One of my cooky history teachers "explained the differences between evolution and creation" the other day, but was really making his case for creation. He kept bringing up that if the moon is more than 6,000 years old it would have several feet of dust but it only has 6,000 years worth (2 or 3 inches). I absolutley do not buy into any aspect of the creation story but haven't found anything online to debunk this claim. Help!
@HJDtv im not anything great or a science wiz. but even with that statment i would of said, so what? what differance does that make? lets say he is right. lets say for arguments sack the moon is 6,000 years old. so what? the bible and creationist have been wrong time and time again. for you too think (after always being wrong) you can even think of saying ohh haha i gotcha, just shows how smart you are. just cause an equation dosnt work we dont slap god on it and say there we go.
@HJDtv Because the Earth significantly larger than the moon, Earth neccessarily gets hit by more asteroids than the moon. Even a quick look at the moon reveals HUGE craters. If our neighborhood asteroid traffic is enough to cause those craters in 6000 years, all non-bacterial life would have been wiped out many times over.
@HJDtv Regarding the dust issue specifically, early estimates of what the dust thickness should be were based on faulty ideas, so the expectation of a thick layer was just a mistake. The current science matches the amount of dust expected for a moon that's over 4 billion years old. Even creationist websites like Creation.com lists moon dust as an argument NOT to make.
Natural selection must have thrown live grenades at all the monkey men from evolution, and that's why make believe evidence (like single teeth) is found. Where's the other 30 or 40 teeth? Shouldn't Osborn find the neanderthal first, then the tooth, and then determine whether or not that tooth Really came from him? And don't tell me the neanderthal man has been found either, cause there should be Millions of them. And what gives Osborn the authority to publish that claim as a fact?
My Illustration of evolution and creation: (evolution) Skunk says hey I need some defenses cus I'm getting my butt kicked out here..hmmm..I think I'll develop some stinky piss. Creation: God said BAAAM you will be a skunk and for the hard times I'm gonna give you this funny peepee. Which one do you believe?
@giovanone Using your illustration of creation - God said BAAAAM you will be the HIV virus and cause many millions of people to die slow , horrible, painful deaths. And for the hard times I am going to make sure those humans will struggle to find a cure for you.
@pezzamange ill be honest. i dont know anything about the hiv virus but if think about it being man made isnt so far fetched really. i meen we live in a world that is over populated and we have no predators naturaly. men in power really have no way to stop man from breading. also i forget whole story (watch main eventstatus on gamers and aids)but gamers found out and figured out hiv/aids before scientests could. so it raises alot of questions in my mind.but i havent seen proof. hmmm.
What? HIV is a virus, it is not man-made. If you believe in a god then you necessarily believe that god created HIV/AIDS to kill people slowly over time and infect their offspring.
@pezzamange i think im talking about two differant things. im talking about a conspiracy. im thinking i came in at wrong part of what you guys are talking about. i dont belive in god. i dont think its wise to slap god on the end of an equation and go there its figured out. next problem. anyways i guess a study was done on hiv/aids showing somthing like 1% of people have a immunity to it and a long time ago man became immun to it over time. again i read alot. i dont exactly remember.
also the fossils themselves are not dated but volcanic deposits from above and below the fossil to give two dates between which the fossil would have been alive
given the long age of the earth this is a viable method
Dr dino himself says it clearly - 'this is a fossil ' all the bone has been replaced by minerals' so the original carbon in the bone would have gone.
on what sort of timescale he imagines this happens only he would know
Indeed. Regarding that last part, it has been demonstrated that eyes evolved at least 6 different times, independantly of each the other. At least one begins with the way leaves turn to face the sun during photosynthesis, for example.
Interesting, I never thought of the the way plants turn like that as an early step toward the evolution of eye-like structures. Very thought-provoking!
@dooivid i live in missouri. in a small town. they don't get updated much here. but there is stuff in there that is fraudulent, stuff that has been proven to be made up, or the "discoverers" admitted to faking. im all for evolution in textbooks, but i'd much rather have facts to support it then a bunch of lies they keep publishing. if there is proof, put it in the book, if there isn't present it as a theory, or don't present it at all. same with any other thing in science.
