This guy keeps saying, "Again this is a non living being." So my question is, how does a rock fit into his theory of evolution? Where did it get formed? And don't tell me the big bang, cause that rock....is not a living thing. So who made it?
Rocks DON'T fit into the theory of evolution because they don't evolve; they're not living things. It's like asking "how does my living room carpet fit into the theory of gravity".
How did the rock get formed? Read some Geology, the answers are there.
...and don't lead the question by asking "who" made it. No living being made it. Natural processes made it.
Read a Geology book, take a Geology class, study Geology. There are plenty of answers there for you. I'm not planning on getting technical in a YouTube comment thread.
@GamleSeg Uhm no. I actually have been waiting a year for an answer to my question. Thank you for being a participant, but you just failed. Go back and try again. THank you.
@GBlues1 Are you kidding me? Your question was "do you have evidence to support that natural process created a rock", to which I responded "read a Geology book". I suppose I need to make myself clearer: the evidence you seek that supports the conclusion that "natural process created a rock" is explained within a textbook about Geology. It will walk you through the processes found in nature that prove my point and point you to further resources you can find for more evidence and proof. Idiot.
I saw the first 3 episodes, and now this one. It really makes me sad there is people like this in the world. I don't feel anger, or shame, or the feel to ridicule them, just...sadness. It makes me lose hope in humanity :(
Kirk turned into a mean, judgmental asshole after he became "born again", just ask his fellow cast members from growing pains. Being "saved" tends to turn the savee into a total dick.
@samsun1975 If anyone has been brainwashed its you, by the bible and everyone who worships it, mankind is too good for the bible since the bible was written by people - retarded in modern society - and is written in a way to fit people 2000+ years ago, you sir are ignorant and close minded and your choose belief in something that you cannot see, hear, touch , feel or smell than in observations OF reality , the bible, according to some creationist, hasnt been updated , ever , what does
@samsun1975 that tell you? that the thing you read in the bible was actually written 2000 years ago, the bible didnt become far more aware of the explorations and the scientific evidence we have found the last decades, is the bible aware of darwins theory? NO
@samsun1975 And creationist evolve too, for an example, lets say a creationist would say, your theory is false, everything was created by god, and YOU would say, well prove it then, and the creationist says, hold on just a minute, then after 20 years he comes back, now with a theory far more complex , etc
and lets say jesus did not come to earth 2000 years ago, he came now, walking on water and turning water to wine, would you STILL believe him? I think not, you'd say he was crazy
see me eat this peanut butter? notice how i put it in my mouth and chew it, and then, commencing to swallow? its good, huh? therefore, THE SUN EATS THE MOON! behold!
Darwin was an "atheist" in the same sense that Russel was an "atheist" or that any other sensible atheist is an "atheist". Russel merely used the term "agnostic" because he didn't want to imply that he was 100% sure that there was no God (or 100% sure of anything else for that matter).
Darwin used the term "agnostic" out of loyalty to Huxley who coined the term.
AFAIK, they were both, for all intents and purposes, atheists to the same degree as Dawkins.
"Creationists have the dumbest reasons for not believing evolution. For example: "well it's just so complicated" which basicly says "I don't understand it... it must be magic!!"" lawl...
Absolutely it's still expanding, but at a slower rate than the initial expansion. Depending on the amount of matter in the universe, it will either continue to expand, cool off and burn out, or it will pull back, contract on itself, and go back to the singularity, where it will do this whole thing again. See "Big Crunch".
Please stop with these creationist one liners, you're starting to make me think you're arguing implicitly on my behalf. About the moon, DO THE MATH! It moves back about 1.5 inches a year. In 10 million years, that would bring it closer by less than 1 tenth of 1 percent. Kent Hovind says this bullshit because predisposed people won't look it up because they're more concerned with their convictions than the truth. "Flood the earth twice a day" is either a lie or a miscalculation.
Star formation vs death. Stars form over long time periods shrouded in gas. Stars die VERY quickly and VERY magnificently. We've seen formed stars, we've seen blurry things in the process of birth but in't not at all like a supernova or star collapse which is as abrupt as flicking on a light switch. Their formed inside huge gas clouds obscuring our vision and take long times to form. Stars die quickly and brilliantly, and are born slowly in thick, collapsing nebula.
well don't be expecting kids then. we arn't related to monkeys, 80% or whatever of us >>>>within 1%<<<<<< of our dna is related. melons are 2% off being a cloud,, i suppose they evolved then.
From what I understand, the whole 6000yo earth bs comes from the fact that the bible lays out a few genealogies, ostensibly all the way to Jesus. Many creationists assign arbitrary ages to most of the ancestors to arrive at the idea that Adam lived around 4000 b.c.
but i mean where does it say about the earth 6000 years ago not life, because in genesis it says the world was formless and covered in oceans, nothing about its creation.
well i havn't read all of it i'm only 15 and so far iv only gotten half way through genesis and read the book of daniel. but he does not create the earth in the 6 days, it was already there, he creates stars but no planets at all in the 6 days.
Genesis 1:9-10 , the first creation story, talks about god creating the dry land within the formerly formless universe and calling it "the earth" on the third day of creation. Of course, this will depend on your translation of the bible, but there ya go.
he seperated the sea from the earth on what you are refering to, it was still there underneath the water he just made clouds and shoved some under the earths crust.
Okay,now I see what you're saying, I missed your other post. Yes, according to Genesis, the earth was a wasteland before he did all that stuff. That part of the passage has actually led to some people speculating that there was a previous existence before god's 1st creation. Regardless, it kinda shows how the idea of young earth creationism is wrong even by biblical standards if the bible is to be interpreted absolutely literally.
lets read from the start,in the beginning when god created the universe (not space, i dont think he made that but thats a long story, anyway he created the universe.....) the earth was formless and desolate. the raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness and the spirit of god blah blah blah goes on to the 6 days, but the earth and planets were already there....
what a idiot, when a bannana is bad it goes black we learnt from this, it wasn't created that way because we have magic indicators that tell us that black means its gone off. this guy makes me question whether we are in fact related to monkeys lol
lets take space to be the number 0 as it is nothing, its contents, (the universe), to be 1 as it is something, how can 0 expand, beyond nothing is nothing, all there can be is 0, therefore it isn't expanding, or -1, which is something...
