awesome clip, I have met a lot of religious people like this. Most of them where muslims but christians have said the same thing. Actually thhe muslims and christians in my class in highschool became good allies in the debates in class :)
Reminds me of the legendary debate between evolutionary biologist PZ Meyers, and the creationist fucktard Geoffrey Simmons, during which Prof. Meyers uttered the immortal words "Your ignorance about the state of the fossil record is not evidence that there are holes in evolutionary theory."
Naturally the invincibly ignorant Simmons along with his creationist radio hosts threw a hissy fit about the fact that Meyers would ever describe a creationist as being ignorant about evolutionary biology.
I wish I could say that real debates between scientists and creationists were not like this, but they are way too much like this, except I have never heard scientists anywhere near so ignorant of christianity.
Another utterly brilliant video :-) I'm reading "the greatest show on earth" at the mo and it's very interesting, can't recommend it enough. Also had a shot at some creationist books to get a balanced view, and they were completely ridiculous, full of miss-information, circular arguments, miss-direction and just plain lies.
Very humorous and entertaining video while managing to accurately portray the sad state of affairs that is the 'creationist' argument. I'm impressed. Subscribed.
@xXsakkelaoXx I'm straight, and do not even have a relationship with anyone. If that christian is right, the world is fucked up. Just. fucked. up. And he isn't right.
Yeah but so many disagree with you, unfortunately NASA, CERN, National academy of Geology, national acad of physics, every single university, astronomer, basically everyone who isnt a religous nutjob disagress with you.....
@xXsakkelaoXx "Helium evidence for a young earth, you even put it in your comment, how can you be so blind?"
Yeah unfortunately NASA, CERN, National academy of Geology, national acad of physics, every single university, astronomer, basically everyone who isnt a religous nutjob disagress with you.....
@shandcunt no they don't you are not informed, many agree with me, even secular astronomers agree that the big bang theory has too many problems and that the earth is not billions of years old, stop making an ass of yourself
(and reality stays reality even if people don't agree with it, the evidence is clear, the earth is not billions of years old)
@xXsakkelaoXx "even secular astronomers agree that the big bang theory has too many problems and that the earth is not billions of years old, stop making an ass of yourself"
Name one...and the published, peer reviewed research by them demonstrating it.
Also, please cite a single published, peer reviewed research paper demonstrating the earth to be anywhere near 10,000 years old.
There simply aren't any. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands which demonstrate the opposite.
@stiimuli "Name one...and the published, peer reviewed research by them demonstrating it."
Although the big bang is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientfic community written primarily by SECULAR scientists, who challege the big bang.
@stiimuli these scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary and the lack of successful big bang predicitions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things they state:
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions
@stiimuli ... of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation" This statement has since been signed by hundreds of other scientists and professors at various institutions.
Lerner, E., et al., "an open letter to the scientific community," New Scientist 182(2448):20, May 22, 2004. Available online at:
Cite the published, peer reviewed research explaining this hypothesis.
"planets with strong magnetic fields"
The planets we know of with the strongest magnetic fields have both significant axial rotation and evidence of liquid metallic cores formed over the lifecycle of the planet which circulate producing a moving charge which interacts with solar wind. It works just like a dynamo.
@stiimuli The magnetic fields are continusly decreasing in strength (this is fact) and the rate has been measured to happen fast, this is impossible if the earth/universe was billions of years old. So: why are they there?
@xXsakkelaoXx "the moon being to close to the earth"
The theory currently most widely accepted in the scientific community for the moon's existance is from the collision of a massive body (possibly another early planetary body). Extensive computer models demonstrating the moon's formation in this way, mounting geologic evidence as well as the moon's locked orientation suggest this is the best explanation we have for it thus far.
@stiimuli "The theory currently most widely accepted in the scientific community for the moon's existance" No shit? look; we all know it exists, just HOW did it get there? now the problem with your model is that one can measure the moon continually distanning (moving away from) the earth, and has measured that the moon couldn't have been formed that way because the moon would of been touching the earths surface 1.4 billion (or million, either way its the maximum time allowed from the maths)
The moon's recession rate from Earth is 3.8 cm/year and its perigee is 363,300 km. As a simple back-of-the envelope calculation, divide these two values and you get 9.56 billion years.
@dcarrera01 "That is not true" i've heard that it is true, by Jason lisle who is also an astronomer, why would I believe you instead? he has calculated that the moon would be touching the earth 1.4 billion years ago,
and the earth is considered (by secular scientists) 4.55 billion years btw, not 9 billion..
@xXsakkelaoXx: Please give me a reference for Jason's work. I want to see it.
Computing the past distance of the moon is not trivial (it's more complex than the back of the envelope calculation I showed you) and Jason's work might be wrong and outdated. Please present his work.
I don't understand why you think that I think that the earth is 9 billion years old. The point of the division was to show that time is plentiful, and you should suspect the 1.4 Gyr figure.
If you are a genuine creationist Christian how come you quoting the astronomer Jason Lisle to make a point about something that took place 1.4 billion years ago? I have a very old bible which is chronologically dated in which it puts the time of the creation at 4004 BC. So according to scripture that infers that the universe is only about 6000 years old. Does this mean that you don't believe this bible crap either?
@poofax56 No, I believe the earth/universe is 6000 years old, yes, have I said otherwise? I was pointing out the problem that the moon would of been touching the earths surface 1.4 billion years ago, therefore creating severe problems for the big bang model and a solar system being 4.5 billion years old, the moons ressesion rate is however not a problem for 6000 years, and fits perfectly with what the bible teaches.
@d007ization talkorigins uses a special form for debate called "mudslinging" you will find all the facts condtradicting that website on trueorigins. and why not go with the straightforward reading of the facts? why always twist the facts to fit your theories?
