i think most would agree that credentials don't necessarily mean anything. however, i think there is some curiosity if you have any sort of training, since you have such a poor understanding of biology, yet feel the need to speak with authority on the subject. i notice that you deflected the question, but didn't answer it.
@rokcid I think the real intellectual arrogance here is someone parading around with no appropriate credentials saying everyone who DOES have the appropriate credentials is wrong "because my bible says so". If you find that backwards then that is indeed a little worrisome. I see you ignored everything in my previous post anyway, but changed the subject. So with that, I bid you good day, sir.
@rokcid It is your emotional opinion that evolution "falls into a supernatural category" because you choose to ignore real science and instead listen to people like Ian who make "fun" user-friendly videos full of lies. Tell me, regarding "all the scientists" that believe in creationism.. have you not heard of Project Steve?
And yes, you did say that Mr. Dawkins' attitude "refutes" evolution on its own. Do I really have to quote your own post?
@rokcid Please explain how science falls into a religious category.
I don't see why you felt the need to bring up Dawkins when there are many, many credible scientists who reject creationism. "On a real date"? The man is married. What are you trying to imply?
Arrogance or not does not "prove" or "disprove" anything. That's a very silly statement. Would you like to acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of scientists that reject creationism that AREN'T in the spotlight or have "bad" attitudes?
"Skeptics keep asking about my lack of credentials- but that has nothing to do with whether I'm right or not."
Uh.. hahahaha. It pains me to even comment on this. You have your bible thumping creationist followers on youtube who believe every word you say because you make "fun presentations" in your videos, but if you were to sit down and have a debate about all your anti-science claims with accredited scientists, you'd be laughed out of the building.
What do you think the mind is made up of that is analysing this information.
To an alien being from zergon this WOULD be meaningless information.
For all you know the previous arrangement would be more sensical.
Someone's just not awake enough to realise that all these arguements are simply strawmen. Seriously the phone number can be an example of information growth if the owner changed their name like this.
He just seems to insult the people asking questions, and then go on to give a really bad non-answer. Then, after more bad jokes and pantomime, he asks people to subscribe. To what? In words he could understand: Subscribing to this channel (or watching more of this garbage) would actually remove information already firmly established.
In Canada, this guy is known as a religious nut who travels around selling his snake oil. We laugh at him. He is a joke. He is ignored. He's a failure.
@IAreTheKingOfAll Actually, I laid out an argument against the video's contents first, and THEN informed the laymen among us about who this person is. A little "pro tip", if you will. So, back to school for you -- you aren't sure how to use your "favorite word" yet.
It amazes me that perfectly intelligent people can believe that these systems came about by chance, you have more blind faith then I'm willing to give. Amen to that, couldn't agree more. My biggest amazement is that apparently self replicating organisms, "decided" they would split into two sexes, go seperate ways for a few million years until both reproductive sytems were complete then start mating as male and female, all this by CHANCE mutations. It gets worse, people actually believe this.
"skeptics ask me about my credentials" In your last rant, half your 'point' was that some people have no authority to declare bad design in a living system. The science has already been answered, evolution is a fact, completely independent of fundamentalists understanding of it
Who said the formed by completely unrelated processes? Its called modular evolution, the change of structure thats already there. Once you build a house of cards (which is not a living structure and not subject to mutation before you go off onto 'but its intelligently designed), it's irreducibly complex, of course it wasn't always that way. Who is claiming they came about by chance? I'll refute them too. An actual understanding of biology != blind faith
if evolution starts with a big bang,my question is were did the material come from to supply the bang in other words how do we get something from nothing with no help from anything.
Evolution didn't start with the big bang, evolution didn't start till some 10 billion years after the big bang. The big bang doesn't say that everything came from nothing, either, it traces the expansion of our current universe back to a singularity and with current knowledge and technology we can go no further back.
