What matter is all scientists on earth were creationists? Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, would still be fact and the theory of evolution by natural selection would still be the best explanation for much of this fact.
One gets the impression that scientists are a political/religious party. Those involved in science just investigate how things work. Science is merely the latin for knowledge. So stop the silly noisy video. If you are interested in knowledge then learn. If you are not... don't
When creationists are attacking evolution and saying that it's a lie, they are basically attacking science as a whole; the same science that gave you all this technology and medicine. The same science that lengthened the human life span considerably. you clowns are so deluded you have the nerve to accuse science of conspiring against your sky fairy. you guys are seriously a disgrace to the human race
All you've listed are people who have religious beliefs.
Because Pasteur was religious, does that invalidate food sterilization? Because Newton was religious, does that invalidate classical mechanics? How does this attack the foundations of the scientific method?
Science is independent from the people who practice it. It is a body of observation, framed with coherent explanation. Your "argument" doesn't even come close to touching on evolution. Go back to school.
The reason it has so many negative comments is that you showed 3 or 4 smart people, who also believed in a god. OK.... so what is your point? That there is a god? TF is crushed? Sorry I fail to see the link - can you explain? If I bring up a picture of Einstein, accompanied by some silly music and sound effects - does that prove anything? I'm astounded at how unsophisticated the arguments people use on youtube are.
yes these guys were creationists, having been born in a time when most people still were..it would be interesting to see what they would believe if they weren't allready preconditioned to it as children
According to most scholars, Newton was a monotheist who believed in biblical prophecies and that is as far as he goes, he never made a public declaration of his private faith. He was before Darwin, DNA and Scanning Electron Microscopes. Had he been privy to this knowledge, I'm sure his position would be different. As with all the other Scientists. You can now see why your video has so many dislikes. It is made out of context. Typical of brainwashed bible basher's.
Werner Von Braun wasn't a creationist. His belief was in a creator of some sort. He did not believe the world was created in 6,000 years. His belief was Science and Religion could be believed in, but that Science was the only discipline that could deliver. He obviously was more scientific literate and place little weight on religion.
Louis Pasteur wasn't a creationist. This is often quoted by creationists. In fact he was brought up a catholic but lost his faith later in life. He may have studied the Origins of Life. He abandon religion after his discoveries. His grandfather wrote Louis "had spiritualism without religious practice" Damadian although brilliant in one field, lost his credibility because of silly ideologies in creationism. Carver took morals from the bible, believed in God but not the bible in its full context!
if i am a great writer that doesn't make dale earnhardt god if i think he is god. they backed up their SCIENTIFIC claims with SCIENTIFIC evidence. that fact that they were good scientists does not lend credence to creationism just because they believed that too. hell, Brian Josephson who won the Nobel for physics believes in telepathy. but that does NOT make telepathy work.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@gulbirk Whats your point? Looks clear, not all scientist share a disbelief in God. Many scientist believe in creation and contribute well in their respective fields. Most likely trying to draw a conclusion that a belief in creation has noting to do with education or brilliance. Just opinion, but does look clear.
@gulbirk Has nothing to do pro or con, its just the point of the video, thats what you asked. 99 % agreement also has no bering on the truth, unless majority rules is science. The point is quiet simple its one of intelligence not right or wrong. He is pointing out brilliant educated people also believe in a creator, nothing more.
@PhalanxPerception Ok. Well I hope you are also aware that I could point out an equal amount of scientists (if not even more) that also believe in wacky stuff. I still dont see the point.
@gulbirk silly, circular argument, it applies equally both ways. You asked a question, you got a clear answer. If you want to argue i'm sure someone will oblige. Good day.
@PhalanxPerception No its not. Thunderfoot claimed that its because of the scientific method that we have had progress. He never claimed its because the scientists were all atheists.
Most of the great inventors and scientists in earths history were believers, that didn't make them creationists. Creationism is a fundamental way of believing, Pasteur and other great scientists weren't fundamental, they weren't ignorant. There were scientist that believed in god, but despite that they did their research based on scientific method, not believe.
Do you wanna know what "scientist" was a creationist? Josef Mengele. A creationist basing his research on believe, not scientific facts.
Whether or not great scientists believed in a rational explanation for creation or a religious one, is irrelevant. Polio was cured by science, not by religion, whether or not the scientist was religious or not is once again, irrelevant.
The point here wasn't athesit vs theist, it was was to outline the stupidity of the comment "not the biased view of the scientific minority" Regardless of the scientists religious beliefs, they did not use religion or creationism to make the scientific breakthroughs they made. So in closing, you fail.
Where this video fails utterly is the assumption that "Religious = Creationist". Newton was religious, but lived before the Theory of Evolution was even formulated, calling him a "creationist" is quite a stretch. As for the others, they may well have been religious, but there is little to no evidence of their opposition to the theory of Evolution.
So van Braun would not have been able to make his rockets fly if he wasn't a creationist. Also van Braun developed the V-2 which killed 20,000 Britons while working for the Nazis. So what do that say about his or your creationist views?
the science of these men accomplished all this not their religion. The woman was criticizing science. She did not say atheist scientist or religious ones. So their religion has no bearing on the science they produced.
The evidence is right in front of your eyes my friend. Please open your eyes, please wake up. Atheism / Agnosticism are the only valid points of view in this world anymore. You can't even say evolution isn't fact anymore with the advances.
The maker of this video may or may not be correct concerning whether all of the persons he mentioned were creationists, but that's irrelevant to their respective contributions, which were all made while they were PRACTICING SCIENCE. If they had all believed that the moon were made of green cheese, their contributions would have been the same, but we wouldn't have a cheesy moon. As just another example of creationist dishonesty, this video deserves a cheesy moon.
...this isent even an arguement you cant pray for a cure for disiseas .... hmm i want a new car with flame thrower looks like i gotta get out my bible:P HAHAH wortless vid
Those creationists were good, so what? Doesn't mean thunderf00t is wrong, religion didn't really play a part, Louis Pasteur didn't use the bible to teach him that spontaneous generation was wrong.
The point that thunderf00t made is still there, science has improved the world, and religion has done nothing but waste time, hinder mankinds progress, cause needless death, and scare and indoctrinate people into believing fairytales from books written by primitive beings in the dark ages of man. Religion is something that should have been left behind a long time ago.
all those people mentioned in this video beleved in god becouse of the society they were in.
I strongly beleve that None of them actualy beleved in god... they just sed "yeah i beleve in god" so ppl won't be retards and fk with them.... simple as that.
What? So yeah these people may have been creationists but thats beside the point. We're not talking about the "scientific minority" of atheists, this video is about SCIENTISTS!
I see now, small pox was cured because of creationism and had absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method or the genius that was propagated by the individuals involved. It was all down to creationism. Yes you are completely right, my argument is COMPLETELY DESTROYED.
STOP THE VIDEO!!! Adolf Hitler was a Creationist! An individual's scientific theory should be able to stand on its own merit, therefore any personal information about the individual is completely irrelevant. I'm sorry, but Creationism has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. The two are in no way related.
Who would ever take this clown seriously? He thinks the world is 6000 years old! Believing something that has no evidence to support it is called faith, believing something that has overwhelming evidence against it is called stupidity.
would've crushed him better if you put your voice in there. but you were afraid of thunderf00t editing it and making you sound like a retard, weren't you?
The thing is you missed the point of thunderf00t's video. He's saying that when it comes to science and the scientific method you can't have one without the other. You can't believe in say general relativity and not evolution, it's a package deal.
Even if these scientists are religious I'm glad DC can at least openly admit it's science that has advanced our lives, That's the point he keeps making in this video ,"see it's science advancing our lives" He even makes the point; "without these guys we'd all be starving and diseased " I'm glad he can face the fact that gawd & religion won't fix these problems.