@xXsakkelaoXx At least your website is somwhat scientific but it begs the question at literally every paragraph, automatically dismissing any hypothesis laid forward by secular scientists as assertions
@d007ization "automatically dismissing any hypothesis laid forward by secular scientists as assertions" ehm exactly? reality doesn't debate, reality is reality however much you disagree with it ;) and the reason why trueorigin probably wins most of the evolution/bigbang/abiogenesis vs creation topics, is because they interpret the facts correctly to what we see with reality, yes?
@xXsakkelaoXx They didn't refute any of the statements. They simply implied that the Old moon mechanism was unlikely (it isnt). They didn't usse any facts to back up evidence for their clai.
@d007ization taken from tureorigin : "such papers can be shown to have one or more serious flaws that completely destroy their credibility—as we have demonstrated in just this one instance." (evolutionary papers that is) this one was pointing out the flaws in the talkorigin article that tried to point out the flaws in the original tureorigin article (trueorigin(dot)org/moonjs(dot)asp which has BUCKETS OF FACTS) but failed miserably.
« I was pointing out the problem that the moon would of been touching the earths surface 1.4 billion years ago »
But not only is this not correct even if we take today's values for the speed of recession - it also ignores the fact that the speed of recession is variable.
« the moon would of been touching the earths surface 1.4 billion years ago »
To elaborate:
Let's take a nice round figure for the distance Earth/Moon: 300.000km, and a nice round figure for the speed of recession: 4 cm (in actuality, the distance is greater, and the speed smaller).
30.000.000.000cm / 4cm/y = 7.500.000.000y
So the Moon would have been touching the Earth 7.5 billion years ago.
The Earth is thought to be only 4.6 billion years old, you know?
@MrGralgrathor Why does Jason lisle say that the moon would of touched the earth 1.4 million years ago then eh? and he also states that that is the straight forward reading of the facts, as with all aspects of evolution, there has always been some trickery to MAKE it fit with their model, instead of actually changing the model to observed fact.
« Why does Jason lisle say that the moon would of touched the earth 1.4 million years ago then eh? »
I don't know. Perhaps his calculator is broken, or he misplaced a digit somewhere? The figures I gave you are accurate; you can look them up for yourself, and I'm sure you've learned how to do division.
@XGralgrathor "I don't know. Perhaps his calculator is broken, or he misplaced a digit somewhere?" I lay down all the numbers for you, could you please point out where the "misplaced digit" or where there is a sign of a "broken calculator" ??
@MrGralgrathor since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 — Ri7).
And of course, not according to geophysical and geological evidence, as detailed in George Williams' 2000 paper, or Kirk Hansens 1982 work on tidal coupling, and others. The most obvious problem with the equation given by DeYoung (and others before him) is the uniformitarian assumptions at the basis of it, which are contradicted by both a theoretical understanding of plate tectonics and the palaeontological evidence.
@MrGralgrathor For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 109 years. There is no significant difference if Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, because of the high recession rate (caused by enormous tides) if the moon is close. See also Don DeYoung, ‘The Earth-Moon System’, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, pp. 79–84, 1990.
@xXsakkelaoXx: Before we go on a tangent about the Oort cloud, could you explain to me why this is important to you? I thought you were wondering about the Earth and the solar system.
Its the very existance of comets and their observed ecliptic and isotropic orbits that suggests the likelihood of an oort cloud...not the other way around. Noone imagined up a cloud of debris first and then sought to find evidence for it. This is how science works. It observes phenomena and then asks "what does this observation suggest?". Religion, by contrast, begins with "This is what I want to believe" then twists observation to fit it.
@stiimuli No, the observations say that comets don't last billions of years, but still clinging to the big bang theory scientists have to make everything "fit" with the big bang theory despite of observed fact.An oort cloud is not scientific as it is unprovable and impossible to disprove.
its like a guy insisting he is dead and the doctor says: no look at all these papers you are alive, do dead men bleed? Man: "I guess not" doctor makes him bleed, man: i guess dead men bleed
@xXsakkelaoXx Oort cloud is neither impossible to prove nor disprove. You could use a really powerful telescope, or you could fly a spaceship out there and look for yourself, for example.
@narco73 That technology will never be available my friend: you saying that is like saying: yes, there is no evidence, but technology we don't know about will prove it because we know by no reason that the big bang theory is correct" but there are so many problems with the big bang theory that many SECULAR scientists have started dismissing it as a condradiction of OBSERVED fact. And even if the technology was there, you wouldnt know where to look, and you would have to scour every corner
@xXsakkelaoXx I'm not sure that you understand what the word "impossible" means
We were talking about the Oort cloud not the big bang. But the Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because its the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model.
@narco73 " But the Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because its the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model." this is one of the biggest lies in human history, observed fact does NOT strenghten the big bang view, the problems occur in abundancy and SECULAR scientists realize it's problems
those who find evidence "for" the big bang, have already assumed the big bang
Where are all the population ||| stars?
How about the moons ressesion?
Io's heat problem?
CMB is interpreted into an assumption of the big bang: big bang happened, therefore we should find CMB, but that doesnt work: CMB exists, but that doesnt have to be interpreted into the big bang
@xXsakkelaoXx Nobody claims to know everything. Did you not read what I said?
" the Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because its the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe."
Genius! Great dialogue. But you forgot to mention Love... What is God if not love?
So you're telling me God is not provable? Well, how to you explain love then? Love doesn't exist in physical form, but yet you believe in it...and gaba, gaba, gaaa...
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp and SLAY every man his brother and every man his companion and every man his neighbour.
How very loving I must say. What happened to his "Thou shalt not kill" commandment?
Shouldn't the commandment be "Thou shalt not kill unless I tell you to?"
I have a piece of advice for you, "read your friggin' bible, mister it might educate you."
Sad but true. I've heard this same nonsense for 35 years. They will never change. I say that if someone repeats the same thing that they have been corrected on for 35 years, they are now officially liars.
