...that said, I, for one, do not dismiss evolution on blind faith. I once considered the possibility of evolutionary creation. But the more I study the theory of evolution and the surrounding sciences in general, the more I come to realize that even if it's guided, large-scale evolution is simply impossible. I don't reject evolution because I'm a creationist. I'm a creationist because evolution has been ruled out.
...but not because we want it to be. Because of the evidence of testimony. The bible has enough evidence backing it up to prove it to be the truth in a court of law. For thousands of years it's been tested and found error-free. Furthermore, the work of God is abundantly evident today in bonafide, verified, impossible-by-natural-means miracles. That's why we accept the creation account in genesis as authoritative. (continued)
@Orenotter What evidence? Don't confuse evidence for natural claims in the bible for evidence for supernatural claims. Error free? It says bats are birds, Pi is 3 and that you can see all the kingdoms of earth from the top of a high mountain. 'impossible-by-natural-means miracles'
Watch the mythbusters. What happens when they test a myth and it appears busted, but they have a reliable report that it actually happened? They accept the report as true and work to discover the reason for the discrepency. Do they disregard the report because it's not scientifically provable? No, they accept it as true because of the proof of testimony. That's still perfectly valid science. Yes, we Christians start with the notion that the bible is true. (continued)
Maybe this ignorant should look up evolution in wikipedia, see how we do know that evolution is a fact, and how it is being used in practice in science, in the medical industry and so on.: )
@odinata - and Evolutionists start with a conclusion-that the Bible ISN'T literally true. This also isn't science. It's the opposite of science.
And I won't bring up the Catholic Church promoting heliocentrism (which was believed as fact by SCIENTISTS starting with Ptolemy) and persecuting Galileo over it if you won't bring up all the learned scientists who said we were DEFINITELY headed to a global cooling in the late 60's/early 70's. Sometimes scientists are 100% wrong. Get over it.
"all the learned scientists who said we were DEFINITELY headed to a global cooling in the late 60's/early 70's."
You can't name any of these supposed claims, and you can't explain why the vast majority of science in the 60's and 70's as well as the 80's and 90s warned of global warming, not global cooling.
@gregrutz There is a difference between an operational science which requires empiricism and origin science which is far less accurate and requires speculation . You not knowing the difference disallows any of your comments from being taken seriously .
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Why do you IDiot Creatards think you know why SCIENCE is. You people think you are experts on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, what is empirical data and speculation and assumptions. Most of you don't know the difference between religion and science / reality.
Prayer is banned, evolution is taught as fact, YOU LOST.
This guy makes a great point that athiests/evolutionists dont seem to get. What boggles my mind are all these comments that creationists arent scientists when they not only hold degrees but they give evidence to you to look at, heck they have creation museums! Go to one and look around for crying out loud! If thats not enough read one of thier blogs, papers, magazines, etc for research! You can do that with evolutionists so go do it with creationists! But you would rather mock than look.
No they aren't. If they were scientists they would be able to produce some form of research... One that doesn't include the bible. an just FYI, even if creationist could disprove evolution (rather then just misrepresent scinece like this guy does), that wouldn't make creationism accurate.
Evolution is observable, testable, makes predictions about future observations, and most importantly, is falsifiable. In REAL science if the theory failed to describe the observations then it would have to be either revised or discarded. Please produce actual controlled experimental/observational data to support your hypothesis. Show us your Precambrian bunnies. Also your list of experts is an appeal to authority, and a fallacious argument. It says nothing about the validity of your claim.
There could be no gravity in other parts of the universe and we wouldn't know ;-) If gravity were a fact, we shouldn't see the accellerating expansion of the universe, but we do. To fix up the theory of gravity, we have to invent "dark energy".
Evolution is however a fact. all evidence points to it being true and there is no contradictory evidence. Evolution and the elements of evolution are testable, observable, repeatable and predictable.
Evolution is observable, testable, and repeatable. If you would like me to point out some studies I would be happy to. It would take some reading and a basic understanding of scientific method, are you up for it?
"gravity and the size and shape of the earth have nothing to do with evolution." first of all, you're wrong, but second of all, the point was not that they are related to evolution, but ANALOGOUS to evolution. The theory of evolution is as firmly grounded in experiment and observation as the theory of gravitation. It is also under as much scientific disagreement as the theory of gravity.
@animark11 There are an uncountable number of experiments which provide evidence of evolution. The information is all available on the web. Just do a search in google for "evidence for evolution" and you'll get a huge number of responses. One of the interesting ones for me are the Belyaev foxes, which have been domesticated through artificial selection. I also think the speciation of ciclids in Lake Victoria is quite enlightening. Both are examples of evolution on a human time scale.
@yablebab i dont know about the other experiments you are thinking of, but the domesticated foxes have to be a completely new species to be categorized under evolution.
@animark11 Actually evolution by natural selection includes a broad range of consequences, of which speciation is one. The line between one species and another usually requires geographical separation, as well as differences of environments, and critically, a large amount of time for mutations to accumulate. Generally this occurs on timescales much longer than a few human generations, but by doing a google search for observed speciation, you'll find some examples that have taken place faster.
I find it funny how this guy explains how the size of the earth and s on has NOTHING!!! to do with evolution, just to go on telling us how many scientists were creationists. couriously all in fields that have NOTHING!!! to do with either creationism or evolution. That's selective thinking for ya.
If you believe that evolution is a "supernatural process"..... then youdon't really have any understanding of what evolution is. This guy is just like most religious people. He has no scientific backround..... but he is able to completely refute science and everyone who has contributed to it. I will agree on one thing. There are creationists out there with many high lvl degrees. But none of ... NOT A SINGLE ONE..... has yet proven creation to be true.
It's funny that he mentions the Globe and Mail in this. I read from it recently and the first article I came too was about how snow finches in Quebec changed their feathers over a period of 50 years or so to combat the effects of smog off the St. Lawrence. Idiot walking around in a dilapidated recycling yard: fuck off.
It's been observed multiple times. E.coli evolving the ability to digest citrate, plants evolving into new species, changes in chromosome number in fruit flies. There are too many examples to list. There are dozens of examples of scientifically observed evolution in laboratory settings. You would know this if you spent 5 minutes on google researching the subject.
@666Luke. If by evolution you mean common descent, how would one test for, observe or repeat a proposed historical occurrence? All the evidence from breeding, Drosophile bombardment or bacteria mutation shows strict limitations. Evolution predicted an abundance of vestigial organs, which all proved to be functional, and is rapidly losing all ground on the pseudogene front too. Sorry but to me this bodes TERRIBLY ill against the predictive power of the theory.
Basically, vestigial just means a structure is a vestige of what it was in an evolutionary ancestor, and can no longer perform that original function: it CAN perform some function.
Human and other apes lack tails and our tail bones are reduced in size compared to what our evolutionary ancestors' tail bones were (represented today by the tails of monkeys). Thus, the human coccyx is vestigial, even though it performs a function.
How do you test common ancestry? You make predictions and then test to see whether or not they pan out. "If evolution were true, we would expect to find X." Then you go investigate to learn whether or not X is in fact the case.
Dr. Kenneth Miller gives an example of such a process based on human chromosome 2.
Why do manatees - fully aquatic mammals with no hindlimbs - have rudimentary pelvises and even vestigial hipsockets????
Why have we found fossils of manatee ancestors with 4 full-sized limbs, more-recent fossils of manatee ancestors with 4 limbs but with the hind 2 reduced in size, and even more-recent fossils with no hind limbs?
MACROevolution explains these facts easily, and unlike Intelligent Design Creationism, explains them in a non-ad hoc manner.
You had pharyngeal slits (loosely but inaccurately called "gill slits") for a brief period when you were an embryo: why?
You started off with a very fish-like arrangement of aortae and aortic arches, which then required much remodeling to end up in a human-appropriate arrangment: why?
Birds have genes for making teeth: why?
