forms on Earth today that can survive those temperatures.
@53dumey Apologies about the website, I will PM you the link. This area of research is still in it's infancy, but the experiment on that website shows how chemicals can come together to make the building blocks of life. The problem with the information statement is that information is a way for scientists to make chemical reactions understandable. There is no actual information present, just chemical reactions occurring. It's the same principle with quantities.
@53dumey A random group of twigs holds no information, but if we count them we can assign a value to it, a price to it and so on, but the twigs themselves contain no such information. We will probably never the exact method of how the building blocks of life organised on Earth, but the PM I have sent you shows that it is possible.
@53dumey Way to miss the point. The point is, organic molecules are everywhere--they form easily. They're not the big hurdle creationists say they are.
@53dumey Stop being a dishonest creationist and shifting the goalpost. They all contain organic molecules--which is the ONLY thing this thread has been talking about. Organic molecules form easily, and so you can't claim life is impossible because they are difficult to form.
But like every creationist, when you're shown to be wrong, you resort to LYING, even though you KNOW FOR A FACT that no one claimed there was life on comets and asteroids. Pathetic.
@53dumey WaltonSauce said "Look up the Murchison Meteorite, it contained many organic molecules when it landed" in response to YOU after you LIED about Szostak's experiment. You then moved on to the common creationist canard about "information" (and you STILL haven't given us any indication that you even know what information MEANS in a scientific context) and said that the experiment assumes the existence of these organic molecules.
YES YOU DID SHIFT THE GOALPOSTS!!! You've done nothing but!
@53dumey Do you not even know what meteorites ARE???
And you STILL haven't commented on Szostak's work. In fact, this whole thread has been you avoiding doing just that! You've been given the data showing nucleotides forming spontaneously, and you've been given Szostak's work showing the NATURAL formation of these into self-replicating protocells. Respond to these or STFU!
@53dumey Nice quote-mine, LIAR. He ALREADY HAS self-replicating proto-cells; the ONLY thing he's waiting on is the development of a genome, which takes time. Read the papers instead of just mining the website for things that fit your pathetic delusions.
@53dumey He has built the car, put in fuel and turned on the engine. Just because he hasn't put it in gear yet and got it going makes you shout "He hasn't made a car yet!"
"And even if he does, can he create a human being from those Cells ?"
@53dumey Please demonstrate to us that you aren't the snotty, egotistical, pallid little weasel you appear to be and tell us, in detail, why the self-replicating proto-cells Szostak HAS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED is not at least a major indication that the formation of life did not need an intelligent designer.
@53dumey His name is Francis Collins, and he accepts evolution and a natural start of life.
"Szostak has not done anything that others in his field have not tried."
Same was true of the Wright Brothers.
Can you answer the question or not? Can you speak intelligently and knowledgeably about ANY aspect of Szostak's work? Or do you just dismiss it out-of-hand because it attacks your pathetic delusions?
Yes, he believes Evolution was guided by God, as do I.
If Szostak did get all the answers, it would'nt shake my faith.
And I have read about Szostaks work, but I also remember a few years ago were others claimed to have done the same thing only to find out later that they used Live DNA strands.
@53dumey What is he ACTUALLY doing in his lab and how, and how close is it to actual life and why? If you can't answer those basic questions, you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for rejecting his work.
@53dumey Because you keep CHANGING THE DEFINITION whenever we keep showing you that he HAS created something that fits your definition of life! Originally, it was just eating, remember? These things eat. You ended up changing it to multi-cellular life, which didn't form for TWO BILLION YEARS after life started on Earth!
You're a dishonest dogmatist who is NOT interested in the truth; only in clinging on to your delusions.
@53dumey You keep CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF ALIVE! By your VERY FIRST DEFINITION (with the revision of taking out the absurd requirement to "breathe," since many life forms don't), he has done it! Your ONLY response has been to continually redefine what you consider to be "alive" every time it's been shown to conform to it.
So, Christians don't even really believe what they claim to believe, they deliberately LIE to defend their little dogmas. They're not only stupid, they're hypocrites.
First thing to keep in perspective is your refuting a teen and making a mess out of reason to top it off, you are a bundle of nerves emoting...sorry the Kid won Round one and two!
When I saw "skyhook" being used to refer to the hypothesis of an intelligent designer, the first image to pop into my head was God performing a hook shot over Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with the caption "Goddidit!"
@Nickspasic What you have discovered is SELF-DELUSION. Nothing special. Many religious people have visited SELF-delusion before you, ad nauseum. Hope you snap out of it before you die. Good luck, with that . Peace .
@evidenceonlythanx Nope what i have done is an acception because no one previouse to me has managed to produce a Sound Logical Scientic Proof of Allah.
Unless you think the Law's that Govern the universe are delusions and have not been tested and proven true, then your wrong about your claim.
I have managed to logically prove God's exsistance Rationally and Scientifically and can show any scientific mind the truth about Allah or God
@Nickspasic "I have managed to logically prove God's exsistance Rationally and Scientifically and can show any scientific mind the truth about Allah or God"
Then publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and win the Nobel Prize.
@shanedk I will thanks for your inspiration, i have never published anything in my life and i dont know what a peer-reviewed Journal is or how to become recognized enough to win the Nobel Prize.
Besides Satan is Ruling the world and most people follow satan's ideology which is rejection of Faith, so it will be difficult but i guess i will try.
@Virgil0211 Yeah i am real my brother, i know you doubt it, but i am very well versed in all major subjects of Science.
Biology, physic's Chemistry Astrology have always been of intrest even when i was only 6 or 7 years old.
I was a thinking Atheist most of my life, rejecting the notion of God, stricktly adearing to my studdies untill i wanted to Scientifically Disprove God so Religeon would go away.
I failed in my attempt and the opposit happened, praise be to God!
@Nickspasic Fine. Post your ideas in 500 character comments, or post it to a web site and link it here. And don't use the spam filter as an excuse. You can't be smart enough to make your claims true and not how to get around the spam filter.
Also, just for giggles, include some definitive proof of your time as a Thinking atheist, as opposed to the unthinking lunatic you are now.
Fantastic, post it here. I will help you publish it in mass media, billions will be relieved and comforted, and you and I can become trillionaires in the bargain. Can't wait for your proof of god. I'm all excited. Hurry, hurry, with your proof of a god. While I wait, I'll pepare a cup of tea. Wow, proof of god. Don't keep me waiting too long, now will you. Hey, I'll ring my sister, and tell her I met a guy on the internet, who has proof of god.