I'm not sure you can get it for FREE (Google it, I suppose), but you'd be hard-pressed to find a local library that DIDN'T have the book. It's very famous.
I would bet on both because they show that god could not design shit. Eyes that become impaired in atleast half a persons life time and nuts OUTSIDE where they are vulnerable. Lets not also forget that we use the dick to piss and for fucking. If that is design then he fucked up big time.
Not really. Look at the Tree Kangaroo. It has very little competition and it can climb but it sucks at it. We are not *created* very well at all. We are VERY fall. Infact I doubt we are created at all.
you say the percentages are on your side, im beginning to doubt your status as an 'intelligent life form,' 33.03% of the world is christian, 20% muslim, already above 50% without considering jews...
It's not an accident that ONLY religious people make this claim but when you look at it, it's another example of creationists latching on to something without having a clue what it's about. To see clearly why creationists are so full of shit on this issue (what about light year limitations?), read this and realize how dishonest science is when you have the answer (6000 years) before ANY research.
members dot cox dot net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie005 dot html
OK (thanks for the name calling), you wanted to know the name of the creator? From Wikipedia: "Dolly was created by a research team managed by Ian Wilmut at the Roslin Institute in Scotland"
There's a thing called logic. It's a fact that the universe is expanding. Now, one can conclude something logical caused the expansion (and deduce logical predictions CONFIRMED by observation like the microwave backround) or one can conclude something magical caused it and not make any deductions about anything because magic is outside our ability to discern. One is called science and the other is called retardation.
stop putting peole who don't follow what you follow down, you can't expalin that much with science. how did life begin? you said yourself in another episode that your science could not prove this.
Science doesn't explain everything, this is true. But if these guys are trying to get NON-science taught in schools and to the general populus, then I raise the red flag. If they want to believe it for themselves that's fine. Influencing others with lies is, however, wrong.
Ex: Science explains why when you throw a ball into the air that it falls back to the ground. Got a problem with that one? Do you have time to be patient and sit down and LISTEN to what the Big Bang Theory says?
Who said the universal singularity was "nothing"? In fact, it was the absolute opposite - it was EVERYTHING within a very small space. And btw, it wasn't an "explosion", it was an "expansion". Very different (if you're aware of the science).
First law of thermodynamics: "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant." Matter is a form of energy via the theory of relativity. Therefore, "this stuff" has always existed.
That's a horrible deal. We admit we don't know where the stuff came from but we know damn well that the stuff exists. God's existence must be established before we can even consider where he came from.
Lets make a deal, statements must be substantiated. Now, lets start with you, why is the bible the ultimate truth of the universe when it's in overly simplistc, human emotional terms with absolutely no information that supersedes the bronze age? How is "God did it" explanatory?
How do you explain the stories of floods from native australians, africans, aztecs, that were all around the same time?? they couldn't even communicate with eachother.
No scientist ever claimed NOTHING existed before the big bang. Assuming there was nothing before the big bang is a clear violation of conservation laws. Biblical creation offers no insight into the natural processes we're now trying to figure out. Not to mention the fact that it's observably wrong by a factor of a million.
All the dirt and stuff? You obviously know nothing about science as dirt cannot exist within a singularity. Look up the word physics and read about it for a couple of years.
Then remain ignorant, but don't pretend like you have knowledge that surpasses the physicists who actually know something about this universe. I find it hilarious that the ones most ignorant of God's creation, are creationists.
Well no man is in possession of the absolute truth, so we all need to make a decision. Do we want to be at the frontier of knowledge with 21st centure physics or do we want to wallow in a shallow sea of bronze age stupidity.
...science is catching up with the bible not the other way, the bible mentioned underwater springs ages ago, (don't ask me to find the quote it was somewhere where God was talking to Jacob) and science discovered them around 1977 i think.
Well that belief is observably incorrect. You need to morph logic, reason and observation to make such an erroneour number fit. Do you know what a light year is? A 6000 yearold creation can't DISPLAY anything beyond 6000 light years. That only 20% the size of our 1 of 80 billion galaxies. That's the observation, now lets hear your abandonment of logica and reason that can reconcile this descrepency.
There are several theories that are PROVABLY beyond our reach of testability. WE DON'T KNOW how the whole universe came to be. HOW COULD WE? How could we possibly know these things now? Since we don't have magical spirits coming down and feeding us answers, we have to learn this stuff on our own. It sucks that people still present 1st century, flat earth, geocentrist's writings as divine truth. It breaks my heart.
1st century science, mathematics, sociology, medicine, warfare, technology, literature and EVERYTHING ELSE has all moved on. Religion is STUCK in a time of ghosts and goblins, fairies and monsters, and outright illogical, nonsense beliefs. The age of the bible is a flaw if it's supposed to compete with 21st century ideas. 1st century astronomy is sure flawed compared to its modern counterpart.
In ancient Greece many people commented in some star, now a white dwarf, this proccess took a few thousand years, not 100,000 as modern science claims.
People commented on a star? That's your argument? Ignoring the glaring error of equating a transition with a lifetime, can you not see how ridiculous it is to counter modern physics with ancient hearsay?
Instead of regurgitating some of the stupides things on creationist websites, why not answer my question as to the limitations of the speed of light. I hear you talk about this stuff like it's science and I can instantly conclude you're a christian, american, yec. I talk about evolution and you can't deduce shit. That's because WHATEVER is true about the universe should transcend basic human culture.