I think I will never understand why seemingly intelligent persons like Kent Hovind refuse to accept data if it conflicts with his "plan !?!?" He has to be purposely lying to himself because he does understand the basics. Why would a man lie to himself instead of just accepting fact there shown before him? Is a persons religious "beliefs" so powerful that they would lie to themselves !?!?!? I don't get it ?????
@orangemod even if he is wrong about some things, there IS alot of outdated information in textbooks about evolution. take the bs out, if there is actual evidence that hasn't been proven false or made up, put it in.
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 I agree, if there is anything outdated in the textbooks for school-kids, they need to be updated. As science evolves and discovers more, the textbooks should be updated to reflect the new discoveries.
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 "even if he is wrong about some things, there IS alot of outdated information in textbooks about evolution." which text books are you reading? were they published in Louisiana?
" take the bs out, if there is actual evidence that hasn't been proven false or made up, put it in"
So basically leave the textbooks exactly the way they are because there really isn't any BS about evolution other than the creationist text books
There are 3 great truths today that, to me, are painfully obvious:
1. There is no god.
2. No matter how many political and social debates we have about the subject of the Middle Eastern wars, the truth is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are both wrong and are doing nothing but slaughterning each other like sheep over stupid ancient religious nonsense.
3. Evolution occurred in the past, is occurring now, and will continue to occur in the future.
The arrogance of you "born agains" is so incredible that it leaves me almost speechless. Please do not assume that you have some better insight into my beliefs than I do; you don't even know me. And yes, it DOES matter how accurate the bible is, if the leaders of this country are going to use it as some kind of moral guide. And about evolution, I meant what I said; all living things evolve over time as a response to their environmental conditions. And I know I'm correct, thanks.
You mean the bible predicts that people will be waging wars!? HOW COULD ANYONE PREDICT THAT!? Oh wait, humans have been waging war at least once every other generation at minimum since recorded history. Predicting that wars will wage is like predicting someone will be upset at you for your beliefs.
On that note: sometime down the string of wars it could end with one nation finally losing to another in the manner vaguely described by the bible. Doesn't mean the future was seen.
Firstly a few comments. 1/. If you were to look at the mineralogy of dinosaur fossils you'd probably find some calcite or other carbon bearing mineral however the quantity of C14 would be far too low due to decay. You are sort of on the right track but the major reason why we can't date it using C14 is due to decay. 2/. Rudy, where you have different stratigraphic layers of sediments you can't date them individually unless you somehow close them off (as dating different mineral grains give you..
the ages of the parent rock, not the actual sediment as the ratios of elements become locked at crystallization) . We do this by looking at volcanic ash layers or the ages of igneous intrusive rocks which can provide an accurate date of formation. If a dyke intrudes a fossiliferous limestone that's sitting on a granite, we can constrain the ages to between the granite and dyke. 3/. We can theoretically see to only 300,000 (+-a few thousand years) and can only simulate to within a Planck Unit...
after The Big Bang. We see evidence for the Big Bang in the form of the CBR, Doppler shift of light, etc. Sure, there are some slight problems with models but they provide a far better explanation of the Universe and working model than something like the Heliocentric model, something that was believed to be true at the conception of the Bible and saw scientists branded as heretics when the evidence disagreed. Science doesn't point to creationism as it's changed drastically over the years.
Radiometric dating is a dating method based on the principal of natural radioactive decay rates. A observation is made by comparing the amount of natural radioactive isotopes and its decay product, using known radioactive decay rates.
@ZuluFightrunner its the same principal as carbon dating, just using a different set of parameters, using the decay rate of, say argon, or whatever atom is being utilized
@ZuluFightrunner Carbon dating is not used because it proves a young earth the fact that the amount of radio carbon in the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium showing the earth cannot be more than 30000 yrs old. And they use the fossils to date the rocks and rocks to date the fossils based on the geologic time scale which was invented a 100 years before radiometric dating
@standingontruth1 No. Try to read a book that isn't the bible for once. Plus you have spammed two of my videos with the exact same copy and paste bullshit Way of The Master Apologetics. Now kindly get fucked.