MACROevolution explains these (and many other) facts easily, and unlike ID Creationism, in a non-ad hoc manner
Whale and dolphin embyros begin forming hind limbs: why?
Whale and dolphin embryos develope a full coat of hair, just to lose it before birth: why?
Whale and dolphin embryos don't form their blowholes at the top of the head, but rather first develop 2 nostrils just above the mouth (like four-legged land mammals have) and they must migrate to the top of the head a fuse: why?
We have fossils documenting the transition of four-legged land mammals into whales: why?
@Hjerne. The less ad-hoc, the greater the explanatory scope, power, resilience to testability etc, the stronger a theory; and the converse is true, in ever-gradated shades. The theory predicts a tree of emergence from simple to complex; the evidence shows a bush of fossil complexity right down to the start without the vast array of transitionals that were predicted by Darwin. Hence Goldschmidt's monster, punctuated equilibrium, panspermia and a host of other auxiliaries. The theory is not strong
We have fossils documenting the transition from certain fish to amphibians; from certain reptiles to mammals; from other certain reptiles to birds; and from certain four-legged land animals to whales. All of the major vertebrate groups are linked to another vertebrate group by transitionals, with no major vertebrate group being unliked to the overall vertebrate branch.
No, the fossil record shows increasing maximum complexity over time, just as one would expect were evolution true.
In order of strata age, we find the 1st prokayotes; then the 1st eukaryotes; then the 1st multicellular eukaryotes; then the 1st bilaterally symmetrical animals; then the 1st fish; then the 1st amphibians; then the 1st reptiles; then the 1st mammals; then the 1st primates; then the 1st apes; then the 1st humans.
@CanadianPlanter. A few things wrong here. First you've made an error in thinking, the genetic fallacy; briefly that is explaining the means by which a belief or conclusion came to exist in order to cast doubt on the validity of the conclusion itself. Moreover all people approach evidence with some sort of presuppositional schema, evolutionists with the philosophy of naturalism, theists etc., with that of telos. Neither are assumptions that scientific statements can verify.
@Holdington Why? Where are all of the billions of step by step ape to human fossils we should be finding all over the place in various layers of strata? Did your flying spaghetti monster eat them all?
@BloodOfRayne The problem I have with creationists is that whenever science doesn't have a clear-cut answer to everything creationsists say "There is a God, he created it" when, in reality, saying that is an easy way just to say "I don't know the answer either but I won't put time into finding anything out". How can a text written between 2000 and 1500 years ago have any scientific answers? What makes the bible right and science wrong? Just answer me that last question.
@Holdington Because nothing as reguards to the world (taking away all supernatural events of course) contradicts anything that science says about the world today. For example, circumsizeing babies on the eighth day; today it's known that the blood clotting properties in a baby are at their peak on the eighth day after birth. How would they have known that back then? It's not about the Bible having scientific answers. It's about the fact that it doesn't contradict the answers given today.
@BloodOfRayne Well, science is about testing theories and examining evidence. Science gives us the most probable answers through evidence found. The bible, religion and God provides answers through faith, not evidence. Just believing some God created someting does not make it so. I can believe the are unicorns and I can write books about it but does that make unicorns exist? No, cause there's no evidence for it. I believe in evidence, not superstition.
Bringing up Newton, Pascal, Joule, Kepler, Galileo, et al., lends no credence to the arguments that creationists are great scientists. The theory of evolution was not expounded upon during those men's lives. Would you also suggest that the germ theory of disease is bullshit because Newton didn't know anything about it?
I'll tell ya what's getting old and it's not the gene gun, it's the whining and character assassination on Creationists. It's like "here's why evolution can't be possible based on this observable science" and then it's Cry-Cry some more from anti-creationists. Give it up already... if you don't agree with the man, fine. At least stop crying about it and have a civil debate.
Juby you are a joke! Come on man you mention 4 post Darwin scientists and try to pass that off as science in the your cooky creationist realm. How many times must I here about the gene gun it is really getting old. What then is the application for all of this creationist science that you are doing? You are a very likeable chap but you fail miserably in this video
This guy does not have even a basic grasp of science, just like Mr. Goodyear. Most people who want to disprove evolution don't actually examine the evidence and THEN form their opinion. They start with their opinion (usually God created the world) and then they make their examination of the evidence fit their bias. That is not the way science works.
Oops! your Bias is showing...and your ignorance. Evolutionists start with the premise that God did not and build their opinions and consensual non empirical science on that. We all have presuppositions which are based on our worldview. Therefore you made a statement against the exact same approach taken by evolutionism as well as creationists. You should think your argument through a little better.
@apathy7170 There is no such word as evolutionist, any more than there is a word describing people as gravitationalists. There are people who accept evidence based science and then there are creationists.
Starting out with the assumption that there is no god is not a bias. There is no reason nor evidence to begin with that assumption, so simply examining the evidence without assuming God, a unicorn, or a flying elephant exists is not a bias.
No such word as evolutionist....I suppose you do not believe that evolutionism is a word....that is the silliest rebuttal I believe that I have enjoyed in quite sometime. And yes, a worldview of God or of no god, is a presuppositional bias toward how we view and evaluate historical evidence....since NOONE was at the creation, NOONE has anything but historical evidence to use to form a hypothesis about origins...not theories. Theories must be repeatable, origins is not.
@apathy7170 A worldview of no god is not a bias, it is the logical starting point to make observations of our universe. Just the same as a worldview of no fairies, unicorns, or demons. To assume that these might exist before gathering any data would be a biased hypothesis not based on anything to begin with. I take it you are not a scientist.
Why is it more logical to believe that everything came from nothing as it is to believe in a designer? BTW, I have a degree in science, and I am a creationist...oh my, we do exist, and we understand that a persons starting point and presuppositions (bias) will effect how they take historical evidence and make it conform to their presuppositions...it doesn't take a scientist to figure that out...anyways.
@apathy7170 Who said anything about everything coming from nothing? We are talking about evolution, which is a process of biological development, not things appearing out of nothing. If you have a degree in science, then you'll understand that evolution is backed up by 150 years of data and evidence where as the only thing backing up creationism is a Bronze-Aged book.
The only reason anyone would ever believe in creationism is religion, because ALL the unbiased evidence is against it.
I can't believe there are even people who argue about evolution when it is so established scientifically. Next, the people with the religious agenda will be arguing about how the sky isn't blue.
Notice how creationists only question science when it threatens their religion. When scientists tell them a plane will fly or a medicine will work, they are fine with it and trust scientists. But suddenly when it is evolution, all scientists are wrong. Pretty funny.
Evolutionism is a faulty hypothesis. You will only look at the evolutionists viewpoint. I have studied evolution, from grade school through advanced secular degrees; it is all that I had studied. It has been found wanting....and a mathematical impossibility, not just an improbability, because the improbability is so enormous and would have to be repeated for every living organism, heavy elements, DNA structure, hydrologic, nervous, reproductive systems, etc. Not possible.
@apathy7170 Don't know what I can say to you if you think evolution is false. You're 150 years behind reality in science if you think so. It has been established and supported overwhelmingly by many areas of scientific endeavor and none of the so-called "problems" raised by creationists with a religious agenda are real or scientific. If you want to live in the dark ages, that is your choice.
@apathy7170 Having a degree in a scientific field does not make one literate of how science functions as an epistemology. There is no evidence of a designer. This of course does not prove that one doesn't exist, but it certainly doesn't support the hypothesis either. All actual data in the field of Biology conforms to the predictions made by Evolution. I know this because I am a Biologist. Believe me when I say, If anyone could disprove the theory it would be Nobel prize time.
This guy is funny and makes good points. If you don't believe in the Bible, of course you aren't going to agree with his views. Many good scientists don't believe in evolution, and many many many more scientists believe in a Creator, even if they do believe in evolution. After doing some research, I found the evidence for evolution to be much weaker than it was presented to be in the US public school textbooks my teachers used.
