@fhattest, Theories are not just someone guessing. Major theories(relativity, quantum mechanics) have been tested and proven true in wayyyyyyyyy more cases than they've been proven false. And in the study of evolution, there have been No results in any experiments conducted to prove evolution did not take place or any evidence to go against it for that matter, I mean None! So basically you can have an absolutely correct answer for a question, but as long as the majority of the population not
Just because his argument was flawed doesn't mean he wasn't right , logic is great but it is but like any tool it's it can be wielded to destroy or edify! I do note you did not address the holes in the evolution theory. Please consider the content of arguments vs possible logic errors, you are very intelligent and can correct the logic to support the right arguments . I will be praying for you, sincerely!
@frenchjd01 what holes...??? and please make a long and well explained reply use a private msg if u need to "am tired of getting half assed reply's from ppl" so that i can debunk and shoot ur theorys down the drain as a whole :)
@MasterOfFlash92 the fossil record , look at the fakes , the frauds and the just plain misrepresented. Canopy theory not popular but an alternate theory.
@frenchjd01 show me one fake that is included in the evolutionary tree..
THE CANOPY THEORY!!!?!?!?!! that shit have been discredited so many times over and over and over that to believe in it and even posting it on an internet forum such as utube that have loads n loads of users the person must be utterly insane/stupid!
That theory is so flawed that id go with islam any day over that stupid shit!
i think both sides are crazy,your scientists even tell you officially evolution is still a theory,i doubt we will ever find out how we came to be,both sides are arrogant and critically judgmental of people that dont believe in what they do,i hope you atheists and religious people are proven both wrong so the people more concerned with the now can throw it in both your faces
Americans do have many smart, intelligent people. However they have even more stupid people, who cover themselves in "freedom of speech and idea" and then try to push them to others. The reason why its happening? Education is going down. Besides Americans rely on god so much that they dont develop critical thinking so simply cant tell logical from illogical. But again, not every American, however really really many! :/ look for US youth education statistics.
I posted this on another video: 98% of Americans are scientificially illiterate and less than 3% read books. While we have a surplus of skilled workers, our public education system is considered by many to be one of the worst of the developed world. Put simply, majority opinion means almost nothing on this one. 99.99% of biologists who study the subject support evolution as a PROVEN scientific theory and there has been little or no disagreement for decades. 70% of them are christians FYI.
Albert, you can't use big words when speaking to Creationist. Fail. Next time use little words and drawings. No text please, we know they don't read, not even the Bible.
Humanity is indeed a mistake of evolution, as is easy to convincingly argue, but this doesn't mean all is meaningless or that we don't have moral obligations.
I would argue that evolution does indeed imply that there is no such thing as a soul, or an ultimate meaning to life, among other things, although of course we can choose to give our own lives meaning.
Why didn't they think of that? This is a unique take on the Theory of Evolution: Why it's so unpopular. Coyne and Dawkins wrote books just to explain the proofs of the theory to a lay audience. This video moves on from there. Evolution is True and the fact that its predictions have been 100% accurate for more than a century is testament to its brilliance.
@GirlFromTheNet Did you even read Darwins Black Box? Behe accepts evolution and common descent (his main schtick is irreducible complexity for the biochemical origins of life.)
Well's book is full of fabrications and misrepresentations of other people's work (they've responded to Well's misuse of their work).
@GoldenbanjoDJ Here is the flaw in your argument: while atheism may (though I do see evidence also to the contrary) have a large presence on YouTube, this is a selection bias compared to America at large (which is the statistic I quote).
I hardly think that me putting a video on YouTube that you freely chose to watch is getting atheism "shoved down throats".
oh no i'm not suggesting that you are shoving atheism down throats by your video. in fact, i rather like the way your video is not as egocentric or innately ignorant as many other atheist videos are.
"shoved down throats" means the education system, universities, media.
Honestly mate, if you totted it up, atheist videos are far more popular and given that the USA is, by far, the biggest contributing nation to Youtube, this suggests that atheism is actually very popular there too.
furthermore in a way, even if you yourself did not mean it to be this way, it kind of still is getting shoved down throats. when people choose to look at the internet and youtube vids, they make unconcious decisions about things such as atheism. loads of videos about atheism gives it credibility, whilst high ratings on the videos also does. when someone looks at all this, as well as all the atheists putting across their intelligence and fine sounding arguments, it all adds up.
therefore, when i say "shoved down throats" it's not to mean that you force them to watch your videos or threaten to shoot someone, but atheism sub-conciously sows seeds in people's minds, and when atheism is so popular, few people question it. this is what happens in brain-washing. that's what i mean by comparing it to the medieval era. the church in the medieval era did not allow questioning. people were ridiculed for not believing in God. now people are ridiculed for believing in God.
@GoldenbanjoDJ Coming up with intelligent arguments is a form of "brain washing"? With your definition, what isn't brain-washing?
According to you, because I made this video, eventually atheism will become a dogma that cannot be questioned. That's a hell of a stretch.
Meanwhile, you don't respond to anything I actually say in the video. I think you come up with this "brain washing" stuff precisely because you *can't* come up with any real counterarguments.
this video is about "why evolution is so unpopular" which is absolute bollocks because it is not unpopular. i'm not arguing with the science, i'm arguing with the very essence and point of your video... is evolution popular? of course it is and you're blind not to realise it
@GoldenbanjoDJ - the author of the video doesnt have to refer to a hollistic unpolpularity to establish unpopularity. If something is unpopular with one group of people we can call it unpopular, even if it is popular with another group of people.
That said, I dont see the point in this line or argument; even if you were correct, it has little bearing on the validity of what is actualy being argued in the video.
@GoldenbanjoDJ - dont make arguments if you arent willing to suport them or retract them; otherwise you are just farting into the wind. I will respond to anyone who wants to talk about what I have said. regardless of how long ago I said it.
And why does the amount of time between now and when you posted affect whether you should reply?
I expect you to reply to this btw, it is in responce to a fresh post of yours. unless there was another reason why you didnt want to reply.
@GoldenbanjoDJ - oh look! you have provided reasoning, was that so hard?
the reason i wanted you to reply is that it is a matter of being intellectualy respectful. If you realy didnt want to engage with me you could have either not replied at all instead of leaving a rude comment, or, you could have left the response you just left.
And i hardley think that expecting people to extend basic politeness to others constitutes an 'attention whore'.
brain washing is when someone comes up with a belief and that belief becomes so popular that people start believing it without question. people are athiests these days without understanding any of it. it's just because they are sub-conciously accepting it because of the vast quantities of videos and people who follow it. it was the same in the middle ages - people accepted it because everyone else did
this becomes even more extreme when athiests condemn non-athiests as unscientific, unintelligent morons because they *can't* answer points and 'aren't' intelligent because they have not followed what athiests decide to follow.
@GoldenbanjoDJ If your use of "*can't*" implies that I am one of those atheists, then you are making up insults. I never said anything about theists being unintelligent (perhaps unscientific, which many theists wear as a badge of honor in regards to religion). I said you can't refute my claim.
Nor did you respond to my argument: That just because evolution may be popular on YouTube does not mean it is popular in the US at large, where roughly 50% of the population does not accept evolution.
no i wasn't making up insults. in fact, if you'll kindly regard one of my first posts, you will see very clearly that i told you that "i rather like the way your video is not as egocentric or innately ignorant".....
50% of people don't believe in it? that is STILL popular!! so i am still refuting your claim about popularity
add this to the rest of the world, with the UK and scandinavia being athiest strongholds and you will come out with something slightly more popular than "so unpopular"
@GoldenbanjoDJ I was specifically talking about America, but if you want to look at the world, also include places such as Turkey, Egypt, or Indonesia where creationism is widely believed.
I disagree that 50% makes it popular. If only 50% of people believed in a widely supported scientific theory (say, the germ theory of disease or heliocentrism) we would be shocked that so many people do not accept it and would ask why its unpopularity is so large.
But 50% still does not make it "so unpopular", as your title suggests. But I don't have the time or will to argue over this pedantic any longer. Atheism is definately not "so unpopular".
Agnosticism is probably the most 'scientific' stance as it refuses to make that leap of faith either way. It recognises that either can't be scientifically proven beyond question until death and heaven/cessation of existence. We'll see what is right (or in atheism's case, we won't see anything at all) then. end
@GoldenbanjoDJ If 50% of the population thought chocolate was the best flavor of ice cream out of the dozens out there, I would agree that it is not unpopular.
But if only half of people accepted a scientifically supported theory such as heliocentrism, then one would wonder why that belief is as unpopular as it is.
You've gone from atheist brain-washing to selective sampling, and now you're talking about the popularity of atheism (instead of evolution). Why do you keep changing the subject?
@GoldenbanjoDJ - actualy it wont be 'revealed' by nothingness, we cannot experience this nothingness so we will have to 'reveal' it now, for ourselves. Also, are you saying that only the god of the old testament exists? what about all the other ones? most religions don't deal with a concept of heaven or hell.
@GoldenbanjoDJ, it is not a 'leap of faith' to not believe in something that has absolutely no true evidence to suport it. That is like saying I have to make a leap of faith to believe that frogs can't fly. A lack of evidence for something existing, given the fact that we have tried to find such evidence, is sufficient evidence for suposing the thing doesn't exist. You are saying that it is more reasonable to supose that frogs might be able to fly than to think they can't.
As for any of the creationist trolls in the room, I have to say that your supposition is well founded.
