Why not attack his arguements instead of him directly! The truth is the truth rather its spoken by someone you regard as a dog or by someone you have great respect for. I find it interesting that you attack him in this fashion. What is your sound scientific evidence that he's in error other than personal attacks?
God doesn't like liars. You'll go to Hell for this, sir. And burn for aaaaall eternity--unless you don't believe in the crap you preach. If there isn't a god, then you'll be just fine, right? You better start hoping there isn't one.
Lol, Shawn doesn`t even understand what people meant by saying he "stole" Kent`s arguments. It has nothing to do with the material he got the arguments from, it means that all his arguments are just unoriginal repeats of everything Hovind ever said. They were saying that not only is Shawn incorrect in his claims about evolution and creationism, but he can`t even think of his own arguments, he just parrots Hovind.
wow evolutionist are really persistent to get rid of us so badly although its a load of crap considering the copyright belongs to Kent. u should extend ur research and instead of just finding ur reference by typin wutever u want to prove and jotin it on utube.
Despite your poor use of the English language, i think i got the jist of that. All of "our" laws come from God? Even video piracy and copyright theft? What about tax fraud? Is that one not one of Gods laws then? Would explain why Kent's in jail if its not the law of his God i guess.
I find your posts ignorrant, abusive and insulting. You are an A-typical western Theist, no knowledge at all except what youve heard from someone else but unwilling to learn for yourself.
Considering the variable patriotic mottos "one nation under God" and/or "in God we trust", the national governing body and the God they put thier trust in are not seeing eye to eye. At any road, Mr. Hovind willfully broke a law but still says that nations laws are based on Gods will. Ergo, Kent is playing a card. "I can do whatever I like. I can break the laws my God gave me because God said I could & only I have permission to do so". There are people that eat this shit up like cookies!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"God gave them up to a debased mind.. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, HATERS OF GOD, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know Gods decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1)
Do you not here how cultish you sound? How empty-headed and ignorant?
Think about it: If a brainwashed member of a cult were to confront YOU about their faith, and said EXACTLY what you wrote above... Isn't that EXACTLY what you would expect them to say?!? EXACTLY? (Replace "God" with "Poseidon" and re-read what you wrote, if it helps.)
check out the video that got false flagged for copyright abuse by a televangelist who clearly stated both in text AND words that there is no copyright... copy at will because the video also included public domain court recordings of him conspiring to commit tax fraud.
then look at the nearly 40% thumbs down the video got. sorry theists... you can't claim ANY effing moral ground when you conspire to suppress THE TRUTH!
"I find your comments extemporaneous in much the same way an idiot like yourself was concieved. Grow up kDest reality is knowing God try pulling your head out of your arse."
I don't care if you find my comments extemporaneous, although you would be more accurate if you called them "irreverent" (lacking respect) or "callous."
I don't think a religious person has the right to make claims about what reality is, though, and may never suggest "pulling your head out of your arse."
"kDest your the lunatic you and all the rest of the ass holes on youtube who can't get hovind out of your heads."
I'm sorry that society has coddled you and made you feel like you deserve a say along with sane people like scientists, intellectuals, and the non-religious.
It's cruel when deluded people are given a falsely inflated ego.
"Can't you see sin is a force it has a hold of you "
This is why you're not worthy of democracy or the responsibilities that come with it, yet.
"saying your enjoy mocking christians proves your a fucking ass hole with nothing better to do"
I'd say supporting hucksters like Kent Hovind who scam people out of money, lie and distort information, and the whole industry he stands for which is a cancer on society, is a much more grievous offence than being an "ass hole" who puts deluded lunatics in their place.
"Your sinful nuture which you were born with resents anything Godly,thats why folks go grazy and angry when God is mentioned thats why they mock hovind."
We mock him because he is hilariously wrong. We mock Christians because they are delusional, and vacuous. We don't care about god, god means nothing to us because it doesn't exist. We simply enjoy the time by mocking and dismissing raving lunatics.
"There is no logical evidence that God does not exist"
Ok. Considering there's no evidence to God's existence and loads of evidence against it, then the negative shouldn't have to be proven. In other words, we shouldn't have to prove the negative if there's no reason to believe the positive.
Um...? What? Explain how this proves your point? "explain where god is Wrong?"?? You would first have to prove that a god exists, before you could even prove that this deity is right or wrong. What are you talking about? No one is talking about god being wrong. Mark was talking about the fraud of Hovind, not some ambiguous idea of a all powerful being somehow being wrong. You are making up accusations.
There was a comment somewhere, And I feel I need to inform that person about something: Creationism has nothing to do with science, they have no science that support their believes. If they had, don't you think creationism would have been taught or promoted at colleges or universitys? Well,it would have, but it isn't because creationism is just another religion/superstition that has no place in science or in schools. You must read science, not creationism if you want to learn about science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why do you need to send a letter of agreement to what you are saying if it's already true? The fact is that if you didn't hold a copyright at one point, but you want to do this now for what 'you' made, there is absolutely nothing 'wrong' with that. You just want to find a way to hurt him! You should be ashamed of your self.
