I hate to say it, but you're wrong. The Puritans didn't flee from religious persecution, they fled TO it! There was little religious persecution of anyone in Britain at the time which is why they fled to the colonies to set up a theocracy. So if the US is based on the values of the Puritans, it is, in all senses of the word, a Christian nation. Fortunately saner people took over its society but the bedrock of Puritan belief still permeates it.
makes you wonder if the pilgrims (puritains) fled to the new world so they could have their own religious dominance or that the british get rid of them to get rid of these 'threats' with a new eye on religion that clashed with their own?
This is a bit off topic, but at the core it does kind of fit. I have avoided watching AronRa's videos until now because of the way he looks. Though I had seen him in other people's videos and recognized him as an intelligent and knowledgeable person, I was afraid his videos would have heavy metal background music. My loss. I despise prejudice, and hereby declare myself guilty and offer a public apology to AronRa and this obeisance to any gods in whose name he kills. Excellent videos.
The picture at 8:00 was on a chemsitry professors door at my Christian college...a long with a bunch of anti-gay stuff as well. It was pretty disturbing to know people like that are allowed to teach, regardless of where they go to school. (No I'm not Christian even though I went to a Christian college.)
"faith is a COMPLETE conviction of positive belief"
I'm sorry but, I couldn't agree less. It's a tiresome battle over semantics & a card that I don't think Atheists or scientists should be playing. What you're describing is the difference between "logical positivism" and blind, devout and/or unseasonable faith. In my oppinion the distinction should be made within a subsect of the term. It's folly to try and redefine the term to suit your position.
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity. In religion, faith is belief in God or gods or in the doctrines or teachings of the religion. Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof, and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief".
Some critics of faith have argued that faith is opposed or in contrast to reason.
I disagree with the latter & would assert that faith is merely a belief held without demonstrable evidence.
If you can't provide evidence for your claim then you can't expect anything more from me than 'wishful thinking' about the actual reality of the claim.
Human history is riddled with stories of the imaginary, and the supernatural, often with the purpose of generating an emotional response from others, but when put to the evidentiary test these claims have either shown to be the result of natural phenomena, or they have been categorized as trickery. Holy or otherwise, there are no ghosts! boo!
I will admit that the theory of evolution requires a little faith at some point....but the god theory requires faith the whole way through. There...said it.
@Jeffersonwazright I whole-heartedly deny that the study of any scientifically-supported and factually evident reality -such as evolution- requires any faith whatsoever. If it required faith at all, I wouldn't believe it at all.
@bitphr3ak An example: I'm currently starting to subscribe to the electric universe theory. There's no real proof or anything and it is an exciting concept. So trusting in it is a leap of faith all it's own.
@jreed136 - I think we need to define what we mean by faith...I have faith that when I go to bed tonight, I will wake up tomorrow, the sun will still be shining, the Earth will still be spinning...but that's a different type of faith than..."I will treat others as outsiders because they don't believe in the same unsubstantiated supernatural idea that I do, and because of that they will suffer and I will enjoy a heavenly afterlife"
Not familiar with electric universe theory, I will look! thx
@bitphr3ak Faith is still faith. Of course you can't apply religious faith to science. But you do have to have SOME faith that the people giving you the information know what they're talking about.
@AronRa I think that all knowledge is based at some point on some kind of axiomatic assumptions which could be equated as analogous to faith at some level. I'd agree that there is a world of difference between acceptance of an axiom (such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line) and blind faith (such as 'god did it').
@AronRa Go do abiogenesis and then go do it into a bunch of things and then come back and let me know. Better yet, create a video of it. No, I am not trying to say "you are not god" or anything close to "only god can do that stuff". I'm just saying it requires faith and hope that the theory of evolution is true. It is probably true, but we just don't know for certain. I fart in the direction of those 19 thumbs.
"it requires faith and hope that the theory of evolution is true."
Wrong. It can be demonstrated to be accurate.
" It is probably true, but we just don't know for certain."
Which is why science never claims to be 100% right about ANYTHING. If they did, then of course that would require faith. But science doesn't claim to be anything other than what it is.
@Jeffersonwazright Evolution is a demonstrably accurate description of biodiversity. So that requires no faith. But you're not talking about evolution; you're talking about abiogenesis. That doesn't require faith either. It takes no faith to accept that life did not always exist, and that it must have begun somehow. It takes no faith to propose ways that it might have begun, and begin testing that. It only takes faith to believe things which are not evidently true.
@Jeffersonwazright Accepting the best possible explanation given current available evidence requires NO FAITH WHATSOEVER. Sticking to that explanation AGAINST current available evidence requires FAITH. That is the difference between science and religion.
@Jeffersonwazright Incidentally, the transition from "non-life" to "life" is not well understood. Given it's an event which probably happened about 3.5 bya, that shouldn't be surprising. That it happened isn't a matter of faith (before 3.5 bya no life. After - life), EXACTLY how it happened - who the fuck knows? How it COULD have happened? That's what we need to find out. Saying "it couldn't possibly have happened naturally" is bollocks.
@Gryffster I don't come close to saying it could not have happend naturally, but I do have to stick to my gun and say that we don't even fully understand gravity and that this whole show is sort of hard to understand and believe- as far as a theory for everything goes. That are still a lot of mysteries and science does not really have the high ground when it comes to the time from non-life to life. I think at some point all concepts require an imagination and faith (like the higgs particle)
You're still living in this black-and-white world. "We can't say that we 100% understand this, therefore we can't assert that we know anything about it."
@Jeffersonwazright I doubt that any scientist would say we fully understand anything. Evolution, with all it's complexity, is very well understood. Abiogenesis less so, but for obvious reasons. The important difference between a religious and a scientific approach is that commitment to any theory is tentative - new data which cannot be incorporated into the theory requires that the theory be revised or abandoned. So no faith is required.
@AronRa And sorry, I should have said something like "evolution being the only reason for life's existence requires faith".....if that is better for you. But then you may think that requires no faith either.
@AronRa that the scientific method works at all requires faith for someone with your convictions, the only way to defend that Scientific results or indeed any of our perceptions are reliable is with Philosophical arguments an area of study you dismiss out of hand (something by the way I've never known any body besides blatant anti-intellectuals do before you) meaning literally everything you think you know is taken on faith
Why does it require faith when the utility of the scientific method is so easily demonstrable? The fact that we are able to have this conversation over the internet but one demonstration.
@Onithyr In an earlier comment to me @AronRa denounced the entire field of philosophy, the only way to defend that our perceptions of the world (including these computers, and scientific results) are reliable is with a philosophical argument, @AronRa must there for take absolutely everything on faith
Really, do you care to quote exactly where he denounced all of philosophy? I can see where in his reply to you he separated philosophy and religion, and then denounced religion appropriately, but no where can I find him denouncing philosophy altogether.
