Evolution and Darwin: Fact or Fiction - Convicted - Dr. Brad Harrub

[JoryRFerrell]

Actually it's not teaching that whites are superior. It's teaching that everyone here on earth today(whites, blacks, asians, latino's, everyone) is related to an ancestor who was black.

So yeah...

BTW, I'm bi-racial: black and white.

[emel0n]

Dr. Brad you are the best, you give me hope that more "scientists" will become one day actual scientists and stop being mindless drones who repeat unproven facts under the impression that they are proven. The fake drawings are just a tiny example of the information that is recycled and presented as "fact" when in reality no one has proven it to be. The system is corrupted from the top to the bottom, yet the fools assume that it will be teaching accurate information? Why? Thanks for the video

[thereisnoTH]

God this guy just goes on and on, what has Darwin's life history got to do with anything?

[AndreisEntaro]

This guy's mind is hopelessly broken. I seriously hope this video does not get shown to people under 18 years of age.

[orchidswholesale]

examle for evolution..north americans mostly evulate from britians many hundred years ago........britians still exist as same as monkeys..........are north americans the ssame like britians ? think or talk the same ? have the same average weight ? no because the sorounding conditions....thats why on a island like charles darvin meet he found totaly diffrent animals.........this calle evolution... a background ancestor can create diffrent kids depends on where they life or under what conditions

[astrofrk]

Want proof of evolution? Just look at the govornment and TELL me we are not being run by a bunch of Baboons!

[cadonuno]

falacies wrong premisses... false evidences and fake dicotomy... not even a real argument in this video

[dookdawg214]

"Race" is a synonym for "species". During Darwin's time, French was still the linga franca of the west and English had a lot of Frenchisms. Today, the French word "race" is still used for both "species" and "breed" : "Ah, j'adore ton chien ; il est de quelle race ?"  = "Oh, I love your dog; what breed is he?"

[rockez09]

Even If religion or evolution are wrong , Ill pick evolution any day

[Mk101T]

@rockez09 Why do you have to pick one? Couldnt you just examine both equally and draw your own conclusions through critical thinking?

To just accept one side or the other wholly based in them being oposites. Is rather narrow minded.

Individuals are smart, not groups of people. Dont confuse a group of scientists theorizeing as equals vs the masses just believing them blindly through text books.

[astrofrk]

@Mk101T I agree. Why couldn't God have created via Evolution? Who are we to tell God how he should do his job? Evolution did happen but that does not discount God.

[Mk101T]

@astrofrk Or God is subject to evolutionary principals , and going through an evolutionary process themselves. For without change and evolvement I think life would cease to exist , or atleast be in a state of hell.

If God were all knowing and perfect , It would fly in the face of everything in the universe.

And why would such a being even be remotely concerned with planet earth and the human race?

I think evolutionary theory proves the existence of God(s)

[astrofrk]

@Mk101T THANK YOU! However, while the universe is by no means "Perfect", it cannot be because as you said, it evolves. A perfect, unchanging universe wouldn't even be hell, it would become sterile and lifeless very quickly. Endropy would agree that there is a certain improvement in the inperfection of the universe, it lasts much longer.

[orchidswholesale]

@astrofrk you not even know what is evolution haha ..........

[StrikaAmaru]

7:30 you are the only ones who claim you are "more evolved". Evolution succeeds to completely NUKE the notion of race itself. This is why the Nazi party banned evolution, because it proves the difference between the "races" is literally skin-deep; there are more differences between the different members of a so-called race than between the 'races' themselves.

[DisprovingEvolution]

@jcchurch

The only thing getting "debunked" here is the MYTH of ev-LIE-ution and its "ape-man believing" supporters.

[jcchurch]

@DisprovingEvolution Wow. You've convinced me. I'm a creationist now. Thank you for showing me the light. Your word "ev-LIE-ution" makes sense because the word "lie" is right there in the word. Why didn't someone point this out sooner?

[DisprovingEvolution]

@jcchurch

I am a "realist" and a truth-seeker.

Realism = using critical thinking to see the overwhelming flaws in a failed assumption and unsubstantiated claims

You're looking at this the wrong way. Its not a Magic Man with a beard poofing creatures into existence. Its some entity (or possibly group of entities) adding new source code to the program.

