You can criticize Evolution all day long, but the counter-argument to saying that Evolution isn't (or fails to add to) a credible explanatory theory for the beginning of time/space/existence is that Christians & believers cannot explain where god came from. You'll say he's always been around, and atheists can just as easily posit that a vacuum or void with no sound, light, etc. has been around forever. No one can *prove* how something (not even god) has just been in existence forever
and the really crappy thing is that the Bible, with its many versions, authors, interpretations, and fairy-tale-ish nature, only seems to provide Christians and believers (who are likely otherwise rational people, with most other matters) with an entitlement to ignorance, an explanation that has nor requires proof. Such is the tenacity and perpetuity of self-rationalizing belief.
And I mean ignorance in its literal sense, not in the negatively connoted sense that exists today.
The basic problem is that NONE of the people who attack evolution have actually studied it. If they did, they would of course see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age.
I thought this video was on evolution, when it starts getting into cosmology you know that the person who made the video knows nothing about evolution.
evolution in 5 easy steps:
1) Organisms reproduce
2) The reproduction is varied
3) some varients confer an environmental advantage
4) they will be more likely to reproduce
5) over time there is a net change in allele frequency
which of the above have not been directly observed
i wouldn't expect you'd know this since you're probably an advocate of ID or a YEC, but evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe or earth. It is simply a theory of how animals have adapted and changed over time to better suit their environments and have changed intellectually and physically. Perhaps you shouldn't bash something that you don't even know what it is.
@PinkMilk86 Actually, there are many classifications of evolution: cosmic evolution (big bang), chemical evolution (higher elements from hydrogen), stellar evolution (stars & planets), organic evolution (life from non-living material), macro evolution (new kinds of animals) & micro evolution (variations within kinds of animals). The only one there is proof for is micro evolution. This video tries to highlight pitfalls in the other theories. Perhaps you shouldnt bash what you dont know...
Wow, More than the first half of this video didn't even relate to evolution, which tells me this guy doesn't even know what evolution actually is, he's just a parrot.
The last thirdish part of the video contained many quotes saying evolution is false. But as for actual things this guy has against evolution:
Uh, What? Instead of just parroting what people say, take an actual look at the fossil record. There are plenty of Transitional fossils.
Dr. Robert Andrews Millikan: How about actually looking the guy up before relaying these from creationist sites. First of all, he has NOTHING to say on evolution, hes a physicist. Second of all, you cannot prove ANYTHING 100%, the evidence points towards evolution.
Hell, I encourage people to be "Skeptical" but not down right stupid. Carefully examine all claims, not just evolution. Now back to that list, which only two of the people on it that were qualified biologists who actually reject evolution were present. The rest were either not affiliated with biology, or accepted evolution.
macro evolution never has and never will be observed because its a lie used to controll you.
please please open your mind. dont listen to thunderfoot, he's not a genius. "
No good mutations? What about the mutation that caused certain people to be immune to the black plague? I mean seriously, have you looked at evolution at all? In a non-fundamental religious standpoint? The whole "No good mutations" BS has been overdone and is incorrect.
Here's a classic example of more than half of the people bashing their heads against science, he offers NO evidence, no concrete claims, all he says is it's wrong, it doesn't match his fundamentalist world view therefore it cannot be right.
Or the mutations of bacteria that now can only survive on plastics which we invented in the last 100 years? Oh don't tell me god just made them to help get rid of the rubbish.
yes it would be evolution. If he lived in a place where only cardboard was available to eat then he would have the advantage and be able to pass that onto the next generation.
Wow. Evolution does not talk about how life began...it talks about how we developed.
One more thing: the stars CONSTANTLY die and new ones are born. This causes huge differences in our galaxy; our own sun changes intensity all the time; our orbit changes from quite close to a bit far; the moon as once much closer than it is now and is still moving away; most of the land is either too hot or too cold; I am sure you have indoor heating. Your video is one of the worst examples of lying around.
Just because we don't know what happened at the beginning of it all does not mean religion knows what does. It also doesn't mean there is a all mighty god.
How wonderful, an entire video showcasing one of the most widely used and despicably dishonest creationist tactics. They should call this video "Quote-miner's Delite."
Evolution is a theory of the diversity of species, not the beginning of life itself. You are "quote mining" from sources that you choose, in order to convince people that evolution is not accepted fact by science, which is not true.
Non-theism cuts the legs our from under ethical absolutes and the Laws of Thought, thus the non-theist cannot, with epistemic rights, appeal to reason or morality. Non-theism has not the universal tools to underwrite the Laws of Thought and ethical absolutes. Hence non-theism is self-contradictory.
You need only listen to the music & observe the abundance & beauty of life & firmament in this video to to realise that, yes indeed, there is a loving God.
Hey ppl tell me something. If the evolution was wrong, does it prove the "god theory" as right one? If it was wrong there would be no real theory on this, there is no proof for god's exsistance even then.
This is quote mining utopia. Give context to quotes otherwise you appear at best underhanded and at worst incapable of understanding what "context" means.
This video kills me. "Know scientist has created another form of life from nothing" Uhh of course it may be something only time can create such as oil, or diamonds. Time is a big factor dumb fucks. Not hundreds, thousands, or millions of yrs., but billions.
Hey guys, god is in the gaps of our understanding. Phew glad i cleared that up.
If we used that logic 100 years ago you would have thought that our body's resemble our parents because god wills it, nothing to do with DNA at all...
Why was the first four and a half minutes about subjects completely unrelated to evolution? "Holy shit, we don't know how the Universe began! That invalidates the process of random mutations and natural selection creating evolution!" Seems to be the argument. Which is a little... odd. Same for abiogenesis. Evolution assumes life already exists, so you can't use a lack of understanding of abiogenesis to disprove it. You wasted 4.5 minutes of your video.
firstly, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, its nothing to do with biology for that matter, secondly steven hawkings des not beleive that the universe hada begining, creatiionits onlyever seem to copy/paste quotes, the full quote is somewhere in 'great atheist quotes'
With respect, these verses indicate specifically, that light and night and day were observable before the Sun was created that is presuming there is a chronological coherence which I expect the Bible is purported to have. The 'out of context' counter argument is one I have readily encountered but has never been adequately explained. Perehaps you could put it IN context for me.
Yes but in Genesis 1:3, and I qoute, "Then God commanded, let there be light-and light appeared." Genesis 1:5 states that "Evening passed and morning came-that was the first day." Genesis 1:16 states,"So God made the two larger lights, the sun......"
This is stating that, presumably natural light, existed and could be observed on Earth before the Sun was 'created'. We all know that the only way night and day can exist is if the Sun exists to bring this about.
With the greatest of respect, you did. I am quoting you here - "but disproven in many areas". I hope I made myself clear this time regarding monkeys and apes (laughing).
Now, faith is a belief or trust in something without logical proof. Just because evolutionary theory is not 100% proven does not consitute a theory that is completely devoid of any logical proof-There is a wealth of logical proof. So belief in something that HAS logical proof would cease to be faith at all. This is how I don't have faith in that sense. There may have been evidence or a lack of evidence which have negated evolutionary theory but this does not mean it has been disproven.
Please, come on, evolution is NOT religion it is science for goodness sake. Science and religion are at two different ends of the spectrum. To clarify, they are absolutely not the same thing - I am perfectly willing to change my views on evolution if new scientific evidence arises to superecede the current zeitgeist - You are not of that line of thought.
I always found it odd to criticise evolution as being faith. I thought the religious saw faith as a virtue. Notice that you'll never hear a scientist explain that relgion is simply another form of science, and therefore incorrect.
