Do not try to give evidence to anyone, I don't care who it is, that believes the earth is only 6,000 years old...because they will dismantle your feeble arguments and show your theory for what it is...a belief system based on unsubstantiated, unproven hypotheses and assertions that are clung to in the face of REAL, physical science. Lol, this is what infuriates you, no?
to the guy in the video: hey dude i feel sooo much like you!! about these dumb people trying to prove myth and ancient scripture as fact.
the best arguement against them is ... tell em they knobheads can wear any white coats and ties but its the real scientists that are changing the world ... taking man to the moon, discovering cures to diseases... tell them they can only pretend they are the right ones but to people who matter they are just clowns.
I agree that most YECs will never accept scientific evidence but I think it's important to challenge them, particularly publicly, because not all the people who hear the argument will disregard it. Religion is something you either grow out of or you don't and it's easier to if you're aware of alternatives. Also it's important that people are told that the world is different than they imagine it to be.
I'm Christian and a minister! I love this video! It is impossible to talk to a person who believes the earth is 6,000 years old. It angers me to think people really believe that garbage. If Mosses understood quantum physics he would have wrote Genesis differently. They think that cause Mosses uses "days" they think it is literally a day. In Genesis Ch. 2 Mosses clearly states the Earth was not made in 6 days. Anyway, love the video!
80 % of the world’s physicists are creationists(believe in intelligent design ). Why? Because they know how impossible evolution is. You think white is black and black is white. Satan has surely blinded you from the truth. God can easily blind those who have evil intensions from truth and reality. Only reason evolution is around is because its the only thing taught in schools. Im sorry, but cultural realitvism is not always true.
@ebilly99 creationists believe in natural selection, so your argument does not make sense. Evolution has been disproven many times, but Satan does not want people to think the Word of God is truth. . So if people think evolution is true, then they will discredit the bible. A young earth and evolution do not go together. That’s why evolution is an ever changing lie; they change parts of their theory every year because they can’t make sense of the overwhelming evidence against it.
The bible should not be looked at as a literal account but as a collection of stories with a little bit of history that have been passed down over the past 3,000 years or so. What evidence is there against evolution? Because if you can come up with some good evidence that proves evolution cannot be so, you sir will become famous.
Creationists...You're usually dull and unsure with just "I know theres a higher power out there, but I dont know, this that and the other, BUT....B...BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT YOU'RE RIGHT, OR THAT IM WRONG!" What? Exactly. You can't try to prove someone wrong WHEN THEY HAVEN'T YET STATED ANYTHING TO A THINKER THAT'S WORTH ARGUING ABOUT.
Why does everyone insist on arguing their point of view? If you try to prove a creationist wrong, whats that doing for you? nothing. Just dont even waste your time.
(script re-write for the man with a stupid fake accent) Dont try to put a youtube video up that talks about stuff you dont know, dont bother, dont talk to someone you disagree with, dont bother. Im a balding tard monkey with my glasses and books that make me look smart. I believe given enough time Carbon becomes everything, so dont bother
nice original sources and highly specific examples proving your rhetoric.... oh grand deep thought burne thank you for knowing all opinion and thought of anyone with different opinion of you. your narcissistic desperation is impressive :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It takes a special kind of idiot to believe in Evolution. I have a masters in Biology, and it's funny listening to sued o evolution worshipers talk about science. Besides, this guy is reading from a script, and it still sounds like a third grader.
I am a Christian and I srongly believe that the earth IS OLD for various reasons and I will give you some of them. 1. Science has proven that the earth is old. 2. Jesus Christ himself siad that " I am the way the Truth and the light." and this means that it would be agianst his nature to be deceptive. A tree looks like it is old becuase it is old and not because God is testing you. 3. The Hebrew word for day means a period of time and not necessairly a twenty-four hour time period.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
hello, who si this clown, why should we listen to you, anyone with any brains knows the earth is 6000 years old, I can tell by your accent that your full of shit
Don't get me wrong, but when I see it is that they're doing science. Isn't science about challenging theories and trying to find out the truth? Evolution is yet a theory so you can't just "ignore" opposition but must face it. Once you ignore the opposition and become hardened to only your belief, then that becomes religion. Open your heart more and challenge the opposition instead of just sticking your hand out to their faces. If they're wrong, then prove it to them so they have nothing to say.
The point is, Evolution is a theory based on facts. Theroy is the highest form of truth in science.
Every single creationist argument have been properly debunked over and over and over and over again. But it doesn't seem to stop cereationists from using them over again, knowing they're incorrect.
yo yo, carbon 14 dating is so faulty and im sure you know this its only accurate to up to around 1500 years sooo if we dont know the dates for sure how can we know how old the earth is regardless of fossils, creationists have lots of evidence such as human tracks within dinosaur footprints in the same layer so all you need to do is search on youtube and you can see for yourself
carbon 14 isnt even used to date the Earth, there are many radioactive decay dating methods, the Earth is old, wether anyone here is willing to accept it, or not...this is a fact.
Assumption are nessacary for the formualtion of any type of theory, whether it be creationism or evolution. The law of Parsonomy states that the theory that uses the least amount of assupmtions is the most likely to be true. Therefore if you assume that God exists first and formost then the biblical world view makes perfect sense. Evolution is not an observable science therefore I need to conclude, logically, that evolution requires a greater number of assumptions than belief in God.
The naturalistic world-view makes no assumptions whatsoever. Your religion assumes EVERYTHING. If god is the be-all and end-all, then he is the biggest assumption one can make. And even if god exists, how do you know who he is and what he wants without assuming that the people who wrote the bible aren't liars....? And don't go off about how you feel him in your hear either. Islamic terrorists feel the EXACT same thing.
"Evolution is not an observable science therefore I need to conclude, logically, that evolution requires a greater number of assumptions than belief in God."
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You can't be so stupid as to believe that something must be directly observed for it to be a science. The very Computer you're using the write your non-think is founded on principles that can never be observed. Evolution is demonstrable and observable.
The very fact that you choose to be insulting shows me that you are immature both in personality and intelectually. If you can't be cordial don't even bother discussing. And by the way I have a Phd in Music so don't even go there.
Let go of it mate. You know that your intellectually dishonest statements are bogus. I know you know this. You choose not to educate yourself about the actual science of evolutionary biology. It shows your character. You're more concerned about appearing to be correct and sounding profound, than actually knowing any truth.
You're the worst kind of dishonest and irrational human trash that exists on this planet. You want the recognition of someone who is knowledgeable and learned without having done any of the work. You prove this by only addressing my insults and not my argument. People here have directly challenged you to produce the evidence for your arguments and you just dance around and never actually follow it up.
Now for the real insults. People like you are a cancer on the rectum of life. Arsehole is too good a word to describe you. Your anti-intellectual diarrhoea stains the honest work that real scientists do. You feign hurt at being insulted when in reality you insult each and every one of us with your inane child babble, that you attempt to pass as truth and reason.
I suggest you take your PhD is music and piss off back to the hole from whence you came. Tell the rest of the crabs in your hole that we're on to your bullshit.
I apologise to The Burne for unloading on this dickhead in your channel, but guys like this need need to be told now and again that they need to fuck right off with their faux profundity and pseudo intellectual bird shit.
"Evolution is not an observable science therefore I need to conclude, logically, that evolution requires a greater number of assumptions than belief in God."
I disagree with this too. You can't just "conclude" something has a greater number of assumptions with out showing how.
Evolution IS science. Its not an observable fact but not all parts of science are "observable facts". Logic is neither an observable fact, neither is math.
"The law of Parsonomy states that the theory that uses the least amount of assupmtions is the most likely to be true."
Nonsense. Firstly theories use evidence, not assumptions. Nothing becomes a theory until it has a great body of evidence to support it. A theory is a model based on factual evidence, not a guess.
Take Music theory for example. When I read a stave and play a note from the first line of the treble clef, I'm not guessing that it's an E. When my bass player says, 'What key is this song in?' I don't say, 'It might be E-flat minor, but who knows dude. It's just a theory.'
i don't know what the topic is, but its not nonsense. That is the law of parsimony although it is often wrong, its still an argument, thats still what it is. Occam's Razor.
And theories are based on assumptions. All theories. All of science is based on assumptions. All logic. Everything.
