Thank you for uploading all of these videos! I really appreciate a rationale and what I perceive (I know I am just one person) to be non insulting videos covering evolution in education. So while I am sure you will hear the same cries of non-science based claims against evolution over and over again, I just wanted to say thanks.
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. It took that long because scientific community refused to believe that it was a hoax. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
if there are thousands transistional forms, why would the "discovery" of a glued fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs became a sensation in the scientific community before it was uncovered to be a fake? It because transistional forms between species never existed. How many scientific fraud do we have to publish in National Geographic before we say enough is enough?
@daogdaog "why would the "discovery" of a glued fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs became a sensation in the scientific community"
It DIDN'T. Why don't you WATCH the video you're responding to? If you did, you'd know that BOTH of the fossils used in the forgery were transitionals--Microraptor and Yanornis!
Why do you ignore the fact that Nature--a SCIENCE JOURNAL--had rejected the findings TWO MONTHS before NatGeo--a POPULAR MAGAZINE--published it?
@shanedk Giraffe is the iconic example evolution written in millions of biology textbooks. Which series of animals that evolved in incremental steps and eventually transformed into a giraffe starting from the earliest known giraffid? From a short necked four legged ancestor 1.5m animal to a 5.5m to 6m giraffe is just magical.
@daogdaog See, here's the thing: if you were GENUINELY interested in the answer to this question, you'd just look it up, and learn about how giraffes and okapis evolved from Climacoceras via Palaeotragus and Samotherium in the Miocene.
But no, you present the question on a YouTube page as though the mere fact that you asked the question means there's no answer and it's "magical." You do NOT want to know. You only want to sneer your smug, self-righteous delusions on others.
@shanedk Dont rely too much on wikipedia. It wont give you much about evolution of giraffe and when Climacoceras first existed. Evolutionist biologists have found out from research that Samotherium existed before Climacoceras. Okapi, the giraffe relative, existed before both Climacoceras and Samotherium. So evolution is totally wrong because the supposed descendant Samotherium 3m which looked almost a giraffe would have to evolve to its ancestor the deer-like Climacoceras 1.5m.
@daogdaog No, IDIOT, it just means that its branch hung around longer before going extinct. And if you'd bother to do research on how evolution REALLY works, you'd see that's a CONFIRMATION and not a falsification! But you won't, because you've shown quite clearly you're not here to learn and understand. You're here to tell whatever LIE you can to try and make evolution wrong, all to support your pathetic bronze-age world-view.
@shanedk Again read some research papers. You are not well informed on how the iconic example of evolution the giraffe really evolved. Dont rely too much on quoting from wikipedia. Evolutionist biologists who were puzzled on how giraffe got its long neck have found out from their research that Samotherium existed before Climacoceras. Okapi, the giraffe relative, existed before both Climacoceras and Samotherium. How could a descendant animal evolve into an ancestor animal?
@shanedk "Thousands" of transitions? Pick just 1 & tell how you or anyone can demonstrate that its descendants' descendants etc. led to its so called "higher lifeform". For ex. little children are told ambulocetus, a hairy beast with rear hooves was a "Prewhale." This is magical thinking since there is 0 way to tell it isn't simply an extinct animal that never led to anything. And how do you tell "missing links" from never existed links?
@daogdaog to be honest with you, my brain hurts from all the assumptions you creationist make and the claims that follow. from the logical, open minded, and intelligent (intelligent being the most important) point of veiw, creationism /ID, lost. i appoached this matter open minded, read and watched both sides make their case, it has become evident, creationism/ID, is closeminded and religious based idea where they have an EFFECT and make up the CAUSE. vise versa to the scienfic method.
@zer0livez there is no need to drag religion to prove that evolution is flawed. Darwin stated that ordinary hoofed quadruped after many generations will turn into a giraffe. No scientific evidence can support that claim. Mutations are actually genetic defects. Species can adapt but not evolve into other species. Fossilized species some even before dinos like the horse shoe crabs showed that they never evolve at all..
@shanedk Evo is a false religion. In library books on evo little kids are taught the primal pond based on faith. It has 0 evidence & flies in the face of the LAW of Biogensis which states that life only comes from life. They are told that scales turned into feather. Based on faith. Fossils show 100% feathers or 100% scales. "Proto feathers" is based on magical thinking as even they admit "they don't look like feathers." Why don't you trade in your faith based religion for real science?
@shanedk Yes, very different it used to look like a.... fish or a shrimp ..or whatever... millions of years ago. The horse crab has finally evolved and turned into another specie similar to the horse shoe crab millions of years ago.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
The natural order of things is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Mutations and natural selection don't evolve anything - macro evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
The natural order of life's genomes is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Macro evolution is a fairy tale. Atheism is moronic.
Your video doesn't contain single evidence for Evolution, but myths and presumptions e.g like the one where you believe that Christians base their beliefs
on myths and presumptions because, YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IT, so that you feel SUPERIOR.
Where in fact, you are IGNORANT about biloxy river footprints, fish fossils in mountains around the world, petrified trees disproving "millions' of years old "strata". The fact that evolution is ongoing process and ALL things would be intermixing.
The majority of this series holds good information, but the mud-flinging at the end here didn't hold my attention. It sounded much akin to political ads. We already know where creationists wrong; I'd like to hear more about where evolution is correct. Schools spend too much time retracing old information, such as color-coding photo copies of eukaryotes and prokaryotes (waaay too much time) that we never actually learned anything current or practical. I'm glad I came across this series.
Great videos, very enlightening. You know, it was actually difficult to find some good information about evidence for evolution. This short series was very useful, although as someone else commented earlier, references to the info would have been great.
