"Actually..." Ep. 17

[krazykraut]

One of the best pwnage videos I've seen in a long while. Thank you!

[drche420]

This guy is a fucking moron. Imagine a very long timeline of the microevolution of a single living species. Now imagine taking a few steps back. See the bigger picture?

[terracottapie]

Who knew Jack Black's creepy uncle was a Creationist?

[Emilydogcat]

evolution does not mean God didn't create life.

[timtheloner]

you mispelled brekeley. it's berkeley when you're giving the link.

[alasdairtimony]

are you like unable to read the whole comment

lool??

wtf laught out out loud leearn to use these things properly if your going to use them

[alasdairtimony]

evolution is wrong becase of the sun and the moon

why do they stick with this pish argument tht has been

time and time again

been proven wrong

try something new

[ciucinciu]

because of the sun and the moon??LOOL are you like.....uneducated or something?

[10secstomeltdown]

What sun was too small!!!

Creationist logic, "It was 2 degrees colder yesterday therefore it was 2000 degrees colder in the last few years, therefore gays are evil."

QED

[idontbelievereligion]

Jezuzfreek is by far my favorite YouTube creationist :)

[KingofNH]

If scientists really thought the moon had miles of dust that would swallow up Apollo, why did we send 3 people there? It's obvious we found the error BEFORE we went. There is no way NASA would spend billions to kill two astronauts in front of the world by plunging them into miles of suffocating moon dust. Forget the math, forget who did what study, the very idea itself is absurd. This guy isn't an idiot, he's a f###ing IDiot!!!

[lowcomedy]

For your viewing pleasure I give you Jesusfreak777, or, homo bigitos retardus in extremis; the missing link between a human being and a creationist.

[timtheloner]

ooh. you just gave me an idea for a video.

[TheGreaterGood80]

Barking wolf? Wolves don't bark Jesus boy!

[swimmerguy500]

you're fat

[nospacesallowed]

The moon argument is funny, since one of the prevailing theories of the origin of the moon say that the moon was acquired by the moon running into earth when it was young. Meaning at some time the earth and moon must have been touching.

[McSwan1]

Acually... You didn't use real evidence to disprove him. you just said the opposite thing for each fact. with out any real proof.

[akg41470]

I've got a lot of facts & evidence to back up what I said, I figured however that most curious people would at least look them up themselves. Do you want me to do your work for you? I can break out the list...

[hungsolow123]

He actually did give evidence, notice the definitions and link he gave during the video.

He pointed out a lot of the stupid examples the guy used, and how he clearly doesn't even know the basic definitions in biology.

[farvision]

Boy he got 'owned'! Nice job. Did he ever respond?

[jakeatkisson]

Is this guy employing some sort of new math I've never come across? Does he think he sounds smart just by juggling numbers around like a clown in a youtube video?  Sweet jumping mexican beans (they've got worms in them, you know!), what a farce.

[matereymate]

funny that he trusts a few scientific studies which were proven wrong, but doesnt trust the actual scientific consensus.....hmmm

[WatchGuy7]

'No I will not admit that evolution known no barriers, INCLUDING "macroevolution"'

Now we're getting somewhere. And sorry I haven't pmed it to you. I was deciding for a while whether or not my words are falling on def ears.

You don't think for yourself. You repeat the crap that comes out of TalkingOrigins and live in the fantasy of its lies. On another video you tried using Archeoptryx!!! as a dinosaur to bird transition!

I'll save my words for more rational thinkers.

[akg41470]

I think a LOT of people would like to see your definition of a "kind" or "type"! You have YET to provide any real evidence of that or a barrier between "micro" and "macro" in ANY of your posts! Burden of proof is on you, buddy!

If you want to invalidate TalkOrigins as a source, you better have good reasons for it... what is YOUR source? The Bible? "Answers In Genesis"? "Dr. Dino"?

Save your words indeed - just stay the hell away from the educational system and we'll all be just fine.