Sorry frogcombat but once an article is released as public domain it belongs to the PUBLIC. In the US there is no legal article that allows a creator to rescind from public ownership that which has been granted to the PUBLIC (unless you are Walt Drisley, have a really good PAC, get legislation passed to extend copyright life and make the law retroactive so certain early works that lapsed into public domain are once again magically copyrighted. Who says there ain't no conspiracies).
um, ya, everyone seems to miss that little stipulation that even this "logical" video even omits that they ask to not edit or mess with the video. That is, to take portions out of context which sums up all of these "critique" and flaming clips.
Taking out of context or critiquing someone's words do not break copyright law. They could be considered libelous in particularly bad cases, but by majority, the clips take the words said, and analyse them thoroughly. The fact of the matter is they are claiming copyright infringement, which has not happened yet.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
dawkins is a pompus jack ass that makes huge statements like if a mammal is found dating back to the time of dinosaurs our theory is screwed, then i happens and they ignore it completely.
As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution, like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to say, it has always come through with flying colours.
Dawkins requotes this. I would, however, agree that a Mammal in the Pre-Cambrian would be tricky for evolution. Of course, one hasn't and wont be found.
Oh really? Care to state the source of that quote from Dawkins?
Maybe I've missed it...but I think that you're just repeating more Creationist bullshit (they tend to make up lies all the time).
There is NOTHING in evolutionary theory that states that mammals didn't exist in the time of the dinosaurs (just not any RECENTLY EVOLVED ones).
In point of fact, evolution states that modern mammals descended from earlier mammals (which just so happened to be alive in the time of the dinosaurs).
@Gutcheck...actually I rather enjoy reading books, you seem to be the one have problems with reading.
I asked you to provide a source for your comment, gave you a chance to prove that your not full of crap and to make evolution look stupid, and you failed to do so...I wonder why?
I have several of Dawkins works, and am apparently much more familiar with with both evolution & paleontology than you are.
@ fielsjd...
Thank you for the input...but I figured that's what Gutcheck meant.
In fact I have the passage that you MIGHT be referring to from The God Delusion (hardcover 2006 edition.."When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the PreCambrian.' No such anachronistic fossils have ever been authentically found, despite discredited creationist legends of human skulls in the Coal Measures and human footprints interspersed with dinosaurs."
You accuse Dawkins of being a "pompus jack ass", but it seems like the definition better fits yourself.
The passage I showed clearly doesn't support your lies, and the accusation that paleontologists and evolutionary biologists are ignoring mammals during the time of the dinosaurs is laughable to anyone with even a basic level of scientific understanding.
Therefore, you are either willfully ignorant, a liar, or a troll. I asked for proof and all you have is more false accusations.
his passage has nothing behind it. Its all been clearly shown and the best refutation thats been applied is duh that isnt true. Thank goodness we have proved mammals lived during the time of dinosaurs and no refutation has been provided against it of any relevance. You are a liar and a troll and all you have is more false accusations.
umm i gave you evidence you gave me a dogmatic statement by dawkins that you accepted with nothing of value in the passage you gave at all. You taking his word as your god is all you showed.
holy fuck, funding from god himself... wouldn't it be cool if god invested in some affordable housing for the poor...I guess the guy just doesn't have much of a money sense...
"A nickel will buy you a steak and kidney pie, a cup of coffee, a slice of cheesecake and a newsreel, With enough change left over to ride the trolley from Battery Park to the polo grounds."
Guys, we can fuss about this subject for ever. Fact is, they both have science and they both need faith for you to except them. I don't mind which one you choose. If you feel comfortable that you came from a rock billions of years ago, that itself came from nothing the size of this . dot, that exploded even more billions years ago, that's perfectly fine. After approximately 80 years, if you're lucky, you will die, so will I that's a fact of live. Only then will it matter who is right or wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And what's the difference between the way i live my life and the way you live yours. Don't compare Evolution to Newton's laws (for example), That's retarded. Newton's law is obviously science. It's observable. Evolution is not science. It is not observable. Case closed. (Now enter all the evolution/atheism-drones telling me that it IS observable.) BTW it's Einstein's theory of relativity not Newton's, but nice try, n00b.
Actually, they are comparable. You can't see gravity the same way that you can't see evolution. You can only see the effects of them both. A ball falling from the top of a tower is an effect of gravity the exact same way that a tiger's coat is the effect of millions of years of evolution by natural selection. You can't see the theory, but you can see how it works. On that note, ever seen a single atom? No? Then obviously atomic theory is false along with gravity and evolution. Right?
Evolution like many other theories has gone through the academic arena, has been scrutinized nit-picked for months to years on end and after all that time has come through as a logical theory. Evolution is also largely accepted among scientists around the world.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
atheism really is sad. scientist go directly to one animal that resembles man just to try and deny god and thats apes. many scientist even admit that many of darwins accusation were incorrect. poor atheist trying to use apes as a crutch to deny god.
Most DNA is junk DNA. This means that it does nothing but as a repository of unused genes it surves as a biological record of evolution. There is also the fact that human chromosome #2 was proven to have been formed via the fusion of two great ape chromosomes.