I have had many talking with Mormon Creationists, and when I truly discus with them (And not throw fecal matter) I have had the quote "I don't [like evolution] because it makes me feel uncomfortable"
I find you intelligent and will continue to enjoy your videos, please make more =^_^=
I always thought that the Hitler connection was hilarious. Yes, that's why Hitler did what he did. He embraced a THEORY THAT SAYS WE ARE ALL ONE BIG FAMILY. That's why he killed other humans (and a humans are closer kin than other organisms).
Hey Al! I wanted to thank you for the wonderful work you do in putting together these videos. I find them engaging and clever with just the right amount of humor.
One thing I should point out, though I'm sure someone else already has, is that humans are not descended from apes and primates. Humans ARE apes, therefore primates. Stay awesome, sir!
Just subbed because of your intellectual ability to debate complex subjects in a detailed yet simple manner. I feel guilty that I haven't watched any other of your videos - off to watch them now!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I believe in both creation and evolution. I think evolution is unpopular because most people cannot see beyond the white and the black. How do you know that your mind is not constantly generating universes?
people don't believe in evolution because they were born into a family that didn't and frowned upon those who did; their mothers told them it was the truth. people are invariably at least somewhat biased towards what they were taught as young children.
My statement that science has helped cure MANY illnesses is well documented... in the literature... and I am sure you can think of countless examples yourself.
Eugenics is a social and political implementation of a misinterpretation of what natural selection actually teaches.
I suggest that you might have been misinformed about what Evolution actually is IF you believe that eugenics follows from evolution.
I do not believe in people just because they have a "piece of paper" (degree... right?). I accept things based on evidence. Dr. Rebecca Carley has tried to push this autism thing before and there are absolutely no links found in any clinical trials done. Dr. Rebecca Carley mistakes causation for correlation.
by " bad animal DNA"... you wouldn't happen to mean the thing that actually make the vaccine work would you? See... viruses have DNA as well. Be more specific.
No... I'm talking about all the bad animal DNAs that are mixed in with many of them. Don't go to a "medical" website to look up this information. (As I suspect you just did)
Your probably going to hate me for suggesting this, but look up: Alex Jones interviews Dr. Rebecca Carley - 1 of 5 - Vaccinations, Bird Flu
Please stop being such a pedantic follower of the system and believing all the folks who have pieces of paper know what they're talking about. Thank you.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You rock! You're very motivational, positive, and intellectual. I love your attitude, and your view, as well as your communication style. I personally tend to be more harsh and to the point... Even assholian sometimes (lol). I think that could stand to change tho'. I'm sure you're aware of that old parable about flies, honey, and vinegar.
Albert10110, your videos are great, good stuff man. But the comments are what makes them so excellent, I love reading the comments! Funny how reasoning doesn't exist universally, too bad really. I guess common sense isn't so common. I like to think that morality comes from the fact that humans, as social creatures, work together to keep the species going. The same principle guides all social creatures. A gift from evolution, not the bible. Anyways man, keep up the good work.
There are mainly two reasons why I disregard anything found on AIG and sites like it.
1) What they claim is in absolute contradiction with the evidence. Their claims about hominid fossils, archaeology relating to the flood, planetary motion, shrinkage of the sun and so on.
2) Their method is fundamentally flawed. They proclaim that the bible is true and then attempt to view (crowbar in) the evidence in the light of this. In science we do not start with the conclusions. We finish with them!!!
Write something yourself... make an effort. Like I have done with my list of fossils.
Evolution does not produce life... it modifies it. get over it.
Amino acids occur naturally. In all living things these amino acids are organized into proteins and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. How all this got started is called abiogenesis. Have a look in your big book of fairytales and see if it can explain it.
You want me to stop reminding you about those "links" because you are too scared to investigate and research the material they contain. If my "Book of Fairytales" as you put it, is "big", it cannot be as "huge" as the confusing mass of information inside your head caused by your "massive" array of scientific paraphanalia which still cannot explain the origin of life. Hahahahhahah Hahahahha Hahhahahahhha
I have stated 7 times now why your method of argumentation is invalid and why your sources does not even meet the minimum requirement for anything that can be considered a description of reality. On top of this I have described specific points on some of these sites where they are completely wrong... refer to flood geology and fossil record. This is covered on this thread. ... You just seem to forget.
... but I can give you yet another example of how wrong answersingenesis is.
For example the claim that the uneven distribution of matter in the universe is completely unexpected by the big bang theory.
This is a made up argument. The BBT does not predict an even distribution of matter... rather it predicts exactly the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.
The BBT predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.
Okay, I'm breaking this up. Answerme33, I get a fair share of abusive and insulting people in these comments and I leave them up, but you aren't adding to this conversation, you're just repeatedly being a troll.
I'm blocking your account, fully knowing that you'll probably wear it as a some "they can't handle the truth" badge of honor instead of admitting that you are being a rude jerk.
I could not continue to learn new things every day if I presumed to know everything.
When mentioning data, like fossils or genes, it is appropriate to use terms like "facts", but when dealing with the framework within which the data fits, it i customary to refer to these as "theories". This does in no way suggest that they mere "ideas" or "notions"... rather these are matured hypotheses that are supported by myriads of data and are not rivaled.
BUT... the real winner in this argument is the the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was found to be uneven. Dark matter has been observed in the effects it has on star and galaxy motions. The inflationary universe theory also accounts for the observed flatness of space AND it predicted quantitatively the pattern of unevenness in the CMB observed. (inflationary theory is an extension of the BBT)
I created the world yesterday and just made you think it's been here all along... There that's my religious text, it is valid because I say so. I am infallible. You shall hold no texts before this one. This is now a religion. I just explained the origin of life. It's no more or less valid than that book of fairy tales of yours. Yet it is also just as scientifically relevant. Science doesn't try to explain the origin of life, religion does but can't prove it. Burden of truth. You fail. love ya al
Of course it says it all - even YOU recognise that. Don't see anyone else laughing except you - Hahahaha hahaha. Now I am laughing at you. Don't be afraid - show me how the Bible is "NOT" the most informed textbook on Earth where science is concerned. Go on, I dare you. Hahahah hahahhahahha
Why the bible is not the most "informed textbook on Earth where science is concerned".
Hmm... does the bible say anything about how the parvocellular system mediates a range of visual processes in the neocortex in Primates? No??... ok... well "Comparative Primate Sociology" by P. Lee (Cambridge) says so on page 187. Studies conducted by Livingstone and Hubel and Zeki and Shipp confirm this.
If you have a "modesty" problem, that's nothing to do with me, its your problem, not mine. I stopped responding to your comments, since I knew what your tactics were of trying to divert from the proofs asked for from the 3 resources provided. I decided to debate with people who were more genuine than yourself instead - and who were not confused. You noticed my comment to RockingHeadbanger, but it seems that you are the one who is banging your head against rocks instead. Hahaha Haha
I asked you to show me exactly how Atheism proves there is no Creator - why do you avoid answering the question? . If you believe it is "highly illogical" that a Creator exists, then what are the Proofs for that assumption? I agree that animals can adapt to changing environments, so can human beings. Show how Scientists calculate their "billions" figures and what was the name of the star which "once exploded?
"dust" from stars is not the kind that you have on the inside of your skull where others have a brain.... rather it is basically any element heavier than hydrogen (or helium).
We mostly base the current estimate of the age of the earth on uranium-lead isotope dating of meteorites having impacted on earth (dust).
I seem to be really "getting" to you - since you now think you know what questions I will ask. Your assumption on the question about "dust" from stars is "Wrong", since I would not have asked such a question. Well, I did tell you that Evolutionists were stupid..
about the questions I assumed you would have asked... hehe... well. Good... I am happy that you know how the age of the earth and our solar system is known. Maybe you could tell us why this process fails... since you apparently are so knowledgable.
Question:
Explain why the 40 or so different radiometric dating techniques used to date materials on earth all agree with each other and are all independently wrong. even though they agree with simpler techniques like dendrochronology.
In general you only provide us with bad straw man arguments against evolution.
I have in private messages and previous discussions provided you with challenges which you have dodged. On top of this I have provided you with a nicely formated list of the most important fossil evidence related to the evolution of homo sapiens.
You have home work to do. Go do it.. and stop wasting our time.
If you had provided "challenges" and a "nicely formatted list" of the most important fossil evidence, then I would have debated you about it. Your diversion tactic regarding "homo sapiens" do not answer my main questions regarding evolution producing "LIFE", which I told you many times was my main point of discussion. Go and do Your homework and "Prove" that God did not create "LIFE" and stop wasting my time. If God did not create "Life", then show how "LIFE" came into existence.
Oh, its you again. Did you research the three resources I gave you some time ago?? So, did the environment (nature) possess an "intelligence" or some kind of "thought" ability to make selections???
Really? If you had covered this with me before, I would not have asked you the question again. NO? Do you mean "NO" the environment (nature) did not possess an intelligence or "thought ability" to make selections - and if not, how can selections take place otherwise. Stop "beating around the bush" and answer the question, since you think you are more "knowledgeable" than the Creator (God). NOW, PROVE IT.
The type of selection that we see in nature is not the type used when you shop for cereal in your supermarket. Natural selection works due to insufficient resources and hence a resulting competition. Natural selection is not a "thing" as a person or a god is a thing. It is what results from varying organisms and insufficient resources. This is how selection takes place without a directing force.
"Oh, its you again. Did you research the three resources I gave you some time ago??"
As I have told you a few times.. you can't just give me a link to answers In genesis and use that as an argument. I could equally direct you to ALL scientific research and all your so called "authorities" would fall down on their ass. I would also like to point out that AIG does not oppose evolution as such rather common descent. Please formulate your own argument...