...lol, i'm a christian, I am from Spain and England, (within my English side i am a mixture of German, French and maybe Portugese so I'm moatlt Spanish.) nice deductive skills sherlock...
Well 2 out of 3 aint bad. The percentages are heavily on my side though as most YEC are either American or Muslim. Science is universal. EVEN POTENTIAL ALIENS FROM OTHER PLANETS WOULD KNOW OF EVOLUTION, PHYSICS, LIGHT YEARS AND STAR CYCLES. Sorry about caps. They would not know of parting seas and magic snakes though.
aliens would know of God, ancient aztecs were a very good civilization but had not yet put the wheel to use or used iron so were backwards, yet they had Gods, as it has always been undeniable we have a creator.
There Gods are full of shit ACCORDING TO YOU! Their creation stories and attempts to explain the world were obviously wrong. God is not a good substitute for the unknown. IT was obvious that there was a god of thunder, a god of the ocenas, constellations were gods, diseases were curses and epilepsi was demonis possession. These things were all obvious before we learned a thing or two. I'm sure the aliens will have an emarrassing, self glorifying past of their own.
What an excellent example of HORRIBLE CHRISTIAN REASONING. Examining ONLY PEOPLE on ONLY EARTH, you make a sweeping statement about intelligent life everywhere. What classifies intelligence? Are chimps intelligent? Are atheists intelligent? Are scientists? Religion works way better on impresionable kids, soccor moms, old people, and ancient times. Religion is most useless in fields of science, philosophy and general higher learning.
i never said we are the only living life forms.... i don't know much about aliens so i'd rather examine people on earth. intelligence i think is free will and being able to understand concepts such as this, a monkey cannot say, 'i am intelligent' in any form as it isn't. oh yea you're a biological machine.
You said it was the nature of intelligence. As far as I can see, the more educated and intelligent we get, the faster we leave insensible magical tales of wierd wizardry behind.
The god that YOU describe is magical. It's not a sensible god who creates universal laws. It's a divine intervener making snakes talk, seas part, virgins give birth, dead people rise, blind people see, and a host of other thingts that are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT REQUIRE MAGIC i.e. violations of logic, reason, mattrer, energy, space, time and SANITY.
OK, now I understand where you were coming from. When I said "2 out of 3 aint bad" I was referring to my "sherlock" like deductions of guessing you were a christian, YEC, american. I got 2 out of three. THe thing about science being universal is that I shouldn't have been able to make any deductions based on your "science".
I provided a link that showed exactly where creationists (AND ONLY CREATIONISTS) got that spinning earth extrapolation and exactly why and how wrong that idea is.
members dot cox dot net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie005 dot html
'annual rings,' were disproven a long long time ago (on ice layers) as people used to say the light ones represented winter, and the dark summer or the other way around, this was disproven thanks to some crashed planes from ww2, many years later they were still being called 'annual' rings in text books, indoctronating the young with these ideas, sorry for typos i g2g
I can't believe I actually looked this one up for you. Again, the ONLY people I could find not laughing at this were people who were predisposed to talking snakes and magic fruit. If again, you want to have a huge laugh at the error of how creationists make their deductions, check out these two sites that illustrate the laughability of this lost squadron hilarity.
holysmoke dot org/cretins/cre-ice dot htm
home dot austarnet dotcom dot au/stear/more_creationist_comedy_keuchman dothtm
what about the moon going further away every year (so would have been close to earth millions of years ago and flooded the earth twice a day), saturns rings going further away, several planets or moons or something still hot from creation, we've never seen a star formed, why are webeing aught how they are formed if it hasn't happened? ...
They started making deductions from erroneous premises with their answer already in mind, blindly accepted from ancient literature, that their immortal soul's eternal destiny, rested very much on the outcome.
I say it's entriely hypocritcal to extrapolate a spinning earth and not an expanding universe. It's a double standard that all literal christians need to make. They need to selectively hold things to different standards. Smart people admit they know nothing and seek the truth. Retards think bronze age goat herders wrote down the perfect word and their attempts to fit science with it are MEANINGLESS because they think THEY ALREADY have the truth.
and i'm pretty sure that in 10,000 years we would seem primative, if you think we won't seem it it's a stupid assumption, still dosn't change the truth of the earth revolving around the sun.
What the hell is this supposed to mean? We can see the earth revolve around the sun. Comparing that to the insanity of bronze aged fishermen who believed in magic is not an example of the truth of magic. How can you think like this?
Please do not confuse poorly educated creationist with facts. They can't handle real science. Or the real Bible, by "real Bible" I mean the way it should be read.
Buildings and autombiles both use a man-made "evolution of design" A car was once a simple tree branch, and a building once a cave. Although this "evolution" is clearly man-made, it parallels an evolutionary type process closer than it does creation. If we were intelligently designed, we would easily be immune to plagues and bloodclots by now.
Well, half or dwarf wings are no advantage. What advantage are dwarfed disproportional wings that cant lift or glide? To fly you need a full wing, plus a light body structure. Either one without the other isn't an advantage, but a disadvantage.
Exactly, which is why mutations with half- or dwarf- wings or heavy body structures didn't/don't make the "natural selection cut". Shall we discuss penguins at this point?
Penguins are designed for swimming, not flying. But birds that do fly, how did they come from reptiles? A spectacular mutation to a light body plus a wing? Or step by step. But the multiple steps would include a wing that's too small to get you to fly?
Again, there are no sudden changes - only slow changes. How large or small does a wing need to be so that a bird can fly a SHORT distance - while evolving into something that can last for longer distances? You talk as if everything NEEDED to work together in order to be useful at all - an "irreducibly complexist". This has been proven wrong on so many levels...
Actually LEARN about where Birds are supposed to come from. They Evolved from SMALL light-bodied Theropod (carnivourous) Dinosaurs. Oh and feathers are actually just a type of Evolved scale.
