Answering the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Big Package Version)

[hugenex2000]

The chemical process of making soap is called "soponification" and you say that it somehow creates order but you don't seem to understand much about soap and why this is evidence against your position because you then go on to talk about oil and water and leave out the very important yet caustic to life ingredient, lye. Soap is basically a salt so there is "order" but no chemical pathway to proteins but rather the opposite, the prevention of protein synthesis by neutralizing the acids.

You Fail.

[lapkine77]

@hugenex2000 Never was it claimed that soap was a required step in the formation of life. It was brought up by Answersinbooks as an example dismissing a common creationist claim that (I'm paraphrasing) because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics everything tends towards disorder (and so by extent life couldn't have formed by natural means). Indeed the molecules in the soap assembling themselves spontaneously not only disproves this but also shows that it can be explained by natural processes.

[vac0002]

@odinata Thanks for your opinion! It's nice to see that you actually know where Canada is! I viewed one of your videos, but had to stop because it appears that your are still a very hardcore redneck, hoping to evolve into a human being.

[hugesinker]

Almost every one of these 15 Questions paragraphs contains a quote that is either mined, decontextualized, or representing an appeal to an inappropriate authority. It bugs me that there was no minimum requirement from the submitters to deconstruct these quotes appropriately. Some did, but most missed such a great opportunity.

[circusOFprecision]

Ordered structures are not intelligent systems. You aren't even in the realm of what needs to be addressed. Intelligent systems may appear chaotic and unpredictable because they involve awareness (internal from external) and decision making based upon information exchange (communication). Question #1 = fail.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"Ordered structures are not intelligent systems."

But then you turn around and say :

"Anything that is able to distinguish itself from other entities and it's environment, can make choices, is intelligent. It is possible that "particles" are such entities..."

Yet again, you talk out of both holes, saying conflicting things....

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

You don't seem to be able to keep up with science, or even contribute anything beyond whacky MYSTICISM and bile for anyone who sees through the biblical bullshit....

Fail.

[CrimsonVoid]

Why is it that I prefer to listen to British, Australian, New Zealand, etc, people talk about science? I’m not opposed to listening to people with American accents; it’s just more pleasant for me when the speaker has some other accent.

[wutdaFU3K]

Scientists always try to confuse us good Christians using big words like deoxyribonucleic acid or the DNA particle. Have you ever seen what happens whenever you put something in acid? It dissolves! If our bodies were made of that stuff, we'd all dissolve. Nice try Evilutionists. You won't trick me!

I hope y'all could start learning to only trust the Bible for TRUE science. Not them big books.

[generalpanda58]

@wutdaFU3K You're trolling right? You do know there are levels of acidity and most things that are technically acids are completely harmless. Also, DNA has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. You know, know that I think about it, you are definitely trolling.

[vac0002]

@TheKitch2 sorry bro, shockofgod is no coward. He has an open chat room that you can join and debate him in person. If you don't try to join and defend your position, that might tend to make me assume that you might just be the coward.

[vac0002]

This is a fantastic piece of crap. Try debating shockofgod.

[lapkine77]

@vac0002 I'm still waiting for an invitation from that person. Of course, I've showed him this video through a comment which he promptly removed.

Oh and BTW : claims require a base in order to be of value. Dismissing something as wrong based on nothing is laziness.

[generalpanda58]

@lapkine77 Every now and again I check shock's channel (because I hate myself) and he posted a video where he says he has had correspondence with you and that you admit to being a fundamentalist christian who believes god made man. I don't know how true this is but i just thought I should tell you what he is doing.

[lapkine77]

@generalpanda58 Shock has lied to his entire audience. I am not (and never have been) a Creationist (nor an atheist for that matter) and the "correspondence" was 2 copy-pasted PMs with word for word similar content in which he asked a question to which I replied with just ONE PM (to which he has yet not replied to). That's not a discussion, that's an interrogation. More details tomorrow, after I get my sleep :)

[Equestions]

@lapkine77 (1) I thought you were a pretty rationale person but I'm quickly discovering that your double standards seem to have no bounds. First off, I'm completely neutral as to the argument between you and Shock. I quite honestly could care less but I did watch your vid to him. I thought you had some pretty valid points and that Shock had some unnecessary ad hom attacks and such in the emails.....and then I watched this vid. This entire vid is FILLED with ad hom attacks and they don't actually

[Equestions]

@lap (2) answer ANY of the questions presented! The people in there just attack the source with ad hom's and then ASSERT that what THEY say is correct and what creationists say is crap. So do you only double standard on the weekends or what? You attack Shock for his behavior only to find out you and your 'sources' do the EXACT same thing in this video! So when does your integrity kick in and hold yourself to the same standards as you hold everyone else?

