Re: Scientific Evidence that supports Creationism, pt1

[finderfinder100]

Does anyone elses wonder what Dodo tatse like?

[cerebulon]

@finderfinder100 According to the sailors, it was horrible. It was oily and bitter and nothing could cover up the taste. However, they were low on provisions and really needed protein and the birds would just stand there and let you kill them. So it came down to convenience over quality.

[finderfinder100]

@cerebulon they might have need a good batter and a deep fryer. If you deep fry something and do it right you can make shoe leather almost edible. Not that the sailors had a deep fryer on hand.

[pilgrimpater]

Excellent rebuttal. Just one thing. Haeckel's theory is wrong, however embryology as a whole can only make sense in light of evolution. Such things as the common branchial slits (which become gills in fish and other things in other creatures), the empty yolk sac, the hair atavism that is common between us & chimps but which disappear in us, our tail, the bird tail which has the same no of vertebrate as reptiles only to lose most by hatching etc etc. Haeckel was part right but went too far.

[cerebulon]

@pilgrimpater I was a bit noobish when I made this vid. I've learned more about exactly why Haeckel's illustrations were in error and I don't really feel that his error was all that severe in reality. When you consider the time he was living in and how less refined his tools were than what we have today, it's amazing he was able to produce such detailed and accurate illustrations in the first place. I wrongly make it sound as if his entire theory is nonsense. I need to amend this video.

[Pemex5555]

Couldnt have said it better myself!

well said

[cerebulon]

Exodus 32:14 "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." A limitless being was shamed into repentance by Moses? Perhaps if you actually read your Bible, you would know of the things I've referenced. They are all true and all happened before Leviticus. It's only the first two books - Why don't you crack open your Bible and read it for once, you'll be surprised.

[cerebulon]

I think you assume that God is limitless. The Bible itself does not back this up. Indeed, the Bible shows God forgetting things, requiring rest, lacking foresight, losing in hand-to-hand combat with a human, and being ashamed of himself. These are not aspects of a limitless being. Also, science does not cause things to be limited, it only documents existing limitations. God is not limited by science, he is simply limited.

[ndbass09]

Sometimes it is hard to express concepts of a Greek language into a simple word of the English language, For example, in Exodus 32:14, repented is better said as "changed (his/her) mind about". Based on the sins of the Isrealites(the convenant they broke) they deserved the punishment God was going to give them. However, because of the faith of Moses, and his close relationship clearly seen with God, God spared the people- for Moses. And the list of things to say goes on...

[cerebulon]

Typically, you select the version of the definition that supports your argument, but are not honest enough to include the other valid meanings which are indeed, repented and regretted. The word you speak of is "nacham." It's more common meanings are: "was grieved, suffered grief, repented, regretted." The verse is not a mistranslation by any means. In addition, even if we accept your definition, it still reveals that God changed his mind and that his original decision had been wrong.

[cerebulon]

I apologize for the emotion and accusation of dishonesty in my response to you. It was completely inappropriate and unwarranted. I'm sorry. I just find myself annoyed by the standard claim of translation error, as a way to dismiss a point of contention. I do stand by the meaning of the word though. The primary meaning is repented - it can be cross-referenced as the correct contextual meaning since it was used under similar conditions earlier in Genesis and in Kings.

[ndbass09]

It's fine. You spoke well, but I don't believe it was a translation error. At the time of translation(1611?) the King James version made perfect sense to all who spoke English. However, merely because of how the English language has evolved, some words mean different things than they did hundreds of years ago, or have become so archaic people don't recognize them. Would you be offended if we PM'd this? I don't want to spam your video comments

[ndjarnag]

awesome man!

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

Well said.

[JesusDisciple777]

you say in your next video that creationists use the Bible as their main evidence. that is wrong, many creationists didn't even believe in the Bible until after they scientifically proved creationists.

[Maxdwolf]

Good post, but I believe cows are more closely related to whales than horses (saw it mentioned just today in a talkorigins post).

[fireproofed]

Why am I wrong about the creation being corrupted? Doesn't life as we know it show us perfect things can be corrupted, polluted, or tainted? I believe in evolution. Only an imbecile wouldn't. Just not the kind of evolution that says humans evolved from another animal. What a great faith you have to believe we were once pond gel.

[cerebulon]

Somehow I think it takes greater faith to believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your savior, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

[fireproofed]

Pretty creative reply cerebulon. Your creative reply is flawed a bit though. Jesus isn't His own father. God the son and God the Father are two separate persons. "breaking" bread has nothing to do with going to Heaven. Jesus does not remove evil from us. Sounds like you don't know the bible too well. Try reading it.