@standingontruth1 First of all, geologic time scale is used now only to give a prior idea. It's consider as a rule of thumb, no more than that. Artefact find are most of the time send for radiometric datings. Very few artefact are dated with only one radiometric clock, like radiocarbon. You know that if several clock put together made the computer say "sure at 83.7%, between that and that" with 20 clock, and it make sens with the study of other artefact in the region that you are good.
(Whether we like it not) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a women with lust you have committed adultery with here in your heart? If God judges u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty?
Fossils can be dated by C-14 if they are fairly well preserved and under 60000 years old. If the C-14 test shows undetectable amounts of C-14, it is too old.
@supowit No you can't date fossils with Carbon 14 dating. 1. All fossils are older then 60,000 years. 2. Fossils are made of rock, the Carbon has been replaced by minerals. 3. They date ash layers above and below the fossils.
No, you do not understand the definition of fossil.
There are many types of fossils: Trace fossils, cast fossils, and preserved fossils, for example.
A fossil is just a trace of a dead organism, and trace can be part of the organism itself. If that piece is less than 60,000 years old, it can be C-14 dated.
I teach biology AND chemistry. If you are going to tell someone they are wrong, you might want to make use of the abundant information abailable on the internet.
science proves creation more than antural selection and so does common sense buy people who think that they are intelligent by believeing blindly in any thing said by a scienctist
the complex inner workings of life do not point to a simple random chance of events plus if you say that you believe in the big bang thoery you can't tell me what started it and plus people try to use evelution to prove that their is no god but even if is true which is highly un likely but if you believe that people come from aps then explain were aps come from
"the complex inner workings of life do not point to a simple random chance of events" - Evolution is not random.
"plus if you say that you believe in the big bang theory you can't tell me what started i" Big Bang is not a part of biology and is not related to Evolution. Big Bag explains current state of universe not its origins.
"plus people try to use evelution to prove that their is no god"- Tell that to Ken Miller, evolutionary biologist and practicing catholic who defended evolution in cour.
"even if is true which is highly un likely but if you believe that people come from aps then explain were aps come from " - Have no idea what an "ap" is but i guess you mean apes. We share a common ancestor with modern day apes. I suggest 2 things get a spell checker and read up on evolution and understand it. You provided no evidence.
correction - "plus people try to use evelution to prove that their is no god"- Tell that to Ken Miller, evolutionary biologist and practicing catholic who defended evolution in court. Also there are many theists who accept evolution.
"science proves creation": it does? Science as practiced by who? Who are these people that use science to prove creation?
"believeing blindly in any thing said by a scienctist" [sic!] Ah yes, scientists! Those are the people that use science. But, do they really prove creation?
So, scientists don't use science? So, it is absurd to believe anything they say.
Presumably it is non-scientists, or just science itself, anthropomorphically, that proves creation.
My favorites are the well spoken ones. You know them if you've seen any of the Hitchens or Harris Debates. Prager, D'nesh, or Boteach would suffice. Of course, their ignorance is couched in some dense rhetoric, but there are a few gems of creationist logic in there that just beg to be on one of these vids. Great job keep it up.
If you are going to point out the stupidity of others then it is best if you did not have any typos or misspelling of words in your video such as at 2:49
nice music you shouldnt put ur email out like that it can be picked up by scammers. change the @ to "at" or "a" to prevent this. this is only for your description box. :)
One of my cooky history teachers "explained the differences between evolution and creation" the other day, but was really making his case for creation. He kept bringing up that if the moon is more than 6,000 years old it would have several feet of dust but it only has 6,000 years worth (2 or 3 inches). I absolutley do not buy into any aspect of the creation story but haven't found anything online to debunk this claim. Help!