What star have we seen? Light? Yes but the body of the star? no don't think so so the distance is really an estamate, right? Most of these old age guys are pissed cause they spent all the years hearing the bible is a lie then BAM (not bang) someone shows that it's not. FACT evolution has never been proven. Look what we know today will be proven wrong tomorrow. Plus if you not a child of God you can't believe the Bible anyway. Evidence says you mildly retarded.
"What star have we seen? Light? Yes but the body of the star? no don't think so"
Damn did any creationists pass science classes in elementary school? When you see, you're seeing light. You have photo(light)receptors that allow you to detect light. When you see an apple you're seeing red light being reflected from the apple.
dumbass. Your eyes can only see light. Thats the only thing they can do. go back to elementary school.
OK - A man that you know is standing in a field shining a light at your house. You look out and see the light but what color is the flashlight and who is the man? Really you can't even tell if was a flashlight if I didn't tell you. And even if you triangulate the distance your still only pointing at the end of the light beam. Not to mention that the angle of your calulation would be hundred-thousandths if not more. rate of error w/be close to 100% and comes closer to a guess than a calculation.
The method of measuring the distance of stars you are referring to is called parallax, and it's only accurate for stars less than 100 light years away. That's because the distance is measured by the change in angle created by the earth rotation around the sun. For stars farther than 100 light years astronomers use stars called Cephid variables. They cad measure the distance to those stars with great accuracy, and from those stars they guess the distance of nearby clusters of stars.
The margin of error is minimal since thousands of Cephid variables have been studied. You're an idiot if you think the margin of error is so big that astronomers estimate that some stars are billions of light years away when they are only thousands of light years away. You're talking about a margin of error of 1,000,000,000/1,000 = 1 millon. When scientists talk about margins of error, it is almost always below 5%. Not 1 FUCKING MILLION PERCENT YOU STUPID DIPSHIT.
Your assumption that scientists use the parallax method to measure the distance of stars that barely move from our perspective is simply wrong. Astronomers don't use the parallax method for distant stars and geologists don't use c14 dating method for materials older than 60,000 years old.Scientists use different methods for measuring different things because different things work on different principles.
Hey Geller, how come all those satilites stay in the sky? You know those scientists were only 'estimating' gravitational forces (based on the 'theory' of gravity). Shit, they couldn't even see their calculators, all they could see was light reflected of them.
obviously you've never encountered a real hardcore YEC. they claim that the speed of light was faster at one point of time. there's a great video on youtube that shows what would happen if this was so. their other favorite argument is that there are white holes, well for that to be true there would have to be a white hole for each star and planet. not only have white holes been disproven, but if there was a white hole for each star and planet it would also destroy the earth. logic never works
not agree, sometimes a piece of real information can make the difference, of course not to "old believers" but for young people who is lost between so religious parents and atheist-science believers... you just should be able to recognize when is worth to discuss, and when just "go away" is the better option.
I would be tempted to become an animal abuser. I would slap that pet's head so many times they would actually "gain" intelligence, would stop believing in a 6000 year old earth, and I would have to release them.
Actually, we don't believe the evidence is wrong, just the interpretation of the data. Funnily enough, we feel exactly the same about how evolutionists read data. Truth is not democratic. Just because many scientists working in ever more specific fields, agree, doesn't mean their conclusions are true.
It's all about assumptions. Anyway... have fun ignoring people, I'm learning to do the same.
Really? And what interpretation of carbon dating, tree ring dating, ice core dating, radiometric decay, the speed of light, and pretty much every other piece of evidence leads you to conclude that the earth is 6000 years old?
Actually, that's an easy one: "It disagrees with the bible, so it must be wrong!" Am I right?
nah.. actually it has nothing to do with the bible. 2 WWII planes found at 250ft down on greenland showing roughly 5ft ice per year. Therefore roughly max 2500 years on greenland.
Dendrochronlogy - guy growing trees for carving, 7 years of growth yielded 11 years of tree rings regularly. i.e.tree rings not gradual, dependant on season.Speed of light also problem for big bang.Carbon dating relies on constant CO2 levels and constant earth mag field. it isn't. Radeometric decay - MT ST Helens.
Okay, first off, ice on Greenland does not form at a constant rate. To assume so is simply ridiculous. Ice is also compressed as more forms on top of it, reducing the lower layers to thin sheets. I have no idea what you are referring to with the tree rings, but the trees used for dating are known to produce accurate results, as we know the dates of all the catastrophic volcanic eruptions recently, and they match up in the tree rings.
Yeah, I agree, compression happens, and rates change, but the main problem is with the layers (I didn't have enough space to answer in any detail). Regardless of the slow rate, it doesn't matter too much, because all the layers were counted up, and equated to thousands of years, so it destroys the theory that layers have any corellation with age.
My favourite example is a guy with 15 solid ice layers on his car from a 1 hour storm. So my main poit is it is impossible to tell age from ice.
I believe that credentials are a huge part of where the arguments come from. A PhD in Theology doesn't qualify anyone to operate you your grandmother's heart.
Sounds very much like the same bullshit the catholic church was pushing back in the dark ages. i.e. don't read the bible because you aren't intelligent enough to understand it.. just trust a priest. Hence 100 odd heresys becoming popularized. If you want to live on trusting PhDs for where you will end up after you die, you are very welcome, but I want to find out for myself what is true... for better or for worse. Reality, if I'm wrong, no big deal... if you are wrong, it is a very big deal.
No he didn't, he said to "wipe your feat and move on" if people don't listen or aren't interested. Jesus also knew that in our time people would be willfully ignorant of the creator so there is no point kicking a dead horse. If you are interested in learning about real Christianity, and not the devil's straw man version of Christianity, I'd gladly talk to you about it, but I'm not going to force it down your throat... that's not my job.
you're supposed to be the salt and light of the earth. your passage and mine contradicts. there are many internal contradictions like that in the bible. you're just cherry picking.
lol, they aren't contradictory. For one, the salt of the earth does not mean "to annoy" that is just a funny play on words some preachers use. "Salt of the earth" actually means "Those of great worth and reliability". Plus "the light of the earth" just means you make sense of the world for people by showing them the "truth". i.e. people see things by the light you shine on things. If people are blinded by willful ignorance, no amount of light will shine brightly enough for them to see.
yeah its a play on word and it means many things. for one salt was valuble back then so it means "those of great worth and reliability". Also salt was used as a preservative, so it means chrisitans are supposed to preserve the rotting world. The last meaning is the one I'm talking about. Have you ever rubbed salt into an open wound? Yeah thats annoying as hell. Thats you.
In 1611 when this was translated and now for that matter "salt of the earth" means "of good character". I suppose you are going to tell me that "the king wore gay clothes" is proof that the bible says it's ok for people to be homosexual, so it's a contradiction. If only you were so nit picky and skeptical about the evolution theory. I think they call it "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel".
So, if you saw a person being burned alive, you would ignore them? Aren't we going to be burned in eternity? Have you no morals?!?!Or are you part time moralistic? Shouldn't you being trying all the time, knowing that we are going to hell? What's wrong with you? Save me!! I'm going to burn for eternity.... Wait, I'm sorry, just go wipe your feet of me and allow me to suffer: VERY muchwhat Jesus wants, right?
Why not? Do you think you should just trust what a catholic priest says on the matter.. or maybe a lutheren one... or a methodist.. or an SDA... we are judged individually for our beliefs in the end, so we have to take responsibility for our own conclusions.
first of all he just called all the crhistians and me stupid. Excuse me ?!! there are a lot smart and educated crhistians , a lot smarter that this idiot.
surely he isn't going to reply to you based on the main premise of this video. "don't try to get through to someone wh thinks the world is 6000 years old"
I can tell you though that if you go on to thunderf00t's videos entitled "why people laugh at creationists" all those points are addressed and shown to either be creationist lies or just down right stupid or a combination of the former :)
those only prove that the earth is at least 4000 years old, meaning it is 4000 years, or maybe more. and gues what?! science tells us the earth is a few billion years old, so whats impossible there?
LOL this is to the video maker. you obviously have had loads of arguments with creationists and have personally given up, to me youve given up because they come out with vaild reasons for whatever the argument. e.g evolution or how old the earth is and dino's etc, to me your just scared of them and just telling people not to talk to them because they know the truth and they make more sence than creationists. if anyone wants to debate/argue with me about this send me a message ^_^
Debating creationists is not really for their sake. Every now and then you meet someone who is just horribly misinformed, but open to arguments, but yes, they're rare. In 99% of the cases, there are two other benefits, however. One is that it's a performing art, done for the audience, so that people in it can weigh arguments for themselves. The other is basically that you keep your scientific knowledge freshed up.