@shandcunt Helium evidence for a young earth, you even put it in your comment, how can you be so blind? and also be sure to check out the second one after the mud-slinging from henke helium evidence overcomes pressure, the earth is thousands of years, not billions.
Eye: Light-change detecting cell (detects changes in light) --> Groups of light detecting cells (Grayscale images) --> Groups of Light/light-wavelength detecting cells (Color vision)
@xXsakkelaoXx I know I'm totally impressed with your logic and scientific prowess. Your genius is simply wasted on youtube. You should simply move on. Please, present your ideas via the proper scientific channels and finally put this evolution nonsense out of its misery. I look forward to your inevitable receipt of a Nobel prize!
@xXsakkelaoXx Just out of interest, did you get that dstachon2002's comment was sarcasm? I'm not sure if you missed it, or if you were being sarcastic back..
Some creationist organisations been so buisy trying to debunk evolution, first using common sence then revieuwing the actuall data that instead of being ignorant indoctrinated or missguided they now became pahalogical lyers to keep their buisness running, the first i can live with, the second i guess is common sence.
The anchor sounds like SchockofGod. This is *exactly* how he behaves, talks, repeats the same crap, yells without letting you talking and put words into your mouth. Did you use him as inspiration?
wow. way too many way too ignorant ans plain retarded youtube comments on this one.
take this hint: if you are smart enough for reading and writing youtube yet still too ignorant to read any book on logic math or biology, you are likely a hypocritical scammer.
Mutations -random copying mistakes - never provides more genetic information and are mostly harmful, it cannot account for something as complex as the eye => disproves evolution (molecules to man) right there
@NonStampCollector Thwaites claimed that the new enzyme arose through a frame shift mutation. He based this on a research paper published the previous year where this was suggested. If this were the case, the production of an enzyme would indeed be a fortuitous result, attributable to ‘pure chance’.
@NonStampCollector However, there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance.
Evidence against the evolutionary explanation includes:
There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination.
@NonStampCollector ...Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.
@NonStampCollector All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed.
@NonStampCollector ..But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.
@NonStampCollector All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas.
@NonStampCollector ...This does not look like some random origin of these genes—the chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7 and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015.
@NonStampCollector If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.
@NonStampCollector The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.
@NonStampCollector The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.
@NonStampCollector I have a suggestion for you: how about you go and make a cartoon about how ignorant YOU are, cause the truth is: this cartoon should be the other way round
@xXsakkelaoXx said "I have a suggestion for you: how about you go and make a cartoon about how ignorant YOU are, cause the truth is: this cartoon should be the other way round"
LOL!! LOL!! How funny is this? (And Fudies, your threats of hell sound like the line from ghostbusters "Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!," so save your threats)
@xXsakkelaoXx The creationist article from which you copy and paste was origionally posted at Answers in Genesis and has repeatedly been disemboweled by actual scientists. I don't want to spam up nonstamp's video any more than you already have so I'll simply direct you to one such dismemberment here:
@stiimuli yes, and: yet again this has been disemboweled at trueorigin(dot)org use the search engine, and are YOU a scientist? because if you are not, you CAN NOT say that your scientists from talkorigins are REAL, when you don't have a clue about science yourself.
@xXsakkelaoXx I provided you a direct link. The least you could do is return the courtesy.
I know enough about science to review and understand actual published research....which the creationist refutations you referance are not. There's a reason creationist literature cannot pass scientific peer review....and no, its not the "giant science conspiracy" creationists claim.
and the person that wrote the piece I sited to you IS a scientist. Ian Musgrave is a medical researcher.
@stiimuli You have different starting assumptions and presuppositions, thats why you come to different conclusions we look at actual evidence and interpret according to the bible, you interperate the evidence according to billions of years, but noone was there billions of years ago, however god was there when the earth was created (don't attack me on this one, cas thats what i call myself yes? a creationist) so we can know for sure how things happened and predict stuff that we see fits with real
@xXsakkelaoXx "we look at actual evidence and interpret according to the bible,"
Exactly, because just as AIG instructs right on its statement of faith page:
"No apparent evidence from any field can be true if it contradicts biblical scripture."
As Ken Ham instructs, you put on "god glasses" and filter out anything that contradicts the beliefs you choose to hold instead of honestly following where the evidence leads.
@xXsakkelaoXx "you interperate the evidence according to billions of years, but noone was there billions of years ago"
and noone was there when the bible claims god created the earth and universe yet you have no problem believing that.
Unlike religion, science does not begin with a preferred conclusion and then attempt to find evidence to support it. Science begins with a question and then follows the evidence to whatever answer the evidence most reliably indicates.
@stiimuli No, billions of years is a theory directly contradicting the bible on purpose (you probably wont agree with this) and there is no real scientific evidence for it, alot of it is made up like the geologic column
"and noone was there when the bible claims god created the earth and universe yet you have no problem believing that." God was there, it's kinda clear, how could you miss it? thats the point, we have the whole puzzle (the bible) you have missing peaces
@xXsakkelaoXx billions of years is what the data shows. Numberous radiometric dating methods attest to this....methods each of us INCLUDING YOU can repeat and see the evidence for ourselves! For what reason would anyone decide to believe the earth is that old without evidence of it? What would they possibly have to gain???
@stiimuli radiometric dating methods often give different answers, evolutionists use the answer that fits them, actually the current supposed age of the earth was decided by rock from comets! indeed, the earth has been dated to be (according to assumptions that the rate has been constant and assuming the amount of radioactive material to begin with (if you see a candle you can test with observable fact the rate AT THAM SPECIFIC MOMENT, you cannot know its been constant or the starting hight).
@xXsakkelaoXx: I am an astronomer. I would be happy to explain astronomy if you like. You seem to be confused about radiometric dating methods. For example, isochron dating methods do not make any assumption about the initial amounts of parent or daughter nuclei in the sample.