I never would have thought religious people would create hoaxes in attempt to help their views. I'm religious myself (muslim), and surely committing fraud is against religious teachings. Searching for truth, i think, is my ultimate duty.
Thought darwin mentioned he lost his faith in religion because of evolution. Evolution and the current knowledge of cosmology seem to really hit at the egos of cultist.
@mistereveready Well, not so much evolution as it was some animals that really struck Darwin as odd by the standards set by the creationist viewpoint. If God created everything to be perfect, ect. then why are there parasitic life forms like fleas or ticks? They suck blood of animals and can transmit deseise, such as the deadly bubonic plague. Then we have the AIDS Virus which attacks the immune system. And let's not forget some insects lay their eggs inside living beings to they're eaten alive.
Haha, "they qoute-mined the dictionary".. that is absolutely fucking incredible. If you´ll forgive my langauge. Their dishonesty has reached new heights, heights I´d never thought possible.
"How pathetic is your position when you have to qoute-mine a dictionary?" I´d say pretty damn pathetic.
hey shane, can you explain to me in full detail what the theory of evolution is? In a word of fairness, can i ask what your position to comment on evolution is?
@swisscheesepotatochi Search for it on Lulu and you'll find copies of the eBook in ePub or PDF format. Since it's a download, I wouldn't think location would matter.
@Korkzor@Korkzor The begining of the Dark Ages is often given as Aleric's capture of Rome in 410ad, althought why Christian Rome being taken by a Christain Goth army should have any effect is not clear, and Rome was a backwater since the Capital had moved to Constantinople in 330. Other Scholars give Justinian's shutting of the Academy in Athens, 529 as the start. This makes more sense as a Christain attack on Neo-Platonists would have massive interlectual repercussions.
One could argue that the "average mans" trust in evolution is a believe in authority.
I am not a biology student but I believe what the biology professors and researchers concluded since I know that they underwent the same scientific method I have when testing something from my field of study, Chemistry.
Oh, and don't forget... when their lies and such are rebuffed with real science, they respond with threats of Hell, and/or the quoting of scripture (even if the context of such scripture is not relevent to the topic at hand)
Once again, Shanedk, you bring down the house. Very clear direct refutations of the Creationist claims... don't ever think that you're not having a good influence, this is great stuff.
I know that it doesn't relate specifically to evolution but probably (at least one of) the most important scientists of the last century, Einstein, was very God-fearing. He like many scientists believe that science can support a devout belief. Ironically, even HIS dogmatism to religion led him not to agree with quantum theory ("God doesn't throw dice with the universe") despite quantum theory being verified in every single lab experiment...
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic."
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
My apologies then. I replied in the "uploader comments" section so I didn't see someone had already offered that quote months ago. I'll delete my reply.
@supahsekzy Indeed it is. Congratulations on setting yourself apart from most of the people who comment here. It's refreshing to see other people for whom being shown wrong is an opportunity, not a character knockdown.
Creationists lie to everyone, including themselves. They are naturalized liars and suspect before they even open their mouths....This is probably why evolutionary scientists teach at the worlds finest academic universities, whereas creationist 'scientists' usually end up in prison.
you know I wish I could make a video like these some times. esp when talking to some friends. I often just sigh and send them to your webpage. But do you ever feel like your talking to a brick wall?
I never knew that the Expelled crew registered the expelledthemovie daught com domain in 2007. There's NO uncertainty about their intentions now, it's airtight. They are liars to the extreme.
Epic Videos Shanedk! I didn't watched them earlier because I think its just too easy and boring debunking raw stupidity, but you have talent doing it with style and making interesting even for people already aligned with science! Keep doing this! Scientia ipsa potestas est.
You know, at the time, I only thought creationists were low enough to do that. But months later, one of the pseudo-skeptics on the League of Reason forum tried to say that I was against laws against murder because I'm against Prohibition, and he quote-mined the dictionary for support!!!
Political dogmatists are EVERY BIT AS BAD as creationists.
I am surprised that the creationists did not call evolution an atheist's book of genesis.
It is also noteworthy to mention that while there are theists who accept evolution, there are atheists who do not accept evolution. Ever hear of Raelianism/panspermia?
Raelians are just crazy. The reason why they reject evolution is their UFO story. When UFOs are in the discussion then all evidence for evolution flies out of window. That's not very different from christian or muslim creationism. UFOs just replace god.
Panspermia fails Occam's Razor until we detect life on other worlds or a mechanism shown to transmit life to other worlds. There's no reason to assume such a thing when the evidence suggests we could have arisen perfectly well here without interplanetary seeding.
@rkyeun I didn't SAY we found interplanetary life. I said we have a MECHANISM. We know that meteorites have come to Earth from Mars, and we know most of the comets in our solar system originated in other solar systems. We have the mechanism.
Very well done. Thank you for making this set of videos, very funny and informative. I look forward to watching more (currently going through the bogosity ones which I LOVE).
The rank-and-file creationists might be just desperate and deluded, but I don't think there's any question that the instigators like Kent Hovind are complete liars.
What proof do creationists have besides a two thousand year old book? I mean I could write some nonsense in a book and distribute it. Would people two millenia later believe what I wrote?
For the same reason political economists stick to Keynes even though Keynes himself said his policies were only for a depression/wartime economy: You write something that people can use to justify wielding power over others.
Also note that Keynes' model assumed local workers paid by local businesses. Since the advent of outsourcing that assumption is deep 6'ed. It was distressing 8 years ago to watch a panel of leading economic experts all agree they had NO CLUE about anything given this change in dynamic.