1) Gravity and the size/shape of the earth do have something to do with evolution. If the earth were larger then the force of gravity would be greater, meaning that humans would most likely be tetra pods because of the increased force acting on your bodies.
2) If evolution is not testable, observable, repeatable or predictable then I'm assuming that the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers written on the subject are made up.
3) A junior high student also knows that evolution is a fact
4:00. The only thing that comes out of debating creationists is that you feed their delusion that there is controversy in the scientific community about evolution. First, I would say you have to show that creationism is science before you can ever enter into a debate about its scientific merits.
3:35. If they are quite good at carrying out good science, then why have none of them done any research into creationism? All the scientists you listed have done very respectable research in fields outside of biology. There research does not even deal with creationism. Moreover, that was the point of Dr. Alters quote. So again I ask, where is the peer-reviewed science about creationism, not just science done in physics by someone that happens to be a creationist.
3:14. Still arguing from authority. Moreover, even worse about this is that most of the people named did not even have an idea of evolution by natural selection since it was not even proposed before they died.
3:20. Creationists and alchemists. It is funny how people always forget that aspect of those past great scientists.
1:55. Well, by all means, submit your creationists research to peer-review and show that creationists can do good science. Nevertheless, first you are going to have to come up with a model for how creationism works.
1:59. Argument from authority. Again, just because they are creationists and do science does not mean the science they do is creation science. Show the research they have done for creation science.
0:48 that quote is correct. Evolution is a fact. It can be observed and tested in both the lab and in the field.
1:03. Of course they have nothing to do with evolution, the quote did not say they did. They are just using those as observed facts that one would be foolish to deny because of religious dogma.
1:10. Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in a population over time. That is the fact of evolution. It is both tested and observed in both the lab and field. Get over it.
The Theory is our explanation of the mechanism behind the fact.
Also note that Juby lists people who are as qualified to answering evo questions as a bartender. Gene gun inventor? MRI inventor? Oceanograph?
Funny thing is, "Int. Adreßregister der Sektenarbeit" translates to "int. address register of sect work", an organisation helping people to leave sects.
Then Kepler & Co. Everybody was a creationist a few hundred years ago.
It is no obvious contradiction that experts in fields other than evo-devo have personal beliefs that differ from atheism.
Plus, EVOLUTION is a fact.
The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a scientific theory.
And the question by Alders doesn't imply that gravity has anything to do with evolution, etc.; he merely points out that evolution is a fact as established as a round earth or gravity.
Note: gravity = fact, as much as evolution = fact.
Theory of gravity = scientific theory. Theory of E. = scient. th.
Im not sure who this Jerry Bergman fellow is supposed to be. He apparently wasn't worthy of a page on wikipedia and a search on google uncoveres nothing but one of his long rants about Darwinism being racist. Oh, but apparently he's God's gift to the mid-west United States. Is this really the best that you Creationist douchebags can do? Find yourself a young earth creationist steven hawkings, then ill be impressed.
This man is brilliant, witty and fun to watch. Apparently, there are some half-wits who respond here who have no idea what the creation/evolution debate is about. Of course, to actually become informed one must have an open mind, which many comments on this page lack. Go ahead, stay stupid, have your opinions .... it is America ... dummies.
That's a fallacy known as appeal to ridicule, trying to say someone seems less than for the sole reason that they hold an opposing viewpoint, and it this case it's not really a matter of viewpoint, it's a matter of evidence, all of which supports evolution.
Also, evolution is also observable and measurable and testable and predictable you just lack the mental capacity to read the relevant data because you're a moron. Really truly a moron.
And Dr. Alters never implied that Creationists can't do good science. Never! It's interesting how you hear what you want to hear, dipshit.
Golly, kids, I just can't find any scientific documentation of one TYPE of life transforming into another. No evidence of DNA being added, which one would NEED for "evolution" to occur. Now, DNA can be LOST (drug-resistant bacteria, for example), but it is never gained, so far as modern science is aware. Some have tried desperately to create a living cell from nonliving matter, and failed badly every time. When you point all this out, you get lots of hate, but never any proof of evolution!
Thats so right! I want to know how heavy stones you use when you stone your kids when they don't obey you, because I have a hard time picking what stones I use. You know, when I'm stoning everyone as the bible tells me. ^^
Actually, Hjernespreng, it's not. I assume when you say "evolution," you're referring to adaptation, or micro-evolution. That IS observable, and maybe you could argue testable, but it'd be a stretch to say it's repeatable or predictable. Now if you're talking about macro-evolution, or an animal changing into another type of animal, then, Dude, unless you're planning to live for a million years, it's definitely NOT observable.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Micro or Macro, evolution is the same. Evolution is observed through fossil remains and chemistry. Your knowledge base is crippled by your psychotic need to support the claims of people who see invisible sky-daddies.
Gravity is still a theory. "Its a law" Yes, it is a law and a theory. You have germ theory too. Etc. why? Because your definition of theory is wrong! All these are Scientific theories. Just google "Scientific theory definition". Evidence? 1. It has been observed. 2. Fossil record. 3. Genetic resemblance. Oh: I've just mentioned SOME! Very little actually.
Evolution isn't a scientific law. How could it be?
Why am I saying "theory" AND "fact"?
Because it is both.
It is a scientific theory (which is as high as anything can get in science; no, "law" is NOT higher), yet it is observed and tested. It isn't "rivaled" by anything else that can be tested and is therefore factual. That is what it means to be a fact.
Saying something is a fact doesnt make it one just because other people that believe like you do says it is....geesh. In order to be a fact it has to be tested over and over and over again preferably by others as well so they can check you out to see if what they do comes out to be the same as your results. Only then is it a fact not a theory and yes a "law" is greater than a "theory" in science for it implies that a thing has been tested and empirically true.....duh!
No, "law" isn't greater. And the fact that you think it is shows how you have no idea of what the definition of scientific law is, hence, you are babbling without knowing jackshit about the topic.
Wow do you actually hear what your saying? I cant believe I'm responding to such idiocy but let me reiterate what I just said: "yes a "law" is greater than a "theory" in science for it implies that a thing has been TESTED and empirically true". This time I capitlalized a word that you should have looked at before. You'll notice that the Law of gravity isnt called the "theory of gravity" because gravity can be tested to the point where now it is proven, thus a law....duh!
"A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements."
There you go. Was that too hard for you?
You really shouldn't throw your "duh"s around when you don't even have layman knowledge about what scientific law MEANS.
Thanks for making my point for me genius, nothing in that definition have I ever disagreed with. My point is that a scientific law is greater than a "theory" because a law has to be proven over and over again by testing of different people in order to corroberate their findings to make it a law! "A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that EXPRESSES a fundamental PRINCIPLE of science". Howd they get the principle?
(sigh) I used your own definition that you gave me to make you look like an idiot and you still keep coming back for more! You should probobly stop while your way way way behind.
Please, list all the Scientific Theories that have been discarded.
And if you don't know the difference between a Scientific theory and a Hypothesis, then please save yourself the embarrassment and just don't try to come up with something.
Since you don't know, or rather don't WANT TO KNOW, what the definition of "scientific theory" is, then this is like arguing math with someone who doesn't know what "multiply" means.
Some come back when you actually know what a scientific theory IS, hick.
Plz provide the research that tells you this . reputable source like pews poll on relgion which clearly shows only 2.6 % of the american population is atheist .
Quit being a tard and produce facts instead of cartoons you little sissy boy
Yes change over time is observable . Your idiocy is observable . All bio diversity having common ancestor is a fairy tale which is not observable nor does it have good evidence . You not knowing the difference is predicted because your dumber thn a bucket of rocks .
Quit repeating rhetoric that you dont understand . Observable hahahahahahaha
God dunnit is but rhetoric atheist use when they have lost the argument. There are many many scientist who are christians and are brilliant , Listen to this video and you will hear of a few . Ken Miller , Francis Collins, James Tour are some more .