The samples are from meteorites, not comets, and they are used to date the solar system rather than Earth specifically (meteorites are part of the solar system).
@xXsakkelaoXx: "Nothing has been altered" is rather vague. What do you have in mind? And what phenomenon do you suggest would change the range of the weak nuclear force? How do you propose that this phenomenon can be so finely tuned to make a wide range of different nuclei with different decay rates still give consistent answers for the age of objects? How about observations that are not based on the weak nuclear force, such as our ability to observe galaxies billions of years in the past?
@xXsakkelaoXx: Btw, can you explain to me how it would be possible for the rate of nuclear decay to vary dramatically over time without also drastically altering the Sun's energy output and either destroying or freezing the Earth in the past? Remember that radioactive decay and nuclear fusion in the Sun are both manifestations of the weak nuclear force.
@dcarrera01 This is the work done by jason lisle, and also russel humphreys, take a look, and maybe say if you find any faults errors worth knowing about? :
This annoyed me because it was so real. Pretty much every argument goes like that. Very well done
herminbean 11 hours ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector
What's even more funny is if a creationist saw this video, they would have thought the creationist pwn the biologist.
Balstar5283 2 days ago 3
awesome clip, I have met a lot of religious people like this. Most of them where muslims but christians have said the same thing. Actually thhe muslims and christians in my class in highschool became good allies in the debates in class :)
FabianKrummel 2 days ago
Reminds me of the legendary debate between evolutionary biologist PZ Meyers, and the creationist fucktard Geoffrey Simmons, during which Prof. Meyers uttered the immortal words "Your ignorance about the state of the fossil record is not evidence that there are holes in evolutionary theory."
Naturally the invincibly ignorant Simmons along with his creationist radio hosts threw a hissy fit about the fact that Meyers would ever describe a creationist as being ignorant about evolutionary biology.
dingodavid 3 days ago
If evolution can be dismissed as a theory, then gravity can be dismissed as a theory and you can now fly the fuck off this planet.
therealjammit 3 days ago
NOT EVEN 1
MeepullStewray 3 days ago
Your writing is excellent, because I honestly wish the interviewer was real so i could punch him in the face.
SmallGreenPlanetoid 3 days ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector
HAHAHAHAHA! These guys are so funny!!
katherine3486 3 days ago
I wish I could say that real debates between scientists and creationists were not like this, but they are way too much like this, except I have never heard scientists anywhere near so ignorant of christianity.
teaohar2 4 days ago
LOL Never felt so content after watching this hahahaha.. Fuck you Ray Comfort..
Vikramthewhite 5 days ago
yeah letting the facts speak for themselves
Axelschultz1 5 days ago
Awesome videos - subscribed :"D
holyhoploc 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do I have to tell you what the word 'theory' means in science?
No, I'm not interested.
lol.
rsr789 5 days ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector
Do I have to tell you what the word 'theory' means in science?
No, I'm not interested.
lol.
rsr789 5 days ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector 4
6-10,000 years ago, everything popped into existence, including the eyeball.
cravintruth 6 days ago
This felt like listening to something involving William Lane Craig.
Baeloth 6 days ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector
5:30 I think its from the debate Dawkins - (random Christian lady)
Neshuah1 6 days ago
I think I had a memory flashback to me arguing with my dad while watching.
GarretBj26 6 days ago
This would be hysterical if it wasn't so discouragingly accurate.
beatbeatBOOMbeat 6 days ago
I have met so many stupid
mayrin1112 6 days ago
haha, Einsteins fact of relitivity, pure gold.
bluexepnos 1 week ago
This is like the richard dawkins wendy wright interview so funny,,,,,,,,,,,,
heathsawyer 1 week ago
Their eye's don't look that complex!
KittenKitoko 1 week ago
9:49-10:21 is PURE GOLD.
PoeRacing 1 week ago 2
Nonstampcollector!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rgbatheist 1 week ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector
lol at the people who think the bible is history
CannedBullets 1 week ago
This is soo like girl and guy i was debateing...
C00LX100 1 week ago
How about a nice cup of shut the fuck up!!!
C00LX100 1 week ago
Deja vu? anyone over and over again XD
C00LX100 1 week ago
frightenly relevant
ElementalAlloy 1 week ago
Another utterly brilliant video :-) I'm reading "the greatest show on earth" at the mo and it's very interesting, can't recommend it enough. Also had a shot at some creationist books to get a balanced view, and they were completely ridiculous, full of miss-information, circular arguments, miss-direction and just plain lies.
carpy1970 1 week ago
This is exactly what it's like to debate Bill O'Reilly.
ilovelani69 1 week ago 57
@ilovelani69 And Kent Hovind. Trust me.
Zanazuah 1 week ago
Christianity is only a religion.
bvssvni 1 week ago
6:13-6:20 Beautiful...........
RahxephonXtra 1 week ago 26
@RahxephonXtra Look, there ARE no fossiles.
Zanazuah 1 week ago
Thank you so much for making a video exposing the exact lies I was taught in HS, I remember hearing these exact arguments in Bible class.
rogerver 2 weeks ago 3
I would say you've got another subscriber, but there's one problem.
I'm already subscribed. :-)
More genius work, NSC.
419Films 2 weeks ago
damn, I want to punch that guy.
r4d3rz 2 weeks ago
that guy got owned by kent hovind.
Pirate44444 2 weeks ago
@Pirate44444 you trolling?
Zanazuah 1 week ago
Very humorous and entertaining video while managing to accurately portray the sad state of affairs that is the 'creationist' argument. I'm impressed. Subscribed.
ciciomax 2 weeks ago
the video was hilarious, sir, you just earned yourself a subscriber.