Not quite. If you were wearing a black shirt, they wouldn't say that black shirts don't exist because they aren't in the bibble, they'd say that black shirts are proof of God.
I don't understand YE creationists. I'm not a big bible buff, but I have a Columbian friend who is, and he says that the bible itself states that one day to God is worth far more than a day to us (I think he said either 1 million or 1 billion.... I'm pretty sure a billion). Which would make the earth even older than what scientists have discovered it is so far. But, this is what happens when you take the bible literally when clearly it's metaphorical.
Metaphorical as in mythical like all the other creation stories and books of faith of religions of the past. Who believes in Zeus? If you're a Christian and you don't, why the hell not? There are plenty of older stories than your precious Bible that praise the glory of Zeus and the Gods atop mount Olympus.
That is worst attempt at a straw man I've seen all day and I've read a lot of creationist comments today. Do you think a period on a computer screen is a good representation of the Universe, and that we could literally take that and turn it into some kind of experiment? Do you even know what the hell you're talking about?
It's kind of funny that I came across this video. I had an interesting sort of debate with some creationists on Yahoo! Answers just now. I don't know any Creationists personally so I kind of nievely asked them how any rational human being could possibly believe in Creationism. Let me just tell you that after this little encounter with Creationists I wonder how these people can actually function. They must have the IQ of a snail.
Its funny you say that because, i would say you have a an IQ of a snail because you obviously think we evolved from a germ in a rock and then into monkeys and then into us and dinosaurs evolved into birds LOL. oh and matter came out of nowhere in space and magically made a big bang and then we all apparead, i got a game, turn off the lights so its all dark and then turn em on again, WOW! you just witnessed a big bang! all darkness then BANG here everything is =] done.
Do you even know what the theory of evolution is? Or is that a purpose straw man arguement you've constructed?
"i got a game, turn off the lights so its all dark and then turn em on again, WOW! you just witnessed a big bang! all darkness then BANG here everything is =] done."
what has the above go to do with ANYTHING. The Ape like creatures of the indus have probably mastered basic scientific concepts to a higher degree than you. Learn what you're arguing against first.
all YOU believe in kornissues9 IS Magic. dont try to brainwash other people with your bullshit because it wint work on people with an IQ higher than 90
poor soul...so u telling me "Big Bang" just happen like that..why not believe that when God said "let there be light." then thats how the Big Bang accured.
The other galaxies, or more accurately the galaxy clusters, formed from the gravitational collapse of massive clouds of hydrogen whose uneven distribution in the universe was caused by quantum fluctuations in the first fraction of a second of the big bang.
That's why the galaxy clusters are distributed in a filamentary structure throughout the universe. Check out the 2df galaxy redshift survey data to see this structure.
The quantum fluctuations that caused the uneven distribution of hydrogen in the early universe can be seen in the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background. Check out the anisotropy map from the WMAP satellite to see this.
First of all it seemed more to me that you were more into name calling then really showing any proof. Second, I'd like you to know that you're wrong about creationist not liking Science and Date. We do. And what we like even more, is seeing the look on your faces when we proove you entirly wrong without using the Bible AND by using the same sort 'science' you just used against us. Fact: Look into your research on BOTH sides of the story instead of just copying your answers from old textbooks.
There is no two sides to the story. There is science and then there is every creation myth the world has ever produced. Including the Biblical version. Creationists never prove evolution wrong. They just lie about evidence, misquote scientists and distort facts. Then they call everyone else dishonest. Typical cognitive dissonance.
I don't see how you can PROVE anyone one wrong with the Bible...A book that says everything POOFED into existence because some entity took the infinite amount of time before the creation to decide to create it.
don't beieve me google the term spider goats to find your proof(note these sources are respected scientific journals not fundamentalist sites like answersingenesis)
amoung others that reported this is the BBC website and cnn. although cnn does'nt give an entire article on the matter.
In fact macman13 there's evidence against it, scientists(I promise these are not the same 2)have transplanted genes from a SPIDER of the family ARACHNIDS into GOATS of the family MAMALS AND THE GENE STILL WORKS, they transplanted a the spider gene for the creation of spider silk and spliced it with some goats dna now the goats can produce silk protien in their milk proving they had a common ancestor at some point in their evolutionary history.
"Provee itt wrongg thannn-[" Nothing can really be proved wrong. It can only be proved wrong within a certain percent (although something can be proved to be correct). IE: "all ravens are black..." The only way to "prove" it is to observe one raven at a time, and count the number of black ravens you've seen. That's why the burden of "proof" lays on the positive claim.
Evidence takes proof. Proof takes a witness or observation. This is the "Scientific Method." In order to prove something you must be able to see it, observe it, be a witness to it. Why can't you understand that? It's not rocket science, just common sense. Read your own secular definitions of "science."
Evolution cannot be observed in real time by anyone!
What happens with bacteria? Does it evolve into a skunk? Does bacteria evolve into a tree?
What did you start with? Bacteria. What did you end up with? Bacteria.
Bacteria today is still bacteria, it may change into another "species" of bacteria but it will never evolve into any other kind of animal. That is not evolution, it may be a form of Natural Selection but that's normal that DNA has limits.
"What happens with bacteria? Does it evolve into a skunk?"
No, and that probably would be a problem if Phylogenetics claimed that skunks evolved directly from bacteria. The actual path is more like Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Carnivora, Caniformia, Mephitidae.
"it may change into another "species" of bacteria but it will never evolve into any other kind of animal."
"The evidence that DNA has limits is because every animal in the world has revealed it to you. Just look around."
Please elaborate.
"A "kind" is like a wolf, greyhound & chihuahua. They are different species of the same "kind" of animal."
Greyhound and chihuahua are actually the same subspecies (Canis lupus familiaris) and they are the same species (Canis lupus) as wolfs, if they are the same "kind," then I am going to assume that kind=genus, family, or maybe species.
Yes, "kind" is the same "family." However, the DNA within those "kinds" are limited.
This is why evolution is impossible. Because no animal can reproduce any other "kind" of animal without outside input into the DNA. Outside input has to come within the cellular level, elephants cannot be the result of trees evolving into an animal.
*Life* has limits. Due to gravity, energy restrictions, predators etc. You'll be hard pressed to argue that DNA can't possibly evolve more diverse life than what we see today in another environment. Just one example is that even such a trivial attribute as color is dictated by the environment(wild animals tend towards camouflage unless they're poisonous).
Your definition of "kind" is worthless. What makes them "kind"? Bone structure? Number of legs? Ability to breed?
A platpus is obviously its own "kind," like a giraffe. Although there are many "subspecies" of giraffe, its still a giraffe & all related to the same "kind" or "family."
Dogs can only reproduce dogs, that's a limit. Although within the canine "kind," all kinds of varieties can be reproduced. Dogs are limited by the DNA within them. A male chihuahua & female chihuahua will never reproduce a great dane.
"A platpus is obviously its own "kind," like a giraffe."
OK, but you said "kind" meant family, which would make the platypus also related to several extinct species. And if Giraffe is a kind, meaning family, then it would also include the Okapi.
"Dogs can only reproduce dogs"
Of course they can, that's how evolution works. Dogs produce more specific types of dogs.
That definition creates problems for Creationists though. As there are apparently examples of diverging rabbit populations that can no longer interbreed, but still look so similar that you'd expect them to be able to.
There's a video on Creationist Hovind's site about that. Where he worms himself out by basically defining "kind" as "If they are decendants of the 'kind' that was once able to interbreed on the Ark". How he manages to convince himself that's not evolution I don't know.
"here are apparently examples of diverging rabbit populations that can no longer interbreed"
It's called speciation or macro-evolution, it is observed all the time.
"defining "kind" as "If they are decendants of the 'kind' that was once able to interbreed on the Ark". "
That is what is known as a tautology. What's a kind? Animals on the ark. What animals were on the ark? 2 of every kind? (continue in this manner ad infinitum)
Gisburne, there is NO frigin'"evidence!" Evidence takes "proving" something. Scientists cannot observe, test & demonstrate evolution, thus you can't prove it & its NOT science! Why can't you understand "The Scientific Method?"
Type in "George Carlin Religion" and aside from his swearing, listen to what he says. Makes alot more sense to me than the 10 years I spent at Chatechism and 26 years of church going.