You are just repeating poor arguments that persuaded you which tells us that you are not very bright or you would have caught their ill framed arguments.
There is a vast amount of evidence for the argument that the Christian God is indeed responsible for all we see . There is no evidence for the argument that non living matter can begin to create the cosmos then intelligence then this intelliegence creates space shuttles to go back where it came from .
I dont berlieve christians are to be tolerant . I believe their tolerance allowed the dumb people to become indoctrianted into foolishness . But thats me .
If you dont know any evidences for the argument for the christian God then why are you arguing the point moron . Go find out the evidences then make a decision .
You seem to think that you short term experience on this planet qualifies you to determine what reality is and what it is not . You and your culture are drunk with arrogance . You think you know the answers to the deepest questions and yet the common cold has you beat .
Just stick to being an *Ice Road Trucker*
Jatz071 1 week ago
...that said, I, for one, do not dismiss evolution on blind faith. I once considered the possibility of evolutionary creation. But the more I study the theory of evolution and the surrounding sciences in general, the more I come to realize that even if it's guided, large-scale evolution is simply impossible. I don't reject evolution because I'm a creationist. I'm a creationist because evolution has been ruled out.
Orenotter 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@Orenotter Name a single piece of data in any biological field that contradicts evolution or supports creation.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
...but not because we want it to be. Because of the evidence of testimony. The bible has enough evidence backing it up to prove it to be the truth in a court of law. For thousands of years it's been tested and found error-free. Furthermore, the work of God is abundantly evident today in bonafide, verified, impossible-by-natural-means miracles. That's why we accept the creation account in genesis as authoritative. (continued)
Orenotter 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@Orenotter What evidence? Don't confuse evidence for natural claims in the bible for evidence for supernatural claims. Error free? It says bats are birds, Pi is 3 and that you can see all the kingdoms of earth from the top of a high mountain. 'impossible-by-natural-means miracles'
That's known as an argument from ignorance.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
Watch the mythbusters. What happens when they test a myth and it appears busted, but they have a reliable report that it actually happened? They accept the report as true and work to discover the reason for the discrepency. Do they disregard the report because it's not scientifically provable? No, they accept it as true because of the proof of testimony. That's still perfectly valid science. Yes, we Christians start with the notion that the bible is true. (continued)
Orenotter 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
Comment removed
podwel 3 weeks ago
Maybe this ignorant should look up evolution in wikipedia, see how we do know that evolution is a fact, and how it is being used in practice in science, in the medical industry and so on.: )
winterstellar 4 weeks ago
If creationists were scientists then they would be doing science. But they aren't.
They aren't publishing papers with discoveries or showing any results of their claims.
Creationists are not scientists. They are story weavers and con-artists.
matterfractalsenergy 3 months ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
Creationists start with a conclusion--that the bible is literally true.
This isn't science.
Its the opposite of science
Fortunately, Galileo wasn't deterred by the opinions of the religious proponents of dogma.....
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata - and Evolutionists start with a conclusion-that the Bible ISN'T literally true. This also isn't science. It's the opposite of science.
And I won't bring up the Catholic Church promoting heliocentrism (which was believed as fact by SCIENTISTS starting with Ptolemy) and persecuting Galileo over it if you won't bring up all the learned scientists who said we were DEFINITELY headed to a global cooling in the late 60's/early 70's. Sometimes scientists are 100% wrong. Get over it.
cpkruschke 3 months ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
@cpkruschke
100% wrong.
Simply copying my arguments doesn't make your case.
Science starts with ZERO assumptions about supernatural causes.
It measures facts.
Your superstition has nothing to do with the process.
And you are free to believe in whatever religion you choose.
Science is a different tool for a diffferent job.
odinata 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cpkruschke
"all the learned scientists who said we were DEFINITELY headed to a global cooling in the late 60's/early 70's."
You can't name any of these supposed claims, and you can't explain why the vast majority of science in the 60's and 70's as well as the 80's and 90s warned of global warming, not global cooling.
odinata 3 months ago
@cpkruschke " and Evolutionists start with a conclusion-that the Bible ISN'T literally true"
The bible is irrelevant in biological science. Along with the quran and ALL holy books.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Evolutionist".
You are a moron.
matterfractalsenergy 3 months ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
this guy is incredibly dumb.
euroszkeptikus 4 months ago
Creationists are not Scientists. Science is what scientists do and scientists don't do Creationism.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz There is a difference between an operational science which requires empiricism and origin science which is far less accurate and requires speculation . You not knowing the difference disallows any of your comments from being taken seriously .
You lose
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 4 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Why do you IDiot Creatards think you know why SCIENCE is. You people think you are experts on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, what is empirical data and speculation and assumptions. Most of you don't know the difference between religion and science / reality.
Prayer is banned, evolution is taught as fact, YOU LOST.
gregrutz 4 months ago
Evolution test: Do you find the fossils all mixed up in a flood mud layer? No
Are they always in the same order? Yes.
Observable; Yes, ring species and Nylonase
Predictions: Evolution and the Geologic Column are used to find transitional fossils like the whales in Pakistan.
Repeatable: Go dig up a fossil fat boy.
gregrutz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
scientists have discovered the consitancy of god..
after years of backbreaking resurch, scientists have found out that god is made out of bullshit and lies.
turdseeker010101 5 months ago
This guy makes a great point that athiests/evolutionists dont seem to get. What boggles my mind are all these comments that creationists arent scientists when they not only hold degrees but they give evidence to you to look at, heck they have creation museums! Go to one and look around for crying out loud! If thats not enough read one of thier blogs, papers, magazines, etc for research! You can do that with evolutionists so go do it with creationists! But you would rather mock than look.
hmcdaniel1979 6 months ago
This guy is awesome :)
Hidframe 6 months ago
"Creationists are Scientists Too"
No they aren't. If they were scientists they would be able to produce some form of research... One that doesn't include the bible. an just FYI, even if creationist could disprove evolution (rather then just misrepresent scinece like this guy does), that wouldn't make creationism accurate.
matthewlane 6 months ago
Evolution is observable, testable, makes predictions about future observations, and most importantly, is falsifiable. In REAL science if the theory failed to describe the observations then it would have to be either revised or discarded. Please produce actual controlled experimental/observational data to support your hypothesis. Show us your Precambrian bunnies. Also your list of experts is an appeal to authority, and a fallacious argument. It says nothing about the validity of your claim.
dmwalker24 7 months ago
creationists are all self proclaimed scientists....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
TheRelitard 7 months ago
There could be no gravity in other parts of the universe and we wouldn't know ;-) If gravity were a fact, we shouldn't see the accellerating expansion of the universe, but we do. To fix up the theory of gravity, we have to invent "dark energy".
Evolution is however a fact. all evidence points to it being true and there is no contradictory evidence. Evolution and the elements of evolution are testable, observable, repeatable and predictable.
drfoxcourt 8 months ago
Just another moron who doesn't understand science.
