ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL LAWS CAN EXPLAIN how an airplane works or how a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It only "selects" from what is produced and it only operates once there is life, not before. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species survives (is "selected"). That's all it is! Don't worship it! Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO SAY we're here by chance and macro-evolution, are expressing faith not science (science is based on what is observed). Creationists also are expressing faith. The issue is which faith is better supported by science. Science, so far, shows life can't happen by chance and only limited evolution is possible in life. Read my popular Internet articles HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
I'VE GIVEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before science faculty and students at various secular colleges. At the end, I opened up for comments, questions, rebuttals. Very few of the evolutionist science faculty criticized what I had to say, and, when they did, I successfully refuted them. They knew enough science to realize that what I was saying was true. Dawkins is playing on the scientific ignorance of the masses! Read my Internet article in Pravda: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of both transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
You homosexuals are all alike. Instead of presenting actual evidence you simply use ad hominem attacks. The total lack of evidence for your religion of evolution forces you to do this. Wake-up you simple evolutards. Repent and stand like men. Don't be such cowards in this war between God and Satan. Remember if you are against God then you are a loser.
Haha, okay I tried my best to try to understand wat u were saying and well I think I might understand wat Ur trying to say. Okay, now at no point in Ur Vid do u actually refute this with any proof, all u actually do is say that we don't know what were talking about and cuss alot to add sentence length so that the ignorant person will think you are smart. Yes, there are more than one trilobite eyes, I think we all know that because there is more than one trilobite fossils, and since u are confus
@snowleopard2539 ed i will try to explain this to you, by complex we mean like a computer is more complex than a watch (And i do not mean as that specific ratio of complexity) for more go to my channel, rate and subscribe, then go to the link in ay one of my vids. :)
I think that creationists count compound eyes as being more complex than regular eyes. And if an eye uses 2 rigid lenses to focus light, instead of 1 lens that can change shape, they consider the 2 lens eye more complex.
@Heathenfidel ; That's a good point: just how =DO= Creationists determine what type of eye is more complex than others?! Beats me! As far as I know there is no metric except "Because I believe it."
Back in the 70's I heard noted creationist Henry Morris make that claim at a talk he gave in Albuquerque. I think Morris is long dead, but he was the father of 'Flood Geology', and wrote a book with Whitcomb called 'The Genesis Flood' that you can probably still find in a Christian bookstore near you.
you have effectively communicated the general feeling of exasperation experienced by many regarding the religious truth blockers.
Religions have to distort evidence then tell the big lie in order to achieve the objective of control through propaganda and persuading the masses to accept the void of ignorance. Religion then attempts to fill the void to gain political control. Bottom line, get the other guy to do the grunt work while you sit in the comfy temple of OMGWTF whatever fairytale.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Desert paedophile at is assinine best, its a pity he cant even put one sentence together without resorting to the most vile profanities. This of course is what normal people are on about when we say that atheism leads to the loss of all morals, god given or not. Desert paedophile is your typical darwinian evolutionary, instead of giving rational scientific evidence he just says evolution is a fact . He needs to read more on this subject b4 ranting on, anyhow, amen brothers and comrades, phew
@gregelliselizabethno You're right. Logic and reason with some profanities mixed in can't possibly have any clout or credibility. As where circular non-logic with ad hominin remarks slathered in arrogant retoric is by definition the ultimate truth.
Actually, you will find that his use of profanities is a direct result of continual exposure to the inanities of creationists. The English language is a beautiful thing and DP does an excellent job of selecting the words that most suit the situation he is addressing. No other words will do when dealing with stupidity so immense that it generates its own gravitational field,.
LOL!!! Desert uses wikipedia for his sources in the info? HAHAHAHA!! Way to use peer reviewed papers to back yourself up! Wikipedia is like quoting a grade school book for a source. Welcome to the super genius that is DesertPhile.
No you not. Wikipedia is a pretty accurate source for info and they do have sources at the bottom of the page you can look up and judge for yourself. Occasionally they get stuff wrong, and trolls sometimes come on post misleading info but the majority of the science stuff at least it pretty spit on.
It's obvious you haven't actually been involved in any real debates. When debating on actual scientific premise you quote actual peer reviewed articles for your references. Wiki is not peer reviewed evidence and isn't a reliable source. Someday when you're older you'll realize how this all really works.
can i ask, and i don't mean this to sound like i am being an arshole, but you sound more interested in science and reason than your avarage creationist. could you cite one piece of peer reviewed creationist or ID literature, on anything anywhere or even point to one that was submited and turned down
No problem and a fair question. There is, to my knowledge, no printed peer reviewed papers from creationists. I do know that Stephen Meyer wrote a paper and it had been peer reviewed and approved but when other scientists found out it involved 'intelligent design' it was immediately thrown out even though it had already been approved. Stephen used in his paper the exact same scientific model as was used by Darwin but when it was discovered it pertained to ID they said it couldn't be printed.