God doesn't need your money. Carlin is confusing religion with God. They are not the same. Religion is bullshit, but God has nothing to do with religion.
The thing that is "fucked up" is sin. Sin of man caused a messed up world. God didn't make the world like it is.
No but he allowed the world to be like it is. That is why I say the Universe was created by him and he let everything including nature take it's own course.
Creationnists reject all scientific discoveries from our past on the basis "we were not there to see it". Then how would you prove the bible was written 2 milleniums ago? Mankind has always needed some god theories to give him a meaning to life, from the Incas and Egyptians (that was before the Catholic god)to all sects nowadays leadered by any guru.Religious dogmas forbid criticism of the bible...easy!!RIGHT MR BURNE JUST IGNORE THEM AND WE'LL BE ALL LIVING IN PEACE,WITH OR WITHOUT ANY GOD
Creationists do not reject "scientific discoveries." The problem is the definition of what "scientific discoveries" are. Atheists definition of "scientific" are not the same as Creationists. Unlike Atheists, Creationists qualify scientific dicoveries based upon empirical evidence. If it can be repeated, tested, demonstrated & observed then it is science. I cannot "prove" God exists, but Atheists claim that they "know" evolution is real, yet niether one can be empirical.
"Unlike Atheists, Creationists qualify scientific dicoveries based upon empirical evidence. If it can be repeated, tested, demonstrated & observed then it is science."
Creationism is none of those, evolution is all of them.
"I cannot "prove" God exists"
No you can't, and you should think about that for a while.
"but Atheists claim that they "know" evolution is real"
Wrong, Scientists don't claim to know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, just beyond reasonable doubt.
I said what I believe about the evidence. Creation is conclusively based upon pure, real & empirical science.
I cannot prove God exists anymore than you can prove evolution happens.
Scientists do not sya that anything is true because of reason but by empirical evidence only. It's the evolutionism religion that takes faith, not science.
6:43 ..thank God 4 that !o!
This video is a double minded rant.. of which is clearly proven herein.
1) Darwin asserted a flat earth, while Jews always believed in a spherical earth.
Stanly Miller, "The problem of the origin of life turn out to be a much more difficult then I & most other people envisioned." (: 40 yrs later :)
2) This video is outdated as the Miller experiment could not b naturally duplicated! His creation once understood is more telling of a ID.
:)
MajesticCyru 7 months ago
???? LOL
mytuber81 8 months ago
All scientists are wrong!!! except those who follow the bible. The truth is the truth
God bless you. Pray for this man
RuyLopez1234 10 months ago
All scientists are wrong!!! except those who follow the bible. The truth is the truth
God bless you
RuyLopez1234 10 months ago
i hope they will listen to you, And we can some rest!
RoelGeurtsen 10 months ago
Do not try to give evidence to anyone, I don't care who it is, that believes the earth is only 6,000 years old...because they will dismantle your feeble arguments and show your theory for what it is...a belief system based on unsubstantiated, unproven hypotheses and assertions that are clung to in the face of REAL, physical science. Lol, this is what infuriates you, no?
salmagnum 11 months ago
I agree! YECs are beyond stupid. Not worth the time of day.
auggiedoggy 1 year ago
lol...evilution
h2omanz 1 year ago
to the guy in the video: hey dude i feel sooo much like you!! about these dumb people trying to prove myth and ancient scripture as fact.
the best arguement against them is ... tell em they knobheads can wear any white coats and ties but its the real scientists that are changing the world ... taking man to the moon, discovering cures to diseases... tell them they can only pretend they are the right ones but to people who matter they are just clowns.
tarun1982 1 year ago
@tarun1982 tere you go you guys have no respect lol calling us stupid. Thanx dude :D
alessandrogiordano 10 months ago
As a kid I already knew the myth of Noah's Ark is bs. 2 animals really isn't enough to have a healthy gene pool.
TaiFerret 1 year ago
@TaiFerret Haha!!! That's what gave it away?
declanp1 1 year ago
I agree that most YECs will never accept scientific evidence but I think it's important to challenge them, particularly publicly, because not all the people who hear the argument will disregard it. Religion is something you either grow out of or you don't and it's easier to if you're aware of alternatives. Also it's important that people are told that the world is different than they imagine it to be.
colourmegone 1 year ago
Nice book collection! Thank you for this video!
aliendeception 1 year ago
I'm Christian and a minister! I love this video! It is impossible to talk to a person who believes the earth is 6,000 years old. It angers me to think people really believe that garbage. If Mosses understood quantum physics he would have wrote Genesis differently. They think that cause Mosses uses "days" they think it is literally a day. In Genesis Ch. 2 Mosses clearly states the Earth was not made in 6 days. Anyway, love the video!
aliendeception 1 year ago
keep up the good fight....
imuawarriors 1 year ago
Did for me. I was a creationist. Now I know evolution, athism is true.
ebilly99 1 year ago
dont give scientific evidence to creationists because they will convert you. wahahaha wooo!
Hsojaml 1 year ago
80 % of the world’s physicists are creationists(believe in intelligent design ). Why? Because they know how impossible evolution is. You think white is black and black is white. Satan has surely blinded you from the truth. God can easily blind those who have evil intensions from truth and reality. Only reason evolution is around is because its the only thing taught in schools. Im sorry, but cultural realitvism is not always true.
Hsojaml 1 year ago
evolution is true, dogs were once wolves. get over it.
ebilly99 1 year ago
@ebilly99 creationists believe in natural selection, so your argument does not make sense. Evolution has been disproven many times, but Satan does not want people to think the Word of God is truth. . So if people think evolution is true, then they will discredit the bible. A young earth and evolution do not go together. That’s why evolution is an ever changing lie; they change parts of their theory every year because they can’t make sense of the overwhelming evidence against it.
Hsojaml 1 year ago
@Hsojaml
The bible should not be looked at as a literal account but as a collection of stories with a little bit of history that have been passed down over the past 3,000 years or so. What evidence is there against evolution? Because if you can come up with some good evidence that proves evolution cannot be so, you sir will become famous.
lilbluependragon 1 year ago
Creationists...You're usually dull and unsure with just "I know theres a higher power out there, but I dont know, this that and the other, BUT....B...BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT YOU'RE RIGHT, OR THAT IM WRONG!" What? Exactly. You can't try to prove someone wrong WHEN THEY HAVEN'T YET STATED ANYTHING TO A THINKER THAT'S WORTH ARGUING ABOUT.
jordan3649 1 year ago
Why does everyone insist on arguing their point of view? If you try to prove a creationist wrong, whats that doing for you? nothing. Just dont even waste your time.
Plague413 1 year ago
like to see you punched in your worthless face
cosmokramerrules 1 year ago
@cosmokramerrules THAT's a good argument!
heyawhaw 1 year ago
this guy is a genuine person who has been pushed to 'public declaration' by the things in media that contradict a rational world view.
props to you.................see 'the view from the afternoon' by arctic monkeys
jon12353 1 year ago
the guy has problem in his heat
jajajaj for you........
I forgot you are darwing...,...,,,....
mahigo14 2 years ago
(script re-write for the man with a stupid fake accent) Dont try to put a youtube video up that talks about stuff you dont know, dont bother, dont talk to someone you disagree with, dont bother. Im a balding tard monkey with my glasses and books that make me look smart. I believe given enough time Carbon becomes everything, so dont bother
Undertaker202 2 years ago
@Undertaker202
haha ... he should thank you for proving his point!
XD
heyawhaw 1 year ago
nice original sources and highly specific examples proving your rhetoric.... oh grand deep thought burne thank you for knowing all opinion and thought of anyone with different opinion of you. your narcissistic desperation is impressive :)
StarSedition 2 years ago
I love listening to a good rant from time to time.
argo984 2 years ago
you make a good point.... why bother trying
AlexForward 2 years ago
I dont think there even are any 'scientists' creationists just make them up.
DragonRomer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It takes a special kind of idiot to believe in Evolution. I have a masters in Biology, and it's funny listening to sued o evolution worshipers talk about science. Besides, this guy is reading from a script, and it still sounds like a third grader.