HJDtv 1 month ago
@HJDtv im not anything great or a science wiz. but even with that statment i would of said, so what? what differance does that make? lets say he is right. lets say for arguments sack the moon is 6,000 years old. so what? the bible and creationist have been wrong time and time again. for you too think (after always being wrong) you can even think of saying ohh haha i gotcha, just shows how smart you are. just cause an equation dosnt work we dont slap god on it and say there we go.
gojoewhite1234 1 month ago
@HJDtv Because the Earth significantly larger than the moon, Earth neccessarily gets hit by more asteroids than the moon. Even a quick look at the moon reveals HUGE craters. If our neighborhood asteroid traffic is enough to cause those craters in 6000 years, all non-bacterial life would have been wiped out many times over.
skevoid 1 month ago
@HJDtv Regarding the dust issue specifically, early estimates of what the dust thickness should be were based on faulty ideas, so the expectation of a thick layer was just a mistake. The current science matches the amount of dust expected for a moon that's over 4 billion years old. Even creationist websites like Creation.com lists moon dust as an argument NOT to make.
skevoid 1 month ago
Natural selection must have thrown live grenades at all the monkey men from evolution, and that's why make believe evidence (like single teeth) is found. Where's the other 30 or 40 teeth? Shouldn't Osborn find the neanderthal first, then the tooth, and then determine whether or not that tooth Really came from him? And don't tell me the neanderthal man has been found either, cause there should be Millions of them. And what gives Osborn the authority to publish that claim as a fact?
ironman197268 2 months ago
perfect choice of music!!
brmadman4455 3 months ago
My Illustration of evolution and creation: (evolution) Skunk says hey I need some defenses cus I'm getting my butt kicked out here..hmmm..I think I'll develop some stinky piss. Creation: God said BAAAM you will be a skunk and for the hard times I'm gonna give you this funny peepee. Which one do you believe?
giovanone 4 months ago
@giovanone Neither, because they are both a load of bollocks.
ZuluFightrunner 4 months ago
@giovanone Using your illustration of creation - God said BAAAAM you will be the HIV virus and cause many millions of people to die slow , horrible, painful deaths. And for the hard times I am going to make sure those humans will struggle to find a cure for you.
ZuluFightrunner 4 months ago
@ZuluFightrunner HIV is man created, you can't use that one.
giovanone 4 months ago
@giovanone
Erm, excuse me? You think HIV is created by man? Please explain.
pezzamange 3 months ago
@pezzamange ill be honest. i dont know anything about the hiv virus but if think about it being man made isnt so far fetched really. i meen we live in a world that is over populated and we have no predators naturaly. men in power really have no way to stop man from breading. also i forget whole story (watch main eventstatus on gamers and aids)but gamers found out and figured out hiv/aids before scientests could. so it raises alot of questions in my mind.but i havent seen proof. hmmm.
gojoewhite1234 1 month ago
@gojoewhite1234
What? HIV is a virus, it is not man-made. If you believe in a god then you necessarily believe that god created HIV/AIDS to kill people slowly over time and infect their offspring.
pezzamange 1 month ago
@pezzamange i think im talking about two differant things. im talking about a conspiracy. im thinking i came in at wrong part of what you guys are talking about. i dont belive in god. i dont think its wise to slap god on the end of an equation and go there its figured out. next problem. anyways i guess a study was done on hiv/aids showing somthing like 1% of people have a immunity to it and a long time ago man became immun to it over time. again i read alot. i dont exactly remember.
gojoewhite1234 1 month ago
Good video!!
katonya87 4 months ago
Awesome video.
MrJohndl 4 months ago
If these Creationist produced a Crocoduck they would possibly be able to disprove the Theory.
The Crocoduck is the Creationists missing link.
ozweblogs 5 months ago
Too fast for us slow readers to skim through without pausing :(
ShavedKnuckle 6 months ago
also the fossils themselves are not dated but volcanic deposits from above and below the fossil to give two dates between which the fossil would have been alive
given the long age of the earth this is a viable method
Dr dino himself says it clearly - 'this is a fossil ' all the bone has been replaced by minerals' so the original carbon in the bone would have gone.
on what sort of timescale he imagines this happens only he would know
but in the real world it happens very slowly
whitesquirrel7 6 months ago
creationists. denial? Yes Oui Ji
themooddisorders 7 months ago
Indeed. Regarding that last part, it has been demonstrated that eyes evolved at least 6 different times, independantly of each the other. At least one begins with the way leaves turn to face the sun during photosynthesis, for example.
Lieu3C4 7 months ago
@Lieu3C4
Interesting, I never thought of the the way plants turn like that as an early step toward the evolution of eye-like structures. Very thought-provoking!
Boy75402 7 months ago
You should look at Ken ham
He'd should be in the bronze age stupidity awards
TheLandstrider 7 months ago
Comment removed
Spectic 7 months ago
This video should have more views!
kusalaviro 7 months ago
text is tooo fast
donohue100 7 months ago 3
@donohue100 *pause*
beavisishere 7 months ago
That music in the back round just cracks me up!
gtisthebest247 8 months ago
@dooivid i live in missouri. in a small town. they don't get updated much here. but there is stuff in there that is fraudulent, stuff that has been proven to be made up, or the "discoverers" admitted to faking. im all for evolution in textbooks, but i'd much rather have facts to support it then a bunch of lies they keep publishing. if there is proof, put it in the book, if there isn't present it as a theory, or don't present it at all. same with any other thing in science.
KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 10 months ago
I think I will never understand why seemingly intelligent persons like Kent Hovind refuse to accept data if it conflicts with his "plan !?!?" He has to be purposely lying to himself because he does understand the basics. Why would a man lie to himself instead of just accepting fact there shown before him? Is a persons religious "beliefs" so powerful that they would lie to themselves !?!?!? I don't get it ?????
Cheers
orangemod 11 months ago
@orangemod even if he is wrong about some things, there IS alot of outdated information in textbooks about evolution. take the bs out, if there is actual evidence that hasn't been proven false or made up, put it in.
KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 11 months ago
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 I agree, if there is anything outdated in the textbooks for school-kids, they need to be updated. As science evolves and discovers more, the textbooks should be updated to reflect the new discoveries.
Cheers, Dave
orangemod 11 months ago
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 "even if he is wrong about some things, there IS alot of outdated information in textbooks about evolution." which text books are you reading? were they published in Louisiana?
" take the bs out, if there is actual evidence that hasn't been proven false or made up, put it in"
So basically leave the textbooks exactly the way they are because there really isn't any BS about evolution other than the creationist text books
dooivid 10 months ago
Oy, Kent! We can't carbon date this! There's no f**king carbon in it!
MunkyDrag0n 1 year ago
why does kent hovind talk so freaking fast
Primus2X 1 year ago
beacuase (the voices where pretty good)
baronsengir187 1 year ago
Ahhh, what is this song called?! It has been stuck in my head for ever!
MsProcrastination101 1 year ago
There are 3 great truths today that, to me, are painfully obvious:
1. There is no god.
2. No matter how many political and social debates we have about the subject of the Middle Eastern wars, the truth is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are both wrong and are doing nothing but slaughterning each other like sheep over stupid ancient religious nonsense.
3. Evolution occurred in the past, is occurring now, and will continue to occur in the future.
jerico641 1 year ago
@jerico641 It is amazing that the Bible tells us about the middle eastern battles, and how they will end.
It doesnt matter how acurate the bible is, unbelievers have already decided what they believe.
" there is no God" that can only be your opinion.
Inside though,,,,,,,,,,, I dont think you believe that.
If you mean changes within species and adaptation then you are correct.
brandisify 1 year ago
@brandisify
The arrogance of you "born agains" is so incredible that it leaves me almost speechless. Please do not assume that you have some better insight into my beliefs than I do; you don't even know me. And yes, it DOES matter how accurate the bible is, if the leaders of this country are going to use it as some kind of moral guide. And about evolution, I meant what I said; all living things evolve over time as a response to their environmental conditions. And I know I'm correct, thanks.
jerico641 1 year ago
@brandisify
You mean the bible predicts that people will be waging wars!? HOW COULD ANYONE PREDICT THAT!? Oh wait, humans have been waging war at least once every other generation at minimum since recorded history. Predicting that wars will wage is like predicting someone will be upset at you for your beliefs.
On that note: sometime down the string of wars it could end with one nation finally losing to another in the manner vaguely described by the bible. Doesn't mean the future was seen.
MysteriousAya 1 year ago
Firstly a few comments. 1/. If you were to look at the mineralogy of dinosaur fossils you'd probably find some calcite or other carbon bearing mineral however the quantity of C14 would be far too low due to decay. You are sort of on the right track but the major reason why we can't date it using C14 is due to decay. 2/. Rudy, where you have different stratigraphic layers of sediments you can't date them individually unless you somehow close them off (as dating different mineral grains give you..
jufresh69 2 years ago
the ages of the parent rock, not the actual sediment as the ratios of elements become locked at crystallization) . We do this by looking at volcanic ash layers or the ages of igneous intrusive rocks which can provide an accurate date of formation. If a dyke intrudes a fossiliferous limestone that's sitting on a granite, we can constrain the ages to between the granite and dyke. 3/. We can theoretically see to only 300,000 (+-a few thousand years) and can only simulate to within a Planck Unit...
jufresh69 2 years ago
after The Big Bang. We see evidence for the Big Bang in the form of the CBR, Doppler shift of light, etc. Sure, there are some slight problems with models but they provide a far better explanation of the Universe and working model than something like the Heliocentric model, something that was believed to be true at the conception of the Bible and saw scientists branded as heretics when the evidence disagreed. Science doesn't point to creationism as it's changed drastically over the years.
jufresh69 2 years ago
Wait, If Fossils Can't be Carbon Dated, How do we tell how old they are?
RudySpino 2 years ago
Radiometric dating.
ZuluFightrunner 2 years ago 15
Can U define it?
RudySpino 2 years ago
Radiometric dating is a dating method based on the principal of natural radioactive decay rates. A observation is made by comparing the amount of natural radioactive isotopes and its decay product, using known radioactive decay rates.
ZuluFightrunner 2 years ago 33
@ZuluFightrunner wait a second carbon is one of the radioactive isotopes in life. carbon dating is form of radiometric dating
HermesvV 11 months ago
@ZuluFightrunner its the same principal as carbon dating, just using a different set of parameters, using the decay rate of, say argon, or whatever atom is being utilized
sliferredleader 7 months ago
@ZuluFightrunner Carbon dating is not used because it proves a young earth the fact that the amount of radio carbon in the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium showing the earth cannot be more than 30000 yrs old. And they use the fossils to date the rocks and rocks to date the fossils based on the geologic time scale which was invented a 100 years before radiometric dating
standingontruth1 5 months ago
@standingontruth1 No. Try to read a book that isn't the bible for once. Plus you have spammed two of my videos with the exact same copy and paste bullshit Way of The Master Apologetics. Now kindly get fucked.
ZuluFightrunner 5 months ago 9
@standingontruth1 First of all, geologic time scale is used now only to give a prior idea. It's consider as a rule of thumb, no more than that. Artefact find are most of the time send for radiometric datings. Very few artefact are dated with only one radiometric clock, like radiocarbon. You know that if several clock put together made the computer say "sure at 83.7%, between that and that" with 20 clock, and it make sens with the study of other artefact in the region that you are good.
therrydicule 5 months ago
@standingontruth1 your an idiot if you really think that
RomanHistoryNut 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(Whether we like it not) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a women with lust you have committed adultery with here in your heart? If God judges u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty?
standingontruth1 5 months ago
@standingontruth1
Who cares what the fucking Bible says? It's a book for retarded twats like you.
UnknownUserName4267 2 months ago
@RudySpino
in most cases it is not done directly on the fossil
igneous rocks can be dated as on cooling they set their radiometric clock to zero
which in some methods such as TL the increases in the item is measured against a backgound control, in others radioactive half life is used
if igneous rock or calcite formations exist below a fossil and/or above it then a minimum and /or maximum age can be established
all the variables involved can be independently tested
whitesquirrel7 1 year ago
@RudySpino
Fossils can be dated by C-14 if they are fairly well preserved and under 60000 years old. If the C-14 test shows undetectable amounts of C-14, it is too old.
supowit 7 months ago
@supowit No you can't date fossils with Carbon 14 dating. 1. All fossils are older then 60,000 years. 2. Fossils are made of rock, the Carbon has been replaced by minerals. 3. They date ash layers above and below the fossils.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
No, you do not understand the definition of fossil.