[x2nobody]

How many creationists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

none...they prefer to stay in the dark

[kyuubinokitsune13]

badass joke!

[DADShadowFox]

Look its quite simple. I know what every other expert says about the age of the universe, but they're missing the key ingrediant. MATH. Now, if we do THE MATH, I mean - REALLY DO THE MATH (A feat of which I convieniently spared you in this video), we see the real truth.

[akg41470]

Well yea, "dead animals don't evolve". Very perceptive.

No I will not admit that evolution known no barriers, INCLUDING "macroevolution" - but you're mistaken about evolution being a religion. Religions include *faith*, and there is no *faith* in evolution.

"pm the definition"? What the heck are you talking about? You've got 500 characters, GO FOR IT.

[akg41470]

Yup, 4 days go by and we don't get a definition of a "kind".

Q.E.D.

[WatchGuy7]

Dead animals don't evolve. And voila! The amphibian has a quality thought not to be part of the things amphibians evolved from. Another fossil embarassment.

So are you willing to admit YOU were wrong? Of course not. You'll defend your religion till you die.

By the way, I have a rough definition of Kind. Like I said before I could pm you the definition.

[WatchGuy7]

More quotes from National Geographic:

"Ichthyostega is actually the first example of such a regionalized vertebral column in the vertebrate fossil record...

...The finding is unexpected, because most paleontologists are confident that land vertebrates are descended from creatures that could flex their vertebral column from side to side...

...You can think about Ichthyostega as a sort of analog of Neanderthal man...

...but really a specialized dead-end side branch rather than an ancestor."

[akg41470]

How do these quotes say anything about it NOT being a transitional? It says quite the opposite, if you look closely. Even if it WAS a branch, you have to at least admit it BRANCHED OFF via evolutionary processes. Certainly not simple *created*.

[WatchGuy7]

And just to quote a little something from the National Geographic...

"While Hadrocodium appears to be more closely related to living mammals than the mammal-like cynodonts are, the exact nature of that relationship can't be determined from the present fossil evidence, said Luo."

[WatchGuy7]

If there's any transitional property of the Ichthyostega, please let me know. The only property was a skull similar to a fish as well as the jaw bone.

Where's the link between the fins and legs I wonder?

The the skull's completely mammal. It's still disputed whether or not there's any lizard quality. But you talk as if it were fact. Blind Faith will not help you.

[akg41470]

The amphibian-like traits of Icthyostega--the pentadactyl limbs and the pelvic and pectoral girdles--mark Icthyostega as the earliest known vertebrate capable of walking on land, while the fish-like traits--the scales, the preopercular bones, the bony rayed fins, the arrangement of the nostrils, and the loosely-connected vertebral column--mark it as very primitive and fishlike, with a curious blend of transitional features between fishes and amphibians.

[WatchGuy7]

As for what a "Kind" is, that is a good honest question.

The Bible says they bring forth after their kind. Meaning whatever comes after will have come from its kind and not from another.

"Brining Forth" is not a requirement.

As for a definition of what a "Kind" is (being seperate from the Taxonomic System), it's difficult to place since the only option available is Evolution based (the Taxonomic System).

[akg41470]

WELL THEN: if "kind" and "type" cannot be defined, then stop using them in your argument.

So now let's address your FIRST POINT again:

"So what you're telling me is that wolves and foxes aren't the same type of animal. And you call me ignorant."

Looks like someone's about to win the "highly polished mirror" award.

[WatchGuy7]

"

You didn't answer my question...why are they NOT transitional?

"

Connect the dots. The evidence is right there.

There are no features that exibit lizard to mammal transitions and only the skull was found. So that's easily laid to rest.

The amphibian was a full amphibian where a complete leg structure was shown. No fin to leg transitions were found.

Jeesh. Seems you don't understand something unless someone spoon feeds it to you.