I gave you the sources because they are highly reputable and trustworthy sources with which to get accurate information. The fact that you didn't provide me with any scientific sources for research regarding the subject under discussion, proves that you don't have "Authorities" at all to direct me to. If you do, then why didn't you? The Authorities I provided you with would make "mincemeat" out of your arguments, and make your so-called scientific research disappear into oblivion.
No... you are quite right. I do not quote authorities because science does not rely on authorities. It relies on evidence... data... observation and verification through tests.
The "authority" I would want to direct you to is reality. You clearly do not accept this as an authority... but the authority of reality is what interests people in science.
But fair enough, answerme33. Let us see an argument that can make "mincemeat" of evolution. Please... show us. Right here... NOW! NOW!
It seems impossible to debate or argue with those who cannot "Prove" that Evolution is a valid means of producing life, - or the argument regarding "Proof" of the Big Bang theory, that these people naturally assume that there is no God - Hahah Hahaha. Evolution tells you that you were a different life form before becoming "Human" - do you remember what you were before ? Were you a monkey, a rat or a snivelling worm? Hahaha Hahahah Hahhahahah
Hi answerme33... remember me? yes.. I am the one you stopped responding to because I did what you asked and provided you with evidence for evolution. I see you are up to your old shenanigans. Let me weigh in once again to perhaps teach you a thing or two about science. Yes... modesty was never my forcé.
Oh, I remember you indeed - you were the one who ignored the three resources I gave you to investigate and research and provide the proofs asked for, but instead of doing that, you came back to me with another question to try and divert,, conveniently avoiding researching the resources I gave you, since you provided no conclusive proofs, (and each of those resources contain vast amounts of information).
WHAT? You were the one who suddenly stopped posting on this video and stopped returning my private messages. I HAVE looked at those pages... MANY times... have even been to several talks with Ken Ham and met him in person... even debated him face to face. The problem is that if I started refuting every single point from AIG to your email you would not understand a word... and you would not listen either. I have dealt with SEVERAL points already from AIG. check my fossil list.
Indeed, I remember you alright. You were the one whom I provided three reputable resources, (each possessing vast amounts of information), for you to investigate and research to prove your points, but instead of doing so, you conveniently tried to divert the subject by asking another question not relevant to the subject discussed at the time. I see you are up to your old tricks of trying to "make sense out of confusion", which you have failed to do.
I told you that you were confused. You say that you provided me with evidence for evolution, yet you agree that Evolution does not produce "LIFE", (which was my main point of discussion), in my previous comments, and you proved my points correct. Thank you. If I want to learn about Science, I will consult the most informed textbook on Earth about the subject (the Bible) and weigh up its teachings against the teachings of human scientists - you not being one of them.
"It seems impossible to debate or argue with those who cannot "Prove" that Evolution is a valid means of producing life, (...)"
Ahh... I see the problem. I guess you can not argue or debate with anyone since no one indeed can "prove" that evolution produces life because IT DOESN'T. Evolution is the change in gene frequency over time. I have told you this many a time...
You were "hot under the collar" because I have debated from my first comment about evolution, and the fact that many Evolutionists try to claim that this process produces "LIFE". You have just confirmed my arguments as "True", because evolution does not produce LIFE. I understand what you mean when you refer to "gene frequency". So, if Evolution does not produce life, and "No God" produced life either, then where did "LIFE" come from and how did it come about?
Don't try your diversion tactics with me. Both of us have already agreed in previous posts that "life" is not produced by evolution, so why try to continue on the same subject? PROVE that "Life" originates from abiogenesis. Why do you think that "Life" cannot be created by God?
Or, if you don't believe in God as the Creator of "Life", then why is that so?
NO, YOU were not, someone else was? See how confused Evolutionists are, what kind of insensible statement is that? Of course animals reproduce and die, so do human beings - I don't need a biology textbook to show me that, even if YOU do. Basic commonsense should tell you that. Hahahah Hahahha. No, we were not monkeys you say? How do you know that for sure, were you ever a monkey to remember that? Hahahha Hahahhahahahhahah Hahahhaha
How would you expect anyone to remember being a monkey? A monkey is what exists now... It has nothing to do with remembering being a monkey. The individual does not change... what kind of retarded point are you trying to make?
Question:
Please explain how you expect anyone to be able to remember being another species, without invoking yet another silly straw man.
Sorry- it seems probable that there IS other life on similar planets in other star systems. Would the organisms there mimic the life on this planet? This seems impossible. If they are completely different beings then why would God be in the shape of man or humans have their own special God?? Mmmmm. Do not buy it!
The main problem I have with evolution is not that we were descended from apes, but the process itself. How is it that by chance, random bits of matter developed into multicellular organisms that are so complex we still do not understand all of their workings. How is it that our bodies have come to double-check DNA before it's finalized? Doesn't double-checking require foresight? Things like this keep me from believing in pure evolution - I've come to believe in a type of God-assisted evolution.
Check out the great videos by cdk007 or potholer54 for explanations on how complex multicellular life can come from simple life, and how simple life can come from non-life.
"evangelical militant atheism" may be used by theists as an epithet for the "militant evolutionists who want to silence the idea of creation". It is sometimes used pejoratively to describe people who are considered to campaign too actively, in your face and outspokenly or militantly for atheism and against religion: "those who advocate the elimination of religion" as opposed to "progressive, enlightened people who are simply 'nonbelievers'.
Sketsargis: Roughly 50% to 66% of Americans think evolution is completely false, depending on which polls you read. I'd say that's a significant enough amount to call evolution "unpopular", and why this is and counter the misconceptions people have is what my video is mainly about.
thirdly you dont know that a lot of time has passed that is only a guess, by your logic you would have to witness the millions of years pass by if you didnt how can you tell millions of years have past, on top of that all the evidence points to a young earth dont be a fool open your eyes, how many things are you gonna say happened by chance ok an eye happened by chance the perfect orbit of the sun and the moon happen by chance gravity happened by chance isnt it starting to sound funy get a life
the orbit of the earth around the sun and the orbit of the moon around the earth arent perfect they are not perfect circles.. there more of an egg shape thats why during winter its colder(also caused by the inclination fo the earth.) gravity is caused by the mass of an object. the bigger the object the more it pulls on something. (not chance) the eye happened by adaptation that is why we see in colour unlike most animals
your missing the whole point, we are not arguing that God did it we are arguing that it was created get your argument straight, secondly something that is created can create other things but not from scratch, if your so smart create a cow then, but we are talking about an ultimate creator, your guilt to answer to an higher authority is blinding you from honest research and looking at things the right way, you cannot imagine facing a creator thats why your scared to except the truth
first of all the cow is like it is today because of centuries of evolution through breeding. it was a much more dangerous animal before then it is now. and creation doesnt make sense so plz study the evolution theory ok? youll see that alot of it well actually all of it makes sense... creation doesnt
how can a creator be created, he wouldnt be a creator if he was created, secondly your small mind cannot look at the big picture, even if you never saw a building get built or ever knew anyone that saw a building get build, you would have to be a fool to say it happened by chance that is my point here, thats what your saying about human beings just because you didnt witness the creation you are denying the creator, but the creation is proof of the creator like the building is proof of a builder
your argument is as stupid as saying the sun is the sun because it lights up the earth and provides heat.. -.- honestly evolution explains how we came to be..STUDY it youll see
ok lol thats nice now get lost because your only fooling yourself, believe what you want to believe your only deceiving yourself, and stop trying to prove things to people its not working, you cant prove that black is white because its not, you know what i think that your head is an eggshape lol go watch the privileged planet DVD and cry and repent to your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
thats what i hate about religious people.. they think they know everything just because some book written by bronze age idiots that thought a magical skyman would explain everything. science is the ONLY way to go if you want to understand the world truly.. but if you want to go on with your pathetic brainwashed life go ahead. live your life of ignorance and be disappointed like in any religion once you die. you wont meet an almighty creator. shut up and get an brain you retard religious freak
excuse me but you dont follow science I do, your hatred for God is blinding you from the truth, science has proven already that a Creator exists, if you choose to ignore it thats your problem not mine, and dont hate people just because they they dont agree with you, because you might be wrong, and in this case are wrong, good day
science proved exactly the opposite of what your saying. it proved there wasent a creator. you really listen only to people who say god exists and it shows. god is a man made creation. it was invented to explain all the things that people didnt understand. science proved how the world works and you only listen to the church cause you feel useless without a god. well.. honestly even if there was a god you are useless. you dont even follow his teachings im 100% sure of that
why are you 100% sure of that because i didnt curse back at you loll secondly God teaches us that we are not perfect and we are sinners thats why we need him, listen believe what you want to believe obviously your blinded by your hatred for God, science points towards a creator, and very soon you will see how ignorant you were, but there is still time before the return of our Lord, Go watch the Privileged plant dvd visit the website on my channel and come to God before its too late
I have to go for now - but I will be back to communicate with you again - that's if you don't try to escape my questions. Evolution =- Hahahahahhahahahhaha
You have provided NO answers. You have given me a list of 3 sources (bible, answers in genesis and the restored church of god).... I could equally give you a source that refutes all of your sources... this does not help.
Science cannot currently awnser everything, but it can awnser alot. God has to be created and he must be able to interact with the universe to create it. This would mean that he would not be supernatural. The whole debate is flawed because you can't prove somthing that doesn't exist.
When you have intelligently answered my questions, instead of trying to "divert" - then I will answer yours. In fact, I have already sent answers to some of your questions to your channel.