There are many types of fossils: Trace fossils, cast fossils, and preserved fossils, for example.
A fossil is just a trace of a dead organism, and trace can be part of the organism itself. If that piece is less than 60,000 years old, it can be C-14 dated.
I teach biology AND chemistry. If you are going to tell someone they are wrong, you might want to make use of the abundant information abailable on the internet.
supowit 7 months ago
science proves creation more than antural selection and so does common sense buy people who think that they are intelligent by believeing blindly in any thing said by a scienctist
williemetoyer23 2 years ago
Cool, can you provide this evidence for creation ?
ZuluFightrunner 2 years ago
@ZuluFightrunner
the complex inner workings of life do not point to a simple random chance of events plus if you say that you believe in the big bang thoery you can't tell me what started it and plus people try to use evelution to prove that their is no god but even if is true which is highly un likely but if you believe that people come from aps then explain were aps come from
williemetoyer23 2 years ago
"the complex inner workings of life do not point to a simple random chance of events" - Evolution is not random.
"plus if you say that you believe in the big bang theory you can't tell me what started i" Big Bang is not a part of biology and is not related to Evolution. Big Bag explains current state of universe not its origins.
"plus people try to use evelution to prove that their is no god"- Tell that to Ken Miller, evolutionary biologist and practicing catholic who defended evolution in cour.
ZuluFightrunner 2 years ago
"even if is true which is highly un likely but if you believe that people come from aps then explain were aps come from " - Have no idea what an "ap" is but i guess you mean apes. We share a common ancestor with modern day apes. I suggest 2 things get a spell checker and read up on evolution and understand it. You provided no evidence.
ZuluFightrunner 2 years ago
correction - "plus people try to use evelution to prove that their is no god"- Tell that to Ken Miller, evolutionary biologist and practicing catholic who defended evolution in court. Also there are many theists who accept evolution.
ZuluFightrunner 2 years ago
@williemetoyer23
You do realize that anywhere outside of the US creationists are less then 1% right?
The US is the Europeans address to get a good laugh with it's stupidity atm.
Londron 6 months ago
"science proves creation": it does? Science as practiced by who? Who are these people that use science to prove creation?
"believeing blindly in any thing said by a scienctist" [sic!] Ah yes, scientists! Those are the people that use science. But, do they really prove creation?
So, scientists don't use science? So, it is absurd to believe anything they say.
Presumably it is non-scientists, or just science itself, anthropomorphically, that proves creation.
Can't fight logic like that!
robmderrick 2 years ago
My favorites are the well spoken ones. You know them if you've seen any of the Hitchens or Harris Debates. Prager, D'nesh, or Boteach would suffice. Of course, their ignorance is couched in some dense rhetoric, but there are a few gems of creationist logic in there that just beg to be on one of these vids. Great job keep it up.
Geoinmotion 2 years ago
If you are going to point out the stupidity of others then it is best if you did not have any typos or misspelling of words in your video such as at 2:49
DarkKnight56 2 years ago
Thank you kind sir comments and corrections are always welcomed. Has now been fixed.
ZuluFightrunner 2 years ago
bill o reilly
Nicothefalcon 2 years ago
nice music you shouldnt put ur email out like that it can be picked up by scammers. change the @ to "at" or "a" to prevent this. this is only for your description box. :)
skinsfb89 2 years ago
Zombie Jesus is in your mall, shopping in your stores. This is in a movie called "Dawn of the Dead: Christ"
KurtDonaldCobain1994 2 years ago
Hoiw about adding clips debunking the Creationist BS from the late Christian Dominionist poster boy Dr James Kennedy of Coral Ridge "Ministries"
biancademonet 2 years ago
Love it!
lc237 2 years ago
Thanks Zulu. Been a long time since I had a good laugh at creationist idiocy. Keep up the good work.
rottenfungus 2 years ago
And these guys are supposed to be the brains of the universe. There is still some hope for us ordinary folk.
alexjohn43 2 years ago
Awesome as always! Stupid people are fun!
Rissoleking 2 years ago