Russ Miller humanism undermines science-final.mp4

[TheScienceFoundation]

"X decays into Z. Radiometric ages are based on how long Z took to form. A rock will date millions of years older if Z was in it when it formed"

The problem with your reasoning there is that many samples actually reject external incorporation of a daughter product. For instance zircon rejects incorporation of lead, but cannot reject the presence of lead from decay from uranium. There's also the fact that we know decay rates and can contrast parent to daughter percentage.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Ya know Russ I'm still waiting on that source for your claim of 14C being found in all layers.

[25Lode]

It is hard for me to accept anything this man says when so many of the quotes he uses in his seminars are either take out of context or complete fabrications. He also takes portions of seminars from other creationists and passes them off as his own (ie Kent Hovind). Until I see some semblance of intellectual honesty i'm not going to believe a single word out of that man's mouth.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Don't stop posting Russ, your bumbling and lack of on-camera confidence is as funny as any Ray Comfort skit.

[TheBenEEeee]

Wow... the very living image of a conman.

[arieldanielle23]

This will be the third and last of your ridiculous videos that I watch, but for future reference, you look silly glancing back and forth between 3 cameras. I won't reference the scientific side of what I think of this video, but rather address the aesthetics. Ditch the Mr. Roger's set up, speak more naturally, and crop the camera in closer. Your highwaters are distracting. Pull your lights in a little closer and opt for a more neutral background.

Just a couple suggestions.

Viva la Evolución

[ab330]

If Russ could get God to give him real hair.... then i would be a believer

[ab330]

- -

[CreationMinistries]

There really is no such thing as creation or evolution 'science.' We can take actual science (things we can observe) & compare them to biblical accounts of creation or the flood, or we can take Darwinian predictions & compare those to real science. Darwinists hate to do this so stick to misleading statements & name-calling

[LithodidMan]

Ah, so the reason that there is absolute zero evidence presented for creation 'science' is that it is censored by academia. So then, why don't they  self publish? Why don't they make videos? I mean, I know creationists do these things but they are 100% (or nearly so) just supposed critiques of geology, cosmology, and biology rather than a shred of positive evidence for a young Earth or a creation event.

[CreationMinistries]

@LithodidMan I actually took my time to watch your supposed refutation of what I reveal about Darwinism. What an utter waste of my time - I thought, perhaps you had SOMETHING worth me seeing - I was completely wrong. Still I must say thank you. I would have had to pay someone a couple grand to go through my info as you did. Good to know you found no errors worth mentioning

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries So which part of his refutation of your garbage was inaccurate?

Be specific.

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation I understand that when I expose your religious belief in goo-to-you evolutionism as non-scientific & impossible it upsets you. That is not my intention. My aim is to help open minded people and God has used me to reach thousands of misled individuals - Yes, I know that is even more disturbing to the Darwinian faithful, again, not my intention.

To answer your question & to be 'specific" - Start at 00:01 and watch the entire series.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries The glaring scientific illiteracy in your series has done nothing but provide much entertainment to those of us that actually understand biology.

That's not specific, that's actually the opposite, it's being as vague as possible. For instance, specifically; How doesn't evolution best explain chromosome 2 and how does creation, with testable mechanisms mind you, better explain it?

[Cactarpus]

@CreationMinistries So you still didn't answer what of his refutation was wrong. We are waiting Russ...

[matrixmetroid]

@CreationMinistries Lol Good job at answering his question. I guess you just don't want to admit the lack of empirical data that supports any claims about creation.

[LithodidMan]

@CreationMinistries "I thought, perhaps you had SOMETHING worth me seeing - I was completely wrong"

Well of course you were wrong. It is really clear that the truth and actual facts mean nothing to you and are therefore not worth your time. It is better to regurgitate old Hovind falsehoods and make up completely imaginary principles of genetics (make that cosmology, biology, history, etc. as well) that appeal to a scientifically illiterate audience rather than even look at the truth.

[Cactarpus]

Also I think that you are confusing humanism with naturalism.

[bambuskaktusa]

What If God exists, in theory a possibillity, then Russ Millers arguments makes 100% sense.... But now you dont believe in God so you have to comment something against him. But what if he is right? Then you are not fighting against Russ Miller, But your own creator. Think about that people.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@bambuskaktusa Nothing indicates he's right and in fact everything only indicates that he's wrong. Either way, your argument is a fallacious appeal to consequence.

[ndzoko]

Would creationMinistries have a good look at pictures and litterature about the HUMAN TAIL. and explain why this happens. Does this god-creator makes mistakes in the womb ?

[CreationMinistries]

@ndzoko Are you serious? I didn't think God made mistakes however you are a challenge to my faith.... (-:

[ndzoko]

What a nut. Conspiracy theory? Why. How can 540.000 scientists conspire to hide the truth ? Creation in Genesis is so infantile, that almost all christian colleges do not teach litteral biblical creation.