@Nickspasic type it uo in word processor and cut/paste in 500 character increments. Its not that hard, I've done it before.
And I call bullshit on your web site excuse. I put up a web site about an anime I liked with no training or funds whatsoever. It was no more advanced than a text document, but that's all you need. Go ahead. Do the 30 seconds of research that would tell you how. We can wait. Or hell, make a temporary livejournal/facebook and post it there.
@Nickspasic Here I'll speed things along for us. THERE IS NO GOD. No verifiable evidence, of god. Nothing . Not anytime, not ever. What you have been told is an, O-U-T-R-I-G-H-T L-I-E. Read -up on Shamanism and Natural Magic. The world view of humanity, for 20,000 years BEFORE modern religion. Blood sacrifice - explained. Scapegoating - explained, origins of universe - explained. Devine king -gods - explained. Read-up or stay ignorant. It's up to you, and you alone. But give us the EVIDENCE.
@Nickspasic Let's dig into your history via google and see what we find, eh?
'The main reason why you will be in fire when you die is because athiests believe that the universe came to exsistance by accident and that there exsistance is pure luck.'
This little nugget is from scaredcanons back in 2008, article titled 'How CAN Athesits Have Morals?'. Clearly demonstrates you don't understand the first thing about abiogenesis or evolution, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
@Nickspasic Aha! I found a comment where you describe a little bit of your philosophy. Apparently, you're not quite as shy when around other religious people.
LsccVJRkjjM
'My proof doesnt need the Quran, i just simply define God as Eternal, Omnipresent, Omniscience, and Omnipotent, then i Scientifically prove these attributes are true and only fit one entity, and i use Einstines work in Relitivity, Quantum physic's, and cosmology to Prove it.'
@Nickspasic And here's another from that same video.
'Simple bro use your common sence and Logic. God gave us logic to distinguish truth from falshood. If what is said is Illogical then odds are its a lie, if its Logical then odds are it is true.'
Wrong. A logically valid statement can still be false if the premises are incorrect or evidence supporting it misinterpreted/absent.
'Infact the Quran is the most logical scripture on earth with no contradictions.'
'Also if you were to use your common sence, you would relize just like every finite thing, it has a beginning, that means the universe has a beginning, which would mean a creator and creation.'
Wow. You don't even understand the big bang, yet you claim to understand relativity and quantum physics. I got one for you- I can compete in the olympics for gymnastics, but I can't do a single chin-up. Nah, that still sounds more plausible.
@Nickspasic As far as I can tell, you've been claiming to have proven god's existence and send it in writing to people for at least 2 years. Unless you typed it up individually each time, that would indicate you have it typed up already somewhere. All you have to do is upload the file to some kind of file archiving/downloading place, such as filefront, put the link into tinyurlDoTcOm, and post it here with the necessary modifications to get around the spam filter.
@Nickspasic I think I know what you're going for, though, and why you'll avoid posting it publicly. It's an old trick I saw used by evangelists in the old days, back when I was still one of them. The idea is to try and confront the 'target' individually. Put it out in public, and the various 'targets' can band together and support each other, and it's more likely that one among the group will have a rebuttal than the individual target. If you fail to convert the individual (cont)
@Nickspasic (cont), no harm done. You can try again later with a different tactic and move on to the next one. You also don't suffer any public embarrassment or loss of credibility.
You're not trying to present any proof or new ideas here. You're trying to manipulate people.
Of course, you could always prove me wrong and post all of your ideas publicly for all to see and mock, but I doubt you'll do that. I know your kind. I used to be one of you. You're akin to the jackal.
Just saw his vid and thought: "There must be someone out there that can see how retarded this is!?"... And now I know:) Thank you, I can sleep happily tonight:)
Thank you shanedk. Keep holding the creationists feet to their own hellfire philosophically.
If tthese creationists used other words for their ideas like they use "God", they'd be locked up for loonies. I say lets give them no more credence than the other loonies.
He's just a little boy trying to think. Unfortunely the creatards got to him first. Does he really think that he (who I assume didn't get through high school yet ) can out smart an Oxford professor?
The part around 4:15 really shows how much Philosophy buffs who go on about "Well scientism cannot justify itself philosophically without referring to itself; that's circular reasoning." or "Science is a branch of philosophy." or whatever other bullshit lie they can throw out there to make themselves feel better for being a part of a field that's accomplished damn near nothing.
"Science of the Gaps": that is now one of my favorite creationist lines. Ranks right up there with the pinecone fiasco. Science can't explain certain things, so we'll just use science to fill in those explanations. Creationists are probably the most creative authors of tautologies and paradoxes.
@biggingeryeti Blasphemy! Shamus is only taking credit from the true administrator of the binary two-step, Lord British! Deaths to the heathen devil-worshipers!
@Virgil0211 Easy thiger, everyone knows Lord British is the main man and Shamus is the appliance guy. Lord British doesn't concern himself with the lower stuff.
@biggingeryeti Blasphemy. One need only look at the world around you to know the true master of Lord British- Ricardo Montalban. AKA, Khan Noonien Pecs.
@shanedk Actually, I heard they were real. He apparently did an increasing number of pushups every morning. If he did nothing else, it would explain how they seemed to oddly bulge up compared to the rest of his body. :-P
Shanedk, you really shouldn't be wasting your time with a child who clearly understand vary little of what he's talking about. This kid is just a wannabe Kent Hovind reject
@all I recommend that u read The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath. He crushes dawkins arguments in around 100 pages. It is improtant to get both sides of a question even if u disagree with one or both or whatever
@shanedk WTW. What was rebutted...Expelled or the Dawkins Delusion...or both. I tried to watch your expelled clip...or at least one that was subtitled. It was very difficult to follow along. You may have been better to use a voiceover or something. The book I recommend above crushed "the God Delusion" ten days from Sunday if you'll excuse the pun. Dawkins is a useless debater which is not to say that he isn't smart
@grfield1 McGrath's section starts at 55:24, and Dawkins's response to his criticism is provided. I think there may also be a couple of bits later in the movie as well. The subtitles cover all of it.
Pevensie15's problem with "God ALMOST certainly does not exist" is that he is too used to certainties -like those religion affirms exist- and too unused to uncertainties -like those science must acknowledge exist-.