BaseCampShawn 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fact: you have no idea what you are talking about
arshsingh1984 9 months ago
Evolution is observable, testable, and repeatable. If you would like me to point out some studies I would be happy to. It would take some reading and a basic understanding of scientific method, are you up for it?
sergeantrex 10 months ago
wazooloo
If you were to rant a little less and reflect and research a little more, you would perhaps come up with more cogent conclusions.
io2bonk2 11 months ago
"gravity and the size and shape of the earth have nothing to do with evolution." first of all, you're wrong, but second of all, the point was not that they are related to evolution, but ANALOGOUS to evolution. The theory of evolution is as firmly grounded in experiment and observation as the theory of gravitation. It is also under as much scientific disagreement as the theory of gravity.
yablebab 1 year ago
@yablebab care to explain these experiments that people have done to prove evolution?
animark11 11 months ago
@animark11 There are an uncountable number of experiments which provide evidence of evolution. The information is all available on the web. Just do a search in google for "evidence for evolution" and you'll get a huge number of responses. One of the interesting ones for me are the Belyaev foxes, which have been domesticated through artificial selection. I also think the speciation of ciclids in Lake Victoria is quite enlightening. Both are examples of evolution on a human time scale.
yablebab 10 months ago
@yablebab i dont know about the other experiments you are thinking of, but the domesticated foxes have to be a completely new species to be categorized under evolution.
animark11 10 months ago
@animark11 Actually evolution by natural selection includes a broad range of consequences, of which speciation is one. The line between one species and another usually requires geographical separation, as well as differences of environments, and critically, a large amount of time for mutations to accumulate. Generally this occurs on timescales much longer than a few human generations, but by doing a google search for observed speciation, you'll find some examples that have taken place faster.
yablebab 10 months ago
I find it funny how this guy explains how the size of the earth and s on has NOTHING!!! to do with evolution, just to go on telling us how many scientists were creationists. couriously all in fields that have NOTHING!!! to do with either creationism or evolution. That's selective thinking for ya.
Elechte 1 year ago
If you believe that evolution is a "supernatural process"..... then youdon't really have any understanding of what evolution is. This guy is just like most religious people. He has no scientific backround..... but he is able to completely refute science and everyone who has contributed to it. I will agree on one thing. There are creationists out there with many high lvl degrees. But none of ... NOT A SINGLE ONE..... has yet proven creation to be true.
Ondrix 1 year ago
Maury 'discovered' ocean currents? So Columbus must have rowed then?
falchion49 1 year ago
It's funny that he mentions the Globe and Mail in this. I read from it recently and the first article I came too was about how snow finches in Quebec changed their feathers over a period of 50 years or so to combat the effects of smog off the St. Lawrence. Idiot walking around in a dilapidated recycling yard: fuck off.
Chewy8240 1 year ago
Is this satire?
It has to be....I love poes......
ThieleM 1 year ago
Fact: Evolution is observable.
Plur307 1 year ago
@Plur307 go oberve it happening,then come back.i want to see this frog turning into a prince.
sutoeben 1 year ago
@sutoeben
It's been observed multiple times. E.coli evolving the ability to digest citrate, plants evolving into new species, changes in chromosome number in fruit flies. There are too many examples to list. There are dozens of examples of scientifically observed evolution in laboratory settings. You would know this if you spent 5 minutes on google researching the subject.
Plur307 1 year ago
Why are his high numbered vids OLDER than his newer ones?
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
@DarkKnightBob1o1 There was more carbon in the atmosphere when he made the older ones.
falchion49 1 year ago
@666Luke. If by evolution you mean common descent, how would one test for, observe or repeat a proposed historical occurrence? All the evidence from breeding, Drosophile bombardment or bacteria mutation shows strict limitations. Evolution predicted an abundance of vestigial organs, which all proved to be functional, and is rapidly losing all ground on the pseudogene front too. Sorry but to me this bodes TERRIBLY ill against the predictive power of the theory.
Bumblefoot69 1 year ago
@Bumblefoot69
1) Vestigial does not mean non-functional.
Basically, vestigial just means a structure is a vestige of what it was in an evolutionary ancestor, and can no longer perform that original function: it CAN perform some function.
Human and other apes lack tails and our tail bones are reduced in size compared to what our evolutionary ancestors' tail bones were (represented today by the tails of monkeys). Thus, the human coccyx is vestigial, even though it performs a function.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Bumblefoot69
How do you test common ancestry? You make predictions and then test to see whether or not they pan out. "If evolution were true, we would expect to find X." Then you go investigate to learn whether or not X is in fact the case.
Dr. Kenneth Miller gives an example of such a process based on human chromosome 2.
watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Bumblefoot69
Why do manatees - fully aquatic mammals with no hindlimbs - have rudimentary pelvises and even vestigial hipsockets????
Why have we found fossils of manatee ancestors with 4 full-sized limbs, more-recent fossils of manatee ancestors with 4 limbs but with the hind 2 reduced in size, and even more-recent fossils with no hind limbs?
MACROevolution explains these facts easily, and unlike Intelligent Design Creationism, explains them in a non-ad hoc manner.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Bumblefoot69
You had a tail as an embryo: why?
You had pharyngeal slits (loosely but inaccurately called "gill slits") for a brief period when you were an embryo: why?
You started off with a very fish-like arrangement of aortae and aortic arches, which then required much remodeling to end up in a human-appropriate arrangment: why?
Birds have genes for making teeth: why?
MACROevolution explains these (and many other) facts easily, and unlike ID Creationism, in a non-ad hoc manner
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Bumblefoot69
Whale and dolphin embyros begin forming hind limbs: why?
Whale and dolphin embryos develope a full coat of hair, just to lose it before birth: why?
Whale and dolphin embryos don't form their blowholes at the top of the head, but rather first develop 2 nostrils just above the mouth (like four-legged land mammals have) and they must migrate to the top of the head a fuse: why?
We have fossils documenting the transition of four-legged land mammals into whales: why?
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Hjerne. The less ad-hoc, the greater the explanatory scope, power, resilience to testability etc, the stronger a theory; and the converse is true, in ever-gradated shades. The theory predicts a tree of emergence from simple to complex; the evidence shows a bush of fossil complexity right down to the start without the vast array of transitionals that were predicted by Darwin. Hence Goldschmidt's monster, punctuated equilibrium, panspermia and a host of other auxiliaries. The theory is not strong
Bumblefoot69 1 year ago
@Bumblefoot69
There are TONS of transitional fossils.
We have fossils documenting the transition from certain fish to amphibians; from certain reptiles to mammals; from other certain reptiles to birds; and from certain four-legged land animals to whales. All of the major vertebrate groups are linked to another vertebrate group by transitionals, with no major vertebrate group being unliked to the overall vertebrate branch.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@Bumblefoot69
No, the fossil record shows increasing maximum complexity over time, just as one would expect were evolution true.
In order of strata age, we find the 1st prokayotes; then the 1st eukaryotes; then the 1st multicellular eukaryotes; then the 1st bilaterally symmetrical animals; then the 1st fish; then the 1st amphibians; then the 1st reptiles; then the 1st mammals; then the 1st primates; then the 1st apes; then the 1st humans.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@CanadianPlanter. A few things wrong here. First you've made an error in thinking, the genetic fallacy; briefly that is explaining the means by which a belief or conclusion came to exist in order to cast doubt on the validity of the conclusion itself. Moreover all people approach evidence with some sort of presuppositional schema, evolutionists with the philosophy of naturalism, theists etc., with that of telos. Neither are assumptions that scientific statements can verify.
Bumblefoot69 1 year ago
Anyone trying to claim that creationists are scientists, does NOT understand what science is.
a1mint 1 year ago
*lists random, ancient scientists*
Cool; some of those believed in alchemy; let’s all accept that too!
666luke999 1 year ago
"Evolution is not a fact"
Fact, this guy doesn’t know what he is talking about.
"A junior high school student can observe gravity"
A junior high school student can observe evolution too
"Evolution is not testable, observable, repeatable or predictable"
Actually it’s all of those and that is why it is science. This is also why creationism is not.
Note: a person’s religion or opinions or ideas mean little in science unless they are evidenced, see below.
666luke999 1 year ago
"Creationists are Scientists Too" Most ridiculous quote I've seen this year
Holdington 1 year ago
@Holdington Why? Where are all of the billions of step by step ape to human fossils we should be finding all over the place in various layers of strata? Did your flying spaghetti monster eat them all?
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne The problem I have with creationists is that whenever science doesn't have a clear-cut answer to everything creationsists say "There is a God, he created it" when, in reality, saying that is an easy way just to say "I don't know the answer either but I won't put time into finding anything out". How can a text written between 2000 and 1500 years ago have any scientific answers? What makes the bible right and science wrong? Just answer me that last question.