@soloman81 There is a lot of evidence that supports the idea of creationism - even from the evidence that supposedly supports the evolutionist idea that everything came into existence by itself. So do not say my belief is not based on science but only on faith. And since evolution cannot be scientifically proven, you do need faith to believe in it…
My apologies regarding my second point. What I meant to say was that we are not monkeys, we are apes - just like gorillas etc. Monkeys and apes are two different classifications of primate. This is called taxonomy and determines how organisms are classified by scientists. So, you are a super advanced ape but not a monkey. A monkey is a non-human primate. Now, where in 'The Origin Of Species' does Darwin give moral and ethical advice pertaining to natural selection for example?
I took the liberty of looking up the word propaganda: "deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread" Now, this is not the objective of science, as a process of enquiry. What possible benefit could science acquire by deliberate spread of deceptive information? Science is impartial and is concerned with the TRUTH of something.
This proves nothing. As flawed as evolution may be, it still doesn't compare to the ridiculous theory of creation, which I might add, has no proof whatsoever.
It seems that you view evolution as a horrible insult to your dignity as a human being. You don't like to think of yourself as being related to primates. You see it is this view that seems to obscure some people's understanding of the topic. Evolution is not an attempt at providing us with an ethical code for life, but merely a scientific endeavour into seeking objective truth about our nature and origin.
we dont believe in evolution becuase it doesnt make sense. its pushed on people as fact and none of it is. that right there is ample proof of desperate people trying to descredit god because they are too afraid to face the consequences of their actions.
Now, regarding your second comment, Darwinism is not propaganda and you would actually be a super advanced primate, not a monkey-they are two seperate things.
I do not have 'faith' in evolution in the sense you presumably have in creationism. As a scientist, I don't think it is of benefit to just have faith. Now, those are your words and not mine about being dumb. I never said you were dumb.
Hey Physmaniac31, If one of your quotes is wrong,then it is proof enough to dismiss all the other quotes.Colin patterson was misquoted.The thing about fossil fuels was misquoted in 1978 when Patterson sent a letter to a creationist called Luther Sunderland.One of the basic things i learnt in my philosophy class is not to trust quotes.Even so,quotes dont prove anything about a downfall in evolution.
When there are holes in scientific theories, its always a pleasure to see that the religious can fill any unknowns with so much evidence and facts.. Its stange though when they think that filling these holes or finding them if you will should count for something more than another laugh from ppl like me; atheists.
I originally clicked this link cause I was curious as to see wether this would provide a proper dispelling of EVOLUTION, but instead it just showed some lame C.G.I. of planets and the universe from a cosmological perspective, 8 minutes is worth a few hundred thousand dollars to bill gates, if this video isnt worth enough of his time, why would it worth enough of yours?
Oh and this video just so happens to admit that the miller experiment created RNA, which is like dna but can catalyze cell reactions. It is a bit less stable which would have increased mutations as a bonus. Bet they just forgot to mention that
There was no evidence of any fallacies of evolution here? just the same well its a low chance argument that has been brought up and smashed over and over. Not only that but the big bang IS NOT EVOLUTION PEOPLE THATS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SCIENCE. more over scientists have created organic matter from nonorganic in the urey experiment
Why, when faced with indisputable evidence of microevolution, do creationists continue to assert that macroevolution cannot happen? It is logical to assume that macroevolution can happen. Granted, there are holes in evolutionary theory, as there are in most theories, but seriously, screw you.
Well I think microevolution IS proof of macroevolution. It is a fact that dark skin results in less chance of getting skin cancer. When Homo Sapiens Sapiens was evolving in Africa, lighter individuals must have had a harder time of it. In cooler climates, lighter skin is an advantage, decreasing the nessecary amount of time spent in sunlight for proper Vitamin D synthesis. Here we have natural selection in action. Granted, on a small scale, but it still confirms the theory of natural selection.
ok ok ok im sorry, but the whole primoodial ooze thing is non-sense, species did not come from ooze, no evolutionist beleives this, it is distorted by many creationists to make folloers beleive it, if you want to argue where life came from then you need to go onto abiogenesis, evolution has notihng to do with the origin of life, and if you ask any biologist (a good one) they will tell you that nothing else in biology makes sense wihout evolution
for creationists its hard to beleive that the eye just formed itself by accident(it never formed by accident read the blind watchmaker) however it is hard for atheists and evolutionists allike to beleive the eye just popped into exsitance
Johnbizzen...SHHHHH!!! They don't like to talk about bacteria. I think it comes from jealousy: bacteria were the reigning organism for the bulk of the time there has been life on earth, and they didn't get one mention in the Bible (which, as we all know, was written with full omniscient understanding of the cosmos).
No, it is Micro Evolution, which is very diffent from macro evolution. Micro evolution is like what happened with the peppered moths in England. The white moths simply lost their camoflauge and were eaten in urban areas, nothing more. Maco evolution on the other hand, is the belief that one species evolves into another, which has never been proven by science.
Loafy, think about the last phrase in your comment. "Which has never been proven by science." You can't have it both ways. There is no scientific evidence for creationism and yet many believe it without question.
you expect us to just take you word for it. Either show evidence or shut up. evolutionist don't believe every thing they hear, only religous people like you do that.
Over time they(native americans) had to adapt and they developed dark skin because the sun,but you can still see the resemblance of asian descent,and this my friends is a scientific fact.
O.k if you dont believe in evolution, im going to give you an example of a case of evolution.The Native Americans, when d.n.a tested, the results come back that they are from northeast asia,as they migrated to the americas through the bering straight,thousands of years ago the climate was differentfrom asia(meaning the weather).The native americans today,are evolved northeast asians.
This video text is, as Einstein was quoted about what people said he said about his religious belief, was a LIE....The theory (science fact) of Evolution is based on the evidence around us. This video's text is based on blind faith & goofy creationist garbage. Nice "stolen" video though, with added text. Maybe a 4th grader would believe it. I'll side with current Science.
Criticizing one aspect of the evolutionary theory and invoking panspermia most definitely does not mean that Hoyle had taken a leap of faith towards a designer. This just shows to further support the view that creationists have no PROOF for Intelligent (Idiot) Design. Their only tactic is to take quotes out of context by prominent scientists.
I wonder just how many of the quotes in this video were taken out of context. The greatest pitfall in this video is that it implies Fred Hoyle was a believer in God. Newsflash: he was an atheist. Don't take my word for it. Go and research it for yourself. Secondly, he didn't criticize Darwinism. He only criticized chemical evolution. He believed in panspermia (life having been brought down to earth by comets). To be continued...
Evcharlesdarwin1, I started dissecting the quotes a week ago (my earlier comments numbered 1-4). I stopped at that point when it became clear that Physci wasn't going to correct himself.
These people can only thrive on making it seem like the most prestigious scientists said the opposite of what they believe.
When Einstein was once confronted about people misquoting him on religion, he didn't call it a misquote. He said it explicitly: they LIED.
To sum up ... You cannot and never will be able to explain that if all the beginnings are down to a creator, then where did the creator come from... This complex deity had to just summon his/her self in to existence. That is pretty hard to swallow!... think again!... sensibly next time!
You need to think outside the box. The mind boggles at the question of ultimate origins, and you think you have it nailed; wow, you must be God! in order to say there's no God you must have God-like abilities.
I can assure you that my mind thinks well outside a box with a bible in it! Atheists are not self imposed gods.. they don't look for miracles and dont believe in them either. You know what it is like to be an atheist because you do not believe in other religions, we just go one god further.
It never ceases to amaze me how the goal posts change in religion - suddenly the creation of earth becomes the creation of the science proved galaxys - still no evidence just more made up assumptions! All hail the invisible man!! etc... Get a real life... Study real evidence.
LOL, I know...you notice how the "Creator" never can draw a line in the sand? From pagan man to now, he's been moved back from the forest, to the mountain, to the sky, to beyond the clouds to "well...heaven's not a real place." And now (to avoid the every child's question 'who made god?') we're now told he exists outside space and time.
Insertin god like a tool wherever our current level of understanding is tells me where he came from: between man's ears.