Richard Dawkins said also in an interview on CNN's LKL (it may be the same interview referenced by the Creationist) that he could NOT be totally certain that the Bible god did not exist.
Why?
Because Dawkins is a scientist and must allow for the slim probability that God exists.
Thank you for taking the time to set the record straight. Although I dont think it was really necessary since I think anyone with an ounce of intelligence even without reading dawkins´ book can see that this kid is a fool.
3:29 --> "No, he has a lot of TRUST in science." That's an excellent way to put it. It is very difficult to steer Creationists away from the idea that we have "faith" in evolution, because even though I don't have a full understanding of evolution, I take science at its word. But I do so because science has consistently proven itself.
Of course he didn't read the book: if he had, he would probably be able to quote more than one or two lines out of two pages in an entire book. He probably regurgitated what he read on a website from another 45 IQ or below creationist.
I really wish I could get my mother to watch these videos. She is a smart lady but she is completely unaware of her hypocrisy. I had to tell her Einstein doesn't believe in god, her reply was "Well, have you read two biographies on him?"
So smug, this behavior is a common defense mechanism that even christians like my mother (a mormon that accepts evolution) will pull out the "I'm offended card" and get smug with her own son instead of listening to evidence and Einstein himself!
That kid just got owned so bad. Hope he learned a lesson about the scientific method: if it's based on nothing and unverified, you're idea is gonna get destroyed.
Well done. Rated, favorited, subscribed. In the past, I've been guilty of reading not really verifying what I've read (or seen, as demonstrated here). If you're evaluating an argument, VERIFY its requisite facts, its amazing how often seemingly legit sources can be very, very wrong.
And then of course you'd have to verify your own sources. This can lead to a practically infinite series of fact verification. Therefore a major reason why bias exists because everyone will tend to stop at a point which satisfies them usually if not always in an emotional way. Of course enough truly independant and agreeing points of data can become proof positive, but it very often takes much effort.
No, there's a termination to the regress at the primary source. (That's why it's called the "primary source.") That is ultimately what you need to evaluate.
That is true for the point of your video. I perhaps should have restricted the comment to just the scope of your video. But by and large primary sources are either not known, assumed incorrectly, or don't exist at all. I simply liked the comment that DFLT and wanted to add to it.
As you say - its truly unfortunate that many creationist will continue to believe without looking at your video and even if they do see it - m certain as to many of them will CONTINUE to DISREGARD SCIENCE while benefiting everything from modern medicine to technological innovation that arose from scientific method.
or there is a possibility that such a law does not apply to the membranes that collided that to cause the Big Bang, but the result is a universe that DOES have to follow the law.
For the same reason the Casimir Effect doesn't. The total net energy of the universe is 0. It's just that the particles got separated too fast during the Inflationary Period to annihilate each other again.
I would like to personally thank you, but since that might be a little weird, this will have to do.
Thank you for the time you put into this video and setting the facts straight. That moron's video almost set me on a course of destruction. You are well liked among the community, keep up the good work.
apparently you are incapable on inferring. the kid was so retarded, and his points so absurd, that I almost felt compelled to write an essay on how completely wrong he was. instead, shanedk posted a video to clear things up.
Great vid Shanedk,thanks mate and as a point of interest I myself had always thought the universe 'pulsed' with cycles like a bounce with expansion and eventual retraction and collapse to a singularity and the cycle repeating.
But the mass in the universe doesnt allow this does it? and I don't know how dark matter effects this all,is it homogenously but invisibly spread throughout the universe or in clusters or otherwise?
Thanks for helping me learn,really very much apreesh.
Of course these guys get everything wrong, and fail miserably. They thrive on baby-talk, and consequently they have to simplify everything - turning the opposing argument into a falsity in the process. Instead of going: A-B-C-D-E-F-&c, they go: A-C-F-&c.
I wonder if this kid really thought that he could outsmart Richard Dawkins. Not even out of highschool probably and already smarter than an evolutionary biologist. Shit.
dude science is goin to explain how the universe came about and we need to make a island and put people on it for 200,000 years and see whos wrong about evolution we should make religious people pray instead of getting medicine u know since it is evil creationist are ignorant some cant help it but a highschool kid bein religious is pathetic when i had just a hs understanding of evolution i knew it was true there is no evidence for god so much evidence for evolution dawkins is great
Nice video editing and clear sound. Do you have a library ? Gee, i wish i could make such nice videos.
Offcourse I read the dutch translated "God dellusion", RIchard Taught me what the evolutionary theory is and how it works. And how it doesn't.
Hope I can activly take part in the science awarness movement. I work at a Medical anatomical museum/ info-tainment park and interrested in enlightment period philosophy.
If the expansion of the universe were slowing down, you could logically conclude that gravity would pull it all back to the center of gravity of the universe. Thus creating one massive "black hole" and spewing out everything again.
However the universe is still expanding at an accelerated rate, and matter degrades into photon radiation (energy) over time.
Heat death theory the universe is reduced to photon radiation. This is the most probable theory.
Dude, he's just a kid. Go bug people your age. ;)
Moshugaani 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You really should do some research on the Internet, as their is NO ONE claiming to have created Life from non-life !
53dumey 4 months ago
Given that Szostak has created proto cells that has metabolism and able to replicate (these are the two criteria of life) in mere decades, what do you think he can do if he were able to continue his experiment for a billion years (the amount of time that took the earth to "produce" life)
marcman 5 months ago
why dont creationists understand that the human lifespan is so minuscule in comparison to the existence of the this planet. even 5000 years is a small fraction of our planet's history. the earliest sign of life existed about 3.5 billion years ago and the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago.
marcman 5 months ago
Moral of the story, rationality--free markets and free minds--have made more progress in 200 years than irrationality--government and religion--have made in over 6000 years.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd "free markets and free minds"
You can't have one without the other.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Indeed.
vspqbd 6 months ago
Abiogenesis !
There is no Empirical physical evidence that shows that a chemical reaction created life on this planet.
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey You're just completely WRONG. See the work of Dr. Jack Szostak.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
First , the results of these expirements were published in 1980, and they used already Live DNA in their expirements.
Second, He did'nt explain how the DNA came to life in the first place.
This can only mean one thing !........................
That a Chemical Reaction CANNOT produce Biological Life WITHOUT an outside influence !