Meyer "peer reviewed" his own paper,: redefining what "peer review" means. He then by-passed editorial review and had his paper printed before the magazine editors read it. Nobody except him approved it, and it was not "thrown out."
Well that's not how I heard it happened. I read that he sent if off for peer review, it was sent back to him with revisions, he made the suggested revisions and sent it for publication, some other scientists caught wind of it and had it thrown out because it wasn't based off of materialistic evolution. Do you have the article on where he approved it himself? That'd be interesting to read actually.
WoW! 42 separate wild historical accidents that just happened to create eyes. Boy am I glad you cleared that up. I thought you and Richard would be at a loss to tell us how eyes came about. Good thing you read "Climbing Mount Improbable" Now we know that they came about by accident 42 different times. Those silly creationists why don't they just read good science books like those by Richard Dawkins.
Hey how about a sailing video. Ya know, something you actually know about.
I'm thinking of putting 'gravity' on a t-shirt with your picture below it. I don't know if it will be your face, or of you kneeling in the oven.
That way I can walk around wearing it and every once in awhile a person will seek to catch my eye. He/She will glance down (hopefully she) and acknowledge my t-shirt with a hint of a smile and the slightest of approving nods as we pass. We will then part ways joyfully knowing that there are at least two people on that street aware of your awesomeness.
Swearing is a natural part of the english language used in emphasis and incident, and nothing alieviates frustration better than a good "Flip!" "Fiddlesticks!" or "Fairycakes!"
Youtube is an open forum.
Freedom of speech is goshdarned awesome, so take your opinion on cursewords and insert it into your winky eye blunt end first you brown eye spelunker.
Good Rant on eyes/Feathers DP, you make valid points. One of the comment mistakes that Creationists make, is that they seem to believe evolution results in more and more complex critters and that is simply not true. Planarians, a simple worm, have simple eyes, and they have been around a long time; on the other hand most plants are more complex than we are, if you consider their genome, and they don't have any eyes at all. The Kiwi, a flightless Bird, has simple feathers, and it's still around.
I think that cultists believe that evolution is always toward more complexity is because the stupid fucks think that humans are at the "top of the ladder," they think that humans are some how vastly superior ("of a higher order") than any other species. Ergo the stupid fucks think they're the culmination of evolution -- which they warp in to Creationist fantasy, sublamenting the fact of evolution (which they *know* happens) with their deity construct mythologies.
@NotSoOldHippy, you are right, they believe the universe revolves around them, and that everything else is disposable in some fashion. It irritates the living heck out of me, that use just enough science to look stupid, and yet have no clue what the hell they are talking about. They condemn science, and yet use it for a number of comforts. I have more respect for the Amish. Our Genome carries just about the same amount of information as does a chicken. And they eat their own shit.
The fundamental problem is that creationists do not recognize the non-anthropomorphic nature of reality. Reality, to them, has an anthropomorphic intelligence guiding it called their "god" therefore all things must have a "purpose" as well as imposing other purely human concepts upon reality. The ever present all consuming insistence in a divine creator precludes any other interpretation of reality than one caused and driven by human concepts, passions, and actions. It's like a mind virus.
Hell, if cultists need a "purpose" to existance, they look at those around them who do not have deity constructs and they feel *embarrassed* about having to contrive elaborate fantasy to cope with life while the rest of us do not.
I think that a lot of the religious hate and crimes against normal people are because cultists hate us for not needing fantasy to cope.
That sounds like "They hate us for our freedoms." As a former cultist myself I can tell you that if that thought is in their minds it is very well submerged. Actually, they don't think you're 'coping' at all. They "hate" because they are told to "hate" non-belief and all its ilk. And as I said, because they view all things through the lens of an anthropomorphic creator-god fantasy in which the supreme being is driven by base human emotion, jealousy, hatred, and self aggrandizement.
What theists believe of think is a mystery to me (I've never been one), but I don't think it is "jealousy of freedom" that causes so many theists to loathe atheists: it appears to be a seething resentment against atheists because atheists live moral, ethical, and fulfilled lives without belief in gods--- something a disturbingly high number of theists say they cannot do.