SmithScapegoat 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
THAT FUCKING CHRISTIAN MAKES ME SOOOOO ANGRY RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
crocalu 2 weeks ago
@crocalu Now you know how people feel who are debating with Kent Hovind. A good lesson for you.
Zanazuah 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx I'm straight, and do not even have a relationship with anyone. If that christian is right, the world is fucked up. Just. fucked. up. And he isn't right.
crocalu 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
poofax56 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling trolling
shandcunt 2 weeks ago
@shandcunt chillout badass
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXsakkelaoXx "many agree with me"
Yeah but so many disagree with you, unfortunately NASA, CERN, National academy of Geology, national acad of physics, every single university, astronomer, basically everyone who isnt a religous nutjob disagress with you.....
You have to be the worst troll on the internet
shandcunt 2 weeks ago
It baffles me how some people can be so content being so scientifically illiterate.
gerardrbain1972 2 weeks ago 2
@xXsakkelaoXx "Helium evidence for a young earth, you even put it in your comment, how can you be so blind?"
Yeah unfortunately NASA, CERN, National academy of Geology, national acad of physics, every single university, astronomer, basically everyone who isnt a religous nutjob disagress with you.....
You have to be the worst troll on the internet
shandcunt 2 weeks ago
@shandcunt no they don't you are not informed, many agree with me, even secular astronomers agree that the big bang theory has too many problems and that the earth is not billions of years old, stop making an ass of yourself
(and reality stays reality even if people don't agree with it, the evidence is clear, the earth is not billions of years old)
explain Io's heat
planets with strong magnetic fields
the moon being to close to the earth
Comets without a made up oort cloud.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "even secular astronomers agree that the big bang theory has too many problems and that the earth is not billions of years old, stop making an ass of yourself"
Name one...and the published, peer reviewed research by them demonstrating it.
Also, please cite a single published, peer reviewed research paper demonstrating the earth to be anywhere near 10,000 years old.
There simply aren't any. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands which demonstrate the opposite.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli "There simply aren't any" Answers Research Journal "There simply aren't any" Answers Research Journal "There simply aren't any" Answers Research Journal "There simply aren't any" Answers Research Journal "There simply aren't any" Answers Research Journal "There simply aren't any" Answers Research Journal "There simply aren't any" Answers Research Journal "There simply aren't any" Answers Research Journal "There simply aren't any" Answers Research Journal
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli "Name one...and the published, peer reviewed research by them demonstrating it."
Although the big bang is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientfic community written primarily by SECULAR scientists, who challege the big bang.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli these scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary and the lack of successful big bang predicitions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things they state:
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli ... of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation" This statement has since been signed by hundreds of other scientists and professors at various institutions.
Lerner, E., et al., "an open letter to the scientific community," New Scientist 182(2448):20, May 22, 2004. Available online at:
cosmologystatement(dot)org
Will you ever change your mind?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "explain Io's heat"
Cite the published, peer reviewed research explaining this hypothesis.
"planets with strong magnetic fields"
The planets we know of with the strongest magnetic fields have both significant axial rotation and evidence of liquid metallic cores formed over the lifecycle of the planet which circulate producing a moving charge which interacts with solar wind. It works just like a dynamo.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli The magnetic fields are continusly decreasing in strength (this is fact) and the rate has been measured to happen fast, this is impossible if the earth/universe was billions of years old. So: why are they there?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli wired(dot)com/wiredscience/tag/io
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "the moon being to close to the earth"
The theory currently most widely accepted in the scientific community for the moon's existance is from the collision of a massive body (possibly another early planetary body). Extensive computer models demonstrating the moon's formation in this way, mounting geologic evidence as well as the moon's locked orientation suggest this is the best explanation we have for it thus far.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli "The theory currently most widely accepted in the scientific community for the moon's existance" No shit? look; we all know it exists, just HOW did it get there? now the problem with your model is that one can measure the moon continually distanning (moving away from) the earth, and has measured that the moon couldn't have been formed that way because the moon would of been touching the earths surface 1.4 billion (or million, either way its the maximum time allowed from the maths)
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx: That is not true.
The moon's recession rate from Earth is 3.8 cm/year and its perigee is 363,300 km. As a simple back-of-the envelope calculation, divide these two values and you get 9.56 billion years.
dcarrera01 2 weeks ago
@dcarrera01 "That is not true" i've heard that it is true, by Jason lisle who is also an astronomer, why would I believe you instead? he has calculated that the moon would be touching the earth 1.4 billion years ago,
and the earth is considered (by secular scientists) 4.55 billion years btw, not 9 billion..
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx: Please give me a reference for Jason's work. I want to see it.
Computing the past distance of the moon is not trivial (it's more complex than the back of the envelope calculation I showed you) and Jason's work might be wrong and outdated. Please present his work.
I don't understand why you think that I think that the earth is 9 billion years old. The point of the division was to show that time is plentiful, and you should suspect the 1.4 Gyr figure.
dcarrera01 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
If you are a genuine creationist Christian how come you quoting the astronomer Jason Lisle to make a point about something that took place 1.4 billion years ago? I have a very old bible which is chronologically dated in which it puts the time of the creation at 4004 BC. So according to scripture that infers that the universe is only about 6000 years old. Does this mean that you don't believe this bible crap either?
poofax56 2 weeks ago
@poofax56 No, I believe the earth/universe is 6000 years old, yes, have I said otherwise? I was pointing out the problem that the moon would of been touching the earths surface 1.4 billion years ago, therefore creating severe problems for the big bang model and a solar system being 4.5 billion years old, the moons ressesion rate is however not a problem for 6000 years, and fits perfectly with what the bible teaches.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx If you're interested (something I seriously doubt) check out talkorigins on that subject (type "lunar recession" into google).
d007ization 2 weeks ago
@d007ization talkorigins uses a special form for debate called "mudslinging" you will find all the facts condtradicting that website on trueorigins. and why not go with the straightforward reading of the facts? why always twist the facts to fit your theories?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Yes go and delude yourself. Straightforward facts and mathematics are truely evil and ranting!!
