Creationist Handbook - A guide to debating evolutionists

[ShipWreckAndHaloFan]

Plus you use the "bad" science to use as an argument.May I remind you that god does not like cheating?.

[ShipWreckAndHaloFan]

All these creationists need help to disprove evolution when any evolutionist could do it him/herself.Yet WE are dumb.

[tomview1]

And if all else fails - stick your fingers in your ears - shut your eyes and go la la la la la la la la till the nasty evolutionsts go away!!

[krissyeh]

You have described Nephy to a "T".

[rogerstill71]

You know, I used to get angry about creationist tactics, but now I just larf. I used to work in the government and that type of thinking is rampant in middle management. "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up"

[simon24h]

Great work! Atheist are so stupid, I keep owning them with this!

[Deanbass77]

This was a work of art, very nice. The music matched the realization that this is a satire.

[gmcg80]

I almost rashly clicked on dislike here.. But well done, good video with some great points. Although many Christians (including Pope John Paul II) admit evolution is correct (as it is no more a theory than gravity is so is undeniable) even though evolution disagrees with a lot of religious views about where we came from, evidently, you don't need to choose one or the other..

[aguteempasil]

*favourite(d)*

[SoCalFlya]

The dumbest arguments in my opinion that creationists subscribe to are:

1. God created species within their own kinds.

2. Look at such and such thing! It's so complicated, a mathematician said that it would take trillions of years for something to have evolved that complex, so evolution must be false!

3. Look at that! It's so complicated! A god must have created it!

[usaboy17]

This is incredibly sad, almost too sad to watch actually.

The day science has conformed to the underwhelming duty of "defending" its position on the existence of our universe AGAINST religion: completely unscientific and nothing more than the centerpiece of human faith and comfort.

This might at first appear like harmless fun but it only contributes to the degrading of the scientific community's authenticity as robust, evidence-based, scientifically proven and logical.

[TooferMan]

Hey, I think I've debated with you before!!

Funny, but sadly true, vid

[patrickledford420]

great vid yet ive had all those thrown at me i calmly refuted everyone then got the answer arnt u afraid of hell if he is real

[cannamed]

This vid blew mw away. Very insightful.

[drfuturity]

Awesome. Now I have to ask what tune that is.

[AapoJoki]

Daft Punk - Veridis Quo

[emancoy]

ROFL!!! Im laughing because everything in this video is so true!

[DinkyDoeDoe]

This video was absolutley brilliant.

[andy060181]

Brilliant!!! i thought this was serious for the first minute. I can't understand how anyone with an average level of intelligence could believe in the creationist theory over evolution.

[harkying99]

@andy060181 why are you assuming an average level of intelligence?

[zeboxo]

Satire *drools*

[TheCarpediemcarlo]

I love it..

[philateliceun]

My pastor let us watch this in church last sunday. It is actually very helpful.

[verzen]

Uh.. i'm pretty sure this is satire...

[dlandon2000]

WOW what a fantastic video, my only fear is that fundies really will learn how to frusterate us more from it!

[Greenen72]

I love satire so much. It's ridiculous.

[LyleFreewing]

lol This was a great video.

[nigispangy]

Cool little video that

[TheSeventhSon]

Great video. Unfortunately, people will constantly claim that scientists are out to get the religious groups and will forever complain that their ideas aren't shared in education despite the fact that there is no validity to their claims. This is a very objective topic. There is no evidence to support intelligent design/creationism and so it should remain in church and away from our science classes.

[kimflie]

i <3 this music

[kylexysbiggestfan]

You know its really funny but from the many debates I have watched between christians and evolutionist the stuff you are saying in this video is what evolutionists such as yourself do. The only thing you can do is make fun of Christians for what they believe. I'm not making fun of you for believing you came from an ape. ok i just did and i'm sorry but have you even tried to study the Bible or christianity. Or have you just set your mentality on hating Christians for believing in God?

[AapoJoki]

How many "evolutionists" have you seen organizing flagging campaigns, filing false DMCAs, censoring dissenting comments from videos and channels, etc.?

Even if I didn't know jack shit about science, the way creationists resort to attacks and dishonesty would be very suggestive to me that their worldview is really shaky, and cannot handle any open discourse.

[lokithe2nd]

what music is this

[AapoJoki]

The music is Veridis Quo by Daft Punk

[BlueQuestions]

"...I have watched between christians and evolutionist..."

