Added: 3 years ago
From: jdf088
Views: 488
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (43)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • no reasonable biologist believes in creation...........hhuuummmm i beg to differ ....or it would probably boil in your mind.....oh!! those are the unreasonable ones......what a trip

  • problem with evolution is you cant see speciation today .. you cannot create life from simple elements that came together by chance and sparked with lightiening .. you cannot have the complex cells build on trail and error .. many millions of transitional forms missing .. now with all of that missing what evidence does evolution have? just a theory based on little scrapes of evidence .. when you break it down its nothing more then a belief just like god =)

  • Your assumption here is absolutely false, not only have we seen speciation but the fossil record is growing. And BTW , simple life coming from organic compounds is "Abiogenesis". One example of speciation is nylon eating bacteria, nylon did not exist before 1935.

  • I hate to say this jdf088...but look at your answer and see what is wrong....hint...just because the nylon was not around does not mean the BACTERIA was not. Just a thought.

  • after all that mindless misinformed, braiwashed garbage ur going to put a fucking smile afterward? ur a disgrace...."little scraps of evidence"? try every scap of evidence u turd! WHAT THE FUCK ARE U BREAKING DOWN? WHAT COLLEGE DID U GET UR P.H.D AT INORDER TO BREAK IT DOWN? AN EVEN BETTER QUESTION: WHERE THE FUCK IS UR NOBEL PRIZE FOR PROVING EVOLUTION WRONG?.......yea didnt think so

  • "WHERE THE FUCK IS UR NOBEL PRIZE "

    its on its way =) subscribe to stay informed ! again just because its enough evidence to convince you , it isnt enough for me yet  , mind you i havnt turned my back on evolution its still open like any other theory , you just try to hard to make it as truth and reality but its not , still to many holes friend =)

  • So you are going to ignore all the fossil, genetic, and morphological evidence that backs up evolution as scientific fact? It is not a question as to whether it happened or not but how it happened, or do you not understand the meaning of theory? A theory is an explanation of an observation that fits the evidence as it is currently known.

  • nope not ignoring it , i know what evidence the darwinists claim to have , and the fossil record does not support evolution , lets not go there , fossil record shows species coming in and out likea light switch , i told just beacuse its enough evidence for your simple gullable mind doesnt mean the rest of us are monkey see monkey do =) would u like to see fossil record flip floping from your own darwinists? =)

    /watch?v=jq1SQNk7sC0

    thers one fool here, his names jdf088

  • The only simple mind here is yours as it seems you are unable or unwilling to grasp the subject you are talking about. You act as though the evidence doesn't even exist or that it has been falsified somehow. You seem to think you know better than the greatest minds of the past 150 years. Your willful ignorance coupled with your arrogance and deliberate dishonesty will soon earn you a place on my blocked list.

  • "The only simple mind here is yours as it seems you are unable or unwilling to grasp the subject you are talking about"

    quite the opposite actually , its more of an open mind , simple mind is yours good sir . for needing such a little evidence to make up your mind , for me i still keep evolution on the side , as i progress to research on it , you've already made up your mind about evolution , i have not , i still need thoose holes to be filled in

  • "You seem to think you know better than the greatest minds of the past 150 years. "

    and if you think the greatest minds go back to 150 years , im afraid your sadly mistaken, the longest every theory , and still standing is the creation theory ,

    "Your willful ignorance coupled with your arrogance and deliberate dishonesty "

    is this your final answer? do you really think i care if im on your block list or not ? do you really believe i think twice about you?

    foolish = jdf088

    =) good day

  • Creation does not qualify as a hypothesis much less a theory. As for the "holes" in the theory of evolution , they are tiny in comparison to the mountains of evidence in support of it. Being "open minded " does not mean being open to ideas not supported by anything but blind faith. I'm open to ideas that have verifiable evidence to back them up. It also seems you have thought more than twice about me since it's quite obvious you have posted several comments to me.

  • Nice answer dumbass! Thank the Lord for creationism! it has helped us learn to think before we speak....=) (sorry, had to put the smiley there.)

  • 1. Evolution does NOT speak of the origin of the universe.

    2. Evolution does not speak of HOW the first single cell organizm came to be.

    3. Evolution explains how life got from one celled organizms to the critters that inhabit the earth today. No more.

    4. Saying "I don't believe in evolution" is like saying you don't believe in MATH or GRAVITY.

    5. There is no conflicting theory in science. Creation Science is religion, not science.

  • They really like to lump it all together so as to make it easier to confuse the average person on the street. The fact that all life evolved is evident in DNA, they just cram The big bang and Abiogenesis with evolution knowing that they are 3 different theories. Thank you for your comment,

    peace, Jason

  • Camino wrote: "... if you think that science is a democracy you are wrong. Peoples opinions or feelings don't count, only the evidence." Thank you for responding. I entirely agree. Unfortunately, often what passes for science is less than true. For example, the big bang violates the laws of known science in that matter does not come from "nothing," yet it is not infinitely old. By logic, it must come from a source that is not natural. Similarly, we only observe life coming from life.

  • Actually the big bang says that all started from a single point and expanded out, all the matter was already there in the form of energy. As space-time expanded some of the energy condensed into matter forming the first particles then atoms of hydrogen and helium, those atoms came together under gravity and eventually became the first stars.