@Onithyr "Philosophy allows one to assert with indefensible conviction contradictory absurdities which cannot logically be true" you don't think this speaks for it's self
1) I was talking about any philosophical argument in favour of the sole or any thing supernatural, is that what you mean by "religious philosophical arguments"?
2) how is he deeming things "contradictory absurdities"?
3)he said "Philosophy" not specifically "religious philosophical arguments"
4) I have a fourth point but I can't make it until I'm sure what you mean by "religious philosophical arguments"
I'm sorry, we can't send a search and rescue team into Plato's Cave after you. You're going to have to find your own way back to the observable reality where the rest of us are. You're not trapped in your own head. Use your senses and body to walk around and observe the universe like you do whenever you AREN'T spamming your bullshit in YouTube comments.
2)I can reasonably assume I will die if I do that based on the fact that consistently other beings who appear to function like me, appear to die if they shoot them self and I have no reason to assume they aren't genuinely dying
So you accept the objective reality based on evidence just like the rest of us, and are just peddling philosophical bullshit just to be intentionally stupid.
@Jeffersonwazright I don't think you could call a god belief a theory, in the scientific aspect. As you said yourself that requires a matter of faith, which is a belief in something without evidence to support it. Quite the opposites of a proven, scientific theory such as evolution.
@Jeffersonwazright there is absolutely no faith in it,you can actually test every step,you can SEE the system working. thats like saying it requires faith that my toilet flushes
@bitphr3ak As I said, you can't tell anything about it, that includes weather there is any truth behind it or if it is just the product of the immagination.
There are a great number of false things which cannot be proven by science, not just the supernatural. So we can use that to determine what is true and what is not. That's what.
I like your science videos more than thunderf00ts, mainly because you are far more articulate and get straight to the point. You also have a certain passion, which I think not many actually have.
I'm sure someone has pointed this out, but there are a couple information/spelling issues with your slides. You spell unanimous wrong when discussing the treaty with the Barbary pirates, and James MADISON was the fourth president. You have his picture and title with James Monroe's name. I'm sure there are more but those are the two I've seen so far. I enjoy this series and with a little editing to tighten up the presentation the series could make an excellent impact on creationism.
So they begin to look everywhere,trying to explain everything in whatever way...either find patterns,invent patterns,assume patterns or simply deny everything and accept nothing.
The eventual result is just conflicts,that's that...humanity gained nothing over the years besides the ability to produce more humans and keep more humans alive...and pocking at nature has much has possible.
Besides blowing a balloon,what humans really done all those years?
@TheZooCrew Nha,I'm just being long-term realistic.
Actually,the fact is that humanity needs professional help from being so blind to what they are doing.
After you viewed some of my posts,you gained nothing from them and was rather offended in a way that I dared to say that what humans are doing-both in the spiritual and scientific manners are just futile acts.
How about you share with me exactly why you have this specific opinion of what I say?I'm open to a debate if you got any wisdom to give
@sonykroket Yeah...very wise,want for me to also blow sunshine up your ass for that comment?
You just show that you truly got nothing to say,You are even afraid to present your views,and you make assumptions based on the assumption that you are bigger or smarter.
Also,I'm already am aware that I'm an idiot-I even got a P.H.D at Stupidotology.
Funny,with all my ignorance I can still reply far more deeper then your shallow comments and words.
I got wisdom for you-You'r foolish boring and empty.
@sonykroket What? do you just randomly post comments without even reading? since when calling myself an idiot is having selfproclaimed authority?
I only got authority over nothing,and I take pride in that!
It was a matter of time of what exactly? you did not say anything,you do not discus on anything...and you seem to be empty and bored.
For the moment at least I present POINTS,you present some sort of uncontrolled pleasure in saying meaningless words to try and gain some sick pleasure out of it
Wow the ingnorance in these videos. In everyone of his foundational truths videos the author does exactly what he is claiming those he is railing against does.
@TheZooCrew really he can... I listened to a debate were in his first video he created a strawman and then proceeded to tear it down.. When he was asked for proof of his claim he had none.. He can't provide one qoute from a leading creation scientist that makes the claim that to belive in evolution you must be an athiest.. But that is the whole theme of his first video.. Where are the qoutes or video of them saying this.. They don't exist.. The strawman murderer Aronra
AronRa, a story that might put a smile on your face. I was asked by a creationist to give an example of one "kind" of animal that has turned into another kind. my reply was Westboro Baptist Church. it took him awhile to realize that Christianity was (and still is) evolving. He said they (Westboro Baptist Church) wasn't true Christian. Right then and there, I rested my case.
PS> Love ur videos. I would love to see videos about evolution of Christianity if you take requests. LOL
@AronRa03:11 I thought the idea that their is some immaterial soothing to the human being that caries on in some way after our death, taken on it's own is considered a philosophical idea and not a religion
proposing to know what happens to that "something" is what religion's do
@255ad Philosophy is a manner of thinking. Religion is a system of belief. Philosophy allows one to assert with indefensible conviction contradictory absurdities which cannot logically be true, but the exact topic of those assertions are provided by religion, not by philosophy.
@AronRa almost every Philosophical idea I've ever heard defends it's self with some form of logic, also since science can't state things with the level of Certainty to say anything "cannot logically be true" only that things are very unlikely, what are you basing that "cannot logically be true"on? it can only be,1)common sense.... which is moronic,2) another less counter-intuitive, contradictory Philosophical idea making you a hypocrite, 3)it was science and that was just a poor choice of words
@RuinMnemonic It is a shame that you could loose a friend over religious belief. It seems that if he really believed he was right and you were wrong he would try to help you see the light. In this case it seems he wants to believe and you are wrecking his comfortable make believe story. Have heart I believe that you have infected him with the truth and deep inside he knows it , eventually he will have to come to terms with it.
@RuinMnemonic I didn't show any videos to my creationist friend but, I did take snippets of arguements from youtube atheists and eventually he came around. He reached an apologetic conclusion that god created evolution but hey! my goal wasn't to convert him, it was to prove that creationism is wrong. If it takes god for him to believe in evolution, then I'm fine.
the scientific method this tosser above is going on about uses the exact same b/s hes trying to say creationist use the one where if in science if it don't fit the beliefs of modern science they either do 2 things where it dont fit they either IGNOR IT and dont look at the evidence OR suppress it your talking out of ape boy heroes arse
The scientific Method that this cunt above is talking about is hog wash if it don't fit the facts they IGNORE it or worse like i pointed out refuse to look at the EVIDENCE THE EXACT MODEL THAT HE IS TRYING TO SAY creationism IS IS THE ONE USED BY silence in the science
I agree with everything said in this video, but I kind of don't like its form. You speak really fast and there is a lot of interesting text, but the whole video is not really executed well. I have to stop the video to read the inserts and then get lost in your narration. It would work better if you read the inserts.
"Do you believe in U.F.O.s, astral projections, mental telepathy, E.S.P., clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full-trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster, and the theory of Atlantis?"
"-If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."