You do know that 1. the terms aren't mutually exclusive (ken miller comes to mind) 2. the term "evolutionist" is only really used by scientific illiterates.

Using "evolutionist" other than facetiously instantly gives away how little you know about the topic.

"Or have you just set your mentality on hating Christians for believing in God? "

The victim mentality is so unappealing. Especially in a member of the majority.

[synsei1]

When asked if you are an evolutionist, mention that you are also an atomist, a gravitationist, a round-earthist or even a relativity-theorist if you have the skills to do it. :D

[mhrby1985]

(1/2)Now, the reason you find the "Evolutionists" makes fun of you Christians, is because of your failure to understand what Evolution is.

In General, that is, I am not meaning to imply that you specifically don't; So far you haven't said anything that is techinically inaccurate, so would be arrogant of me to assume that you don't.

But many Creationist Christians does not know what Evolution is.

(cont)

[mhrby1985]

(2/2)

Imagine a Christian debating the Christian faith (not creationism nor Evolution, but the faith) with someone and the other party claims Christianity is wrong because Christianity is the worship of Krishna and following the teachings of Muhammed.

No matter what you say, they wont admit that they are wrong, nor even acknowledge your points.

Would you not consider them too stupid to take seriously?

[mhrby1985]

(3/2) (yes, im bad at maths :P)

Thats excatly what people defending Evolution encounter.

"Evolution says we come from monkeys" No, it doesn't.

"Evolution means life coming from nothing" Nope, the origin of life is not even part of Evolution

"Evolution says everything came from nothing" No, thats cosmology(sp?), again, nothing to do with Evolution

"The eye is too complex to have evolved, Darwin said it" Argument from ignorance and quote mining; Darwin said the opposit if you read on

[gmcg80]

I almost rashly clicked on dislike here.. But well done, good video with some great points. Although many Christians (including Pope John Paul II) admit evolution is correct (as it is no more a theory than gravity is so is undeniable) even though evolution disagrees with a lot of religious views about where we came from, evidently, you don't need to choose one or the other..

[AapoJoki]

My intention was to make a specific point with this video, which I summed up towards the end, not just a list of dishonest creationist strategies. Making a second part would be redundant, because I've pretty much said all I needed to.

Besides, I've already forgotten what else I wanted to include in the list.

[ProcInc]

If you have more, why not make part two?

[AapoJoki]

I should add that the thought of making a second part did cross my mind once, but then I felt it would be like beating a dead horse. If I remember right.

[ProcInc]

That's a shame, I enjoyed this video.

Pointing out the flaws of creationism is ALWAYS flogging a dead horse.

I even used it as a reference in a discourse with a creationist just tonight because it reminded me so much of what the guy was saying

[tapdagooch]

creation did not happen the way it is portrayed in the bible. but at some point it did happen and everything that came after was the product of evolution...

[TheReformed1]

Etimos, it's easy 2 c y u were able to put this creationist response 2gether so well. It's what u do. Evade, duck n grove when up against a christian u can't handle and oh yeah....swear at him. OOOOOHHHH! I'll bet that'll make him cry! LOLLOLLOLLOL! Perfect and so typical, my mislead dolt of an evoltnst!

[superaragon]

Learn to spell.

[hybridamerica]

Dude,

Remember, you're talking to CREATIONISTS!!!

Your video is waaaaay too complicated for them.

The rule of thumb for outreach to creationists - give them something they do not have to read. Next time, speak the text!

Creationism: The ultimate catalyst for Christian liars who have convinced themselves that they are not lying and therefore have lost the definition of lying.

[bigfilmhat]

Creationists are completely following your advice right now.

[levi799]

So true, so true :(

[argumzio]

Amazing. I came across my very first creationist bungler today in a face-to-face quasi-discussion (he pretty much tried to run the show). 1-4 sums it up pretty well, but he started it out by appealing to my vanity which didn't work either.

I'll favorite this for reference. Thanks.

[MysticalFoxx]

Love it, and I have had those tricks pulled on my when discussing religion (honestly, I don't care what a person thinks, but it can be so much fun to just get into a heated debate. lol)

[phantompanther]

Interesting video! Sadly, I have seen debates/arguments that used similar tactics as this.

I added this video to my favorites for several reasons, some of which are a bit off topic, heh.