ReyMatthew 2 years ago
hey if its 6k how can anything dose that mean that there only 6k lightyears of space? ya that sounds like a lot of crap
BonePhone 2 years ago 6
I am a Christian and I srongly believe that the earth IS OLD for various reasons and I will give you some of them. 1. Science has proven that the earth is old. 2. Jesus Christ himself siad that " I am the way the Truth and the light." and this means that it would be agianst his nature to be deceptive. A tree looks like it is old becuase it is old and not because God is testing you. 3. The Hebrew word for day means a period of time and not necessairly a twenty-four hour time period.
RockenWesley 3 years ago
..but it's fun to have a discussion! And YEC's are good competition ^^
Thom176 3 years ago
Seems you are upset with people acting as you do...Ill explain.
You have a set of beliefs by which you interpet evidence, as do they.
It is astounding that they would explain away your evidence, while you explain away their evidence.
dent3138 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hello, who si this clown, why should we listen to you, anyone with any brains knows the earth is 6000 years old, I can tell by your accent that your full of shit
tttrat 3 years ago
correction tttrat... anyone who believes the bible off pure faith and hope thinks the world is 6000 years old... and thats a fact!
you need a brain to figure out stuff for yourself not just think what a books tells you to think.
you people just keep on prooving how dumb and ignorant you are. keep it up because it is contributing to showing how dumb religeon realy is
spacecoke 3 years ago
Don't get me wrong, but when I see it is that they're doing science. Isn't science about challenging theories and trying to find out the truth? Evolution is yet a theory so you can't just "ignore" opposition but must face it. Once you ignore the opposition and become hardened to only your belief, then that becomes religion. Open your heart more and challenge the opposition instead of just sticking your hand out to their faces. If they're wrong, then prove it to them so they have nothing to say.
encoreman 3 years ago
The point is, Evolution is a theory based on facts. Theroy is the highest form of truth in science.
Every single creationist argument have been properly debunked over and over and over and over again. But it doesn't seem to stop cereationists from using them over again, knowing they're incorrect.
moridin222 3 years ago 12
@moridin222 prove yur second paragraph
alessandrogiordano 10 months ago
Yeah i met a creationalist once, it was mad. Its like banging your head against a wall
bigglego 3 years ago 2
No it's not, banging your head against the wall actually gets something accomplished.
califoniania 3 years ago 3
Obviously you are a drunk arab, as far as handsome that is very questionable.
Metania01 3 years ago
When you wake up tomorrow, and look your self in the mirror, for the usual pimples, and black heads,say to your self:
Hahahha oh my great God, what an ignorant fool you are. This is unbelievable.
Because thats what you are.
Metania01 3 years ago
yo yo, carbon 14 dating is so faulty and im sure you know this its only accurate to up to around 1500 years sooo if we dont know the dates for sure how can we know how old the earth is regardless of fossils, creationists have lots of evidence such as human tracks within dinosaur footprints in the same layer so all you need to do is search on youtube and you can see for yourself
charliejunfan1 3 years ago
carbon 14 isnt even used to date the Earth, there are many radioactive decay dating methods, the Earth is old, wether anyone here is willing to accept it, or not...this is a fact.
thecommonsenseguy 3 years ago
Is 7,516 years old.
Hell is filled with scientists, maybe there is a small cage for you in Hell, and demons will laugh for getting your soul there.
But it will be too late, then for repentance.
"KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE" John 8:32
The Synagogue of Satan=Scientists=believe they are apes in evolutionary stage. They have NO Evidence, they try to make God The CREATOR, a liar.
Metania01 3 years ago
annoying video
updawg2002 3 years ago
Evolution is a religion. Every evolutionary assumption is a relious statement.
dlafle3 3 years ago
There are no such things as evolutionary assumptions. If I am wrong, respond and name one.
gldjmp 3 years ago
Assumption are nessacary for the formualtion of any type of theory, whether it be creationism or evolution. The law of Parsonomy states that the theory that uses the least amount of assupmtions is the most likely to be true. Therefore if you assume that God exists first and formost then the biblical world view makes perfect sense. Evolution is not an observable science therefore I need to conclude, logically, that evolution requires a greater number of assumptions than belief in God.
dlafle3 3 years ago
Give me one assumption. Just one is needed.
The naturalistic world-view makes no assumptions whatsoever. Your religion assumes EVERYTHING. If god is the be-all and end-all, then he is the biggest assumption one can make. And even if god exists, how do you know who he is and what he wants without assuming that the people who wrote the bible aren't liars....? And don't go off about how you feel him in your hear either. Islamic terrorists feel the EXACT same thing.
You religion is worthless.
gldjmp 3 years ago 3
You're really stupid. Seriously.
"Evolution is not an observable science therefore I need to conclude, logically, that evolution requires a greater number of assumptions than belief in God."
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You can't be so stupid as to believe that something must be directly observed for it to be a science. The very Computer you're using the write your non-think is founded on principles that can never be observed. Evolution is demonstrable and observable.
Textra1 3 years ago
The very fact that you choose to be insulting shows me that you are immature both in personality and intelectually. If you can't be cordial don't even bother discussing. And by the way I have a Phd in Music so don't even go there.
dlafle3 3 years ago
Let go of it mate. You know that your intellectually dishonest statements are bogus. I know you know this. You choose not to educate yourself about the actual science of evolutionary biology. It shows your character. You're more concerned about appearing to be correct and sounding profound, than actually knowing any truth.
Textra1 3 years ago
You're the worst kind of dishonest and irrational human trash that exists on this planet. You want the recognition of someone who is knowledgeable and learned without having done any of the work. You prove this by only addressing my insults and not my argument. People here have directly challenged you to produce the evidence for your arguments and you just dance around and never actually follow it up.
Textra1 3 years ago
Now for the real insults. People like you are a cancer on the rectum of life. Arsehole is too good a word to describe you. Your anti-intellectual diarrhoea stains the honest work that real scientists do. You feign hurt at being insulted when in reality you insult each and every one of us with your inane child babble, that you attempt to pass as truth and reason.
Textra1 3 years ago
I suggest you take your PhD is music and piss off back to the hole from whence you came. Tell the rest of the crabs in your hole that we're on to your bullshit.
Textra1 3 years ago
I apologise to The Burne for unloading on this dickhead in your channel, but guys like this need need to be told now and again that they need to fuck right off with their faux profundity and pseudo intellectual bird shit.
Textra1 3 years ago
"Evolution is not an observable science therefore I need to conclude, logically, that evolution requires a greater number of assumptions than belief in God."
I disagree with this too. You can't just "conclude" something has a greater number of assumptions with out showing how.
Evolution IS science. Its not an observable fact but not all parts of science are "observable facts". Logic is neither an observable fact, neither is math.
bryankelly 3 years ago
"The law of Parsonomy states that the theory that uses the least amount of assupmtions is the most likely to be true."
Nonsense. Firstly theories use evidence, not assumptions. Nothing becomes a theory until it has a great body of evidence to support it. A theory is a model based on factual evidence, not a guess.
Textra1 3 years ago
Take Music theory for example. When I read a stave and play a note from the first line of the treble clef, I'm not guessing that it's an E. When my bass player says, 'What key is this song in?' I don't say, 'It might be E-flat minor, but who knows dude. It's just a theory.'
Textra1 3 years ago
i don't know what the topic is, but its not nonsense. That is the law of parsimony although it is often wrong, its still an argument, thats still what it is. Occam's Razor.
And theories are based on assumptions. All theories. All of science is based on assumptions. All logic. Everything.
bryankelly 3 years ago
question is what is their dogma
ptica11 3 years ago
Lol at 6:45.
Daron602 3 years ago
What star have we seen? Light? Yes but the body of the star? no don't think so so the distance is really an estamate, right? Most of these old age guys are pissed cause they spent all the years hearing the bible is a lie then BAM (not bang) someone shows that it's not. FACT evolution has never been proven. Look what we know today will be proven wrong tomorrow. Plus if you not a child of God you can't believe the Bible anyway. Evidence says you mildly retarded.
GillerMonster 3 years ago
"What star have we seen? Light? Yes but the body of the star? no don't think so"
Damn did any creationists pass science classes in elementary school? When you see, you're seeing light. You have photo(light)receptors that allow you to detect light. When you see an apple you're seeing red light being reflected from the apple.
dumbass. Your eyes can only see light. Thats the only thing they can do. go back to elementary school.
pokermaster54 3 years ago
OK - A man that you know is standing in a field shining a light at your house. You look out and see the light but what color is the flashlight and who is the man? Really you can't even tell if was a flashlight if I didn't tell you. And even if you triangulate the distance your still only pointing at the end of the light beam. Not to mention that the angle of your calulation would be hundred-thousandths if not more. rate of error w/be close to 100% and comes closer to a guess than a calculation.