[akg41470]

So let me sure I've got this correct from you before I rebut:

Hadrocodium was just a skull and shows no traits that can be considered mammalian AND reptilian within the animal.

Ichthyostega was classified fully amphibian because the leg structure was complete and had no traits of fish.

Is this what your points are? Am I hearing you correct? I need clarity to rebut, I'm not gonna swing punches into a cloud of dust.

[WatchGuy7]

Now that your two examples are bunk. Allow me to bring your argument into the light.

"Make up your mind on what macroevolution is, will ya? Species? Family? What?"

You're asking me to use the Taxonomic Classifcation system...

(which has been reconstructed from its original conception to fit Darwin's theory of COMMON DECENT.)

...to explain what a Creation term "Type" or better "Kind" in this case is?

Get your head examined.

[WatchGuy7]

Also, since I didn't have room for the other quote.

Here's where you ask me about the Creationist term.

"Wolves and foxes aren't the same "type"? What is a "type" again?"

[akg41470]

OK, let's put it this way: what ARE the differences between a wolf and a fox? What would make them the same "type" or "kind"?

Remember: they have to at least be able to breed, according to the Bible...

I await a real answer.

[WatchGuy7]

Now, I looked up a study on the "Ichthyostega".

I found that all examples had amphibians with complete leg and foot structures. Evolutionists argue weight was too difficult for terestial life. Creationists argue it's too firmly connected to the backbone not to support terestial life.

Many other arguments, but the only similarity is the jaw and skull design. Nothing else.

Stop spewing debunked garbage. No transitional fossil has been found.

[akg41470]

You didn't answer my question. You explained what the body structure had, which indeed is something between these classifications I brought up - why are they NOT transitional?

Think of it this way, if they are not transitional, then they were created *as is* and went extinct (in the flood, assumedly) - but why do they fit into the common ancestry so well? Why did God make the animals in such a perfect hierarchy?

Answer my question, don't delve off into discussions WITHIN the zoological field.

[WatchGuy7]

The "Hadrocodium wui" is an interesting little thing. All they found was a skull of a mammal creature and guessed what the rest of the anatomy would look like. Literally.

It is the only mammal fossil found that low in the Jurrasic by 40 million years and exbits an ear bone seperate from the skull.

A feature not supposed to evolve for many years and this was one of the first mammals!

What a little study does for you akg41470.

[WatchGuy7]

A transitional change is needed where the animal produces something distinctly new and different from the last. If it does that enough to resemble a new animal, it is macro evolution.

This is why there's a need for "missing links".

There's your barrier. Not one single transition has been found. Prove me wrong.

[akg41470]

Not one single transition? Are you mad?

For example, can you explain why Hadrocodium has partial reptile traits and partial mammal traits?

Can you further explain why Ichthyostega has partial fish and partial amphibian traits?

THEN help me understand the THOUSANDS of animals just like these... because i don't understand how you can't consider these transitionals.

[WatchGuy7]

So what you're telling me is that wolves and foxes aren't the same type of animal.  And you call me ignorant.

You are right in that definition. Speciation produces a new SPECIES! The most specific class.

Producing a new species is fine. It happens all the time. You get one dog and end up with another dog. If he can't breed with the last, well that's Losing Not Gaining!

Macroevolution needs you to go out of not just the last species but the last family.

[akg41470]

Wolves and foxes aren't the same "type"? What is a "type" again?

Species is not the most specific class. There is subspecies, and arguably below that is race.

Make up your mind on what macroevolution is, will ya? Species? Family? What?

[alexrulz911]

i should be learning some of this stuff in school... jeez

[akg41470]

Erase the line between micro and macro? What line? Nature doesn't know what a species is - it's a human-based classification that isn't exact as you well know. Why would nature care? The burden of proof is on you to prove there IS a barrier between them - or at least to prove what a "biblical kind" is so we know where this "barrier" might be...

[WatchGuy7]

Do you think this stuff through?