I certainly wouldn't be afraid to watch it. Transcripts from the dover trial or vids from Ken Miller certainly aren't going to be authorities of truth, but for all I know, 'evidence' shoe-horned to fit a denial of God the darwinians all share. My point to the rest of my comment was it's still just trying to prove that because their are 'similarities', it's supposedly proof of evolution. Why wouldn't there be? How different physiologically do you expect a creator to create us?
What specific evidence presented at the dover trail was inaccurate or miss represented? Why didn't the worlds leading creationist counter and debunk evolution if the suports for it are really so filmsy?
According to me they have (evolution), but it didn't take the worlds leading creationist at all. I still have yet to see the 'dover trail' however. Must be good.
There has been misrepresentation of evidence to support evolution, like carbon dating that gets thrown out never to be heard of again if it doesn't jive with the 'assumed' time period. There are the skeletal remains of 'older' humans that were admittedly hoaxes, but that wasn't my point. To me their is no evidence to support evolution.
poorly quoted allegations you heard from kent hovind video's are not sufficent. please give me specific examples of evidences currently used to suport evolution that missrepressented?
LOL. The bible is a collection of near eastern mythology. If you feel your specific english translation is(no doubt selectively) literally true then please present your well sourced evidence.
Does it really matter? Even if that Bible bashing BS wasn't there, you'd still find a way to 'not' believe it. As far as your evidence, it wasn't evidence that convinced you of an old Earth, so what good would evidence do?
Actually it was evidencfe that convinced me the earth is billions of years old. We have numerous radio metric dating methods(working on completely different clocks) that still give the same age for the earth. We can also see 13 billion light years into space meaning that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.
The fact that there are almost 1000 'known' living fossils (animals that just didn't feel like evolving over millions of years, alive today, including the 'walking fish') pulls the rug from evolution all by itself hands down for me. I could make a list if you wanted.
Do a search for 'living fossils' on Wikepedia. That should give you an idea. Seeing 13 billion light years into space is a fact? Last I checked it was theory. This is based on 3 main assumptions. Speed of light has been constant, The stats began way over there, and our measurements are accurate. Bible says God stretched the heavens, implying everything was closer at that time.
"Seeing 13 billion light years into space is a fact? Last I checked it was theory."
That the hubble space telescope can see 13 billion light years into space is cold hard mathmatical fact(established through simple trig and standard candles). Are you trying to suggest that the entire visble universe is only 6000 light years across?
It's the age of the Earth that means more to me. What 'scientists' come up with can be very flawed, biased, missing the whole story, and no way would I rest my soul against what they come up with, no matter how complicated the math equation may be. There is huge room for error when 'dating' the stars BTW.
what evidence supports evolutionism? show me just one piece of evidence, ACTUAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE and i'll drop my never ending argument with farse believing morons like you
you'd learn about scientific inquiry, the scientific process. you would learn that creationism doesn't even qualify. M. Behe admitted that his definition of science would have to include wiccan beliefs, so clearly his idea of science is messed up.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i know scientific inquiry and i know scientific process...what always amazes me about you evolutionists is that you argue from the standpoint that you use science, and creationists use voodoo or something. believe it or not i use scientific process and i use deductive reasoning just like you and i have come to the conclusion that evolution is BS by accusing me of not using "science" as you define it, you only sound ignorant
there is nothing, NOTHING scientific about god, or the presumption that any kind of god or gods have anything to do with the creation of the universe.
In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth....
Phrases from the so-called holy book some seem to bone off make us come to that conclusion. Your so called god cant be perceived by ANY of the human senses nor can his/it/her/bullshit existence be explained by any scientific means.
not percentage wise. and percents is what counts. its like measuring the circumference of the earth and being off by a couple feet. YOU might feel that that isn't too accurate, but in the big picture, it is. of course, modern tech is MUCH more accurate than that, but i'm just making an example.
further more, the genetic evidences goes far beyond simple similarity. Human chromosome #2 has been proven to have formed via 2 great ape chromosomes. We also share rhetro viral DNA with great apes.
BTW, junk DNA is just a title used by geneticists for unidentified DNA. They are just barely scratching the surface of this stuff. Give it a rest for about another 15 years.
Junk DNA is a title used by geneticists for DNA that doesn't do anything(i.e. is useless). The human(and many different animal) genomes have been sequenced. There is no more "unidentified DNA".
Yes, hence the term 'junk', but only because they haven't identified their purpose, but they are slowly. The genomes have been identified and mapped by letter, not by purpose. That is probably 15 years out. You really thought they were done and knew what every gene did?
The Catholic Pope also believes in suppressing lawsuits from victims of paedophila by Catholic priests, moving them out of country and treating any info about them as a state secret...
God is not religious & doesn't care about evolution or creation - all of that is MAN's arguing about meaningless crap.
btw, nothing has been "created", ever - even in the big bang - not one ounce has been added or subtracted from the weight of the universe.
Lets see, evolution is in no way magical, is only based on chance in that mutations are random, and says nothing about the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the formation of living matter from non-living matter, which has been done in a lab.