[fireproofed]

I think I'll go with, "the created was created perfectly and became corrupted."

[cerebulon]

...and you'd be wrong. Not that there's anything... oh wait.

[fireproofed]

In the ballpark of topics..Call life as we know it and don't know it a calendar year, where current man as we know him came on the scene at about 11:50PM December 31st. That's what I believe. With recorded human history going back to about 3000 BC, are you going to tell me humans were just too stupid to write things down for 2 billion years?

[Maxdwolf]

It's the Hindus that claim we were around 2 billion years. Modern scientific evidence puts hominids at just a few million years. IIRC homo sapiens is believed to be about 1-1.5 million years old w. a population bottleneck at about 100,000 years ago. The development of writing had to wait until we developed agriculture and a sedentary class.

[FrozenFury007]

Oh yeah and btw about your stupid whale thing.... The lens of a marine mammals are strongers then land mammals.... Thats why they can have blood vessels in the front...

[FrozenFury007]

You are dumb if there was a creator who made sumthing doesnt mean that nothing can go wrong. There is free will.....

So your saying if a creator made sumthing you couldnt do anything unless he wanted you to. So that nothing could go wrong. Ner ner ner.

[Legit92nick]

your fucking annoying.. horrible video

[x900lbGorillax]

Good talk man open my eyes a bit. But the thing about if there was a creator and he would design some type of quality control so that mutations and retarded people didn't come into this world. Wouldn't life be very boring like that? Don't you think it might possible if there was a creator he would want something as limitless as possible. Also like a test to see what type of person we are watching to see how we treat those who are disfigured or less intelligent.

[cerebulon]

Somehow, even with ever human born perfect I think it would still be very lively here, with all the diseases, natural disasters, predatory animals and other hardships on this planet. And no, I as a creator would not purposefully maim my creations just to get a reaction. That's just sick.

[x900lbGorillax]

Yeah I guess so...who knows. I was just thinking maybe that's how a creator would judge your character. But it does sound cruel.

[Evangolution]

Excellent video. Finally some new information I haven't heard before. You make some really good points with the whales. I featured this on my page. You kinda made me look like a dumbass, but you did so in a much nicer way than that Bigevasive guy.

[cerebulon]

Hi again. BigEvasive pissed me off. Maybe he had some good points too, but he was such a jerk in presentation most people just got angry. I love your channels and I tried to be as non-adversarial in my approach as prossible.

[bigevasive]

Maybe i had some good points? You reiderated a large number of my points sir. As for my mood or attitude towards Evangolution, well when he responds to a request for concise arguments with half an hour of insanity he loses my respect. You seem like a very intelligent person who regards science with great respect. How can you "love" this guys channels when he makes such a mockery of the tools we use to make sense of our world?

[bigevasive]

Wow im sorry your so sensitive. I guess I could have called you a big meanie when you insinuated I didnt know what carbon was a few videos back. Oh and by the way, cerebulon didnt make you look like a dumbass. Nobody could do a better job at that than you. Oh there I go again being an asshole.

[Thetribekiller]

Dude, just look at yourself. You came right off in your first video response to Evangolution all cocky and on top of your ego mountain. You may believe that life has no points or purpose but it is worth something to be nice to peoples. I have respect for all of you guys but kindness is gold. Good day.

[bigevasive]

Calling me cocky is as adhominim as me calling Evangolution a fucking idiot, its irrelevent. Attack my argument first then my attitude. For the record you have no idea what my beliefs are towards the "purpose of life." I am aggresive towards Evangolution because I see the big picture. There are more stupid people who are eager to see merrit in Evangolutions lies than there are willing to accept the truth of their existence. He doesnt deserve respect past the right to breathe and eat.

[cerebulon]

Hi BigEvasive, the problem is that attacking your attitude is not irrelevant. It has become the point. Your presentation was great and your words were well researched. It was better than mine. The problem is that you act like as asshole and people will tend to disgegard what you have to say because of it.

[cerebulon]

If you show some humility, you will earn respect from even those who disagree with you. You will also be able to educate people, rather than antagonize them. The fact is most people still do not understand evolution and they are not stupid because of that.

[bigevasive]

Point taken cerebulon.