[Bobsyouruncle33]

Republicans can use these rules too! Rush does.

[magick205]

You forgot the big ones: Vote-botting on commentary and ratings against opponents and making false DMCA claims in an effort to silence considered, educated opinons. These seem to be the most prevalent responses lately. Great job on the vid. 5*!

[ados9569]

lol this vid jus proves that all you bible bashers are on a power trip

[h8uall66]

Lol, that comment proves that you are an idiot.

[ados9569]

by replying you just proved your a redneck hick that has a 3rd grde education

[Gelroos1337]

ooo, two good words that require a high level of education and dignity. Why not just call people niggers and get it over with. I bet you love niggers and hate whites too..

[ados9569]

why dont i just snap your neck and end your pathetic little life? why the fuck would i hate whites when i'm white? why should i hate blacks when blacks used to be slaves for people like you? fucking idiot redneck

[Gelroos1337]

You're missing my point simple person.. You just bent yourself out of shape when I mention the word "Nigger". Yet, you use the word "Redneck" in the same manner. Why don't you just feel stupid..

[ados9569]

why dont you just feel stupid? does that make any sense? maybe to trailer trash it does but not to someone that actually has an education

[Gelroos1337]

It makes alot of sense actually. You threating to kill me for expressing my opinion. It's rather Nazi of you :)

[ados9569]

wouldn't that make you nazi? idiot do i kill jews? do i hate blacks? do i hate gays? i never said i would kill you cause your a racist....idiot

[Gelroos1337]

You show the writing skills of a highly educated individual. For those of you that don't understand (ados9569). I'm being sarcastic.

[Gelroos1337]

Do I really have to spell this shit out for you? Stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself. Besides, I don't think I can explain it any clearer. I can't think or post like a 12 year old anymore.

[Gelroos1337]

ados9569 --> why should i hate blacks when blacks used to be slaves for people like you?

What does this have to do with how you treat someone? If I spit in your face would you tolerate it? what if a former slave did like wise (africans) ? Would they be pardonned of such actions because of a life style held by my ancestors? That's a far from intelligent line of thinking. You really are a simple person if you think patronizing africans because of slavery will solve the problem. It will feed.

[pctopgs]

yea....but it's still too early for that level of thinking right now. Segregation only ended 50 years ago and people from those days are still alive. Words like that that still hold a lot of weight. I'm black, and I don't like the idea of having double standards.

[Gelroos1337]

that is correct, the only thing that drives racialism right now is the memory passed down through generations. Whites and blacks (in certain circles) are prejudice of each other equally. Whites don't like blacks because of what they've been taught , what they see, and attitudes against white people. Blacks don't like whites because of what they've been taught, and whatever other reasons (I'm not black I don't know lol). If children weren't taught to be prejudice at a young age, no prob.. space.

[ados9569]

lol dont worry bout that comment i thought you were another smart ass christian trying to prove evolution wrong once again lol nah the only reason i post bullshit like that is to piss of christians your actually pretty smart in debunking evolution you make him look like a dip shit ha ha

[Iceblazer08]

This would work, if the person you are debating is a dumb ass. You can't win a battle of fact with false statements.

[jezarius]

This is clearly a parody of the nonsense that creationist use to debate real fact and real science.

[Iceblazer08]

Ok, good, I thought we had another crazy on are hands

[JoacinoDaGona]

Rule 7: If everything fails, apeal to emotion.

Claim you feel gods present (even if you don't) and therefore you know he exist, so the Bible must be true.

As your oponent will not be able to disprove your feelings as he is not you, you win by default.

[emancoy]

@JoacinoDaGona

Rule 7: If everything fails, apeal to emotion.

that rule should be included! LOL!!!

That should be their ultimate debate weapon, Usual logic and reasoning will simply bounce off it.

[SoCalFlya]

@emancoy

Aristotle understood that very well :) That form of rhetoric is called Pathos.

[TheOriginalPugals]

Nice sattire

[Kytall]

Here I was all set to pull out a pencil and paper to see what logical fallacies you were going to present, and then realized it was satire.

Well done.

[shas1814]

Very good video.

A much needed resource;

if used, will raise the intellectual level of most

creationist arguments by an order of magnitude

(note to creationists- explanation upon request).

5 stars!

[daryl1q1]

Great. Here's some more choice canards:

'it's just a theory'

'evolution is immoral'

'Darwin was a big meanie'

'Hitler and Stalin bleuuurrrrrrrghhhh etc,etc,etc etc.