Why do I hear this same simple argument so much? Where did you guys here it? The Discovery Channel. Yahweh was always beyond anybody's understanding even in OT times, so that little stroy doesn't hold. You're simple if you think there's no God; the evidence is staring you in the face.
You hear the same arguments because god simply makes no sense! .. So who's simple! If I told you a Troll lived in my garden would you believe it, even if I had an old book that records it? ... silly really .. you probably would!
You'll never win on YouTube. Atheists rule here, as does logic, rationality and an averion to the meddling with science and fact. So you should take this nonsense somewhere where it will be appreciated. Like a small town with no name...
Also, Dresteban, there are MANY people who believe in a limited form of evolution an in the process a creator. This train of thought states that God uses evolution to carry on speciation, but has limits on the amount, which doesnt contradict the bible, nor science.
If you believe in god why you bother with science HA. Evolution was prosecuted by people like you, to suddenly, when all the evidence proves evolution, the bible is scraped and by you it now says God invented evolution, not the MAN. You are pathetic.
Dresteban....LOL! So, you can't be a Christian and a science teacher. What a Joke! Luckily, I teach Physical Science, which has VERY little evolution in it. However, EVERY science teacher I know believes in a creator. There would be a lot of vacant positions based on your criteria of what a science teacher must adhere to.
drahyden...u are completely in error and your comment will be removed within two days if you don't cite any sources. Your echo thesis is from the original Big Bang (that's how they know there was an original creation) and NO! they have NEVER made a cell from chemical soup. I would love to read a source to your supposed remarks though and maybe I can be proved wrong.
If you think evolution is a lie and you are a science teacher as you have previously stated, then you are either teaching something which you think is a lie or not teaching it and breaking the law. Either way it points towards you having poor morals.
i beg to differ, scientists have made abiogenesis posible today, the had made a living cell out of a elements soup, from scrach. Also scientists are studing today the so called echoes of regression that may point to the eternal nature of the universe that keeps exploding and expanding and reaching a point and the returning to implode again in a ciclical non linear matter. eny question ill be happy to answer, Nice try thought i liked the video very peacefull.
But... evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, and it certainly doesn't deal with the origin of the universe. If you want to critique those things through quote-mining, at least call them abiogenesis and cosmology.
Better be careful feeding him quotes, ClumsyRoot. He'll make a new vid showing a painting of Darwin's Voyage aboard the Beagle and place the quote "It remains premature today" --Isaac Asimov
EndCredulity, I don't see where Hoyle said that he based his calculations off of an advanced functioning Eukaryotic Cell, or some primitive cell. I just see where Ian Musgrove supposedly proved Hoyle wrong. If Hoyle did base his calculations off a Eukaryotic Cell, I will remove the quote. But, I haven't been able to locate that information.
Since, in your reply to me, you didn't answer regarding "Hoyle's Fallacy". Does that mean you tacitly agree it is a fallacy, and if so, will you remove the discredited quote from the vid?
how can the "creator" theory explain different "body forms", different "adaptations", and also the fact that we have a "tail" until the 2nd or 3rd month of preagnency...
Exactly, b1adezero. The value of a theory is its fruitfulness. Evolution answers thousands of what previously would be thousands of separate questions. It explains why whales have hip bones when they have no lower limbs, it explains why the hair on our arms stand up when we're frightened. Thousands more. Creation theory answers none of these except with "God is inscrutable."
I say this because only 20% of the population have a B.S. and only 10% contain a master's degree. However, these statistics aren't important as I didn't post any of my opinions on this video, but others who do have a Phd.
Ok...let me clarify. I'm not a scientific research, but I do have a B.S. in Biology and working torwards a Master's degree in this field. To qualify as an ACTUAL researcher, most people need a Phd. However, there are many people who have master's in this area and perform research. In a nutshell, I have more knowledge in this area than 80% of the country's population
I can't explain why there has been no further progress with the Fox and Miller experiments because I have no knowledge of them. I know, I could write a book about what I imagine they are and then build up an army of soldiers that are scared they will burn in hell if they don't believe what I write and do my bidding! sounds cool :P
EndCredulity, I believe the chances of a functional cell coming to life through chemical evolution to be minimum. As pointed out in the video, the fox and miller experiments are over 50 years old and no "new" attempts or data has added to this knowledge base.
When you say "I believe the chances of a functional cell coming to life through chemical evolution to be minimum", are you taking into account the untold billions of failures in the process? The processes that ALMOST made it, but didn't?
Now, I dont teach any creation aspect in my classroom due to the public school setting...but I do hate it when I have to teach theoretical aspects that I disagree with personally.
Then you should get educated and be as critical to this creation-nonsense (no evidence) as you are towards evolution (tons of evidence, little holes, contrary to many treasured, nonsense-beliefs...). As a teacher you must teach the kids the LATEST science, not what you heard in sunday-school.
For one, I teach Physical Science in a public school and am working on a double master's degree: one concentration in administration and the other in biology. While I'm not a researcher, I do reject many facets of the evolutionary theory...MANY!
Yes, we know more of where we came from, but that doesnt preclude the fact of a creation with laws. Also, there aren't a few scientist that are beginning to reject evolutionary thought, but thousands...sounds like something may be wrong with the theory.
EndCrudelity....At no time did I cherrypick these quotes. In fact, I stated these people were evolutionisit in the quotes. However, the quote stands as...Guth admitted the creation point remains unexplained
And you are still throwing the kitchen sink into evolution where it doesn't belong.
Using your logic, there are inadequacies in the theory of the atom, because atomic theory fails to explain why kids sometimes cross the street without looking. Atomic theory has "holes" then. If you keep making claims for evolution which evolution does not itself make, of COURSE there are going to be "holes."
Preposterous. Evolution Theory evolves as more as known. Genesis remains constant as more as known. A literal reading of it can now be easily disproved. However, since it was written by fallible men, some evolutionists still believe in God. Evolution does not preclude God, but creationism often precludes sense.
5b. For the fourth time, my comment won't go through. It may be because of the web link I'm trying to send. Google "Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations", then click on the page "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics..."etc.
It explains the mistakes of Sir Fred Hoyle, quoted in this vid. And Hoyle has the distinction of having a fallacy named after him. Look up "Hoyle's Fallacy"
If you read the full discovermagazine page EndCred quoted, you will see that Alan Guth explains how something spontaneously CAN be created from nothing.
I would hope Physcimaniac31 still considers him an eminent enough an authority to quote.
4. Alan Guth quote at the 1:12 time is slam-dunk PROOF of your cherry-picking to make it seem they are saying the opposite of what they believe. (continued)
Hears a REAL, FULL Guth quote WITH REFERENCE (a horrible thing to do to a creationist, I know...)
"Most people really want to know where we came from and where everything around us came from. I like to strongly push the scientific answer. We have evidence. We no longer have to rely on stories we were told when young."
3. Lederman & Hawking -- physicists. If you ask them about virology, you MAY be able to make it look like you're punching a hole in evolution or the scientific method. And even with regard to cosmology, what each says is neither "hole" nor "fallacy" nor "inconsistency" with any scientific claims.
By the way, in your vid you spelled it "Hawkins". At least make it easier for people to check up on your cherry-picked quotations. Or is "Stephen Hawkins" your next door neighbor?).
2. Secondly, a quote from a single scientist by itself means nothing. As INDIVIDUALS they can be wrong. Yes, even if they are Nobel prize winners or have knighthoods. Sir Isaac Newton was a giant among naturalists-scientists. He also practiced alchemy. Would you take an alchemical quote of his to "poke holes" in chemistry and atomic theory? I daresay you would.
1. Firstly, you seem to have this thing about Nobel prizes. Getting a Nobel prize in one area does not give a scientist expertise in another. Don't ask a physicist about evolution, ask my plumber.