Holdington 1 year ago
@Holdington Because nothing as reguards to the world (taking away all supernatural events of course) contradicts anything that science says about the world today. For example, circumsizeing babies on the eighth day; today it's known that the blood clotting properties in a baby are at their peak on the eighth day after birth. How would they have known that back then? It's not about the Bible having scientific answers. It's about the fact that it doesn't contradict the answers given today.
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne Well, science is about testing theories and examining evidence. Science gives us the most probable answers through evidence found. The bible, religion and God provides answers through faith, not evidence. Just believing some God created someting does not make it so. I can believe the are unicorns and I can write books about it but does that make unicorns exist? No, cause there's no evidence for it. I believe in evidence, not superstition.
Holdington 1 year ago
Bringing up Newton, Pascal, Joule, Kepler, Galileo, et al., lends no credence to the arguments that creationists are great scientists. The theory of evolution was not expounded upon during those men's lives. Would you also suggest that the germ theory of disease is bullshit because Newton didn't know anything about it?
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
I'll tell ya what's getting old and it's not the gene gun, it's the whining and character assassination on Creationists. It's like "here's why evolution can't be possible based on this observable science" and then it's Cry-Cry some more from anti-creationists. Give it up already... if you don't agree with the man, fine. At least stop crying about it and have a civil debate.
ehflipya 1 year ago
Are you... real in this vid or waht ?
baltusd 1 year ago
1. All species produce more offspring than necessary to replace the species.
2. Not all offspring survive.
3. Offspring differ from parents (variation).
4. Species exist that did not exist in the past.
5. Species existed that do not currently exist.
.
What of the above is not a fact? The above describes the fact of evolution. Evolution is a FACT!
The THEORY of evolution explains(!) why(!) species(!) change over time based on the evolutionary facts described above.
wimahlers 1 year ago
Juby you are a joke! Come on man you mention 4 post Darwin scientists and try to pass that off as science in the your cooky creationist realm. How many times must I here about the gene gun it is really getting old. What then is the application for all of this creationist science that you are doing? You are a very likeable chap but you fail miserably in this video
zappadogg 1 year ago
This guy does not have even a basic grasp of science, just like Mr. Goodyear. Most people who want to disprove evolution don't actually examine the evidence and THEN form their opinion. They start with their opinion (usually God created the world) and then they make their examination of the evidence fit their bias. That is not the way science works.
canadianplanter 1 year ago 17
@canadianplanter
Oops! your Bias is showing...and your ignorance. Evolutionists start with the premise that God did not and build their opinions and consensual non empirical science on that. We all have presuppositions which are based on our worldview. Therefore you made a statement against the exact same approach taken by evolutionism as well as creationists. You should think your argument through a little better.
apathy7170 7 months ago
@apathy7170 There is no such word as evolutionist, any more than there is a word describing people as gravitationalists. There are people who accept evidence based science and then there are creationists.
Starting out with the assumption that there is no god is not a bias. There is no reason nor evidence to begin with that assumption, so simply examining the evidence without assuming God, a unicorn, or a flying elephant exists is not a bias.
canadianplanter 7 months ago
@canadianplanter
No such word as evolutionist....I suppose you do not believe that evolutionism is a word....that is the silliest rebuttal I believe that I have enjoyed in quite sometime. And yes, a worldview of God or of no god, is a presuppositional bias toward how we view and evaluate historical evidence....since NOONE was at the creation, NOONE has anything but historical evidence to use to form a hypothesis about origins...not theories. Theories must be repeatable, origins is not.
apathy7170 7 months ago
@apathy7170 A worldview of no god is not a bias, it is the logical starting point to make observations of our universe. Just the same as a worldview of no fairies, unicorns, or demons. To assume that these might exist before gathering any data would be a biased hypothesis not based on anything to begin with. I take it you are not a scientist.
canadianplanter 7 months ago
@canadianplanter
Why is it more logical to believe that everything came from nothing as it is to believe in a designer? BTW, I have a degree in science, and I am a creationist...oh my, we do exist, and we understand that a persons starting point and presuppositions (bias) will effect how they take historical evidence and make it conform to their presuppositions...it doesn't take a scientist to figure that out...anyways.
apathy7170 7 months ago
@apathy7170 Who said anything about everything coming from nothing? We are talking about evolution, which is a process of biological development, not things appearing out of nothing. If you have a degree in science, then you'll understand that evolution is backed up by 150 years of data and evidence where as the only thing backing up creationism is a Bronze-Aged book.
The only reason anyone would ever believe in creationism is religion, because ALL the unbiased evidence is against it.
canadianplanter 7 months ago
@apathy7170
You have a "degree in science"? Well pray tell, what degree is it? What schoold id you go to? Within WHAT FIELD do you have this degree?
Hjernespreng 7 months ago
I can't believe there are even people who argue about evolution when it is so established scientifically. Next, the people with the religious agenda will be arguing about how the sky isn't blue.
Notice how creationists only question science when it threatens their religion. When scientists tell them a plane will fly or a medicine will work, they are fine with it and trust scientists. But suddenly when it is evolution, all scientists are wrong. Pretty funny.
canadianplanter 7 months ago
@canadianplanter
Evolutionism is a faulty hypothesis. You will only look at the evolutionists viewpoint. I have studied evolution, from grade school through advanced secular degrees; it is all that I had studied. It has been found wanting....and a mathematical impossibility, not just an improbability, because the improbability is so enormous and would have to be repeated for every living organism, heavy elements, DNA structure, hydrologic, nervous, reproductive systems, etc. Not possible.
apathy7170 7 months ago
@apathy7170 Don't know what I can say to you if you think evolution is false. You're 150 years behind reality in science if you think so. It has been established and supported overwhelmingly by many areas of scientific endeavor and none of the so-called "problems" raised by creationists with a religious agenda are real or scientific. If you want to live in the dark ages, that is your choice.
canadianplanter 7 months ago
@apathy7170 Having a degree in a scientific field does not make one literate of how science functions as an epistemology. There is no evidence of a designer. This of course does not prove that one doesn't exist, but it certainly doesn't support the hypothesis either. All actual data in the field of Biology conforms to the predictions made by Evolution. I know this because I am a Biologist. Believe me when I say, If anyone could disprove the theory it would be Nobel prize time.
dmwalker24 7 months ago
This guy is funny and makes good points. If you don't believe in the Bible, of course you aren't going to agree with his views. Many good scientists don't believe in evolution, and many many many more scientists believe in a Creator, even if they do believe in evolution. After doing some research, I found the evidence for evolution to be much weaker than it was presented to be in the US public school textbooks my teachers used.
BiblicalLiteracy 1 year ago
Great rant!
cybor32 1 year ago
1) Gravity and the size/shape of the earth do have something to do with evolution. If the earth were larger then the force of gravity would be greater, meaning that humans would most likely be tetra pods because of the increased force acting on your bodies.
2) If evolution is not testable, observable, repeatable or predictable then I'm assuming that the thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers written on the subject are made up.
3) A junior high student also knows that evolution is a fact
HeshMetalhead 1 year ago
A typical redneck creatard.
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
4:00. The only thing that comes out of debating creationists is that you feed their delusion that there is controversy in the scientific community about evolution. First, I would say you have to show that creationism is science before you can ever enter into a debate about its scientific merits.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
3:35. If they are quite good at carrying out good science, then why have none of them done any research into creationism? All the scientists you listed have done very respectable research in fields outside of biology. There research does not even deal with creationism. Moreover, that was the point of Dr. Alters quote. So again I ask, where is the peer-reviewed science about creationism, not just science done in physics by someone that happens to be a creationist.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
3:14. Still arguing from authority. Moreover, even worse about this is that most of the people named did not even have an idea of evolution by natural selection since it was not even proposed before they died.