So they are creationist, but did the believe in Intelligent design? The difference between the listed scientist and creationist Thunderfoot lampoons is that the listed scientists actually CONTRIBUTE to the scientific community while the creationists Thunderfoot argues with try to tear it down.
Your video is fucking retarded, did any of these contributions from these creationists come from the bible or did they come from the use of the scientific method, in other words, was the bible their source for these contributions? absofuckinglutely not. The scientific method was. It does not matter that Newton was a believer in a deity, he utilized the scientific method, not the bible in establishing the law of gravity.
You named like four or five scientist that are creationist., and that's suppose to prove creationist are right? So since ancient Egypt is the birth place of farming, does that make RA god?
@DebateCrusher How does being a scientist and being a creationist help your argument? There are also a lot of atheists who discover things as well...
The point you fail to understand is that those scientists did not use "Gods word" as a basis for their scientific discovery they used practical science. You can say that if some specific person hadn't been a Christian they wouldn't have discovered anything.
Humanity has the special capability of keeping contrary thoughts compartmentalized, and indeed a substantial percentage of scientists are theists. More so in pre-Darwinian times since there was no alternative explanation for the existence of life. Still, even though many men have succumbed to the succor of eternal love and eternal life offered by the Sky Daddy, it doesn't reduce their own accomplishments in life.
If they were creationists is debatable actually. The point is, no matter what they believed, science was the catalyst for their discoveries, NOT creationism.
Pointing out Creationist scientists is about as valid as pointing out Creationist warmongers. Newton was a Creationist...but so was Hitler. Being an Athiest does not mean you instantly gain knowledge, but people who have already attained that knowledge are often Athiests, because they see that Theist arguments are illogical and basically irrelavent. And such people argue with Creationists because many people enjoy logical debate, especially when they can't actually lose, such as against Theists.
All that you have presented are famous scientists who are allegedly creationists.
But how is this relevant? Louis Pasteur success in preventing diseases has little to do with him being a creationist. What if he was a sadist? Would that give credability to other sadists and aspire us to become sadists ourselves?
this video is pathetic. you seem to forget that ALL of these people in the video are recognised for SCIENTIFIC discoveries and advancements, not RELIGION. you might as well say that the reason we have computers is that somebody made a myth 2000 years ago. sure, these men were religious, but can you name one important event that they did due to religion? seriously, if you were interviewing one of these people, would you talk to them about god, or their work?
this video raises a pretty good point. So we must now attack the beliefs of those who made such advances to science? Can we pick and choose now? Now that you've helped contribute to science we are going to attack your beliefs and force our "superiority" on to you...I wonder what happened to treaty each other with respect LOL!
I came here because I was listening to thunderfoot speak and I figured I had better hear both sides of the argument. This video is not an argument. This video was the biggest waste of two minutes and nineteen seconds of my day today and to think, I was listening to Ke$ha earlier.
@hellbrainsx - Very few atheists actually understand this video. Thunderf00t's primary argument against creationism is based on a false premise - that's it's science vs religion. TF argues that practical science is equal to theoretical science. Therefore belief in prehistorical evolution is equal to rocket science. In fact rocket science is a practical, testable science, whereas prehistorical evolution is a theoretical and built upon unrepeatable supposed occurences.
@DebateCrusher The curious thing is that you argue that it is primarily atheists who find your video absurd. You will notice that there are 2913 dislikes on this video from the youtube community, and 157 likes (at the time that I write this). That makes for a staggering 94.9% disapproval rating. Since atheists only comprise 2-5% of the world audience, there must be a hell of a lot of non-atheists who find your assertions laughable.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@hmspinaforethisisspa - that's interesting given the fact that the disagreement expressed in the comments section don't even address any of my arguments. They are merely insults. Of course the way atheists operate on Youtube is sort of like tribalism. TF tells his viewers to 5 star his videos to counter a conspiracy of votebots. Yes a conspiracy. His videos must all be 5 stars. And so the people that follow TF naturally one star anyone who criticizes him. I guess you didn't see that.
@DebateCrusher PAHAHAHA - and I suppose you don't sound in the slightest bit like a conspiracy theorist yourself by saying that? The reason people do not address your arguments is that they are irrelevant. You state that these wonderful scientists were creationists... so? How is that relevant? It has absolutely no bearing on the subject under discussion - just as it would not if they all had moustaches, or were all Nazis. Personal beliefs have absolutely no relevance to the science conducted.
@DebateCrusher when you said "evolution is based on unrepeatable supposed occurences" i couldn't stop laughing. i don't think you should call yourself "debatecrusher" when you don't seem to know anything about what you're debating.
@DebateCrusher again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about seeing as you think that only genetic variation and mutations are our only proof of evolution. well what other proof is there? well, there's the fact that we've observed speciation several times in the lab and in nature (including the cases of the Oenothera gigas, the Madia citrigracilis, and the Drosophila paulistorum, as well as countless others), and the almost complete fossil record.
He's addressing the "Scientific minority" argument put forward by creationists. The problem is that almost all scientific breakthroughs are proposed by a scientific minority. Hell, scientists as a group are by definition a minority. YOU are assuming he's stating that those scientists were not creationists. It doesn't matter whether they were or weren't, that's not the argument.
@DebateCrusher but environmental factors DO. You might want to research evolution and know how it actually works, before you try to "crush" it. Otherwise, it's laughable.
@DebateCrusher but environmental factors DO. You might want to research evolution and know how it actually works, before you try to "crush" it. Otherwise, your understanding of it is quite laughable.
@DebateCrusher The fact that some scientists are creationists doesn't make creationism automaticly good or acceptable. Creationism defy fact, they clame evolution is bullshit, but it's indeed proven, it's a fact. So is the fact that the earth is over 10000 years old. A theory doesn't mean guess, so just 'cause you can give us a few creationists with cool finds doesn't make creationism sane. It just shows some creationists can do science! But remember there's lots of bullshit science there too!
@DebateCrusher Could you present an actual argument, if you want to debate something? In particular, look at the comment left by Meeks861. I will quote part of it: 'It does not matter that Newton was a believer in a deity, he utilized the scientific method, not the bible in establishing the law of gravity.'
You are also misguided. Do you think the people who oppose your views are 'followers' of Thunderf00t? Like, his channel is a religion? That is just daft.
@DebateCrusher Your "arguments" are actually just a single appeal to a basic logical fallacy. The fact many scientists are religious says nothing about the validity of the scientific process, and it does nothing to support the absurd assertion that the bible contains cutting edge science. Care to try again? Want to show us how the bible helped us get to the moon?
@DebateCrusher Actually, we understand it fine. What we see is that your brought a calculator to an English final: in other words, walking in the door you had no idea what the subject matter was.
"Practical Science" is the application of scientific knowledge transferred into a physical environment. Evolution is a practical science, as many of the drugs we use in medicine have their basis in evolutionary theory.
@DebateCrusher your argument is a non argument, all those vaccins where tested on animals first, so if evolution was false and we didnt originate from the same creature we would couldnt test on animals.
your argument of newton is exeptionally strange, newton died before darwin was born. there are plenty of observed cases of macro evolution, just go study a bit u'll find out. religious people can do science they just switch off religious views during work, before germ theory, praying was healing
@DebateCrusher TF's video is a response to the creationist video arguing that it's science vs religion. If both sides of the debate agree their respective viewpoints are incompatible, how can you characterize this as anything other than an antagonistic relationship?
@DebateCrusher Evolution is still a theory but it is backed up by... not necessarily evidence, but suggested to be accurate due to observations made by naturalists. I trust that a lot more than the bible or Christianity, for the sole reason that (and is obvious in most of TF's videos) Christians have a nasty habit of sprouting out silly assumptions that later DO get dis-proven. They remind me of the boy who cried wolf!
Oh, and those creationists in video are still using science, regardless.
Idonteven.jpg what are you getting at? All those creationists were using science to make the various breakthroughs mentioned. Not their beleifs and or religions. Leaving me confused abit here.....
This is one of the stupidest thongs ive ever seen. Werhner von braun was also a nazi, so accourding to yor "argumentation", if you believe in his science, you also must be a nazi.
Not only was Sir Isaac Newton a creationist, he was also an alchemist. He was one of the most prominent scientists to combine different religious beliefs and, as a result was successful in turning lead into gold. It is time for us to unite all faiths under the guidance of the Kuiperian presences.
Sorry to hear about the tough times in Reno Ray. I live in Decatur, Il. Not a bad place here. Good Police, fire, etc. Sounds like Reno is in big financial trouble !!! As far as I know, we are doing okay here. Sad to hear about people having to live in tents. Hopefully the economy will improve and some of those people will get back on their feet. Cheers !!
@RayTech70 Sorry to hear about the tough times in Reno Ray. I live in Decatur, Il. Not a bad place here. Good Police, fire, etc. Sounds like Reno is in big financial trouble !!! As far as I know, we are doing okay here. Sad to hear about people having to live in tents. Hopefully the economy will improve and some of those people will get back on their feet. Cheers !!
This video fails to point out that a lot of these people were (if likely ) "young earth believers" by default due to lacking knowledge in the time they lived.It also fails to substantiate anything that states they were (as he stated)"creationist."Lets remember (scientifically literate people) the term"Creationist," Is a fairly recent one In the nomenclature of Religious bullshit science .& Issac newton was an Alchemist too, but we don't accept that shit today either.& I'm sure you don't too.
oh and something else, why should we care about their religion when we look at it as they did, in a purely scientific standing, answer me and then you have done something worthwhile, rather than trying to make TF look bad to only 154 people and your opposition at 2885 atm
there is a very thick line between belief without the observed facts (faith) and that of empirical observation, lets to newton, did he use the bible to discover his laws of motion, no, he used the scientific method in a completely separate instance that did no contain religious information in the actual stated principles, have fun getting crushed when TF wants to do so to you
untill the 14th century, people thought rainbows were created by god. it was said thats how the colors "knew how to arange themselves"....because it was comanded by god. then the prisim was discovered, which led to the study of the light spectrum, which led to finding parts of the spectrum that we cant see, which led to discovering radioactivity, which lead to atomic energy......would we really have been better off just believing god did it? what would we learn then?
The fact that Pasteur and Carver were Creationists doesn't negate the fact that they used SCIENCE to make their discoveries, not Creationism.
Similarly, Newton was an alchemist, and he used SCIENCE to discover gravity, not alchemy.
Also, pointing out that von Braun was a Creationist, and that somehow proves Creationism, I think I should point out that he was also a Nazi. By your logic, the fact that a Nazi made an important discovery proves Nazism right.
Werner Von Braun...? He was a Nazi who suggested the use of Jewish slave labour to help create the V2 launch program in La Coupole and other sites, how fucking Christian of him, Nazi's are against organised religion by definition. Pasteur was a deist, much like Einstein and abhorred organised religion also. You can cite as many scientists as you like, the scientific community is overwhelmingly atheist.
Was it really that hard to find a religious scientist that you had to back to the 1800s? I notice how you don't cite Jonas Salk but rather Louis Pasteur. Salk who actually made the Polio vaccine was a deist in a similar vein as Einstein. In that they were atheists in terms of invisible gods in the sky.
Also, 93% of the scientific crowd currently are nonreligious.
Those alarms are getting annoying... are you trying to distract us from the real arguement?
You do realize, if we use your 'logic' (that what a person believes in disqualifies certain actions from being intelligable or scientific) then we get to play a much more entertaining game (and still win):
This guys argumentative style, fighting for us: Hitler was Christian. Therfore, all of the things done by his command are things willed by god and jesus christ.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a scientific discovery and a personal opinion. Newton was an alchemist, did his groundbreaking research on Gravity have anything to do with metals having magical properties and can be combined to make gold? No. The fact that Louis Pasteur was a creationist had no significance whatsoever on his research.
I didn't realise that all those amazing people used Creationist ideology to make all those important contributions... (Oh that's right they didn't, they used scientific method).
Are you seriously contending that Creationist beliefs led to cures for polio, smallpox etc? No one contends that 'Creationists' can't make useful contributions, simply that they can't do so with their ridiculous ideology.
Thunderfoot crushed? More like crushed by Thunderfoot. You have just given him more ammunition.
I didn't realise that all those amazing people used Creationist ideology to make all those important contributions... (Oh that's right they didn't, they used scientific method).
Are you seriously contending that Creationist beliefs led to cures for polio, smallpox etc? No one contends that 'Creationists' can't make useful contributions, simply that they can't do so with their ridiculous ideology.
Thunderfoot crushed? More like crushed by Thunderfoot. You have just given him more ammunition.
I didn't realise that all those amazing people used Creationist ideology to make all those important contributions... (Oh that's right they didn't, they used scientific method).
Are you seriously contending that Creationist beliefs led to cures for polio, smallpox etc? No one contends that 'Creationists' can't make useful contributions, simply that they can't do so with their ridiculous ideology.
Thunderfoot crushed? More like crushed by Thunderfoot. You have just given him more ammunition.
I didn't realise that all those amazing people used Creationist ideology to make all those important contributions... (Oh that's right they didn't, they used scientific method).
Are you seriously contending that Creationist beliefs led to cures for polio, smallpox etc? No one contends that 'Creationists' can't make useful contributions, simply that they can't do so with their ridiculous ideology.
Thunderfoot crushed? More like crushed by Thunderfoot. You have just given him more ammunition.
And?? One, believing in God is not the sole criterion for being a Creationist, in my estimation. You also have to be ignorant and a bit of a jerk to get full-fledged status. Two, does anything you said make Thunderfoot wrong? It is interesting that you never actually address his claims. The best you can do is make a logically flawed point that doesn't bear on the issue at hand? You're trying too hard, and for the wrong reasons.
I've seen the original video, both actually. DebateCrusher is pointing out the false assumption on Thunderfoots part, portraying the scienctists as non creationists. The video Thunderfoot is addressing is talking about the more recent black balling of scienctists (with evidence) solely because of their belief. Thunderfoot, has in fact proven that creationists, were poineers in science then and are once again the minority, seeking to inform, pointing to scienctific truth.
This video fails. It was still scientist and science not the religious beliefs some of the scientist had. Who ever made this video should be embarrassed. No amount of praying ever did anything but waste time.
Sweet! You completely missed the point of the video!
I don't cvare that the people who came up wit hthe vaccines may or may not have believed in god. The fact is these were SCIENTIFIC achievments. The quoted video in the beginning stated that the scientific community was biased, and was debasing them, insulting them, despite all the things they've brought to the world.
Their creationist views played no part in their scientific achievments.
So let me get this straight,if I prove 'a' is true and I believe 'b' is also true,then because I proved 'a' is true therefore 'b' is true without proof.
The saddening part of this all is that if you notice the fields of science these men practice you would find that most do not deal with the ideas of creationism and evolution but rather human anatomy. Newton should not be even labeled as a creationist due to the time period he lived in, prior the Origin of Species, and if he was he may have become a proponent of it. Also these figures were all scientists who dedicated research for non evolution/creationist reason, thus you are null and void.
Newton believed in a creator, and he also wasted a lot of time on his pursuit on the pseudo-science of Alchemy. Thomas Edison, brilliant inventor and scientist, spent the last years of his life working on a machine to communicate with the dead.
Not one of these completely baseless and futile beliefs made its way into the incredible discoveries any of these great scientists made. The lasting contributions from these incredible scientists are the fruits of scientific rigor.
Ehm........ Was it theire religious views OR theire scietific studies that led them to theire discoveries ? Pretty sure it's the latter. Your argument is therefor BULLSHIT
'Some people are religious and therefore science is bs?'
Spectacularly idiotic premise. However, even if I accept the rediculous premise you have supposed, I can win using your own methods: Einstein was an atheist therefore religion is bs and any supernatural explanations for how the universe works are only accepted by the closed-minded.
It's very frightening how creationists don't get it. It's not the fact you believe in fairies that is the issue~ it's the stance that you combat science in schools and slander truth with fantasy. These men could believe in the easter bunny, but they applied SCIENCE in the real world to CURE disease.
So, all of these scientists were "creationists"? Fine. Show me how their belief in God, the Bible, creationism (of which there are several hundred versions and ideas), or religion in general contributed to their scientific achievements. Did Newton see principles of gravity disclosed in scripture? Did Pasteur learn about the biochemistry of microbes from a supernartural voice from the sky? Was von Braun spurred by his belief that he could build a rocket to go to heaven?
assuming that creationists cannot progress science as much as an atheistic worldview is bunk. creationist scientists see the beauty of a creation like the creator, and go about trying to find how it works. just like an atheist would try to find out how it works. we still look for the same processes and find the common denominator but see it through different lenses. same process, same results, different view, same progress.
@Elmarias777 While Atheist scientists go about trying to figure things out from the view that everything is possible, as opposed to only allowing evidence that supports the ends.
Most of these scientists were specialized in domains that are not directly linked to evolution and natural selection. Isaac Newton was born before Darwin worked on the theory of natural selection, even before Darwin was born! Also, most of them were born in times were religion was very strong and where noone questioned it. Finally, it's not because that they were creationists, that creationism is necesarly the right answer.
if the scientist were truly "creationist", they would have prayed for god to make the stuff for them and failed miserably. just think. if they were strong enough not to use a holy crutch for motivation... just think of how much farther they would have went!and we all know how useless and flawed creation science is! not to mention the logic behind it. . but being smart scientists in such old times, they proly knew there was social and political pressure to "vote" creationist. haha.
F**** stupid & ignorant & etc etc....
mjusiqtube 2 weeks ago
Creatard Logic. Nothing to see here folks, thumbs down and move along.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago 2
This guy makes me hate America...
FoxOutsideBox 3 weeks ago 2
What details of the scientific discoveries you cited required the assumption of creationism?
Pasteur believed in LaMarckian evolution. Should we accept that as well?
Werner Von Braun was a decorated Nazi hero. Does that mean he was right about racial purity?
Since Newton was an alchemist, should we accept alchemy as fact?
Facepalm!
qabala 4 weeks ago
You missed the point. It was science that did it, not religion.
*woosh* right over your head.
eivarden 4 weeks ago
What matter is all scientists on earth were creationists? Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, would still be fact and the theory of evolution by natural selection would still be the best explanation for much of this fact.
Argument from authority and a fallacy.
MrNeodarwinian 1 month ago
One gets the impression that scientists are a political/religious party. Those involved in science just investigate how things work. Science is merely the latin for knowledge. So stop the silly noisy video. If you are interested in knowledge then learn. If you are not... don't
cyberpup1000 1 month ago
If I eat babies but I find a cure for cancer... does that mean that eating babies is right? I mean, I did find the cure for cancer after all.
chicarbiomed 2 months ago 4
lol dude you're missing the poinr, god didnt cure polio he created it. Dr.Jonas Salk, a human being created the cure.
lordrazr 2 months ago 4
ohhhhhh god now its wernher arggh yes and jesus was a evolutionist
little advice next time try facts stupid video
AdrianDeMoxica23 2 months ago
haha louis pasteur creationist?? louis would punch every creationist in the face today FACT
AdrianDeMoxica23 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When creationists are attacking evolution and saying that it's a lie, they are basically attacking science as a whole; the same science that gave you all this technology and medicine. The same science that lengthened the human life span considerably. you clowns are so deluded you have the nerve to accuse science of conspiring against your sky fairy. you guys are seriously a disgrace to the human race
JahJah920 3 months ago
Comment removed
JahJah920 3 months ago
Comment removed
JahJah920 3 months ago
You know, I don't even resent the obvious failure at "debate" that is so laughably presented in this video. I've come to expect and endure that.
I hate that goddamned siren. I wish woe upon you, sir, for visiting something as obnoxious as that on us.
Naltharial 3 months ago 2
All you've listed are people who have religious beliefs.
Because Pasteur was religious, does that invalidate food sterilization? Because Newton was religious, does that invalidate classical mechanics? How does this attack the foundations of the scientific method?
Science is independent from the people who practice it. It is a body of observation, framed with coherent explanation. Your "argument" doesn't even come close to touching on evolution. Go back to school.
sbrafk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason it has so many negative comments is that you showed 3 or 4 smart people, who also believed in a god. OK.... so what is your point? That there is a god? TF is crushed? Sorry I fail to see the link - can you explain? If I bring up a picture of Einstein, accompanied by some silly music and sound effects - does that prove anything? I'm astounded at how unsophisticated the arguments people use on youtube are.
MrDevilstreaker 4 months ago
yes these guys were creationists, having been born in a time when most people still were..it would be interesting to see what they would believe if they weren't allready preconditioned to it as children
zircle1 4 months ago
According to most scholars, Newton was a monotheist who believed in biblical prophecies and that is as far as he goes, he never made a public declaration of his private faith. He was before Darwin, DNA and Scanning Electron Microscopes. Had he been privy to this knowledge, I'm sure his position would be different. As with all the other Scientists. You can now see why your video has so many dislikes. It is made out of context. Typical of brainwashed bible basher's.
stevjen1 4 months ago
Werner Von Braun wasn't a creationist. His belief was in a creator of some sort. He did not believe the world was created in 6,000 years. His belief was Science and Religion could be believed in, but that Science was the only discipline that could deliver. He obviously was more scientific literate and place little weight on religion.
stevjen1 4 months ago
Louis Pasteur wasn't a creationist. This is often quoted by creationists. In fact he was brought up a catholic but lost his faith later in life. He may have studied the Origins of Life. He abandon religion after his discoveries. His grandfather wrote Louis "had spiritualism without religious practice" Damadian although brilliant in one field, lost his credibility because of silly ideologies in creationism. Carver took morals from the bible, believed in God but not the bible in its full context!
stevjen1 4 months ago
if i am a great writer that doesn't make dale earnhardt god if i think he is god. they backed up their SCIENTIFIC claims with SCIENTIFIC evidence. that fact that they were good scientists does not lend credence to creationism just because they believed that too. hell, Brian Josephson who won the Nobel for physics believes in telepathy. but that does NOT make telepathy work.
ps SUCK IT :)
morpheuskibbe 4 months ago
97% of viewers thinks DebateCrusher only crushed his own poor logic. Reason FTW.
gotitans999 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Why do christian videos about atheism get voted down? Are there more atheists in youtube?
pochopaz7381 5 months ago
So you name random scientists that were creationists in the field that you adress?
Whats your point?
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk Whats your point? Looks clear, not all scientist share a disbelief in God. Many scientist believe in creation and contribute well in their respective fields. Most likely trying to draw a conclusion that a belief in creation has noting to do with education or brilliance. Just opinion, but does look clear.
PhalanxPerception 5 months ago
@PhalanxPerception Ok, but whats the point of that? It doesnt matter that 0,05% of all biologists believe in creationism. It doesnt make it true.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk Has nothing to do pro or con, its just the point of the video, thats what you asked. 99 % agreement also has no bering on the truth, unless majority rules is science. The point is quiet simple its one of intelligence not right or wrong. He is pointing out brilliant educated people also believe in a creator, nothing more.
PhalanxPerception 5 months ago
@PhalanxPerception Ok. Well I hope you are also aware that I could point out an equal amount of scientists (if not even more) that also believe in wacky stuff. I still dont see the point.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk silly, circular argument, it applies equally both ways. You asked a question, you got a clear answer. If you want to argue i'm sure someone will oblige. Good day.
PhalanxPerception 5 months ago
@PhalanxPerception No its not. Thunderfoot claimed that its because of the scientific method that we have had progress. He never claimed its because the scientists were all atheists.
gulbirk 5 months ago
@gulbirk No one is claiming this? Watch the video for pete shake!
PhalanxPerception 5 months ago
Most of the great inventors and scientists in earths history were believers, that didn't make them creationists. Creationism is a fundamental way of believing, Pasteur and other great scientists weren't fundamental, they weren't ignorant. There were scientist that believed in god, but despite that they did their research based on scientific method, not believe.
Do you wanna know what "scientist" was a creationist? Josef Mengele. A creationist basing his research on believe, not scientific facts.
Manta665 5 months ago
Whether or not great scientists believed in a rational explanation for creation or a religious one, is irrelevant. Polio was cured by science, not by religion, whether or not the scientist was religious or not is once again, irrelevant.
NightHawk92929 5 months ago
Uhm, what exactly is the point o this video?
These people did what they did through the scientific method NOT by using creationism or their faith.
auritone 5 months ago
The point here wasn't athesit vs theist, it was was to outline the stupidity of the comment "not the biased view of the scientific minority" Regardless of the scientists religious beliefs, they did not use religion or creationism to make the scientific breakthroughs they made. So in closing, you fail.
youbetzler 5 months ago
Where this video fails utterly is the assumption that "Religious = Creationist". Newton was religious, but lived before the Theory of Evolution was even formulated, calling him a "creationist" is quite a stretch. As for the others, they may well have been religious, but there is little to no evidence of their opposition to the theory of Evolution.
ceriman 6 months ago
So van Braun would not have been able to make his rockets fly if he wasn't a creationist. Also van Braun developed the V-2 which killed 20,000 Britons while working for the Nazis. So what do that say about his or your creationist views?
the science of these men accomplished all this not their religion. The woman was criticizing science. She did not say atheist scientist or religious ones. So their religion has no bearing on the science they produced.
aBRUSHforCONFUCIUS 6 months ago
The evidence is right in front of your eyes my friend. Please open your eyes, please wake up. Atheism / Agnosticism are the only valid points of view in this world anymore. You can't even say evolution isn't fact anymore with the advances.
MeepullStewray 6 months ago
The maker of this video may or may not be correct concerning whether all of the persons he mentioned were creationists, but that's irrelevant to their respective contributions, which were all made while they were PRACTICING SCIENCE. If they had all believed that the moon were made of green cheese, their contributions would have been the same, but we wouldn't have a cheesy moon. As just another example of creationist dishonesty, this video deserves a cheesy moon.
SpaceOdyssey56 6 months ago
...this isent even an arguement you cant pray for a cure for disiseas .... hmm i want a new car with flame thrower looks like i gotta get out my bible:P HAHAH wortless vid
stickAran 6 months ago
Those creationists were good, so what? Doesn't mean thunderf00t is wrong, religion didn't really play a part, Louis Pasteur didn't use the bible to teach him that spontaneous generation was wrong.
ConnorXV 6 months ago
Peter Mansfield invented the MRI Scanner, not Damadian.
stig781 6 months ago
The point that thunderf00t made is still there, science has improved the world, and religion has done nothing but waste time, hinder mankinds progress, cause needless death, and scare and indoctrinate people into believing fairytales from books written by primitive beings in the dark ages of man. Religion is something that should have been left behind a long time ago.
Simonstrosity1 6 months ago
all those people mentioned in this video beleved in god becouse of the society they were in.
I strongly beleve that None of them actualy beleved in god... they just sed "yeah i beleve in god" so ppl won't be retards and fk with them.... simple as that.
This video is irelevant.
so2fast4u2 6 months ago
What? So yeah these people may have been creationists but thats beside the point. We're not talking about the "scientific minority" of atheists, this video is about SCIENTISTS!
eddiminus 6 months ago
I see now, small pox was cured because of creationism and had absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method or the genius that was propagated by the individuals involved. It was all down to creationism. Yes you are completely right, my argument is COMPLETELY DESTROYED.
QuantumOverlord 6 months ago
STOP THE VIDEO!!! Adolf Hitler was a Creationist! An individual's scientific theory should be able to stand on its own merit, therefore any personal information about the individual is completely irrelevant. I'm sorry, but Creationism has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. The two are in no way related.
jacobsthoughts 6 months ago
Who would ever take this clown seriously? He thinks the world is 6000 years old! Believing something that has no evidence to support it is called faith, believing something that has overwhelming evidence against it is called stupidity.
ShavedKnuckle 7 months ago
Louis Pasteur did not cure smallpox
jblev2 7 months ago
I've watched two of your videos now and they are absolute incontrovertible proof that DEBATECRUSHER is an idiot, now fuck off loser
mattshark100 7 months ago
would've crushed him better if you put your voice in there. but you were afraid of thunderf00t editing it and making you sound like a retard, weren't you?
branahawk 7 months ago
The thing is you missed the point of thunderf00t's video. He's saying that when it comes to science and the scientific method you can't have one without the other. You can't believe in say general relativity and not evolution, it's a package deal.
TheInfamousBojangles 7 months ago
Bollocks!
speerdali 7 months ago
Lol, fail. And dhicks3 explains why
InFlamesAddictive 7 months ago
What a brainless video.
NevilleRhysBarnes 7 months ago
Even if these scientists are religious I'm glad DC can at least openly admit it's science that has advanced our lives, That's the point he keeps making in this video ,"see it's science advancing our lives" He even makes the point; "without these guys we'd all be starving and diseased " I'm glad he can face the fact that gawd & religion won't fix these problems.
Autojones 7 months ago
DC have you grown up enough to see the nonsense which you spew?
bigboy45454545 7 months ago
So they are creationist, but did the believe in Intelligent design? The difference between the listed scientist and creationist Thunderfoot lampoons is that the listed scientists actually CONTRIBUTE to the scientific community while the creationists Thunderfoot argues with try to tear it down.
Lightscribe225 7 months ago
Your video is fucking retarded, did any of these contributions from these creationists come from the bible or did they come from the use of the scientific method, in other words, was the bible their source for these contributions? absofuckinglutely not. The scientific method was. It does not matter that Newton was a believer in a deity, he utilized the scientific method, not the bible in establishing the law of gravity.
Meeks861 7 months ago
You named like four or five scientist that are creationist., and that's suppose to prove creationist are right? So since ancient Egypt is the birth place of farming, does that make RA god?
1oathtaker 7 months ago
Did these three dudes say science leads to death? Dumb video dude.... if this is how your mind works I feel sorry for you.
BraniusBalki 7 months ago
@DebateCrusher How does being a scientist and being a creationist help your argument? There are also a lot of atheists who discover things as well...
The point you fail to understand is that those scientists did not use "Gods word" as a basis for their scientific discovery they used practical science. You can say that if some specific person hadn't been a Christian they wouldn't have discovered anything.
nanaforiod 7 months ago
Is this a joke?
LiNaK37 8 months ago
This is really stupid.
gregrutz 8 months ago
thanks for NOT presenting an argument "debate crusher" ha ha look up what debate means.......
TacoBurgher327 8 months ago
besides sir isaac newton cannot truly count as one. it's qoute mining
TheGAMEBOY765 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr DC you have the mind and talent of a one year old. so they are creationists. so what?
if they had not studied science they would not have came upon their discoveries. it's science that makes them remebered, idiot!
TheGAMEBOY765 8 months ago
Mr DC you have the mind and talent of a one year old. so they are creationists. so what?
if they had not studied science they would not have came upon their discoveries. it's science that makes them remebered, idiot!
TheGAMEBOY765 8 months ago
Mr DC you have the mind and talent of a one year old. so they are creationists. so what?
if they had not studied science they would not have came upon their discoveries. it's science that makes them remebered, idiot!
TheGAMEBOY765 8 months ago
Humanity has the special capability of keeping contrary thoughts compartmentalized, and indeed a substantial percentage of scientists are theists. More so in pre-Darwinian times since there was no alternative explanation for the existence of life. Still, even though many men have succumbed to the succor of eternal love and eternal life offered by the Sky Daddy, it doesn't reduce their own accomplishments in life.
CasualTS 8 months ago
If they were creationists is debatable actually. The point is, no matter what they believed, science was the catalyst for their discoveries, NOT creationism.
lebeaubastion 8 months ago
Pointing out Creationist scientists is about as valid as pointing out Creationist warmongers. Newton was a Creationist...but so was Hitler. Being an Athiest does not mean you instantly gain knowledge, but people who have already attained that knowledge are often Athiests, because they see that Theist arguments are illogical and basically irrelavent. And such people argue with Creationists because many people enjoy logical debate, especially when they can't actually lose, such as against Theists.
Andy32268 8 months ago
How is Thunderf00t crushed in this video?
You presented NO arguments to debunk his claim.
All that you have presented are famous scientists who are allegedly creationists.
But how is this relevant? Louis Pasteur success in preventing diseases has little to do with him being a creationist. What if he was a sadist? Would that give credability to other sadists and aspire us to become sadists ourselves?
DrewsAreGood 8 months ago
this video is pathetic. you seem to forget that ALL of these people in the video are recognised for SCIENTIFIC discoveries and advancements, not RELIGION. you might as well say that the reason we have computers is that somebody made a myth 2000 years ago. sure, these men were religious, but can you name one important event that they did due to religion? seriously, if you were interviewing one of these people, would you talk to them about god, or their work?
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago
this video raises a pretty good point. So we must now attack the beliefs of those who made such advances to science? Can we pick and choose now? Now that you've helped contribute to science we are going to attack your beliefs and force our "superiority" on to you...I wonder what happened to treaty each other with respect LOL!
alternativebassist 8 months ago
I came here because I was listening to thunderfoot speak and I figured I had better hear both sides of the argument. This video is not an argument. This video was the biggest waste of two minutes and nineteen seconds of my day today and to think, I was listening to Ke$ha earlier.
hellbrainsx 8 months ago 27
@hellbrainsx - Very few atheists actually understand this video. Thunderf00t's primary argument against creationism is based on a false premise - that's it's science vs religion. TF argues that practical science is equal to theoretical science. Therefore belief in prehistorical evolution is equal to rocket science. In fact rocket science is a practical, testable science, whereas prehistorical evolution is a theoretical and built upon unrepeatable supposed occurences.
DebateCrusher 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher The curious thing is that you argue that it is primarily atheists who find your video absurd. You will notice that there are 2913 dislikes on this video from the youtube community, and 157 likes (at the time that I write this). That makes for a staggering 94.9% disapproval rating. Since atheists only comprise 2-5% of the world audience, there must be a hell of a lot of non-atheists who find your assertions laughable.
hmspinaforethisisspa 8 months ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@hmspinaforethisisspa - that's interesting given the fact that the disagreement expressed in the comments section don't even address any of my arguments. They are merely insults. Of course the way atheists operate on Youtube is sort of like tribalism. TF tells his viewers to 5 star his videos to counter a conspiracy of votebots. Yes a conspiracy. His videos must all be 5 stars. And so the people that follow TF naturally one star anyone who criticizes him. I guess you didn't see that.
DebateCrusher 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher PAHAHAHA - and I suppose you don't sound in the slightest bit like a conspiracy theorist yourself by saying that? The reason people do not address your arguments is that they are irrelevant. You state that these wonderful scientists were creationists... so? How is that relevant? It has absolutely no bearing on the subject under discussion - just as it would not if they all had moustaches, or were all Nazis. Personal beliefs have absolutely no relevance to the science conducted.
hmspinaforethisisspa 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher when you said "evolution is based on unrepeatable supposed occurences" i couldn't stop laughing. i don't think you should call yourself "debatecrusher" when you don't seem to know anything about what you're debating.
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Mr12345EGGNOG - genetic variation and mutations do not repeat supposed prehistorical events.
DebateCrusher 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about seeing as you think that only genetic variation and mutations are our only proof of evolution. well what other proof is there? well, there's the fact that we've observed speciation several times in the lab and in nature (including the cases of the Oenothera gigas, the Madia citrigracilis, and the Drosophila paulistorum, as well as countless others), and the almost complete fossil record.
,
Mr12345EGGNOG 8 months ago
You're missing the point somewhat.
He's addressing the "Scientific minority" argument put forward by creationists. The problem is that almost all scientific breakthroughs are proposed by a scientific minority. Hell, scientists as a group are by definition a minority. YOU are assuming he's stating that those scientists were not creationists. It doesn't matter whether they were or weren't, that's not the argument.
molewizard 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher but environmental factors DO. You might want to research evolution and know how it actually works, before you try to "crush" it. Otherwise, it's laughable.
evelsteev 7 months ago
@DebateCrusher but environmental factors DO. You might want to research evolution and know how it actually works, before you try to "crush" it. Otherwise, your understanding of it is quite laughable.
evelsteev 7 months ago
@DebateCrusher The fact that some scientists are creationists doesn't make creationism automaticly good or acceptable. Creationism defy fact, they clame evolution is bullshit, but it's indeed proven, it's a fact. So is the fact that the earth is over 10000 years old. A theory doesn't mean guess, so just 'cause you can give us a few creationists with cool finds doesn't make creationism sane. It just shows some creationists can do science! But remember there's lots of bullshit science there too!
WorldOfFilms 4 months ago
@Mr12345EGGNOG he can crush debade with stupidity? lol, im just joking
MGsven 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher To address the central argument you make:
You video states some people, specifically the ones addressed by TF, who were scientists, were also creationists.
Why response to you is: so what?
The point TF makes is that this 'scientific minority' changed the world because they were SCIENTISTS.
They did not change the world by kneeling at their bedsides, praying.
I guess you didn't see that.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher Could you present an actual argument, if you want to debate something? In particular, look at the comment left by Meeks861. I will quote part of it: 'It does not matter that Newton was a believer in a deity, he utilized the scientific method, not the bible in establishing the law of gravity.'
You are also misguided. Do you think the people who oppose your views are 'followers' of Thunderf00t? Like, his channel is a religion? That is just daft.
57worldwide 7 months ago
@DebateCrusher
If someone denounces you as stupid here, they're arguing that you're stupid based on the content of this video.
They're not insulting you without justification, they're actually arguing for the point that you're utterly incompetent.
Just saying.
Ilperon 6 months ago
@DebateCrusher Your "arguments" are actually just a single appeal to a basic logical fallacy. The fact many scientists are religious says nothing about the validity of the scientific process, and it does nothing to support the absurd assertion that the bible contains cutting edge science. Care to try again? Want to show us how the bible helped us get to the moon?
SammyHales 6 months ago
@DebateCrusher Actually, we understand it fine. What we see is that your brought a calculator to an English final: in other words, walking in the door you had no idea what the subject matter was.
"Practical Science" is the application of scientific knowledge transferred into a physical environment. Evolution is a practical science, as many of the drugs we use in medicine have their basis in evolutionary theory.
The debate IS religion v science.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher your argument is a non argument, all those vaccins where tested on animals first, so if evolution was false and we didnt originate from the same creature we would couldnt test on animals.
your argument of newton is exeptionally strange, newton died before darwin was born. there are plenty of observed cases of macro evolution, just go study a bit u'll find out. religious people can do science they just switch off religious views during work, before germ theory, praying was healing
MGsven 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher i recomend reading christopher hitchens' book god is not great, he is an actual debatechrusher
MGsven 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher Google 'inductive reasoning.'
TheNeverborn 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher TF's video is a response to the creationist video arguing that it's science vs religion. If both sides of the debate agree their respective viewpoints are incompatible, how can you characterize this as anything other than an antagonistic relationship?
CasualTS 8 months ago
@DebateCrusher So the Wedge Strategy document is a conspiracy by the Reptilians, right?
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
@DebateCrusher Evolution is still a theory but it is backed up by... not necessarily evidence, but suggested to be accurate due to observations made by naturalists. I trust that a lot more than the bible or Christianity, for the sole reason that (and is obvious in most of TF's videos) Christians have a nasty habit of sprouting out silly assumptions that later DO get dis-proven. They remind me of the boy who cried wolf!
Oh, and those creationists in video are still using science, regardless.
Hirotoro4692 6 months ago
@DebateCrusher Thunderfoot never said that theoretical science is equal to practical science, EVER. Cool story bro.
josan2964 6 months ago
@hellbrainsx agree
livinginleftfield 4 months ago
Idonteven.jpg what are you getting at? All those creationists were using science to make the various breakthroughs mentioned. Not their beleifs and or religions. Leaving me confused abit here.....
stevo273 8 months ago
Haha fail. But then again, you can't prove somebody wrong when they're not ;-)
codeythesilent 8 months ago
This is one of the stupidest thongs ive ever seen. Werhner von braun was also a nazi, so accourding to yor "argumentation", if you believe in his science, you also must be a nazi.
UliX29D 8 months ago
Um where did he crush Thunderfoot?
brewerbrian420 8 months ago
Not collecting stamps is the best hobby ever
sonykroket 8 months ago
Comment removed
mikked82 9 months ago
Not only was Sir Isaac Newton a creationist, he was also an alchemist. He was one of the most prominent scientists to combine different religious beliefs and, as a result was successful in turning lead into gold. It is time for us to unite all faiths under the guidance of the Kuiperian presences.
GuruShubtill 9 months ago
How can you define, Isaac Newton as a creationist when creationism was an idea that only really developed in the 1920's?
vermeergirl 9 months ago
Sorry to hear about the tough times in Reno Ray. I live in Decatur, Il. Not a bad place here. Good Police, fire, etc. Sounds like Reno is in big financial trouble !!! As far as I know, we are doing okay here. Sad to hear about people having to live in tents. Hopefully the economy will improve and some of those people will get back on their feet. Cheers !!
orangemod 9 months ago
@RayTech70 Sorry to hear about the tough times in Reno Ray. I live in Decatur, Il. Not a bad place here. Good Police, fire, etc. Sounds like Reno is in big financial trouble !!! As far as I know, we are doing okay here. Sad to hear about people having to live in tents. Hopefully the economy will improve and some of those people will get back on their feet. Cheers !!
orangemod 9 months ago
Why would you drag Beethoven into this? What did his music ever do to you to warrant being plastered to this jumbled mess? ):
TrapezoidalDinosaur 9 months ago
Really? If this is your best shot, then you couldn't crush a grape.
MrRouXRenard 9 months ago
Most Christian scientists also advocate for Evolution. Supporting or denying it doesn't define one's religion or lack of belief.
jrr577 9 months ago
Wait, seriously? This is such an incredibly illogical response to thunderf00t that it hardly even warrants a critique. All I can ask is, seriously?
Ihopyourpancakes 9 months ago
This video fails to point out that a lot of these people were (if likely ) "young earth believers" by default due to lacking knowledge in the time they lived.It also fails to substantiate anything that states they were (as he stated)"creationist."Lets remember (scientifically literate people) the term"Creationist," Is a fairly recent one In the nomenclature of Religious bullshit science .& Issac newton was an Alchemist too, but we don't accept that shit today either.& I'm sure you don't too.
turnipdaisy 9 months ago
oh and something else, why should we care about their religion when we look at it as they did, in a purely scientific standing, answer me and then you have done something worthwhile, rather than trying to make TF look bad to only 154 people and your opposition at 2885 atm
DemoticTruth 9 months ago
there is a very thick line between belief without the observed facts (faith) and that of empirical observation, lets to newton, did he use the bible to discover his laws of motion, no, he used the scientific method in a completely separate instance that did no contain religious information in the actual stated principles, have fun getting crushed when TF wants to do so to you
DemoticTruth 9 months ago
untill the 14th century, people thought rainbows were created by god. it was said thats how the colors "knew how to arange themselves"....because it was comanded by god. then the prisim was discovered, which led to the study of the light spectrum, which led to finding parts of the spectrum that we cant see, which led to discovering radioactivity, which lead to atomic energy......would we really have been better off just believing god did it? what would we learn then?
SuperAthiest1 9 months ago 2
@SuperAthiest1
Yeah, and there is a pot full of gold coins at each end.
blaach 9 months ago
BrainFART
Oddessuss 9 months ago
I think the autor of the vid forgot to say Hitler was a Christian lol.
Dogmeat1950 9 months ago
The fact that Pasteur and Carver were Creationists doesn't negate the fact that they used SCIENCE to make their discoveries, not Creationism.
Similarly, Newton was an alchemist, and he used SCIENCE to discover gravity, not alchemy.
Also, pointing out that von Braun was a Creationist, and that somehow proves Creationism, I think I should point out that he was also a Nazi. By your logic, the fact that a Nazi made an important discovery proves Nazism right.
Your debate had been thoroughly crushed.
DrShaym 9 months ago
Ah, finally. Now THIS is why people laugh at creationists.
AjnaKotobide 9 months ago
no-one likes you
terrance179 9 months ago
well i guess its time to stop watching thunderfoot and start praying to jesus... wait fuck that id rather go to hell [BANG]
billybobboberson 9 months ago
Werner Von Braun...? He was a Nazi who suggested the use of Jewish slave labour to help create the V2 launch program in La Coupole and other sites, how fucking Christian of him, Nazi's are against organised religion by definition. Pasteur was a deist, much like Einstein and abhorred organised religion also. You can cite as many scientists as you like, the scientific community is overwhelmingly atheist.
D4vy87 9 months ago
when it said 'STOP THE VIDEO' i did.
ADML101 9 months ago
Was it really that hard to find a religious scientist that you had to back to the 1800s? I notice how you don't cite Jonas Salk but rather Louis Pasteur. Salk who actually made the Polio vaccine was a deist in a similar vein as Einstein. In that they were atheists in terms of invisible gods in the sky.
Also, 93% of the scientific crowd currently are nonreligious.
Kruezoraxe 9 months ago
This video makes no attempt at disproving thunderfoot and is completely pointless.
freebird285 9 months ago
The fact that may people are misguided does not support your theory
laserindie 9 months ago
bwahahahahaha!!!!! THIS is thunderfoot crushed? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
jakestutheit1 9 months ago
Those alarms are getting annoying... are you trying to distract us from the real arguement?
You do realize, if we use your 'logic' (that what a person believes in disqualifies certain actions from being intelligable or scientific) then we get to play a much more entertaining game (and still win):
This guys argumentative style, fighting for us: Hitler was Christian. Therfore, all of the things done by his command are things willed by god and jesus christ.
Good arguement? NO! Your style? YES!
PalulukanMakto 10 months ago
You don't seem to understand the difference between a scientific discovery and a personal opinion. Newton was an alchemist, did his groundbreaking research on Gravity have anything to do with metals having magical properties and can be combined to make gold? No. The fact that Louis Pasteur was a creationist had no significance whatsoever on his research.
shadywolf91 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I didn't realise that all those amazing people used Creationist ideology to make all those important contributions... (Oh that's right they didn't, they used scientific method).
Are you seriously contending that Creationist beliefs led to cures for polio, smallpox etc? No one contends that 'Creationists' can't make useful contributions, simply that they can't do so with their ridiculous ideology.