Everything was not created out of nothing. There was no nothing before the big bang. Or at least that is the hypothesis so far. Everything was there, then it expanded.
If you really want to talk about things being "magically" created, take a look at genesis in your bible.
Why not attack his arguements instead of him directly! The truth is the truth rather its spoken by someone you regard as a dog or by someone you have great respect for. I find it interesting that you attack him in this fashion. What is your sound scientific evidence that he's in error other than personal attacks?
lastavius 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God doesn't like liars. You'll go to Hell for this, sir. And burn for aaaaall eternity--unless you don't believe in the crap you preach. If there isn't a god, then you'll be just fine, right? You better start hoping there isn't one.
repentmannow 9 months ago
Lol, Shawn doesn`t even understand what people meant by saying he "stole" Kent`s arguments. It has nothing to do with the material he got the arguments from, it means that all his arguments are just unoriginal repeats of everything Hovind ever said. They were saying that not only is Shawn incorrect in his claims about evolution and creationism, but he can`t even think of his own arguments, he just parrots Hovind.
shrikechan 1 year ago
wow evolutionist are really persistent to get rid of us so badly although its a load of crap considering the copyright belongs to Kent. u should extend ur research and instead of just finding ur reference by typin wutever u want to prove and jotin it on utube.
burntfeather345 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
djkostya76 3 years ago
Despite your poor use of the English language, i think i got the jist of that. All of "our" laws come from God? Even video piracy and copyright theft? What about tax fraud? Is that one not one of Gods laws then? Would explain why Kent's in jail if its not the law of his God i guess.
I find your posts ignorrant, abusive and insulting. You are an A-typical western Theist, no knowledge at all except what youve heard from someone else but unwilling to learn for yourself.
richieblackhearted 3 years ago 7
Actually, Kent's original argument against paying taxes was that it's 'God's work', turns out the state government thought differently XD
theneonfire 2 years ago 4
Considering the variable patriotic mottos "one nation under God" and/or "in God we trust", the national governing body and the God they put thier trust in are not seeing eye to eye. At any road, Mr. Hovind willfully broke a law but still says that nations laws are based on Gods will. Ergo, Kent is playing a card. "I can do whatever I like. I can break the laws my God gave me because God said I could & only I have permission to do so". There are people that eat this shit up like cookies!!
richieblackhearted 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"God gave them up to a debased mind.. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, HATERS OF GOD, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know Gods decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1)
Afrikitty 3 years ago
Do you not here how cultish you sound? How empty-headed and ignorant?
Think about it: If a brainwashed member of a cult were to confront YOU about their faith, and said EXACTLY what you wrote above... Isn't that EXACTLY what you would expect them to say?!? EXACTLY? (Replace "God" with "Poseidon" and re-read what you wrote, if it helps.)
AtheistdotEDU 3 years ago 10
Is this done by thunderf00t or what?
funincluded 3 years ago 4
"That's what you get for not reading your bible kDest you don't know anything about Theists."
You're funny.
kDest 3 years ago 5
"kDest I'm not religious in any shape or form, one must climb over the mountain of religion to find God, "
Cognitive dissonance?
It's kind of amusing, actually, because if non-religiousness had anything to do with finding god, atheists would be believers.
"The reality is kDest now that I'm not religious! YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT."
New rule: theists have no right to ever say that a person is "full of shit" unless they want their head to implode from the hypocrisy.
Theists don't deserve respect.
kDest 3 years ago 11
check out the video that got false flagged for copyright abuse by a televangelist who clearly stated both in text AND words that there is no copyright... copy at will because the video also included public domain court recordings of him conspiring to commit tax fraud.
then look at the nearly 40% thumbs down the video got. sorry theists... you can't claim ANY effing moral ground when you conspire to suppress THE TRUTH!
djgambitron 1 year ago
"I find your comments extemporaneous in much the same way an idiot like yourself was concieved. Grow up kDest reality is knowing God try pulling your head out of your arse."
I don't care if you find my comments extemporaneous, although you would be more accurate if you called them "irreverent" (lacking respect) or "callous."
I don't think a religious person has the right to make claims about what reality is, though, and may never suggest "pulling your head out of your arse."
kDest 3 years ago 6
"Are laws come from God most decent people would agree"
Statements like these only precipitate the conclusion that you should be deprogrammed so that you can appreciate reality.
kDest 3 years ago 5
"kDest your the lunatic you and all the rest of the ass holes on youtube who can't get hovind out of your heads."
I'm sorry that society has coddled you and made you feel like you deserve a say along with sane people like scientists, intellectuals, and the non-religious.
It's cruel when deluded people are given a falsely inflated ego.
"Can't you see sin is a force it has a hold of you "
This is why you're not worthy of democracy or the responsibilities that come with it, yet.
kDest 3 years ago 3
"saying your enjoy mocking christians proves your a fucking ass hole with nothing better to do"
I'd say supporting hucksters like Kent Hovind who scam people out of money, lie and distort information, and the whole industry he stands for which is a cancer on society, is a much more grievous offence than being an "ass hole" who puts deluded lunatics in their place.
kDest 3 years ago 4
"Your sinful nuture which you were born with resents anything Godly,thats why folks go grazy and angry when God is mentioned thats why they mock hovind."