I'll go look at your website but by all means ignore modern science
d007ization 2 weeks ago
@d007ization Your comment is noise.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx At least your website is somwhat scientific but it begs the question at literally every paragraph, automatically dismissing any hypothesis laid forward by secular scientists as assertions
d007ization 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@d007ization "automatically dismissing any hypothesis laid forward by secular scientists as assertions" ehm exactly? reality doesn't debate, reality is reality however much you disagree with it ;) and the reason why trueorigin probably wins most of the evolution/bigbang/abiogenesis vs creation topics, is because they interpret the facts correctly to what we see with reality, yes?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx They didn't refute any of the statements. They simply implied that the Old moon mechanism was unlikely (it isnt). They didn't usse any facts to back up evidence for their clai.
d007ization 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@d007ization taken from tureorigin : "such papers can be shown to have one or more serious flaws that completely destroy their credibility—as we have demonstrated in just this one instance." (evolutionary papers that is) this one was pointing out the flaws in the talkorigin article that tried to point out the flaws in the original tureorigin article (trueorigin(dot)org/moonjs(dot)asp which has BUCKETS OF FACTS) but failed miserably.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
« I was pointing out the problem that the moon would of been touching the earths surface 1.4 billion years ago »
But not only is this not correct even if we take today's values for the speed of recession - it also ignores the fact that the speed of recession is variable.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
« the moon would of been touching the earths surface 1.4 billion years ago »
To elaborate:
Let's take a nice round figure for the distance Earth/Moon: 300.000km, and a nice round figure for the speed of recession: 4 cm (in actuality, the distance is greater, and the speed smaller).
30.000.000.000cm / 4cm/y = 7.500.000.000y
So the Moon would have been touching the Earth 7.5 billion years ago.
The Earth is thought to be only 4.6 billion years old, you know?
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGralgrathor Why does Jason lisle say that the moon would of touched the earth 1.4 million years ago then eh? and he also states that that is the straight forward reading of the facts, as with all aspects of evolution, there has always been some trickery to MAKE it fit with their model, instead of actually changing the model to observed fact.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
« Why does Jason lisle say that the moon would of touched the earth 1.4 million years ago then eh? »
I don't know. Perhaps his calculator is broken, or he misplaced a digit somewhere? The figures I gave you are accurate; you can look them up for yourself, and I'm sure you've learned how to do division.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@XGralgrathor "I don't know. Perhaps his calculator is broken, or he misplaced a digit somewhere?" I lay down all the numbers for you, could you please point out where the "misplaced digit" or where there is a sign of a "broken calculator" ??
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGralgrathor since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 — Ri7).
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
Not according to Walter Brown's 1995 thesis.
And of course, not according to geophysical and geological evidence, as detailed in George Williams' 2000 paper, or Kirk Hansens 1982 work on tidal coupling, and others. The most obvious problem with the equation given by DeYoung (and others before him) is the uniformitarian assumptions at the basis of it, which are contradicted by both a theoretical understanding of plate tectonics and the palaeontological evidence.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGralgrathor For Rf = the present distance and Ri = the Roche Limit, t = 1.37 x 109 years. There is no significant difference if Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, because of the high recession rate (caused by enormous tides) if the moon is close. See also Don DeYoung, ‘The Earth-Moon System’, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, pp. 79–84, 1990.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@dcarrera01 And if you are an astronomer, maybe you could tell whoevers reading what evidence there is for an oort cloud ?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx: Before we go on a tangent about the Oort cloud, could you explain to me why this is important to you? I thought you were wondering about the Earth and the solar system.
dcarrera01 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Comets without a made up oort cloud"
Its the very existance of comets and their observed ecliptic and isotropic orbits that suggests the likelihood of an oort cloud...not the other way around. Noone imagined up a cloud of debris first and then sought to find evidence for it. This is how science works. It observes phenomena and then asks "what does this observation suggest?". Religion, by contrast, begins with "This is what I want to believe" then twists observation to fit it.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli No, the observations say that comets don't last billions of years, but still clinging to the big bang theory scientists have to make everything "fit" with the big bang theory despite of observed fact.An oort cloud is not scientific as it is unprovable and impossible to disprove.
its like a guy insisting he is dead and the doctor says: no look at all these papers you are alive, do dead men bleed? Man: "I guess not" doctor makes him bleed, man: i guess dead men bleed
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Oort cloud is neither impossible to prove nor disprove. You could use a really powerful telescope, or you could fly a spaceship out there and look for yourself, for example.
narco73 2 weeks ago
@narco73 No, comets don't emit light, a space ship of the sort wouldn't know where to look and we do not have the technology for that yet.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Comets reflect light. All we'd need to do is to provide a light, or we may even be able to detect some natural light that they reflect.
Just because we don't have the technology for it yet doesn't mean it's impossible, which is what you claimed.
narco73 2 weeks ago
@narco73 That technology will never be available my friend: you saying that is like saying: yes, there is no evidence, but technology we don't know about will prove it because we know by no reason that the big bang theory is correct" but there are so many problems with the big bang theory that many SECULAR scientists have started dismissing it as a condradiction of OBSERVED fact. And even if the technology was there, you wouldnt know where to look, and you would have to scour every corner
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@narco73 of the universe to be SURE that it is NOT there, that is my friend impossible
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx I'm not sure that you understand what the word "impossible" means
We were talking about the Oort cloud not the big bang. But the Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because its the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model.
narco73 2 weeks ago
@narco73 " But the Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because its the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model." this is one of the biggest lies in human history, observed fact does NOT strenghten the big bang view, the problems occur in abundancy and SECULAR scientists realize it's problems
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@narco73 Flatness problem
If inflation: what started and stopped it?
what caused the big bang?
those who find evidence "for" the big bang, have already assumed the big bang
Where are all the population ||| stars?