I am not diverting your question. I have answered it. Fact is that you are never satisfied with any question I might give you. You assert that something came into existence but you provide no evidence to support your claim... how does anyone have a chance of giving an answer to something you simply state. I have give you more answers than you deserve.
I am happy to repeat one of the answers I have given that you seem to constantly need.
Yes. It is very rational to not simply accept that the universe needs a cause or a purpose, since this is a property of time and hence seems to only be valid inside our universe. We are not even sure that the universe had a definite beginning yet, so before we start talking about cause maybe we should investigate the facts a bit more.
Indeed, people fear what they do not understand. Does that include YOU in your "lack of understanding" regarding that which exists having had a "Cause"?
You asked me about "yelling at science" - you were the one who made this statement. I think You should be "yelling at science", especially after you have read my messages I sent to you.
I did not "ask" you about "yelling at science"... I said that you are clearly not able to understand most science so you chose to parade your ignorance around on youtube in a sleek veneer of contempt for what essentially has improved you and your families life for many generations.
"Deluded people" believe that soemthing can exist without a cause - and you are one of them. If you go back to your previous comments, you will see that you were the one who raised the question about "yelling at science" - and you try to "pass the buck" onto me. I can understandf science a great deal better than you, and my intelligence and thoughts are "rational" - unlike yourself.
You couldn't provide answers to my previous comments, that's why you are hot under the collar.
I have clearly shown your lack of common sense and ignorance, and proof of that is your continued denial of what human intelligence and rationality would show you. Carry on postulating your "irrational" thought processes on YouTube - making yourself appear like someone who is confused.
I agree with you that science has improved life for many people (including you and me, and our families for many generations) as you say. But, what about people who come from, and live in less fortunate environments (and there are far more of them on this Earth than the fortunate)? What has science done for them? So, the "sleek veneer of contempt" comes from you in your denial and suppression of this fact. Indeed, science has a long way to go. Hahahaha
AGAIN you try and turn an argument in its head in misrepresent the point. We were not talking about the socio political state of the earth but on the achievements of science. Science is not an ideology and hence does not have an opinion about suck things. You are MISUNDERSTANDING and MISREPRESENTING what science is. Sure, the globe needs to stand together and help each other... but this has nothing to do with science.
You NOW try and twist the subject of science and turn it into a subject of socio-politics. I said you were confused - you should take what I said seriously. Yes, we were talking about the achievements of science, and I rightfully pointed out where science has gone wrong - are you in denial of that? Are you saying that science cannort help those who live in less fortunate circumstances than you and I? Anyway, I though we were discussing evolution, and not science in general?
If "cause and effect" is something the cosmos should not comply with, what is your answer to the Big Bang theory, and how did the Universe come into existence (if not through Creation)?
I do not have an "answer" to the big bang theory, because it is not a question. I do not know how the universe came into existence. No one knows.. not even you. You might think you do, but you are deluding yourself. The big bang theory is not an explanation of how the cosmos came into existence... rather it explains the expansion of space-time.
Why are you getting "hot under the collar"? If the Big Bang is not a question, then what is it? Because YOU don't know what caused the Big Bang, you think you have the right to conclude that no-one else does. Do you know for sure that no-one else does? You can't answer the question, so you pretend that the question is invalid, and come to your own conclusion eg. expansion of time and space. Nevertheless, the validity of the question still remains, whether you admit it or not.
I have already told you what the Big bang is... it is a scientific theory that describes the expansion of space time. This is not my "own conclusion". Please READ what I write. And AGAIN... you can not conclude that causation applies to the universe or the cosmos. Causation is as far as we know bound by time and hence can not be applied to the universe as a whole.
I know what the Big Bang IS. What I am asking you AGAIN is how did it come to "cause" the Universe to come into existence, if (as you say) there doesn't have to be a "CAUSE"? Now, answer this intelligently - and stop "beating around the bush".
Are you absolutely sure the Big Bang did not "cause" the universe (doesn't make sense), or perhaps you worded your comments inaccurately. You say the "particles" were already there. What particles are you referring to? How did they come to be "already THERE? Don't go into circular reasoning either.
The Big Bang theory refers to the idea of how the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition. The big bang theory does NOT describe the creation of matter and energy.
When I say "particle" I generally mean... what was there... or just matter/energy. I am not sure... but this might either simply be hydrogen.
I have already answered this. I do not know. No one does. There are many interesting ideas out there. Some suggest that space time is essentially a curved shape with not abrupt edges ie no beginning or end. Some suggest that the universe is a series of big bangs and big crunches. Some suggest that the universe is a part of a much much much larger universe... some suggest that this universe folds back on itself after x number of scalings.
There are many many hypotheses out there regarding the beginning of the universe. Postulating a creator is NOT a usable scientific theory hence you then need to explain something even greater or more complex. Saying that this someone always existed is pointless since the universe might as well always have existed as well. This is NOT contrary to the big bang theory. READ about it.
I did not understand this video........ But i have a SERIOUS question.....what kind of music do atheists listen to....?
horses1216 3 months ago
@horses1216 .... That is a dumb question.
shagoosty 2 months ago
@horses1216 Christian Death Metal.
Raptor3k 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Very good video.
manmadesounds 4 months ago
Refreshing and bright...
wondergundy 5 months ago
Very Well Spoken keep up the good work
finderfinder100 9 months ago
(Continued from previous comment) Except it, it will still remain a theory, and we all know who the majority of our population is..Christians :)
elsangre333 11 months ago
@fhattest, Theories are not just someone guessing. Major theories(relativity, quantum mechanics) have been tested and proven true in wayyyyyyyyy more cases than they've been proven false. And in the study of evolution, there have been No results in any experiments conducted to prove evolution did not take place or any evidence to go against it for that matter, I mean None! So basically you can have an absolutely correct answer for a question, but as long as the majority of the population not
elsangre333 11 months ago
GREAT JOB! Thats all!
clorofilazul 11 months ago
Just because his argument was flawed doesn't mean he wasn't right , logic is great but it is but like any tool it's it can be wielded to destroy or edify! I do note you did not address the holes in the evolution theory. Please consider the content of arguments vs possible logic errors, you are very intelligent and can correct the logic to support the right arguments . I will be praying for you, sincerely!
frenchjd01 1 year ago
@frenchjd01 what holes...??? and please make a long and well explained reply use a private msg if u need to "am tired of getting half assed reply's from ppl" so that i can debunk and shoot ur theorys down the drain as a whole :)
MasterOfFlash92 1 year ago
@MasterOfFlash92 the fossil record , look at the fakes , the frauds and the just plain misrepresented. Canopy theory not popular but an alternate theory.
frenchjd01 1 year ago
@frenchjd01 show me one fake that is included in the evolutionary tree..
THE CANOPY THEORY!!!?!?!?!! that shit have been discredited so many times over and over and over that to believe in it and even posting it on an internet forum such as utube that have loads n loads of users the person must be utterly insane/stupid!
That theory is so flawed that id go with islam any day over that stupid shit!
MasterOfFlash92 1 year ago
i think both sides are crazy,your scientists even tell you officially evolution is still a theory,i doubt we will ever find out how we came to be,both sides are arrogant and critically judgmental of people that dont believe in what they do,i hope you atheists and religious people are proven both wrong so the people more concerned with the now can throw it in both your faces
fhattest 1 year ago
@fhattest we know how we came to be, we just dont know how it got started.
And like richard dawkins said evolution is a theory just like gravity is :)
MasterOfFlash92 1 year ago
Americans do have many smart, intelligent people. However they have even more stupid people, who cover themselves in "freedom of speech and idea" and then try to push them to others. The reason why its happening? Education is going down. Besides Americans rely on god so much that they dont develop critical thinking so simply cant tell logical from illogical. But again, not every American, however really really many! :/ look for US youth education statistics.
eleminatus 1 year ago
I posted this on another video: 98% of Americans are scientificially illiterate and less than 3% read books. While we have a surplus of skilled workers, our public education system is considered by many to be one of the worst of the developed world. Put simply, majority opinion means almost nothing on this one. 99.99% of biologists who study the subject support evolution as a PROVEN scientific theory and there has been little or no disagreement for decades. 70% of them are christians FYI.
Houshalter 1 year ago
Wes Anderson has been searching for this music for years.
Keeban3 1 year ago
Albert, you can't use big words when speaking to Creationist. Fail. Next time use little words and drawings. No text please, we know they don't read, not even the Bible.
Killjeser 1 year ago 2
Humanity is indeed a mistake of evolution, as is easy to convincingly argue, but this doesn't mean all is meaningless or that we don't have moral obligations.
I would argue that evolution does indeed imply that there is no such thing as a soul, or an ultimate meaning to life, among other things, although of course we can choose to give our own lives meaning.
ClamCrunchy 1 year ago
evolution unpopular? Ha ha ha ha. I dont believe so.
HEC01 1 year ago
Why didn't they think of that? This is a unique take on the Theory of Evolution: Why it's so unpopular. Coyne and Dawkins wrote books just to explain the proofs of the theory to a lay audience. This video moves on from there. Evolution is True and the fact that its predictions have been 100% accurate for more than a century is testament to its brilliance.
Brilliant! Of course, I'll subscribe.
inityminiwur 1 year ago
your a good man! :) haha. enjoy your videos
TheFightingRebel 1 year ago
I don't believe in evolution because it hasn't been proven. It's flawed. Read "Icons of Evolution" and "Darwins Black Box".
GirlFromTheNet 2 years ago
@GirlFromTheNet Did you even read Darwins Black Box? Behe accepts evolution and common descent (his main schtick is irreducible complexity for the biochemical origins of life.)