[Thetribekiller]

I never attacked your argument. Even if I did I didn't mean to, your very intelligent and have definatley beat Evangolution in this debate. All im saying is that you would probably be tazered if you tried to ask john carry a question. So what I would PREFER you to do is present your argument in a "nicer" way instead of trying to claim people are morons. Sure your smart but your attitude ruins it. Good day.

[Evangolution]

BigE - I think it bothers me because before I saw Hovind's videos we probably would have gotten along fine and been friends, but I decided to give something radical and interesting a chance and look into it rather than be closed-minded and dismiss it, which to me seems unscientific. For the most part I believe evolution is probably true, but if there's a 1% chance creationism has any validity, I want to look into it. Same thing if there's a 1% chance evolution isn't valid.

[Evangolution]

I feel like the Amy character in Chasing Amy who decides to become bisexual to keep from limiting herself in her search for a soulmate, only with me it's creationism and evolution. I had planned on using this channel to make videos supporting both creation AND evolution but this debate got me sidetracked into making all these creation videos so now I'm pretty much labeled a creationist. It's hard to be impartial when one side backs you into a corner and forces their beliefs/theories onto you.

[macked]

Remember that science has only theories and laws. So how many trees have you been up lately? hahaha

[rgaskey]

One of the themes in your vid is that if we had been created, we would be perfect. We weren't created perfect, we were created "good". Many theists (and others) miss this point. I am a theist. I require no proof to believe what I believe. I have faith. None of the authors of the Bible sat down and said we have to make this believable. The Bible is accepted by faith or nothing. The Bible is full of miracles that defy science.

[cerebulon]

Agreed 100%. Did you watch part 2? I say something similar towards the end.

[drakeblackhorn]

and that, rgaskey, is why intelligent, educated, free-thinking people don't take your claims seriously. intellectuals want proof, not wishful thinking and fairy tales.

so there are physically impossible miracles written in your book? good for you! harry potter books show events that aren't possible according to the laws of nature, as well. and they have just as much evidence, too. imagine that!

[rgaskey]

Thanks Drake for setting me straight. I will seriously try to improve on my education and free thinking. Since you obviously are very intelligent, and very educated...help me out with the origin of the universe, will you? What's the Potter theory on that?

[rgaskey]

I just thought that Drake was your first name. There I go again with that "blind faith" stuff. Was I right?

[drakeblackhorn]

blind faith is when you believe in something without proof, especially in the face of proof to the contrary.

this is so with your belief in this 'god' character, unless you possess evidence nobody else on earth seems to have.

it's certainly not blind faith to assume drake is my first name. as it is part of the pseudonym i use here, that makes it an educated guess.

[drakeblackhorn]

i sense your angry sarcasm. i don't know everything, and science hasn't brought us that answer yet.

but the notion that some 'perfect being', of unknown origin, created everything through magic can't really be counted as a serious explanation. especially when you consider that if a 'god' did make everything, then it's gone into hiding, and even constructed everything to look like it had no hand in it. surely there'd be evidence if this being did it?

[rgaskey]

Take a look at your first post, Drake. You infer that all Christians, and other Theists aren't intelligent, educated, or free thinking. That is an excellent example of blind faith, and you provided it. Is is an arrogant and false supposition. I was sarcastic, but you shouldn't be surprised.

[drakeblackhorn]

i merely stated that theists are suffering from one or more of the problems i listed. this i've learned from experience, and i've never found an exception. find me an exception, and i'll stop using what i admit is a stereotype, though one that seems to be entirely true. by the way, there's a few more 'symptoms' for theists, but i won't bother to list the rest unless you actually try to debunk my educated generalization.

[drakeblackhorn]

you still don't seem to understand what blind faith is, even after i defined it for you.

i came to my conclusions through experience and study. why are you so eager to pin a 'blind faith' charge on me?

i expected you to be angry when i challenged your baseless beliefs. i also expected you to avoid my points, as you are doing. you haven't addressed 'baseless miracles' and 'god without evidence'.

[rgaskey]

Drake, I can't prove the Bible, and I make no effort to do so.Here's the thing, and this is the big picture. As a child, I believed that Santa put presents under the tree. I later found out (although I have only a confession) that my parents did it. Think of the universe as Christmas morning. I say God did it, and at the end of the day, you say it happened by itself, through a comedy of errors. I can't prove that my parents put those presents under that tree, but Drake, Somebody did.

[drakeblackhorn]

funny you make a santa analogy. many of us atheists make a comparison of our own. 'god is a santa for grown-ups'. quite fitting, if you think about it. but i digress.

at least you're willing to admit your beliefs aren't supported by science, like many nitwits on youtube try to do. i urge you to study scientific theory. you'd be surprised what you see when you put more stock in logic and evidence than your own wishes and desires.