As for Penguins, Environment and Adaptation are a BIG part of Evolution and they have bodies perfect for water but slower on land (as do Seals).
You are right in that flight would not have occured straight away.
Do wild bananas have foreskins?
DeltaVictorMike 5 months ago
This guy keeps saying, "Again this is a non living being." So my question is, how does a rock fit into his theory of evolution? Where did it get formed? And don't tell me the big bang, cause that rock....is not a living thing. So who made it?
GBlues1 2 years ago
Rocks DON'T fit into the theory of evolution because they don't evolve; they're not living things. It's like asking "how does my living room carpet fit into the theory of gravity".
How did the rock get formed? Read some Geology, the answers are there.
...and don't lead the question by asking "who" made it. No living being made it. Natural processes made it.
akg41470 2 years ago
Ok do you have evidence to support that natural process created a rock?
GBlues1 2 years ago
Yes.
Read a Geology book, take a Geology class, study Geology. There are plenty of answers there for you. I'm not planning on getting technical in a YouTube comment thread.
akg41470 2 years ago
@GBlues1 that shut you up didnt it?
GamleSeg 6 months ago
@GamleSeg Uhm no. I actually have been waiting a year for an answer to my question. Thank you for being a participant, but you just failed. Go back and try again. THank you.
GBlues1 6 months ago
@GBlues1 Ok try this scienceclarified /Ro-Sp/Rocks.html
GamleSeg 6 months ago
@GBlues1 Are you kidding me? Your question was "do you have evidence to support that natural process created a rock", to which I responded "read a Geology book". I suppose I need to make myself clearer: the evidence you seek that supports the conclusion that "natural process created a rock" is explained within a textbook about Geology. It will walk you through the processes found in nature that prove my point and point you to further resources you can find for more evidence and proof. Idiot.
akg41470 6 months ago
I saw the first 3 episodes, and now this one. It really makes me sad there is people like this in the world. I don't feel anger, or shame, or the feel to ridicule them, just...sadness. It makes me lose hope in humanity :(
MrPablowjob 2 years ago
Sorry, I accidentally gave the video 2 stars. I didn't mean to rate it, but I would have gave it 5 stars. Sorry Again!
endo328 2 years ago
Comparing humans to apes is totally offensive and un-Christian.
Comparing humans to cars is just fine.
kissfan7 3 years ago
Kirk turned into a mean, judgmental asshole after he became "born again", just ask his fellow cast members from growing pains. Being "saved" tends to turn the savee into a total dick.
lowcomedy 3 years ago 3
Why do they insist on using non-reproducing objects as a analogy for evolution?
okapitheif 3 years ago 3
because they really are that retarted.
k9lionheart 3 years ago 7
Haha brilliant. I like your full citation of Darwin ^_^
Another creationist got owned.
vreesje 3 years ago 3
I'm sorry but it was hard to hold back my laughing while he was describing the banana.
brandishwar 4 years ago 5
lolz, bucket seat
Zombiefisting 4 years ago
Me thinks he uses a variation of the banana theory on kirk
x2nobody 4 years ago 2
ahhahhahahahaha
Eating003 4 years ago 2
kirk and ray probably had brain-liposuction as ray so nicely said in the original.
They togheter with todd probably share a single braincell
Knowntje 4 years ago
Comment removed
samsun1975 4 years ago
1. Please, please, please learn to spell. That post is just unforgivable.
2. Who is "they", exactly?
3. What does archeology have to do with evolution?
akg41470 4 years ago
we have been brainwashed?
sorry, I don't think santa is real, nor god for that matter
kyuubinokitsune13 4 years ago
@samsun1975 If anyone has been brainwashed its you, by the bible and everyone who worships it, mankind is too good for the bible since the bible was written by people - retarded in modern society - and is written in a way to fit people 2000+ years ago, you sir are ignorant and close minded and your choose belief in something that you cannot see, hear, touch , feel or smell than in observations OF reality , the bible, according to some creationist, hasnt been updated , ever , what does
GamleSeg 6 months ago
@samsun1975 that tell you? that the thing you read in the bible was actually written 2000 years ago, the bible didnt become far more aware of the explorations and the scientific evidence we have found the last decades, is the bible aware of darwins theory? NO
GamleSeg 6 months ago
@samsun1975 And creationist evolve too, for an example, lets say a creationist would say, your theory is false, everything was created by god, and YOU would say, well prove it then, and the creationist says, hold on just a minute, then after 20 years he comes back, now with a theory far more complex , etc
and lets say jesus did not come to earth 2000 years ago, he came now, walking on water and turning water to wine, would you STILL believe him? I think not, you'd say he was crazy
GamleSeg 6 months ago
he ate that banana cuz it was smarter than him.
what an asshole...........
Eating003 4 years ago 2
he wanted to suck on it...
kyuubinokitsune13 4 years ago 8
see me eat this peanut butter? notice how i put it in my mouth and chew it, and then, commencing to swallow? its good, huh? therefore, THE SUN EATS THE MOON! behold!
grendelee 4 years ago 2
haha I love the part about the Banana.
askapalaphagy 4 years ago
I love the can/watch argument about a maker. These things are not naturally occurring in nature bud.
kers3480 4 years ago
hahaha classic.
brucepapoose 4 years ago
"See, cars are like people!" Infantile.
Islewolf 4 years ago
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
soulhunger1 4 years ago
Darwin was an "atheist" in the same sense that Russel was an "atheist" or that any other sensible atheist is an "atheist". Russel merely used the term "agnostic" because he didn't want to imply that he was 100% sure that there was no God (or 100% sure of anything else for that matter).
Darwin used the term "agnostic" out of loyalty to Huxley who coined the term.
AFAIK, they were both, for all intents and purposes, atheists to the same degree as Dawkins.