[CDRaccoon]

hahahaha you hit that nail right on the head ! 5* totally a favorite!

[thunderpants10]

Awesome

5/5 and faved

[chaosof99]

Sorry, I meant to reply that post to lukimusprime5, not to you :/

[chaosof99]

100% proof you wanted earlier is solely a mathematical term and can't be achieved outside of mathematics.

A scientific hypothesis is assumed to be proved when it has withstood prolonged testing and peer review. The testing must be repeatable and blind. Before such a test is made a prediction must be made and the hypothesis withstood the test if the result matches the prediction.

After this long scientific process, a hypothesis becomes a theory. Watch The Scientific Method Made Easy by Potholer54

[ndoki9]

There is no time for joking in this time when reason, intelligence, sanity and logic threatens christianity.

[shas1814]

Well spoken, ndoki9!

Sound the alarm!

Spread the word!

Pass the collection plate!

[lukimusprime5]

I KNOW evolution is a real thing. everything evolves and adapts. but what im saying is evolution itself will NEVER be proven. and example : We evolved from a cell and that multiplied and just kept getting bigger and bigger. then we evolved from that to where we are today:. that can NEVER be proven we cannot comprehend things like that. we dont have any history on anything like that. i just know niether will ever be proven. but thats just my input

[lukimusprime5]

Wow, good points man.

I'm a creationist, but one thing i also believe is that Neither can be 100% proven. We are closer to proving evolution. but i dont think either will be proven.

But anyways. good video. Hey whats the song called By the way?

[AapoJoki]

Veridis Quo by Daft Punk.

[a01011399]

and why are you asking for quotes? ¿do you disagree with the idea of self replicating molecules?

[AapoJoki]

No, I agree with the idea of self-replicating molecules, but I don't agree with the idea that it's part of the "Darwinian model", until you show me who exactly said it and in which context.

[a01011399]

The idea of a single common ancestor is just a hypothesis, even according to evolutionary scientists; Darwin claimed that living things came ether from a single common ancestor or from few common ancestors.

[AapoJoki]

Darwin didn't have access to the massive records of DNA evidence that we have.

[a01011399]

Common descend is important for the Darwinist model, but is not the must important thing, the most relevant thing on the Darwinian model is the idea of complex forms coming from simpler forms, and that natural selection was responsible for that.

[kyokumajr]

lol well it seems somebody is already using the "advice" in the video ;)

lol

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

***** And I would give more if I could.

[a01011399]

this is a deshonest video, evolutinists are the ones that don´t want to define evolution, they like to keap the term ambiguos

[AapoJoki]

Can you give me examples of this happening?

[a01011399]

these happens all the time, Evolutionists never want to define ´´evolution´´ you wont define evolution even if I ask you, because you prefer to keep the term ambiguous, that way your arguments won´t be debunked.

A typical example: the Darwinian model includes the origin of life,  but the typical evolutionists in you tube claims that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, to prevent questions that won´t be answered.

[AapoJoki]

The "Darwinian model" does not include the origin of life and never has. Darwin's book was titled "On the Origin of SPECIES", not "Origin of LIFE". This is not us being confusing, it's you trying to define our position for us. It's clear you've been bamboozled by Hovind.

Can you name a single Darwinian scientist who has ever claimed that the origin of life is part of the "Darwinian model"?

[AapoJoki]

While it's true that there are many biologists out there who are very interested in the origin of life, and very knowledgeable of it too, it's still not part of the "Darwinian model". It's a related field, but a different one.

I would also like to know what you even mean by the term "Darwinian model", because as far as I know, it's not an official term used in the academic arena. "Evolution by natural selection" would be the proper term, and its definition does not include the origin of life.

[AapoJoki]

Invoking origin of life is a typical creationist tactic, when it becomes obvious that the creationist cannot possibly refute things like common ancestry. Starting to talk about the origin of life is nothing more than changing the subject.

The sad thing is, even if you could disprove the modern hypotheses of the origin of life, natural selection, common ancestry and macroevolution would still together hold very strongly.

[AapoJoki]

And this is why you insist that the origin of life is part of the "Darwinian model". You've deluded yourself into thinking that if you could disprove this minor part of the theory (which really even isn't any part of the theory), you could blow the whole thing out of the water.