I've never actually read anything by Keynes in its entirety, but I'm pretty sure Keynes supported the "Labor Fooling Model"--the idea that by continual inflation you can trick the people into accepting lower wages and thus higher employment rates. Its a bit more complicated than that, but it seems to me that the Labor Fooling Model suggests that he didn't think his policies were just for depression/wartime. He thought you could run the economy on overdrive all the time.
Here is one of my favourite 'proofs'. You know when christians say thet the bibke actually predicts that there would be those who would reject its teachings, but believers should not be dissuaded by this? That's proof to them that the bible had divine hindsight to predict that in the future some people would reject it. How else could the bible 'know' this would happen in the future, unless god had written it? What a load of ..........
Thank you for tuning in to tonight's episode of "Fundies Say The Darndest Things" featuring Pawel Kolasa. And here is your moment of creationist random nonsense, Pawel's own creation.
And rabid creationists, who show brazen ignorance of ever the most basic tenets of science, and have employed underhanded tactics such as false DMCA claims, lying under oath at the Dover trial, quote mining and votebots, have neither wisdom nor morals.
It's better to have the video links (nay ALL links) in the side bar. Annotation links only are a pain to access quickly because for one thing the video doesn't buffer instantly(so the wait is horrific) and scroll searching through the video is a crap shoot(especially if its a long video).
good video its funny how creationists use so many logical fallacies and be dishonest thanks for the video i favorited it and rated it for you have a good one
"Confused" the film. In other words, the presence of an Evolutionary Biologist who believes in God would have messed up their false dichotomy. Same reasonn people who think Atheism and Communism are the same thing never mention Ayn Rand or Christian Commies.
i look forward to what you are going to do next. I hope bashing conspiracy theories. I surgest the 9/11-theories, JFK-theories, 2012-theories and similiar theories. Because you debunked the moon-hoax theories so well.
I met Dr. Miller at the Darwin Day celebration at the University of Pennsylvania on the 12th. Great guy- answered my question about taking a class with Dr. Behe here at Lehigh AND signed my books!
"Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily" This ridiculous comment was well addressed by the SA interviewer - Ken Miller's POV would have completely undermined its theme and made its irrelevance crystal clear.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
wow, how do I counter 100 false statements in one text box. You did make some good points about the ID side, but went too far into unrealistic claims. People are going to believe what they want, on both sides. Both have scientific evidence and flaws... it isn't as cut and dry as you would like to make it sound.
I like your political insight, but this stuff is getting bad.
If you are inferring palladium/pallonium halos, then you are advocating a young earth surely?
If the earth is 6000yo why do we have 12,000 years of tree ring data? 60,000 years of ice core data, & numerous other proxies which go beyond the 6k mark?
We have archeological evidence which dates primitive tools and weapons back over 80,000 years.
The stars in the sky and distant galaxies and gas clouds ALL confirm an old universe and stand against a young one.
Im 27 and im not angry, im just puzzled as to what evidence ID actually has.
From everything i have seen it is a negative campaign against science which contradicts religious dogma.
Why has ID not given us 1 useful application, 1 coherent theory, 1 peice of evidence which has withstood even modest scrutiny?
ID is completely unproven and is driven by dishonest fundamentalists and deists with no consistent position who admit openly that they want a christian nation and god in science class.
Pick 1 structure that validates your point, dont just quote the idea.
So pick ANYTHING from a protein right up to a complex creature which shows absolutely no possible progression or hypothetical intermediate form. You have trillions to choose from.
IC is only valid if something cannot have evolved.
Creationists have spent 50 years looking for an animal which could not have evolved and failed. Even under the microscope or studying proteins they are still struggling to find 1 contradiction.
If you are a scientist (and not another associates degree holder posing as an expert) you must have taken at least an elementary course in statistics.
If this is the case then you should be well aware that when something gives accurate predictions 99% of the time, you are looking at something which is essentially reliable enough to bet your life on being the correct explanation.
Evolution explains why ALL structures depend on ancestry, and this ancestry is observable by many methods.
Both sides give accurate predictions 99% of the time. A biosphere that has evolved for trillions of years will have everything accomodated for. An intelligent supernatural being will have accomodated for everything too.
This was my point... everyone tries to be so devisive..defensive really... that they ignore the facts, that what is wrong with shanes video. Call facts facts, then say I don't know when you don't. Both sides do this and it's stupid.
The earths biosphere is maybe 600 million years since the dawn of complex organism, and then it was only 300 million years or so ago when life got out of the oceans.
The fact is we can see that this all happened naturally. I dont deny that a god couldnt have done it, but if we think like that then we can say god is controlling gravity, and call this the theory of 'intelligent falling'. However the burden of proof is on the person who claims god is behind this and not nature.
I can't shane.. im at work and have already exceeded the comment limit 3 times. I won't be here longer - i'm not as 'fired up' about this as most people.
Your series needs to be shown in schools.
XxI3ioHazardxX 1 month ago
Arguably, there is 'intelligent design' in humans but only insofar as that we helped design ourselves.
davewatcher 3 months ago
Alternative Title: Creationists and the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Fallacy.
vspqbd 6 months ago
Thank you for uploading all of these videos! I really appreciate a rationale and what I perceive (I know I am just one person) to be non insulting videos covering evolution in education. So while I am sure you will hear the same cries of non-science based claims against evolution over and over again, I just wanted to say thanks.
psychopotato 6 months ago
@psychopotato *rational
psychopotato 6 months ago
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. It took that long because scientific community refused to believe that it was a hoax. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
daogdaog 7 months ago
@daogdaog "People could not find transistional forms"
There are THOUSANDS.