Damn, Aron, could you slow down just a tad? I'm not worried about the inserts, I can pause the vid to read those. I mean your speech. There's no way I could send this to a theist and expect them to be able to digest your rapid-fire cadence. Heck, I'm FAMILIAR with all your points and I could barely keep up!
@legionmantis If you expand the description of his videos he has a link to the script of them. Easier to catch it all if you miss anything after you watch.
@tuseroni Oh damn, you are right. There would be finding issues. However it is unlikely that funding for science and technological innovation would be stopped. A sematic change of 'religion' will not change the outcomes of research. As far as what is taught in schools it should be fine as long as it is based on evidence. After all Faraday's work in electromagnetism was conducted to support his Sandemanian view of the world, but he was demonstrably correct.
My only complaint is that the Ghostbusters clip cuts off before my favorite line: "Um, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say." ;)
@hurlyburlyexistenz if you think about it the priests on those mega churches think like that: pay me and i belivie and spread whatever ghoaststories you want! :P
Good video but I don't think your right in your saying that in private Christian schools. Teachers don''t care about teaching science. They may not be the best at teaching evolutionary biology but there are plenty of other subjects.
Damn AronRa... I was going to start campaigning through Youtube my self, but it would discredit the pure articulation and startling precision of this "series" alone. Nice one, highly inspirational! : ) I shall recommend and encourage further viewers your way!
But seriously... racism... Three guesses which party subtly panders to the racist, and doesn't dare to openly offend them. That's right... the Republicans.
And guess what Stormfront and the KKK supported... Yep... the teaparties!
And guess what racists vote for? Yep, right-wingers, the fundies favourite party! Many racist groups ARE fundies as well.
Not all religious people are racists, but you'll find alot more racists among the religious (And the rightwing!) then elsewhere.
@TheZooCrew I'm confused by this comment time has always existed because there were seconds minutes hours days etc. BEFORE the theoretic"bang" I would prefer to avoid the whole time conundrum as a whole by just using whatever created the universe as a median reference point
"time has always existed because there were seconds minutes hours days etc. BEFORE the theoretic"bang""
Wrong. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time. The two are inextricable. Time and space are entirely dependent on each other. This concept becomes easier to grasp once you take a physics class that covers special relativity. Time wasn't a concept until the expansion.
This is because there was no "before" the Big Bang. Time itself was not a concept until the expansion, which is why the matter/energy (they are the same thing at their most basal form as quark-gluon plasma) is considered to have always existed. There is no "time 0."
Reading the "top authors" of those subjects won't help you if you have no education in those topics.
Slight qualm: There is no evidence for a "First Cause." The consensus among cosmologists is that the universe had no cause. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time, not a causative nor creationary event.
No. They pussied out. Rather than take it out of the Pledge, they ruled that schools could no longer require students to stand and recite it every day. I don't get it. Why is still there? It was artificially inserted in the 1950s by the Knights of Columbus. It was supposed to be an anti-communist statement, which is ass-backwards to me. McCarthy was a fuck, but his work lives on today...if you don't support unregulated capitalism, you're a heathen baby-killer.
Lol, what's with the picture at 5:02, which appears for one milisecond? You really were pressed for time to include everything, weren't you ;P
("If my calculations are correct...it seems that the Sun was made by God and don't question it." Comes after the "War of Worldviews" pic and before the cartoon about the scientific and creationist method)
thechessstick - One or two 'scientists' from the fringe can be found to oppose any scientific claim.
They keep 'finding' the Ark, noah's and otherwise, over and over. The discoverers are zealots, not scientists. I'm sure that many years would pass before real scientists would FIRST SUBMIT A PAPER FOR PUBLICATION on such find as EVIDENCE of a real Ark. ( Not to mention the absurdity of the idea of flood etc.
The only flaw in your otherwise perfect logic is assuming that Creationists are actually aware that they are fooling themselves in thinking these magical, unsupported dogmas are true and even less that they are educated/not too indoctrinated to actually be aware of intellectually supported alternate points of views such as that evolution doesn't necessarily mean Atheism and vice-versa.
this series teaches me so much every time i sit through it. so well done- i have never seen a more comprehensive and effective teaching tool on this subject matter. please keep up the good work- the world needs this information.
Wow, evolutionists will believe anything. What a bunch of dolts they are. Do yourself a favor and read a few of A. E. Wilder-Smith books and also Robert Dick Wilson's book "A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament". Do you know that Noah's Ark was discovered? Also, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Red Sea crossing site, the real Mount Sinai the Ark of the Covenant? Yes, the proof is there. All one must do is seek.
I find it hilarious (not to mention ironic) that Creationists think that calling Evolution a religion is the biggest insult imaginable. It's as if, in their opinion, religion is the lowest form of logic imaginable. Which of course is true but you'd never hear a Scientist calling religion a Science in an effort to insult it.
Creationists have such a weird way of thinking.... well I guess it all adds up if you think about it. LOL
@AronRa And I totally recommend this movie. It was great! I watched it in an Anthropological Theory class and we got to take apart all the important themes of it. Very interesting.
Evolution is a theory that wants a backing of scientific facts, it is not yet a science at all, half facts is not science at all for example, the missing link between humans and apes still remain missing. Evolution is just somewhat a religion who believes it is a fact and search for scientific backings. Convince me with proofs and not just stories of fossil remains. If we come from apes, why do apes remain and not revolve all into humans, there should not one left
@pedomohd the human fossil record is complete, theories are not guesses, in fact a theory in science has more weight than just a fact. You do understand that evolution works on the principle of adaptation and reproductive isolation right?
@Darkstar1484 hahaha theories are just guesses, when not backed by facts and experiments, theories by itself without facts and experiments and datas is not science at all. Truth is there was no fossil that little by little show the transformation from one into another. Cyanobacteria remain a cyanobacteria until now yet its fossil remains were computed to be 3.5 billion years old.
@pedomohd Typical creationist, Again and again you show no knowledge of the scientific theory/method or of the specific theory you argue against. The theory of evolution has evidence, provable facts through observation, and data. Just because you don't want to recognize that, doesn't make it true. We have fossils, lots of them, showing transitions, I suggest you actually take the time to look at the evidence before asserting there is none. keep in mind your god has no proof at all, none.
@pedomohd Typical creationist, just because you want to assert there is no proof doesn't make that proof magically disappear. I suggest you actually go to a site and look at some of the transitional species, before i have to list them and demolish your ignorance. Just because one thing has not changed, does not mean that nothing ever changed, in fact it means that that specific being survives the tests of natural selection.
@pedomohd Theories are not guesses, you are confusing theories with hypothesis, and hypothesis are submitted to tests and reproduced until they can be proven or disproven. The reason cyanobacteria remains similar due to low selection pressure, an organism adapts to the ambient and it's necessities as a life form, we developed speech so we could have a better trade of information for survival.