[hugesinker]

@Equestions You don't think ANY of the questions were answered? I mean I know some of the contributors were worse than others, but none? What about Lithodidman at 45:07 for example? I mean, he killed it. Most of the others did too. Do you know the difference between an ad hominem and an insult?

[Equestions]

@huge (1) Lith was actually one of the worst! He didn't 'kill' anything and I'm surprised you guys are so easily fooled by people like him. All he really said was 'this is how it happened' and then gave his OPINION on how he THINKS it happened but provided no evidence. The best he could come up with was "This one plant is asexual but when exposed to certain pressures it then reproduces sexually. There you have it! Proof that evolution turned something asexual into sexual! POOF! And for my

[Equestions]

@huge (2) next trick.....Listen Huge. For all we know God created the plant with the ability to produce both ways from the beginning. Did Lith ever provide a sequence of the plants genome and show exactly what changed in order for the plant to go from asexual to sexual? No. He simply said "this plant can do this and evolution did it". Ah, the 'nature-did-it' excuse. Too bad he didn't use real science to back up that it actually happened via mutation and nat sel. He then wraps it all up by simply

[Equestions]

@huge (3) stating "How this happened is so well understood in the scientific community that it's practically fact". Oh really? All you gave was "this plant can do it so it all happened by evolution and it happened in everything else on earth too". Wow. How scientific. He just STATES that 'it's well understood' and that's all you need. You drank it up like grape Kool-Aid. Go back and listen to him again and you'll see what I mean. What the question is asking is how did organismsgo from asexual

[Equestions]

@huge (4) to sexual? He never answered that. He just gave the 'plant' example and then rambled on and on with his OPINIONS on how it happened. He never spoke about how the sexual organs developed which was another part of the original question. The testes, urethra, prostate, ovaries, uterus, on and on. This is an incredibly complex system for both sexes and they just 'magically' match one another perfectly.He also never actually answered WHY nat sel would select for a sexual organism over an

[Equestions]

@huge (5) asexual organism. Looking for evidence here....NOT his opinion on how or why it MIGHT have happened. However 'a plant can do it so it absolutely happened' is all that you need to be convinced he 'killed' it? Come on huge. Go back and really listen to what he's saying. He never answered anything the question asked! There's no substance there. Just conjecture.

[odinata]

@Equestions

God dunnit isn't an answer.

[hugesinker]

@Equestions The question is trying to suggest that the evolution of sex could not develop by evolutionary means. All he needed to do is validate a plausible means based on what the theory suggests, and show what indicates it. Not only did he do this, but he showed how it has been repeatedly observed. There's no impossible barrier between sexual and asexual. You want to move the goalposts to minute details until ultimately-- "How do we know God didn't allow them to evolve it?"

[Equestions]

@hugesinker That's pathetic huge. If all someone has to do is come up with any possible way something can happen and that constitutes actual evidence that it DID happen in your head then you need to have yourself checked. There's no need for science in your world. Why? All we have to do is make up something and apparently that proves it actually happened!

[hugesinker]

@Equestions Do you not understand how scientific theories are different from arm chair speculation? People spend lifetimes experimenting and testing falsifiable claims theories make.  I have a theory that mass attracts mass. "Oh yeah, have you dropped a stone from a tree?" Yep. "Have you dropped a rock from space?" No. "So you're just offering your opinion that it might happen? You call THAT science?" :D

[lapkine77]

@Equestions I'm extremely skeptical of your claim that you have watched the video you are commenting on and my video to shock for reasons I shall elaborate here. First of all, you're pretty much the only (and first) person to claim that shockofgod has sent me PMs containing ad hominem arguments, so the basis for your accusation of hyporisy is vacuous in terms of truth. Secondly, if you cared to pay attention to this current video you'd know that...

cont

[lapkine77]

cont

...the questions have been adressed with fair arguments and scientific evidences FOR WHICH THE REFERENCES ARE FOUND IN THE VIDEO AND IN THE DESCRIPTION.

Finally, in regards to your criticism of Lithodidman's clip - perhaps you should watch it again. Because he explains that it has been established through experimentation that the appearance of sexual reproduction is caused by environmental pressures (heat, food sources, predation). I again urge you to also check the references on this.