Macro isn't speciation by definition. You change a species into another species of the same animal. Species is the most specific form of classification. MICRO EVOLUTION.

You need it to develope something NEW. Not a different type of the same attibute or more of it...something new. That you do not and never will have.

The argument is designed to dodge the lack of evidence for Macro. They try to instead erase the line between Macro and Micro.

[kev3d]

Do you understand what Speciation is? That when a new species is produced, through evolution, it can no longer sucessfully breed with the "parent" species. Most dog breeds can mate with each other, and some kinds with wolves, but not with Foxes, because foxes are too distant, but we know they are still closely related by DNA, same way we know Humans and other apes are related by common descent.

[busymartian]

I'm so glad you brought up DNA. Genetic blueprints are hard to debunk.

[kev3d]

Of course creationists will say that DNA is too difficult to occur by nature, which is odd, since we know it self replicates, but also it dismisses the very fact that DNA proves everything that Non-genetic evolutionary biology has theorized. In other words, if the DNA didn't match the other Data, Evolution is in trouble.

[WatchGuy7]

Now, we can argue scientific falacies and talk all day. Instead I'm going to disprove this particular video Logically. I noticed a fatal flaw. Did you?

You said "macro evolution...is the same process as micro evolution, just given more time."

And on the same slide, you said "Macroevolution CAN BE REPLICATED...it's very easy to see it happen."

So, Macro evolution takes time...but if you don't have the time, you can see it happen NOW.

Lol, was I the only one to catch this?

[akg41470]

No, you weren't. In fact, I should have made myself clearer for your sake:

"In the NATURAL WORLD, macro evolution...is the same process as micro evolution, just given more time."

vs.

"In the LABORATORY, 'macroevolution' (aka speciation) CAN BE REPLICATED...it's very easy to see it happen."

ARTIFICIAL speciation can happen in the laboratory:

en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial­_speciation

NATURAL speciation takes a long time.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

[WatchGuy7]

I've delt with this argument before. The lie right here ladies and gentlemen was in the first minute and a half.

Micro Evolution is change in the DNA code which almost always involves a loss of information or dublication, etc.

Macro Evolution does originate on a small scale. However, the mutation must involve NEW information for a NEW Kind of animal to generate.

That has NOT been observed in any labratory.

[busymartian]

The new information thing is an old and flawed argument. It was debunked in the famous Dover case by Ken Miller. ID was thrown out of the classroom hopefully for good.

[Neilsama]

"Micro Evolution is change in the DNA code which almost always involves a loss of information or dublication, etc."

And from what scientific resource did you you attain THAT definition? That's the kind of bullshit you can ONLY find on a creationist website. Micro and Macro Evolution are not processes. They are different stages of the SAME process: EVOLUTION.

[Neilsama]

"where is the missing link I was told about as a child?"

You're asking for a species that exists on a run in between two other species on your fictitious evolutionary ladder. Once again, evolution doesn't work that way. You need to view video #12 to see where Kirk Cameron makes this same mistake with his idiotic "croco-duck". What CAN be expected of an intermediate species is that it can show ancestoral form, such as a mammal with reptilian features.

[busymartian]

That crocoduck was cool. Made me almost change my mind. Kirk hired a graphic artist and everything. C'mon! give him his crockoduck! ............Please?......For me?

[Neilsama]

There's no such thing as the crocoduck. However, it does appear that Kirk Cameron very much believes in the croc-o-BULL.

[busymartian]

Yeah, but it's so cute that Kirk holds up the picture and thinks he's making a point and he's all proud of himself. Don't take that away from him. I don't think they rerun growing pains anymore.

[cenjohn73]

There is not a single example of one species producing an entirely different species. + where is the missing link I was told about as a child? They have not found it, they have had to exclude a couple of links that existed because of we co-existed. Adaptation is a fact. evolution is a much weaker theory than it was 10, 20 even 30 years ago.