We mock him because he is hilariously wrong. We mock Christians because they are delusional, and vacuous. We don't care about god, god means nothing to us because it doesn't exist. We simply enjoy the time by mocking and dismissing raving lunatics.
kDest 3 years ago
Either you're SEVERELY retarded, or you're playing dumb.
TwinVC 3 years ago
"There is no logical evidence that God does not exist"
Ok. Considering there's no evidence to God's existence and loads of evidence against it, then the negative shouldn't have to be proven. In other words, we shouldn't have to prove the negative if there's no reason to believe the positive.
TwinVC 3 years ago
Um...? What? Explain how this proves your point? "explain where god is Wrong?"?? You would first have to prove that a god exists, before you could even prove that this deity is right or wrong. What are you talking about? No one is talking about god being wrong. Mark was talking about the fraud of Hovind, not some ambiguous idea of a all powerful being somehow being wrong. You are making up accusations.
ChairmanKiel 3 years ago
These creationists are todays nazis.
Lookatmeimdriving5 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Turkish Islamic author given 3-year jail sentence!!
(harun and kent - br0thers in arms...)
reuters . com/article/artsNews/idUSL09920916200805 09?sp=true
pikechris1 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is Santa Claus for adults.
ColoradoMikeyS 3 years ago 4
Done ! keep it up !
Falloutmoon 3 years ago 2
The funding comes from God?
jimztar 3 years ago 3
There was a comment somewhere, And I feel I need to inform that person about something: Creationism has nothing to do with science, they have no science that support their believes. If they had, don't you think creationism would have been taught or promoted at colleges or universitys? Well,it would have, but it isn't because creationism is just another religion/superstition that has no place in science or in schools. You must read science, not creationism if you want to learn about science.
winterstellar 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why do you need to send a letter of agreement to what you are saying if it's already true? The fact is that if you didn't hold a copyright at one point, but you want to do this now for what 'you' made, there is absolutely nothing 'wrong' with that. You just want to find a way to hurt him! You should be ashamed of your self.
frogcombat 3 years ago
Sorry frogcombat but once an article is released as public domain it belongs to the PUBLIC. In the US there is no legal article that allows a creator to rescind from public ownership that which has been granted to the PUBLIC (unless you are Walt Drisley, have a really good PAC, get legislation passed to extend copyright life and make the law retroactive so certain early works that lapsed into public domain are once again magically copyrighted. Who says there ain't no conspiracies).
generationalist 3 years ago 2
um, ya, everyone seems to miss that little stipulation that even this "logical" video even omits that they ask to not edit or mess with the video. That is, to take portions out of context which sums up all of these "critique" and flaming clips.
FruDude 3 years ago
Taking out of context or critiquing someone's words do not break copyright law. They could be considered libelous in particularly bad cases, but by majority, the clips take the words said, and analyse them thoroughly. The fact of the matter is they are claiming copyright infringement, which has not happened yet.
RooCHToTB 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't forget to check out "Expelled" April 18 to get creationists side of the story. Dawkins had his turn, now its Ben Steins.
lorenzo8500 4 years ago
Dawkins is a real scientist with a real basis for his thoughts.
Stein did a hatchet job.
sacrosanct24 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dawkins is a pompus jack ass that makes huge statements like if a mammal is found dating back to the time of dinosaurs our theory is screwed, then i happens and they ignore it completely.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
Nope. He never said that. More like "Find a fossil bunny in the Cambrian".
Seems like we would have found something...
sacrosanct24 3 years ago
nope he said mammal look it up
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution, like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to say, it has always come through with flying colours.
Dawkins requotes this. I would, however, agree that a Mammal in the Pre-Cambrian would be tricky for evolution. Of course, one hasn't and wont be found.
sacrosanct24 3 years ago
mammals have dated way back , they just pretend its a failure of dating
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
Oh really? Care to state the source of that quote from Dawkins?
Maybe I've missed it...but I think that you're just repeating more Creationist bullshit (they tend to make up lies all the time).
There is NOTHING in evolutionary theory that states that mammals didn't exist in the time of the dinosaurs (just not any RECENTLY EVOLVED ones).
In point of fact, evolution states that modern mammals descended from earlier mammals (which just so happened to be alive in the time of the dinosaurs).
mirt001 3 years ago
I love this internet generation, never reads a book just skims web pages lol.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
@Gutcheck...actually I rather enjoy reading books, you seem to be the one have problems with reading.
I asked you to provide a source for your comment, gave you a chance to prove that your not full of crap and to make evolution look stupid, and you failed to do so...I wonder why?
I have several of Dawkins works, and am apparently much more familiar with with both evolution & paleontology than you are.
@ fielsjd...
Thank you for the input...but I figured that's what Gutcheck meant.
mirt001 3 years ago
@Gutcheck
In fact I have the passage that you MIGHT be referring to from The God Delusion (hardcover 2006 edition.."When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the PreCambrian.' No such anachronistic fossils have ever been authentically found, despite discredited creationist legends of human skulls in the Coal Measures and human footprints interspersed with dinosaurs."