Bueller007 4 years ago
You are so awesome...
Greetings from Germany...
Botox84 4 years ago
To quote a comedian I once saw:
"Creationists have the dumbest reasons for not believing evolution. For example: "well it's just so complicated" which basicly says "I don't understand it... it must be magic!!"" lawl...
ziggo3 4 years ago
buging*
danielukes 4 years ago
you know when people say the universe is expanding, well space isn't is it? can someone explain this cos its bging me a lot.
danielukes 4 years ago
Absolutely it's still expanding, but at a slower rate than the initial expansion. Depending on the amount of matter in the universe, it will either continue to expand, cool off and burn out, or it will pull back, contract on itself, and go back to the singularity, where it will do this whole thing again. See "Big Crunch".
akg41470 4 years ago
You claim to be a follower of God then go on to insult and patronise us needlessly.
martiallaw09 3 years ago
we being taught*
danielukes 4 years ago
Please stop with these creationist one liners, you're starting to make me think you're arguing implicitly on my behalf. About the moon, DO THE MATH! It moves back about 1.5 inches a year. In 10 million years, that would bring it closer by less than 1 tenth of 1 percent. Kent Hovind says this bullshit because predisposed people won't look it up because they're more concerned with their convictions than the truth. "Flood the earth twice a day" is either a lie or a miscalculation.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
Read about Saturn here.
geocities dot com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/B dot html
It's lie #19.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
Lie # 18 shows how funny the "hot from creation" Hovindian line is.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
Star formation vs death. Stars form over long time periods shrouded in gas. Stars die VERY quickly and VERY magnificently. We've seen formed stars, we've seen blurry things in the process of birth but in't not at all like a supernova or star collapse which is as abrupt as flicking on a light switch. Their formed inside huge gas clouds obscuring our vision and take long times to form. Stars die quickly and brilliantly, and are born slowly in thick, collapsing nebula.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
do you believe in evolution?
danielukes 4 years ago
I would wager my eyeballs and my testicles on its validity.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
well don't be expecting kids then. we arn't related to monkeys, 80% or whatever of us >>>>within 1%<<<<<< of our dna is related. melons are 2% off being a cloud,, i suppose they evolved then.
danielukes 4 years ago
actually we only have a 6% percent difference from monkies. We are VERY CLOSE. Closer then the indian elephant is to the African Elephant.
kickyourass77 4 years ago
Melens and clouds? I hope you are joking. We are related to apes my friend. We have homology, Genetics, the fossil record etc etc to prove this.
kickyourass77 4 years ago
um, i was just wondering if you or anyone else knows where the bible actually says the world was created around 4000Bc, i cant find it.
danielukes 4 years ago
From what I understand, the whole 6000yo earth bs comes from the fact that the bible lays out a few genealogies, ostensibly all the way to Jesus. Many creationists assign arbitrary ages to most of the ancestors to arrive at the idea that Adam lived around 4000 b.c.
Grimlore 4 years ago
but i mean where does it say about the earth 6000 years ago not life, because in genesis it says the world was formless and covered in oceans, nothing about its creation.
danielukes 4 years ago
You mean Genesis doesn't say anything about God creating the earth? I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking.
Grimlore 4 years ago
well i havn't read all of it i'm only 15 and so far iv only gotten half way through genesis and read the book of daniel. but he does not create the earth in the 6 days, it was already there, he creates stars but no planets at all in the 6 days.
danielukes 4 years ago
Genesis 1:9-10 , the first creation story, talks about god creating the dry land within the formerly formless universe and calling it "the earth" on the third day of creation. Of course, this will depend on your translation of the bible, but there ya go.
Grimlore 4 years ago
he seperated the sea from the earth on what you are refering to, it was still there underneath the water he just made clouds and shoved some under the earths crust.
danielukes 4 years ago
Okay,now I see what you're saying, I missed your other post. Yes, according to Genesis, the earth was a wasteland before he did all that stuff. That part of the passage has actually led to some people speculating that there was a previous existence before god's 1st creation. Regardless, it kinda shows how the idea of young earth creationism is wrong even by biblical standards if the bible is to be interpreted absolutely literally.
Grimlore 4 years ago
lets read from the start,in the beginning when god created the universe (not space, i dont think he made that but thats a long story, anyway he created the universe.....) the earth was formless and desolate. the raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness and the spirit of god blah blah blah goes on to the 6 days, but the earth and planets were already there....
danielukes 4 years ago
who in hells name is this guy in the video hes a total retard (the bannana guy.)
danielukes 4 years ago
Ray Comfort. His friend is just as dumb *Kirk Cameron*.
kickyourass77 4 years ago
what a idiot, when a bannana is bad it goes black we learnt from this, it wasn't created that way because we have magic indicators that tell us that black means its gone off. this guy makes me question whether we are in fact related to monkeys lol
danielukes 4 years ago
Read about Cardinal Ussher.
akg41470 4 years ago
space cant expand though, how can space be? space is nothing
danielukes 4 years ago
Brush up on your astrophysics. Read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". No space to explain here (no pun intended).
akg41470 4 years ago
lets take space to be the number 0 as it is nothing, its contents, (the universe), to be 1 as it is something, how can 0 expand, beyond nothing is nothing, all there can be is 0, therefore it isn't expanding, or -1, which is something...
danielukes 4 years ago
Invalid analogy. Again, do some reading. Let me give you some hints: "dark matter" & "temperature".
akg41470 4 years ago
can i get that book for free on the internet that you mentioned?
danielukes 4 years ago
I'm not sure you can get it for FREE (Google it, I suppose), but you'd be hard-pressed to find a local library that DIDN'T have the book. It's very famous.
akg41470 4 years ago
Hawkings huh, this is the same guy who thinks we'll be goin on trips to the moon before long
danielukes 4 years ago
Hawkings, as in the smartest person on Earth.