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey "the results of these expirements were published in 1980"
LIAR. He's published MANY things in the last decade about the spontaneous buildup of polymer chemicals, INCLUDING RNA nucleotides.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 6 months ago
Just a few of Szostak's recent publications:
"Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell" Nature 454:122-125 3 July 2008
"Physical effects underlying the transition from primitive to modern cell membranes" PNAS 108(13):5249-5254 29 March 2011
"Systems chemistry on early Earth" Nature 459 171-172 14 May 2009
"Thermostability of model protocell membranes" PNAS 105(36):13351-13355 9 Sept 2008
There's a lot more. Anyone need any more proof that creationists are liars?
shanedk 6 months ago
@53dumey Actually there is. wired(dot)com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
And don't say that this proves that life is created intelligently because that is not what the study did, they observed what happened in the experiment. Now, this doesn't show the exact process of how life began on Earth but it does show that it is possible.
biggingeryeti 6 months ago
@biggingeryeti Most relevant quote: "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."
Creationists will try to worm their way out by saying that the scientists intelligently designed the RNA. That's just wrong. They set up the conditions, and watched the chemistry take place. They have no more room to maneuver.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I agree, but they will still worm some response of a lengthy volume that actually says very little. We know that abiogenesis is possible. Evolution is fact. They won't accept it and they will keep spouting the same tired debunked crap. Theres a great video on here by nonstampcollector about debating creationists. Check him out he's great.
biggingeryeti 6 months ago
@biggingeryeti I'm subscribed to him--love his videos!
shanedk 6 months ago
@biggingeryeti
"The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, " " wikipedia
I could'nt access the website your refered !
The problem with all these hypotheses is that none of them explain where the information came from.
Some have proposed the idea of a metorite carrying a primative lifeform hitting earth, but the heat from entering our atmosphere would have killed any lifeforms.
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey Say it with me: Wikipedia is NOT a scientific source...Wikipedia is NOT a scientific source...Wikipedia is NOT a scientific source...
I had no problem accessing his link. Amazing how creationists are the only ones who can't get links disproving their delusions to work...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
In response to the wikipedia is Not a scientific source, it isn't you're right. But the sources and citations it cites are a really good read.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce And what about the references to Szostak's work?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Jack Szostak? I think it's awesome, but then again I am a bit of a science nerd. His work on recombination is brilliant. Have you seen:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of
Escherichia coli
Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski?
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Lenski's was awesome! I loved the bit when the Disco 'Tute tried to get ahold of some of the frozen samples...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Was it Disco tute, I thought it was Schlafly from Conservapedia, did you read the email exhange between them?
rationalwiki. org/wiki/Lenski_affair
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Hmm, might have been, but I was thinking it was that Luskin guy.
shanedk 6 months ago
Comment removed
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@shanedk
Ugh him, that smug smirking twat. If ignorance is bliss he must be orgasmic.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@53dumey "none of them explain where the information came from."
Do you know what information IS in a scientific concept? Why don't you give us the scientific definition of information, and the three types of content, if you're so knowledgeable. Go on--time to show your "research" includes things other than just browsing creationist websites.
"the heat from entering our atmosphere would have killed any lifeforms."
There are life forms on Earth today that can survive those temperatures.
shanedk 6 months ago
@53dumey Apologies about the website, I will PM you the link. This area of research is still in it's infancy, but the experiment on that website shows how chemicals can come together to make the building blocks of life. The problem with the information statement is that information is a way for scientists to make chemical reactions understandable. There is no actual information present, just chemical reactions occurring. It's the same principle with quantities.
biggingeryeti 6 months ago
@53dumey A random group of twigs holds no information, but if we count them we can assign a value to it, a price to it and so on, but the twigs themselves contain no such information. We will probably never the exact method of how the building blocks of life organised on Earth, but the PM I have sent you shows that it is possible.
biggingeryeti 6 months ago
@53dumey
Look up the Murchison Meteorite, it contained many organic molecules when it landed.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
So, wheres the evidence that the Meteorite Or any other started life on this planet ?
Again, its only a hypothesis.
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey Way to miss the point. The point is, organic molecules are everywhere--they form easily. They're not the big hurdle creationists say they are.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Sure they are everywhere, NOW !
But not in the begining.
Again, we are speaking of the begining of life on this planet.
And, biological organic life from a chemical reaction is a Huge hurdle.
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey They ARE and WERE everywhere--INCLUDING comets and asteroids!!!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
And they ALL contain life ?
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey Stop being a dishonest creationist and shifting the goalpost. They all contain organic molecules--which is the ONLY thing this thread has been talking about. Organic molecules form easily, and so you can't claim life is impossible because they are difficult to form.
But like every creationist, when you're shown to be wrong, you resort to LYING, even though you KNOW FOR A FACT that no one claimed there was life on comets and asteroids. Pathetic.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
I did'nt shift the goalpost, I was answering WaltonSauce !
A chemical reaction has NEVER proven to result in Organic life !
You and I both know that !
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey WaltonSauce said "Look up the Murchison Meteorite, it contained many organic molecules when it landed" in response to YOU after you LIED about Szostak's experiment. You then moved on to the common creationist canard about "information" (and you STILL haven't given us any indication that you even know what information MEANS in a scientific context) and said that the experiment assumes the existence of these organic molecules.
YES YOU DID SHIFT THE GOALPOSTS!!! You've done nothing but!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
Where you said, "No one claimed there was life on comets and asteroids "
NO One Did !!!
We were talking about Meteorites !
My Claim is that a Chemical Reaction has never been proven to create Organic Life !
Stay on Topic !
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey Do you not even know what meteorites ARE???
And you STILL haven't commented on Szostak's work. In fact, this whole thread has been you avoiding doing just that! You've been given the data showing nucleotides forming spontaneously, and you've been given Szostak's work showing the NATURAL formation of these into self-replicating protocells. Respond to these or STFU!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
" As a way of exploring these processes, our laboratory is trying to build a synthetic cellular system that undergoes Darwinian evolution. "
from the website, Szostak Lab............
Like Dawkins said " We're Working on it " !
And like I said, Its never been Done !!!!
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey Nice quote-mine, LIAR. He ALREADY HAS self-replicating proto-cells; the ONLY thing he's waiting on is the development of a genome, which takes time. Read the papers instead of just mining the website for things that fit your pathetic delusions.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
" " he's waiting on is the development of a genome, which takes time. " "
Well, He still has'nt done it, Has He ?