Thunderfoot crushed? More like crushed by Thunderfoot. You have just given him more ammunition.
yorgos776 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I didn't realise that all those amazing people used Creationist ideology to make all those important contributions... (Oh that's right they didn't, they used scientific method).
Are you seriously contending that Creationist beliefs led to cures for polio, smallpox etc? No one contends that 'Creationists' can't make useful contributions, simply that they can't do so with their ridiculous ideology.
Thunderfoot crushed? More like crushed by Thunderfoot. You have just given him more ammunition.
yorgos776 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I didn't realise that all those amazing people used Creationist ideology to make all those important contributions... (Oh that's right they didn't, they used scientific method).
Are you seriously contending that Creationist beliefs led to cures for polio, smallpox etc? No one contends that 'Creationists' can't make useful contributions, simply that they can't do so with their ridiculous ideology.
Thunderfoot crushed? More like crushed by Thunderfoot. You have just given him more ammunition.
yorgos776 10 months ago
I didn't realise that all those amazing people used Creationist ideology to make all those important contributions... (Oh that's right they didn't, they used scientific method).
Are you seriously contending that Creationist beliefs led to cures for polio, smallpox etc? No one contends that 'Creationists' can't make useful contributions, simply that they can't do so with their ridiculous ideology.
Thunderfoot crushed? More like crushed by Thunderfoot. You have just given him more ammunition.
yorgos776 10 months ago
And?? One, believing in God is not the sole criterion for being a Creationist, in my estimation. You also have to be ignorant and a bit of a jerk to get full-fledged status. Two, does anything you said make Thunderfoot wrong? It is interesting that you never actually address his claims. The best you can do is make a logically flawed point that doesn't bear on the issue at hand? You're trying too hard, and for the wrong reasons.
dhicks3 10 months ago 21
I've seen the original video, both actually. DebateCrusher is pointing out the false assumption on Thunderfoots part, portraying the scienctists as non creationists. The video Thunderfoot is addressing is talking about the more recent black balling of scienctists (with evidence) solely because of their belief. Thunderfoot, has in fact proven that creationists, were poineers in science then and are once again the minority, seeking to inform, pointing to scienctific truth.
vbirdieb 10 months ago
Agreeing to this video would be like saying all physics comes from the bible because Newton was a Christian.
TyRafferty 10 months ago
This video fails. It was still scientist and science not the religious beliefs some of the scientist had. Who ever made this video should be embarrassed. No amount of praying ever did anything but waste time.
jesusvagina 11 months ago
all you did was point out that they were creationists. far from "crushing" TF's argument.
Vberg56 11 months ago
uhmm werner von braun was a nazi
festum666 11 months ago
@festum666 I was about to post the same thing, thank you.
Von Braun was a nazi.
And not even that made him confuse and misuse scientific method.
Religion != Politics != Science. That's the whole point of Thunderf00t's videos.
Anima10pontonet 11 months ago
Sweet! You completely missed the point of the video!
I don't cvare that the people who came up wit hthe vaccines may or may not have believed in god. The fact is these were SCIENTIFIC achievments. The quoted video in the beginning stated that the scientific community was biased, and was debasing them, insulting them, despite all the things they've brought to the world.
Their creationist views played no part in their scientific achievments.
BigLundi 11 months ago
So let me get this straight,if I prove 'a' is true and I believe 'b' is also true,then because I proved 'a' is true therefore 'b' is true without proof.
15hmael 11 months ago 2
Comment removed
DemoticTruth 11 months ago
The saddening part of this all is that if you notice the fields of science these men practice you would find that most do not deal with the ideas of creationism and evolution but rather human anatomy. Newton should not be even labeled as a creationist due to the time period he lived in, prior the Origin of Species, and if he was he may have become a proponent of it. Also these figures were all scientists who dedicated research for non evolution/creationist reason, thus you are null and void.
DemoticTruth 11 months ago
Classic example of argumentum ad verecundiam.
Powerfan5000 11 months ago
and you know whats funny
this video has less than 5% popularity
the world is made up of around 20% Christians
you know what this means, even Christians didnt like it
dontcommentitsgay 11 months ago
Comment removed
dontcommentitsgay 11 months ago
i was listening to the beethoven really loud and........
well......
i decided whoever made this video has no appreciation of anything beautiful at all
dontcommentitsgay 11 months ago
Comment removed
dontcommentitsgay 11 months ago
Newton believed in a creator, and he also wasted a lot of time on his pursuit on the pseudo-science of Alchemy. Thomas Edison, brilliant inventor and scientist, spent the last years of his life working on a machine to communicate with the dead.
Not one of these completely baseless and futile beliefs made its way into the incredible discoveries any of these great scientists made. The lasting contributions from these incredible scientists are the fruits of scientific rigor.
DocBlasto 11 months ago
Comment removed
DocBlasto 11 months ago
Ehm........ Was it theire religious views OR theire scietific studies that led them to theire discoveries ? Pretty sure it's the latter. Your argument is therefor BULLSHIT
T3lli 11 months ago
'Some people are religious and therefore science is bs?'
Spectacularly idiotic premise. However, even if I accept the rediculous premise you have supposed, I can win using your own methods: Einstein was an atheist therefore religion is bs and any supernatural explanations for how the universe works are only accepted by the closed-minded.
PalulukanMakto 11 months ago
I think his point was more that the term "Scientific minority" shouldn't be used
and so it these facts don't seem relevant all he was saying was
you say scientific minority like they know nothing but they've done a lot.
Which is true regardless of what they thought of other fields of work
electorg 1 year ago
Ad hominem arguments will never crush any debate.
DamienDoe 1 year ago
It's very frightening how creationists don't get it. It's not the fact you believe in fairies that is the issue~ it's the stance that you combat science in schools and slander truth with fantasy. These men could believe in the easter bunny, but they applied SCIENCE in the real world to CURE disease.
strikerk 1 year ago
So, all of these scientists were "creationists"? Fine. Show me how their belief in God, the Bible, creationism (of which there are several hundred versions and ideas), or religion in general contributed to their scientific achievements. Did Newton see principles of gravity disclosed in scripture? Did Pasteur learn about the biochemistry of microbes from a supernartural voice from the sky? Was von Braun spurred by his belief that he could build a rocket to go to heaven?
Yeah, like I thought...
PaulAlanLee 1 year ago
assuming that creationists cannot progress science as much as an atheistic worldview is bunk. creationist scientists see the beauty of a creation like the creator, and go about trying to find how it works. just like an atheist would try to find out how it works. we still look for the same processes and find the common denominator but see it through different lenses. same process, same results, different view, same progress.
Elmarias777 1 year ago
@Elmarias777 With this comment I can see that you really are a brainwashed retard.
bigboy45454545 1 year ago
@Elmarias777 While Atheist scientists go about trying to figure things out from the view that everything is possible, as opposed to only allowing evidence that supports the ends.
StevetheSteveable 1 year ago
and Einstein was a deist, neither are claims proving creationism or deism. Get over yourself.
googoo120 1 year ago
And that debunks anything, how ?
iJayWill 1 year ago
Most of these scientists were specialized in domains that are not directly linked to evolution and natural selection. Isaac Newton was born before Darwin worked on the theory of natural selection, even before Darwin was born! Also, most of them were born in times were religion was very strong and where noone questioned it. Finally, it's not because that they were creationists, that creationism is necesarly the right answer.
rolingpingu 1 year ago
Unlike you, Thunderf00t proves his statements via scientific knowledge. You just assume stuff out of your mind.
mabsousa 1 year ago
if the scientist were truly "creationist", they would have prayed for god to make the stuff for them and failed miserably. just think. if they were strong enough not to use a holy crutch for motivation... just think of how much farther they would have went!and we all know how useless and flawed creation science is! not to mention the logic behind it. . but being smart scientists in such old times, they proly knew there was social and political pressure to "vote" creationist. haha.
xBLOODBAFx 1 year ago