Well's book is full of fabrications and misrepresentations of other people's work (they've responded to Well's misuse of their work).
Albert10110 2 years ago
yeah evolution is unpopular....
have you checked your ratings? looks unpopular to me like :s
in fact, look at all atheistic video ratings
then look at theistic video ratings
i think you're in the majority
it's the medieval era all over again, this time it's atheism getting shoved down throats
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ Here is the flaw in your argument: while atheism may (though I do see evidence also to the contrary) have a large presence on YouTube, this is a selection bias compared to America at large (which is the statistic I quote).
I hardly think that me putting a video on YouTube that you freely chose to watch is getting atheism "shoved down throats".
Albert10110 2 years ago
oh no i'm not suggesting that you are shoving atheism down throats by your video. in fact, i rather like the way your video is not as egocentric or innately ignorant as many other atheist videos are.
"shoved down throats" means the education system, universities, media.
Honestly mate, if you totted it up, atheist videos are far more popular and given that the USA is, by far, the biggest contributing nation to Youtube, this suggests that atheism is actually very popular there too.
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
furthermore in a way, even if you yourself did not mean it to be this way, it kind of still is getting shoved down throats. when people choose to look at the internet and youtube vids, they make unconcious decisions about things such as atheism. loads of videos about atheism gives it credibility, whilst high ratings on the videos also does. when someone looks at all this, as well as all the atheists putting across their intelligence and fine sounding arguments, it all adds up.
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
therefore, when i say "shoved down throats" it's not to mean that you force them to watch your videos or threaten to shoot someone, but atheism sub-conciously sows seeds in people's minds, and when atheism is so popular, few people question it. this is what happens in brain-washing. that's what i mean by comparing it to the medieval era. the church in the medieval era did not allow questioning. people were ridiculed for not believing in God. now people are ridiculed for believing in God.
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ Coming up with intelligent arguments is a form of "brain washing"? With your definition, what isn't brain-washing?
According to you, because I made this video, eventually atheism will become a dogma that cannot be questioned. That's a hell of a stretch.
Meanwhile, you don't respond to anything I actually say in the video. I think you come up with this "brain washing" stuff precisely because you *can't* come up with any real counterarguments.
Albert10110 2 years ago
this video is about "why evolution is so unpopular" which is absolute bollocks because it is not unpopular. i'm not arguing with the science, i'm arguing with the very essence and point of your video... is evolution popular? of course it is and you're blind not to realise it
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ - the author of the video doesnt have to refer to a hollistic unpolpularity to establish unpopularity. If something is unpopular with one group of people we can call it unpopular, even if it is popular with another group of people.
That said, I dont see the point in this line or argument; even if you were correct, it has little bearing on the validity of what is actualy being argued in the video.
pimpwacker 1 year ago
@pimpwacker
.........
this was months ago. if you expect me to argue back, you are wrong
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ - dont make arguments if you arent willing to suport them or retract them; otherwise you are just farting into the wind. I will respond to anyone who wants to talk about what I have said. regardless of how long ago I said it.
And why does the amount of time between now and when you posted affect whether you should reply?
I expect you to reply to this btw, it is in responce to a fresh post of yours. unless there was another reason why you didnt want to reply.
pimpwacker 1 year ago
1. because it was so long ago i can't remember my line of thinking when i posted.
2. because i have argued these points already with the authour of the video
3. because i have argued the 'new' points that you have presented time and time and time again
4. because, despite arguing about evolution with many many many people, i am yet to convince anyone and they are yet to convince me
5. because you are clearly an attention whore out for an argument - "I expect you to reply to this"........
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
6. because i have a life and am supposed to be meeting my girlfriend in town at 2.30
there is your reply. want more? if so, unlucky...
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ - oh look! you have provided reasoning, was that so hard?
the reason i wanted you to reply is that it is a matter of being intellectualy respectful. If you realy didnt want to engage with me you could have either not replied at all instead of leaving a rude comment, or, you could have left the response you just left.
And i hardley think that expecting people to extend basic politeness to others constitutes an 'attention whore'.
dont worry i dont expect you to respond.
pimpwacker 1 year ago
brain washing is when someone comes up with a belief and that belief becomes so popular that people start believing it without question. people are athiests these days without understanding any of it. it's just because they are sub-conciously accepting it because of the vast quantities of videos and people who follow it. it was the same in the middle ages - people accepted it because everyone else did
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
this becomes even more extreme when athiests condemn non-athiests as unscientific, unintelligent morons because they *can't* answer points and 'aren't' intelligent because they have not followed what athiests decide to follow.
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ If your use of "*can't*" implies that I am one of those atheists, then you are making up insults. I never said anything about theists being unintelligent (perhaps unscientific, which many theists wear as a badge of honor in regards to religion). I said you can't refute my claim.
Nor did you respond to my argument: That just because evolution may be popular on YouTube does not mean it is popular in the US at large, where roughly 50% of the population does not accept evolution.
Albert10110 2 years ago
no i wasn't making up insults. in fact, if you'll kindly regard one of my first posts, you will see very clearly that i told you that "i rather like the way your video is not as egocentric or innately ignorant".....
50% of people don't believe in it? that is STILL popular!! so i am still refuting your claim about popularity
add this to the rest of the world, with the UK and scandinavia being athiest strongholds and you will come out with something slightly more popular than "so unpopular"
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ I was specifically talking about America, but if you want to look at the world, also include places such as Turkey, Egypt, or Indonesia where creationism is widely believed.
I disagree that 50% makes it popular. If only 50% of people believed in a widely supported scientific theory (say, the germ theory of disease or heliocentrism) we would be shocked that so many people do not accept it and would ask why its unpopularity is so large.
Albert10110 2 years ago
But 50% still does not make it "so unpopular", as your title suggests. But I don't have the time or will to argue over this pedantic any longer. Atheism is definately not "so unpopular".
Agnosticism is probably the most 'scientific' stance as it refuses to make that leap of faith either way. It recognises that either can't be scientifically proven beyond question until death and heaven/cessation of existence. We'll see what is right (or in atheism's case, we won't see anything at all) then. end
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ If 50% of the population thought chocolate was the best flavor of ice cream out of the dozens out there, I would agree that it is not unpopular.
But if only half of people accepted a scientifically supported theory such as heliocentrism, then one would wonder why that belief is as unpopular as it is.
You've gone from atheist brain-washing to selective sampling, and now you're talking about the popularity of atheism (instead of evolution). Why do you keep changing the subject?
Albert10110 2 years ago
Sorry i meant evolution, not atheism. many christians also believe in evolution.
It's not a subject change:
your video is why is evolution unpopular.
I said it is popular.
Then i said it is popular because of brainwashing. It is therefore completely related.....
As i said though, all will be 'revealed' either by a god in a heaven/hell or by nothingness after death. All the best.
GoldenbanjoDJ 2 years ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ - actualy it wont be 'revealed' by nothingness, we cannot experience this nothingness so we will have to 'reveal' it now, for ourselves. Also, are you saying that only the god of the old testament exists? what about all the other ones? most religions don't deal with a concept of heaven or hell.
pimpwacker 1 year ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ, it is not a 'leap of faith' to not believe in something that has absolutely no true evidence to suport it. That is like saying I have to make a leap of faith to believe that frogs can't fly. A lack of evidence for something existing, given the fact that we have tried to find such evidence, is sufficient evidence for suposing the thing doesn't exist. You are saying that it is more reasonable to supose that frogs might be able to fly than to think they can't.
pimpwacker 1 year ago
@Albert10110
You are Awesome, I have Subscribed!
As for any of the creationist trolls in the room, I have to say that your supposition is well founded.
I have had many talking with Mormon Creationists, and when I truly discus with them (And not throw fecal matter) I have had the quote "I don't [like evolution] because it makes me feel uncomfortable"
I find you intelligent and will continue to enjoy your videos, please make more =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 2 years ago
I always thought that the Hitler connection was hilarious. Yes, that's why Hitler did what he did. He embraced a THEORY THAT SAYS WE ARE ALL ONE BIG FAMILY. That's why he killed other humans (and a humans are closer kin than other organisms).
jacobromu 2 years ago
Hey Al! I wanted to thank you for the wonderful work you do in putting together these videos. I find them engaging and clever with just the right amount of humor.
One thing I should point out, though I'm sure someone else already has, is that humans are not descended from apes and primates. Humans ARE apes, therefore primates. Stay awesome, sir!
CheshireDemonX 2 years ago
Just subbed because of your intellectual ability to debate complex subjects in a detailed yet simple manner. I feel guilty that I haven't watched any other of your videos - off to watch them now!
flyingfisbeefilms 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I believe in both creation and evolution. I think evolution is unpopular because most people cannot see beyond the white and the black. How do you know that your mind is not constantly generating universes?
byakuugan86 2 years ago
all hail spoon-forks!
flangleelgnalf 2 years ago 8
people don't believe in evolution because they were born into a family that didn't and frowned upon those who did; their mothers told them it was the truth. people are invariably at least somewhat biased towards what they were taught as young children.
tezkag72 2 years ago
Either way.
My statement that science has helped cure MANY illnesses is well documented... in the literature... and I am sure you can think of countless examples yourself.
Eugenics is a social and political implementation of a misinterpretation of what natural selection actually teaches.