And even if he does, can he create a human being from those Cells ?
NO !!
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey He has built the car, put in fuel and turned on the engine. Just because he hasn't put it in gear yet and got it going makes you shout "He hasn't made a car yet!"
"And even if he does, can he create a human being from those Cells ?"
If he did, that would FALSIFY evolution!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
You can't run a car on MAYBE !
If he ever gets it to run, tell him to drive by and wave at me, I'll be the 5,000 year old dead guy in the rocking chair !
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey Please demonstrate to us that you aren't the snotty, egotistical, pallid little weasel you appear to be and tell us, in detail, why the self-replicating proto-cells Szostak HAS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED is not at least a major indication that the formation of life did not need an intelligent designer.
Go on...if you can.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
A Major indication is another MAYBE.
My point is that he nor anyone else has done it !
Think about it, Life from Non-Life with instruction.
Is it really Possible ?
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey It's a FUCKLOAD more than you morons have!
Can you answer the question or not? Can you demonstrate ANY knowledge AT ALL of what Szostak and his team have done?
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
" you morons " ?
Who would that be ?
Christians ?
Did you know that the former Head of the Human Geonome Project is a Devote Christian ?
Szostak has not done anything that others in his field have not tried.
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey His name is Francis Collins, and he accepts evolution and a natural start of life.
"Szostak has not done anything that others in his field have not tried."
Same was true of the Wright Brothers.
Can you answer the question or not? Can you speak intelligently and knowledgeably about ANY aspect of Szostak's work? Or do you just dismiss it out-of-hand because it attacks your pathetic delusions?
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
Yes, he believes Evolution was guided by God, as do I.
If Szostak did get all the answers, it would'nt shake my faith.
And I have read about Szostaks work, but I also remember a few years ago were others claimed to have done the same thing only to find out later that they used Live DNA strands.
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey If you've read about it, then you should be able to answer the question. Why don't you?
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
He's using the basis of Abiogenesis for break throughs in medicine, which is Great. But he's far from creating life !
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey What is he ACTUALLY doing in his lab and how, and how close is it to actual life and why? If you can't answer those basic questions, you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for rejecting his work.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
I'm not rejecting his work, you are simply reading more into it than what actually exists.
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey "I'm not rejecting his work"
Yes you are! His work has FAR more reaching consequences than just "breakthroughs in medicine"!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
He Has NOT created Life !!!
Thats my entire argument !
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey Because you keep CHANGING THE DEFINITION whenever we keep showing you that he HAS created something that fits your definition of life! Originally, it was just eating, remember? These things eat. You ended up changing it to multi-cellular life, which didn't form for TWO BILLION YEARS after life started on Earth!
You're a dishonest dogmatist who is NOT interested in the truth; only in clinging on to your delusions.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
When he can Make a self-replicating cell that is alive, without the use of any already living matter, you let me know.
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey You keep CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF ALIVE! By your VERY FIRST DEFINITION (with the revision of taking out the absurd requirement to "breathe," since many life forms don't), he has done it! Your ONLY response has been to continually redefine what you consider to be "alive" every time it's been shown to conform to it.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
You are speaking untruths !
He has Not done it, no one has done it !
53dumey 5 months ago
@53dumey The protocells self-replicate, with no other life forms--or any parts of life forms--present at any point in the process.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 5 months ago
"People keep asking me, 'Why do you say all creationists are liars?'. Maybe it's because ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS."
Awesome. You are a genius among imbeciles sir. Respect.
djtripnosys 7 months ago
outstanding video!! thanks for the good work :)
frackcha 9 months ago
your logic is orgasmic! holy shit, im wired now!!! im amazed!! wow!!
tailsmilesprower24 9 months ago
So, Christians don't even really believe what they claim to believe, they deliberately LIE to defend their little dogmas. They're not only stupid, they're hypocrites.
LesPaul2006 9 months ago 13
@LesPaul2006 thank you!!!! you are amazing!!! both of you!!!
tailsmilesprower24 9 months ago
First thing to keep in perspective is your refuting a teen and making a mess out of reason to top it off, you are a bundle of nerves emoting...sorry the Kid won Round one and two!
cardcarrying 10 months ago
When I saw "skyhook" being used to refer to the hypothesis of an intelligent designer, the first image to pop into my head was God performing a hook shot over Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with the caption "Goddidit!"
SeruQuik 10 months ago
Biatch got owned!
tomomersey 10 months ago
I CAN SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLY PROVE THE EXSISTANCE OF GOD!
I CAN DEFINE GOD AND MAKE A SOUND AND LOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF IT WHICH MAY BE BEYOND MOST PEOPLS COMPREHENSION.
MESSAGE ME FOR SCIENTIFIC AND LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD BACKED 100% by PHYSIC'S, ASTROLOGY and CHEMISTRY!
If you have doubts in what i am claiming then message me and Judge for yourself on what i have discovered.
Peace.
Nickspasic 11 months ago
@Nickspasic What you have discovered is SELF-DELUSION. Nothing special. Many religious people have visited SELF-delusion before you, ad nauseum. Hope you snap out of it before you die. Good luck, with that . Peace .
evidenceonlythanx 11 months ago
@evidenceonlythanx Nope what i have done is an acception because no one previouse to me has managed to produce a Sound Logical Scientic Proof of Allah.
Unless you think the Law's that Govern the universe are delusions and have not been tested and proven true, then your wrong about your claim.
I have managed to logically prove God's exsistance Rationally and Scientifically and can show any scientific mind the truth about Allah or God
Peace brother, i can never snap out of the truth.
Nickspasic 11 months ago
@Nickspasic "I have managed to logically prove God's exsistance Rationally and Scientifically and can show any scientific mind the truth about Allah or God"
Then publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and win the Nobel Prize.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk I will thanks for your inspiration, i have never published anything in my life and i dont know what a peer-reviewed Journal is or how to become recognized enough to win the Nobel Prize.
Besides Satan is Ruling the world and most people follow satan's ideology which is rejection of Faith, so it will be difficult but i guess i will try.
thanks brother for you inspiration.
Nickspasic 11 months ago
@Nickspasic I call Poe on this one. He can NOT be real.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 Yeah i am real my brother, i know you doubt it, but i am very well versed in all major subjects of Science.
Biology, physic's Chemistry Astrology have always been of intrest even when i was only 6 or 7 years old.