[akg41470]

I'm sorry, but there's a lot of evidence inferred from a lot of different sources. Missing link? What link exactly are you looking for, and what are these "couple of links" you are referring to? (By the same token, where are the flying cars I was told about as a child?) Adaptation is a fact just as much as evolution is a fact, and has actually been strengthened by the new recent findings in GENETICS over the past 10, 20 even 30 years.

[Neilsama]

"There is not a single example of one species producing an entirely different species."

Nor will there ever be, because evolution doesn't work that way. Macroevolution occurs when populations split off from a parent species and begin adaptation in different directions. At no point does any animal give birth to an animal not of its species. Rather, the two populations becomes specified and differentiated from one another.

[akg41470]

Thanks you for clearing up my point. Much better said.

[mistoline]

I appreciate he, like the guy in ep. 18, is at least TRYING to think for himself, while other creationists are merely being parrots. So sad, though, that he still fails, but there's maybe a spark of hope?

[akg41470]

One can only hope.

[moriondor]

This is pure brilliance! I Love this video. I have personally sent a message to the same guy that said more or less what you have in this vid, but you have outclassed my efforts with this, a proper ass kicking for the God fearing! Genius!

[Brainmold]

Excellent. Subbed.

[benjaman76]

I really love your videos, please keep them coming!

However it would be nice if you considered narrating your arguments. I read slow, and it would be nice to hear what you have to say without having to pause to read each of your arguments. :)

Thanks for all the vids though! :D

[genetix101]

Your awesome. Period.

[Patamarak]

its kinda sad that the people who make these videos regect that theyve been fucking owned.

Take VenomFangX for example. Ive sent him these videos relevant to his retarded arguments, and he refuses to respond...

[k9lionheart]

because their goal is not to be honnest and search for truth. Their goal is simply to preach and gain numbers for their congregation............nothin­g more, and creationists and intelligent design advocates will do anything to further this, including dishonesty. Kinda strange comming from a religion that claims to be "the truth"

[matereymate]

hahaha great video man.....incredible how they lie, and apparently they know and do it on purpose..

[neutralious]

hahahahahahahahhaa poor guy

[Raimaius]

Spinning objects gather dust? Duh, guys, don't you all have to go swiffer the wheels on your car every day like I do?

[happyjesus123]

What our brother in Christ JezuzFreek is trying to tell us is that he is not gay. He was waving a gun around in an earlier video trying to prove the same point. The God thing is just a bigger gun. What he doesn't realize that guns are something of a phallic symbol.

[nogster7]

gold man.....you owned him...

[mgtonvac55]

What's with the out-dated "facts"? Can't this guy use some current evidence? Oh...wait...that would wreck his entire argument. Well, you did it for him, so I guess it didn't matter, huh?

[CapnOrdinary]

Groan.... Just watching Jezuzfreek like this, twice removed, makes me shudder.... Can't these people ever look at talkorigins' FAQ before they spew their bs? OMFSM! Anyway, 5* as usual.

[DeadBabyJesus]

ahahahaha...what a dumbshit! He obviously has never taken a geology or astronomy course in his life. His math is pretty poor as well. Jezuzfreek, I suggest turning off the Hovind lectures and reading a real fucking book.

[kwolf002]

I often wonder why these subversive individuals like Freaky Fellow here aren't key speakers at scientific conferences with all these brilliant new proofs. :)

[kwolf002]

AAAAAAAAH! The sun is shrinking!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[UnBeguiled]

Thanks for putting this butterfly on the rack. What an idiot!  Good job.

[kajaragi]

Actually... is the best.

[RoadrunnerSSC]

It actually frustrates me that not enough people watch these videos. But please don't let that stop you making them. :]

Nice vid'.

[WhoWants2Live4Ever]

Jezuzfreek777 will not respond, as he knows he is incorrect.  Also, he is not interested in the truth - he only wants to promote his fundie agenda. I'd say he wants to make some money and start some internet soul-saving business in the future...