I was offering you constructive criticism in that many people will stop watching your vid if they assume after the first 14 secs that you're another one of the hordes of people who learned "evolution" from a creationist text book (thereby never learning it at all).
I wasn't going to bother dismantling your cherry-picked quotes, but since you were so kind as to imply I'm an idiot, I think you're worth the effort.
Of Course, I know the difference between Cosmology and Evolution. You can look at my other videos dealing with cosmology. Cosmology is such a strong argument for design, I wanted to be posted in here. The first 2 minutes is devoted to cosmology and the last 7 minutes is devoted to evolution, abiogenesis, and the fossil record.
EndCredulity, I guess that I can rename it for you. Would you rather it be the following: "An Overview of Science That Points To Design" or "Idiots Please Watch This Twice So You Can Gather It All In?"
LaWilson, maybe u should watch and re-watch the video in SLOW motion. It showed you that there was a creation with perfect laws governing it development. THEN, it went into evolution and the inconsistencies of it. So, please dont hurt yourself, but watch it again in slow motion.
No, LaWilson is absolutely correct. You lost me literally at the 14 second mark. Your description said "holes, fallacies, and inconsistencies with the theory of evolution."
You've clearly never learned the theory if you think evolution has anything to do with cosmology.
I think you might have something there...You know today I was standing in a line at the grocery store, and I over heard a man say "I'll be a Monkey's Uncle" now that is a theory. Question, if nobel prize winning scientist were the ones quoted...does that mean your right and they are wrong? I am trying to learn that theory as well...thanks
You guys are completely "freaking" blind. No Science??? The whole DANG thing was science...most of them quotes from Nobel Prize Winners and Emminent Scientist. All my stuff was referenced...where is your rebuttal. You guys are pathetic. Again, read the quotes idiots.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I like how you made this one. It can not be viewed as your opinion as you didn't give on in it. You used specific quotes and factual information. I was impressed by the former atheist...this video has made me think differently, pretty awesome stuff. Will you be making another one soon? Very CREATIVE work.
Quote mining is conveying an opinion. Also, documentaries can't be objective because editing necessitates personal decisions, and it's looking less likely there's a Santa Clause. Sorry.
So what are you arguing against? It is certainly not evolution, becuase you are using cosmological arguments and evolution is a biological explanation. So, is it your suggestion that you are against the speed of light? If you are going to attack evolution, keep the arguments limited to the specific field you are attacking and next time, try using some science.
it only makes sense this way....a tree, a talking snake and it's all there right in the bible in case you need PROOF. Who need scientist with the facts, huh?
this video argues for Deism, at best, certainly not the down in the dirt tinkering "personal" god that most of us are supposed to believe in. not only that, it is highly unscientific to just say "wow, these things seem statistically improbable, therefore god MUST exist!" or "we haven't got the answer yet, t
seriously?
hakamairi 1 month ago
takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than God.
bluegrassreb 2 years ago
I gave this a 5 star rating just for the heck of it.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
// sarcasm on //
I don't understand how it happened and I don't care to learn.
God did it! Proof enough.
// sarcasm off //
Take your heads out of the Bible and Koran and read a real book, for a change.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
You can criticize Evolution all day long, but the counter-argument to saying that Evolution isn't (or fails to add to) a credible explanatory theory for the beginning of time/space/existence is that Christians & believers cannot explain where god came from. You'll say he's always been around, and atheists can just as easily posit that a vacuum or void with no sound, light, etc. has been around forever. No one can *prove* how something (not even god) has just been in existence forever
EvenThroughFire 2 years ago
and the really crappy thing is that the Bible, with its many versions, authors, interpretations, and fairy-tale-ish nature, only seems to provide Christians and believers (who are likely otherwise rational people, with most other matters) with an entitlement to ignorance, an explanation that has nor requires proof. Such is the tenacity and perpetuity of self-rationalizing belief.
And I mean ignorance in its literal sense, not in the negatively connoted sense that exists today.
EvenThroughFire 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
I thought this video was on evolution, when it starts getting into cosmology you know that the person who made the video knows nothing about evolution.
evolution in 5 easy steps:
1) Organisms reproduce
2) The reproduction is varied
3) some varients confer an environmental advantage
4) they will be more likely to reproduce
5) over time there is a net change in allele frequency
which of the above have not been directly observed
evolution happens
TheProf1988 3 years ago
Who ever said that the history of evolution is complete? That's why there are 'holes'. Idiots! Fools.
ytrogergt 3 years ago
i wouldn't expect you'd know this since you're probably an advocate of ID or a YEC, but evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe or earth. It is simply a theory of how animals have adapted and changed over time to better suit their environments and have changed intellectually and physically. Perhaps you shouldn't bash something that you don't even know what it is.
PinkMilk86 3 years ago 4
@PinkMilk86 Actually, there are many classifications of evolution: cosmic evolution (big bang), chemical evolution (higher elements from hydrogen), stellar evolution (stars & planets), organic evolution (life from non-living material), macro evolution (new kinds of animals) & micro evolution (variations within kinds of animals). The only one there is proof for is micro evolution. This video tries to highlight pitfalls in the other theories. Perhaps you shouldnt bash what you dont know...
3rutalis 3 months ago
Wow, More than the first half of this video didn't even relate to evolution, which tells me this guy doesn't even know what evolution actually is, he's just a parrot.
The last thirdish part of the video contained many quotes saying evolution is false. But as for actual things this guy has against evolution:
spadar 3 years ago
The fossil record cannot be applied to evolution.
Uh, What? Instead of just parroting what people say, take an actual look at the fossil record. There are plenty of Transitional fossils.
Dr. Robert Andrews Millikan: How about actually looking the guy up before relaying these from creationist sites. First of all, he has NOTHING to say on evolution, hes a physicist. Second of all, you cannot prove ANYTHING 100%, the evidence points towards evolution.
spadar 3 years ago
"Macroevolution has not been observed"
Talk Origins has an excellent collection of observed instances.
Mutations do not produce evolution.
Not alone they do not. Natural selection weeds out bad mutations and conserves good mutations.
Bogus Probability: Honestly? look at the other umteen videos made on this, its rediculous.
Irreducible complexity: Again, It's been done, many times, look at thunderf00t's videos, he does pretty well with that one.
spadar 3 years ago
The list of scientists skeptical of evolution:
Hell, I encourage people to be "Skeptical" but not down right stupid. Carefully examine all claims, not just evolution. Now back to that list, which only two of the people on it that were qualified biologists who actually reject evolution were present. The rest were either not affiliated with biology, or accepted evolution.
spadar 3 years ago
there is no such thing as a good mutation.
macro evolution never has and never will be observed because its a lie used to controll you.
please please open your mind. dont listen to thunderfoot, he's not a genius.
BestVideosEver01 3 years ago
"there is no such thing as a good mutation.
macro evolution never has and never will be observed because its a lie used to controll you.
please please open your mind. dont listen to thunderfoot, he's not a genius. "
No good mutations? What about the mutation that caused certain people to be immune to the black plague? I mean seriously, have you looked at evolution at all? In a non-fundamental religious standpoint? The whole "No good mutations" BS has been overdone and is incorrect.
spadar 3 years ago
wrong, haha. wow. just 100 percent wrong. haha.
BestVideosEver01 3 years ago
Here's a classic example of more than half of the people bashing their heads against science, he offers NO evidence, no concrete claims, all he says is it's wrong, it doesn't match his fundamentalist world view therefore it cannot be right.
spadar 3 years ago
Or the mutations of bacteria that now can only survive on plastics which we invented in the last 100 years? Oh don't tell me god just made them to help get rid of the rubbish.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
so if a human became only able to survive on cardboard... would that be evolution? no it would be useless.
BestVideosEver01 2 years ago
yes it would be evolution. If he lived in a place where only cardboard was available to eat then he would have the advantage and be able to pass that onto the next generation.