[Equestions]

@lap I'm really surprised at how confused you are about what really constitutes actual evidence. It appears that just because you posted links to the sources you show in the vid that's all you need to believe that the questions were actually answered which is ridiculous. They didn't actually answer the question with empirical evidence! All Lith said was "It happened because of environmental pressures". This is a statement of OPINION and does NOT constitute actual evidence of how sex evolved.

[sweatytoothmadman]

This coming from a guy who runs a negative campaign against evolution with the hopes that if successful it will validate creationism and talk about empirical evidence...

[lapkine77]

@Equestions "It appears that just because you posted links to the sources you show in the vid that's all you need to believe that the questions were actually answered which is ridiculous. They didn't actually answer the question with empirical evidence!"

So according to you, putting in the reference list peer reviewed scientific evidence doesn't count as empirical evidence...and that makes sense somehow ? Or am I missing something -_-

[Equestions]

@lapkine77 You actually are missing something. Posting links to papers is fine as long as they actually refute the questions that are presented. The papers you reference do no such thing. It's good that you reference papers but you should actually read them first to make sure they answer what the question is asking. I'm assuming you just took other people's word that the papers answered the questions?

[TheKitch2]

@vac0002 I rather pull teeth, it would achieve better results. Shock is a proven coward.

[odinata]

@vac0002

Do you think that perhaps the fact that you are Canadian is part of the reason that you aren't smart enough o know what's going on here?

[kc0itf]

So the journal Nature only publishes those findings with SENSATIONAL headlines? Yeah, that really sounds like science to me...

[lapkine77]

@kc0itf Nature publishes sensational findings, which are of major consequence for scientific research and application. Nature is not a sensationalist journal (like say, National Geographic) and bases its criteria for publication (as explained in the video) on the content - not on the headlines.

[kc0itf]

@lapkine77 You clearly don't understand SCIENCE... truly SENSATIONAL findings are a rarity in science, once in a lifetime!

Take "dark" matter and energy... "sensational" headlines are everywhere nowadays, yet NOT ONE SHRED OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE has been found! This is what the "prestigious" journals print!

Perhaps you could elaborate on what exactly constitutes a "sensational" finding? Just because the "finding" is parroted by thousands of articles doesn't make it SCIENCE!

[customerjon]

4th time to watch this and learned something new. This is just fantastic.

[damlaren]

Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

[UNIT301092203]

btw great video

[lapkine77]

@UNIT301092203 I'm glad you appreciate it

[UNIT301092203]

There is a lot of research and work that goes into the construction and understanding of all the concepts of evolution. I have no biological background and I don't feel the need for such thorough education. The concepts of mutation and natural selection are enough for me. As long as the alternatives are as weak as creationism, I feel no need to reinforce my beliefs. It would make my day if a creationist youtuber could explain the simple concept of natural selection to me.

[shallownat3]

in answering the first question, it was not even mentioned that the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life on earth. It was presented in text, but it would have been effective to verbally bring it up, since the question was asked in order to try and discredit evolution specifically.

[paulspydar]

shockofgod is saying on his videos that you are scared to debate him as you have "fear" issues.... lol He is always talking about debating but he seems to spend a lot of time not listening to any reason that is not his own.

[lhvinny]

Hmm, appears I do not know how to do timestamp links to questions happening after the hour mark. if someone could repost them properly, I'm sure others would appreciate it.

[lapkine77]

@lhvinny I'll try and add these to the description. Your help is very appreciated

[ineedhelpbad]

@lhvinny I believe you just use the number of minutes e.g. for 1 hour 16 minutes and 47 seconds you just put 76:47

[lhvinny]

@ineedhelpbad I tried that method as well but I didn't have success with it either. Maybe youtube just hates me :p

[lhvinny]

Timestamps for individual questions: Q1: 2:23 Q2: 7:25 Q3: 20:57 Q4: 26.24 Q5: 28:33 Q6: 36:21 Q7: 42:48 Q8: 45:07 Q9: 59:32 Q10: 1:02:34 Q11: 1:06:08 Q12: 1:09:00 Q13: 1:16:47 Q14: 1:20:20 Q15: 1:23:00 This may be better served either in the description box or thumbs up area to help other viewers quickly navigate to the different questions for debunking purposes or answering specific creationist lies.

[robertscreektom]

I agree. Straw manning is useless.

[lapkine77]

@robertscreektom Glad you do. Not very that Creationists don't.