[Myrkky100]

Excellent work as always. Thank you akg41470. errr...is it just because the time is 5:40AM, I just got home from work and I'm really tired or is jezuzfreek *really* confusing magnetism and gravity?

[gregoakes]

brilliant video response!! five stars!! :)

[DeimosSaturn]

HA HA HAHAHAHAHAH, jezuzfree777, you are such a tool if you don't admit how deathly wrong you are.

[cda6590]

Oh my, did he just use the moon dust argument? Even most creationists websites tell others NOT to use that argument!

[cda6590]

Adaptations within a "species" pass on to their offspring. Enough adaptations/mutations passes off and the "species" eventually changes enough to be considered another "species." Technically, "species" don't really exist. It's just a dividing line humans us to help classify animals. Nothing more.

[hegbert]

Another great vid! :)

[Faustuss1]

Man these young earth people use the same old arguments over and over and over.

Thanks for making this, keep up the good work.

[dannyjam]

Thankyou for these videos AKG... When us passive observers are screaming at the screen at creationists we wanna burst! But videos like this ease the pressure - u rule ... Love from a subscriber :-)

[Noizretard]

Lol Once again, Thank you ;)

9/10

[k9lionheart]

I guess even these creationists don't look at the answers in genesus website carefully. If they did then they wouldn't use half of these dumb arguements. Excellent video as usual akg41470. 5 stars

[Niggz24]

aww man, that was hilarious. nothin beats watching a creationist get owned on a friday morning.

[Svankmajer]

Wow, he accepted it as a reply.

[cdk007]

1 + 1 = 3 How's that possible. God did it. What about all that evidence that 1+1=2.  It's a scientific conspiracy to hide the truth. Why, because scientists hate god. LOL.

[Desertphile]

Creationists come rediculous right out of the box.

[Bueller007]

AKG, keep them coming. Leave no stone of creationist ignorance unturned.

[Brianj1234]

Yup another Hovind parrot. I wonder if he actually watches these responses and learns something.. nahhhh..

[dannyjam]

NAAAAAAAAH lol

[derfisch78]

YES!!!!

[PitajTatu]

Awesome! Kill your self jezuzfreek777

[evirus]

"merely by the suns current rate of decay" dosn't current negate infinate occurance?

do you send these as actual video replys to the original videos?

[krew1618]

Holy crap! It's almost as if jesuzfreak777 went straight to the "arguments creationists should not use" section of the Answers In Genesis site. He also fails basic literacy misreading, "should not" for "should". Lame lame lame.

[Svankmajer]

I heard that thing about moon dust before. I think all creationists take stuff from the same sources. But Jezusfreek was debunked like hell. I'll send him the link.

[ArgusEyes]

I love these things. Fun, bite-sized creationist ass-whuppings. Keep em' up!

[Ronaldsan]

my little mathematician's brain told me to stop it multiple times and scream...luckily I stopped it to read your comments and my brain became less annoyed.

[Oftheslayervariety]

Does anybody think any of these assholes could post a video that hasn't already come from the mouth of Kent "What are taxes again?!" Hovind.

[ivarbt]

good video! the sad thing though is that the guy will probably continue using his shitty arguments even though he has been refuted over and over again...

[WizardJim]

Ownage most vile. More please :-D

[dannyjam]

God it infuriates me when people like this sit there and try to appear like they know ANYTHING about science - so fucking arrogant - it wouldn't anger so much if it didn't have such a negative effect on the world. He even gets his information from christian based sources - what an embarassment to himself.

[alienspy07]

Awesome, as always.

[OnionsAndPaste]

gaah it's like they're all the same person! (hovind, freek, venom, and all them other looloos)

[soulhunger1]

Dang, when you say "another episode coming soon" you aren't kidding. Very well done!

And, as ExtantDodo says, "Uh oh... creationists doing math. Put on your helmets!"

Also, what was this guy's source? TypicalCreationistArguments dot com?