See, not hard is it.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
you miss the main point my dear friend, the human, regardless of what he nibbles on, is still a human in the end, same thing goes for the bacteria.
BestVideosEver01 2 years ago
No that was not your point at all. You said there were no such thing as a good mutation, I gave you one.
You could site the fact we have not cured the common cold yet as well, I think the cold counts all its mutations as good.
Of course these cumulative effects have not been directly observed, they take millions of years to make a new species.
Can you also let me know how this theory is meant to have been used to control us ? All I can see is the fact its proved we are all one species
Munro1Man 2 years ago
You talk as if macro evolution is even a thing.
It is just micro evolution + time.
Thick twat.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
Wow. Evolution does not talk about how life began...it talks about how we developed.
One more thing: the stars CONSTANTLY die and new ones are born. This causes huge differences in our galaxy; our own sun changes intensity all the time; our orbit changes from quite close to a bit far; the moon as once much closer than it is now and is still moving away; most of the land is either too hot or too cold; I am sure you have indoor heating. Your video is one of the worst examples of lying around.
papasitoman 3 years ago
Just because we don't know what happened at the beginning of it all does not mean religion knows what does. It also doesn't mean there is a all mighty god.
Reido2828 3 years ago
How wonderful, an entire video showcasing one of the most widely used and despicably dishonest creationist tactics. They should call this video "Quote-miner's Delite."
ggiibbbbyy 3 years ago
ggiibbbbyy, to make it worse, he says he is a teacher.
In between dissecting frogs I wonder if he instructs them in dissecting quotes.
EndCredulity 3 years ago
Evolution is a theory of the diversity of species, not the beginning of life itself. You are "quote mining" from sources that you choose, in order to convince people that evolution is not accepted fact by science, which is not true.
Zaunstar 3 years ago
Name the one mutation that added genes, if you can't then you don't have a case to call it a fact. All you have is false claims and a lousy religion.
jouc12 3 years ago
Non-theism cuts the legs our from under ethical absolutes and the Laws of Thought, thus the non-theist cannot, with epistemic rights, appeal to reason or morality. Non-theism has not the universal tools to underwrite the Laws of Thought and ethical absolutes. Hence non-theism is self-contradictory.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
You need only listen to the music & observe the abundance & beauty of life & firmament in this video to to realise that, yes indeed, there is a loving God.
maxi6100 3 years ago
excellent video
proudamericanguy 3 years ago
Hey ppl tell me something. If the evolution was wrong, does it prove the "god theory" as right one? If it was wrong there would be no real theory on this, there is no proof for god's exsistance even then.
MakkeHeze 3 years ago
great production quality but other than that it's utter bull shit
rocknrollgod16 3 years ago
This is quote mining utopia. Give context to quotes otherwise you appear at best underhanded and at worst incapable of understanding what "context" means.
kenthovindspimp 3 years ago
Man, this is one of the best dang videos I have seen on youtube!!
broj8s8n79 4 years ago
This video kills me. "Know scientist has created another form of life from nothing" Uhh of course it may be something only time can create such as oil, or diamonds. Time is a big factor dumb fucks. Not hundreds, thousands, or millions of yrs., but billions.
Seeknolig 4 years ago
Hey guys, god is in the gaps of our understanding. Phew glad i cleared that up.
If we used that logic 100 years ago you would have thought that our body's resemble our parents because god wills it, nothing to do with DNA at all...
ArFoce 4 years ago
I think it is both . We resemble our parents because of DNA and God willed it that way .
picassoui 4 years ago
Who the hell is Stephen Hawkins? :P
Why was the first four and a half minutes about subjects completely unrelated to evolution? "Holy shit, we don't know how the Universe began! That invalidates the process of random mutations and natural selection creating evolution!" Seems to be the argument. Which is a little... odd. Same for abiogenesis. Evolution assumes life already exists, so you can't use a lack of understanding of abiogenesis to disprove it. You wasted 4.5 minutes of your video.
paulbottomley42 4 years ago
This is a big jump on the god of the gaps in our understanding. The religious music is fun but not proof of anything.
Pretending what we don't know is some sort of proof of deity is silly and an insult to our intelligence because of what we do know.
JohnDeBunkTest 4 years ago
firstly, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, its nothing to do with biology for that matter, secondly steven hawkings des not beleive that the universe hada begining, creatiionits onlyever seem to copy/paste quotes, the full quote is somewhere in 'great atheist quotes'
Erech01 4 years ago
A hole movie with nothing but quote mining, old news from the same masters of quote mining, creationists
canman1989 4 years ago
"In the beginning there was a void, a nothingness" - Not even god existed. So how can something that doesn't exist create beginning.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
With respect, these verses indicate specifically, that light and night and day were observable before the Sun was created that is presuming there is a chronological coherence which I expect the Bible is purported to have. The 'out of context' counter argument is one I have readily encountered but has never been adequately explained. Perehaps you could put it IN context for me.
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
I challenge anyone to explain this to me.
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
Yes but in Genesis 1:3, and I qoute, "Then God commanded, let there be light-and light appeared." Genesis 1:5 states that "Evening passed and morning came-that was the first day." Genesis 1:16 states,"So God made the two larger lights, the sun......"
This is stating that, presumably natural light, existed and could be observed on Earth before the Sun was 'created'. We all know that the only way night and day can exist is if the Sun exists to bring this about.
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
With the greatest of respect, you did. I am quoting you here - "but disproven in many areas". I hope I made myself clear this time regarding monkeys and apes (laughing).
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
Now, faith is a belief or trust in something without logical proof. Just because evolutionary theory is not 100% proven does not consitute a theory that is completely devoid of any logical proof-There is a wealth of logical proof. So belief in something that HAS logical proof would cease to be faith at all. This is how I don't have faith in that sense. There may have been evidence or a lack of evidence which have negated evolutionary theory but this does not mean it has been disproven.
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
that makes no sense whatsoever. having faith in god is the EXACT same as having faith in the religeon of evolution.
diplomat4166 4 years ago
Please, come on, evolution is NOT religion it is science for goodness sake. Science and religion are at two different ends of the spectrum. To clarify, they are absolutely not the same thing - I am perfectly willing to change my views on evolution if new scientific evidence arises to superecede the current zeitgeist - You are not of that line of thought.
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
your dellusional. and evolution is a religeon--a religeon of scientific forgery.
diplomat4166 4 years ago
I always found it odd to criticise evolution as being faith. I thought the religious saw faith as a virtue. Notice that you'll never hear a scientist explain that relgion is simply another form of science, and therefore incorrect.
soloman81 4 years ago 3
@soloman81 There is a lot of evidence that supports the idea of creationism - even from the evidence that supposedly supports the evolutionist idea that everything came into existence by itself. So do not say my belief is not based on science but only on faith. And since evolution cannot be scientifically proven, you do need faith to believe in it…
3rutalis 3 months ago
My apologies regarding my second point. What I meant to say was that we are not monkeys, we are apes - just like gorillas etc. Monkeys and apes are two different classifications of primate. This is called taxonomy and determines how organisms are classified by scientists. So, you are a super advanced ape but not a monkey. A monkey is a non-human primate. Now, where in 'The Origin Of Species' does Darwin give moral and ethical advice pertaining to natural selection for example?
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
I took the liberty of looking up the word propaganda: "deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread" Now, this is not the objective of science, as a process of enquiry. What possible benefit could science acquire by deliberate spread of deceptive information? Science is impartial and is concerned with the TRUTH of something.
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
This proves nothing. As flawed as evolution may be, it still doesn't compare to the ridiculous theory of creation, which I might add, has no proof whatsoever.
zuluechotango 4 years ago
It seems that you view evolution as a horrible insult to your dignity as a human being. You don't like to think of yourself as being related to primates. You see it is this view that seems to obscure some people's understanding of the topic. Evolution is not an attempt at providing us with an ethical code for life, but merely a scientific endeavour into seeking objective truth about our nature and origin.