3:20. Creationists and alchemists. It is funny how people always forget that aspect of those past great scientists.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
1:55. Well, by all means, submit your creationists research to peer-review and show that creationists can do good science. Nevertheless, first you are going to have to come up with a model for how creationism works.
1:59. Argument from authority. Again, just because they are creationists and do science does not mean the science they do is creation science. Show the research they have done for creation science.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
1:13. So is evolution.
1:17. Again, so is evolution. Moreover, a junior high-school student learns about Newtonian physics.
1:26. Wrong. Yes it is. I created a video entitled Evolution: Good Science which goes over these very points.
1:42. Wrong again. There is a flat earth society, which is founded by a group of creationist that holds onto a literal reading of the bible.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
0:48 that quote is correct. Evolution is a fact. It can be observed and tested in both the lab and in the field.
1:03. Of course they have nothing to do with evolution, the quote did not say they did. They are just using those as observed facts that one would be foolish to deny because of religious dogma.
1:10. Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in a population over time. That is the fact of evolution. It is both tested and observed in both the lab and field. Get over it.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
The distinction is important:
Evolution is an observable fact.
The Theory is our explanation of the mechanism behind the fact.
Also note that Juby lists people who are as qualified to answering evo questions as a bartender. Gene gun inventor? MRI inventor? Oceanograph?
Funny thing is, "Int. Adreßregister der Sektenarbeit" translates to "int. address register of sect work", an organisation helping people to leave sects.
Then Kepler & Co. Everybody was a creationist a few hundred years ago.
khrismuc 1 year ago
It is no obvious contradiction that experts in fields other than evo-devo have personal beliefs that differ from atheism.
Plus, EVOLUTION is a fact.
The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a scientific theory.
And the question by Alders doesn't imply that gravity has anything to do with evolution, etc.; he merely points out that evolution is a fact as established as a round earth or gravity.
Note: gravity = fact, as much as evolution = fact.
Theory of gravity = scientific theory. Theory of E. = scient. th.
khrismuc 1 year ago
Im not sure who this Jerry Bergman fellow is supposed to be. He apparently wasn't worthy of a page on wikipedia and a search on google uncoveres nothing but one of his long rants about Darwinism being racist. Oh, but apparently he's God's gift to the mid-west United States. Is this really the best that you Creationist douchebags can do? Find yourself a young earth creationist steven hawkings, then ill be impressed.
jacobins3000 1 year ago
testable:comparing the brain use of Neanderthals to the modern homosapien (from 3% usage to 10%)
observable:the process takes far longer than one life but we could see people begin to be born with only 4 toes since the pinky toe is useless
repeatable: haha not worthy of explanation
predictable: as mentioned earlier it is predicted the human race will have 4 toes per foot since the pinky toe has no true purpose
god makes me lol so much thanks for this hilarious joke video
Dickalas0118 1 year ago
I'd love to see Thunderfoot go up against this guy. Foot'd get creamed.
Orenotter 1 year ago
haha, just cause you walk around with a video camera yelling FACT, means squat.
The comparison Dr. Alders was making was THEORY of Evolution is a THEORY, just like the THEORY of Gravity or the Atomic THEORY.
you can't see or observe atoms or quarks, yet creationists don't really seem to care about the Atomic theory either!!
moron, go to university and get a science education
arp76 1 year ago
He uses "facts" as a lame anology for evolution and then turns around and uses "facts" as an anology for his opinions on creationism.
We exist, ergo goddidit.....uh no. Evolution doesn't deal in a god pro or con. These fundies can't seem to comprehend that one at all.
Albtraumen 1 year ago
Creationist..... Delusionist is what this funny little main is!!!
SunsetBog 2 years ago
@SunsetBog
Evolutionist = Delusionist
scientist= new shaman
theory that can't be seen or observable = new myth
Dudex58 1 year ago
Holocaust deniers are more honest and have more intellectual capacity than yectards.
Sometimes I still wonder if this whole creationists movement is one bad practical joke.
LaingGod 2 years ago
Look up "e coli long-term experiment".
Evolution before your eyes.
Like good science, the truth is elegant.
nemirn 2 years ago
This man is brilliant, witty and fun to watch. Apparently, there are some half-wits who respond here who have no idea what the creation/evolution debate is about. Of course, to actually become informed one must have an open mind, which many comments on this page lack. Go ahead, stay stupid, have your opinions .... it is America ... dummies.
JoeJohnstonMail 2 years ago
That's a fallacy known as appeal to ridicule, trying to say someone seems less than for the sole reason that they hold an opposing viewpoint, and it this case it's not really a matter of viewpoint, it's a matter of evidence, all of which supports evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Sometimes I just feel embarrassed for you.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Pardon my opinion but you're an idiot.
Also, evolution is also observable and measurable and testable and predictable you just lack the mental capacity to read the relevant data because you're a moron. Really truly a moron.
And Dr. Alters never implied that Creationists can't do good science. Never! It's interesting how you hear what you want to hear, dipshit.
cheerbunny 2 years ago
"Creation Scientist" that's an oxymoron! I guess the word "moron" comes from that!
merrywhiterose 2 years ago
You rock Ian!!
9pt9 2 years ago
Golly, kids, I just can't find any scientific documentation of one TYPE of life transforming into another. No evidence of DNA being added, which one would NEED for "evolution" to occur. Now, DNA can be LOST (drug-resistant bacteria, for example), but it is never gained, so far as modern science is aware. Some have tried desperately to create a living cell from nonliving matter, and failed badly every time. When you point all this out, you get lots of hate, but never any proof of evolution!
3dollarme 2 years ago
A clueless idiot ranting about something he doesn't know shit about... yep, this sure is youtube.
wownov83 2 years ago
Truth.
nemirn 2 years ago
Thats so right! I want to know how heavy stones you use when you stone your kids when they don't obey you, because I have a hard time picking what stones I use. You know, when I'm stoning everyone as the bible tells me. ^^
Wuscar 2 years ago
Evolution IS testable, observable, repeatable and ESPECIALLY predictable.
Evolution is actually one of the strongest scientific theories in the world.
Hjernespreng 2 years ago
Actually, Hjernespreng, it's not. I assume when you say "evolution," you're referring to adaptation, or micro-evolution. That IS observable, and maybe you could argue testable, but it'd be a stretch to say it's repeatable or predictable. Now if you're talking about macro-evolution, or an animal changing into another type of animal, then, Dude, unless you're planning to live for a million years, it's definitely NOT observable.
HeMadeYouSpecial 2 years ago
Reminds me of this
watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=5
Hjernespreng 2 years ago
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Micro or Macro, evolution is the same. Evolution is observed through fossil remains and chemistry. Your knowledge base is crippled by your psychotic need to support the claims of people who see invisible sky-daddies.
Christheatheist1 2 years ago
Then why is it still a theory and by the way please show me your evidence thank you.
qwuad61 2 years ago
Hjernespreng 2 years ago 15
@Hjernespreng
if the law of evolution is a theory why do you kepp presenting it as a fact???
IAreTheKingOfAll 1 year ago
@IAreTheKingOfAll
Evolution isn't a scientific law. How could it be?
Why am I saying "theory" AND "fact"?
Because it is both.
It is a scientific theory (which is as high as anything can get in science; no, "law" is NOT higher), yet it is observed and tested. It isn't "rivaled" by anything else that can be tested and is therefore factual. That is what it means to be a fact.
Hjernespreng 1 year ago 4
@Hjernespreng
Saying something is a fact doesnt make it one just because other people that believe like you do says it is....geesh. In order to be a fact it has to be tested over and over and over again preferably by others as well so they can check you out to see if what they do comes out to be the same as your results. Only then is it a fact not a theory and yes a "law" is greater than a "theory" in science for it implies that a thing has been tested and empirically true.....duh!
hmcdaniel1979 6 months ago
@hmcdaniel1979
No, "law" isn't greater. And the fact that you think it is shows how you have no idea of what the definition of scientific law is, hence, you are babbling without knowing jackshit about the topic.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Wow do you actually hear what your saying? I cant believe I'm responding to such idiocy but let me reiterate what I just said: "yes a "law" is greater than a "theory" in science for it implies that a thing has been TESTED and empirically true". This time I capitlalized a word that you should have looked at before. You'll notice that the Law of gravity isnt called the "theory of gravity" because gravity can be tested to the point where now it is proven, thus a law....duh!
hmcdaniel1979 6 months ago
@hmcdaniel1979
"A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements."