I was a thinking Atheist most of my life, rejecting the notion of God, stricktly adearing to my studdies untill i wanted to Scientifically Disprove God so Religeon would go away.
I failed in my attempt and the opposit happened, praise be to God!
peace.
Nickspasic 11 months ago
@Nickspasic Fine. Post your ideas in 500 character comments, or post it to a web site and link it here. And don't use the spam filter as an excuse. You can't be smart enough to make your claims true and not how to get around the spam filter.
Also, just for giggles, include some definitive proof of your time as a Thinking atheist, as opposed to the unthinking lunatic you are now.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 I dont know how to make a website, nor do i have the initiative to learn.
I can send you the Proof just message me and you post it on a website, hell you can publish it and get rich off of it if you want.
I am thinking about writing a book instead, i am not very good with websites etc.
Nickspasic 11 months ago
@Nickspasic You have proof of a god ?
Fantastic, post it here. I will help you publish it in mass media, billions will be relieved and comforted, and you and I can become trillionaires in the bargain. Can't wait for your proof of god. I'm all excited. Hurry, hurry, with your proof of a god. While I wait, I'll pepare a cup of tea. Wow, proof of god. Don't keep me waiting too long, now will you. Hey, I'll ring my sister, and tell her I met a guy on the internet, who has proof of god.
evidenceonlythanx 11 months ago
@evidenceonlythanx I will send it to you in writing, i cant post it here not enough room.
Nickspasic 11 months ago
@Nickspasic type it uo in word processor and cut/paste in 500 character increments. Its not that hard, I've done it before.
And I call bullshit on your web site excuse. I put up a web site about an anime I liked with no training or funds whatsoever. It was no more advanced than a text document, but that's all you need. Go ahead. Do the 30 seconds of research that would tell you how. We can wait. Or hell, make a temporary livejournal/facebook and post it there.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Nickspasic Here I'll speed things along for us. THERE IS NO GOD. No verifiable evidence, of god. Nothing . Not anytime, not ever. What you have been told is an, O-U-T-R-I-G-H-T L-I-E. Read -up on Shamanism and Natural Magic. The world view of humanity, for 20,000 years BEFORE modern religion. Blood sacrifice - explained. Scapegoating - explained, origins of universe - explained. Devine king -gods - explained. Read-up or stay ignorant. It's up to you, and you alone. But give us the EVIDENCE.
evidenceonlythanx 11 months ago
@Nickspasic Let's dig into your history via google and see what we find, eh?
'The main reason why you will be in fire when you die is because athiests believe that the universe came to exsistance by accident and that there exsistance is pure luck.'
This little nugget is from scaredcanons back in 2008, article titled 'How CAN Athesits Have Morals?'. Clearly demonstrates you don't understand the first thing about abiogenesis or evolution, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nickspasic Aha! I found a comment where you describe a little bit of your philosophy. Apparently, you're not quite as shy when around other religious people.
LsccVJRkjjM
'My proof doesnt need the Quran, i just simply define God as Eternal, Omnipresent, Omniscience, and Omnipotent, then i Scientifically prove these attributes are true and only fit one entity, and i use Einstines work in Relitivity, Quantum physic's, and cosmology to Prove it.'
Problem: EinSTEIN rejected quantum physics.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nickspasic And here's another from that same video.
'Simple bro use your common sence and Logic. God gave us logic to distinguish truth from falshood. If what is said is Illogical then odds are its a lie, if its Logical then odds are it is true.'
Wrong. A logically valid statement can still be false if the premises are incorrect or evidence supporting it misinterpreted/absent.
'Infact the Quran is the most logical scripture on earth with no contradictions.'
.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nickspasic Yet some more.
'Also if you were to use your common sence, you would relize just like every finite thing, it has a beginning, that means the universe has a beginning, which would mean a creator and creation.'
Wow. You don't even understand the big bang, yet you claim to understand relativity and quantum physics. I got one for you- I can compete in the olympics for gymnastics, but I can't do a single chin-up. Nah, that still sounds more plausible.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nickspasic As far as I can tell, you've been claiming to have proven god's existence and send it in writing to people for at least 2 years. Unless you typed it up individually each time, that would indicate you have it typed up already somewhere. All you have to do is upload the file to some kind of file archiving/downloading place, such as filefront, put the link into tinyurlDoTcOm, and post it here with the necessary modifications to get around the spam filter.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nickspasic I think I know what you're going for, though, and why you'll avoid posting it publicly. It's an old trick I saw used by evangelists in the old days, back when I was still one of them. The idea is to try and confront the 'target' individually. Put it out in public, and the various 'targets' can band together and support each other, and it's more likely that one among the group will have a rebuttal than the individual target. If you fail to convert the individual (cont)
Virgil0211 10 months ago
Comment removed
Virgil0211 10 months ago
@Nickspasic (cont), no harm done. You can try again later with a different tactic and move on to the next one. You also don't suffer any public embarrassment or loss of credibility.
You're not trying to present any proof or new ideas here. You're trying to manipulate people.
Of course, you could always prove me wrong and post all of your ideas publicly for all to see and mock, but I doubt you'll do that. I know your kind. I used to be one of you. You're akin to the jackal.
Virgil0211 10 months ago
this is possibly one the the most monsterously ownage reffutations on youtube.
Insta-sub.
TheMePerspective 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMePerspective 1 year ago
Just saw his vid and thought: "There must be someone out there that can see how retarded this is!?"... And now I know:) Thank you, I can sleep happily tonight:)
pete9490 1 year ago
@pete9490 That is true. I wanted to give Pevensie a piece of my mind, but I didn't have to.
MunkyDrag0n 1 year ago
poor kid, i think religion destroy his life
well at least to his brain
uniagon 1 year ago
@uniagon he is now Epydemic2020 and is becoming a good little "William Lane Craig"
ainefairygoddess 1 year ago
The universe divided by zero? Well, that certainly explains it all!
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
Thank you shanedk. Keep holding the creationists feet to their own hellfire philosophically.
If tthese creationists used other words for their ideas like they use "God", they'd be locked up for loonies. I say lets give them no more credence than the other loonies.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
He's just a little boy trying to think. Unfortunely the creatards got to him first. Does he really think that he (who I assume didn't get through high school yet ) can out smart an Oxford professor?
limpnail 1 year ago
LOL! We don't sufficiently understand something therefore science. No I'm sorry, that's not 'blank of the gaps'/argument from ignorance.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
The part around 4:15 really shows how much Philosophy buffs who go on about "Well scientism cannot justify itself philosophically without referring to itself; that's circular reasoning." or "Science is a branch of philosophy." or whatever other bullshit lie they can throw out there to make themselves feel better for being a part of a field that's accomplished damn near nothing.