Raimaius 4 years ago
Ha, danielukes account is canceled. ha has been pervbusted
grendelee 4 years ago
oops i meant Mars
danielukes 4 years ago
I would bet on both because they show that god could not design shit. Eyes that become impaired in atleast half a persons life time and nuts OUTSIDE where they are vulnerable. Lets not also forget that we use the dick to piss and for fucking. If that is design then he fucked up big time.
kickyourass77 4 years ago
...according to you guys only the best adapted designs survive, so either way we are created very well.
danielukes 4 years ago
Not really. Look at the Tree Kangaroo. It has very little competition and it can climb but it sucks at it. We are not *created* very well at all. We are VERY fall. Infact I doubt we are created at all.
kickyourass77 4 years ago
I thought windshield wipers were to help you drive in the rain :S unless that's just his bland shitty humour.
giansideros 4 years ago
you say the percentages are on your side, im beginning to doubt your status as an 'intelligent life form,' 33.03% of the world is christian, 20% muslim, already above 50% without considering jews...
danielukes 4 years ago
What percentages? WTF are you talking about?
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
earlier you said the percentages were on your side...
danielukes 4 years ago
we have a lot to learn from science, some aspects we have the answer to already that's all, what do you say to the spinning earth anyway?
danielukes 4 years ago
It's not an accident that ONLY religious people make this claim but when you look at it, it's another example of creationists latching on to something without having a clue what it's about. To see clearly why creationists are so full of shit on this issue (what about light year limitations?), read this and realize how dishonest science is when you have the answer (6000 years) before ANY research.
members dot cox dot net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie005 dot html
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
who was the maker of 'dolly' the sheep then retard and any other clones...
danielukes 4 years ago
What in the world are you talking about? Type in english first.
akg41470 4 years ago
me?
danielukes 4 years ago
Uh, yes. "...dolly the sheep then retard and any other clones..." makes no sense, I'm sorry.
akg41470 4 years ago
dolly the sheep is the name of a cloned sheep... retard
danielukes 4 years ago
OK (thanks for the name calling), you wanted to know the name of the creator? From Wikipedia: "Dolly was created by a research team managed by Ian Wilmut at the Roslin Institute in Scotland"
akg41470 4 years ago
no.... i'm asking you to run me through your big bang theory....
danielukes 4 years ago
You're getting your replies messed up. en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Big_bang
akg41470 4 years ago
There's a thing called logic. It's a fact that the universe is expanding. Now, one can conclude something logical caused the expansion (and deduce logical predictions CONFIRMED by observation like the microwave backround) or one can conclude something magical caused it and not make any deductions about anything because magic is outside our ability to discern. One is called science and the other is called retardation.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
stop putting peole who don't follow what you follow down, you can't expalin that much with science. how did life begin? you said yourself in another episode that your science could not prove this.
danielukes 4 years ago
Science doesn't explain everything, this is true. But if these guys are trying to get NON-science taught in schools and to the general populus, then I raise the red flag. If they want to believe it for themselves that's fine. Influencing others with lies is, however, wrong.
akg41470 4 years ago
Not only can religion NOT prove how life began, it can't even offer the tiniest bit of insight at all.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
um ... moron, expalin how science explains jack shit... run me through the 'big bang theory' or whatever crap you believe in.
danielukes 4 years ago
Ex: Science explains why when you throw a ball into the air that it falls back to the ground. Got a problem with that one? Do you have time to be patient and sit down and LISTEN to what the Big Bang Theory says?
akg41470 4 years ago
nothing can't explode into something, science explains nothing of creation as the bible does.
danielukes 4 years ago
Who said the universal singularity was "nothing"? In fact, it was the absolute opposite - it was EVERYTHING within a very small space. And btw, it wasn't an "explosion", it was an "expansion". Very different (if you're aware of the science).
akg41470 4 years ago
where did this 'stuff' come from to expand then scientist
danielukes 4 years ago
First law of thermodynamics: "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant." Matter is a form of energy via the theory of relativity. Therefore, "this stuff" has always existed.
akg41470 4 years ago
ok, now lets make a deal, i won't ask any of you guys where this 'stuff ' comes from if you don't ask where God came from in any arguments....
danielukes 4 years ago
That's a horrible deal. We admit we don't know where the stuff came from but we know damn well that the stuff exists. God's existence must be established before we can even consider where he came from.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
Lets make a deal, statements must be substantiated. Now, lets start with you, why is the bible the ultimate truth of the universe when it's in overly simplistc, human emotional terms with absolutely no information that supersedes the bronze age? How is "God did it" explanatory?
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
How do you explain the stories of floods from native australians, africans, aztecs, that were all around the same time?? they couldn't even communicate with eachother.
danielukes 4 years ago
Floods are VERY common. What we know for sure, is that it couldn't possibly be a global flood for LOGICAL reasons.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
No scientist ever claimed NOTHING existed before the big bang. Assuming there was nothing before the big bang is a clear violation of conservation laws. Biblical creation offers no insight into the natural processes we're now trying to figure out. Not to mention the fact that it's observably wrong by a factor of a million.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
oooh are you one of those people who believes that all of the dirt and stuff went into a tinnnnny dot and blew up or expanded or whatever?
danielukes 4 years ago
All the dirt and stuff? You obviously know nothing about science as dirt cannot exist within a singularity. Look up the word physics and read about it for a couple of years.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
couple of years... soz i have a life
danielukes 4 years ago
Then remain ignorant, but don't pretend like you have knowledge that surpasses the physicists who actually know something about this universe. I find it hilarious that the ones most ignorant of God's creation, are creationists.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
I mean i have a life , i don't want to waste time reading lies i'll read the truth thanks...
danielukes 4 years ago
Well no man is in possession of the absolute truth, so we all need to make a decision. Do we want to be at the frontier of knowledge with 21st centure physics or do we want to wallow in a shallow sea of bronze age stupidity.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
...science is catching up with the bible not the other way, the bible mentioned underwater springs ages ago, (don't ask me to find the quote it was somewhere where God was talking to Jacob) and science discovered them around 1977 i think.
danielukes 4 years ago
Are you a young earth creationist? Which version of the bible do you have in yoour head? A literal, wacko one, or an apologetic, symbolic one?