There you go. Was that too hard for you?
You really shouldn't throw your "duh"s around when you don't even have layman knowledge about what scientific law MEANS.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Thanks for making my point for me genius, nothing in that definition have I ever disagreed with. My point is that a scientific law is greater than a "theory" because a law has to be proven over and over again by testing of different people in order to corroberate their findings to make it a law! "A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that EXPRESSES a fundamental PRINCIPLE of science". Howd they get the principle?
hmcdaniel1979 6 months ago
@hmcdaniel1979
They get the principle through TESTING! Do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself and leave the comments to the adults Hjernespreng.
hmcdaniel1979 6 months ago
@hmcdaniel1979
Wow, you actually need to have it explained to you like a baby:
watch?v=S2xhPgDuUlA
You really do have no idea about the differences between theory and law.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
(sigh) I used your own definition that you gave me to make you look like an idiot and you still keep coming back for more! You should probobly stop while your way way way behind.
hmcdaniel1979 6 months ago
@hmcdaniel1979
No, you didn't use the definition, as you quite apparently didn't see what it said.
But really, you are scientifically illiterate to the level under a middle schooler and don't understand basic definitions.
I just survived a massacre and have more important things to tend to than to knock my head against the brock wall that is your stupid head.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Evolution = change over time is a fact
all the bio diversity is the result of evolution is not a fact .
Countless theories have been discarded plz list all the laws that have been discarded .
Seems like you guys are all tards . LOL
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 6 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
No, you are referring to "countless" hypotheses.
Please, list all the Scientific Theories that have been discarded.
And if you don't know the difference between a Scientific theory and a Hypothesis, then please save yourself the embarrassment and just don't try to come up with something.
Just end it here.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
You're an idiot
Google top 10 theoies that turned out to be false
Lets see who saves themselves from embarassement LOL IDIOT
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 6 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
eh, yeah, I did that, and all that was listed was then HYPOTHESES which popularly have "theory" slapped on them.
They weren't scientific theories at any point, even if some of them managed to attract a lot of attention.
Oh and guess what WASN'T listed there: The theory of Evolution. So your own google search bites your claims in the ass.
Yeah, I have a feeling that you're a "poe", and that you are just screwing with me.
If so, excellent trolling, mate! ;D
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
They were popular theories in their time with evidences for their argument .
If you cannot accept logic and reason on the simple things i sure will not waste my time with you.
They were theories idiot .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 6 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
Scientific theories aren't popularity contests, moron.
Since you don't know, or rather don't WANT TO KNOW, what the definition of "scientific theory" is, then this is like arguing math with someone who doesn't know what "multiply" means.
Some come back when you actually know what a scientific theory IS, hick.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Google cold fusion theory idiot ,
hahahahahahahahaha
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Google Can scientific theories be proven wrong you freakin moron
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 6 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
Waitwaitwait.
You are showing here that you ignored my previous posts, as I already stated I DID google that.
So it is quite obvious that you are just joking with me.
Either that, or you're retarded to a level where this is a utter waste of time. Good thing you're becoming a minority.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
HAHAHAHAH YOU HAD TO GOOGLE
WAITWAIT WAIT AND YOU STILL REMAIN STUPID .
A CARTOON CHARACTER lol Look at pews poll on religion to find atheism declining to only 2.6% of population . MORON
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
yeah, now you convinced me that you're just a fake-troll.
Btw, non-believers make up almost 19% of the American population, and those are just the REGISTERED ones, not counting the closet atheists.
And in Europe, atheism is becoming dominant.
Hjernespreng 5 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Plz provide the research that tells you this . reputable source like pews poll on relgion which clearly shows only 2.6 % of the american population is atheist .
Quit being a tard and produce facts instead of cartoons you little sissy boy
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
Why are you bickering about atheism?
Atheism=/= Evolution.
In fact, the MAJORITY of those who accept the Evolutionary theory are theists.
Hjernespreng 5 months ago
@Hjernespreng
O boy lets put your brain on trial. Most people who believe in evolution are theist which means WHAT?
part 2
"atheism = evolution " Probably but still a strawman because i never stated that nor need that statement in my argument .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
1. It means that there are religious people who aren't a pack of fundamentalist retards who reject observable reality.
2. I said it because you started bickering about atheism, which has nothing to do with Evolutions, which just happens to be the topic here.
I suppose just turning your computer on puts your brain on a trial.
Hjernespreng 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hjernespreng "I suppose just turning your computer on puts your brain on a trial."
I have had that experience with Windows, yes! :-)
VictorLaszloLives 5 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Yes change over time is observable . Your idiocy is observable . All bio diversity having common ancestor is a fairy tale which is not observable nor does it have good evidence . You not knowing the difference is predicted because your dumber thn a bucket of rocks .
Quit repeating rhetoric that you dont understand . Observable hahahahahahaha
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
oj, yes, you are a fake troll.
Nice troll, sir, nice troll! :)
I salute you!
Hjernespreng 5 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Thank you, but you should bough down as you exit.
That would be the proper procedure.
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
The science doesn't agree with you.
Nor does the DNA.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
Origin science is not a working science . It doesnt rely on empiricism so it is vulnerable to huge mistakes .
Your point being????????
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
"God Dunnit" isn't a good substitute for the science you can't understand.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
God dunnit is but rhetoric atheist use when they have lost the argument. There are many many scientist who are christians and are brilliant , Listen to this video and you will hear of a few . Ken Miller , Francis Collins, James Tour are some more .
You are just repeating poor arguments that persuaded you which tells us that you are not very bright or you would have caught their ill framed arguments.
AND YOU DID NOT
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
"God dunnit" is the only answer creationists can use since they REJECT the facts.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
God dunnit VS non living matter had a pathway to building the space shuttle .
Any sane person would choose God did it .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
Dont blame you
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
Humans made the space shuttle.
Not non-living matter, and not your God.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
What made the humans you imbecille . I repeat , You believe non living matter had a pathway to build observers of itself and the space shuttle .
Idiots never think past their noses
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
What do YOU think made the space shuttle?
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
Men, But what made men ?
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
Your invisible Hebrew sky daddy?
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
There is a vast amount of evidence for the argument that the Christian God is indeed responsible for all we see . There is no evidence for the argument that non living matter can begin to create the cosmos then intelligence then this intelliegence creates space shuttles to go back where it came from .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
There is ZERO evidence for your magical vampire god.
ZERO.
And that's exactly what you have presented.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
O dumb dumb little boy of course there is evidence . .
You just dont know what evidence means and some bad men (smarter than you) fooled you with that statement .
Quit being dumb .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
Interesting that you would rather break league with Christ and slander me rather than give your evidence.......
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
I dont berlieve christians are to be tolerant . I believe their tolerance allowed the dumb people to become indoctrianted into foolishness . But thats me .
If you dont know any evidences for the argument for the christian God then why are you arguing the point moron . Go find out the evidences then make a decision .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
You seem to think that what yo "believe" is more important than reality....
This is why you are failing.....
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
You seem to think that you short term experience on this planet qualifies you to determine what reality is and what it is not . You and your culture are drunk with arrogance . You think you know the answers to the deepest questions and yet the common cold has you beat .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
You seem to think your religious OPINIONS can replace scientific facts.
You would be dead wrong.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata
My beliefs on God and scientific facts match up 100% . Your belief that scientific speculation is equal to scientific facts is stupid
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 5 months ago