I suggest that you might have been misinformed about what Evolution actually is IF you believe that eugenics follows from evolution.
jensenzo 2 years ago 2
I do not believe in people just because they have a "piece of paper" (degree... right?). I accept things based on evidence. Dr. Rebecca Carley has tried to push this autism thing before and there are absolutely no links found in any clinical trials done. Dr. Rebecca Carley mistakes causation for correlation.
by " bad animal DNA"... you wouldn't happen to mean the thing that actually make the vaccine work would you? See... viruses have DNA as well. Be more specific.
jensenzo 2 years ago 5
Ya, as humans we create world governments and use scientific backing to support endeavors such as eugenics...
Ragnark1 2 years ago
ehm... no! (?). But we do use it to cure countless fatal illnesses.
jensenzo 2 years ago
take a look at all the extra crap that is put into vaccines and then get back to me. Until your finished, hold your tongue!
Ragnark1 2 years ago
You mean stuff like thiomersal, phenoxyethanol and formaldehyde? Preservatives that prevent serious adverse effects such as Staphylococcus infections?
or... are you trying to hint at some kind of mind control serum?
jensenzo 2 years ago
No... I'm talking about all the bad animal DNAs that are mixed in with many of them. Don't go to a "medical" website to look up this information. (As I suspect you just did)
Your probably going to hate me for suggesting this, but look up: Alex Jones interviews Dr. Rebecca Carley - 1 of 5 - Vaccinations, Bird Flu
Please stop being such a pedantic follower of the system and believing all the folks who have pieces of paper know what they're talking about. Thank you.
Ragnark1 2 years ago
You are awesome. This video helped me organize my thoughts for a paper about why ID is unlawful and yet so successful.
graaar 2 years ago
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You rock! You're very motivational, positive, and intellectual. I love your attitude, and your view, as well as your communication style. I personally tend to be more harsh and to the point... Even assholian sometimes (lol). I think that could stand to change tho'. I'm sure you're aware of that old parable about flies, honey, and vinegar.
Xeletoph 2 years ago 2
He's very intelligent, yet very ignorant.
christopherduke 2 years ago
Albert10110, your videos are great, good stuff man. But the comments are what makes them so excellent, I love reading the comments! Funny how reasoning doesn't exist universally, too bad really. I guess common sense isn't so common. I like to think that morality comes from the fact that humans, as social creatures, work together to keep the species going. The same principle guides all social creatures. A gift from evolution, not the bible. Anyways man, keep up the good work.
200407013 2 years ago
There are mainly two reasons why I disregard anything found on AIG and sites like it.
1) What they claim is in absolute contradiction with the evidence. Their claims about hominid fossils, archaeology relating to the flood, planetary motion, shrinkage of the sun and so on.
2) Their method is fundamentally flawed. They proclaim that the bible is true and then attempt to view (crowbar in) the evidence in the light of this. In science we do not start with the conclusions. We finish with them!!!
jensenzo 2 years ago
Comment removed
jensenzo 2 years ago
answerme33
Stop banging on about those freaking links!
Write something yourself... make an effort. Like I have done with my list of fossils.
Evolution does not produce life... it modifies it. get over it.
Amino acids occur naturally. In all living things these amino acids are organized into proteins and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. How all this got started is called abiogenesis. Have a look in your big book of fairytales and see if it can explain it.
jensenzo 2 years ago
jensenzo
You want me to stop reminding you about those "links" because you are too scared to investigate and research the material they contain. If my "Book of Fairytales" as you put it, is "big", it cannot be as "huge" as the confusing mass of information inside your head caused by your "massive" array of scientific paraphanalia which still cannot explain the origin of life. Hahahahhahah Hahahahha Hahhahahahhha
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
I have stated 7 times now why your method of argumentation is invalid and why your sources does not even meet the minimum requirement for anything that can be considered a description of reality. On top of this I have described specific points on some of these sites where they are completely wrong... refer to flood geology and fossil record. This is covered on this thread. ... You just seem to forget.
jensenzo 2 years ago
answerme33
... but I can give you yet another example of how wrong answersingenesis is.
For example the claim that the uneven distribution of matter in the universe is completely unexpected by the big bang theory.
This is a made up argument. The BBT does not predict an even distribution of matter... rather it predicts exactly the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.
jensenzo 2 years ago
answerme33
furthermore...
The BBT predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.
jensenzo 2 years ago
Okay, I'm breaking this up. Answerme33, I get a fair share of abusive and insulting people in these comments and I leave them up, but you aren't adding to this conversation, you're just repeatedly being a troll.
I'm blocking your account, fully knowing that you'll probably wear it as a some "they can't handle the truth" badge of honor instead of admitting that you are being a rude jerk.
Albert10110 2 years ago
no you're blocking him because he is actually making you think for once and has valid arguments. Come on admit it.
christopherduke 2 years ago
predicts, should, more than likely, could have been, etc, etc, any specifics? Probably not, since it is ALL theory.
christopherduke 2 years ago
I could not continue to learn new things every day if I presumed to know everything.
When mentioning data, like fossils or genes, it is appropriate to use terms like "facts", but when dealing with the framework within which the data fits, it i customary to refer to these as "theories". This does in no way suggest that they mere "ideas" or "notions"... rather these are matured hypotheses that are supported by myriads of data and are not rivaled.
jensenzo 2 years ago
answerme33
BUT... the real winner in this argument is the the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was found to be uneven. Dark matter has been observed in the effects it has on star and galaxy motions. The inflationary universe theory also accounts for the observed flatness of space AND it predicted quantitatively the pattern of unevenness in the CMB observed. (inflationary theory is an extension of the BBT)
jensenzo 2 years ago
Comment removed
jensenzo 2 years ago
I created the world yesterday and just made you think it's been here all along... There that's my religious text, it is valid because I say so. I am infallible. You shall hold no texts before this one. This is now a religion. I just explained the origin of life. It's no more or less valid than that book of fairy tales of yours. Yet it is also just as scientifically relevant. Science doesn't try to explain the origin of life, religion does but can't prove it. Burden of truth. You fail. love ya al
canibalgofer 2 years ago
answerme33 (and anyone up for a laugh)
"If I want to learn about Science, I will consult the most informed textbook on Earth about the subject (the Bible) (...)"
Well... this just says it all... doesn't it? LOL
jensenzo 2 years ago
jensenzo
Of course it says it all - even YOU recognise that. Don't see anyone else laughing except you - Hahahaha hahaha. Now I am laughing at you. Don't be afraid - show me how the Bible is "NOT" the most informed textbook on Earth where science is concerned. Go on, I dare you. Hahahah hahahhahahha
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
Why the bible is not the most "informed textbook on Earth where science is concerned".
Hmm... does the bible say anything about how the parvocellular system mediates a range of visual processes in the neocortex in Primates? No??... ok... well "Comparative Primate Sociology" by P. Lee (Cambridge) says so on page 187. Studies conducted by Livingstone and Hubel and Zeki and Shipp confirm this.
Science 1... Bible 0
jensenzo 2 years ago
jenzenzo
If you have a "modesty" problem, that's nothing to do with me, its your problem, not mine. I stopped responding to your comments, since I knew what your tactics were of trying to divert from the proofs asked for from the 3 resources provided. I decided to debate with people who were more genuine than yourself instead - and who were not confused. You noticed my comment to RockingHeadbanger, but it seems that you are the one who is banging your head against rocks instead. Hahaha Haha
answerme33 2 years ago
RockingHeadbanger
I asked you to show me exactly how Atheism proves there is no Creator - why do you avoid answering the question? . If you believe it is "highly illogical" that a Creator exists, then what are the Proofs for that assumption? I agree that animals can adapt to changing environments, so can human beings. Show how Scientists calculate their "billions" figures and what was the name of the star which "once exploded?
answerme33 2 years ago
to answer the questions answerme33 will ask.
"dust" from stars is not the kind that you have on the inside of your skull where others have a brain.... rather it is basically any element heavier than hydrogen (or helium).
We mostly base the current estimate of the age of the earth on uranium-lead isotope dating of meteorites having impacted on earth (dust).
jensenzo 2 years ago
jenzenzo
I seem to be really "getting" to you - since you now think you know what questions I will ask. Your assumption on the question about "dust" from stars is "Wrong", since I would not have asked such a question. Well, I did tell you that Evolutionists were stupid..
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
about the questions I assumed you would have asked... hehe... well. Good... I am happy that you know how the age of the earth and our solar system is known. Maybe you could tell us why this process fails... since you apparently are so knowledgable.
Question:
Explain why the 40 or so different radiometric dating techniques used to date materials on earth all agree with each other and are all independently wrong. even though they agree with simpler techniques like dendrochronology.
jensenzo 2 years ago
answerme33
In general you only provide us with bad straw man arguments against evolution.
I have in private messages and previous discussions provided you with challenges which you have dodged. On top of this I have provided you with a nicely formated list of the most important fossil evidence related to the evolution of homo sapiens.
You have home work to do. Go do it.. and stop wasting our time.
jensenzo 2 years ago
jenzenzo
If you had provided "challenges" and a "nicely formatted list" of the most important fossil evidence, then I would have debated you about it. Your diversion tactic regarding "homo sapiens" do not answer my main questions regarding evolution producing "LIFE", which I told you many times was my main point of discussion. Go and do Your homework and "Prove" that God did not create "LIFE" and stop wasting my time. If God did not create "Life", then show how "LIFE" came into existence.
answerme33 2 years ago
Natural Selection - Who or what did the "selecting"? Did the selection take place through an "Intelligent" source?
Evolution = Hahaha hahhaha
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
"Natural Selection - Who or what did the "selecting"? "
The environment did the selection. (Nature)
jensenzo 2 years ago
jensenzo
Oh, its you again. Did you research the three resources I gave you some time ago?? So, did the environment (nature) possess an "intelligence" or some kind of "thought" ability to make selections???