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
i believe the earth was created in 6 eras and is 6000 years old.....
danielukes 4 years ago
Well that belief is observably incorrect. You need to morph logic, reason and observation to make such an erroneour number fit. Do you know what a light year is? A 6000 yearold creation can't DISPLAY anything beyond 6000 light years. That only 20% the size of our 1 of 80 billion galaxies. That's the observation, now lets hear your abandonment of logica and reason that can reconcile this descrepency.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
is that what you believe though? that everything in the universe was bundled together and then blew up or something...?
danielukes 4 years ago
The universe itself, space/time/matter and energy. Not the contents within the universe, but the actual universe itself.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
and then all the planets etc flew off right?
danielukes 4 years ago
No, have you ever read a book about this in your life?
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
what do you think happened then for everything to blow up can you briefly describe it for me?
danielukes 4 years ago
There are several theories that are PROVABLY beyond our reach of testability. WE DON'T KNOW how the whole universe came to be. HOW COULD WE? How could we possibly know these things now? Since we don't have magical spirits coming down and feeding us answers, we have to learn this stuff on our own. It sucks that people still present 1st century, flat earth, geocentrist's writings as divine truth. It breaks my heart.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
stop refering to the age of the bible to be a flaw, the earth revolves around the sun, will that fact be any less valid in 100000000000000000 years?
danielukes 4 years ago
1st century science, mathematics, sociology, medicine, warfare, technology, literature and EVERYTHING ELSE has all moved on. Religion is STUCK in a time of ghosts and goblins, fairies and monsters, and outright illogical, nonsense beliefs. The age of the bible is a flaw if it's supposed to compete with 21st century ideas. 1st century astronomy is sure flawed compared to its modern counterpart.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
In ancient Greece many people commented in some star, now a white dwarf, this proccess took a few thousand years, not 100,000 as modern science claims.
danielukes 4 years ago
sorry: many commented on some big red star*
danielukes 4 years ago
People commented on a star? That's your argument? Ignoring the glaring error of equating a transition with a lifetime, can you not see how ridiculous it is to counter modern physics with ancient hearsay?
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
if the earth was 4.5mil/billion years old (i forget) it would of been spinning like crazyyyy (as it slows down constantly but very slightly)
danielukes 4 years ago
Instead of regurgitating some of the stupides things on creationist websites, why not answer my question as to the limitations of the speed of light. I hear you talk about this stuff like it's science and I can instantly conclude you're a christian, american, yec. I talk about evolution and you can't deduce shit. That's because WHATEVER is true about the universe should transcend basic human culture.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
...lol, i'm a christian, I am from Spain and England, (within my English side i am a mixture of German, French and maybe Portugese so I'm moatlt Spanish.) nice deductive skills sherlock...
danielukes 4 years ago
moatit is somehow meant to say mostly...*
danielukes 4 years ago
Well 2 out of 3 aint bad. The percentages are heavily on my side though as most YEC are either American or Muslim. Science is universal. EVEN POTENTIAL ALIENS FROM OTHER PLANETS WOULD KNOW OF EVOLUTION, PHYSICS, LIGHT YEARS AND STAR CYCLES. Sorry about caps. They would not know of parting seas and magic snakes though.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
aliens would know of God, ancient aztecs were a very good civilization but had not yet put the wheel to use or used iron so were backwards, yet they had Gods, as it has always been undeniable we have a creator.
danielukes 4 years ago
I think you said something about aliens i didn't realy understand
danielukes 4 years ago
There Gods are full of shit ACCORDING TO YOU! Their creation stories and attempts to explain the world were obviously wrong. God is not a good substitute for the unknown. IT was obvious that there was a god of thunder, a god of the ocenas, constellations were gods, diseases were curses and epilepsi was demonis possession. These things were all obvious before we learned a thing or two. I'm sure the aliens will have an emarrassing, self glorifying past of their own.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
Im just saying that it is the nature of intelligent life forms no matter how iscolated, to turn to a God.
danielukes 4 years ago
What an excellent example of HORRIBLE CHRISTIAN REASONING. Examining ONLY PEOPLE on ONLY EARTH, you make a sweeping statement about intelligent life everywhere. What classifies intelligence? Are chimps intelligent? Are atheists intelligent? Are scientists? Religion works way better on impresionable kids, soccor moms, old people, and ancient times. Religion is most useless in fields of science, philosophy and general higher learning.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
i never said we are the only living life forms.... i don't know much about aliens so i'd rather examine people on earth. intelligence i think is free will and being able to understand concepts such as this, a monkey cannot say, 'i am intelligent' in any form as it isn't. oh yea you're a biological machine.
danielukes 4 years ago
You said it was the nature of intelligence. As far as I can see, the more educated and intelligent we get, the faster we leave insensible magical tales of wierd wizardry behind.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
i thought we were talking about God not magic
danielukes 4 years ago
The god that YOU describe is magical. It's not a sensible god who creates universal laws. It's a divine intervener making snakes talk, seas part, virgins give birth, dead people rise, blind people see, and a host of other thingts that are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT REQUIRE MAGIC i.e. violations of logic, reason, mattrer, energy, space, time and SANITY.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
Well 2 out of 3 aint bad. The percentages are heavily on my side though as most YEC are either American or Muslim. Science is universal. -you
danielukes 4 years ago
OK, now I understand where you were coming from. When I said "2 out of 3 aint bad" I was referring to my "sherlock" like deductions of guessing you were a christian, YEC, american. I got 2 out of three. THe thing about science being universal is that I shouldn't have been able to make any deductions based on your "science".