I asked for you to prove me wrong.
mirt001 3 years ago
i did, dawkins is lying and has nothing substantial to refute the clearly found fossils.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
Gutcheck..
You accuse Dawkins of being a "pompus jack ass", but it seems like the definition better fits yourself.
The passage I showed clearly doesn't support your lies, and the accusation that paleontologists and evolutionary biologists are ignoring mammals during the time of the dinosaurs is laughable to anyone with even a basic level of scientific understanding.
Therefore, you are either willfully ignorant, a liar, or a troll. I asked for proof and all you have is more false accusations.
mirt001 3 years ago
his passage has nothing behind it. Its all been clearly shown and the best refutation thats been applied is duh that isnt true. Thank goodness we have proved mammals lived during the time of dinosaurs and no refutation has been provided against it of any relevance. You are a liar and a troll and all you have is more false accusations.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
A pity... it would be nice to finally meet a creationist that, actually offered some type of challenge, but sadly you don't.
You're just a troll with empty words and can't refute anything or prove anything. You can't even backup your own statements, with even a decent lie.
You're just desperately seeking attention.
Until you can come up with something better, to actually backup your empty accusations...I've got better things to do with my time than feed trolls.
Have a nice life! :)
mirt001 3 years ago
umm i gave you evidence you gave me a dogmatic statement by dawkins that you accepted with nothing of value in the passage you gave at all. You taking his word as your god is all you showed.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
If it's the "rabbits in the Precambrian" quotation you're asking about, it's on page 154 of The God Delusion.
fielsjd 3 years ago
holy fuck, funding from god himself... wouldn't it be cool if god invested in some affordable housing for the poor...I guess the guy just doesn't have much of a money sense...
"A nickel will buy you a steak and kidney pie, a cup of coffee, a slice of cheesecake and a newsreel, With enough change left over to ride the trolley from Battery Park to the polo grounds."
srarmageddon 4 years ago 6
Guys, we can fuss about this subject for ever. Fact is, they both have science and they both need faith for you to except them. I don't mind which one you choose. If you feel comfortable that you came from a rock billions of years ago, that itself came from nothing the size of this . dot, that exploded even more billions years ago, that's perfectly fine. After approximately 80 years, if you're lucky, you will die, so will I that's a fact of live. Only then will it matter who is right or wrong.
hdhoekstra 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And what's the difference between the way i live my life and the way you live yours. Don't compare Evolution to Newton's laws (for example), That's retarded. Newton's law is obviously science. It's observable. Evolution is not science. It is not observable. Case closed. (Now enter all the evolution/atheism-drones telling me that it IS observable.) BTW it's Einstein's theory of relativity not Newton's, but nice try, n00b.
bubsof05 4 years ago
Actually, they are comparable. You can't see gravity the same way that you can't see evolution. You can only see the effects of them both. A ball falling from the top of a tower is an effect of gravity the exact same way that a tiger's coat is the effect of millions of years of evolution by natural selection. You can't see the theory, but you can see how it works. On that note, ever seen a single atom? No? Then obviously atomic theory is false along with gravity and evolution. Right?
lateformyownbirth 4 years ago 3
They've recently created synthetic new versions of bacterias by messin' around with genomes.
That is evolution proven in a lab, right there.
Theworldiswonderful 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so does evolution...go figure...
bubsof05 4 years ago
Evolution like many other theories has gone through the academic arena, has been scrutinized nit-picked for months to years on end and after all that time has come through as a logical theory. Evolution is also largely accepted among scientists around the world.
Sefearion 4 years ago
WHenever I hear creation science evangelism I kind of hear an implied lol. Creation Science Evangelism LoL.
AdjectiveVerb 4 years ago 2
and the point of this video is....?
jpolcast 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
atheism really is sad. scientist go directly to one animal that resembles man just to try and deny god and thats apes. many scientist even admit that many of darwins accusation were incorrect. poor atheist trying to use apes as a crutch to deny god.
jerrod7890 4 years ago
We share 99.1% of the same DNA with Chimpanzees, it's a little more than simply resembling each other.
SirosTV 4 years ago 2
Wow, that .9% must make quite a big difference, as you don't see any Chimps replying with comments.....well maybe you do.....
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
you fail to understand.
Most DNA is junk DNA. This means that it does nothing but as a repository of unused genes it surves as a biological record of evolution. There is also the fact that human chromosome #2 was proven to have been formed via the fusion of two great ape chromosomes.
soulinite 4 years ago
Ya right, I bet it was. Sounds like the same argument (99.1%). Guy on another vid said it was 98.5.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
"Ya right, I bet it was."
You haven't read the transcripts from the dover trial have you? please search youtube for "ken miller" and watch his video "on apes and humans".
soulinite 4 years ago
I certainly wouldn't be afraid to watch it. Transcripts from the dover trial or vids from Ken Miller certainly aren't going to be authorities of truth, but for all I know, 'evidence' shoe-horned to fit a denial of God the darwinians all share. My point to the rest of my comment was it's still just trying to prove that because their are 'similarities', it's supposedly proof of evolution. Why wouldn't there be? How different physiologically do you expect a creator to create us?