I hate to say it, but you're wrong. The Puritans didn't flee from religious persecution, they fled TO it! There was little religious persecution of anyone in Britain at the time which is why they fled to the colonies to set up a theocracy. So if the US is based on the values of the Puritans, it is, in all senses of the word, a Christian nation. Fortunately saner people took over its society but the bedrock of Puritan belief still permeates it.
colourmegone 3 days ago
makes you wonder if the pilgrims (puritains) fled to the new world so they could have their own religious dominance or that the british get rid of them to get rid of these 'threats' with a new eye on religion that clashed with their own?
infernalone666 6 days ago
07:38
While this image shows Evolution in an evil light, it also show it is WINNING.
notbobby125 6 days ago
This is a bit off topic, but at the core it does kind of fit. I have avoided watching AronRa's videos until now because of the way he looks. Though I had seen him in other people's videos and recognized him as an intelligent and knowledgeable person, I was afraid his videos would have heavy metal background music. My loss. I despise prejudice, and hereby declare myself guilty and offer a public apology to AronRa and this obeisance to any gods in whose name he kills. Excellent videos.
Celebduath 2 weeks ago
James Monroe was the 5th president...
Aleex490 2 weeks ago
Funny how claiming it's a religion is supposed to discredit it. The ID people do speak some truths, it'd seem. :D
meaninter03 2 weeks ago
Rapid fire reality. Nice one.
Gryffster 3 weeks ago
The picture at 8:00 was on a chemsitry professors door at my Christian college...a long with a bunch of anti-gay stuff as well. It was pretty disturbing to know people like that are allowed to teach, regardless of where they go to school. (No I'm not Christian even though I went to a Christian college.)
mikebaxtersc5 3 weeks ago
Hey Aron! Is there something about evolution that causes some religious people to single it out for attack?
Akira625 3 weeks ago
@Akira625 It destroys the notion that we're "God's special snowflake."
Raaszhecku 3 weeks ago
The puritans didn't flee persecution. This is simply a myth that their descendants have perpetuated.
The puritans were so hard line that they couldn't deal with the churches liberalism and decided to cross the Atlantic to set up their own community.
This is why they themselves persecuted the Quakers and the Indians in the new world.
baldieman64 3 weeks ago 4
"faith is a COMPLETE conviction of positive belief"
I'm sorry but, I couldn't agree less. It's a tiresome battle over semantics & a card that I don't think Atheists or scientists should be playing. What you're describing is the difference between "logical positivism" and blind, devout and/or unseasonable faith. In my oppinion the distinction should be made within a subsect of the term. It's folly to try and redefine the term to suit your position.
MrLittletomdj 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity. In religion, faith is belief in God or gods or in the doctrines or teachings of the religion. Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof, and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief".
Some critics of faith have argued that faith is opposed or in contrast to reason.
I disagree with the latter & would assert that faith is merely a belief held without demonstrable evidence.
MrLittletomdj 3 weeks ago
Strawmen is the best tool of creationists, most of which are tools themselves
SocraticFox 3 weeks ago
AronRa talks twice as fast...but with ten times the truth!
gspendlove 3 weeks ago
You ppl who thumbs down this video are pure scum.
wachnathan 3 weeks ago
Klingons rule biology!
USERNAMEfieldempty 3 weeks ago
If you can't provide evidence for your claim then you can't expect anything more from me than 'wishful thinking' about the actual reality of the claim.
Human history is riddled with stories of the imaginary, and the supernatural, often with the purpose of generating an emotional response from others, but when put to the evidentiary test these claims have either shown to be the result of natural phenomena, or they have been categorized as trickery. Holy or otherwise, there are no ghosts! boo!
bitphr3ak 3 weeks ago
I will admit that the theory of evolution requires a little faith at some point....but the god theory requires faith the whole way through. There...said it.
Jeffersonwazright 3 weeks ago
@Jeffersonwazright I whole-heartedly deny that the study of any scientifically-supported and factually evident reality -such as evolution- requires any faith whatsoever. If it required faith at all, I wouldn't believe it at all.
AronRa 3 weeks ago 34
@AronRa Trusting in any sort of unproven human knowledge is a leap of faith in and of itself.
jreed136 3 weeks ago
@jreed136
However trusting testable, repeatable, independently verifiable, empirical evidence is not.
Science works even when you don't believe in it.
Faith doesn't work even when you do.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@jreed136 - are you saying that natural selection hasn't been proven?
bitphr3ak 3 weeks ago
@bitphr3ak Did I infer that in any way shape or form?
jreed136 3 weeks ago
@jreed136 - I wasn't sure, so that's why I asked. I'll assume no from your response. thanks!
bitphr3ak 3 weeks ago
@bitphr3ak An example: I'm currently starting to subscribe to the electric universe theory. There's no real proof or anything and it is an exciting concept. So trusting in it is a leap of faith all it's own.
jreed136 3 weeks ago
@jreed136 - I think we need to define what we mean by faith...I have faith that when I go to bed tonight, I will wake up tomorrow, the sun will still be shining, the Earth will still be spinning...but that's a different type of faith than..."I will treat others as outsiders because they don't believe in the same unsubstantiated supernatural idea that I do, and because of that they will suffer and I will enjoy a heavenly afterlife"
Not familiar with electric universe theory, I will look! thx
bitphr3ak 3 weeks ago
@bitphr3ak Faith is still faith. Of course you can't apply religious faith to science. But you do have to have SOME faith that the people giving you the information know what they're talking about.
jreed136 3 weeks ago
@AronRa And faith and religion are not mutually exclusive.
jreed136 3 weeks ago
@AronRa I think that all knowledge is based at some point on some kind of axiomatic assumptions which could be equated as analogous to faith at some level. I'd agree that there is a world of difference between acceptance of an axiom (such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line) and blind faith (such as 'god did it').
jacksawild 3 weeks ago
@AronRa Go do abiogenesis and then go do it into a bunch of things and then come back and let me know. Better yet, create a video of it. No, I am not trying to say "you are not god" or anything close to "only god can do that stuff". I'm just saying it requires faith and hope that the theory of evolution is true. It is probably true, but we just don't know for certain. I fart in the direction of those 19 thumbs.
Jeffersonwazright 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeffersonwazright
Stop living in a black and white world.
"it requires faith and hope that the theory of evolution is true."
Wrong. It can be demonstrated to be accurate.
" It is probably true, but we just don't know for certain."
Which is why science never claims to be 100% right about ANYTHING. If they did, then of course that would require faith. But science doesn't claim to be anything other than what it is.
TheZooCrew 3 weeks ago
@Jeffersonwazright Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, nor does it attempt to explain the origin of life.
Evolution merely explains the processes by which the great diversity of life forms on our planet came about.
321cheeseman 3 weeks ago
@Jeffersonwazright Evolution is a demonstrably accurate description of biodiversity. So that requires no faith. But you're not talking about evolution; you're talking about abiogenesis. That doesn't require faith either. It takes no faith to accept that life did not always exist, and that it must have begun somehow. It takes no faith to propose ways that it might have begun, and begin testing that. It only takes faith to believe things which are not evidently true.