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
actaully thats not it at all. sorry =(
we dont believe in evolution becuase it doesnt make sense. its pushed on people as fact and none of it is. that right there is ample proof of desperate people trying to descredit god because they are too afraid to face the consequences of their actions.
diplomat4166 4 years ago
Now, regarding your second comment, Darwinism is not propaganda and you would actually be a super advanced primate, not a monkey-they are two seperate things.
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
I do not have 'faith' in evolution in the sense you presumably have in creationism. As a scientist, I don't think it is of benefit to just have faith. Now, those are your words and not mine about being dumb. I never said you were dumb.
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
This is nothing but Creationist propaganda
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
No, evolution and creationism are mutually incompatible-you cannot believe in both of them!!
alexandermcknight 4 years ago
great vid. thanks for sharing the truth.
diplomat4166 4 years ago
I respect your choice but next time put something more constructive which actually explains why evolution is wrong.Thank you.
shirwan001 4 years ago
Hey Physmaniac31, If one of your quotes is wrong,then it is proof enough to dismiss all the other quotes.Colin patterson was misquoted.The thing about fossil fuels was misquoted in 1978 when Patterson sent a letter to a creationist called Luther Sunderland.One of the basic things i learnt in my philosophy class is not to trust quotes.Even so,quotes dont prove anything about a downfall in evolution.
shirwan001 4 years ago
When there are holes in scientific theories, its always a pleasure to see that the religious can fill any unknowns with so much evidence and facts.. Its stange though when they think that filling these holes or finding them if you will should count for something more than another laugh from ppl like me; atheists.
richter75 4 years ago
cant see the writing wtf wasted video
shivthirteen 4 years ago
Awesome video!
CrossReach 4 years ago
I originally clicked this link cause I was curious as to see wether this would provide a proper dispelling of EVOLUTION, but instead it just showed some lame C.G.I. of planets and the universe from a cosmological perspective, 8 minutes is worth a few hundred thousand dollars to bill gates, if this video isnt worth enough of his time, why would it worth enough of yours?
lordchrisanderson 4 years ago
Oh and this video just so happens to admit that the miller experiment created RNA, which is like dna but can catalyze cell reactions. It is a bit less stable which would have increased mutations as a bonus. Bet they just forgot to mention that
boorens18 4 years ago
There was no evidence of any fallacies of evolution here? just the same well its a low chance argument that has been brought up and smashed over and over. Not only that but the big bang IS NOT EVOLUTION PEOPLE THATS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SCIENCE. more over scientists have created organic matter from nonorganic in the urey experiment
boorens18 4 years ago
Why, when faced with indisputable evidence of microevolution, do creationists continue to assert that macroevolution cannot happen? It is logical to assume that macroevolution can happen. Granted, there are holes in evolutionary theory, as there are in most theories, but seriously, screw you.
SolAurum 4 years ago
Well I think microevolution IS proof of macroevolution. It is a fact that dark skin results in less chance of getting skin cancer. When Homo Sapiens Sapiens was evolving in Africa, lighter individuals must have had a harder time of it. In cooler climates, lighter skin is an advantage, decreasing the nessecary amount of time spent in sunlight for proper Vitamin D synthesis. Here we have natural selection in action. Granted, on a small scale, but it still confirms the theory of natural selection.
SolAurum 4 years ago
Lame. Just another instance of creationists thoroughly misunderstanding scientific principles.
triggur 4 years ago
what an ignorant! evolution theory does not address the beginning! It is about the evolution of species.
hakannizam 4 years ago
ok ok ok im sorry, but the whole primoodial ooze thing is non-sense, species did not come from ooze, no evolutionist beleives this, it is distorted by many creationists to make folloers beleive it, if you want to argue where life came from then you need to go onto abiogenesis, evolution has notihng to do with the origin of life, and if you ask any biologist (a good one) they will tell you that nothing else in biology makes sense wihout evolution
Erech01 4 years ago
for creationists its hard to beleive that the eye just formed itself by accident(it never formed by accident read the blind watchmaker) however it is hard for atheists and evolutionists allike to beleive the eye just popped into exsitance
Erech01 4 years ago
What about the fact that some antibiotics are no longer effective against the bacteria they were designed to defeat?
Could it be that the bacteria has adaped? Or, dare I say, evolved?
Johnbizzen 4 years ago 4
Johnbizzen...SHHHHH!!! They don't like to talk about bacteria. I think it comes from jealousy: bacteria were the reigning organism for the bulk of the time there has been life on earth, and they didn't get one mention in the Bible (which, as we all know, was written with full omniscient understanding of the cosmos).
Too bad God never gave Moses a microscope.
HolyFungus 4 years ago
No, it is Micro Evolution, which is very diffent from macro evolution. Micro evolution is like what happened with the peppered moths in England. The white moths simply lost their camoflauge and were eaten in urban areas, nothing more. Maco evolution on the other hand, is the belief that one species evolves into another, which has never been proven by science.
Loafy1212 4 years ago
Loafy, think about the last phrase in your comment. "Which has never been proven by science." You can't have it both ways. There is no scientific evidence for creationism and yet many believe it without question.
Johnbizzen 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stunning video. Ecellent information too. I watched it twice in a row. Thanks.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
listen --its simple--GOD exists--there is a HIGHER being--NOT the silly big bang, OK U SILLY evolutionists!
FadedHolySoldier 4 years ago
you expect us to just take you word for it. Either show evidence or shut up. evolutionist don't believe every thing they hear, only religous people like you do that.
ndpcp 4 years ago
You can believe in god and evolution.
weatytoothadman3 4 years ago
You can believe in whatever comes to your mind, with rationalization, assumptions or just plain faith. Its simpleminded but still, you're right!.
richter75 4 years ago
Over time they(native americans) had to adapt and they developed dark skin because the sun,but you can still see the resemblance of asian descent,and this my friends is a scientific fact.
gimmedat22 4 years ago
O.k if you dont believe in evolution, im going to give you an example of a case of evolution.The Native Americans, when d.n.a tested, the results come back that they are from northeast asia,as they migrated to the americas through the bering straight,thousands of years ago the climate was differentfrom asia(meaning the weather).The native americans today,are evolved northeast asians.
gimmedat22 4 years ago
this is one of the best movies i have ever seen dealing with evolution.
leiapeison 4 years ago
This video text is, as Einstein was quoted about what people said he said about his religious belief, was a LIE....The theory (science fact) of Evolution is based on the evidence around us. This video's text is based on blind faith & goofy creationist garbage. Nice "stolen" video though, with added text. Maybe a 4th grader would believe it. I'll side with current Science.
kauaikit 4 years ago
Criticizing one aspect of the evolutionary theory and invoking panspermia most definitely does not mean that Hoyle had taken a leap of faith towards a designer. This just shows to further support the view that creationists have no PROOF for Intelligent (Idiot) Design. Their only tactic is to take quotes out of context by prominent scientists.
Evcharlesdarwin1 4 years ago
I wonder just how many of the quotes in this video were taken out of context. The greatest pitfall in this video is that it implies Fred Hoyle was a believer in God. Newsflash: he was an atheist. Don't take my word for it. Go and research it for yourself. Secondly, he didn't criticize Darwinism. He only criticized chemical evolution. He believed in panspermia (life having been brought down to earth by comets). To be continued...
Evcharlesdarwin1 4 years ago
Evcharlesdarwin1, I started dissecting the quotes a week ago (my earlier comments numbered 1-4). I stopped at that point when it became clear that Physci wasn't going to correct himself.
These people can only thrive on making it seem like the most prestigious scientists said the opposite of what they believe.
When Einstein was once confronted about people misquoting him on religion, he didn't call it a misquote. He said it explicitly: they LIED.