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
"evidence' shoe-horned to fit a denial of God"
What specific evidence presented at the dover trail was inaccurate or miss represented? Why didn't the worlds leading creationist counter and debunk evolution if the suports for it are really so filmsy?
soulinite 4 years ago
According to me they have (evolution), but it didn't take the worlds leading creationist at all. I still have yet to see the 'dover trail' however. Must be good.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
What specific evidence has been missreperented to suport evolution?
please read the transcripts of the dover trail.
soulinite 4 years ago
There has been misrepresentation of evidence to support evolution, like carbon dating that gets thrown out never to be heard of again if it doesn't jive with the 'assumed' time period. There are the skeletal remains of 'older' humans that were admittedly hoaxes, but that wasn't my point. To me their is no evidence to support evolution.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
poorly quoted allegations you heard from kent hovind video's are not sufficent. please give me specific examples of evidences currently used to suport evolution that missrepressented?
soulinite 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Age of the Earth is a big one. Kent Hovind isn't the authority on truth. Bible is, and i've seen the Bible proved.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
LOL. The bible is a collection of near eastern mythology. If you feel your specific english translation is(no doubt selectively) literally true then please present your well sourced evidence.
soulinite 4 years ago
Does it really matter? Even if that Bible bashing BS wasn't there, you'd still find a way to 'not' believe it. As far as your evidence, it wasn't evidence that convinced you of an old Earth, so what good would evidence do?
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
Actually it was evidencfe that convinced me the earth is billions of years old. We have numerous radio metric dating methods(working on completely different clocks) that still give the same age for the earth. We can also see 13 billion light years into space meaning that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.
soulinite 4 years ago
What specific evidences do you have that the earth is only 6000 years old?
soulinite 4 years ago
The fact that there are almost 1000 'known' living fossils (animals that just didn't feel like evolving over millions of years, alive today, including the 'walking fish') pulls the rug from evolution all by itself hands down for me. I could make a list if you wanted.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
LOL, please give me one specific(well sourced) example of a "living fossile"?
curious how you would explain the fact that we can see 13 billion light years(not six thousand light years) into space.
soulinite 4 years ago
Do a search for 'living fossils' on Wikepedia. That should give you an idea. Seeing 13 billion light years into space is a fact? Last I checked it was theory. This is based on 3 main assumptions. Speed of light has been constant, The stats began way over there, and our measurements are accurate. Bible says God stretched the heavens, implying everything was closer at that time.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
Not 'stats', but 'stars'
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
"Seeing 13 billion light years into space is a fact? Last I checked it was theory."
That the hubble space telescope can see 13 billion light years into space is cold hard mathmatical fact(established through simple trig and standard candles). Are you trying to suggest that the entire visble universe is only 6000 light years across?
soulinite 4 years ago
It's the age of the Earth that means more to me. What 'scientists' come up with can be very flawed, biased, missing the whole story, and no way would I rest my soul against what they come up with, no matter how complicated the math equation may be. There is huge room for error when 'dating' the stars BTW.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
so you are afraid to question your fundamentalist belief system, even when confronted with evidences?
soulinite 4 years ago
Nope. My fundamentalist belief actuall came from questioning and examing the evidences.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
what specific evidences suports creationism?
soulinite 4 years ago
I'll give you one that is also presented by Hovind. Living fossils (including the famed walking fish). Search 'em out.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
what evidence supports evolutionism? show me just one piece of evidence, ACTUAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE and i'll drop my never ending argument with farse believing morons like you
bubsof05 4 years ago
have you ever taken a science class? it would be helpful.
spartan2600 4 years ago
below me spartan. all i'd "learn" in one of your science classes is how to regurgitate ridiculous notions of evolution that you call fact.
bubsof05 4 years ago
you'd learn about scientific inquiry, the scientific process. you would learn that creationism doesn't even qualify. M. Behe admitted that his definition of science would have to include wiccan beliefs, so clearly his idea of science is messed up.
spartan2600 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i know scientific inquiry and i know scientific process...what always amazes me about you evolutionists is that you argue from the standpoint that you use science, and creationists use voodoo or something. believe it or not i use scientific process and i use deductive reasoning just like you and i have come to the conclusion that evolution is BS by accusing me of not using "science" as you define it, you only sound ignorant
bubsof05 4 years ago
there is nothing, NOTHING scientific about god, or the presumption that any kind of god or gods have anything to do with the creation of the universe.
spartan2600 4 years ago 4
really? there isn't? what makes you come to that conclusion, besides maybe just hating organized religion in general?
bubsof05 4 years ago
In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth....
Phrases from the so-called holy book some seem to bone off make us come to that conclusion. Your so called god cant be perceived by ANY of the human senses nor can his/it/her/bullshit existence be explained by any scientific means.