AronRa 3 weeks ago 12
@Jeffersonwazright Accepting the best possible explanation given current available evidence requires NO FAITH WHATSOEVER. Sticking to that explanation AGAINST current available evidence requires FAITH. That is the difference between science and religion.
Gryffster 3 weeks ago
@Jeffersonwazright Incidentally, the transition from "non-life" to "life" is not well understood. Given it's an event which probably happened about 3.5 bya, that shouldn't be surprising. That it happened isn't a matter of faith (before 3.5 bya no life. After - life), EXACTLY how it happened - who the fuck knows? How it COULD have happened? That's what we need to find out. Saying "it couldn't possibly have happened naturally" is bollocks.
Gryffster 3 weeks ago
@Gryffster I don't come close to saying it could not have happend naturally, but I do have to stick to my gun and say that we don't even fully understand gravity and that this whole show is sort of hard to understand and believe- as far as a theory for everything goes. That are still a lot of mysteries and science does not really have the high ground when it comes to the time from non-life to life. I think at some point all concepts require an imagination and faith (like the higgs particle)
Jeffersonwazright 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeffersonwazright
" I think at some point all concepts require an imagination and faith (like the higgs particle)"
What a load of bullshit. There is NO faith in science. There would be if it made assertions without evidence, but it doesn't.
"science does not really have the high ground when it comes to the time from non-life to life."
A second load of bullshit.
/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
TheZooCrew 3 weeks ago
@Jeffersonwazright
You're still living in this black-and-white world. "We can't say that we 100% understand this, therefore we can't assert that we know anything about it."
TheZooCrew 3 weeks ago
@Jeffersonwazright I doubt that any scientist would say we fully understand anything. Evolution, with all it's complexity, is very well understood. Abiogenesis less so, but for obvious reasons. The important difference between a religious and a scientific approach is that commitment to any theory is tentative - new data which cannot be incorporated into the theory requires that the theory be revised or abandoned. So no faith is required.
Gryffster 3 weeks ago
@AronRa And sorry, I should have said something like "evolution being the only reason for life's existence requires faith".....if that is better for you. But then you may think that requires no faith either.
Jeffersonwazright 3 weeks ago
@Jeffersonwazright Evolution is not the 'reason for life's existence". Evolution is the process by which life-forms diversify.
AronRa 3 weeks ago 4
@AronRa that the scientific method works at all requires faith for someone with your convictions, the only way to defend that Scientific results or indeed any of our perceptions are reliable is with Philosophical arguments an area of study you dismiss out of hand (something by the way I've never known any body besides blatant anti-intellectuals do before you) meaning literally everything you think you know is taken on faith
255ad 2 weeks ago
@255ad
Why does it require faith when the utility of the scientific method is so easily demonstrable? The fact that we are able to have this conversation over the internet but one demonstration.
Onithyr 2 weeks ago in playlist Fundimental falsehood series by AronRa
@Onithyr In an earlier comment to me @AronRa denounced the entire field of philosophy, the only way to defend that our perceptions of the world (including these computers, and scientific results) are reliable is with a philosophical argument, @AronRa must there for take absolutely everything on faith
255ad 2 weeks ago
@255ad
Really, do you care to quote exactly where he denounced all of philosophy? I can see where in his reply to you he separated philosophy and religion, and then denounced religion appropriately, but no where can I find him denouncing philosophy altogether.
Onithyr 2 weeks ago
@Onithyr "Philosophy allows one to assert with indefensible conviction contradictory absurdities which cannot logically be true" you don't think this speaks for it's self
255ad 2 weeks ago
@255ad
"you don't think this speaks for it's self"
No, for two reasons:
1) It's accurate, as many religious philosophical arguments demonstrate
2) It doesn't actually denounce all of philosophy.
Onithyr 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
255ad 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Onithyr
1) I was talking about any philosophical argument in favour of the sole or any thing supernatural, is that what you mean by "religious philosophical arguments"?
2) how is he deeming things "contradictory absurdities"?
3)he said "Philosophy" not specifically "religious philosophical arguments"
4) I have a fourth point but I can't make it until I'm sure what you mean by "religious philosophical arguments"
255ad 2 weeks ago
@255ad
I'm sorry, we can't send a search and rescue team into Plato's Cave after you. You're going to have to find your own way back to the observable reality where the rest of us are. You're not trapped in your own head. Use your senses and body to walk around and observe the universe like you do whenever you AREN'T spamming your bullshit in YouTube comments.
rkyeun 1 week ago
Comment removed
255ad 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun "You're not trapped in your own head" how do you know?
255ad 1 week ago
@255ad
I can't give you a road map out of Plato's Cave either.
rkyeun 1 week ago
@rkyeun then how do you know we're not in there if you can't give a reson why we're not?
255ad 1 week ago
@255ad
Who are you trying to convince?
rkyeun 1 week ago
@rkyeun I'm trying to convince people like you that your position in one of faith not reason
255ad 1 week ago
@255ad
How do you know I'm real?
rkyeun 1 week ago
@rkyeun I don't
255ad 1 week ago
@255ad
Either I am or am not real. If I'm not real, then you're the one who has faith and not me, because there is no me.
If I am real, your argument is wrong and you're the one taking it on faith and not me.
Either way, I'm not taking it on faith and your argument is wrong.
Welcome to the real world, buddy. There's evidence out here.
rkyeun 1 week ago
@rkyeun
1) how does you not existing make the me faithful?
2) if you are real it doesn't make my argument wrong because I'm not arguing your not
3) your not taking what on faith? and no it isn't
4) "There's evidence out here" how do you know?
255ad 1 week ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 week ago
@255ad
Believe very strongly that you won't die. Then shoot yourself in the head. Come back and tell me if it was real or not.
rkyeun 1 week ago
@rkyeun
1)I DON'T BELIEVE I WON'T DIE
2)I can reasonably assume I will die if I do that based on the fact that consistently other beings who appear to function like me, appear to die if they shoot them self and I have no reason to assume they aren't genuinely dying
255ad 1 week ago
@255ad
So you accept the objective reality based on evidence just like the rest of us, and are just peddling philosophical bullshit just to be intentionally stupid.
Fuck off, troll.
rkyeun 1 week ago
@rkyeun the argument I just gave was a philosophical argument (all be it a very basic one)
255ad 1 week ago
@255ad
And it failed miserably.
rkyeun 1 week ago
@rkyeun then why you agreed with it?