Science: It works mother fuckers!
vspqbd 1 year ago
"Science of the Gaps": that is now one of my favorite creationist lines. Ranks right up there with the pinecone fiasco. Science can't explain certain things, so we'll just use science to fill in those explanations. Creationists are probably the most creative authors of tautologies and paradoxes.
MultiPaulinator 1 year ago 5
@MultiPaulinator Another way of thinking about it is: you DON'T need science where there ISN'T a gap.
shanedk 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
TyrusSwon 1 year ago
Hehe - "science of the gaps".
I have no real idea of how a computer works.
So it must be Shamus, the Leprechaun, spending his days feeding electricity to the components. That's the only possible explanation that makes sense.
jazzx251 1 year ago 16
@jazzx251 That's what I thought too, until I opened the computer and found that Shamus the Leprechaun is also invisible. Only explanation.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago 5
@biggingeryeti Blasphemy! Shamus is only taking credit from the true administrator of the binary two-step, Lord British! Deaths to the heathen devil-worshipers!
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Easy thiger, everyone knows Lord British is the main man and Shamus is the appliance guy. Lord British doesn't concern himself with the lower stuff.
biggingeryeti 6 months ago
@biggingeryeti Blasphemy. One need only look at the world around you to know the true master of Lord British- Ricardo Montalban. AKA, Khan Noonien Pecs.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 I thought it was Khan Noonian Plastic-Pecs?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Actually, I heard they were real. He apparently did an increasing number of pushups every morning. If he did nothing else, it would explain how they seemed to oddly bulge up compared to the rest of his body. :-P
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Star Wars sucks ass dude.
biggingeryeti 6 months ago
@biggingeryeti I find your lack of fandom disturbing...
Virgil0211 6 months ago
I request that you make a video on shockofgod. he needs to get pwned by some one like you. thank you.
armarjaleo 1 year ago
@armarjaleo Yes.
618033988749 1 year ago
this pevensie got his video from william lane craig...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
Shanedk, you really shouldn't be wasting your time with a child who clearly understand vary little of what he's talking about. This kid is just a wannabe Kent Hovind reject
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Kids these days...
Cyelon 1 year ago
loved watchin this 2-parter. These arguments were VERY well thought out and organized. I applaud you sir.
NoelGallagherIsGod 1 year ago
Very good video, Shane!
STFUNOWlol 1 year ago
@all I recommend that u read The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath. He crushes dawkins arguments in around 100 pages. It is improtant to get both sides of a question even if u disagree with one or both or whatever
grfield1 1 year ago
@grfield1 Read, and rebutted. See my lie-correcting subtitles for Expelled.
shanedk 1 year ago 3
@shanedk WTW. What was rebutted...Expelled or the Dawkins Delusion...or both. I tried to watch your expelled clip...or at least one that was subtitled. It was very difficult to follow along. You may have been better to use a voiceover or something. The book I recommend above crushed "the God Delusion" ten days from Sunday if you'll excuse the pun. Dawkins is a useless debater which is not to say that he isn't smart
grfield1 1 year ago
@grfield1 Both; the author of The Dawkins Delusion was featured in the movie, and the subtitles rebut him at that time.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I just watched it again. Nothing here about The DAWKINS delusion as opposed to his God delusion dude....give me time ref if I'm wrong.
grfield1 1 year ago
@grfield1 McGrath's section starts at 55:24, and Dawkins's response to his criticism is provided. I think there may also be a couple of bits later in the movie as well. The subtitles cover all of it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I am obviously on the wrong clip. The one I watched was like 8 minutes. I will find it. Thanks
grfield1 1 year ago
@shanedk No please send link to the clip u r talking about. This clip is only 8 minutes long and all the links up top are to the same clip...
grfield1 1 year ago
@grfield1 see the debate between dawkins and mc grath, dawkins wins...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi I will check it out.
grfield1 1 year ago
Pevensie15's problem with "God ALMOST certainly does not exist" is that he is too used to certainties -like those religion affirms exist- and too unused to uncertainties -like those science must acknowledge exist-.
Richard Dawkins said also in an interview on CNN's LKL (it may be the same interview referenced by the Creationist) that he could NOT be totally certain that the Bible god did not exist.
Why?
Because Dawkins is a scientist and must allow for the slim probability that God exists.
amoxtlacatl 1 year ago
@amoxtlacatl
Let me further qualify my earlier statement:
Richard Dawkins is an HONEST scientist and must allow for the all too slim chance that, despite lack of evidence, the Bible god exists.
On a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is total belief in the Bible god and 7 is total disbelilef in the Bible god, Dr. Dawkins -his words- is at 6.9.
My guess is, Pevensie15 is at 1 and cannot -at present- even allow himself to think that his god does not exist.
amoxtlacatl 1 year ago
Very good use of pictures.
BillVidHunter 1 year ago
Thank you for taking the time to set the record straight. Although I dont think it was really necessary since I think anyone with an ounce of intelligence even without reading dawkins´ book can see that this kid is a fool.
jlc012 1 year ago
3:29 --> "No, he has a lot of TRUST in science." That's an excellent way to put it. It is very difficult to steer Creationists away from the idea that we have "faith" in evolution, because even though I don't have a full understanding of evolution, I take science at its word. But I do so because science has consistently proven itself.
supermark420 1 year ago
Of course he didn't read the book: if he had, he would probably be able to quote more than one or two lines out of two pages in an entire book. He probably regurgitated what he read on a website from another 45 IQ or below creationist.
zetanato 1 year ago
How the hell can 10 people put a thumbs down ?
Shanedk is only showing the errors in the video...
saintpine 1 year ago
the walmart $4 list used in a beat-down. fortunately the $4 dollar list is there to avoid infection of the gaping wounds.
burnhippiesforfuel 1 year ago
Why do the creokids feel the need to champion the cause of creotardation, is it because their adult peers are so spineless?
Nice work.
Dakayrus 1 year ago
I really wish I could get my mother to watch these videos. She is a smart lady but she is completely unaware of her hypocrisy. I had to tell her Einstein doesn't believe in god, her reply was "Well, have you read two biographies on him?"