Once again you change the subject by misunderstanding endonuclease, it is beneficial but not entirely necessary, and its misleading to call endo/exo 'robots' they're simply site specific bond cleaving enzymes. Except they're NOT codependent, every example of irreducible complexity thus far has been debunked, some flagella are missing the L and P rings altogether, puffer fish are missing 'vital' parts of the blood clotting cascade, practically every stage of the eye is found in mollusks.
"Has yet to produce one example of an increase in information" First, you refuse to give an example of what you consider an increase in information, second: /watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk < the observed addition of over 2300 bits of information to a genome "skeptics are dodging the question" this coming from a guy, when asked what he would consider an increase in information, resorted to a hybrid strawman of evolution/abiogenesis
Yes, if you add letters you add information whether or not the information is meaningful in your personal interpretation. "We lose information we already had' the point you MISSED in rant 35 was that the original information was retained in one of the copies of the gene (phonebook) Once again, gene expression is not dependent on human interpretation to express functional traits.
That's not helped by the fact that you had no point in rant 35. Yes the letters contain information, they have distinguishing characteristics. What changed? The order of the inanimate letters which are not subject to mutation or replication changed, also, the english alphabet was derived out of our convenience and depends on us to form and convey messages, genetic material has no such dependence.
Asking what you would consider a gain in information is dodging the supposed problem of you claiming that evolution can't increase information? The only dodge here is you strawmanning evolution, evolution says nothing anywhere about information coming from nowhere. Yes, since you're the one making the claim that evolution never increases information, I want you to give an example of an increase in information.
Not a bad video but your credentials argument is a false one. True a person could learn on their own many things. They are called autodidacts. Ben Franklin was one as well as Bill gates. But would you trust a self taught heart surgeon to do a transplant on your child or would you want one that went to medical school and s a licensed surgeon?
I will take the word of a biology professor over a self taught person with a personal agenda every single time.
The great thing is you don't have to take the biology professors word, nowadays a lot of predictions about evolution are testable by the lay person, IE chromosome 2. Tested and confirmed thousands of times.
And you believe those books because the knowledge in them was tested repeatedly over and over and proven to be true. If you had another science book that said that the world was flat and had 4 corners it would give you reason to test, and discredit the assumption and then the rest of the book.
The fact is the bible said the world is flat on more than one part. It isnt a science book its a religious text that is outdated. Its fine for picking and choosing morals but not science.
i think most would agree that credentials don't necessarily mean anything. however, i think there is some curiosity if you have any sort of training, since you have such a poor understanding of biology, yet feel the need to speak with authority on the subject. i notice that you deflected the question, but didn't answer it.
babaganoug 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rokcid 'I said "evolution falls into religious" category'
Only someone completely illiterate of anything regarding biology would say something like that.
Kaopsis 3 months ago
@rokcid I think the real intellectual arrogance here is someone parading around with no appropriate credentials saying everyone who DOES have the appropriate credentials is wrong "because my bible says so". If you find that backwards then that is indeed a little worrisome. I see you ignored everything in my previous post anyway, but changed the subject. So with that, I bid you good day, sir.
Faustaao 3 months ago
@rokcid It is your emotional opinion that evolution "falls into a supernatural category" because you choose to ignore real science and instead listen to people like Ian who make "fun" user-friendly videos full of lies. Tell me, regarding "all the scientists" that believe in creationism.. have you not heard of Project Steve?
And yes, you did say that Mr. Dawkins' attitude "refutes" evolution on its own. Do I really have to quote your own post?
Faustaao 3 months ago
@rokcid Please explain how science falls into a religious category.
I don't see why you felt the need to bring up Dawkins when there are many, many credible scientists who reject creationism. "On a real date"? The man is married. What are you trying to imply?
Arrogance or not does not "prove" or "disprove" anything. That's a very silly statement. Would you like to acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of scientists that reject creationism that AREN'T in the spotlight or have "bad" attitudes?
Faustaao 3 months ago
@rokcid Yes religion is anti-science. And if you look up the definition of religion, it won't fail to mention a higher power (supernatural).
Faustaao 3 months ago
"Skeptics keep asking about my lack of credentials- but that has nothing to do with whether I'm right or not."