[drakeblackhorn]

you invoke the standard 'random chance' fallacy. there are tested theories and scientific explanations showing how the world as we know it came about in a way that's anything but random. you apparently haven't bothered to study these. please do so, at least if you trust science. the only thing that hasn't been at least tentatively explained is the beginning moment, but science is at least on par with the bible there. (and greatly exceeds it afterwards)

[rgaskey]

The mutations are random. Natural selection is the mechanism that supposedly preserves the beneficial ones. Evolution is a theory that has been around long before Darwin. He just proposed natural selection as the filter for the "good" mutations. I don't argue the evidence, just the conclusion that God doesn't exist. And I've studied the theories at least as long as you have studied the psyche of theists.

[drakeblackhorn]

evolution theory says nothing about the existence of your god, or any other. in fact, many christians accept evolutionary theory.

where did you make your imagined link? an atheist does not automatically reject creationism, though one generally leads to another through the same use of logic.

[rgaskey]

I am sure that many Christians and Atheists believe many different things. I am aware of Theistic evolutionists, but I have never heard of an atheist that believes in creation, or a Christian that doesn't believe in God.

[drakeblackhorn]

i've met an atheist who claimed creationism, though he was just an alien nutter. *shrugs*

but don't reject scientific learning because of links that don't exist.

[rgaskey]

I haven't rejected scientific learning, Drake. I am college educated in engineering (engineering includes those boring scientific things that are actually demonstrable and repeatable), am currently taking a graduate course in engineering, and I know a bit about physics and mathematics and other things. Please excuse me, I am late, for I have an appointment to cast a virgin into a volcano. (Actually. I want to see the Florida, LSU game)

[drakeblackhorn]

evolutionary theory is based on, and supported by, the exact same processes used for theories used by engineers.

but i was speaking specifically of evolutionary theory, not science in general. with your supposed link between evolution and atheism. (no such link exists)

[rgaskey]

The foundations of engineering are based on facts, laws, and observations that can be demonstrated, repeated, and observed 24/7 over and over again. If I believed that engineering was based on theories as "light" as evolution or natural selection, I would never get on a plane or ride in, much less, drive a car. It was a great game, though. Too bad 'gators aren't as evolved as tigers.

[drakeblackhorn]

there you fall into fallacy. evolutionary theory is strongly supported by facts and evidence. if it weren't so, it wouldn't have reached the level of a Scientific Theory. a Scientific Theory has undergone testing and scrutiny that takes it beyond mere educated guesswork. the only difference between this theory and your engineering theories is the difficulty in demonstrating it to laymen, since much of it is not directly observed, and takes a large amount of time to show significant results.

[rgaskey]

No, Drake. The efforts to sustain evolution as a theory is largely a political and religious one. It should be against the law to utter "evolution" and "engineering" in the same sentence. There's no debate about Ohm's Law or the validity of Von Mises stresses. The facts, as I said, I don't argue (though many do, and some are quite good at it). I argue the conclusions.

[rgaskey]

Tell me what about evolutionary theory is testable, repeatable, and demonstrable. And there are many scientists that secretly reject this and related theories of evolution. Their jobs and reputations are at stake, so they don't say anything.

[rgaskey]

I missed the lottery, again. I am beginning to wonder if I could ever get it in 4.6 billion years. I only have 6 numbers to hit randomly. How does that compare to the permutations in a chimpanzee's DNA?

[drakeblackhorn]

a conspiracy theorist, the worst sort of creationist. we're not trying to destroy your religion. we're trying to save ourselves and others from the twisted products of your church.

i have nothing further to say to you, since i see you're just chucking fallacies at me at this point. i never had any hope of showing you how flawed your world view is. i'm just using you as an example for those who can think for themselves.

[rgaskey]

Fine, Drake. I will allow my comments to stand. Your only interest thus far is to label me as something. People reading this, look at the exchange, and if you like, google "Drakeblackhorn".

[drakeblackhorn]

you're claiming that scientists who reject evolutionary theory have to hide to protect their jobs, which is nonsense. that's a baseless conspiracy theory that's going around a lot today.

evolutionary theory is indeed tested, scrutinized, and put through the whole gauntlet that other theories have gone through. the only difference is that it can't be demonstrated fully and clearly in a five minute cartoon.

[rgaskey]

I posted...maybe I didn't post to your comment correctly....I am waiting for your response