  • they have a good theory based on chemistry that shows how life was started with mechanical energy, and based on the physical laws of chemistry.

    also , as for something coming from nothing, no scientist will say that was the case with the big bang. we can only see that far back in time. before that, there may have been other universes. it's speculated that our present universe started from the meeting of higher dimensional branes.

  • No real bots my friend, just an organized and transient attack.

  • i probably pissed someone off, about 2 weeks ago all comments were marked as spam and were -10 and the rating was at 2 1/2*'s. initially it was 5 *'s, it took me all this time to get the comments thumbed up to this point and now it won't let me continue. i may just have to disable comment ratings.

  • Oh I know then, but you're not still under attack. As of yesterday, I still was. I haven't checked my vids I'll go look right now.

  • Maybe gootube finally did something about it. My most recent comment is -8 so my guess is they finally nailed a few sock accounts. I was having solid -11 down thumbs across the board and EVERYTHING marked as spam. Go make a comment on my latest vid and we'll see whait it looks like tomorrow and we'll be able to tell if this POS website even bothered to try to fix the problem. I highly doubt they have.

  • "13.7 billion years ago all the matter/energy in the Universe came into being for no apparent reason, breaking all known laws of physics"

    Is that what you really think science says?

  • The laws of physics were not broken but it is agreed they were not the same before the expansion of space time.

    Curious, what are the Fundie?

    Thanks

  • jdf088; I was under the impression that science whole structure is built on open debate and discourse. That is part of how it is self correcting. Good vid though.

  • you are correct, what i am saying in this video is that creationism is not based on science and therefore does not meet the standards of a debate in science. basically you don't debate science using arguments grounded in religion. we can argue points to creationists about their obvious errors but they refuse to see evidence in an objective manner.

  • If evolution is true then how come all the monkeys haven't evolved into humans?

  • we did not evolve from monkeys, we share an earlier common ancestor. we are actually more closely related to chimps and bonobos.

  • Evolution is driven by environmental pressures. Every creature is not going to turn into the same thing.

    To boot we do not come from monkeys.

  • "If evolution is true then how come all the monkeys haven't evolved into humans?"

    Because this is "evolution" not "shape shifting".

  • jdf088:the problem is that science and religion are 2 different subjects"

    Thanks for responding. I agree that science and religion are different. My point is that microbe-to-man evolution is not science in that it is not testable nor verifiable. For example, so called "science" claimed Piltdown Man was a missing link. It was a hoax. Dr. Lovejoy took a power tool to a model of Lucy to show how she "could have" walked upright. Atheists claim that natural "created everything." It is worship.

  • actually genetics research has shown overwhelming evidence for evolution, as for piltdown science itself exposed that hoax by finding the real links between early apes and man. and "Lucy" did walk upright because her hips and skull structure more closely matches ours, like where the spinal column met the skull at the bottom rather than the back of the skull. look this stuff up for yourself and see if i'm right, you would be surprised at how much actual evidence there is for evolution.

  • here are some sites i found

    becominghuman(dot)org

    livescience(dot)com/evolution

    humboldt(dot)edu/~mrc1

    archaeologyinfo(dot)com/specie­s(dot)html

  • Um, maybe there should be a debate because you are talking about our origins and some of us think God did it. We do not like our "science" mandated to us. No discussion. Period. That smacks of Communist Russia. If it is so cut and dried, why won't the open the speaking forum?

  • the problem is that science and religion are 2 different subjects, science makes no comment on the existance of a supreme being. science has rules and religion follows none of them, it has nothing to do with communism. you obviously don't know the first thing about science or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous comparison.

  • God did it is not an answer to anything.

    Also if you think that science is a democracy you are wrong. Peoples opinions or feelings don't count, only the evidence.

  • Tried to thumb up all comments but the last 4 on my list wouldn't let me. Great video too BTW.

  • google lolcats they are all over the place.

  • nice vid, thumed up all comments..

  • someone with at least 10 sock acounts downthumbed all comments and brought my rating down. of course it didn't take many 1 stars to achieve this, about 10 or so which matches the amount of thumb downs.

  • Well said, I could not agree more.

  • Actually i missed some of the text as I was looking at the kitties

  • What text? O_o

  • the fools....I pity them lol and than the crazy cats YOU ASSHOLE! Was my favorite he looks like Kirby Kitty

  • Nice use of cats!

  • What a great video! :)

  • Fantastic video, well thought out reasonable statements and bonus points for the LoLz!

    ;-)

  • Nice job!!!

  • kool video!

  • I'm sorry but I had to pause it just to laugh at the damn cat dressed up like a terrorist with the caption "I can has 72 virgins". ROFL! Good points!

  • What you come up against is a doctrine of total disconnection from reality. As an example I offer these two portions of AIG's Statement of Faith: 1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. 2. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Reasonable?

  • Um... no. But this seems to be a real mindset - one that's easy to find on YouTube.

  • Exactly. For the YEC it's not about being reasonable. It's about closing off all other lines of inquiry and debate that might defeat their argument or upset their position. Take a look at the most common tactics of creationists. Outright censorship. Despite this tactic, the majority of the pro-science community will not stoop to the same level. Limiting expression wouldn't help to support our postion.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more