"so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years."
No, they didn't. NO scientists outside of England were fooled. See my video on the subject.
"In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs."
Covered in the VERY VIDEO YOU'RE COMMENTING ON.
I swear, creationists...
shanedk 7 months ago 9
if there are thousands transistional forms, why would the "discovery" of a glued fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs became a sensation in the scientific community before it was uncovered to be a fake? It because transistional forms between species never existed. How many scientific fraud do we have to publish in National Geographic before we say enough is enough?
daogdaog 7 months ago
@daogdaog "why would the "discovery" of a glued fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs became a sensation in the scientific community"
It DIDN'T. Why don't you WATCH the video you're responding to? If you did, you'd know that BOTH of the fossils used in the forgery were transitionals--Microraptor and Yanornis!
Why do you ignore the fact that Nature--a SCIENCE JOURNAL--had rejected the findings TWO MONTHS before NatGeo--a POPULAR MAGAZINE--published it?
Because all creationists are LIARS.
shanedk 7 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@LoricaLady very good point.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog Thank you. Actually I sent you that post by mistake. Sorry.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@LoricaLady I am just commenting here to show to all evolutionists out there that science and simple logic will show that evolution is flawed.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog Okay, go ahead.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Giraffe is the iconic example evolution written in millions of biology textbooks. Which series of animals that evolved in incremental steps and eventually transformed into a giraffe starting from the earliest known giraffid? From a short necked four legged ancestor 1.5m animal to a 5.5m to 6m giraffe is just magical.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog See, here's the thing: if you were GENUINELY interested in the answer to this question, you'd just look it up, and learn about how giraffes and okapis evolved from Climacoceras via Palaeotragus and Samotherium in the Miocene.
But no, you present the question on a YouTube page as though the mere fact that you asked the question means there's no answer and it's "magical." You do NOT want to know. You only want to sneer your smug, self-righteous delusions on others.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Dont rely too much on wikipedia. It wont give you much about evolution of giraffe and when Climacoceras first existed. Evolutionist biologists have found out from research that Samotherium existed before Climacoceras. Okapi, the giraffe relative, existed before both Climacoceras and Samotherium. So evolution is totally wrong because the supposed descendant Samotherium 3m which looked almost a giraffe would have to evolve to its ancestor the deer-like Climacoceras 1.5m.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog No, IDIOT, it just means that its branch hung around longer before going extinct. And if you'd bother to do research on how evolution REALLY works, you'd see that's a CONFIRMATION and not a falsification! But you won't, because you've shown quite clearly you're not here to learn and understand. You're here to tell whatever LIE you can to try and make evolution wrong, all to support your pathetic bronze-age world-view.
shanedk 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk Again read some research papers. You are not well informed on how the iconic example of evolution the giraffe really evolved. Dont rely too much on quoting from wikipedia. Evolutionist biologists who were puzzled on how giraffe got its long neck have found out from their research that Samotherium existed before Climacoceras. Okapi, the giraffe relative, existed before both Climacoceras and Samotherium. How could a descendant animal evolve into an ancestor animal?
daogdaog 5 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@shanedk "Thousands" of transitions? Pick just 1 & tell how you or anyone can demonstrate that its descendants' descendants etc. led to its so called "higher lifeform". For ex. little children are told ambulocetus, a hairy beast with rear hooves was a "Prewhale." This is magical thinking since there is 0 way to tell it isn't simply an extinct animal that never led to anything. And how do you tell "missing links" from never existed links?
Again, pick 1 "transition" & give backup DATA.
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@daogdaog to be honest with you, my brain hurts from all the assumptions you creationist make and the claims that follow. from the logical, open minded, and intelligent (intelligent being the most important) point of veiw, creationism /ID, lost. i appoached this matter open minded, read and watched both sides make their case, it has become evident, creationism/ID, is closeminded and religious based idea where they have an EFFECT and make up the CAUSE. vise versa to the scienfic method.
zer0livez 7 months ago
@zer0livez there is no need to drag religion to prove that evolution is flawed. Darwin stated that ordinary hoofed quadruped after many generations will turn into a giraffe. No scientific evidence can support that claim. Mutations are actually genetic defects. Species can adapt but not evolve into other species. Fossilized species some even before dinos like the horse shoe crabs showed that they never evolve at all..
daogdaog 7 months ago
@daogdaog "No scientific evidence can support that claim."
Except for all the transitional fossils showing that it happened.
"Mutations are actually genetic defects."
Except for all the ones that aren't, such as AIDS immunity, cholesterol break-down, and adult milk digestion.
"Species can adapt but not evolve into other species."
Except for the dozens of times when they've been seen doing just that!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Evo is a false religion. In library books on evo little kids are taught the primal pond based on faith. It has 0 evidence & flies in the face of the LAW of Biogensis which states that life only comes from life. They are told that scales turned into feather. Based on faith. Fossils show 100% feathers or 100% scales. "Proto feathers" is based on magical thinking as even they admit "they don't look like feathers." Why don't you trade in your faith based religion for real science?
LoricaLady 5 months ago
@daogdaog "Fossilized species some even before dinos like the horse shoe crabs showed that they never evolve at all."
Except for the fact that they're very different from the horseshoe crabs of today.