[CreationMinistries]

@ndzoko If science were up to a vote, it would still be teaching the earth is at the center of the universe. Real science is based on the search for the truth...today, coercion, blackmail and lawsuits keep Darwinism afloat - certainly not the evidence.

[Cactarpus]

@CreationMinistries I find it hilarious that you say that, the evidence leads to creation, yet no evidence for creation is published. LAWL

[CreationMinistries]

@Cactarpus You mistakenly have accepted the lie that the religious beliefs which set the foundation for secular humanism ("Billions of years" & Darwinism) are somehow science. You actually believe noting blew up to form everything and life, POOF!, came about on its own - and none of this left any viable evidence behind! Amazing.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries see; Strawman

I say that because that's what your argument is.

[ndzoko]

@CreationMinistries If science were up to a vote>> Science is up to a vote every day. It is called" Peer Review". And no other system can guarantee the scientific truth better than the control and overview of people with the same background. If the bible had peer review it would have been in the garbage from day one.

[CreationMinistries]

@ndzoko "...people with the same background." That is, the same starting presupposition (the Darwinism is true) despite there being no real examples of it having occurred. The Bible has never been refuted despite billions of people such as yourself attempting to attack It. Secular 'science' books must be corrected every year

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries The bible has already been refuted literally thousands of times, my post regarding the impossibility of a global flood being a great example.

[ndzoko]

@CreationMinistries The bibble doesn`t have to be defeated, it defeats itself. Fairy tales don`t have to be defeated. I would like you to give me ONE irrefutable piece of evidence for the salvation story. The O.T. is complete nonsense from A toZ. The total opposite of the N.T. yet, it`s the same god.

[ndzoko]

@CreationMinistries Secular 'science' books must be corrected every year;; ... Science evolves. It is never complete..That`s the beauty of science. Science is not perfect. Science is correct untill proven wrong. Anybody is invited to prove science wrong. Untill then it stands.

[ndzoko]

@CreationMinistries Real science is based on the search for the truth. That is what science is today. Scientists are human. There have been and there always be cases of coercion etc. but to brand to whole scientific world as conspirators can only originate in the brain of uneducated people with blinders, and an anti-science agenda.

[TheScienceFoundation]

'final'

Does that mean we don't get to see any more of your garbage to poke fun at?

[TheScienceFoundation]

Even if a global flood would, if true, somehow 'erode' evolution and secularism (though that's never actually explained how, exactly) it's irrelevant because a global flood is impossible on every level.

The genetic aspect of it is entirely impossible : /watch?v=rIlWKp44T50

The geological aspect of it is entirely impossible : /watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY

The distribution of species, the fact that there's not enough water to cover all land mass and so on.

Russ, you're a liar and everyone knows it.

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation Let's see, though 71% of earth's surface is covered by water & despite earth's crust is primarily made of strata laid down by water; there was never a global flood (which would erase old-earth beliefs which are based on the layers forming over long ages of non-observed time). You know you are wrong & that's why you follow me around like a puppy dog

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries Let's see nearly all liquid water is already liquid water and nearly a third of the planet is still exposed as land. You'd have to cover 30% of the earths surface with a ~1% increase in liquid water. I've already explained this to you at least a dozen times which is why your dishonesty is obvious.

You're a liar and you have to sell garbage to people even more willing to accept non-sense than you are

[CreationMinistries]

@TheScienceFoundation I've previously refuted your 'logic' so I won't spend time doing so here, afterall, you're a legend (in your own mind).

Liar? Ah yes, name calling: the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their failed religious belief (millions of years leading to Darwinism). Try to have a nice day

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries "I've previously refuted your 'logic'"

When? And how so?

In this case it's the matter of having pointed out that you're wrong in a manner that even a creationist could understand, so the only possibility remaining is that you're willfully deceptive.

For instance which part of :

98-99% of water is already liquid water and there's not enough remaining in the polar caps to cover all land mass

Don't you understand?

You won't answer because you already know you're wrong.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CreationMinistries "I've previously refuted your 'logic'" When? And how so?

In this case it's the matter of having pointed out that you're wrong in a manner that even a creationist could understand, so the only possibility remaining is that you're willfully deceptive.

For instance which part of :

98-99% of water is already liquid water and there's not enough remaining in the polar caps to cover all land mass

Don't you understand?

You won't answer because you already know you're wrong.

[ndzoko]

@CreationMinistries -- the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their failed religious belief;;; Did you really graduate from kindergarten ? What is your agenda ? You realise that millions of christians acknowledge evolution !!

[Cactarpus]

I am not sure what I just watched, seemed like an attempt to ram together two unrelated topics to find a victor.