EndCredulity 4 years ago
To sum up ... You cannot and never will be able to explain that if all the beginnings are down to a creator, then where did the creator come from... This complex deity had to just summon his/her self in to existence. That is pretty hard to swallow!... think again!... sensibly next time!
Darwinsgift 4 years ago 3
You need to think outside the box. The mind boggles at the question of ultimate origins, and you think you have it nailed; wow, you must be God! in order to say there's no God you must have God-like abilities.
CrossReach 4 years ago
I can assure you that my mind thinks well outside a box with a bible in it! Atheists are not self imposed gods.. they don't look for miracles and dont believe in them either. You know what it is like to be an atheist because you do not believe in other religions, we just go one god further.
Darwinsgift 4 years ago
It never ceases to amaze me how the goal posts change in religion - suddenly the creation of earth becomes the creation of the science proved galaxys - still no evidence just more made up assumptions! All hail the invisible man!! etc... Get a real life... Study real evidence.
Darwinsgift 4 years ago 3
LOL, I know...you notice how the "Creator" never can draw a line in the sand? From pagan man to now, he's been moved back from the forest, to the mountain, to the sky, to beyond the clouds to "well...heaven's not a real place." And now (to avoid the every child's question 'who made god?') we're now told he exists outside space and time.
Insertin god like a tool wherever our current level of understanding is tells me where he came from: between man's ears.
HolyFungus 4 years ago 3
Why do I hear this same simple argument so much? Where did you guys here it? The Discovery Channel. Yahweh was always beyond anybody's understanding even in OT times, so that little stroy doesn't hold. You're simple if you think there's no God; the evidence is staring you in the face.
CrossReach 4 years ago
You hear the same arguments because god simply makes no sense! .. So who's simple! If I told you a Troll lived in my garden would you believe it, even if I had an old book that records it? ... silly really .. you probably would!
Darwinsgift 4 years ago
You'll never win on YouTube. Atheists rule here, as does logic, rationality and an averion to the meddling with science and fact. So you should take this nonsense somewhere where it will be appreciated. Like a small town with no name...
nonbreeder 4 years ago 3
Also, Dresteban, there are MANY people who believe in a limited form of evolution an in the process a creator. This train of thought states that God uses evolution to carry on speciation, but has limits on the amount, which doesnt contradict the bible, nor science.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
If you believe in god why you bother with science HA. Evolution was prosecuted by people like you, to suddenly, when all the evidence proves evolution, the bible is scraped and by you it now says God invented evolution, not the MAN. You are pathetic.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
Dresteban....LOL! So, you can't be a Christian and a science teacher. What a Joke! Luckily, I teach Physical Science, which has VERY little evolution in it. However, EVERY science teacher I know believes in a creator. There would be a lot of vacant positions based on your criteria of what a science teacher must adhere to.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
You should be expelled.
bezvezeceda 4 years ago
drahyden...u are completely in error and your comment will be removed within two days if you don't cite any sources. Your echo thesis is from the original Big Bang (that's how they know there was an original creation) and NO! they have NEVER made a cell from chemical soup. I would love to read a source to your supposed remarks though and maybe I can be proved wrong.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
If you think evolution is a lie and you are a science teacher as you have previously stated, then you are either teaching something which you think is a lie or not teaching it and breaking the law. Either way it points towards you having poor morals.
dresteban 4 years ago 2
i beg to differ, scientists have made abiogenesis posible today, the had made a living cell out of a elements soup, from scrach. Also scientists are studing today the so called echoes of regression that may point to the eternal nature of the universe that keeps exploding and expanding and reaching a point and the returning to implode again in a ciclical non linear matter. eny question ill be happy to answer, Nice try thought i liked the video very peacefull.
drahyden 4 years ago
But... evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, and it certainly doesn't deal with the origin of the universe. If you want to critique those things through quote-mining, at least call them abiogenesis and cosmology.
mdcaigoy 4 years ago
Sadly, you're wasting your breath, mdcaigoy. If you look through the comments, lawilson and I separately raised that with him 4 days ago.
To Physcimaniac31, speciation and the kitchen sink are the same thing.
EndCredulity 4 years ago
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." --Isaac Asimov
ClumsyRoot 4 years ago
Better be careful feeding him quotes, ClumsyRoot. He'll make a new vid showing a painting of Darwin's Voyage aboard the Beagle and place the quote "It remains premature today" --Isaac Asimov
HolyFungus 4 years ago
EndCredulity, I don't see where Hoyle said that he based his calculations off of an advanced functioning Eukaryotic Cell, or some primitive cell. I just see where Ian Musgrove supposedly proved Hoyle wrong. If Hoyle did base his calculations off a Eukaryotic Cell, I will remove the quote. But, I haven't been able to locate that information.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
Since, in your reply to me, you didn't answer regarding "Hoyle's Fallacy". Does that mean you tacitly agree it is a fallacy, and if so, will you remove the discredited quote from the vid?
EndCredulity 4 years ago
how can the "creator" theory explain different "body forms", different "adaptations", and also the fact that we have a "tail" until the 2nd or 3rd month of preagnency...
b1adezero 4 years ago
Exactly, b1adezero. The value of a theory is its fruitfulness. Evolution answers thousands of what previously would be thousands of separate questions. It explains why whales have hip bones when they have no lower limbs, it explains why the hair on our arms stand up when we're frightened. Thousands more. Creation theory answers none of these except with "God is inscrutable."
EndCredulity 4 years ago
I say this because only 20% of the population have a B.S. and only 10% contain a master's degree. However, these statistics aren't important as I didn't post any of my opinions on this video, but others who do have a Phd.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
Ok...let me clarify. I'm not a scientific research, but I do have a B.S. in Biology and working torwards a Master's degree in this field. To qualify as an ACTUAL researcher, most people need a Phd. However, there are many people who have master's in this area and perform research. In a nutshell, I have more knowledge in this area than 80% of the country's population
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
I can't explain why there has been no further progress with the Fox and Miller experiments because I have no knowledge of them. I know, I could write a book about what I imagine they are and then build up an army of soldiers that are scared they will burn in hell if they don't believe what I write and do my bidding! sounds cool :P
DeathSlayer2 4 years ago
I thought this might have some actual theory, but it's just a collection of dodgy quotes. You haven't explained a thing!
Quote: "While I'm not a researcher, I do reject many facets of the evolutionary theory...MANY!"
So... you know nothing about it, you just reject it?
Quote: "As pointed out in the video, the fox and miller experiments are over 50 years old"
What is the problem with them being 50 years old? the Bible is 2000 years old!
DeathSlayer2 4 years ago
EndCredulity, I believe the chances of a functional cell coming to life through chemical evolution to be minimum. As pointed out in the video, the fox and miller experiments are over 50 years old and no "new" attempts or data has added to this knowledge base.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
When you say "I believe the chances of a functional cell coming to life through chemical evolution to be minimum", are you taking into account the untold billions of failures in the process? The processes that ALMOST made it, but didn't?
EndCredulity 4 years ago
...oh, and what do you think of "Hoyle's Fallacy", the exposure of which fills the hole your Hoyle quote "apparently" makes?
EndCredulity 4 years ago
Too bad they let you teach, but at least you're decent enough to keep your "wishful thinking" to yourself in the classroom.
HolyFungus 4 years ago
Now, I dont teach any creation aspect in my classroom due to the public school setting...but I do hate it when I have to teach theoretical aspects that I disagree with personally.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
Then you should get educated and be as critical to this creation-nonsense (no evidence) as you are towards evolution (tons of evidence, little holes, contrary to many treasured, nonsense-beliefs...). As a teacher you must teach the kids the LATEST science, not what you heard in sunday-school.
Johannes9126 4 years ago
For one, I teach Physical Science in a public school and am working on a double master's degree: one concentration in administration and the other in biology. While I'm not a researcher, I do reject many facets of the evolutionary theory...MANY!