You creationists never do your research, do you?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Yes, very different it used to look like a.... fish or a shrimp ..or whatever... millions of years ago. The horse crab has finally evolved and turned into another specie similar to the horse shoe crab millions of years ago.
daogdaog 7 months ago
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
achilles197474 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
achilles197474 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 10 months ago
Thank you for this excellent series. Creations are a group of liars, I don't know how they sleep at night.
movieklump 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The natural order of things is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Mutations and natural selection don't evolve anything - macro evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The natural order of life's genomes is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Macro evolution is a fairy tale. Atheism is moronic.
achilles197474 1 year ago
Your video doesn't contain single evidence for Evolution, but myths and presumptions e.g like the one where you believe that Christians base their beliefs
on myths and presumptions because, YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IT, so that you feel SUPERIOR.
Where in fact, you are IGNORANT about biloxy river footprints, fish fossils in mountains around the world, petrified trees disproving "millions' of years old "strata". The fact that evolution is ongoing process and ALL things would be intermixing.
PawelKolasa 1 year ago
@PawelKolasa I bet anything you have no biological qualifications what so ever.
movieklump 10 months ago
The majority of this series holds good information, but the mud-flinging at the end here didn't hold my attention. It sounded much akin to political ads. We already know where creationists wrong; I'd like to hear more about where evolution is correct. Schools spend too much time retracing old information, such as color-coding photo copies of eukaryotes and prokaryotes (waaay too much time) that we never actually learned anything current or practical. I'm glad I came across this series.
Rozax 1 year ago
They quote mined the dictionary! hahahahaha that was hilarious!
asargentb 1 year ago
Great videos, very enlightening. You know, it was actually difficult to find some good information about evidence for evolution. This short series was very useful, although as someone else commented earlier, references to the info would have been great.
I never would have thought religious people would create hoaxes in attempt to help their views. I'm religious myself (muslim), and surely committing fraud is against religious teachings. Searching for truth, i think, is my ultimate duty.
OwnsWar 1 year ago
@OwnsWar Thanks. There are tons of references in the book.
shanedk 1 year ago
Thought darwin mentioned he lost his faith in religion because of evolution. Evolution and the current knowledge of cosmology seem to really hit at the egos of cultist.
mistereveready 1 year ago
@mistereveready Well, not so much evolution as it was some animals that really struck Darwin as odd by the standards set by the creationist viewpoint. If God created everything to be perfect, ect. then why are there parasitic life forms like fleas or ticks? They suck blood of animals and can transmit deseise, such as the deadly bubonic plague. Then we have the AIDS Virus which attacks the immune system. And let's not forget some insects lay their eggs inside living beings to they're eaten alive.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
Haha, "they qoute-mined the dictionary".. that is absolutely fucking incredible. If you´ll forgive my langauge. Their dishonesty has reached new heights, heights I´d never thought possible.
"How pathetic is your position when you have to qoute-mine a dictionary?" I´d say pretty damn pathetic.
Korkzor 1 year ago
/watch?v=G3UYZcwUEfw
I accept free will as reality, however, I find Stef's arguments (at least 1:40 in) to be very unconvincing.
This is a question for science, not philosophy.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
hey shane, can you explain to me in full detail what the theory of evolution is? In a word of fairness, can i ask what your position to comment on evolution is?
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi In 500 characters, no. My companion book to this series goes into it in detail.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk i dont live in the states, how can i get the book?
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Search for it on Lulu and you'll find copies of the eBook in ePub or PDF format. Since it's a download, I wouldn't think location would matter.
shanedk 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi google it.
nutty01 1 year ago
We're branching out as happened in the past, will be two new species homo cientificus and homo religiosus, is already hard to mate between them.
Oshyoga 1 year ago
@Oshyoga Can I please be on the non-creationist island? Pretty please? And can we take their nuclear bombs first? Pretty please?
Imagene being stuck in a US with creation "science" museums and nonsense tought in schools. Can you say dark ages?
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor @Korkzor The begining of the Dark Ages is often given as Aleric's capture of Rome in 410ad, althought why Christian Rome being taken by a Christain Goth army should have any effect is not clear, and Rome was a backwater since the Capital had moved to Constantinople in 330. Other Scholars give Justinian's shutting of the Academy in Athens, 529 as the start. This makes more sense as a Christain attack on Neo-Platonists would have massive interlectual repercussions.
gamesbok 1 year ago
One could argue that the "average mans" trust in evolution is a believe in authority.
I am not a biology student but I believe what the biology professors and researchers concluded since I know that they underwent the same scientific method I have when testing something from my field of study, Chemistry.
RazielKain 1 year ago
Epic fail!
pedantologist 1 year ago
Oh, and don't forget... when their lies and such are rebuffed with real science, they respond with threats of Hell, and/or the quoting of scripture (even if the context of such scripture is not relevent to the topic at hand)
ikvsabre 1 year ago
Quote mining the dictionary, that's low. What's next? Are creationists going to quote mine a thesaurus? maybe a children's book? or maybe a TV ad?
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Once again, Shanedk, you bring down the house. Very clear direct refutations of the Creationist claims... don't ever think that you're not having a good influence, this is great stuff.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
Nice job shanedk!
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
great series,so few votes. shanedk, try re posting, but knock the "how" off so it starts off evolution. just an idea. 5 stars all the way through.
userwl2850 2 years ago
I know that it doesn't relate specifically to evolution but probably (at least one of) the most important scientists of the last century, Einstein, was very God-fearing. He like many scientists believe that science can support a devout belief. Ironically, even HIS dogmatism to religion led him not to agree with quantum theory ("God doesn't throw dice with the universe") despite quantum theory being verified in every single lab experiment...
supahsekzy 2 years ago
"Einstein, was very God-fearing."