255ad 1 week ago
@Jeffersonwazright I don't think you could call a god belief a theory, in the scientific aspect. As you said yourself that requires a matter of faith, which is a belief in something without evidence to support it. Quite the opposites of a proven, scientific theory such as evolution.
santora1957 3 weeks ago
@Jeffersonwazright there is absolutely no faith in it,you can actually test every step,you can SEE the system working. thats like saying it requires faith that my toilet flushes
ViralMessiah 3 weeks ago
Evolution is a religion. Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
MultiWafflemaster 4 weeks ago
Everything cannot be proven by science, especially the supernatural. So what?
ezmyreld 1 month ago
@ezmyreld If something can not be investigated by science, you can't show that it isn't just immaginary or made up.
jmdnarri 3 weeks ago
@jmdnarri - so what can you show about something that can't be investigated?
bitphr3ak 3 weeks ago
@bitphr3ak As I said, you can't tell anything about it, that includes weather there is any truth behind it or if it is just the product of the immagination.
jmdnarri 3 weeks ago
@bitphr3ak Or I should say... if it can't be investigated, no honest person should be making claims about what is true of it.
jmdnarri 3 weeks ago
@ezmyreld
There are a great number of false things which cannot be proven by science, not just the supernatural. So we can use that to determine what is true and what is not. That's what.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
I like your science videos more than thunderf00ts, mainly because you are far more articulate and get straight to the point. You also have a certain passion, which I think not many actually have.
MaggotKing9 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
I wish I could speak as fluently and articulately as you, Aronra!
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
I'm sure someone has pointed this out, but there are a couple information/spelling issues with your slides. You spell unanimous wrong when discussing the treaty with the Barbary pirates, and James MADISON was the fourth president. You have his picture and title with James Monroe's name. I'm sure there are more but those are the two I've seen so far. I enjoy this series and with a little editing to tighten up the presentation the series could make an excellent impact on creationism.
tcktrc 1 month ago
@tcktrc some of them may not be his slides that he made
psychomantiskiller 3 weeks ago
I thought Hovind was in jail for tax fraud; I hadn't heard the bit about assault and battery. Can someone elaborate?
Great series, AronRa! You are awesome and you look like a cross between Lemmy and King Diamond!
PaladinHero 1 month ago
"The best part of believe is the lie." -FOB
HimesInu 1 month ago
science cannot test the metaphysical... YET. Someday!!!!
redwolffire 2 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Humans are simply bored...
So they begin to look everywhere,trying to explain everything in whatever way...either find patterns,invent patterns,assume patterns or simply deny everything and accept nothing.
The eventual result is just conflicts,that's that...humanity gained nothing over the years besides the ability to produce more humans and keep more humans alive...and pocking at nature has much has possible.
Besides blowing a balloon,what humans really done all those years?
Wharwulif 2 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@Wharwulif
After reading several of your posts, I recommend professional help. You seem either clinically depressed or sociopathic.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew Nha,I'm just being long-term realistic.
Actually,the fact is that humanity needs professional help from being so blind to what they are doing.
After you viewed some of my posts,you gained nothing from them and was rather offended in a way that I dared to say that what humans are doing-both in the spiritual and scientific manners are just futile acts.
How about you share with me exactly why you have this specific opinion of what I say?I'm open to a debate if you got any wisdom to give
Wharwulif 2 months ago
@Wharwulif
I got wisdom for you, you're an idiot
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket Yeah...very wise,want for me to also blow sunshine up your ass for that comment?
You just show that you truly got nothing to say,You are even afraid to present your views,and you make assumptions based on the assumption that you are bigger or smarter.
Also,I'm already am aware that I'm an idiot-I even got a P.H.D at Stupidotology.
Funny,with all my ignorance I can still reply far more deeper then your shallow comments and words.
I got wisdom for you-You'r foolish boring and empty.
Wharwulif 2 months ago
@Wharwulif
Ah, the selfproclaimed authority dipshit-fallacy. It was a matter of time, it seems
You could be a ballerinagirl for all i care, its all nonsense what youre posting.
Pompous dumbass
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket What? do you just randomly post comments without even reading? since when calling myself an idiot is having selfproclaimed authority?
I only got authority over nothing,and I take pride in that!
It was a matter of time of what exactly? you did not say anything,you do not discus on anything...and you seem to be empty and bored.
For the moment at least I present POINTS,you present some sort of uncontrolled pleasure in saying meaningless words to try and gain some sick pleasure out of it
Wharwulif 2 months ago
@Wharwulif
Why do you keep yapping?
Its all bullshit, silly wannabe
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket Yeah,everything you say is indeed fishit,good thing you admit it!
Wharwulif 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wharwulif
So you admit youre a cheating weasel that claims hes an atheist but in secret needs some other stupid fairytale? Or your own little version of it?
I knew you were a sneaky lying parasite, the smell of hypocrisy carries very far, dumbass
sonykroket 2 months ago
How hot do you think hell will be?
Wow the ingnorance in these videos. In everyone of his foundational truths videos the author does exactly what he is claiming those he is railing against does.
Don't any of you see that..?
BornHomophobictOO 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
@BornHomophobictOO
No, because AronRa can demonstrate his points, whereas creationists can do nothing but babble.
It's prudent to avoid hurling insults with poor spelling and grammar.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew really he can... I listened to a debate were in his first video he created a strawman and then proceeded to tear it down.. When he was asked for proof of his claim he had none.. He can't provide one qoute from a leading creation scientist that makes the claim that to belive in evolution you must be an athiest.. But that is the whole theme of his first video.. Where are the qoutes or video of them saying this.. They don't exist.. The strawman murderer Aronra
BornHomophobictOO 2 months ago
AronRa, a story that might put a smile on your face. I was asked by a creationist to give an example of one "kind" of animal that has turned into another kind. my reply was Westboro Baptist Church. it took him awhile to realize that Christianity was (and still is) evolving. He said they (Westboro Baptist Church) wasn't true Christian. Right then and there, I rested my case.
PS> Love ur videos. I would love to see videos about evolution of Christianity if you take requests. LOL
deanalkas 2 months ago
I made my friend, a creationist, watch these videos. Let's just say I won, and we are no longer friends!
RuinMnemonic 3 months ago 11
@RuinMnemonic Send me details in email. I'm genuinely curious about that, because I see this trend a lot.
AronRa 3 months ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@AronRa
Why do you believe there is NO god?
Watergun8770 3 months ago
@AronRa 03:11 I thought the idea that their is some immaterial soothing to the human being that caries on in some way after our death, taken on it's own is considered a philosophical idea and not a religion
proposing to know what happens to that "something" is what religion's do
255ad 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
@255ad Philosophy is a manner of thinking. Religion is a system of belief. Philosophy allows one to assert with indefensible conviction contradictory absurdities which cannot logically be true, but the exact topic of those assertions are provided by religion, not by philosophy.