How about the moons ressesion?
Io's heat problem?
CMB is interpreted into an assumption of the big bang: big bang happened, therefore we should find CMB, but that doesnt work: CMB exists, but that doesnt have to be interpreted into the big bang
CHECK OUT: cosmologystatement(dot)org
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXsakkelaoXx Nobody claims to know everything. Did you not read what I said?
" the Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because its the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe."
narco73 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli thats why they made it up btw, so that it could fit with the theory, instead of maybe dismissing the theory according to observations?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
Genius! Great dialogue. But you forgot to mention Love... What is God if not love?
So you're telling me God is not provable? Well, how to you explain love then? Love doesn't exist in physical form, but yet you believe in it...and gaba, gaba, gaaa...
carinum 2 weeks ago
@carinum
Exodus. xxxii, V27
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp and SLAY every man his brother and every man his companion and every man his neighbour.
How very loving I must say. What happened to his "Thou shalt not kill" commandment?
Shouldn't the commandment be "Thou shalt not kill unless I tell you to?"
I have a piece of advice for you, "read your friggin' bible, mister it might educate you."
poofax56 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Sad but true. I've heard this same nonsense for 35 years. They will never change. I say that if someone repeats the same thing that they have been corrected on for 35 years, they are now officially liars.
tombloom99 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
uncleboring 2 weeks ago
Arguing with a Creationist is like wrestling a pig. In the end, you're both covered in shit and the pig is still a pig.
paramattic70 2 weeks ago 4
This video is just great... it's funny and it's so goddamn painfully true at the same time...
tajniak4 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
tajniak4 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Taken from True Origin home page;
"TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism"
An Intellectually honest response? followed later on by "Helium Evidence for young earth" and "Thermodynamics vs Evolution"......
So where is the intellectually honest part? It seems to be jst repeating the same arguments in this video?
shandcunt 2 weeks ago
@shandcunt Helium evidence for a young earth, you even put it in your comment, how can you be so blind? and also be sure to check out the second one after the mud-slinging from henke helium evidence overcomes pressure, the earth is thousands of years, not billions.
this also fits with Io's heat btw
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
Eye: Light-change detecting cell (detects changes in light) --> Groups of light detecting cells (Grayscale images) --> Groups of Light/light-wavelength detecting cells (Color vision)
MasterYangLi 2 weeks ago
I think i saw this on Fox News Once. . .
35TCK 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx I know I'm totally impressed with your logic and scientific prowess. Your genius is simply wasted on youtube. You should simply move on. Please, present your ideas via the proper scientific channels and finally put this evolution nonsense out of its misery. I look forward to your inevitable receipt of a Nobel prize!
dstachon2002 2 weeks ago
@dstachon2002 hey! thanks m8
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Just out of interest, did you get that dstachon2002's comment was sarcasm? I'm not sure if you missed it, or if you were being sarcastic back..
narco73 2 weeks ago
@narco73 kind of a micture to be honest ;P
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
lol
itsinmybones 2 weeks ago
06:55 i love it when he just collapses; "oh for fuck's sake!"
TheNobleSufferer 2 weeks ago
7479 people who want to fu*k before marriage lmao, are you SO horny?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
This is like almost every conversation with creationists that has ever happened rolled into one.
CATMAHAT 2 weeks ago
(Looks at ad just above suggestions) A Boeing 777! Did a tornado just go through YouTube?
assilembrandywine 2 weeks ago
aaaaaaaaaaaa i wanna slap that bitch in the face!!!! >:C
RisingAtheists 2 weeks ago
Some creationist organisations been so buisy trying to debunk evolution, first using common sence then revieuwing the actuall data that instead of being ignorant indoctrinated or missguided they now became pahalogical lyers to keep their buisness running, the first i can live with, the second i guess is common sence.
MeeuwtjeMovies 2 weeks ago
Is this a Bill O'Reilly show?
joyboard 3 weeks ago
1:57
this is the best frame of animation ever, capturing all the lack of curiosity that makes people believe in magic women in the sky. sorry, men.
fume0ne 3 weeks ago
Even though I know it's a joke, it's still painful to watch this
Holgmeister 3 weeks ago
This is my third time watching this. Brilliant satire. So accurate!
EclecticSceptic 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Creationist - deliberate mis-understands basic science - never provides more information and are mostly harmful
Congragulations on lying for jesus, Im sure he is really proud of you.....Galileo anyone?
shandcunt 3 weeks ago
I know people who argued like this during an email exchange. I ended up just not responding anymore because you can't win against stupidity.
TheLuckySaGe 3 weeks ago
like if you just wanna punch your screen to fuck that little christian cartoon up.... AHHHHHH this video is awsome :P
jayot33 3 weeks ago 4
Well done!! I actually got uncomfortable when the guy repeated the same argument over and over! lol
javamanV3 3 weeks ago
Its funny. Because this isn't being over exaggerated.
MrXenetics 3 weeks ago 11
god...I really wanted to choke that f-cker..... Nice job!
almightycatman 3 weeks ago
I had that argument pulled on me once. Monkeys can't evolve into men over millions of years because they don't live millions of years. Holy fuck T_T
PirateMonkeyFilmz 3 weeks ago
The anchor sounds like SchockofGod. This is *exactly* how he behaves, talks, repeats the same crap, yells without letting you talking and put words into your mouth. Did you use him as inspiration?
Knr911 3 weeks ago 2
wow. way too many way too ignorant ans plain retarded youtube comments on this one.
take this hint: if you are smart enough for reading and writing youtube yet still too ignorant to read any book on logic math or biology, you are likely a hypocritical scammer.
olllj 3 weeks ago
not even ONE!