DNA records information digitally. In fact, some scientists have stored large volumes of music on DNA in order to prove a point. Its coding.

[StrikaAmaru]

@DisprovingEvolution "Its some entity [..] adding new source code to the program" Right, so how about the very non-miraculous explanations for the appearance of new genes? Gene duplication and independent mutation to those copies of genes cause new genes to be added to a chromosome, through absolutely natural means. You, a realist by your own admission, must see that nobody writes the code for this, the code is writing itself. Why do you stick a god where there isn't any?

[DisprovingEvolution]

@StrikaAmaru

You're little straw man failed miserably.

The ONLY observed mutations that are listed as "beneficial" and "added some information" are antibiotic resistant bacteria and HIV immunity in some people (both can be debated as not being truly "beneficial" too)

Now, when it comes to ANY mutation being able to add the large amount of NEW information that would be required to explain the origin of BATS, none exist.

Most mutations are neutral or negative__FACT. That's real science

[DisprovingEvolution]

@StrikaAmaru

DNA recombination in reproduction and mutations (most of which have been proven to be neutral or negative) do NOT have the ability to add DNA code for which they dont have. This is called "The DNA Code Barrier" and its refutes macroevolution thoroughly.

This is why us Homo Sapiens have remained Homo Sapiens for 200,000 years and the Horseshoe Crab has stayed the same for 450 MILLION years (its a "living fossil")

How's that RELIGION of magical mutations working for you now?

[jcchurch]

@DisprovingEvolution I cannot disagree with that. On the topic of DNA coding, a mathematician would call the DNA encoding sequence a "fixed-radix quaternary numeral system."

[ClumsyRoot]

"Charles Darwin believed that there was a favored and an unfavored race... The very theory of evolution is teaching racism."

SHAME ON YOU for purposely misrepresenting Darwin! Below, foxlake02 explains what that subtitle actually means.

Either you've never actually read On the Origin of Species, or you are purposely distorting it to fit your theological agenda. In any case, it's inexcusable.

[foxlake02]

The word "race" in Victorian England did not mean the same thing it means in modern England. When he said "preservation of the favored races" he was explaining how species would survive and reproduce that are better adapted to their environments. Stephen Gould was right. You are only good at word games.

[elinikk]

Hakels illustrations, peppered moths, pitdown man, radiometric garbage dating...when we remove all of evolutions garbage science, there is no evolution left. Why do we keep letting ourselves be decieved by this un-scientific hypotheses. evoluiton is a waste, it is cumbersome, it hinders us from continuing good science.

Good video, a little long and preachy sounding. I am surprised that you did not mention that Darwins "Origins" was just a copy of "Zoonomia" by Erasamus Darwin!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@elinikk Peppered moths and radiometric dating are accurate, and photomicrographs give us images of exactly what we'd expect to find in embryonic development.

When we remove scientific illiteracy, there is no room for not understanding that evolution is the only empirical explanation for biodiversity.

[adamlhumphreys]

@TheScienceFoundation “Scientific illiteracy,” as in making 4 basic assumptions that can’t be verified when using radiometric dating?

“Photomicrographs give us images of exactly what we'd expect to find in embryonic development.” Yes, and commonalities between species are indeed lacking to conjure macro-evolution.

[elinikk]

@TheScienceFoundation Peppered moths were staged. They do not land on the bark of trees in the open, but in real life cluster under the branches. It has be shown to be bad science many times over. Embryonic photos show many things, but not developmental stages like Hackel's doctored photo's attempted to show.

I am not scientifically illiterate. We need to remove bad science (aka evolution) from real science. evolution brings nothing to the table. It is a useless hypothesis!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@elinikk Every subsequent experiment done with peppered moths confirm that they do indeed rest on tree trunks, even if this weren't so it's still a fact that a shift in alleles occurred concurrent with pollution levels.

'but not developmental stages'

Human embryos have tails and pharyngeal folds, whales have legs, snakes have feet. This is only explainable by evolution

Bad science has already been removed, we don't teach creationism any longer and in fact exclusively teach evolution.