AronRa 3 weeks ago 2
@AronRa almost every Philosophical idea I've ever heard defends it's self with some form of logic, also since science can't state things with the level of Certainty to say anything "cannot logically be true" only that things are very unlikely, what are you basing that "cannot logically be true"on? it can only be,1)common sense.... which is moronic,2) another less counter-intuitive, contradictory Philosophical idea making you a hypocrite, 3)it was science and that was just a poor choice of words
255ad 3 weeks ago
@RuinMnemonic It is a shame that you could loose a friend over religious belief. It seems that if he really believed he was right and you were wrong he would try to help you see the light. In this case it seems he wants to believe and you are wrecking his comfortable make believe story. Have heart I believe that you have infected him with the truth and deep inside he knows it , eventually he will have to come to terms with it.
faircompetition1 1 month ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@RuinMnemonic I didn't show any videos to my creationist friend but, I did take snippets of arguements from youtube atheists and eventually he came around. He reached an apologetic conclusion that god created evolution but hey! my goal wasn't to convert him, it was to prove that creationism is wrong. If it takes god for him to believe in evolution, then I'm fine.
melikeit23 3 weeks ago
the picture at 5:08 <3
EMOleexJay 3 months ago
I like this video!!!
kaduisaui 3 months ago
RELIGION. because thinking is hard.
MoralRapist 3 months ago in playlist More videos from AronRa
@AronRa Awseome series of videos.. just awsome.
R18111983 4 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism 2
@Quandary121
Wow, not only are you an idiot, you're also a sexually frustrated one.
Eesh
sonykroket 4 months ago
the scientific method this tosser above is going on about uses the exact same b/s hes trying to say creationist use the one where if in science if it don't fit the beliefs of modern science they either do 2 things where it dont fit they either IGNOR IT and dont look at the evidence OR suppress it your talking out of ape boy heroes arse
Quandary121 4 months ago
The scientific Method that this cunt above is talking about is hog wash if it don't fit the facts they IGNORE it or worse like i pointed out refuse to look at the EVIDENCE THE EXACT MODEL THAT HE IS TRYING TO SAY creationism IS IS THE ONE USED BY silence in the science
Quandary121 4 months ago
i admit i wrote the wrong word i got hear this shit im my ears while i show you that your a wankstain beyond the gene pool
Quandary121 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
let me ask you some mr Julius Ape how long has man been on the earth according to you and your evolutionary bollacks
Quandary121 4 months ago
I agree with everything said in this video, but I kind of don't like its form. You speak really fast and there is a lot of interesting text, but the whole video is not really executed well. I have to stop the video to read the inserts and then get lost in your narration. It would work better if you read the inserts.
TargaryenSoul 4 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
Faux News/Reli-lobbies convinced the stupid masses the founding fathers are the same as the 12 apostles.
They use the same tactics the nazi's did. Repeat the lie loud and often enough
sonykroket 4 months ago
2:21 '"Dr." Kent Hovind is currently serving time for assault and battery...'
News to me. Sure that's right?
MrBillyconcarne 4 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@MrBillyconcarne
It's mostly fraud charges, but apparently an assault and battery charge was included. There were almost 50 charges all told. Yes, that's right.
TheZooCrew 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is the most boring thing ive seen. Voice is too monotone.
pigin007 5 months ago
Personally, my hobby is not-stamp collecting.
AtheistExplains 5 months ago
"Do you believe in U.F.O.s, astral projections, mental telepathy, E.S.P., clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full-trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster, and the theory of Atlantis?"
"-If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."
I love that quote! =)
eshnajizzle 5 months ago
Damn, Aron, could you slow down just a tad? I'm not worried about the inserts, I can pause the vid to read those. I mean your speech. There's no way I could send this to a theist and expect them to be able to digest your rapid-fire cadence. Heck, I'm FAMILIAR with all your points and I could barely keep up!
Great stuff as usual, though. Keep it up!
legionmantis 5 months ago 15
@legionmantis If you expand the description of his videos he has a link to the script of them. Easier to catch it all if you miss anything after you watch.
Reip187 5 months ago
@legionmantis Yeah AronRa, take a deep breathe man
RuinMnemonic 3 months ago
All excellent points, however I propose we 180 on this.
We agree with the christian that science is a religion, declare all science institutions as churches and subsequently receive tax-exemption.
Profits instantly increase by 30% or more.
ASparrow1 6 months ago
@ASparrow1 but then science institutions cannot recieve government funding, and science cannot be taught in schools.
tuseroni 6 months ago
@tuseroni Oh damn, you are right. There would be finding issues. However it is unlikely that funding for science and technological innovation would be stopped. A sematic change of 'religion' will not change the outcomes of research. As far as what is taught in schools it should be fine as long as it is based on evidence. After all Faraday's work in electromagnetism was conducted to support his Sandemanian view of the world, but he was demonstrably correct.
ASparrow1 6 months ago
My only complaint is that the Ghostbusters clip cuts off before my favorite line: "Um, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say." ;)
hurlyburlyexistenz 6 months ago
@hurlyburlyexistenz if you think about it the priests on those mega churches think like that: pay me and i belivie and spread whatever ghoaststories you want! :P
fattigbonddrang 4 months ago
Why is that religion is so often the equivalent of driving a 10" railroad spike laterally through the brain?
dmorono 6 months ago in playlist AronRa Fundamentals
Good video but I don't think your right in your saying that in private Christian schools. Teachers don''t care about teaching science. They may not be the best at teaching evolutionary biology but there are plenty of other subjects.
atrujillo9 6 months ago
Saying evolution is an religion is like trying to use your penis as a pogo stick.
You can try, but you'll hurt yourself and cry, all while looking very stupid.
:D
LiveTheWild 7 months ago
This Taoist loves this video.
CribNotes 7 months ago
Damn AronRa... I was going to start campaigning through Youtube my self, but it would discredit the pure articulation and startling precision of this "series" alone. Nice one, highly inspirational! : ) I shall recommend and encourage further viewers your way!
Rhoky 7 months ago
That little castle in the fundie propaganda art cracks me up.
Racism? Far more likely to be held by biblethumping rednecks then atheists.
Family Breakup? Inevitable sometimes, and in some cases for the best if someone is abusive.
As for homosexuality and pornography, nothing wrong with that. And safe legal abortions are very important for the welfare of women.
And euthanasia is the only civilized thing to do for someone who has only suffering to look forward to and wishes to end it.
TheSkunkCat 7 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
But seriously... racism... Three guesses which party subtly panders to the racist, and doesn't dare to openly offend them. That's right... the Republicans.
And guess what Stormfront and the KKK supported... Yep... the teaparties!
And guess what racists vote for? Yep, right-wingers, the fundies favourite party! Many racist groups ARE fundies as well.
Not all religious people are racists, but you'll find alot more racists among the religious (And the rightwing!) then elsewhere.
TheSkunkCat 7 months ago
I'm done with superstitious preaching maggots.
sonykroket 7 months ago
@TheZooCrew I'm confused by this comment time has always existed because there were seconds minutes hours days etc. BEFORE the theoretic"bang" I would prefer to avoid the whole time conundrum as a whole by just using whatever created the universe as a median reference point
SergeiTheAnarch 7 months ago
@SergeiTheAnarch
"time has always existed because there were seconds minutes hours days etc. BEFORE the theoretic"bang""
Wrong. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time. The two are inextricable. Time and space are entirely dependent on each other. This concept becomes easier to grasp once you take a physics class that covers special relativity. Time wasn't a concept until the expansion.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@PrezBarkORama
"Before the BB there was NOTHING, period."