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
oh ok, and the earth thingy?
danielukes 4 years ago
anyway what do you think about the spinning earth thingy?
danielukes 4 years ago
I provided a link that showed exactly where creationists (AND ONLY CREATIONISTS) got that spinning earth extrapolation and exactly why and how wrong that idea is.
members dot cox dot net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie005 dot html
Be sure to write the address properly.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
This Site Is Under Construction and Coming Soon.
danielukes 4 years ago
I just tried the link then, it works perfectly. Remember you need to replace 3 "dots" and remove the spaces. The link works.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
i replaced cox with com as cox didn't work...
danielukes 4 years ago
Do a search of this on google.
"earth's rotation slowing down"
It's the third one from the top.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
on it
danielukes 4 years ago
"earth's rotation slowing down"
WITHOUT the quotation marks. It's the third one.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
It's a very brief, 1 page explanation titled "The Earth's rotation and Creationists"
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
nice ending... My question is, why is this claim still being made? now i have a similar question for you if i can fit it in before i go...
danielukes 4 years ago
'annual rings,' were disproven a long long time ago (on ice layers) as people used to say the light ones represented winter, and the dark summer or the other way around, this was disproven thanks to some crashed planes from ww2, many years later they were still being called 'annual' rings in text books, indoctronating the young with these ideas, sorry for typos i g2g
danielukes 4 years ago
I can't believe I actually looked this one up for you. Again, the ONLY people I could find not laughing at this were people who were predisposed to talking snakes and magic fruit. If again, you want to have a huge laugh at the error of how creationists make their deductions, check out these two sites that illustrate the laughability of this lost squadron hilarity.
holysmoke dot org/cretins/cre-ice dot htm
home dot austarnet dotcom dot au/stear/more_creationist_comedy_keuchman dothtm
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
what about the moon going further away every year (so would have been close to earth millions of years ago and flooded the earth twice a day), saturns rings going further away, several planets or moons or something still hot from creation, we've never seen a star formed, why are webeing aught how they are formed if it hasn't happened? ...
danielukes 4 years ago
thanks for enlightening me...
danielukes 4 years ago
They started making deductions from erroneous premises with their answer already in mind, blindly accepted from ancient literature, that their immortal soul's eternal destiny, rested very much on the outcome.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
anyway what do you say to my spinning earth question?
danielukes 4 years ago
I say it's entriely hypocritcal to extrapolate a spinning earth and not an expanding universe. It's a double standard that all literal christians need to make. They need to selectively hold things to different standards. Smart people admit they know nothing and seek the truth. Retards think bronze age goat herders wrote down the perfect word and their attempts to fit science with it are MEANINGLESS because they think THEY ALREADY have the truth.
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
and i'm pretty sure that in 10,000 years we would seem primative, if you think we won't seem it it's a stupid assumption, still dosn't change the truth of the earth revolving around the sun.
danielukes 4 years ago
What the hell is this supposed to mean? We can see the earth revolve around the sun. Comparing that to the insanity of bronze aged fishermen who believed in magic is not an example of the truth of magic. How can you think like this?
DickJohnson3434 4 years ago
I've never even left Western Europe
danielukes 4 years ago
I will never stop laughing at the banana analogy. The atheists' worst nightmare, THE BANANA!!!!!!
alexanderVE 4 years ago 2
Please do not confuse poorly educated creationist with facts. They can't handle real science. Or the real Bible, by "real Bible" I mean the way it should be read.
karmazach 4 years ago
Buildings and autombiles both use a man-made "evolution of design" A car was once a simple tree branch, and a building once a cave. Although this "evolution" is clearly man-made, it parallels an evolutionary type process closer than it does creation. If we were intelligently designed, we would easily be immune to plagues and bloodclots by now.
smartz100 4 years ago
When comparing the design of the body to a car, I guess the human body is a perfectly designed Edsel. Or maybe a pefectly design Ford Pinto.
qabala 4 years ago
While on the subject of inneundo Re: Pintos and exploding when rear-ended...
ricko1111 4 years ago
Well, half or dwarf wings are no advantage. What advantage are dwarfed disproportional wings that cant lift or glide? To fly you need a full wing, plus a light body structure. Either one without the other isn't an advantage, but a disadvantage.
Tomar17 4 years ago
Exactly, which is why mutations with half- or dwarf- wings or heavy body structures didn't/don't make the "natural selection cut". Shall we discuss penguins at this point?
akg41470 4 years ago
Penguins are designed for swimming, not flying. But birds that do fly, how did they come from reptiles? A spectacular mutation to a light body plus a wing? Or step by step. But the multiple steps would include a wing that's too small to get you to fly?
Tomar17 4 years ago
Again, there are no sudden changes - only slow changes. How large or small does a wing need to be so that a bird can fly a SHORT distance - while evolving into something that can last for longer distances? You talk as if everything NEEDED to work together in order to be useful at all - an "irreducibly complexist". This has been proven wrong on so many levels...
akg41470 4 years ago
Actually LEARN about where Birds are supposed to come from. They Evolved from SMALL light-bodied Theropod (carnivourous) Dinosaurs. Oh and feathers are actually just a type of Evolved scale.
As for Penguins, Environment and Adaptation are a BIG part of Evolution and they have bodies perfect for water but slower on land (as do Seals).
You are right in that flight would not have occured straight away.
Clifftothemax 4 years ago
Dude, the Python-esce music cracks me up! These videos have HIGH entertainment value! When can I buy the DVD?
hunkamonkiman 4 years ago
The music is "Vintage News Short", built in to iMovie. DVD?!? Well, I suppose when I hit episode 50! :)
akg41470 4 years ago
Good stuff. If you need a research monkey for future episodes, I'll be glad to help out.