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
Yes, we know more of where we came from, but that doesnt preclude the fact of a creation with laws. Also, there aren't a few scientist that are beginning to reject evolutionary thought, but thousands...sounds like something may be wrong with the theory.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
And many who reject are in fields totally unrelated to evolution.
EndCredulity 4 years ago
EndCrudelity....At no time did I cherrypick these quotes. In fact, I stated these people were evolutionisit in the quotes. However, the quote stands as...Guth admitted the creation point remains unexplained
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
And you are still throwing the kitchen sink into evolution where it doesn't belong.
Using your logic, there are inadequacies in the theory of the atom, because atomic theory fails to explain why kids sometimes cross the street without looking. Atomic theory has "holes" then. If you keep making claims for evolution which evolution does not itself make, of COURSE there are going to be "holes."
EndCredulity 4 years ago
To deny facts and evidence is ignorant. To deny a lack of evidence is ignorant. " I doubt therefore I think. I think therefore I am."
rustEshakelford 4 years ago
And who the f is Stephen Hawkins? Believe that evolved into Hawking many years ago.
fish11136 4 years ago
Preposterous. Evolution Theory evolves as more as known. Genesis remains constant as more as known. A literal reading of it can now be easily disproved. However, since it was written by fallible men, some evolutionists still believe in God. Evolution does not preclude God, but creationism often precludes sense.
fish11136 4 years ago
Science doesn't yet know how it all started, must be 'god'. How astonishingly idiotic. When will religion tire of being rediculous?
yeahscotty 4 years ago
I couldn't agree more. These "arguments" are getting really boring. The same nonsense, over and over.
richardbazinet 4 years ago
5b. For the fourth time, my comment won't go through. It may be because of the web link I'm trying to send. Google "Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations", then click on the page "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics..."etc.
It explains the mistakes of Sir Fred Hoyle, quoted in this vid. And Hoyle has the distinction of having a fallacy named after him. Look up "Hoyle's Fallacy"
GCBiggles 4 years ago 5
5a. (I'm EndCredulity, I apologize for using an alternate sign-on, but I've exceeded my comments per time...can't discredit these quotes fast enough)
GCBiggles 4 years ago
If you read the full discovermagazine page EndCred quoted, you will see that Alan Guth explains how something spontaneously CAN be created from nothing.
I would hope Physcimaniac31 still considers him an eminent enough an authority to quote.
60sThru80s 4 years ago 5
4. Alan Guth quote at the 1:12 time is slam-dunk PROOF of your cherry-picking to make it seem they are saying the opposite of what they believe. (continued)
EndCredulity 4 years ago 2
Hears a REAL, FULL Guth quote WITH REFERENCE (a horrible thing to do to a creationist, I know...)
"Most people really want to know where we came from and where everything around us came from. I like to strongly push the scientific answer. We have evidence. We no longer have to rely on stories we were told when young."
discovermagazine(dot)com(slash)2002(slash)apr(slash)cover
EndCredulity 4 years ago 5
3. Lederman & Hawking -- physicists. If you ask them about virology, you MAY be able to make it look like you're punching a hole in evolution or the scientific method. And even with regard to cosmology, what each says is neither "hole" nor "fallacy" nor "inconsistency" with any scientific claims.
By the way, in your vid you spelled it "Hawkins". At least make it easier for people to check up on your cherry-picked quotations. Or is "Stephen Hawkins" your next door neighbor?).
EndCredulity 4 years ago 2
2. Secondly, a quote from a single scientist by itself means nothing. As INDIVIDUALS they can be wrong. Yes, even if they are Nobel prize winners or have knighthoods. Sir Isaac Newton was a giant among naturalists-scientists. He also practiced alchemy. Would you take an alchemical quote of his to "poke holes" in chemistry and atomic theory? I daresay you would.
EndCredulity 4 years ago 3
1. Firstly, you seem to have this thing about Nobel prizes. Getting a Nobel prize in one area does not give a scientist expertise in another. Don't ask a physicist about evolution, ask my plumber.
EndCredulity 4 years ago 4
I was offering you constructive criticism in that many people will stop watching your vid if they assume after the first 14 secs that you're another one of the hordes of people who learned "evolution" from a creationist text book (thereby never learning it at all).
I wasn't going to bother dismantling your cherry-picked quotes, but since you were so kind as to imply I'm an idiot, I think you're worth the effort.
EndCredulity 4 years ago
Akg, it will be up within a week
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
Do you need to rest on the 7th day?
HolyFungus 4 years ago 5
Of Course, I know the difference between Cosmology and Evolution. You can look at my other videos dealing with cosmology. Cosmology is such a strong argument for design, I wanted to be posted in here. The first 2 minutes is devoted to cosmology and the last 7 minutes is devoted to evolution, abiogenesis, and the fossil record.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
EndCredulity, I guess that I can rename it for you. Would you rather it be the following: "An Overview of Science That Points To Design" or "Idiots Please Watch This Twice So You Can Gather It All In?"
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
Start with true facts about the amazing nature of the universe, then reduce to quote mining for 5 minutes. Lame.
akg41470 4 years ago
Keep trying, it took me a little while to learn how to post too. Your post isn't lame, just think that what you have to say is important also.
Ninetyandnine 4 years ago
Hang in there akg
Ninetyandnine 4 years ago
Oh, I'm VERY MUCH looking forward to the next videos with some actual proof of intelligent design. This should be good...
akg41470 4 years ago
LaWilson, maybe u should watch and re-watch the video in SLOW motion. It showed you that there was a creation with perfect laws governing it development. THEN, it went into evolution and the inconsistencies of it. So, please dont hurt yourself, but watch it again in slow motion.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
No, LaWilson is absolutely correct. You lost me literally at the 14 second mark. Your description said "holes, fallacies, and inconsistencies with the theory of evolution."
You've clearly never learned the theory if you think evolution has anything to do with cosmology.
EndCredulity 4 years ago
I think you might have something there...You know today I was standing in a line at the grocery store, and I over heard a man say "I'll be a Monkey's Uncle" now that is a theory. Question, if nobel prize winning scientist were the ones quoted...does that mean your right and they are wrong? I am trying to learn that theory as well...thanks
Ninetyandnine 4 years ago
You guys are completely "freaking" blind. No Science??? The whole DANG thing was science...most of them quotes from Nobel Prize Winners and Emminent Scientist. All my stuff was referenced...where is your rebuttal. You guys are pathetic. Again, read the quotes idiots.
Physcimaniac31 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I like how you made this one. It can not be viewed as your opinion as you didn't give on in it. You used specific quotes and factual information. I was impressed by the former atheist...this video has made me think differently, pretty awesome stuff. Will you be making another one soon? Very CREATIVE work.
Ninetyandnine 4 years ago
Quote mining is conveying an opinion. Also, documentaries can't be objective because editing necessitates personal decisions, and it's looking less likely there's a Santa Clause. Sorry.
mdcaigoy 4 years ago
So what are you arguing against? It is certainly not evolution, becuase you are using cosmological arguments and evolution is a biological explanation. So, is it your suggestion that you are against the speed of light? If you are going to attack evolution, keep the arguments limited to the specific field you are attacking and next time, try using some science.
lawilson200 4 years ago
"everyone knows it all started with a tree and a talking snake........"
rayabe 4 years ago
...Named rayabe...wait that's a talking monkey.
Ninetyandnine 4 years ago
it only makes sense this way....a tree, a talking snake and it's all there right in the bible in case you need PROOF. Who need scientist with the facts, huh?
rayabe 4 years ago
this video argues for Deism, at best, certainly not the down in the dirt tinkering "personal" god that most of us are supposed to believe in. not only that, it is highly unscientific to just say "wow, these things seem statistically improbable, therefore god MUST exist!" or "we haven't got the answer yet, t