Uh.. hahahaha. It pains me to even comment on this. You have your bible thumping creationist followers on youtube who believe every word you say because you make "fun presentations" in your videos, but if you were to sit down and have a debate about all your anti-science claims with accredited scientists, you'd be laughed out of the building.
Faustaao 7 months ago
This is WAAAYYYY over the evo's heads!
cathy356 1 year ago
Ian, you're a funny guy, love your videos, God Bless you and can't wait to see more :)
NateWardawg 1 year ago
@Coryscott.... Facepalm*
XxWallZzxXZ 1 year ago
Lol, nice Chris Farley reference! :P
Bristecom 1 year ago
2:51 sigh such an old argument.
What do you think the mind is made up of that is analysing this information.
To an alien being from zergon this WOULD be meaningless information.
For all you know the previous arrangement would be more sensical.
Someone's just not awake enough to realise that all these arguements are simply strawmen. Seriously the phone number can be an example of information growth if the owner changed their name like this.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
He just seems to insult the people asking questions, and then go on to give a really bad non-answer. Then, after more bad jokes and pantomime, he asks people to subscribe. To what? In words he could understand: Subscribing to this channel (or watching more of this garbage) would actually remove information already firmly established.
In Canada, this guy is known as a religious nut who travels around selling his snake oil. We laugh at him. He is a joke. He is ignored. He's a failure.
Coryscott5 1 year ago
@Coryscott5
nice ad hominem argumentation
(haven't started school yet just my favorite word: AD HOMINEM)
IAreTheKingOfAll 1 year ago
@IAreTheKingOfAll Actually, I laid out an argument against the video's contents first, and THEN informed the laymen among us about who this person is. A little "pro tip", if you will. So, back to school for you -- you aren't sure how to use your "favorite word" yet.
Coryscott5 1 year ago
Youtube need more guys like this!!!!
paraglidermx 1 year ago
It amazes me that perfectly intelligent people can believe that these systems came about by chance, you have more blind faith then I'm willing to give. Amen to that, couldn't agree more. My biggest amazement is that apparently self replicating organisms, "decided" they would split into two sexes, go seperate ways for a few million years until both reproductive sytems were complete then start mating as male and female, all this by CHANCE mutations. It gets worse, people actually believe this.
ian9toes 1 year ago
this has to be the funniest video ive seen. good job wazoolo
Gods0n1 1 year ago
I love you, Bro!
paulhumber 2 years ago
Your a brilliant person, 5 stars bro, wish i could give ya 20 of them! : )
Serge1965 2 years ago
Haha! Love this guy!
How can supposedly intelligent people refute the "Information, Loss of Information" argument? Duh!
Oh, if only I were a man of faith, I'd become a evolutionist today and deride you pathetic, ignorant creationists ... NOT!
Keep a' going, Ian .... You're comin' thru loud and clear, and we Truth-seekers love ya for it!
JoeJohnstonMail 2 years ago
By that I think you mean if you had a minor understanding of science in general
GetPoints2Shop 2 years ago
"How can supposedly intelligent people refute the "Information, Loss of Information" argument?"
Especially when the people making the claim of 'no new information' flatout refuse to give an example of what would constitute 'new information'
so 'There is no evidence for new information' becomes 'There is no evidence that I will accept for new information'
OperationOperafox 2 years ago 2
You still haven't answered my question.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
"skeptics ask me about my credentials" In your last rant, half your 'point' was that some people have no authority to declare bad design in a living system. The science has already been answered, evolution is a fact, completely independent of fundamentalists understanding of it
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
what's the best fossil evidence for evolution?
qwuad61 2 years ago
That's a broad question, is there any transition specifically you were looking for?