As a former theist who hobnobbed with other theists for decades I think I can safely tell you it isn't that either. You see, they don't SEE anyone else living moral, ethical, and fulfilled lives because they don't BELIEVE that it can happen. They believe every human being is BROKEN and must be repaired through faith ...their brand of faith. Things like facts and evidence don't play into it. It is all based on unreasonable beliefs about how the world works. They hate what they think god hates.
Yes. It goes without saying its pretty complicated. It has to do more with being willing to honest with oneself than anything. Or so it was in my experience. Your mileage may vary.
Good Vid, but don't get too worked up over their nonsense, I'd hate for you to give yourself an aneurysm making a reply to someone that's probably not even gonna understand your point
I certainly understand your frustration. The Experts continue to parade evidence for evolution before them, while the uneducated stand on the sidelines and throw stones
I had an exchange in comments with someone regarding feathers recently, I even took the trouble to look up a journal reference to quote at them.
Only to discover that I had not spotted the use of the word 'not' in their previous comment, thus I was agreeing with them when I thought I was criticizing..
You are getting lasanga? Wow cool. I want some too save some okay?
Research and understanding seem to go beyond the scope of creationists. Even when it comes to their own position. That is why the still use the same spoon fed arguments.
Creationist are people spoon fed their bullshit. No thoughts of their own still using arguments that were debunked over decades ago.
"The eye is more complex than most modern day eyes."
Yeah, even if that was true, so what?
As a kid I was in love with Rube Goldberg machines... Those machines are INCREDIBLY complicated, and often rely on every single piece working in frustrating unison with each other...
Which is better, my alarm clock, or the rube goldberg machine (which often requires an alarm clock...).
Complicated systems don't equate instantly into being hard to create. The Rube Goldberg machine is, while frustrating, fairly easy to make.
So even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and claim that their eyes WERE more complex, it's a moot point. Often the more "sophisticated", the more "simple" it seems.
I'm pretty bloody fucking sure that most bloody fucking creationists wouldn't bloody fucking know if they had the bloody fucking Empire State Building up their bloody fucking arses until the bloody fucking window cleaners arrived.
lmao.....its almost impossible not to talk SLOW AND LOUD when refering to these people. its like trying to give directions to a mongolian with down syndrome.
Damn it Desertphile, few people here on YouTube treat creationist assclown fucktard wanker morons with the deserved disdain as you do. I just wish you would not make excuses for some of them claiming them to be mentally ill to spare them from your wrath.
Which came first? The feather or the duster? You know that athiest scientists made all those "fossils" and put them out there for others to find. Carbon dating is also a fraud put out by athiest scientists and evil doers.
That makes sense. In the absence of gravity, David grew downwards from his hat. When he had reached the level of "too complex to be caused", gravity came into being - because that is his nature.
Greetings! One of the oldest known fossils of protofeathers has traces of keratin, which is pretty darn amazing; most fossilized feathers and protofeathers are mere impressions, but they are still classifies as "fossils" (the same with feet prints).
i dont think you said fuck enough
aarontheman9196 5 months ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 6 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 6 months ago
NATURAL LAWS CAN EXPLAIN how an airplane works or how a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It only "selects" from what is produced and it only operates once there is life, not before. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species survives (is "selected"). That's all it is! Don't worship it! Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO SAY we're here by chance and macro-evolution, are expressing faith not science (science is based on what is observed). Creationists also are expressing faith. The issue is which faith is better supported by science. Science, so far, shows life can't happen by chance and only limited evolution is possible in life. Read my popular Internet articles HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
I'VE GIVEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before science faculty and students at various secular colleges. At the end, I opened up for comments, questions, rebuttals. Very few of the evolutionist science faculty criticized what I had to say, and, when they did, I successfully refuted them. They knew enough science to realize that what I was saying was true. Dawkins is playing on the scientific ignorance of the masses! Read my Internet article in Pravda: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of both transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
You homosexuals are all alike. Instead of presenting actual evidence you simply use ad hominem attacks. The total lack of evidence for your religion of evolution forces you to do this. Wake-up you simple evolutards. Repent and stand like men. Don't be such cowards in this war between God and Satan. Remember if you are against God then you are a loser.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick ; Keep your homosexual fantasies off my channel.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@thechessstick uneducated twat!
TheF86Sabre 6 months ago
Haha, okay I tried my best to try to understand wat u were saying and well I think I might understand wat Ur trying to say. Okay, now at no point in Ur Vid do u actually refute this with any proof, all u actually do is say that we don't know what were talking about and cuss alot to add sentence length so that the ignorant person will think you are smart. Yes, there are more than one trilobite eyes, I think we all know that because there is more than one trilobite fossils, and since u are confus
snowleopard2539 1 year ago
@snowleopard2539 ed i will try to explain this to you, by complex we mean like a computer is more complex than a watch (And i do not mean as that specific ratio of complexity) for more go to my channel, rate and subscribe, then go to the link in ay one of my vids. :)
snowleopard2539 1 year ago
I think that creationists count compound eyes as being more complex than regular eyes. And if an eye uses 2 rigid lenses to focus light, instead of 1 lens that can change shape, they consider the 2 lens eye more complex.
:-D
Heathenfidel 1 year ago
@Heathenfidel ; That's a good point: just how =DO= Creationists determine what type of eye is more complex than others?! Beats me! As far as I know there is no metric except "Because I believe it."
Desertphile 1 year ago
Come on, tell us what you REALLY think of 'a01011399'.
gregrutz 1 year ago
"What scientist says that trilobites have more complex eyes?"
I can answer that for you. His name is Henry Morris. Read 'The Genesis Flood'
HeIsSailing 2 years ago
What scientist says that trilobites have more complex eyes?
Desertphile 2 years ago 3
I was being snarky and sarcastic.
Back in the 70's I heard noted creationist Henry Morris make that claim at a talk he gave in Albuquerque. I think Morris is long dead, but he was the father of 'Flood Geology', and wrote a book with Whitcomb called 'The Genesis Flood' that you can probably still find in a Christian bookstore near you.
HeIsSailing 2 years ago
you have effectively communicated the general feeling of exasperation experienced by many regarding the religious truth blockers.
Religions have to distort evidence then tell the big lie in order to achieve the objective of control through propaganda and persuading the masses to accept the void of ignorance. Religion then attempts to fill the void to gain political control. Bottom line, get the other guy to do the grunt work while you sit in the comfy temple of OMGWTF whatever fairytale.
Xid3d 2 years ago 5
Oh my god! I had to put my coffee down. I'm not watching any more of your videos first thing in the morning. You're so right!
You got a new sub.
salerio61 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Desert paedophile at is assinine best, its a pity he cant even put one sentence together without resorting to the most vile profanities. This of course is what normal people are on about when we say that atheism leads to the loss of all morals, god given or not. Desert paedophile is your typical darwinian evolutionary, instead of giving rational scientific evidence he just says evolution is a fact . He needs to read more on this subject b4 ranting on, anyhow, amen brothers and comrades, phew
gregelliselizabethno 2 years ago
@gregelliselizabethno Fuck.
SmoothInstigator 2 years ago
@gregelliselizabethno:
Fucking close your account immediately, you fucking fuck!
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
@gregelliselizabethno
Gtfo troll.
Ebrainiac1 2 years ago
@gregelliselizabethno You're right. Logic and reason with some profanities mixed in can't possibly have any clout or credibility. As where circular non-logic with ad hominin remarks slathered in arrogant retoric is by definition the ultimate truth.
SmoothInstigator 2 years ago
Actually, you will find that his use of profanities is a direct result of continual exposure to the inanities of creationists. The English language is a beautiful thing and DP does an excellent job of selecting the words that most suit the situation he is addressing. No other words will do when dealing with stupidity so immense that it generates its own gravitational field,.
TheLivingDinosaur 2 years ago
Keep your homosexual fantasies off my channel.
Desertphile 2 years ago
@gregelliselizabethno Your biggest argument is his presentation?
SeriousPsyche 1 year ago
Hahahahah. 1:20 - 1:30 Had me laughing XD
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
*takes about 5 hours.*
ALL THE SCIENTISTS MUST BE WRONG!!!!1111
Is that gravity logo thing on a shirt? I'd love to have one of those.
Herufaia 2 years ago 2
LOL!!! Desert uses wikipedia for his sources in the info? HAHAHAHA!! Way to use peer reviewed papers to back yourself up! Wikipedia is like quoting a grade school book for a source. Welcome to the super genius that is DesertPhile.
Equestions 2 years ago
UR LEIK SO RIGHT!!! LOLOLOLOL-
No you not. Wikipedia is a pretty accurate source for info and they do have sources at the bottom of the page you can look up and judge for yourself. Occasionally they get stuff wrong, and trolls sometimes come on post misleading info but the majority of the science stuff at least it pretty spit on.
Herufaia 2 years ago 2
It's obvious you haven't actually been involved in any real debates. When debating on actual scientific premise you quote actual peer reviewed articles for your references. Wiki is not peer reviewed evidence and isn't a reliable source. Someday when you're older you'll realize how this all really works.
Equestions 2 years ago
can i ask, and i don't mean this to sound like i am being an arshole, but you sound more interested in science and reason than your avarage creationist. could you cite one piece of peer reviewed creationist or ID literature, on anything anywhere or even point to one that was submited and turned down
mylkTV 2 years ago 2
No problem and a fair question. There is, to my knowledge, no printed peer reviewed papers from creationists. I do know that Stephen Meyer wrote a paper and it had been peer reviewed and approved but when other scientists found out it involved 'intelligent design' it was immediately thrown out even though it had already been approved. Stephen used in his paper the exact same scientific model as was used by Darwin but when it was discovered it pertained to ID they said it couldn't be printed.
Equestions 2 years ago
Meyer "peer reviewed" his own paper,: redefining what "peer review" means. He then by-passed editorial review and had his paper printed before the magazine editors read it. Nobody except him approved it, and it was not "thrown out."
Desertphile 2 years ago
Well that's not how I heard it happened. I read that he sent if off for peer review, it was sent back to him with revisions, he made the suggested revisions and sent it for publication, some other scientists caught wind of it and had it thrown out because it wasn't based off of materialistic evolution. Do you have the article on where he approved it himself? That'd be interesting to read actually.
Equestions 2 years ago
I never thought about it that way "Humans say what the bloody fuck a feather is." I gotta remember that.
ianmathwiz7 2 years ago
That lady had a cross around her neck LOL!
luc59457 2 years ago
needed a few more "fucks" in there.
Love the response though!
Even more, I love the drawing of you! Who did it?
KingHeathen 2 years ago
My answer to the title of this video : why would you want or need to?
Refuting requires logic and they creationists don't use it, so you can't win through debate.
Adenoseine 2 years ago
Hi David. That's fascinating about the 42 different emergences of the "eye". Tom
NeoPsiTom 2 years ago
Hi David. That's fascinating about the 42 different independent emergences of the "eye". Cool! Thank you. Tom
NeoPsiTom 2 years ago
Wow, your videos are unwatchable.
RaelXavier 2 years ago
WoW! 42 separate wild historical accidents that just happened to create eyes. Boy am I glad you cleared that up. I thought you and Richard would be at a loss to tell us how eyes came about. Good thing you read "Climbing Mount Improbable" Now we know that they came about by accident 42 different times. Those silly creationists why don't they just read good science books like those by Richard Dawkins.
Hey how about a sailing video. Ya know, something you actually know about.
mejc2 2 years ago
Who says that the eye came about by accident?
ozmoroid 2 years ago
Creationists are lacking a proper education.
amorphousguy 2 years ago
Sam Kinnison and George Carlin's ghosts come together to create the most awesome reply vid ever.
Wesleyfromindy2 2 years ago
"150145 million years ago"
We have a fossil record from 150 billion years ago? O.o
ssnatcherss 2 years ago
You tube dropped the dash. It does the same with commas and the like.
themadhair 2 years ago
Well, desertphile, you seem to be feeling better, eh? Back to your old self 100%?
rockethead7 2 years ago
your great desertphile, but i think you are getting angrier at the cultists, thats also fine but dont hurt yourself over it.
errskin 2 years ago
I'm thinking of putting 'gravity' on a t-shirt with your picture below it. I don't know if it will be your face, or of you kneeling in the oven.
That way I can walk around wearing it and every once in awhile a person will seek to catch my eye. He/She will glance down (hopefully she) and acknowledge my t-shirt with a hint of a smile and the slightest of approving nods as we pass. We will then part ways joyfully knowing that there are at least two people on that street aware of your awesomeness.
KarlHeinzofWpg 2 years ago
By any chance, are you printing T-shirts with that portrait?
krebul 2 years ago
"I have lasagna in the oven and I can hardly wait to get to it!" The best part!
But you do have valid arguments. =p
LeksServices 2 years ago
Could you please refrain from using curse words on youtube
mariocaric 2 years ago
@mariocaric fuck no.
RHYMEMAIDEN1 2 years ago
@mariocaric
Swearing is a natural part of the english language used in emphasis and incident, and nothing alieviates frustration better than a good "Flip!" "Fiddlesticks!" or "Fairycakes!"
Youtube is an open forum.
Freedom of speech is goshdarned awesome, so take your opinion on cursewords and insert it into your winky eye blunt end first you brown eye spelunker.
;-)
spifflication 2 years ago
@spifflication
And furthermore, as I often ask, why waste expensive words on cheap people?
geffel 2 years ago
Should I not feed the troll?
spifflication 2 years ago
@spifflication
Oh yes, of course.
geffel 2 years ago
You're probably right. Starve troll starve!
spifflication 2 years ago
From the point of view of priests, there's no money in evolution.