Sefearion 4 years ago
not percentage wise. and percents is what counts. its like measuring the circumference of the earth and being off by a couple feet. YOU might feel that that isn't too accurate, but in the big picture, it is. of course, modern tech is MUCH more accurate than that, but i'm just making an example.
spartan2600 4 years ago
wait.... do you even know what the dover trial is?
soulinite 4 years ago
further more, the genetic evidences goes far beyond simple similarity. Human chromosome #2 has been proven to have formed via 2 great ape chromosomes. We also share rhetro viral DNA with great apes.
soulinite 4 years ago
BTW, junk DNA is just a title used by geneticists for unidentified DNA. They are just barely scratching the surface of this stuff. Give it a rest for about another 15 years.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
Junk DNA is a title used by geneticists for DNA that doesn't do anything(i.e. is useless). The human(and many different animal) genomes have been sequenced. There is no more "unidentified DNA".
soulinite 4 years ago
Yes, hence the term 'junk', but only because they haven't identified their purpose, but they are slowly. The genomes have been identified and mapped by letter, not by purpose. That is probably 15 years out. You really thought they were done and knew what every gene did?
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
I am happy to see that "BrainCondoms" account has been closed....
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
yep but we won this battle over copy right so not a waste of breath at all ....ahmen :-) sorry can i say ahmen or you copy righted that
sausage4mash 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My video on this subject, in which I take a similar position, got way more views, and I'm a theist. I win! :-P
(Even though I was technically batting for your team, so I just helped you win, I'm still counting this for me.)
5thWatcher 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
poor atheism!
majesticguitar2 4 years ago
GJ RRS!
Long live the cause!
Thunderf00t 4 years ago
Hawking does not scoff at evolution. Even the Catholic's beloved pope believes in it.
You believe in a magical god that created everything out of nothing.
Facecageworshipper 4 years ago 2
The Catholic Pope also believes in suppressing lawsuits from victims of paedophila by Catholic priests, moving them out of country and treating any info about them as a state secret...
God is not religious & doesn't care about evolution or creation - all of that is MAN's arguing about meaningless crap.
btw, nothing has been "created", ever - even in the big bang - not one ounce has been added or subtracted from the weight of the universe.
GlobalSufi 4 years ago
..aaand what the pope believes means something why?
...and you believe in a magical event of chance that created everything out of nothing, that continues to be a magical event.
truthseeker1973 4 years ago
Lets see, evolution is in no way magical, is only based on chance in that mutations are random, and says nothing about the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the formation of living matter from non-living matter, which has been done in a lab.
wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Facecageworshipper 4 years ago
Everything was not created out of nothing. There was no nothing before the big bang. Or at least that is the hypothesis so far. Everything was there, then it expanded.
If you really want to talk about things being "magically" created, take a look at genesis in your bible.
KurNorock 4 years ago
Hawking most certainly does not scoff at evolution.
Where do these fucktards geet this?
lloyd76oswald 4 years ago 5
Hehehhe, who the f*ck was responsible for the DMCA?
Douchebags!
SandmanOpiate 4 years ago
C-c-c-COMBO BREAKER!
Also, is there no shame in CSE?
Blueslipstream 4 years ago 2
lol
MrSedarati 4 years ago
Done.
Katalyzt 4 years ago
WOOT WOOT!
GJ RRS!
Lets reunite the Hovind crime family in a venue best fitting them.... JAIL!
Thunderf00t 4 years ago
Ha ha ha... I love it when idiots do idiotic things like that. the funding comes from god himself... what a moron.
We shall prevail!
PBDPBD 4 years ago
All right well I have sent my two cents to youtube hope it helps glad to help.
DylanSB 4 years ago
Glad you have you back RRS, don't let up keep spanking CSE!
TrueNorth15 4 years ago
Now, THAT'S funny.
RationalResponse 4 years ago
P.S. that citation of the 1976 Copyright Act is golden. I could have used that a lot in my video on this.
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
Shouldn't the letter start out "Dear Sir or Madam"?
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago 2
OMNEG you are back...
now I will watch the video.
Ronaldsan 4 years ago
religion leads to crime and idiocy CSE is a BEAUTIFUL example. thx CSE
DamienHell 4 years ago 6
OWNED......what more is there to say?
EvolutionaryLoophole 4 years ago 7
boom headshot
Evanmileus 4 years ago 2
Clearly, god is on your side.
ares213 4 years ago
Screw CSE
Dalbert342 4 years ago 2
Excellent video
DblOSmith 4 years ago
This Kent Hovind dude, I wish I could talk to him because DAMN would I give him the verbal beating of his life.
Renzosuken 4 years ago
Go to the Dr. Dino visit, get their number and call in.
Ryansarcade9 4 years ago
here's another comment for you
RabidAp3 4 years ago
Creation "Science" is so sad.
MagnusIan 4 years ago 5
Thanks for reminding me - I just added "creation science" to the list of popular oxymorons to wikipedia. I wonder how long it will last?
askegg 4 years ago 6
This guy really needs to be stopped.
Clutchology 4 years ago
SECOND
pokrstr 4 years ago
third!
RabidAp3 4 years ago
Fuck CSE!
eric712 4 years ago 5