So smug, this behavior is a common defense mechanism that even christians like my mother (a mormon that accepts evolution) will pull out the "I'm offended card" and get smug with her own son instead of listening to evidence and Einstein himself!
hoboboxerjoe 1 year ago
Copy - Paste creationist got owned. ;-)
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 1 year ago
That kid just got owned so bad. Hope he learned a lesson about the scientific method: if it's based on nothing and unverified, you're idea is gonna get destroyed.
franczazou 1 year ago
Well done. Rated, favorited, subscribed. In the past, I've been guilty of reading not really verifying what I've read (or seen, as demonstrated here). If you're evaluating an argument, VERIFY its requisite facts, its amazing how often seemingly legit sources can be very, very wrong.
DieFatorLiveThin 1 year ago 2
And then of course you'd have to verify your own sources. This can lead to a practically infinite series of fact verification. Therefore a major reason why bias exists because everyone will tend to stop at a point which satisfies them usually if not always in an emotional way. Of course enough truly independant and agreeing points of data can become proof positive, but it very often takes much effort.
pocoapoco2 1 year ago
No, there's a termination to the regress at the primary source. (That's why it's called the "primary source.") That is ultimately what you need to evaluate.
shanedk 1 year ago
That is true for the point of your video. I perhaps should have restricted the comment to just the scope of your video. But by and large primary sources are either not known, assumed incorrectly, or don't exist at all. I simply liked the comment that DFLT and wanted to add to it.
pocoapoco2 1 year ago
amazing!!!
lazaroinbed2010 1 year ago
Thank you so much for posting this video.
As you say - its truly unfortunate that many creationist will continue to believe without looking at your video and even if they do see it - m certain as to many of them will CONTINUE to DISREGARD SCIENCE while benefiting everything from modern medicine to technological innovation that arose from scientific method.
all in all - thank you again for worthy contents.
tenshady 1 year ago 2
Remember to rate to counter creationist votebots.
shorty962 1 year ago 2
I'm guessing the video that this refutes has ratings and comments disabled. Or has a 1 star rating typical of Creationist videos in here.
warren52nz 2 years ago
Lol, pretty much.
NapiCAN 1 year ago
thank you for the explanation
kybernes23 2 years ago
1:43 fucking PWND!!!!
chattiestspike2 2 years ago 2
or there is a possibility that such a law does not apply to the membranes that collided that to cause the Big Bang, but the result is a universe that DOES have to follow the law.
MrEnrique223 2 years ago
Stupid, but serious and honest question (I'm a cosmology n00b, bare with me): How does the Big Bang not violate The Law of Conservation of Energy?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
For the same reason the Casimir Effect doesn't. The total net energy of the universe is 0. It's just that the particles got separated too fast during the Inflationary Period to annihilate each other again.
shanedk 2 years ago
I would like to personally thank you, but since that might be a little weird, this will have to do.
Thank you for the time you put into this video and setting the facts straight. That moron's video almost set me on a course of destruction. You are well liked among the community, keep up the good work.
RiddickThePragmatic 2 years ago 2
@RiddickThePragmatic
i'm just curious. how did the kids video "almost set you on a course of destruction"?
Zentz29 2 years ago
destruction can have a vast array of meanings, and in no way did I intend it to be something of tangible destruction.
RiddickThePragmatic 2 years ago
@RiddickThePragmatic
ok...how did it almost set you on a path of destruction?
you didn't even come close to answering the question...
Zentz29 2 years ago
apparently you are incapable on inferring. the kid was so retarded, and his points so absurd, that I almost felt compelled to write an essay on how completely wrong he was. instead, shanedk posted a video to clear things up.
RiddickThePragmatic 2 years ago 3
Lmao, I had JUST finished that chapter that that idiot, Pevensie15, had just butchered and was ready to refute every single word of that video--
And then I found this and danced a most glorious happy dance XD
NapiCAN 1 year ago
Great vid Shanedk,thanks mate and as a point of interest I myself had always thought the universe 'pulsed' with cycles like a bounce with expansion and eventual retraction and collapse to a singularity and the cycle repeating.
But the mass in the universe doesnt allow this does it? and I don't know how dark matter effects this all,is it homogenously but invisibly spread throughout the universe or in clusters or otherwise?
Thanks for helping me learn,really very much apreesh.
Rockster969 2 years ago
Of course these guys get everything wrong, and fail miserably. They thrive on baby-talk, and consequently they have to simplify everything - turning the opposing argument into a falsity in the process. Instead of going: A-B-C-D-E-F-&c, they go: A-C-F-&c.
That's how you keep the benighted benighted.
Sonicmountain09 2 years ago
I wonder if this kid really thought that he could outsmart Richard Dawkins. Not even out of highschool probably and already smarter than an evolutionary biologist. Shit.
executehelenkeller 2 years ago 3
Wow. That was a creationist slaughter.
Burgers anyone?
damaxman 2 years ago
dude science is goin to explain how the universe came about and we need to make a island and put people on it for 200,000 years and see whos wrong about evolution we should make religious people pray instead of getting medicine u know since it is evil creationist are ignorant some cant help it but a highschool kid bein religious is pathetic when i had just a hs understanding of evolution i knew it was true there is no evidence for god so much evidence for evolution dawkins is great
patrickledford420 2 years ago 2
Nice video editing and clear sound. Do you have a library ? Gee, i wish i could make such nice videos.
Offcourse I read the dutch translated "God dellusion", RIchard Taught me what the evolutionary theory is and how it works. And how it doesn't.
Hope I can activly take part in the science awarness movement. I work at a Medical anatomical museum/ info-tainment park and interrested in enlightment period philosophy.
MexxPowers 2 years ago
hahah, Poor Pevensie15, that really must have hurt.
jrev37 2 years ago 23
After seeing this, Pevensie15 is just a f*cking moron.
cartmanSPP 2 years ago
I support the big bounce theory.
stewart0312 2 years ago
The big bounce theory has some problems.
If the expansion of the universe were slowing down, you could logically conclude that gravity would pull it all back to the center of gravity of the universe. Thus creating one massive "black hole" and spewing out everything again.
However the universe is still expanding at an accelerated rate, and matter degrades into photon radiation (energy) over time.
Heat death theory the universe is reduced to photon radiation. This is the most probable theory.
RealistAtheist 2 years ago