From Einstein himself:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic."
shanedk 2 years ago
Also from Einstein:
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
shanedk 2 years ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun Yeah. I get it.
supahsekzy 1 year ago
@supahsekzy
My apologies then. I replied in the "uploader comments" section so I didn't see someone had already offered that quote months ago. I'll delete my reply.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun You don't have to delete it, The important thing is that this misconception was cleared in my mind. Knowledge is power.
supahsekzy 1 year ago
@supahsekzy Indeed it is. Congratulations on setting yourself apart from most of the people who comment here. It's refreshing to see other people for whom being shown wrong is an opportunity, not a character knockdown.
shanedk 1 year ago
Great finish. I enjoyed this series. :)
Starbat88 2 years ago
Creationists lie to everyone, including themselves. They are naturalized liars and suspect before they even open their mouths....This is probably why evolutionary scientists teach at the worlds finest academic universities, whereas creationist 'scientists' usually end up in prison.
rogan71 2 years ago
shane you are one of the good guys. i like you shane. lets do lunch.
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
If what the IDiots say about religion is true, than St. Patrick's Day, birthdays, weekends, and washing your hands before dinner are all religions.
Omnywrench 2 years ago
As you yourself have said, time and time again.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS!!!
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
you know I wish I could make a video like these some times. esp when talking to some friends. I often just sigh and send them to your webpage. But do you ever feel like your talking to a brick wall?
Dreamspawn1978 2 years ago
godlike series
-a little bit of irony-
SvGrebonja 2 years ago
Well done.
Great work
Keep it going.
meontheweb1 2 years ago
I never knew that the Expelled crew registered the expelledthemovie daught com domain in 2007. There's NO uncertainty about their intentions now, it's airtight. They are liars to the extreme.
valvatica 2 years ago 5
Hey, great series. Wish I'd found it sooner.
And I might have said it before, but people need to tell these dogmatic creationists to stop acting like the pharisees.
Altimadark 2 years ago
Great job, Shane. I'm wondering how this series eluded me for so long.
stankhat 2 years ago
Epic Videos Shanedk! I didn't watched them earlier because I think its just too easy and boring debunking raw stupidity, but you have talent doing it with style and making interesting even for people already aligned with science! Keep doing this! Scientia ipsa potestas est.
nihilultimum 2 years ago
you, sir, deserve a standing Ovation!
*claps loudly*
you've just obtained the privilige of the fullscreen :D
Albukhshi 2 years ago
:: applauds :: bravo chap, jolly good show!
jcwebguy 2 years ago
Quote mining a dictionary...that is low
KitsuneVoss 2 years ago 7
You know, at the time, I only thought creationists were low enough to do that. But months later, one of the pseudo-skeptics on the League of Reason forum tried to say that I was against laws against murder because I'm against Prohibition, and he quote-mined the dictionary for support!!!
Political dogmatists are EVERY BIT AS BAD as creationists.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
"Political dogmatists are EVERY BIT AS BAD as creationists"
Not to mention the psuedo-science morons and conspiracy nitwits , like the:
Nirbirubes
Truthertards
Homeopathetics
Chemtrailfails
Reptimbeciles (reptilian alien morons)
Moon Hoaxerejects
ikvsabre 1 year ago
Absolutely loved this series..thanks so much...i've learned a little bit more about evolution.
bronzevixen 2 years ago
Nice series, shanedk. Thanks.
pmfcal 2 years ago 2
I am surprised that the creationists did not call evolution an atheist's book of genesis.
It is also noteworthy to mention that while there are theists who accept evolution, there are atheists who do not accept evolution. Ever hear of Raelianism/panspermia?
DahStranger 2 years ago
Raelians are just crazy. The reason why they reject evolution is their UFO story. When UFOs are in the discussion then all evidence for evolution flies out of window. That's not very different from christian or muslim creationism. UFOs just replace god.
jt263 2 years ago
You have a point, but I was not defending raelians. I was just pointing out that they exist because it seems relevant.
DahStranger 2 years ago
"UFOs just replace god."
Yes but aliens are natural entities, not super natural, so their not considered god afaik.
mtanti87 2 years ago
Panspermia and evolution doesn't have to conflict wit each other.
Evolution is about the development of life, and not necessarily about the appearance of ilfe.
Skoda130 2 years ago
@Skoda130
Panspermia fails Occam's Razor until we detect life on other worlds or a mechanism shown to transmit life to other worlds. There's no reason to assume such a thing when the evidence suggests we could have arisen perfectly well here without interplanetary seeding.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun We already have a mechanism.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Really? I didn't know that! Where did we find interplanetary life?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun I didn't SAY we found interplanetary life. I said we have a MECHANISM. We know that meteorites have come to Earth from Mars, and we know most of the comets in our solar system originated in other solar systems. We have the mechanism.
shanedk 1 year ago
@DahStranger
That is noteworthy, but only for defeating the other side of the false creationist conflation of atheism and evolution. :)
rkyeun 1 year ago
Nice series here!
Richinator2000 2 years ago
Very well done. Thank you for making this set of videos, very funny and informative. I look forward to watching more (currently going through the bogosity ones which I LOVE).
O2BSoLucky 2 years ago
Awesome video series, thank you very much for putting time and effort into these. I shall be sure to return to these videos in the future.
QuantumFireball2099 2 years ago 2
Really Really good series... I feel a little smarter now.
kmonster420 2 years ago
Quote mining the dictionary??
Checkmate science hating creationists!
dethrockk 2 years ago 2
+Shane, great series!
I get a great deal of enjoyment from reading these comment threads. Much more civilized arguments than the usual Youtube comment thread.
spirulence 2 years ago
Creationism -> EPIC FAIL!
asuirth 2 years ago 6
And shanedk, your rock!
anonymous2635 2 years ago 6
"I don't agree with Ken Miller"
In other words, the movie was blatantly biased and not fair to all sides.