GillerMonster 3 years ago
The method of measuring the distance of stars you are referring to is called parallax, and it's only accurate for stars less than 100 light years away. That's because the distance is measured by the change in angle created by the earth rotation around the sun. For stars farther than 100 light years astronomers use stars called Cephid variables. They cad measure the distance to those stars with great accuracy, and from those stars they guess the distance of nearby clusters of stars.
pokermaster54 3 years ago
The margin of error is minimal since thousands of Cephid variables have been studied. You're an idiot if you think the margin of error is so big that astronomers estimate that some stars are billions of light years away when they are only thousands of light years away. You're talking about a margin of error of 1,000,000,000/1,000 = 1 millon. When scientists talk about margins of error, it is almost always below 5%. Not 1 FUCKING MILLION PERCENT YOU STUPID DIPSHIT.
pokermaster54 3 years ago
Your assumption that scientists use the parallax method to measure the distance of stars that barely move from our perspective is simply wrong. Astronomers don't use the parallax method for distant stars and geologists don't use c14 dating method for materials older than 60,000 years old.Scientists use different methods for measuring different things because different things work on different principles.
You're way beyond stupid...
pokermaster54 3 years ago
Hey Geller, how come all those satilites stay in the sky? You know those scientists were only 'estimating' gravitational forces (based on the 'theory' of gravity). Shit, they couldn't even see their calculators, all they could see was light reflected of them.
persevere3535 3 years ago
You can't ever see your genitals. All you can see is light reflected off of your genitals.
persevere3535 3 years ago
As long as you know that's pointless.
GillerMonster 3 years ago
Your genitals?
persevere3535 3 years ago
You can't change their minds, but you can prove them wrong... Here's one chain of reasoning I use to shut them up:
We know the speed of light (If they disagree, point them to our use of that knowledge in nuclear fission).
We know the distance of celestial bodies LIGHT YEARS away from us.
The light we see is older than they claim the earth is.
They're wrong. Enjoy.
oodaboodara 3 years ago 2
obviously you've never encountered a real hardcore YEC. they claim that the speed of light was faster at one point of time. there's a great video on youtube that shows what would happen if this was so. their other favorite argument is that there are white holes, well for that to be true there would have to be a white hole for each star and planet. not only have white holes been disproven, but if there was a white hole for each star and planet it would also destroy the earth. logic never works
PinkMilk86 3 years ago
not agree, sometimes a piece of real information can make the difference, of course not to "old believers" but for young people who is lost between so religious parents and atheist-science believers... you just should be able to recognize when is worth to discuss, and when just "go away" is the better option.
sebastian2508 3 years ago
You're an idiot...and that's scientific.
Fladnag7560 3 years ago
I want a young earth creationist for a pet.
spoonermcgavin 3 years ago 3
I would be tempted to become an animal abuser. I would slap that pet's head so many times they would actually "gain" intelligence, would stop believing in a 6000 year old earth, and I would have to release them.
D34dH053 3 years ago
Actually, we don't believe the evidence is wrong, just the interpretation of the data. Funnily enough, we feel exactly the same about how evolutionists read data. Truth is not democratic. Just because many scientists working in ever more specific fields, agree, doesn't mean their conclusions are true.
It's all about assumptions. Anyway... have fun ignoring people, I'm learning to do the same.
jumanous 3 years ago
Really? And what interpretation of carbon dating, tree ring dating, ice core dating, radiometric decay, the speed of light, and pretty much every other piece of evidence leads you to conclude that the earth is 6000 years old?
Actually, that's an easy one: "It disagrees with the bible, so it must be wrong!" Am I right?
pyroclasm32 3 years ago
nah.. actually it has nothing to do with the bible. 2 WWII planes found at 250ft down on greenland showing roughly 5ft ice per year. Therefore roughly max 2500 years on greenland.
Dendrochronlogy - guy growing trees for carving, 7 years of growth yielded 11 years of tree rings regularly. i.e.tree rings not gradual, dependant on season.Speed of light also problem for big bang.Carbon dating relies on constant CO2 levels and constant earth mag field. it isn't. Radeometric decay - MT ST Helens.
jumanous 3 years ago
Whoo boy, this one's in deep guys!
Okay, first off, ice on Greenland does not form at a constant rate. To assume so is simply ridiculous. Ice is also compressed as more forms on top of it, reducing the lower layers to thin sheets. I have no idea what you are referring to with the tree rings, but the trees used for dating are known to produce accurate results, as we know the dates of all the catastrophic volcanic eruptions recently, and they match up in the tree rings.
pyroclasm32 3 years ago
Sorry, that was a reply to the idiotic YEC that posted earlier.
pyroclasm32 3 years ago
Yeah, I agree, compression happens, and rates change, but the main problem is with the layers (I didn't have enough space to answer in any detail). Regardless of the slow rate, it doesn't matter too much, because all the layers were counted up, and equated to thousands of years, so it destroys the theory that layers have any corellation with age.
My favourite example is a guy with 15 solid ice layers on his car from a 1 hour storm. So my main poit is it is impossible to tell age from ice.
jumanous 3 years ago
and you have a phd in science from?
pokermaster54 3 years ago
congratulations in becoming a atheistic stereotype. Ignore the argument and go for the person giving it. Have fun with that.
jumanous 3 years ago
I believe that credentials are a huge part of where the arguments come from. A PhD in Theology doesn't qualify anyone to operate you your grandmother's heart.
D34dH053 3 years ago
Sounds very much like the same bullshit the catholic church was pushing back in the dark ages. i.e. don't read the bible because you aren't intelligent enough to understand it.. just trust a priest. Hence 100 odd heresys becoming popularized. If you want to live on trusting PhDs for where you will end up after you die, you are very welcome, but I want to find out for myself what is true... for better or for worse. Reality, if I'm wrong, no big deal... if you are wrong, it is a very big deal.
jumanous 3 years ago
If you're ignoring people then ur not a christian. That's not what jesus wanted chrisitans to do.
pokermaster54 3 years ago
No he didn't, he said to "wipe your feat and move on" if people don't listen or aren't interested. Jesus also knew that in our time people would be willfully ignorant of the creator so there is no point kicking a dead horse. If you are interested in learning about real Christianity, and not the devil's straw man version of Christianity, I'd gladly talk to you about it, but I'm not going to force it down your throat... that's not my job.
jumanous 3 years ago
you're supposed to be the salt and light of the earth. your passage and mine contradicts. there are many internal contradictions like that in the bible. you're just cherry picking.
pokermaster54 3 years ago
lol, they aren't contradictory. For one, the salt of the earth does not mean "to annoy" that is just a funny play on words some preachers use. "Salt of the earth" actually means "Those of great worth and reliability". Plus "the light of the earth" just means you make sense of the world for people by showing them the "truth". i.e. people see things by the light you shine on things. If people are blinded by willful ignorance, no amount of light will shine brightly enough for them to see.
jumanous 3 years ago
yeah its a play on word and it means many things. for one salt was valuble back then so it means "those of great worth and reliability". Also salt was used as a preservative, so it means chrisitans are supposed to preserve the rotting world. The last meaning is the one I'm talking about. Have you ever rubbed salt into an open wound? Yeah thats annoying as hell. Thats you.
pokermaster54 3 years ago
In 1611 when this was translated and now for that matter "salt of the earth" means "of good character". I suppose you are going to tell me that "the king wore gay clothes" is proof that the bible says it's ok for people to be homosexual, so it's a contradiction. If only you were so nit picky and skeptical about the evolution theory. I think they call it "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel".
jumanous 3 years ago
im tired of arguing with ignorant creationists. It's just easier to call u stupid.
pokermaster54 3 years ago
translated, "I lost the argument big time, so I will just resort to personal attacks". Well done, you have progressed to a stereotype.
jumanous 3 years ago
So, if you saw a person being burned alive, you would ignore them? Aren't we going to be burned in eternity? Have you no morals?!?!Or are you part time moralistic? Shouldn't you being trying all the time, knowing that we are going to hell? What's wrong with you? Save me!! I'm going to burn for eternity.... Wait, I'm sorry, just go wipe your feet of me and allow me to suffer: VERY muchwhat Jesus wants, right?