This is because there was no "before" the Big Bang. Time itself was not a concept until the expansion, which is why the matter/energy (they are the same thing at their most basal form as quark-gluon plasma) is considered to have always existed. There is no "time 0."
Reading the "top authors" of those subjects won't help you if you have no education in those topics.
TheZooCrew 7 months ago
@PrezBarkORama
Slight qualm: There is no evidence for a "First Cause." The consensus among cosmologists is that the universe had no cause. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time, not a causative nor creationary event.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@Scansoriopteryx
No. They pussied out. Rather than take it out of the Pledge, they ruled that schools could no longer require students to stand and recite it every day. I don't get it. Why is still there? It was artificially inserted in the 1950s by the Knights of Columbus. It was supposed to be an anti-communist statement, which is ass-backwards to me. McCarthy was a fuck, but his work lives on today...if you don't support unregulated capitalism, you're a heathen baby-killer.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
"One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive":LOVE IT!
mojosideburns 8 months ago
lol at 03:42 its a PLANT from gundam seed!
Tim123tom123 8 months ago
Nice ending you really made it clear to the nay sayers
Exli3r 8 months ago
Simply BEAUTIFUL! Concise and obvious.
psycotria 9 months ago
science is based on reason.... tommy lee jones is based on reason.
valeo626 9 months ago
Lol, what's with the picture at 5:02, which appears for one milisecond? You really were pressed for time to include everything, weren't you ;P
("If my calculations are correct...it seems that the Sun was made by God and don't question it." Comes after the "War of Worldviews" pic and before the cartoon about the scientific and creationist method)
Mithcoriel 9 months ago
thechessstick - One or two 'scientists' from the fringe can be found to oppose any scientific claim.
They keep 'finding' the Ark, noah's and otherwise, over and over. The discoverers are zealots, not scientists. I'm sure that many years would pass before real scientists would FIRST SUBMIT A PAPER FOR PUBLICATION on such find as EVIDENCE of a real Ark. ( Not to mention the absurdity of the idea of flood etc.
psycotria 10 months ago
In short: Religion is about giving answers. Science is about asking questions. Only one may lead to truth.
KnightofDuroch 10 months ago
The only flaw in your otherwise perfect logic is assuming that Creationists are actually aware that they are fooling themselves in thinking these magical, unsupported dogmas are true and even less that they are educated/not too indoctrinated to actually be aware of intellectually supported alternate points of views such as that evolution doesn't necessarily mean Atheism and vice-versa.
toulouse666 10 months ago
How did you form such a fluid way speaking?
DeceptiveSoul 10 months ago
0:56 thats James Madison, not Monroe. 00:59 John Quincy Adams was the 6th president. Just a couple errors i noticed.
Mattm1986 10 months ago
this series teaches me so much every time i sit through it. so well done- i have never seen a more comprehensive and effective teaching tool on this subject matter. please keep up the good work- the world needs this information.
cruciphile 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, evolutionists will believe anything. What a bunch of dolts they are. Do yourself a favor and read a few of A. E. Wilder-Smith books and also Robert Dick Wilson's book "A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament". Do you know that Noah's Ark was discovered? Also, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Red Sea crossing site, the real Mount Sinai the Ark of the Covenant? Yes, the proof is there. All one must do is seek.
thechessstick 11 months ago
wow 3 years ago...time´s a bitch
managarm1349 11 months ago
Found a mistake at 3:55 : The quote "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" is from John 20:29, not 27:29.
MithcorielDeutsch 11 months ago
I find it hilarious (not to mention ironic) that Creationists think that calling Evolution a religion is the biggest insult imaginable. It's as if, in their opinion, religion is the lowest form of logic imaginable. Which of course is true but you'd never hear a Scientist calling religion a Science in an effort to insult it.
Creationists have such a weird way of thinking.... well I guess it all adds up if you think about it. LOL
warren52nz 11 months ago
I always have to watch these videos twice. Once to listen to him and again to read all the information!
Aaron Ra, you've done an outstanding job on these. Thanks for making them!
evoman1776 11 months ago 5
What is that bit at the end, with the man walking across the pond from?
Darkstar1484 11 months ago
@Darkstar1484 One of Peter Sellers' last movies, 'Being There'.
AronRa 11 months ago
@AronRa Being There was the very last movie that Peter Sellers was in before he died.
Godlesspanther 11 months ago
@AronRa And I totally recommend this movie. It was great! I watched it in an Anthropological Theory class and we got to take apart all the important themes of it. Very interesting.
NenonaFire 4 months ago
Evolution is a theory that wants a backing of scientific facts, it is not yet a science at all, half facts is not science at all for example, the missing link between humans and apes still remain missing. Evolution is just somewhat a religion who believes it is a fact and search for scientific backings. Convince me with proofs and not just stories of fossil remains. If we come from apes, why do apes remain and not revolve all into humans, there should not one left
pedomohd 11 months ago
@pedomohd the human fossil record is complete, theories are not guesses, in fact a theory in science has more weight than just a fact. You do understand that evolution works on the principle of adaptation and reproductive isolation right?
Darkstar1484 11 months ago
@Darkstar1484 hahaha theories are just guesses, when not backed by facts and experiments, theories by itself without facts and experiments and datas is not science at all. Truth is there was no fossil that little by little show the transformation from one into another. Cyanobacteria remain a cyanobacteria until now yet its fossil remains were computed to be 3.5 billion years old.
pedomohd 11 months ago
@pedomohd Typical creationist, Again and again you show no knowledge of the scientific theory/method or of the specific theory you argue against. The theory of evolution has evidence, provable facts through observation, and data. Just because you don't want to recognize that, doesn't make it true. We have fossils, lots of them, showing transitions, I suggest you actually take the time to look at the evidence before asserting there is none. keep in mind your god has no proof at all, none.
Roc099 11 months ago
@pedomohd Typical creationist, just because you want to assert there is no proof doesn't make that proof magically disappear. I suggest you actually go to a site and look at some of the transitional species, before i have to list them and demolish your ignorance. Just because one thing has not changed, does not mean that nothing ever changed, in fact it means that that specific being survives the tests of natural selection.
Roc099 11 months ago
@pedomohd Hahaha.... epic FAIL !!!
warren52nz 11 months ago
@pedomohd Theories are not guesses, you are confusing theories with hypothesis, and hypothesis are submitted to tests and reproduced until they can be proven or disproven. The reason cyanobacteria remains similar due to low selection pressure, an organism adapts to the ambient and it's necessities as a life form, we developed speech so we could have a better trade of information for survival.
carlosewm 11 months ago