Polum824545201 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mutations -random copying mistakes - never provides more genetic information and are mostly harmful, it cannot account for something as complex as the eye => disproves evolution (molecules to man) right there
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
NonStampCollector 3 weeks ago 33
@NonStampCollector
Dear NSC,
I love you. This is one of your best videos, and they are all great!
OldSchoolSkill 3 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector <3
johnalton22 3 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector This comment is very aesthetically pleasing. If you put it on a shirt, I would definitely buy it.
smokyp3nguin 3 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector Thwaites claimed that the new enzyme arose through a frame shift mutation. He based this on a research paper published the previous year where this was suggested. If this were the case, the production of an enzyme would indeed be a fortuitous result, attributable to ‘pure chance’.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector However, there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance.
Evidence against the evolutionary explanation includes:
There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector ...Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector ..But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector ...This does not look like some random origin of these genes—the chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7 and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@NonStampCollector I have a suggestion for you: how about you go and make a cartoon about how ignorant YOU are, cause the truth is: this cartoon should be the other way round
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXsakkelaoXx said "I have a suggestion for you: how about you go and make a cartoon about how ignorant YOU are, cause the truth is: this cartoon should be the other way round"
LOL!! LOL!! How funny is this? (And Fudies, your threats of hell sound like the line from ghostbusters "Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!," so save your threats)
joestfrancois 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx The creationist article from which you copy and paste was origionally posted at Answers in Genesis and has repeatedly been disemboweled by actual scientists. I don't want to spam up nonstamp's video any more than you already have so I'll simply direct you to one such dismemberment here:
talkorigins(DOT)org/origins/postmonth/apr04(DOT)html
Subsequent research and journal publications not only verify the origional Negoro finding but led to additional discoveries.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli yes, and: yet again this has been disemboweled at trueorigin(dot)org use the search engine, and are YOU a scientist? because if you are not, you CAN NOT say that your scientists from talkorigins are REAL, when you don't have a clue about science yourself.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx I provided you a direct link. The least you could do is return the courtesy.
I know enough about science to review and understand actual published research....which the creationist refutations you referance are not. There's a reason creationist literature cannot pass scientific peer review....and no, its not the "giant science conspiracy" creationists claim.
and the person that wrote the piece I sited to you IS a scientist. Ian Musgrave is a medical researcher.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli You have different starting assumptions and presuppositions, thats why you come to different conclusions we look at actual evidence and interpret according to the bible, you interperate the evidence according to billions of years, but noone was there billions of years ago, however god was there when the earth was created (don't attack me on this one, cas thats what i call myself yes? a creationist) so we can know for sure how things happened and predict stuff that we see fits with real
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "we look at actual evidence and interpret according to the bible,"
Exactly, because just as AIG instructs right on its statement of faith page:
"No apparent evidence from any field can be true if it contradicts biblical scripture."
As Ken Ham instructs, you put on "god glasses" and filter out anything that contradicts the beliefs you choose to hold instead of honestly following where the evidence leads.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "you interperate the evidence according to billions of years, but noone was there billions of years ago"
and noone was there when the bible claims god created the earth and universe yet you have no problem believing that.
Unlike religion, science does not begin with a preferred conclusion and then attempt to find evidence to support it. Science begins with a question and then follows the evidence to whatever answer the evidence most reliably indicates.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stiimuli No, billions of years is a theory directly contradicting the bible on purpose (you probably wont agree with this) and there is no real scientific evidence for it, alot of it is made up like the geologic column
"and noone was there when the bible claims god created the earth and universe yet you have no problem believing that." God was there, it's kinda clear, how could you miss it? thats the point, we have the whole puzzle (the bible) you have missing peaces
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx billions of years is what the data shows. Numberous radiometric dating methods attest to this....methods each of us INCLUDING YOU can repeat and see the evidence for ourselves! For what reason would anyone decide to believe the earth is that old without evidence of it? What would they possibly have to gain???
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli radiometric dating methods often give different answers, evolutionists use the answer that fits them, actually the current supposed age of the earth was decided by rock from comets! indeed, the earth has been dated to be (according to assumptions that the rate has been constant and assuming the amount of radioactive material to begin with (if you see a candle you can test with observable fact the rate AT THAM SPECIFIC MOMENT, you cannot know its been constant or the starting hight).
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx: I am an astronomer. I would be happy to explain astronomy if you like. You seem to be confused about radiometric dating methods. For example, isochron dating methods do not make any assumption about the initial amounts of parent or daughter nuclei in the sample.
The samples are from meteorites, not comets, and they are used to date the solar system rather than Earth specifically (meteorites are part of the solar system).
dcarrera01 2 weeks ago
@dcarrera01 You still have to assume the rate has been constant, and nothing has altered the amount of parent daughter nuclei in the sample
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx: "Nothing has been altered" is rather vague. What do you have in mind? And what phenomenon do you suggest would change the range of the weak nuclear force? How do you propose that this phenomenon can be so finely tuned to make a wide range of different nuclei with different decay rates still give consistent answers for the age of objects? How about observations that are not based on the weak nuclear force, such as our ability to observe galaxies billions of years in the past?
dcarrera01 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx: Btw, can you explain to me how it would be possible for the rate of nuclear decay to vary dramatically over time without also drastically altering the Sun's energy output and either destroying or freezing the Earth in the past? Remember that radioactive decay and nuclear fusion in the Sun are both manifestations of the weak nuclear force.
dcarrera01 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dcarrera01 This is the work done by jason lisle, and also russel humphreys, take a look, and maybe say if you find any faults errors worth knowing about? :
tinyurl(dot)com/yqhlgu
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@dcarrera01 why do you say that the EARTH is 4.55 billion years old, when according to this dating method, it could be between 3-7 billion years old?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx: How do you get the 3 - 7 billion year figure?