D34dH053 3 years ago
I don't believe "you" can make a personal interpretation of what he wished for any of us.
D34dH053 3 years ago
Why not? Do you think you should just trust what a catholic priest says on the matter.. or maybe a lutheren one... or a methodist.. or an SDA... we are judged individually for our beliefs in the end, so we have to take responsibility for our own conclusions.
jumanous 3 years ago
first of all he just called all the crhistians and me stupid. Excuse me ?!! there are a lot smart and educated crhistians , a lot smarter that this idiot.
kernadan000 4 years ago
Not all Christians are stupid. Only the ones who think the earth is 6,000 years old xD.
darris321 4 years ago
"they haven't worked out how to switch a pen on"
that made me lol
BeforeTheNoose 4 years ago
for the video maker again. explain to me [i'll give you the reasons if you ask me for them via messaging] that!
- The sarah desert dates to 4000 years
- The great barrier reef dates to 4000 years
- The grand canyon dates to 4000 years
- The OLDEST TREE EVER FOUND WITH LIVING TISSUE is 4000! years old
- The earth cant be more than 6000 years old because of the corolis effect [message me for details]
kornissues9 4 years ago
surely he isn't going to reply to you based on the main premise of this video. "don't try to get through to someone wh thinks the world is 6000 years old"
I can tell you though that if you go on to thunderf00t's videos entitled "why people laugh at creationists" all those points are addressed and shown to either be creationist lies or just down right stupid or a combination of the former :)
BeforeTheNoose 4 years ago
those only prove that the earth is at least 4000 years old, meaning it is 4000 years, or maybe more. and gues what?! science tells us the earth is a few billion years old, so whats impossible there?
antalz 4 years ago
Just so you know kornissues9, a 4000! year old tree has been alive for 2*10^12673 years. Twit.
TheApatheticDespot 4 years ago
LOL this is to the video maker. you obviously have had loads of arguments with creationists and have personally given up, to me youve given up because they come out with vaild reasons for whatever the argument. e.g evolution or how old the earth is and dino's etc, to me your just scared of them and just telling people not to talk to them because they know the truth and they make more sence than creationists. if anyone wants to debate/argue with me about this send me a message ^_^
kornissues9 4 years ago
sorry meant "make more sence than evolutionists"
kornissues9 4 years ago
Debating creationists is not really for their sake. Every now and then you meet someone who is just horribly misinformed, but open to arguments, but yes, they're rare. In 99% of the cases, there are two other benefits, however. One is that it's a performing art, done for the audience, so that people in it can weigh arguments for themselves. The other is basically that you keep your scientific knowledge freshed up.
garouHH 4 years ago
Not quite. If you were wearing a black shirt, they wouldn't say that black shirts don't exist because they aren't in the bibble, they'd say that black shirts are proof of God.
devourerofbabies 4 years ago
I don't understand YE creationists. I'm not a big bible buff, but I have a Columbian friend who is, and he says that the bible itself states that one day to God is worth far more than a day to us (I think he said either 1 million or 1 billion.... I'm pretty sure a billion). Which would make the earth even older than what scientists have discovered it is so far. But, this is what happens when you take the bible literally when clearly it's metaphorical.
RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
Metaphorical as in mythical like all the other creation stories and books of faith of religions of the past. Who believes in Zeus? If you're a Christian and you don't, why the hell not? There are plenty of older stories than your precious Bible that praise the glory of Zeus and the Gods atop mount Olympus.
Fukkensaved 4 years ago
hey tell me... u believe the whole universe and u and me came from this period -> .
why u say don't even try and still try it yourself? just a thought...
miauwwmiauww 4 years ago
That is worst attempt at a straw man I've seen all day and I've read a lot of creationist comments today. Do you think a period on a computer screen is a good representation of the Universe, and that we could literally take that and turn it into some kind of experiment? Do you even know what the hell you're talking about?
Fukkensaved 4 years ago
It's kind of funny that I came across this video. I had an interesting sort of debate with some creationists on Yahoo! Answers just now. I don't know any Creationists personally so I kind of nievely asked them how any rational human being could possibly believe in Creationism. Let me just tell you that after this little encounter with Creationists I wonder how these people can actually function. They must have the IQ of a snail.
crw2223 4 years ago
I fear for their children.
crw2223 4 years ago
Its funny you say that because, i would say you have a an IQ of a snail because you obviously think we evolved from a germ in a rock and then into monkeys and then into us and dinosaurs evolved into birds LOL. oh and matter came out of nowhere in space and magically made a big bang and then we all apparead, i got a game, turn off the lights so its all dark and then turn em on again, WOW! you just witnessed a big bang! all darkness then BANG here everything is =] done.
kornissues9 4 years ago
Do you even know what the theory of evolution is? Or is that a purpose straw man arguement you've constructed?
"i got a game, turn off the lights so its all dark and then turn em on again, WOW! you just witnessed a big bang! all darkness then BANG here everything is =] done."
what has the above go to do with ANYTHING. The Ape like creatures of the indus have probably mastered basic scientific concepts to a higher degree than you. Learn what you're arguing against first.
BeforeTheNoose 4 years ago
all YOU believe in kornissues9 IS Magic. dont try to brainwash other people with your bullshit because it wint work on people with an IQ higher than 90
Deathless2288 4 years ago
I know exactly the state of mind that caused you to make this video LOL
JeefCakes 4 years ago
poor soul...so u telling me "Big Bang" just happen like that..why not believe that when God said "let there be light." then thats how the Big Bang accured.
puckupob 4 years ago
When you demonstrate that speaking the words "let there be light" can cause cosmic inflation, maybe we'll take you seriously.
majorvoltage 4 years ago
ok did the other galaxies in the universe create themselves through the big bang?
ll2nycell 4 years ago
The other galaxies, or more accurately the galaxy clusters, formed from the gravitational collapse of massive clouds of hydrogen whose uneven distribution in the universe was caused by quantum fluctuations in the first fraction of a second of the big bang.
That's why the galaxy clusters are distributed in a filamentary structure throughout the universe. Check out the 2df galaxy redshift survey data to see this structure.
majorvoltage 4 years ago
The quantum fluctuations that caused the uneven distribution of hydrogen in the early universe can be seen in the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background. Check out the anisotropy map from the WMAP satellite to see this.
majorvoltage 4 years ago
XD I keep picturing Nirnroot in that little pot behind him! Doesn't he seem like the type that would have that unique decoration in his study?
LOL XD
Jessiqua42 4 years ago
First of all it seemed more to me that you were more into name calling then really showing any proof. Second, I'd like you to know that you're wrong about creationist not liking Science and Date. We do. And what we like even more, is seeing the look on your faces when we proove you entirly wrong without using the Bible AND by using the same sort 'science' you just used against us. Fact: Look into your research on BOTH sides of the story instead of just copying your answers from old textbooks.
davidlgs 4 years ago
There is no two sides to the story. There is science and then there is every creation myth the world has ever produced. Including the Biblical version. Creationists never prove evolution wrong. They just lie about evidence, misquote scientists and distort facts. Then they call everyone else dishonest. Typical cognitive dissonance.
h8uall66 4 years ago
I don't see how you can PROVE anyone one wrong with the Bible...A book that says everything POOFED into existence because some entity took the infinite amount of time before the creation to decide to create it.
Firedraikke 4 years ago
don't beieve me google the term spider goats to find your proof(note these sources are respected scientific journals not fundamentalist sites like answersingenesis)
amoung others that reported this is the BBC website and cnn. although cnn does'nt give an entire article on the matter.
TheFarcicalCourt 4 years ago
In fact macman13 there's evidence against it, scientists(I promise these are not the same 2)have transplanted genes from a SPIDER of the family ARACHNIDS into GOATS of the family MAMALS AND THE GENE STILL WORKS, they transplanted a the spider gene for the creation of spider silk and spliced it with some goats dna now the goats can produce silk protien in their milk proving they had a common ancestor at some point in their evolutionary history.
TheFarcicalCourt 4 years ago
"Evidence takes proof" Actually, proof takes evidence.
"Provee itt wrongg thannn-[" Nothing can really be proved wrong. It can only be proved wrong within a certain percent (although something can be proved to be correct). IE: "all ravens are black..." The only way to "prove" it is to observe one raven at a time, and count the number of black ravens you've seen. That's why the burden of "proof" lays on the positive claim.
jpsousa4 4 years ago
your stupid dude, your attacking there personily stuff not the stuff at hand calling them stupdie
provee itt wrongg thannn-[
koleperg 4 years ago
Gisburne,
Evidence takes proof. Proof takes a witness or observation. This is the "Scientific Method." In order to prove something you must be able to see it, observe it, be a witness to it. Why can't you understand that? It's not rocket science, just common sense. Read your own secular definitions of "science."