You can't. You also need to refute the massive amounts of DNA evidence, fossil evidence, anatomical evidence and geographical evidence there is for common ancestry. Just to name a few.

[a01011399]

So the origin of life is part of Darwinian evolution, and I know that I did not mentioned anything new for you, I know that you knew about the self replicating molecules, you are simply fooled by other evolutionists that are not interested in proving evolution, o disprove ID they are just interested in exposing creationists lies, and since they can not find many, they have to invent them.

[a01011399]

for example dawkins and sagan claim that (at least indirectly) life was suppose to evolve from self replicating molecules, this molecules (not life yet) changed over time, and this changes where selected or rejected by natural selection, so the Darwinian processes where suppose to exist before life.

[AapoJoki]

I'd like to see the quotes by Dawkins and Sagan (in context please). Sagan, by the way, is an astronomer, not a biologist, so you can't really trust his expertise on this issue.

I would argue that any self-replicating molecules that are subject to the laws of natural selection already qualify as life, even if they are not cells yet. The line is blurry, because the process is gradual and incremental.

[AapoJoki]

If there seems to be confusion about the "official" definition of life, it's because it's genuinely a difficult thing to define, not because of a deliberate attempt to deceive, like creationists would.

But regardless of whether "life" appeared by Darwinian means, it doesn't even touch the subject of Darwinism on a cellular level (our level). Darwinism could be important to origin of life, but origin of life is not important to Darwinism.

[a01011399]

well you are just redefining life, there are unic characteristics that living things have, that these molecules where not suppose to have.

[AapoJoki]

They don't have all the characteristics of conventional life, but they have many of them, the crucial ones. They die, they consume energy and they reproduce according to the embedded code within them that sometimes mutates. Which explains why the Darwinian natural selection can be assumed to take place even at their level.

[a01011399]

If molecules, changed over time, and natural selection ether selected or rejected this changes then these molecules are part of the Darwinian model ¿where is your disagreement?

[a01011399]

´´Can you name a single Darwinian scientist who has ever claimed that the origin of life is part of the "Darwinian model"?´´

You are fooling yourself, I would there to say that 99% of evolutionary scientists agree that the origin of life is part of Darwinian evolution,

[AapoJoki]

99% and you can't even name one.

There is one question you keep dodging, and I hope you will answer it. Even if you could prove that life can't have emerged by "Darwinian" means, how the hell could you apply this knowledge to refute the evidence supporting common descent on the level of cellular life?

If you can't, the "Darwinian model" of common ancestry will stand strong, even if the "part" regarding origin of life was disproven.

[a01011399]

´´Even if you could prove that life can't have emerged by "Darwinian" means,´´

Yes and if I prove that god created humans, that would not disprove the evolution of other organism, in fact proving that there where more that 1 universal common ancestor won´t shake evolution much.

[AapoJoki]

Yes, it would.

[spaceagebachelor]

Great video! And don't forget work into the debate somewhere 1. There are no transitional fossils 2. Evolution has never been observed 3. Something can't come from nothing...Any more?

[garouHH]

2b. Beneficial mutations have never been observed. 4. Randomness can't create meaningful messages like the DNA. 5. All evidence ttestifies against evolution and points to a creator instead. 6. Free will is not possible under mechanistic laws of nature, we have free will, therefore we have supernatural souls clinging to us on the inside, controlling our actions, our thoughts. But for just US$125.000, we can exorcise those thetans and... Oh wait, rigt concept, wrong cult.

[TheFallibleFiend]

"b. Beneficial mutations have never been observed. "

Assertions are not facts. Repeating false statements does not make them true.

Same with the rest of your dumb assertions.

[garouHH]

I suggest you take a look at the comment that I was answering to.

[TheFallibleFiend]

"

I suggest you take a look at the comment that I was answering to.

"

Crap I hate when I do that.

[garouHH]

Also, could it be that you didn't even read the comment to the end? At the end of the (admittedly pretty dumb or at least horribly misinformed) assertions there's a little hint that I may have been a little sarcastic... Okay, enough of twisting the knife in the wound. :)

[ebruceii]

LOL, I do that every now and then as well.

[hal2017]

ROFL - Excellent.

This was a great way to start the day.

[DrunkenRanter]

great stuff

[Saukko31]

LOL

Creationists are indeed using those advices quite efficiently.