"It would have considerably undercut the major point that is made..."
In other words, Expelled is intended to lie to the audience.
jbz3 3 years ago 17
I'm convinced there are no more dishonest group of people than creationists.
villeppi 3 years ago 22
I dont think they are dishonest, more desperate and that they are trying to much to prove there point by using desperate means.
anonymous2635 2 years ago
The rank-and-file creationists might be just desperate and deluded, but I don't think there's any question that the instigators like Kent Hovind are complete liars.
shanedk 2 years ago
LOL @ quotemining the dictionary!
Lassiuu 3 years ago 5
danm stole my line o well bravo chap bravo
yodaofhalo 3 years ago
¡Bravo!
Walabio 3 years ago
What proof do creationists have besides a two thousand year old book? I mean I could write some nonsense in a book and distribute it. Would people two millenia later believe what I wrote?
Elscythe 3 years ago
For the same reason political economists stick to Keynes even though Keynes himself said his policies were only for a depression/wartime economy: You write something that people can use to justify wielding power over others.
shanedk 3 years ago
Also note that Keynes' model assumed local workers paid by local businesses. Since the advent of outsourcing that assumption is deep 6'ed. It was distressing 8 years ago to watch a panel of leading economic experts all agree they had NO CLUE about anything given this change in dynamic.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Right; Keynes never figured in a global economy because there wasn't one at the time.
Interestingly, the Austrians are the only ones with a good model because they based a lot of their work off of Bastiat.
shanedk 3 years ago
I've never actually read anything by Keynes in its entirety, but I'm pretty sure Keynes supported the "Labor Fooling Model"--the idea that by continual inflation you can trick the people into accepting lower wages and thus higher employment rates. Its a bit more complicated than that, but it seems to me that the Labor Fooling Model suggests that he didn't think his policies were just for depression/wartime. He thought you could run the economy on overdrive all the time.
Keeban3 1 year ago
Here is one of my favourite 'proofs'. You know when christians say thet the bibke actually predicts that there would be those who would reject its teachings, but believers should not be dissuaded by this? That's proof to them that the bible had divine hindsight to predict that in the future some people would reject it. How else could the bible 'know' this would happen in the future, unless god had written it? What a load of ..........
vikingatheist 3 years ago
You got a "EPIC WIN" for this.
and a 9,5/10 rating from Gego/XAREN
GegoXaren 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wisdom without morals is worthless
PawelKolasa 3 years ago
And vice-versa, Pawel.
shanedk 3 years ago
Thank you for tuning in to tonight's episode of "Fundies Say The Darndest Things" featuring Pawel Kolasa. And here is your moment of creationist random nonsense, Pawel's own creation.
watch?v=L4MU2H5YK4o&feature=channel_page
Enjoy it, if you can...
Virgil0211 3 years ago
"wisdom without morals is worthless"
How very true.
And rabid creationists, who show brazen ignorance of ever the most basic tenets of science, and have employed underhanded tactics such as false DMCA claims, lying under oath at the Dover trial, quote mining and votebots, have neither wisdom nor morals.
megagrey 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
shane: your IQ went AWOL
PawelKolasa 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
shane has no shame.
2. Intelligent people have morals and talk with respect, he doesn't.
3. I can't even listen to what he says, because he lacks basics in good behaviour.
4. You are listening, because you similarly have no shame, morals, intelligence or good sense
PawelKolasa 3 years ago
What happened to 1?
Anyway, your entire post is nonsensical. If you've got a problem with the data presented, explain what it is.
shanedk 3 years ago
Why do you think that shanedk lacks basics in good behaviour? Just because you don't agree with you?
freethinkerbell 3 years ago
Brilliant Riposte,
Creationists do exactly that create (a load of crap)
benolly22 3 years ago
Very nice. I loved this series.
PS: You should link to any videos you mention. Link in the description or annotations.
:P Keep up the good work.
GodWantsBlood 3 years ago
I thought I'd gotten them all in the annotations. Which ones did I miss?
shanedk 3 years ago
Oh wow, I'm blind.
I thought you forgot to link to CDK007's series.
I even looked for the annotation and couldn't see it.
xD wow.
GodWantsBlood 3 years ago
It's better to have the video links (nay ALL links) in the side bar. Annotation links only are a pain to access quickly because for one thing the video doesn't buffer instantly(so the wait is horrific) and scroll searching through the video is a crap shoot(especially if its a long video).
Again, thanks for posting this great series.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
ULTIMATE FATALITY!
sp10975 3 years ago
Intelligent Design is a religious Turf war over morons who have to much money that they want to spend on kissing up their God.
theGetRealGuy 3 years ago
Good job! Keep posting...
pmfcal 3 years ago
Great video:)
satan203 3 years ago
How did I miss your channel? King Heathen bump gains you +1 Subscriber!
hanzo138 3 years ago 2
Same here :D
flosse89 3 years ago
The composer of the backround music for this video was a creationist!
blackesoterica 3 years ago
Irrelevant, since he lived before Darwin.
shanedk 3 years ago
Creationists can make good things too. It doesn't change the fact evolution is true. Wrong association.
sinxcosxtanx 3 years ago
good video its funny how creationists use so many logical fallacies and be dishonest thanks for the video i favorited it and rated it for you have a good one
LegendKillerJustin 3 years ago
"Confused" the film. In other words, the presence of an Evolutionary Biologist who believes in God would have messed up their false dichotomy. Same reasonn people who think Atheism and Communism are the same thing never mention Ayn Rand or Christian Commies.
dechha1981 3 years ago
My last 3 comments didn't show???