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
"So, did the environment (nature) possess an "intelligence" or some kind of "thought" ability to make selections??? "
NO! I have covered this with you before.
jensenzo 2 years ago
jensenzo
Really? If you had covered this with me before, I would not have asked you the question again. NO? Do you mean "NO" the environment (nature) did not possess an intelligence or "thought ability" to make selections - and if not, how can selections take place otherwise. Stop "beating around the bush" and answer the question, since you think you are more "knowledgeable" than the Creator (God). NOW, PROVE IT.
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
The type of selection that we see in nature is not the type used when you shop for cereal in your supermarket. Natural selection works due to insufficient resources and hence a resulting competition. Natural selection is not a "thing" as a person or a god is a thing. It is what results from varying organisms and insufficient resources. This is how selection takes place without a directing force.
Clear and simple!
jensenzo 2 years ago
answerme33
"Oh, its you again. Did you research the three resources I gave you some time ago??"
As I have told you a few times.. you can't just give me a link to answers In genesis and use that as an argument. I could equally direct you to ALL scientific research and all your so called "authorities" would fall down on their ass. I would also like to point out that AIG does not oppose evolution as such rather common descent. Please formulate your own argument...
jensenzo 2 years ago
jensenzo
I gave you the sources because they are highly reputable and trustworthy sources with which to get accurate information. The fact that you didn't provide me with any scientific sources for research regarding the subject under discussion, proves that you don't have "Authorities" at all to direct me to. If you do, then why didn't you? The Authorities I provided you with would make "mincemeat" out of your arguments, and make your so-called scientific research disappear into oblivion.
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
No... you are quite right. I do not quote authorities because science does not rely on authorities. It relies on evidence... data... observation and verification through tests.
The "authority" I would want to direct you to is reality. You clearly do not accept this as an authority... but the authority of reality is what interests people in science.
But fair enough, answerme33. Let us see an argument that can make "mincemeat" of evolution. Please... show us. Right here... NOW! NOW!
jensenzo 2 years ago
It seems impossible to debate or argue with those who cannot "Prove" that Evolution is a valid means of producing life, - or the argument regarding "Proof" of the Big Bang theory, that these people naturally assume that there is no God - Hahah Hahaha. Evolution tells you that you were a different life form before becoming "Human" - do you remember what you were before ? Were you a monkey, a rat or a snivelling worm? Hahaha Hahahah Hahhahahah
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
Hi answerme33... remember me? yes.. I am the one you stopped responding to because I did what you asked and provided you with evidence for evolution. I see you are up to your old shenanigans. Let me weigh in once again to perhaps teach you a thing or two about science. Yes... modesty was never my forcé.
jensenzo 2 years ago
jenzenzo
Oh, I remember you indeed - you were the one who ignored the three resources I gave you to investigate and research and provide the proofs asked for, but instead of doing that, you came back to me with another question to try and divert,, conveniently avoiding researching the resources I gave you, since you provided no conclusive proofs, (and each of those resources contain vast amounts of information).
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
WHAT? You were the one who suddenly stopped posting on this video and stopped returning my private messages. I HAVE looked at those pages... MANY times... have even been to several talks with Ken Ham and met him in person... even debated him face to face. The problem is that if I started refuting every single point from AIG to your email you would not understand a word... and you would not listen either. I have dealt with SEVERAL points already from AIG. check my fossil list.
jensenzo 2 years ago
jenzenzo
Indeed, I remember you alright. You were the one whom I provided three reputable resources, (each possessing vast amounts of information), for you to investigate and research to prove your points, but instead of doing so, you conveniently tried to divert the subject by asking another question not relevant to the subject discussed at the time. I see you are up to your old tricks of trying to "make sense out of confusion", which you have failed to do.
answerme33 2 years ago
jenzenzo
I told you that you were confused. You say that you provided me with evidence for evolution, yet you agree that Evolution does not produce "LIFE", (which was my main point of discussion), in my previous comments, and you proved my points correct. Thank you. If I want to learn about Science, I will consult the most informed textbook on Earth about the subject (the Bible) and weigh up its teachings against the teachings of human scientists - you not being one of them.
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
"It seems impossible to debate or argue with those who cannot "Prove" that Evolution is a valid means of producing life, (...)"
Ahh... I see the problem. I guess you can not argue or debate with anyone since no one indeed can "prove" that evolution produces life because IT DOESN'T. Evolution is the change in gene frequency over time. I have told you this many a time...
jensenzo 2 years ago
jenzenzo
You were "hot under the collar" because I have debated from my first comment about evolution, and the fact that many Evolutionists try to claim that this process produces "LIFE". You have just confirmed my arguments as "True", because evolution does not produce LIFE. I understand what you mean when you refer to "gene frequency". So, if Evolution does not produce life, and "No God" produced life either, then where did "LIFE" come from and how did it come about?
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
"life" originates from abiogenesis. I have already told you this before.
Name a single "evolutionist" that claim that life was produced by evolution and not abiogenesis.
jensenzo 2 years ago
jensenzo
Don't try your diversion tactics with me. Both of us have already agreed in previous posts that "life" is not produced by evolution, so why try to continue on the same subject? PROVE that "Life" originates from abiogenesis. Why do you think that "Life" cannot be created by God?
Or, if you don't believe in God as the Creator of "Life", then why is that so?
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
"Evolution tells you that you were a different life form before becoming "Human" (...)"
NOO!!! YOU were not. Some one else was. Basic biology here... animals reproduce... and die... Look in a biology text book... it is true.
Or are you talking metaphorically now? If so... YES... I remember. check my hominid fossil list on this thread. ... and NO we were not monkeys.
jensenzo 2 years ago
jensezno
NO, YOU were not, someone else was? See how confused Evolutionists are, what kind of insensible statement is that? Of course animals reproduce and die, so do human beings - I don't need a biology textbook to show me that, even if YOU do. Basic commonsense should tell you that. Hahahah Hahahha. No, we were not monkeys you say? How do you know that for sure, were you ever a monkey to remember that? Hahahha Hahahhahahahhahah Hahahhaha
answerme33 2 years ago
answerme33
How would you expect anyone to remember being a monkey? A monkey is what exists now... It has nothing to do with remembering being a monkey. The individual does not change... what kind of retarded point are you trying to make?
Question:
Please explain how you expect anyone to be able to remember being another species, without invoking yet another silly straw man.
jensenzo 2 years ago
RockingHeadbanger
Stop banging your head against that rock and show me exactly how Atheism proves that there is no Creator. Explain with proofs and evidences.
answerme33 2 years ago
Sorry- it seems probable that there IS other life on similar planets in other star systems. Would the organisms there mimic the life on this planet? This seems impossible. If they are completely different beings then why would God be in the shape of man or humans have their own special God?? Mmmmm. Do not buy it!
kksf1979 2 years ago
The main problem I have with evolution is not that we were descended from apes, but the process itself. How is it that by chance, random bits of matter developed into multicellular organisms that are so complex we still do not understand all of their workings. How is it that our bodies have come to double-check DNA before it's finalized? Doesn't double-checking require foresight? Things like this keep me from believing in pure evolution - I've come to believe in a type of God-assisted evolution.
greystone227 3 years ago
Check out the great videos by cdk007 or potholer54 for explanations on how complex multicellular life can come from simple life, and how simple life can come from non-life.
It can happen without God.
Chal113 2 years ago
evolution is fake and there is a creator
vanityvideo 3 years ago
prove it...
ciucinciu 3 years ago
yes there is, you lost delusional soul bye
vanityvideo 3 years ago
"evangelical militant atheism" may be used by theists as an epithet for the "militant evolutionists who want to silence the idea of creation". It is sometimes used pejoratively to describe people who are considered to campaign too actively, in your face and outspokenly or militantly for atheism and against religion: "those who advocate the elimination of religion" as opposed to "progressive, enlightened people who are simply 'nonbelievers'.
RLF777 3 years ago
YouTube Search:
"Evangelical atheism"
Great Video !
RLF777 3 years ago
unpopular? since when did evolution become unpopular?
you really have a small world. get to know more people, instead of talking about topics that you can't even start thinking about.
Sketsargis 3 years ago
Sketsargis: Roughly 50% to 66% of Americans think evolution is completely false, depending on which polls you read. I'd say that's a significant enough amount to call evolution "unpopular", and why this is and counter the misconceptions people have is what my video is mainly about.