[robertscreektom]

Repeat after me, "Life does not contain information. It was not designed. It just happened. ""Life does not contain information. It was not designed. It just happened. ""Life does not contain information. It was not designed. It just happened. ""Life does not contain information. It was not designed. It just happened. ""Life does not contain information. It was not designed. It just happened. "

[lapkine77]

@robertscreektom Nine Words :

Just Watch The Friggin' Video Straw Manning is useless.

[jjdecani]

@robertscreektom

Repeat after me, "God needs no designer. God needs no creator. It just happened. "

"God needs no designer. God needs no creator. It just happened. "

"God needs no designer. God needs no creator. It just happened."

"God needs no designer. God needs no creator. It just happened. "

"God needs no designer. God needs no creator. It just happened. "

Cretin.

[laierr]

1:13:33 AHA! you can clearly see Satan himself in the mirror! Therfore this video is full of God hating atheisto-satanic crap. Creationist wins. Again.

[lapkine77]

@laierr Dammit you know the secret ! We'll have to eliminate you ! >:E

Actually that's my sister. I guess she was just about to sit down on a chair or something lol

[shade421]

Have you seen onceforvennowfree's attempt at a rebuttal? They are pretty sad...

[lapkine77]

@shade421 They aren't really valid since a lot of points made here are ignored. Plus, I get tired of appeals to fallacies :)

[shade421]

@lapkine77 I Know, I watched 2 of them and my mind went numb.....

[practicalmagic9]

thank you so much for compiling all the question responses in this massive video!while it took some time to listen,it was enjoyable with minimal brain melting for me (a total amatuer at science,even after 3+ years of enjoying videos on youtube about these subjects!:D)i will refer to this again!!

[pe3er]

thanks for learning:D feels good to learn new thing

[manoric82]

It took a real long time for the sex guy to get to his answer.

[JTlovesDexter2]

I like big packages ; )

[BMReaves1]

a 10th grader that has taken one course in beginning biology can answer number two! Do they seriously not know that this isn't a "language" that the letter A, T, C, G, and U are just the beginning letters for the nucelobases in which they represent?! They aren't some kind of cosmic code for a language we don't know! They are DIRECTLY related to the chemical properties!!

[1duspiores]

that strees induced sex change hapends a lot whit canabis seeds(specialy femenised seeds)

[innocenceagain]

YEEAAHH! I watched this entire video in one sitting. I feel accomplished. Lots of time & effort was put into this indeed.

[saintpine]

:)

[ZhugeNaut]

I am still going to thumb your video up because it is full of excellent content.

Thanks for making this informative video in an interesting format.

[ZhugeNaut]

1 CREATIONISM IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE TAUGHT IN AMERICA.

2 CREATIONISM IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE TAUGHT EUROPE.

3 CREATIONISM IS TAUGHT PRESENTLY IN ISRAEL & SAUDI ARABIA BOTH ALLIES OF THE US AND EUROPE.

This campaign is merly another way for Christians to make money on each others collective ignornace.

What I find abhorrent is that so called atheists never mention the fact that these things are not taught in western countries but never mention the countries that do teach creationsm.

Why not?

[a11m0n]

@ZhugeNaut I beg to differ with your assertion that creationism is not taught in America. We have unaccredited private schools such as Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) that teach the bible as literal truth. And in public schools it keeps creeping in, search for You Tube videos for creationism in the class room and Dover trial. In order to avoid conflict science such as the basic facts about evolutionary biology are just not taught in many schools.

[circusOFprecision]

@a11m0n

It's a reaction to the materialistic bias of science. Maybe if science hadn't been forced into the business of metaphysics and bad theology by Darwinists (at least in the public eye), there wouldn't be such a reaction. Maybe the persons who need to be blamed are the not the religious folk themselves, but the writers of popular science who push ludicrous, biased, materialistic interpretations of science into popular culture.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Your preference for quantum mysticism doesn't really seem to floating anyone's boat--don't shoot the messenger.

Your personal religious opinions doesn't seem to be shifting the scrum....

[socrates856]

Outstanding work really.

[chthonios]

Glad to have been part of this.

[lapkine77]

@chthonios Why do harmless comments get marked as spam in my vids ? :C

[chthonios]

@lapkine77

Its God does it, he thinks you're a double agent.

[suvaline02]

the answer to question nr5 was perfect, lots of women and even a chess position in it where the creationist playing black did a totally ridiculous knight move.

[KaroKoenich]

A major project finally finished. Congratulations!

[Moontanman]

great vid