I'm going back to work. email me at
f a i t h l o c k e t @ y a h o o . c o m
I won't be back to this video
faithlocket 3 years ago
"I won't be back to this video"
Cuz ya been pwned?
oilotnoM 3 years ago
great series, shane
i look forward to what you are going to do next. I hope bashing conspiracy theories. I surgest the 9/11-theories, JFK-theories, 2012-theories and similiar theories. Because you debunked the moon-hoax theories so well.
gre54hfd865erg634yts 3 years ago
*bursts into tears* BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!!!!
megagrey 3 years ago
I met Dr. Miller at the Darwin Day celebration at the University of Pennsylvania on the 12th. Great guy- answered my question about taking a class with Dr. Behe here at Lehigh AND signed my books!
pyropakman 3 years ago
"Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily" This ridiculous comment was well addressed by the SA interviewer - Ken Miller's POV would have completely undermined its theme and made its irrelevance crystal clear.
alachabre 3 years ago
LOL Epic Fail.
somechick73 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow, how do I counter 100 false statements in one text box. You did make some good points about the ID side, but went too far into unrealistic claims. People are going to believe what they want, on both sides. Both have scientific evidence and flaws... it isn't as cut and dry as you would like to make it sound.
I like your political insight, but this stuff is getting bad.
DaggerPolitics 3 years ago
Okay, then: present ONE piece of verifiable evidence for ID. ONE.
shanedk 3 years ago
how about palladium halo's
how about irreducible complexity
come on, both sides have good science
faithlocket 3 years ago
If you are inferring palladium/pallonium halos, then you are advocating a young earth surely?
If the earth is 6000yo why do we have 12,000 years of tree ring data? 60,000 years of ice core data, & numerous other proxies which go beyond the 6k mark?
We have archeological evidence which dates primitive tools and weapons back over 80,000 years.
The stars in the sky and distant galaxies and gas clouds ALL confirm an old universe and stand against a young one.
Unless god is just decietful.
digitised 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My point exactly. Try not to play the predictable "Angry Atheist". Both sides have a lot of scientific evidence on their side.
But for some reason both sides want to take science for their own. "It's my ball and I'm taking it home."
I'm sick of dealing with children.
faithlocket 3 years ago
Im 27 and im not angry, im just puzzled as to what evidence ID actually has.
From everything i have seen it is a negative campaign against science which contradicts religious dogma.
Why has ID not given us 1 useful application, 1 coherent theory, 1 peice of evidence which has withstood even modest scrutiny?
ID is completely unproven and is driven by dishonest fundamentalists and deists with no consistent position who admit openly that they want a christian nation and god in science class.
digitised 3 years ago 2
Pick 1 structure that validates your point, dont just quote the idea.
So pick ANYTHING from a protein right up to a complex creature which shows absolutely no possible progression or hypothetical intermediate form. You have trillions to choose from.
IC is only valid if something cannot have evolved.
Creationists have spent 50 years looking for an animal which could not have evolved and failed. Even under the microscope or studying proteins they are still struggling to find 1 contradiction.
digitised 3 years ago 2
If you are a scientist (and not another associates degree holder posing as an expert) you must have taken at least an elementary course in statistics.
If this is the case then you should be well aware that when something gives accurate predictions 99% of the time, you are looking at something which is essentially reliable enough to bet your life on being the correct explanation.
Evolution explains why ALL structures depend on ancestry, and this ancestry is observable by many methods.
digitised 3 years ago
Both sides give accurate predictions 99% of the time. A biosphere that has evolved for trillions of years will have everything accomodated for. An intelligent supernatural being will have accomodated for everything too.
This was my point... everyone tries to be so devisive..defensive really... that they ignore the facts, that what is wrong with shanes video. Call facts facts, then say I don't know when you don't. Both sides do this and it's stupid.
faithlocket 3 years ago
"Both sides give accurate predictions 99% of the time."
Okay, give ONE accurate prediction of Creationism/ID.
shanedk 3 years ago
Every good thing man needs an be found on the Earth God created.
faithlocket 3 years ago
Then how come we have to synthesize so many things that we need to treat various medical conditions?
shanedk 3 years ago
Good question, shouldn't we have evolved beyond that?
faithlocket 3 years ago
No; evolution is slow.
shanedk 3 years ago
Trillions?
The earths biosphere is maybe 600 million years since the dawn of complex organism, and then it was only 300 million years or so ago when life got out of the oceans.
The fact is we can see that this all happened naturally. I dont deny that a god couldnt have done it, but if we think like that then we can say god is controlling gravity, and call this the theory of 'intelligent falling'. However the burden of proof is on the person who claims god is behind this and not nature.
digitised 3 years ago
I disagree, the burden is on anyone making any claim.
The age of the earth keeps ...evolving.
Gravity existed because... space is curved.. or whatever - God or nature could have made it that way.
What about the cosmological argument
faithlocket 3 years ago
"The age of the earth keeps ...evolving."
No, the age of the Earth keeps narrowing down. Every revision fit within the error bars of the previous calculation.
"What about the cosmological argument"
See my video about the Conservapedia page on atheism.
shanedk 3 years ago
I can't shane.. im at work and have already exceeded the comment limit 3 times. I won't be here longer - i'm not as 'fired up' about this as most people.
Everything came from something
faithlocket 3 years ago
"Everything came from something"
Except for particles detected by the Casimir Effect...
shanedk 3 years ago
they came from nothing?
faithlocket 3 years ago