Albert10110 3 years ago
thirdly you dont know that a lot of time has passed that is only a guess, by your logic you would have to witness the millions of years pass by if you didnt how can you tell millions of years have past, on top of that all the evidence points to a young earth dont be a fool open your eyes, how many things are you gonna say happened by chance ok an eye happened by chance the perfect orbit of the sun and the moon happen by chance gravity happened by chance isnt it starting to sound funy get a life
vanityvideo 3 years ago
Could you elaborate on this "perfect orbit of the sun"...
jensenzo 3 years ago
the orbit of the earth around the sun and the orbit of the moon around the earth arent perfect they are not perfect circles.. there more of an egg shape thats why during winter its colder(also caused by the inclination fo the earth.) gravity is caused by the mass of an object. the bigger the object the more it pulls on something. (not chance) the eye happened by adaptation that is why we see in colour unlike most animals
jeancdanis 3 years ago
your missing the whole point, we are not arguing that God did it we are arguing that it was created get your argument straight, secondly something that is created can create other things but not from scratch, if your so smart create a cow then, but we are talking about an ultimate creator, your guilt to answer to an higher authority is blinding you from honest research and looking at things the right way, you cannot imagine facing a creator thats why your scared to except the truth
vanityvideo 3 years ago
first of all the cow is like it is today because of centuries of evolution through breeding. it was a much more dangerous animal before then it is now. and creation doesnt make sense so plz study the evolution theory ok? youll see that alot of it well actually all of it makes sense... creation doesnt
jeancdanis 3 years ago
how can a creator be created, he wouldnt be a creator if he was created, secondly your small mind cannot look at the big picture, even if you never saw a building get built or ever knew anyone that saw a building get build, you would have to be a fool to say it happened by chance that is my point here, thats what your saying about human beings just because you didnt witness the creation you are denying the creator, but the creation is proof of the creator like the building is proof of a builder
vanityvideo 3 years ago
your argument is as stupid as saying the sun is the sun because it lights up the earth and provides heat.. -.- honestly evolution explains how we came to be..STUDY it youll see
jeancdanis 3 years ago
ok lol thats nice now get lost because your only fooling yourself, believe what you want to believe your only deceiving yourself, and stop trying to prove things to people its not working, you cant prove that black is white because its not, you know what i think that your head is an eggshape lol go watch the privileged planet DVD and cry and repent to your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
vanityvideo 3 years ago
thats what i hate about religious people.. they think they know everything just because some book written by bronze age idiots that thought a magical skyman would explain everything. science is the ONLY way to go if you want to understand the world truly.. but if you want to go on with your pathetic brainwashed life go ahead. live your life of ignorance and be disappointed like in any religion once you die. you wont meet an almighty creator. shut up and get an brain you retard religious freak
jeancdanis 3 years ago
excuse me but you dont follow science I do, your hatred for God is blinding you from the truth, science has proven already that a Creator exists, if you choose to ignore it thats your problem not mine, and dont hate people just because they they dont agree with you, because you might be wrong, and in this case are wrong, good day
vanityvideo 3 years ago
science proved exactly the opposite of what your saying. it proved there wasent a creator. you really listen only to people who say god exists and it shows. god is a man made creation. it was invented to explain all the things that people didnt understand. science proved how the world works and you only listen to the church cause you feel useless without a god. well.. honestly even if there was a god you are useless. you dont even follow his teachings im 100% sure of that
jeancdanis 3 years ago
why are you 100% sure of that because i didnt curse back at you loll secondly God teaches us that we are not perfect and we are sinners thats why we need him, listen believe what you want to believe obviously your blinded by your hatred for God, science points towards a creator, and very soon you will see how ignorant you were, but there is still time before the return of our Lord, Go watch the Privileged plant dvd visit the website on my channel and come to God before its too late
vanityvideo 3 years ago
jensenzo
I have to go for now - but I will be back to communicate with you again - that's if you don't try to escape my questions. Evolution =- Hahahahahhahahahhaha
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
You have provided NO answers. You have given me a list of 3 sources (bible, answers in genesis and the restored church of god).... I could equally give you a source that refutes all of your sources... this does not help.
Please answer my question NOW!!!
jensenzo 3 years ago
Science cannot currently awnser everything, but it can awnser alot. God has to be created and he must be able to interact with the universe to create it. This would mean that he would not be supernatural. The whole debate is flawed because you can't prove somthing that doesn't exist.
NaturalPhenomenon15 3 years ago
jensenzo
When you have intelligently answered my questions, instead of trying to "divert" - then I will answer yours. In fact, I have already sent answers to some of your questions to your channel.
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
I am not diverting your question. I have answered it. Fact is that you are never satisfied with any question I might give you. You assert that something came into existence but you provide no evidence to support your claim... how does anyone have a chance of giving an answer to something you simply state. I have give you more answers than you deserve.
jensenzo 3 years ago
answerme33
I am happy to repeat one of the answers I have given that you seem to constantly need.
Yes. It is very rational to not simply accept that the universe needs a cause or a purpose, since this is a property of time and hence seems to only be valid inside our universe. We are not even sure that the universe had a definite beginning yet, so before we start talking about cause maybe we should investigate the facts a bit more.
jensenzo 3 years ago
jensenzo
Indeed, people fear what they do not understand. Does that include YOU in your "lack of understanding" regarding that which exists having had a "Cause"?
answerme33 3 years ago
jensenzo
You asked me about "yelling at science" - you were the one who made this statement. I think You should be "yelling at science", especially after you have read my messages I sent to you.
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
I did not "ask" you about "yelling at science"... I said that you are clearly not able to understand most science so you chose to parade your ignorance around on youtube in a sleek veneer of contempt for what essentially has improved you and your families life for many generations.
People fear what they do not understand.
jensenzo 3 years ago
jensenzo
"Deluded people" believe that soemthing can exist without a cause - and you are one of them. If you go back to your previous comments, you will see that you were the one who raised the question about "yelling at science" - and you try to "pass the buck" onto me. I can understandf science a great deal better than you, and my intelligence and thoughts are "rational" - unlike yourself.
You couldn't provide answers to my previous comments, that's why you are hot under the collar.
answerme33 3 years ago
jensenzo
I have clearly shown your lack of common sense and ignorance, and proof of that is your continued denial of what human intelligence and rationality would show you. Carry on postulating your "irrational" thought processes on YouTube - making yourself appear like someone who is confused.
answerme33 3 years ago
jensenzo
I agree with you that science has improved life for many people (including you and me, and our families for many generations) as you say. But, what about people who come from, and live in less fortunate environments (and there are far more of them on this Earth than the fortunate)? What has science done for them? So, the "sleek veneer of contempt" comes from you in your denial and suppression of this fact. Indeed, science has a long way to go. Hahahaha
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
AGAIN you try and turn an argument in its head in misrepresent the point. We were not talking about the socio political state of the earth but on the achievements of science. Science is not an ideology and hence does not have an opinion about suck things. You are MISUNDERSTANDING and MISREPRESENTING what science is. Sure, the globe needs to stand together and help each other... but this has nothing to do with science.
jensenzo 3 years ago
jensenzo
You NOW try and twist the subject of science and turn it into a subject of socio-politics. I said you were confused - you should take what I said seriously. Yes, we were talking about the achievements of science, and I rightfully pointed out where science has gone wrong - are you in denial of that? Are you saying that science cannort help those who live in less fortunate circumstances than you and I? Anyway, I though we were discussing evolution, and not science in general?
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
I am pointing YOUR digressions out. Not mine.
back to evolution then. Biological evolution.
Why is all of the combined scientific evidence not enough for you?
jensenzo 3 years ago
jensenzo
If "cause and effect" is something the cosmos should not comply with, what is your answer to the Big Bang theory, and how did the Universe come into existence (if not through Creation)?
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
I do not have an "answer" to the big bang theory, because it is not a question. I do not know how the universe came into existence. No one knows.. not even you. You might think you do, but you are deluding yourself. The big bang theory is not an explanation of how the cosmos came into existence... rather it explains the expansion of space-time.
jensenzo 3 years ago
jensenzo
Why are you getting "hot under the collar"? If the Big Bang is not a question, then what is it? Because YOU don't know what caused the Big Bang, you think you have the right to conclude that no-one else does. Do you know for sure that no-one else does? You can't answer the question, so you pretend that the question is invalid, and come to your own conclusion eg. expansion of time and space. Nevertheless, the validity of the question still remains, whether you admit it or not.
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
I have already told you what the Big bang is... it is a scientific theory that describes the expansion of space time. This is not my "own conclusion". Please READ what I write. And AGAIN... you can not conclude that causation applies to the universe or the cosmos. Causation is as far as we know bound by time and hence can not be applied to the universe as a whole.
jensenzo 3 years ago 3
jensenzo
I know what the Big Bang IS. What I am asking you AGAIN is how did it come to "cause" the Universe to come into existence, if (as you say) there doesn't have to be a "CAUSE"? Now, answer this intelligently - and stop "beating around the bush".
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
I have said this before. The big bang did not "cause" the universe. It is an expansion of space time. The particles were already THERE.
jensenzo 3 years ago
jensenzo
Are you absolutely sure the Big Bang did not "cause" the universe (doesn't make sense), or perhaps you worded your comments inaccurately. You say the "particles" were already there. What particles are you referring to? How did they come to be "already THERE? Don't go into circular reasoning either.
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
The Big Bang theory refers to the idea of how the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition. The big bang theory does NOT describe the creation of matter and energy.
When I say "particle" I generally mean... what was there... or just matter/energy. I am not sure... but this might either simply be hydrogen.
jensenzo 3 years ago
jensenzo
I get what you are saying - there still remains another question? How did a primordial hot and dense initial condition and energy come about from
"NOTHING"?
answerme33 3 years ago
jensenzo
I've sent some information for you to your channel.
answerme33 3 years ago
answerme33
I have already answered this. I do not know. No one does. There are many interesting ideas out there. Some suggest that space time is essentially a curved shape with not abrupt edges ie no beginning or end. Some suggest that the universe is a series of big bangs and big crunches. Some suggest that the universe is a part of a much much much larger universe... some suggest that this universe folds back on itself after x number of scalings.
jensenzo 3 years ago
answerme33
There are many many hypotheses out there regarding the beginning of the universe. Postulating a creator is NOT a usable scientific theory hence you then need to explain something even greater or more complex. Saying that this someone always existed is pointless since the universe might as well always have existed as well. This is NOT contrary to the big bang theory. READ about it.
jensenzo 3 years ago 3
jensenzo
I can see the extent of your "rationality and common-sense. Intell