4sineweaver2 2 years ago
I'd buy a t-shirt with that Gravity portrait on it!
DonJohnMWBD 2 years ago
Your Videos Are Never Boring...!
spaceman300 2 years ago
The assclownery never ends.
Seccanzz 2 years ago
Fossilise Fossil eyes
How would that happen?
Epis win as always
paulchartley 2 years ago
the oldest baby, the youngest toddler :) where is the line?
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
ThEEEEE! GRAVITY!
Seidenfuerst 2 years ago
I hope you feel better after getting that out? :)
Epitome613 2 years ago 2
I'd buy a GRAVITY!!! T-shirt.
chrisuzwhite 2 years ago
@chrisuzwhite ME TOO!
loek555 2 years ago
GRAVITYYY!
mvalldar 2 years ago
Good Rant on eyes/Feathers DP, you make valid points. One of the comment mistakes that Creationists make, is that they seem to believe evolution results in more and more complex critters and that is simply not true. Planarians, a simple worm, have simple eyes, and they have been around a long time; on the other hand most plants are more complex than we are, if you consider their genome, and they don't have any eyes at all. The Kiwi, a flightless Bird, has simple feathers, and it's still around.
jupy921 2 years ago
Not comment, common
jupy921 2 years ago
I think that cultists believe that evolution is always toward more complexity is because the stupid fucks think that humans are at the "top of the ladder," they think that humans are some how vastly superior ("of a higher order") than any other species. Ergo the stupid fucks think they're the culmination of evolution -- which they warp in to Creationist fantasy, sublamenting the fact of evolution (which they *know* happens) with their deity construct mythologies.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago 2
@NotSoOldHippy, you are right, they believe the universe revolves around them, and that everything else is disposable in some fashion. It irritates the living heck out of me, that use just enough science to look stupid, and yet have no clue what the hell they are talking about. They condemn science, and yet use it for a number of comforts. I have more respect for the Amish. Our Genome carries just about the same amount of information as does a chicken. And they eat their own shit.
jupy921 2 years ago 2
The fundamental problem is that creationists do not recognize the non-anthropomorphic nature of reality. Reality, to them, has an anthropomorphic intelligence guiding it called their "god" therefore all things must have a "purpose" as well as imposing other purely human concepts upon reality. The ever present all consuming insistence in a divine creator precludes any other interpretation of reality than one caused and driven by human concepts, passions, and actions. It's like a mind virus.
EartherZero 2 years ago 3
Hell, if cultists need a "purpose" to existance, they look at those around them who do not have deity constructs and they feel *embarrassed* about having to contrive elaborate fantasy to cope with life while the rest of us do not.
I think that a lot of the religious hate and crimes against normal people are because cultists hate us for not needing fantasy to cope.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
That sounds like "They hate us for our freedoms." As a former cultist myself I can tell you that if that thought is in their minds it is very well submerged. Actually, they don't think you're 'coping' at all. They "hate" because they are told to "hate" non-belief and all its ilk. And as I said, because they view all things through the lens of an anthropomorphic creator-god fantasy in which the supreme being is driven by base human emotion, jealousy, hatred, and self aggrandizement.
EartherZero 2 years ago
What theists believe of think is a mystery to me (I've never been one), but I don't think it is "jealousy of freedom" that causes so many theists to loathe atheists: it appears to be a seething resentment against atheists because atheists live moral, ethical, and fulfilled lives without belief in gods--- something a disturbingly high number of theists say they cannot do.
Desertphile 2 years ago
As a former theist who hobnobbed with other theists for decades I think I can safely tell you it isn't that either. You see, they don't SEE anyone else living moral, ethical, and fulfilled lives because they don't BELIEVE that it can happen. They believe every human being is BROKEN and must be repaired through faith ...their brand of faith. Things like facts and evidence don't play into it. It is all based on unreasonable beliefs about how the world works. They hate what they think god hates.
EartherZero 2 years ago 2
Dead On!!! Best Comment Ever...FTW!!!
KrudRepublc 2 years ago
How did you escape faith? Did it take a long time?
phaexus 2 years ago
Yes. It goes without saying its pretty complicated. It has to do more with being willing to honest with oneself than anything. Or so it was in my experience. Your mileage may vary.
EartherZero 2 years ago
LOL. "Your mileage may vary". I like that. Very amusing, and thanks for your insights.
TheLivingDinosaur 2 years ago
Good Vid, but don't get too worked up over their nonsense, I'd hate for you to give yourself an aneurysm making a reply to someone that's probably not even gonna understand your point
gpitts9261 2 years ago
We see "eye" to "eye" on this one!
wffarrell 2 years ago
Feathernes in nature, hahaha.
ExistentiallyAtheist 2 years ago
The hubris and stupidity of the sub-species homo creationist never ceases to amaze me!
157626 2 years ago 2
dude you crack me up every time, i hope the lasagna was good
latterdayhertic 2 years ago
The lasagna was awesome, and I wish I could have shared it with everyone. I added cauliflower and broccoli.
Desertphile 2 years ago
@Desertphile Once of the best lagana I ever had was prepared with venison.
RHYMEMAIDEN1 2 years ago
Lasagne... great choice, I gonna bake me one, too.
tmafkap 2 years ago
ROTFL! You are one of a kind, sir!
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago 2
I certainly understand your frustration. The Experts continue to parade evidence for evolution before them, while the uneducated stand on the sidelines and throw stones
toelesshoe 2 years ago
'boreeeeeing'!
bonangusacdc 2 years ago
I would purchase that GRAVITY drawing.
Ebrainiac1 2 years ago 2
I had lasagne las night mmm.
Daiblix 2 years ago
Shakira's booty FTW.
Entiox 2 years ago
Good to see another vid from you again!
Hope you had a happy new year, my strange desert dwelling friend!
lowcomedy 2 years ago
Jeez, Desertphile, you shouldn't hold back so much. Why don't you tell us how you really feel?
george1001001 2 years ago
a lot of "fucking" in the video :))) lol
Tolrias 2 years ago
its B) false , the square root of 9 is +3 or -3
tekhiun 2 years ago 2
now I remember why I subscribed to you, good to see you back on form.
giuliano170 2 years ago
You seem a little more irritable in this video than most of your others.
Mattrix0 2 years ago
"I have lasagna in the oven" made me want to rate this video higher than a 5.
MortalTodd 2 years ago
I had an exchange in comments with someone regarding feathers recently, I even took the trouble to look up a journal reference to quote at them.
Only to discover that I had not spotted the use of the word 'not' in their previous comment, thus I was agreeing with them when I thought I was criticizing..
I went back to sleep after that.
marsCubed 2 years ago
Q: What did god say after he created The Trilobite Eye?
A: What the FUCK are YOU looking at?!?
badaboom chhhhh...
Thank you, thank you very much.
methinxaweezil 2 years ago 3
ROFL! The gads always seem to hate their own creations. Kind of the Frankenstein Monster Syndrome thing.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
True, I imagine even Kent Hovind hates VenomFangX. : )
methinxaweezil 2 years ago
DP goes from gravity.. too....
COMPLEXITY?? CAN YOU DEFINE COMPLEXITY???!! WHY DO WE ALWAYS HEAR ABOUT COMPLEXITY!?!?
C O M P L E X I T Y !! ! !! !
Paxmax 2 years ago
You are getting lasanga? Wow cool. I want some too save some okay?
Research and understanding seem to go beyond the scope of creationists. Even when it comes to their own position. That is why the still use the same spoon fed arguments.
Creationist are people spoon fed their bullshit. No thoughts of their own still using arguments that were debunked over decades ago.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
LOL. Did you see how red your face got ?
You're gonna end up back in hospital again, and we don't want that !
Thanks for the entertainment just the same.
z1zaz 2 years ago
Your videos are NEAT.
Cathartic, even.
I should call people stupid like this in MY videos a little more; until I do, yours are a delight to me. :)
BionicDance 2 years ago
It´s not good for your health when you put to many restrictions on yourself. Just let it out and you´ll feel much better.
nekedemus 2 years ago 2
"The eye is more complex than most modern day eyes."
Yeah, even if that was true, so what?
As a kid I was in love with Rube Goldberg machines... Those machines are INCREDIBLY complicated, and often rely on every single piece working in frustrating unison with each other...
Which is better, my alarm clock, or the rube goldberg machine (which often requires an alarm clock...).
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Complicated systems don't equate instantly into being hard to create. The Rube Goldberg machine is, while frustrating, fairly easy to make.
So even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and claim that their eyes WERE more complex, it's a moot point. Often the more "sophisticated", the more "simple" it seems.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Wow, 32 fucks in one video. DP, you should be careful man, you're going to give yourself a fucking heart attack one of these days.
TheOmniNerd 2 years ago
It seems DP has fully recovered from his recent illness and has returned stronger than ever. WTF did they give you in the hospital?
This is one of the best (if not THE best) video you have ever made. Awesome!
askegg 2 years ago 2
Last part made me laugh fucking loud.
DP, keep up the great video posting!
messiahjonz 2 years ago
i am glad i subscribed to you ;)
SkeptikSnarf 2 years ago 2
Good bloody fucking video.
I'm pretty bloody fucking sure that most bloody fucking creationists wouldn't bloody fucking know if they had the bloody fucking Empire State Building up their bloody fucking arses until the bloody fucking window cleaners arrived.
ftwsmp 2 years ago 3
lmao.....its almost impossible not to talk SLOW AND LOUD when refering to these people. its like trying to give directions to a mongolian with down syndrome.
MpowerdAPE 2 years ago
¡Very good!
Walabio 2 years ago
"The trilobite eye"
This was clearly all a misunderstanding.
He has the Trilobite confused with the Cyclobite.
(The one-eyed monster of Early-Cambrian lore)
AlmightyAtheismo 2 years ago 2
1:28 there is all so the fact that the hard parts of a trilobite became important only after eyes evolved.
2:56 it's just a lie. the oldest feathers we've found are like down just loose filaments that probably helped keep the dinosaurs warm.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Damn it Desertphile, few people here on YouTube treat creationist assclown fucktard wanker morons with the deserved disdain as you do. I just wish you would not make excuses for some of them claiming them to be mentally ill to spare them from your wrath.
Akatam0t0ma 2 years ago
Chainsaw powered horse?
Geochron 2 years ago
Well duh.. gerbil powered horses didn't work out so well.
startreking2007 2 years ago
LOL! Gerbil-powered horses. Hell, that's going to stick in my brain for years.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
42 times? The eye must be the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the universe, and everything!
0pnMnded 2 years ago
But creationists ... don't know what a 'metric' is!!
farvision 2 years ago 2
I'm not entirely sure what exactly Creationists DO understand.
GBart 2 years ago
Back in perfect form
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
how do I get a gravity t-shirt? because I want one so bad :D
adolphbot 2 years ago
Same here...
goobergel 2 years ago
I make 3. But I would buy 10.
fiusux12 2 years ago
feathers are good sex toys for gals who dont like it rough.
snoopdog68 2 years ago
Which came first? The feather or the duster? You know that athiest scientists made all those "fossils" and put them out there for others to find. Carbon dating is also a fraud put out by athiest scientists and evil doers.
I'll take twelve orders of french fries please...
mobiltec 2 years ago 4
what i want to know is which came first, the desertphile or gravity ;)
hellshade2 2 years ago
Neither...the hat came first.
goobergel 2 years ago
That makes sense. In the absence of gravity, David grew downwards from his hat. When he had reached the level of "too complex to be caused", gravity came into being - because that is his nature.
blackwolf1272 2 years ago
Why would anyone want to dust feathers anyway?
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
How eye-ronic!!!
dannypantsgm 2 years ago
I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of screaming the truth at people :/
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
Sadly, I think the creotards only hear "scientists say what had a feather and what it is. science just makes it up as it goes along."
BUT...DESERT! Where did you get that GRAVITY! sign? I want it as my wallpaper for my pc. Who made it?
4jonah 2 years ago
Okay, my question was answered lol...as I was posting...but where can i get a jpg of it?
4jonah 2 years ago
rage followed by lasagna. Nice. lol
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
can feathers even be fossilized????
NYjon888 2 years ago
Greetings! One of the oldest known fossils of protofeathers has traces of keratin, which is pretty darn amazing; most fossilized feathers and protofeathers are mere impressions, but they are still classifies as "fossils" (the same with feet prints).
Desertphile 2 years ago
I think it's amusing that there's a caption under the picture of the guy on the chalk board that reads "SCIENTIST."
LOL! Just so that there's no confusion. LOL.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago 2
@NotSoOldHippy Ya and he looks like hes a MAD scientist too!
mobiltec 2 years ago
Awesome drawing. I would love to wear that at work or even better, pin it to my cubicle wall.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago 4
Thanks!
RHYMEMAIDEN1 2 years ago
Is that your phone ringing? Its CafePress and they want to talk to you.
:-)
fiusux12 2 years ago
As you can see, lots of people love that drawing. Yes, if I can get a T-shirt I'll post it on the cubicle wall here and make a video of it. }:-}
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
Wow, David, I don't think I've ever seen you this angry before.
Relyt22 2 years ago
LOL! Then you haven't watch enough of his videos.
anmoose 2 years ago
Oh I have, but in this one it almost seems like he's truly angry and not just yelling while calling them fucktards.
Relyt22 2 years ago