Evolution cannot be observed in real time by anyone!
gracebass 4 years ago
"Evolution cannot be observed in real time by anyone!"
Bacteria. That's all I have to say.
macman13 4 years ago
What happens with bacteria? Does it evolve into a skunk? Does bacteria evolve into a tree?
What did you start with? Bacteria. What did you end up with? Bacteria.
Bacteria today is still bacteria, it may change into another "species" of bacteria but it will never evolve into any other kind of animal. That is not evolution, it may be a form of Natural Selection but that's normal that DNA has limits.
gracebass 4 years ago
"What happens with bacteria? Does it evolve into a skunk?"
No, and that probably would be a problem if Phylogenetics claimed that skunks evolved directly from bacteria. The actual path is more like Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Carnivora, Caniformia, Mephitidae.
"it may change into another "species" of bacteria but it will never evolve into any other kind of animal."
Please define "kind."
"that's normal that DNA has limits."
Please provide evidence that DNA has limits.
macman13 4 years ago
The evidence that DNA has limits is because every animal in the world has revealed it to you. Just look around.
A "kind" is like a wolf, greyhound & chihuahua. They are different species of the same "kind" of animal.
gracebass 4 years ago
"The evidence that DNA has limits is because every animal in the world has revealed it to you. Just look around."
Please elaborate.
"A "kind" is like a wolf, greyhound & chihuahua. They are different species of the same "kind" of animal."
Greyhound and chihuahua are actually the same subspecies (Canis lupus familiaris) and they are the same species (Canis lupus) as wolfs, if they are the same "kind," then I am going to assume that kind=genus, family, or maybe species.
macman13 4 years ago
Yes, "kind" is the same "family." However, the DNA within those "kinds" are limited.
This is why evolution is impossible. Because no animal can reproduce any other "kind" of animal without outside input into the DNA. Outside input has to come within the cellular level, elephants cannot be the result of trees evolving into an animal.
gracebass 4 years ago
"Yes, "kind" is the same "family." However, the DNA within those "kinds" are limited."
There is currently no biological data to back up that statement.
macman13 4 years ago
"elephants cannot be the result of trees evolving into an animal."
Nope, they can't, that would seriously go against evolution.
macman13 4 years ago
*Life* has limits. Due to gravity, energy restrictions, predators etc. You'll be hard pressed to argue that DNA can't possibly evolve more diverse life than what we see today in another environment. Just one example is that even such a trivial attribute as color is dictated by the environment(wild animals tend towards camouflage unless they're poisonous).
Your definition of "kind" is worthless. What makes them "kind"? Bone structure? Number of legs? Ability to breed?
olavka 4 years ago
I hope you don't think I was endorsing "kind," I was quoting gracebass.
macman13 4 years ago
Gracebass puts the word "species" between quotation marks like "species" is some kind of alien word only kooky scientists use.
HeLa cells: Cells from a human body mutating into self contained individual cells
Cocheese0 4 years ago
"Species" is man-made idea. Originally, the animals were defined as "kinds" of animals because everyone kew that evolution is a fantasy.
gracebass 4 years ago
Species is hardly just a man made idea, a species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
Tell me, what "kind" of animal is platypus?
macman13 4 years ago
A platpus is obviously its own "kind," like a giraffe. Although there are many "subspecies" of giraffe, its still a giraffe & all related to the same "kind" or "family."
Dogs can only reproduce dogs, that's a limit. Although within the canine "kind," all kinds of varieties can be reproduced. Dogs are limited by the DNA within them. A male chihuahua & female chihuahua will never reproduce a great dane.
gracebass 4 years ago
"A platpus is obviously its own "kind," like a giraffe."
OK, but you said "kind" meant family, which would make the platypus also related to several extinct species. And if Giraffe is a kind, meaning family, then it would also include the Okapi.
"Dogs can only reproduce dogs"
Of course they can, that's how evolution works. Dogs produce more specific types of dogs.
macman13 4 years ago
That definition creates problems for Creationists though. As there are apparently examples of diverging rabbit populations that can no longer interbreed, but still look so similar that you'd expect them to be able to.
There's a video on Creationist Hovind's site about that. Where he worms himself out by basically defining "kind" as "If they are decendants of the 'kind' that was once able to interbreed on the Ark". How he manages to convince himself that's not evolution I don't know.
olavka 4 years ago
"here are apparently examples of diverging rabbit populations that can no longer interbreed"
It's called speciation or macro-evolution, it is observed all the time.
"defining "kind" as "If they are decendants of the 'kind' that was once able to interbreed on the Ark". "
That is what is known as a tautology. What's a kind? Animals on the ark. What animals were on the ark? 2 of every kind? (continue in this manner ad infinitum)
macman13 4 years ago
What did bacteria evolve into?
simplersauce 4 years ago
Lots of different things but mostly more bacteria.
macman13 4 years ago
Gracebass: you are an idiot.
joyork 4 years ago
Gisburne, there is NO frigin'"evidence!" Evidence takes "proving" something. Scientists cannot observe, test & demonstrate evolution, thus you can't prove it & its NOT science! Why can't you understand "The Scientific Method?"
gracebass 4 years ago
Type in "George Carlin Religion" and aside from his swearing, listen to what he says. Makes alot more sense to me than the 10 years I spent at Chatechism and 26 years of church going.
dbsti300 4 years ago
Typical.
God doesn't need your money. Carlin is confusing religion with God. They are not the same. Religion is bullshit, but God has nothing to do with religion.
The thing that is "fucked up" is sin. Sin of man caused a messed up world. God didn't make the world like it is.
gracebass 4 years ago
No but he allowed the world to be like it is. That is why I say the Universe was created by him and he let everything including nature take it's own course.
dbsti300 4 years ago
Comment for gracebass
dbsti300 4 years ago
Creationnists reject all scientific discoveries from our past on the basis "we were not there to see it". Then how would you prove the bible was written 2 milleniums ago? Mankind has always needed some god theories to give him a meaning to life, from the Incas and Egyptians (that was before the Catholic god)to all sects nowadays leadered by any guru.Religious dogmas forbid criticism of the bible...easy!!RIGHT MR BURNE JUST IGNORE THEM AND WE'LL BE ALL LIVING IN PEACE,WITH OR WITHOUT ANY GOD
aljourg23 4 years ago
Creationists do not reject "scientific discoveries." The problem is the definition of what "scientific discoveries" are. Atheists definition of "scientific" are not the same as Creationists. Unlike Atheists, Creationists qualify scientific dicoveries based upon empirical evidence. If it can be repeated, tested, demonstrated & observed then it is science. I cannot "prove" God exists, but Atheists claim that they "know" evolution is real, yet niether one can be empirical.
gracebass 4 years ago
"Unlike Atheists, Creationists qualify scientific dicoveries based upon empirical evidence. If it can be repeated, tested, demonstrated & observed then it is science."
Creationism is none of those, evolution is all of them.
"I cannot "prove" God exists"
No you can't, and you should think about that for a while.
"but Atheists claim that they "know" evolution is real"
Wrong, Scientists don't claim to know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, just beyond reasonable doubt.
macman13 4 years ago
macman,
I said what I believe about the evidence. Creation is conclusively based upon pure, real & empirical science.
I cannot prove God exists anymore than you can prove evolution happens.
Scientists do not sya that anything is true because of reason but by empirical evidence only. It's the evolutionism religion that takes faith, not science.
gracebass 4 years ago
"Creation is conclusively based upon pure, real & empirical science."
OMG, I nearly just shit my pants I was laughing so hard.
"I cannot prove God exists anymore than you can prove evolution happens."
Oh, but I can do the latter.
macman13 4 years ago
You can "prove" evolution by using "The Scientific Method?"
Wow! You must be the only one because its frigin' impossible.
gracebass 4 years ago
"You can "prove" evolution by using "The Scientific Method?"
Wow! You must be the only one because its frigin' impossible."
Dude, you're an idiot. Evolution is probably the one of the most supported scientific theory of all time, falling short of gravity.
check talkorigins . org
macman13 4 years ago