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
Who said the formed by completely unrelated processes? Its called modular evolution, the change of structure thats already there. Once you build a house of cards (which is not a living structure and not subject to mutation before you go off onto 'but its intelligently designed), it's irreducibly complex, of course it wasn't always that way. Who is claiming they came about by chance? I'll refute them too. An actual understanding of biology != blind faith
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
if evolution starts with a big bang,my question is were did the material come from to supply the bang in other words how do we get something from nothing with no help from anything.
qwuad61 2 years ago
Evolution didn't start with the big bang, evolution didn't start till some 10 billion years after the big bang. The big bang doesn't say that everything came from nothing, either, it traces the expansion of our current universe back to a singularity and with current knowledge and technology we can go no further back.
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
so were did all the material come from to start the bang?
qwuad61 2 years ago
That's begging the question.
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
So you don't have an answer :-)
qwuad61 2 years ago
No, that means you assume it's a question that has an answer, that it 'came from' anywhere, that it ever didn't exist.
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
Once again you change the subject by misunderstanding endonuclease, it is beneficial but not entirely necessary, and its misleading to call endo/exo 'robots' they're simply site specific bond cleaving enzymes. Except they're NOT codependent, every example of irreducible complexity thus far has been debunked, some flagella are missing the L and P rings altogether, puffer fish are missing 'vital' parts of the blood clotting cascade, practically every stage of the eye is found in mollusks.
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
"Has yet to produce one example of an increase in information" First, you refuse to give an example of what you consider an increase in information, second: /watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk < the observed addition of over 2300 bits of information to a genome "skeptics are dodging the question" this coming from a guy, when asked what he would consider an increase in information, resorted to a hybrid strawman of evolution/abiogenesis
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
Yes, if you add letters you add information whether or not the information is meaningful in your personal interpretation. "We lose information we already had' the point you MISSED in rant 35 was that the original information was retained in one of the copies of the gene (phonebook) Once again, gene expression is not dependent on human interpretation to express functional traits.
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
That's not helped by the fact that you had no point in rant 35. Yes the letters contain information, they have distinguishing characteristics. What changed? The order of the inanimate letters which are not subject to mutation or replication changed, also, the english alphabet was derived out of our convenience and depends on us to form and convey messages, genetic material has no such dependence.
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
jokes aka red herring.
Asking what you would consider a gain in information is dodging the supposed problem of you claiming that evolution can't increase information? The only dodge here is you strawmanning evolution, evolution says nothing anywhere about information coming from nowhere. Yes, since you're the one making the claim that evolution never increases information, I want you to give an example of an increase in information.
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
Not a bad video but your credentials argument is a false one. True a person could learn on their own many things. They are called autodidacts. Ben Franklin was one as well as Bill gates. But would you trust a self taught heart surgeon to do a transplant on your child or would you want one that went to medical school and s a licensed surgeon?
I will take the word of a biology professor over a self taught person with a personal agenda every single time.
tinylittlegnat2 2 years ago
The great thing is you don't have to take the biology professors word, nowadays a lot of predictions about evolution are testable by the lay person, IE chromosome 2. Tested and confirmed thousands of times.
OperationOperafox 2 years ago
And you believe those books because the knowledge in them was tested repeatedly over and over and proven to be true. If you had another science book that said that the world was flat and had 4 corners it would give you reason to test, and discredit the assumption and then the rest of the book.
The fact is the bible said the world is flat on more than one part. It isnt a science book its a religious text that is outdated. Its fine for picking and choosing morals but not science.
tinylittlegnat2 2 years ago
good video !
krisv001 2 years ago
excellent as always
tls1697 2 years ago
¡uɐı oǝpıʌ ǝɯosǝʍɐ
BLUCOPPER123 2 years ago
haha you're great wazooloo. Absolutely love your videos
KingKumaForever 2 years ago
Thank you Ian, lol.
athlete117 2 years ago
Comment removed
athlete117 2 years ago
Good video. You show both sound arguments and creative abilities in film making.
RonningMan 2 years ago
you make the best videos ever...
gmanmp1821 2 years ago
Great rant wazooloo 5 stars and added to favorite's.
meanmopar426 2 years ago
Loved the video, Ian! I've granted you you're favour and subscribed haha.
mossfest 2 years ago
For some reason its not working for me . . .
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago