@omgitsaghiles which part? abiogenesis? you can google it and read about it anywhere. check wikipedia first, it has a pretty introductory description!
Thor is most likely not believed in anymore (hence norse mthology), as with Ahuramazda. I was not supplying Jesus on my side as evidence, yet it is the truth.
@TheTyseno Thor does have followers still. A simple google search will reveal that. Same with Ahuramazda. And the Muslims think that Jesus is NOT god, the christians do. In fact, the Muslims believe that the Christians believe in the MUSLIM god, yet worship him incorrectly.
And yeah, Jesus is the truth. You're absolutely sure of it. And I know a Muslim who is absolutely sure Jesus is not. And I know a Hindu who's absolutely sure Vishnu is god. So you're ALL right, since you're all so sure.
You may laugh in my face, but I have Jesus Christ on my side and that is all that matters to me. You may find it funny that I put my trust in him, without evidence, but I feel sorry for you.
If I go to afghanistan, I'll meet someone with Allah on their side. If I go to South America, I'll meet someone wiith Quetzlcoatl on their side. If I go to iran, I'll meet someone with Ahuramazda on their side. If I go to Norway, I'll meet someone with Thor on their side. Do you see how irrelevant your personal convictions are to me, when contrasted with the convictions of others? You've ALL got invisible best friends, you're all CERTAIN they exist, and most or all of you are mistaken.
@TheTyseno I have participated in laboratories on campus with professors who are mapping the genetic sequences of different organisms, and demonstrating their identical alleles. I have hybridized flora specimen, dated fossils and visited the Miller-Urey Experiment in UC San Diego laboratories.
@TheTyseno You're really just arguing a broken platform. You are being so unreasonable that you wont even consider the evidence presented to you. I'm sorry to be rude but you dont know almost anything about science, and you actively avoid seeking out evidence. Simple internet searches on university websites will correct your misunderstandings. You want to say that elements cant be dated and mutations cannot create new species? PROVE IT. Because science has plenty of evidence on its side.
I never said that the scientist faked it, but scientists have been wrong in the past as well. As for infections, they can alter the DNA of an offspring, causing a mutation. You also suspect that there has been enough time in the world for all of these mutations to occur, when we do not really know how long the Earth has been here.
@TheTyseno Scientists make mistakes, and then learn from them. That's how we gather the most accurate, reliable evidence. And the evidence for evolution is ASTOUNDING. You should spend a day touring any research university. Look at the millions of library books on evolution, look at the laboratories. Look at the fossils. In fact, if you REALLY want to be convinced of evolution, enroll in school, study biology, and perform the experiments yourself as I did.
Mutations are a part of evolution. Enough genetic mutations can cause a group to become reproductively isolated, thereby creating a new species. We know EXACTLY how long the earth has been here, plus or minus a few million years. The age of the earth is 4.6 billion years, and the rest of the solar system is not much older than that. We get this number via radio-carbon dating and geological timeframing.
@BlueSpirals Yet you assume, with the carbon-dating that carbon has always gone away as slowly as it does now. Cretionists argue that the Sun would have shrunk and gone out after 4.6 billion years, they also assume that the Sun is shrinking just as fast as it is in todays time. With the age of the Earth, people are fighting a uniformitarion argument on both sides, and it is not convincing the other.
@TheTyseno The half life of argon and carbon is constant. I mean, how can i even explain why if you know nothing about chemistry? All of chemistry is predicated on the fact that the periodic elements behave in order with the laws of physics. Creationists know NOTHING about astronomy, and in order to argue that the sun would have burned out or whatever in X years, they'd HAVE TO KNOW chemistry and nuclear fusion. And if they did know that, they'd know they were totally wrong.
@BlueSpirals these half-lives have been constant for as long as we have been testing them, that isnt to say that they were the same constant beforehand.
@TheTyseno We have absolutely no evidence suggesting that the half-lives of period elements have ever changed, OR that they ever could. If you want to suggest that it's worth considering that elements cannot be dated because they COULD have had different half-lives in the past, YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE that that's even possible. So go ahead and provide me with some research on that, I'll be waiting.
@TheTyseno Uh yes we do, every observable instance of elements in all of chemistry has demonstrated that they behave reliably and predictably identical to their atomic groups. it appears that the present laws of physics govern them, as with everything, and the only time they might have been different was during the Special Relativity period of the early universe (and inside of black holes, possibly).
The evidence supporting your religious claims is scant and weak. It is no coincidence that laboratories, universities, and scientists the world over are revealing more and more evidence for big bang cosmology and evolutionary biology. There are no religious laboratories. There are no creationist research facilities (not ones that can get any accreditation or scientific recognition at all). People like you say "the scientists are conspiring against us!" when in fact, TRUTH conspires against you.
@TheTyseno if you'd like to continue this conversation please PM me so that I can provide links to websites with supporting evidence- I cant do it here.
My next thought is a rather common one, which I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer is this: If organisms evolve into something better, why did we still see the older forms that have not evolved?
@TheTyseno You have never seen one species on earth that has not evolved. Sorry. you're just completely wrong. All life on earth has a traceable, common genetic ancestor from 3.5 billion years ago. Even sharks, which have lived for millions of years, still evolved from simpler life forms. And it's not a question of "better", its a question of adapting traits that are more suitable to an ever-changing environment.
@BlueSpirals How can you assume the Earth is 3.5 billion years old? Show me believable, non-uniformitarian evidence, I am not saying that it is not, I am simply wondering how you know the age.
@TheTyseno The earth isnt 3.5 billion years old. That's when life first arose. It's 4.6 billion years old. First, I recommend (since you seem to have a very brief understanding of science) you read the Wikipedia article "age of earth". then, verify the links yourself by following them to university websites, experiments, and dissertations with supporting evidence.
@TheTyseno Funnily enough, new research suggest that the half life of radioactive material is not constant. Nonetheless, unless you are one of those creationists (and if so I won't even bother talking), you should know that evolution is a fact, and biologists can tell by the mutation rate of genes that life must have started around 3.5 billion years ago.
@TheTyseno And please keep in mind that scientific process, even if it turns out to be wrong on occassion, is still more reliable than a book written by sand people a few thousand years ago, which has been changed and altered throughout history.
The HeLa cells certainly did adapt to fit their new surroundings, due to the fact they were no longer inside the body, but inside a laboratory. As for the rest of these forms of "macro-evolution," who is to say they have or have not been tampered with, who is to say that outside structures (i.e. viruses, bacteria, etc.) have not infected the specimen. I am talking about a controlled experiment inside a laboratory where the scientist(s) are not conducting experiments on the specimen.
@TheTyseno So? A laboratory isnt a place where the laws of physics are suspended. Whether macroevolution occurs in pondwater or in a lab, it still occurs, it's still possible, and can be demonstrated. Obviously you dont know much about genetics, because infections do not alter the DNA of a species, and evolution is a genetic phenomenon- making your suspicion invalid. And you're really going to stare evolution's evidence in the face and then say that scientists faked it? Crackpotism.
@Therooker123 I hesitate to even use the word design, because it implies intent. the spiral of a tornado is the result of random but predictable, specific weather patterns.
I believe in science, and I believe in evolution, yet only on a micro-basis. There has been no tests that it can work on a lrager scale, (i.e. humans) I put my faith in a God, you put your faith in science that it will answer all of its questions one day, we both base our faith around something that may not exist, but we still believe in it, do we not? One of the smartest people I know is a biology major and my ex-biology teacher, yet he is also the one of the most religious people I know.
@TheTyseno You're absolutely completely mistaken, and you obviously don't have any science education to speak of. You should look up the Italian wall lizard, the SIV/HIV virus, and the HeLa cell. They are ALL examples of macro-evolution. In fact, the HeLa is the most interesting, because it is a single-celled life form that evolved from human cancer and now lives in the wild. So you're just ABSOLUTELY wrong. I dont have faith in science. Faith is belief without evidence. I have evidence.
Furthermore, I just did a simple google search on 'examples of macroevolution' and found over 100 examples of species that live TODAY that are a result of macroevolution.
I apologize for all 3 posts, but...umm in your first so-called answers; how are the discoveries of somethings refuting religion, also, everything is the work of God. In your second answer, you seem so imply that all relgious people say such things, yet I agree it did come out of thin air. As a side note, you seem not to want to show disrespect to people and only show the facts, yet with the voices you are giving the questions, you make me and my fellow believers seem incompetent and dumb
@TheTyseno Well, i dont mean to insult you, but most people who believe in god do so because they don't know almost anything about science. We know a whole lot about the universe and religion often discourages the pursuit of knowledge. We know that evolution is true, for example, and religious people dont even want it taught in school. Listen to question 1's answer again. It CLEARLY explains to you that "Just because we dont know something does NOT mean god did it."
These are not implications that all religious people have the same mentality. I am simply answering the 10 most frequent questions I get from creationists. If you think that life didnt come out of thin air, good. you're smarter than them.
@TheTyseno You have to prove to me that God exists before you can prove to me that everything is the work of god. You're actually using a petitio principii (begging the question) if you state "God exists and I can prove him with his own work." Since there is no evidence for the existence of your god, or of any gods, I therefore am not convinced he exists, and therefore obviously dont accept your claim that "everything is his work".
@TheTyseno My first answer is an attempt to help you understand that YOUR arguments for god's existence are argumentum ad ignorantiums (arguments from Ignorance). I'm telling you that IF science cannot explain something, it does NOT prove that your explanation of god is correct. I give examples where, historically, science could not explain things (germs, spherical planet, etc.) and therefore the answer of God was inserted. In time, we learned the real answers to those questions. Not god.
scientists have a theory on how life changes, but not even one solid theory on how life began. Dont you think we should start investigating at the beginning? What good is a theory on life's evolution if you dont even know where life itself came from?
@hillaryhater3 Obviously you've never taken an actual science class before. Abiogenesis is the current and widely accepted working theory on the origin of biological life on Earth. It is supported by a lot of verifiable evidence. And our understanding of evolution is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in determining why life is the way it is now, and where it came from originally. What kind of a stupid question is that. Sorry to be rude.
@BlueSpirals what evidence? the most accepted was the Primordial Soup theory, and that was experimented with failure, in the lab, making an early earth atmosphere and having all the proteins and such put in there and absolutely no life forms were made. And i must mention the odds of all this happening are ridiculous. The odds of there being a flying spaghetti monster are higher than that.
@hillaryhater3 That's absolutely false. What you're referring to is the Miller-Urey experiment, and they successfully demonstrated that under certain atmospheric conditions similar to those of early Earth, nucleotides can spontaneously form. Over 20 amino acids were produced, including glycine. This experiment demonstrated that abiogenesis is extremely likely and can occur naturally. And your "chances" argument is just plain unfounded. Inorganic matter can become organic matter, demonstrably.
@hillaryhater3 Demonstrate what? That nucleotides can be created under certain atmospheric conditions? I'll send you a PM with all the evidence you need.
@hillaryhater3 You cannot do that on earth in an open environment on the surface- the atmospheric conditions have changed vastly since 3 billion years ago. Oxygen, and the present conditions we experience, are the actual products of the gases and heat that churned in the sky and water when the earth was formed. This experiment demonstrates that under earlier conditions, organic matter was VERY easy to create.
@hillaryhater3 We don't need to have anybody there 3 billion years ago to witness it. In fact, witness testimony isn't as reliable as science. We know what the atmospheric conditions were like, not EXACTLY, but we have approximations that we recreate in laboratories, and create organic matter under those conditions. It's quite simple, and beautiful, and provides strong support for abiogenesis.
@BlueSpirals "approximations" well how does anybody know that they were even REMOTELY accurate? there is no evidence to verify that they are approximate. Just more speculation. Hell, so much of what science tells us is based on speculation. I find the universe more beautiful to know it was designed and planned out to be so wonderful and have so much to discover.
@hillaryhater3 I have provided you several links in your inbox concerning this information. There is a substantial amount of evidence for the early earth atmosphere claims made by scientists today. Why dont you treat yourself to some knowledge and go to a library or do some online research? I also am pretty sure that you're a troll, based on your rejection of evidence provided to you. And of your favorited videos.
@BlueSpirals why do u still claim it to be evidence? its all assumptions! libraries and online research on the subject are only going to support it because the books and sites were written by supporters of the theory! ur not gonna admit they are assumptions, so im just wasting my time, and so r u.
@BlueSpirals sorry, just want to squeeze in one more comment...What were u intending to do with the video when you were making it? what was its purpose? to try to tear down people's faiths and beliefs different from your own? It wasnt meant to change people's minds. u put in too much of your world view for anyone opposite of your beliefs to even consider your point. so based on this vid and some of YOUR favorites too, u r a troll as well. srry. now i will "get the fuck off" your page.
"I caught a glimpse of God weeping. I asked Him why He was sad, He answered,
'Hell was created for satan alone, but one by one, others followed along. It is sad to see the place i build for you so empty, while hell is filled with so many people.' "
The beginning of the universe? Noone knows how, but why not use the principle calls Okhams razor, which basically says in terms of deduction, do not bring unnecessary factors into the equation as to leave as little room for falsehoods as possible. Now, we can either look at the reasonable aspects, such as the universe expanding, background radiation, etc, and deduce it was caused by the big bang, or we can create a god to explain it which carries thousands more implications. which seems logical?
We are all atheists. I just believe in one less god than christians. I dont believe in the christian god (or any other) for the same reason christians dont believe in the muslim god. look at all the gods and religions your reject and ask yourself why. Have you studied them extensively? I doubt it. You believe in your faith most likely because you were brought up that way. The idea of god and heaven/hell is just as magical as believing in unicorns. The burden of proof is on you guys. not us.
Most modern people are resonable enough not to take religion literaly. So why are they not reasonable enough to just dismiss it all together, and follow a more reasonable path. One that does not lead the already unreasonable to become even more so. i.e. american christian extremist groups, (look them up. they are out there and in larger numbers then one might think) and obviously muslim extremists, etc, Just want to point out that i know that a few do not always represent the whole.
And you can't seem to acknowledge that The universe being started by a magical explosion is just as illogical as it being created by a creator. There some questions man will NEVER answer and your choice to be an atheist is by faith. You believe in all of this unsubstantial evidence by faith
@anthonyboy It's not just as illogical, because you're erecting a straw-man to attack it. the Big Bang cosmological model is extensively supported by observable evidence, such as cosmic microwave background radiation, redshift, and constellation movement. Of course you don't know any of that because you're a scientific illiterate. Just because you don't understand the Big Bang doesn't make it false. It means you should do some research, which I keep telling you to do, and of course you wont lol
The amount of evidence contributing to the theory is fair, but there are still MISSING LINKS. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. I agree that it is accepted world wide, but so are many religions. You choose to believe in evolution because of your faith in science.
@anthonyboy Uh, nope. Wrong again. Where did you get your science degree? Lol. There are no "missing links", that is a term invented BY non-scientist creationists to try to attack evolution. You don't know ANYTHING, ANYTHING, about natural selection. You say you "know" there are "missing links" because some christian website told you. In actuality, they are as ignorant as you- NEITHER of you went to college obviously. Science can demonstrate its claims with evidence. Religion cannot.
THEORY = CAN BE CONTRADICTED. The THEORY of Evolution can be contradicted. The LAW of gravity can't. They are missing links in the evolution theory. You are believing in evolution by faith. Hell, even laws have been contradicted and amended in the past. I worked be surprised if evolution is disproved in the near future.
@anthonyboy You are still wrong. You are unable to differentiate between colloquial uses of the term "theory", like "my theory is that joe murdered bill!" and scientific terminology; IE, "the Theory of Gravitational Attraction". You don't have the intellectual tools to differentiate between these terms because you lack science education. You are confounding two TOTALLY different philosophical realms of language; you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. Theories ARE facts, MADE from laws.
@anthonyboy I seem to be arguing with like a sixteen year old. You can't even admit to yourself that you are utterly ignorant of everything you claim to know.
@anthonyboy LOL at "no evidence for evolution", yeah of course there isn't any if you've never set foot in a fucking university. I would bet my life that you have no education in genetics, archeology, or biological anthropology (or biology for that matter). You are a total layman; the things you say about science are glaringly indicative of someone who is straight up TOTALLY IGNORANT of a scientific education.
@BlueSpirals A scientific theory stands until it is proven wrong(Which has happened in the past). It is NEVER proven right. Therefore you choose to believe in evolution BY FAITH
@anthonyboy Wrong AGAIN. A scientific theory is COMPRISED OF LAWS. You think "law" means "fact" because you don't know shit about science. "Law" actually means "pattern" in scientific lingo, and "laws" are simply observable patterns in the universe. A Scientific Theory is a factual description of events comprised of many laws. You CANNOT have a theory without laws. So, now that I've completely falsified every single one of your claims, go prove it to yourself by doing a simple google search.
@anthonyboy You seem to not even understand the word 'faith' because you equivocate it when you call me 'an atheist by faith'. i do not believe in your god because there is no evidence to convince me. It doesn't require 'faith' to not believe something. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of not only science, but logic and reasoning in general. You seriously should just admit you're 14 and leave while you can.
@anthonyboy And your claim that there is no evidence for evolution is PATHETIC. There are mountains of evidence; it is the world's foremost scientifically accepted explanation for the diversity of biological life on earth. Not because it sounds neat, but because of the corresponding genetic, archeological, and biological evidence.
Bro, we can all go to North Pole and see Santa. There areas of space that we cannot access. If you are really that ready to rule out god already then you're
@anthonyboy I'm excited that you seem to lack the capacity to determine the paradox you create in order to defend god: you claim he is the creator of the universe, but also claim that he exists inside of it.
No, sir a LAW is a validated hypothesis. Gravity is a LAW and thus can not be contradicted. A theory is equilavent to a hypothesis in the sense that it can be contradicted ie "the theory that earth is flat". Evolution lacks sufficient evidence, and can't be considered a law. You're choosing to believe in evolution by faith.
@anthonyboy Ding ding ding! Wrong again. A scientific theory is comprised of scientific laws. Someone doesn't have an education. Gravity is a scientific theory, mistakenly referred to as "law" by scientific laymen, such as yourself. Gravitational Theory is a set of newtonian principles that lawfully explain the phenomenon of matter attraction. A theory is NOT the same thing as a hypothesis; hypotheses become theories when they are validated. You should do some actual research before speaking.
@BlueSpirals Bro don't start with me. You have your black and white way of looking at life and I'll include the gray. I do my own personal research, and I come to my own conclusions. If you choose to believe that life just randomly happened or if you choose to believe that "Multi-verse" initiated the start of our galaxy you're doing on FAITH. If I choose to believe that a creator exists somewhere in the depths of space or where ever one may exist I will do that because of FAITH. GET OFF MY DICK
@anthonyboy Define a 'black and white life perspective' and then explain how it applies to me. I doubt you do any actual research- and by research I mean the kind conducted by students and professors in an accredited public university. You probably skim religious websites for "science". If you knew anything about real science, you'd know enough no to say "I come to my own conclusions". Life did not occur randomly, but by a nonrandom sequence of abiogenetic processes.
@BlueSpirals What(by your standards) you consider proof that God does not exist is proof (by others' standards) that God does exist. Your science is bunch of theories, and you choose to believe those theories BY FAITH.
Religion is also a bunch of theories and some people choose to believe those theories by FAITH.
@anthonyboy Yeah I mean it's obvious now that you don't know anything about science or how proofing works. You don't even know what a Scientific Theory is; which in fact is a validated hypothesis. Just so you're aware, gravity is a theory. And it's true. So is Evolution.
My conclusion that god does not exist is based on the fact that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate his existence.
@anthonyboy@anthonyboy Yeah I mean it's obvious now that you don't know anything about science or how proofing works. You don't even know what a Scientific Theory is; which in fact is a validated hypothesis. Just so you're aware, gravity is a theory. And it's true. So is Evolution.
My conclusion that god does not exist is based on the fact that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate his existence.
@BlueSpirals probably with more intolerance and malicious attacks on the evil people that push for the misinformation of our youth. You handled yourself gracefully my man.
Damn, some people are retards. They don't know how to take a joke anymore. :D The creationists see "atheist" and automatically think "EVIL >O" and are already pissed off and ready to attack every single word you say. :) I love your random silliness :D "AWWW LOOK AT THE KITTY!" I lol'd. :)
@LessthanJake14 Uh, what? Siege of troy? And you obviously dont know what a non-sequitor even is. Do I really need to explain the joke to you? "Jason is longer than Joe" is the joke. It's a joke because it's OBVIOUSLY not true. Jesus christ.
@LessthanJake14 Your emotional trauma as a result of my sense of humor is not going to produce a change in the way I make youtube videos. if this subject were unimportant to you, you'd not have typed a diatribe on my page about how you can't deal with jokes that need to be explained to you. If you dont like my videos or my humor, you have the right to fuck the fuck off.
From what iv heard from a friend. "Not sure how true this is" But science is now starting to say Life is even possible now without a earth like planet. Cant remember everything he was going on about. but something about life being found in some deadly poison. lol sry about the lack of info. but makes me think, life could be more likely than what we think on other planets.
@greenblue49 Just ignore him, he made this video just for mass comments and views. He is just no lifer who doesn't know what to do with his life so he made this stupid video in order to make some views and to make virtual debate. Just go to some real life amphitheater then make some discussions not over the internet, you will just make yourself more stupid than you are. O&O
wow, go read more of wikipedia then make stupid videos. Sorry, but you're just one no lifer geek who cries for views on youtube. To make you more easier on ''scientific'' way. Why should some normal man even make a video which will be against religion with those stupid 'answers and facts'. If you are atheist and you want to spam religion go to some REAL LIFE presentation then open a debate about it, its easy to find places nowdays in the things that we call schools (even primary one)...
@nikolavelickovic I am a student at the University of California, and I have accrued an audience of 4,000 people online for this video. Thats far more people than I might ever have the opportunity to speak to in real life regarding this subject. It seems like you fail to understand the nature of the digital age- information is widespread and easily accessible due to the internet; the fastest medium of mass communicative transit on earth.
@nikolavelickovic (Part 2) And furthermore, this video files no complaints against religion; it answers questions that religious people ask. All of my information is fact and can be found online or in the library of any university. And as far as things getting "more easier" (sic), it sounds a lot like you don't have much of an education whatsoever.
@BlueSpirals Digital age yes. And if you are leading some debate you should be more mannered not to make some stupid voices when you are reading a question or something. For someone who is arguing on internet manners are on first place. I bet that you're afraid to speak same in real life to your ''students''.
@nikolavelickovic It's funny that you are demanding that I behave in a way you see fit, on a communication medium designed with freedom of speech in mind. I speak and type exactly the way I intend to, and if you are offended by my silly voices, you need a thicker skin. In case you didn't read what I said (and of course you didn't), I am not a teacher, I am a student- I don't have "students". And no, I'm not afraid to discuss this in person. I made this video because I get asked so much IRL.
I love how educated some people are (Troy), because my mother was raised in Poland, they didn't teach her religion, they didn't explain to her the big bang theory, or evolution. Everything was explained by "god", she can't simply accept the fact that that's not how life works. Christians don't love god, they fear him, that is why they obey him so much, the fear of going to "hell". I want no part in being scared of my "god". What you are is not faith, its fear.
@MarcyPhelps It is unfortunate that the world fails to teach its inhabitants about science. Perhaps we'd have fewer wars and ethnocentrism if it did. And yes, I believe god would be hard-pressed to convince anybody to love him if he were not threatening them with eternal torment.
Evolution is bullshit mind control...we came from mud non living materials..LOL..as bacteria..and on and on all the way up to apes and humans...CRAP!!!..Lies!!!..or better yet on the backs of crystals bullshit
@BlueSpirals oh yeah its all fact Evolution explains everything,,we are nothing more than bacteria..there is no creator and we came from mud..and on all the way up to apes and then modern humans..Lucy is forsure becoming human..ok right ..LOL
@5tonyvvvv Evolution does not attempt to explain why life exists; evolution merely explains how it came about and how it changes throughout generations. It explains speciation and adaptation. It's interesting to me that you claim to understand evolution enough to discredit it, yet you are unable to even provide evidence that you know its definition.
@BlueSpirals oh yes it does..it clearly states life changing adapting in variation.and origins...but evolution can explain all of this clearly..when they cant even explain how bacteria cells change into incredibly complex organisms..sorry i look at both sides..and evolution has lies..u should not elimninate the possibility of a creator
@5tonyvvvv Abiogenesis is an explanation of how inorganic matter came to make organic matter; IE, how life came to be. It does not attempt to explain 'why'. Evolution merely explains how early life changed and adapted over time, and explains the diversity of present life. Evolution produces 0 lies, because it's simply a report of scientific observations. And it quite elegantly explains how life evolved from single-celled organisms. the more you speak, the less you appear to know about evolution.
I wish you hadn't done the 'British' accent for the 'religious nutter'. We are far less likely to be god botherers in the UK than the US. Otherwise.... Great work...
The delicate virgin flower prancing through the endless fields of wonder and Atheist pantyhose was really uneccessary!!!! Other than that, it was informative.
Well thank you. Again I'm not a christian arguing for the bible and against you I'm just asking this. I don't really agree with every single word but yes for the most part this makes good sense. Do you know if it's possible to bring white people back if they die out?
'white' people will never die out unless we're talking about some mass apocalyptic extinction. that wipes out the northern hemisphere. and yes, presumably natural selection could take place once more and a similar occurrence could follow. i doubt it would be exactly the same.
just like if you can find me an explanation of how we're not all black. Seeing as how we all originated from africa. Since the gene that causes black skin is overwhelmingly dominant and since we were all the same at one time we should've stayed black. How do you get white people out of black people. I'm not being an asshole I figure maybe you have the answers I seek. And don't call me stupid for asking this, there are things you don't know too. Unless you know everything.
"Black" is a blanket word we use to describe people with a certain skin color from point X to Z. All humans share genetic relics of african ancestry; we are ALL distant Africans. When ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa into Europe and Asia 60,000 years ago, the populations with lighter skin had an advantage- they could synthesize more vitamin D from the sun. In places where the sun is weaker than Africa, darker skinned people would become vitamin D starved, and would not survive.
Thus, people with lighter skin had more access to vitamin D, and they survived better in colder climates. JUST LIKE how animals with thick fur survive in polar regions better than animals with no fur. In places where the sun RARELY shines, like in the polar regions, humans had to get their vitamin D from their diet- Inuit people of the far north got most of their vitamin D from fish, and thus did not die out. This explanation is in EXCELLENT accordance with the genetic ancestry of humans.
by the way, my explanation of why blacks turned into whites (and all the other colors) is a perfect example of darwinian Natural Selection. Organisms and populations with BENEFICIAL traits out-compete and out-survive organisms and populations lacking them. If you are very dark-skinned, you have a LOT of melanin to protect you from the strong African sun- but in ancient times, before we had ample, well-rounded diets, you were FUCKED if you tried to survive in areas where the sun doesn't shine.
Theory or not, you're telling me you can prove something that happened millions or even billions of years ago? You're telling me you personally fucking know!? evidence my ass dude. I believe in evolution, obviously we have the mule and africanized bees. But saying that it explains our origins, I just don't agree. You find me some evidence that puts me without doubt that it did, and me and you will be on the same page.
Uh yeah, we can prove things that happened billions of years ago, it's called potassium-argon dating. You should read about chemistry. We can determine the half-life (when they experience radioactive decay) and determine exactly how old they are. Potassium-argon dating is accurate up to 4 billion years. Carbon dating is accurate up to 60,000 years, and is especially effective on plant and animal fossils.
And yeah, I DO personally fucking know, because I have seen the evidence for evolution. Are you familiar AT ALL with genetics or the fossil record? Do you even know what the genetic code IS? You're just using blatant arguments from incredulity over and over again- "I dont know something, therefore I cant believe it." It is NOT my job to give you evidence, it's right there, I even cited it IN MY FUCKING VIDEO. Start by googling "evidence for evolution", you will find millions of citations.
Why don't you just let the people who ask you these questions figure it out for themselves. Why do you waste your time answering questions asked by either people who are too dumb to comprehend your answer, or argumentatively asking you and are going to call bullshit no matter what your answer is?
Because no matter how stupid some people are, TRYING to teach them about science is NEVER a waste of time. The entire world should be exposed to science and educated in it. Education is the bane of fundamentalism. What I am doing now is the LEAST waste of time I commit in my life. Making videos that help educate the world is a waste? What a fucking joke dude. And no, I dont call bullshit when someone disagrees with me. I only call it when they are FULL OF BULLSHIT.
Well you seem to show what I feel is undue animosity toward me. Thank you for the lecture on science, however I feel in one way or another I already knew the majority of what you're saying. I don't know what you have evidence of, our origins I presume you mean, The "evidence" (Theory and hypothesis) is not entirely convincing to me, Science make me feel stupid? I'm glad for science actually, without it we wouldn't have modern medicine or understanding of the world around us.
I have no animosity towards you as a person or your religious beliefs- but I do begrudge you your childish misconceptions and blatant straw men you are guilty of committing on my page. What evidence would you like me to give you? On what subject? Abiogenesis? Evolution? the big bang? I can provide you with more scientific evidence than you could imagine. I also highly doubt you knew most this stuff before you saw my video, because you're demonstrating you STILL dont get a lot of it.
can anyone refer me to where i can find what is refered to in question 2..like a book or something
omgitsaghiles 5 months ago
@omgitsaghiles which part? abiogenesis? you can google it and read about it anywhere. check wikipedia first, it has a pretty introductory description!
BlueSpirals 5 months ago
@BlueSpirals thanks mate
omgitsaghiles 5 months ago
Also, most Islams consider their god as the Christian God
TheTyseno 7 months ago
Thor is most likely not believed in anymore (hence norse mthology), as with Ahuramazda. I was not supplying Jesus on my side as evidence, yet it is the truth.
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno Thor does have followers still. A simple google search will reveal that. Same with Ahuramazda. And the Muslims think that Jesus is NOT god, the christians do. In fact, the Muslims believe that the Christians believe in the MUSLIM god, yet worship him incorrectly.
And yeah, Jesus is the truth. You're absolutely sure of it. And I know a Muslim who is absolutely sure Jesus is not. And I know a Hindu who's absolutely sure Vishnu is god. So you're ALL right, since you're all so sure.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
You may laugh in my face, but I have Jesus Christ on my side and that is all that matters to me. You may find it funny that I put my trust in him, without evidence, but I feel sorry for you.
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno Oh yeah? I have Odin and Vishnu on MY side, so that's obviously proof that THEY exist too, and I feel sorry for YOU.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
If I go to afghanistan, I'll meet someone with Allah on their side. If I go to South America, I'll meet someone wiith Quetzlcoatl on their side. If I go to iran, I'll meet someone with Ahuramazda on their side. If I go to Norway, I'll meet someone with Thor on their side. Do you see how irrelevant your personal convictions are to me, when contrasted with the convictions of others? You've ALL got invisible best friends, you're all CERTAIN they exist, and most or all of you are mistaken.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago 2
I mean no offense by this, but out of curiousity, what experiments have you done?
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno I have participated in laboratories on campus with professors who are mapping the genetic sequences of different organisms, and demonstrating their identical alleles. I have hybridized flora specimen, dated fossils and visited the Miller-Urey Experiment in UC San Diego laboratories.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@TheTyseno You're really just arguing a broken platform. You are being so unreasonable that you wont even consider the evidence presented to you. I'm sorry to be rude but you dont know almost anything about science, and you actively avoid seeking out evidence. Simple internet searches on university websites will correct your misunderstandings. You want to say that elements cant be dated and mutations cannot create new species? PROVE IT. Because science has plenty of evidence on its side.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
I never said that the scientist faked it, but scientists have been wrong in the past as well. As for infections, they can alter the DNA of an offspring, causing a mutation. You also suspect that there has been enough time in the world for all of these mutations to occur, when we do not really know how long the Earth has been here.
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno Scientists make mistakes, and then learn from them. That's how we gather the most accurate, reliable evidence. And the evidence for evolution is ASTOUNDING. You should spend a day touring any research university. Look at the millions of library books on evolution, look at the laboratories. Look at the fossils. In fact, if you REALLY want to be convinced of evolution, enroll in school, study biology, and perform the experiments yourself as I did.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
Mutations are a part of evolution. Enough genetic mutations can cause a group to become reproductively isolated, thereby creating a new species. We know EXACTLY how long the earth has been here, plus or minus a few million years. The age of the earth is 4.6 billion years, and the rest of the solar system is not much older than that. We get this number via radio-carbon dating and geological timeframing.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@BlueSpirals Yet you assume, with the carbon-dating that carbon has always gone away as slowly as it does now. Cretionists argue that the Sun would have shrunk and gone out after 4.6 billion years, they also assume that the Sun is shrinking just as fast as it is in todays time. With the age of the Earth, people are fighting a uniformitarion argument on both sides, and it is not convincing the other.
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno The half life of argon and carbon is constant. I mean, how can i even explain why if you know nothing about chemistry? All of chemistry is predicated on the fact that the periodic elements behave in order with the laws of physics. Creationists know NOTHING about astronomy, and in order to argue that the sun would have burned out or whatever in X years, they'd HAVE TO KNOW chemistry and nuclear fusion. And if they did know that, they'd know they were totally wrong.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@BlueSpirals these half-lives have been constant for as long as we have been testing them, that isnt to say that they were the same constant beforehand.
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno We have absolutely no evidence suggesting that the half-lives of period elements have ever changed, OR that they ever could. If you want to suggest that it's worth considering that elements cannot be dated because they COULD have had different half-lives in the past, YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE that that's even possible. So go ahead and provide me with some research on that, I'll be waiting.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@BlueSpirals We have no proof that they have stayed constant forever either.
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno Uh yes we do, every observable instance of elements in all of chemistry has demonstrated that they behave reliably and predictably identical to their atomic groups. it appears that the present laws of physics govern them, as with everything, and the only time they might have been different was during the Special Relativity period of the early universe (and inside of black holes, possibly).
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
The evidence supporting your religious claims is scant and weak. It is no coincidence that laboratories, universities, and scientists the world over are revealing more and more evidence for big bang cosmology and evolutionary biology. There are no religious laboratories. There are no creationist research facilities (not ones that can get any accreditation or scientific recognition at all). People like you say "the scientists are conspiring against us!" when in fact, TRUTH conspires against you.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@TheTyseno if you'd like to continue this conversation please PM me so that I can provide links to websites with supporting evidence- I cant do it here.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
My next thought is a rather common one, which I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer is this: If organisms evolve into something better, why did we still see the older forms that have not evolved?
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno You have never seen one species on earth that has not evolved. Sorry. you're just completely wrong. All life on earth has a traceable, common genetic ancestor from 3.5 billion years ago. Even sharks, which have lived for millions of years, still evolved from simpler life forms. And it's not a question of "better", its a question of adapting traits that are more suitable to an ever-changing environment.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@BlueSpirals How can you assume the Earth is 3.5 billion years old? Show me believable, non-uniformitarian evidence, I am not saying that it is not, I am simply wondering how you know the age.
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno The earth isnt 3.5 billion years old. That's when life first arose. It's 4.6 billion years old. First, I recommend (since you seem to have a very brief understanding of science) you read the Wikipedia article "age of earth". then, verify the links yourself by following them to university websites, experiments, and dissertations with supporting evidence.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@TheTyseno Funnily enough, new research suggest that the half life of radioactive material is not constant. Nonetheless, unless you are one of those creationists (and if so I won't even bother talking), you should know that evolution is a fact, and biologists can tell by the mutation rate of genes that life must have started around 3.5 billion years ago.
66tom99 7 months ago
@TheTyseno And please keep in mind that scientific process, even if it turns out to be wrong on occassion, is still more reliable than a book written by sand people a few thousand years ago, which has been changed and altered throughout history.
66tom99 7 months ago
The HeLa cells certainly did adapt to fit their new surroundings, due to the fact they were no longer inside the body, but inside a laboratory. As for the rest of these forms of "macro-evolution," who is to say they have or have not been tampered with, who is to say that outside structures (i.e. viruses, bacteria, etc.) have not infected the specimen. I am talking about a controlled experiment inside a laboratory where the scientist(s) are not conducting experiments on the specimen.
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno So? A laboratory isnt a place where the laws of physics are suspended. Whether macroevolution occurs in pondwater or in a lab, it still occurs, it's still possible, and can be demonstrated. Obviously you dont know much about genetics, because infections do not alter the DNA of a species, and evolution is a genetic phenomenon- making your suspicion invalid. And you're really going to stare evolution's evidence in the face and then say that scientists faked it? Crackpotism.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@Therooker123 I hesitate to even use the word design, because it implies intent. the spiral of a tornado is the result of random but predictable, specific weather patterns.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
I believe in science, and I believe in evolution, yet only on a micro-basis. There has been no tests that it can work on a lrager scale, (i.e. humans) I put my faith in a God, you put your faith in science that it will answer all of its questions one day, we both base our faith around something that may not exist, but we still believe in it, do we not? One of the smartest people I know is a biology major and my ex-biology teacher, yet he is also the one of the most religious people I know.
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno You're absolutely completely mistaken, and you obviously don't have any science education to speak of. You should look up the Italian wall lizard, the SIV/HIV virus, and the HeLa cell. They are ALL examples of macro-evolution. In fact, the HeLa is the most interesting, because it is a single-celled life form that evolved from human cancer and now lives in the wild. So you're just ABSOLUTELY wrong. I dont have faith in science. Faith is belief without evidence. I have evidence.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
Furthermore, I just did a simple google search on 'examples of macroevolution' and found over 100 examples of species that live TODAY that are a result of macroevolution.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
I apologize for all 3 posts, but...umm in your first so-called answers; how are the discoveries of somethings refuting religion, also, everything is the work of God. In your second answer, you seem so imply that all relgious people say such things, yet I agree it did come out of thin air. As a side note, you seem not to want to show disrespect to people and only show the facts, yet with the voices you are giving the questions, you make me and my fellow believers seem incompetent and dumb
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno Well, i dont mean to insult you, but most people who believe in god do so because they don't know almost anything about science. We know a whole lot about the universe and religion often discourages the pursuit of knowledge. We know that evolution is true, for example, and religious people dont even want it taught in school. Listen to question 1's answer again. It CLEARLY explains to you that "Just because we dont know something does NOT mean god did it."
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
These are not implications that all religious people have the same mentality. I am simply answering the 10 most frequent questions I get from creationists. If you think that life didnt come out of thin air, good. you're smarter than them.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
umm in your first so-called answerm how are the discoveries of somethings refuting religion, also, everything is the work of God
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno You have to prove to me that God exists before you can prove to me that everything is the work of god. You're actually using a petitio principii (begging the question) if you state "God exists and I can prove him with his own work." Since there is no evidence for the existence of your god, or of any gods, I therefore am not convinced he exists, and therefore obviously dont accept your claim that "everything is his work".
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
umm in your first so-called answerm how are the discoveries of somethings refuting religion?
TheTyseno 7 months ago
@TheTyseno My first answer is an attempt to help you understand that YOUR arguments for god's existence are argumentum ad ignorantiums (arguments from Ignorance). I'm telling you that IF science cannot explain something, it does NOT prove that your explanation of god is correct. I give examples where, historically, science could not explain things (germs, spherical planet, etc.) and therefore the answer of God was inserted. In time, we learned the real answers to those questions. Not god.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@psychedellic420 really? like what?
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand." - Richard Feynman
"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
“That which is “invisible” and “immaterial” is indistinguishable from the “imaginary” and “non-existent”, and is therefore “irrelevant.”
xephyr1000 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship."-Francis S. Collins
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
scientists have a theory on how life changes, but not even one solid theory on how life began. Dont you think we should start investigating at the beginning? What good is a theory on life's evolution if you dont even know where life itself came from?
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
@hillaryhater3 Obviously you've never taken an actual science class before. Abiogenesis is the current and widely accepted working theory on the origin of biological life on Earth. It is supported by a lot of verifiable evidence. And our understanding of evolution is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in determining why life is the way it is now, and where it came from originally. What kind of a stupid question is that. Sorry to be rude.
BlueSpirals 8 months ago
@BlueSpirals what evidence? the most accepted was the Primordial Soup theory, and that was experimented with failure, in the lab, making an early earth atmosphere and having all the proteins and such put in there and absolutely no life forms were made. And i must mention the odds of all this happening are ridiculous. The odds of there being a flying spaghetti monster are higher than that.
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
@hillaryhater3 That's absolutely false. What you're referring to is the Miller-Urey experiment, and they successfully demonstrated that under certain atmospheric conditions similar to those of early Earth, nucleotides can spontaneously form. Over 20 amino acids were produced, including glycine. This experiment demonstrated that abiogenesis is extremely likely and can occur naturally. And your "chances" argument is just plain unfounded. Inorganic matter can become organic matter, demonstrably.
BlueSpirals 8 months ago
@BlueSpirals well please "demonstrate" it the next time you get the chance... :P
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
@hillaryhater3 Demonstrate what? That nucleotides can be created under certain atmospheric conditions? I'll send you a PM with all the evidence you need.
BlueSpirals 8 months ago
@BlueSpirals demonstrate in an OPEN environment please. buttt, im not so sure that u can.
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
@hillaryhater3 You cannot do that on earth in an open environment on the surface- the atmospheric conditions have changed vastly since 3 billion years ago. Oxygen, and the present conditions we experience, are the actual products of the gases and heat that churned in the sky and water when the earth was formed. This experiment demonstrates that under earlier conditions, organic matter was VERY easy to create.
BlueSpirals 8 months ago
@BlueSpirals was anyone there 3 billion yrs ago to see that it was very easy? or did someone experiment that in a closed environment?
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
@hillaryhater3 We don't need to have anybody there 3 billion years ago to witness it. In fact, witness testimony isn't as reliable as science. We know what the atmospheric conditions were like, not EXACTLY, but we have approximations that we recreate in laboratories, and create organic matter under those conditions. It's quite simple, and beautiful, and provides strong support for abiogenesis.
BlueSpirals 8 months ago
@BlueSpirals "approximations" well how does anybody know that they were even REMOTELY accurate? there is no evidence to verify that they are approximate. Just more speculation. Hell, so much of what science tells us is based on speculation. I find the universe more beautiful to know it was designed and planned out to be so wonderful and have so much to discover.
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
@hillaryhater3 I have provided you several links in your inbox concerning this information. There is a substantial amount of evidence for the early earth atmosphere claims made by scientists today. Why dont you treat yourself to some knowledge and go to a library or do some online research? I also am pretty sure that you're a troll, based on your rejection of evidence provided to you. And of your favorited videos.
BlueSpirals 8 months ago
@BlueSpirals why do u still claim it to be evidence? its all assumptions! libraries and online research on the subject are only going to support it because the books and sites were written by supporters of the theory! ur not gonna admit they are assumptions, so im just wasting my time, and so r u.
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
@hillaryhater3 Yeah, you're a troll. get the fuck off my page.
BlueSpirals 8 months ago
@BlueSpirals u got it
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
@BlueSpirals sorry, just want to squeeze in one more comment...What were u intending to do with the video when you were making it? what was its purpose? to try to tear down people's faiths and beliefs different from your own? It wasnt meant to change people's minds. u put in too much of your world view for anyone opposite of your beliefs to even consider your point. so based on this vid and some of YOUR favorites too, u r a troll as well. srry. now i will "get the fuck off" your page.
hillaryhater3 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I caught a glimpse of God weeping. I asked Him why He was sad, He answered,
'Hell was created for satan alone, but one by one, others followed along. It is sad to see the place i build for you so empty, while hell is filled with so many people.' "
395131 8 months ago
nice video, but the voice-overs were a bit much, dont you think?
redshark618 10 months ago
The beginning of the universe? Noone knows how, but why not use the principle calls Okhams razor, which basically says in terms of deduction, do not bring unnecessary factors into the equation as to leave as little room for falsehoods as possible. Now, we can either look at the reasonable aspects, such as the universe expanding, background radiation, etc, and deduce it was caused by the big bang, or we can create a god to explain it which carries thousands more implications. which seems logical?
TheLizardKing908 10 months ago
@TheLizardKing908 It's spelled Occam's razor.
BlueSpirals 10 months ago
We are all atheists. I just believe in one less god than christians. I dont believe in the christian god (or any other) for the same reason christians dont believe in the muslim god. look at all the gods and religions your reject and ask yourself why. Have you studied them extensively? I doubt it. You believe in your faith most likely because you were brought up that way. The idea of god and heaven/hell is just as magical as believing in unicorns. The burden of proof is on you guys. not us.
TheLizardKing908 10 months ago
@TheLizardKing908 did you even watch my video? I am an atheist, and I am answering questions asked of me by christians.
BlueSpirals 10 months ago 2
@TheLizardKing908 "You believe in your faith most likely because you were brought up that way."
Smooth, bro. You give skeptics a great name.
Pro-tip: Listen critically before posting.
101Pilgrim 10 months ago
@TheLizardKing908 Bro, i think you only read the title. If you watched the video you'd find that this guy is an avowed atheist.
redshark618 10 months ago
Most modern people are resonable enough not to take religion literaly. So why are they not reasonable enough to just dismiss it all together, and follow a more reasonable path. One that does not lead the already unreasonable to become even more so. i.e. american christian extremist groups, (look them up. they are out there and in larger numbers then one might think) and obviously muslim extremists, etc, Just want to point out that i know that a few do not always represent the whole.
Kenjoliero 11 months ago
@Kenjoliero Modern muslims take religion very seriously.
BlueSpirals 10 months ago
And you can't seem to acknowledge that The universe being started by a magical explosion is just as illogical as it being created by a creator. There some questions man will NEVER answer and your choice to be an atheist is by faith. You believe in all of this unsubstantial evidence by faith
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy It's not just as illogical, because you're erecting a straw-man to attack it. the Big Bang cosmological model is extensively supported by observable evidence, such as cosmic microwave background radiation, redshift, and constellation movement. Of course you don't know any of that because you're a scientific illiterate. Just because you don't understand the Big Bang doesn't make it false. It means you should do some research, which I keep telling you to do, and of course you wont lol
BlueSpirals 1 year ago 7
The amount of evidence contributing to the theory is fair, but there are still MISSING LINKS. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. I agree that it is accepted world wide, but so are many religions. You choose to believe in evolution because of your faith in science.
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy Uh, nope. Wrong again. Where did you get your science degree? Lol. There are no "missing links", that is a term invented BY non-scientist creationists to try to attack evolution. You don't know ANYTHING, ANYTHING, about natural selection. You say you "know" there are "missing links" because some christian website told you. In actuality, they are as ignorant as you- NEITHER of you went to college obviously. Science can demonstrate its claims with evidence. Religion cannot.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
THEORY = CAN BE CONTRADICTED. The THEORY of Evolution can be contradicted. The LAW of gravity can't. They are missing links in the evolution theory. You are believing in evolution by faith. Hell, even laws have been contradicted and amended in the past. I worked be surprised if evolution is disproved in the near future.
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy You are still wrong. You are unable to differentiate between colloquial uses of the term "theory", like "my theory is that joe murdered bill!" and scientific terminology; IE, "the Theory of Gravitational Attraction". You don't have the intellectual tools to differentiate between these terms because you lack science education. You are confounding two TOTALLY different philosophical realms of language; you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. Theories ARE facts, MADE from laws.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Comment removed
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy I seem to be arguing with like a sixteen year old. You can't even admit to yourself that you are utterly ignorant of everything you claim to know.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago 5
You're a vefy
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy LOL at "no evidence for evolution", yeah of course there isn't any if you've never set foot in a fucking university. I would bet my life that you have no education in genetics, archeology, or biological anthropology (or biology for that matter). You are a total layman; the things you say about science are glaringly indicative of someone who is straight up TOTALLY IGNORANT of a scientific education.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals A scientific theory stands until it is proven wrong(Which has happened in the past). It is NEVER proven right. Therefore you choose to believe in evolution BY FAITH
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy Wrong AGAIN. A scientific theory is COMPRISED OF LAWS. You think "law" means "fact" because you don't know shit about science. "Law" actually means "pattern" in scientific lingo, and "laws" are simply observable patterns in the universe. A Scientific Theory is a factual description of events comprised of many laws. You CANNOT have a theory without laws. So, now that I've completely falsified every single one of your claims, go prove it to yourself by doing a simple google search.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@anthonyboy You seem to not even understand the word 'faith' because you equivocate it when you call me 'an atheist by faith'. i do not believe in your god because there is no evidence to convince me. It doesn't require 'faith' to not believe something. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of not only science, but logic and reasoning in general. You seriously should just admit you're 14 and leave while you can.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@anthonyboy And your claim that there is no evidence for evolution is PATHETIC. There are mountains of evidence; it is the world's foremost scientifically accepted explanation for the diversity of biological life on earth. Not because it sounds neat, but because of the corresponding genetic, archeological, and biological evidence.
Sorry dude. You're just a dumbass.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Bro, we can all go to North Pole and see Santa. There areas of space that we cannot access. If you are really that ready to rule out god already then you're
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy I'm excited that you seem to lack the capacity to determine the paradox you create in order to defend god: you claim he is the creator of the universe, but also claim that he exists inside of it.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
No, sir a LAW is a validated hypothesis. Gravity is a LAW and thus can not be contradicted. A theory is equilavent to a hypothesis in the sense that it can be contradicted ie "the theory that earth is flat". Evolution lacks sufficient evidence, and can't be considered a law. You're choosing to believe in evolution by faith.
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy Ding ding ding! Wrong again. A scientific theory is comprised of scientific laws. Someone doesn't have an education. Gravity is a scientific theory, mistakenly referred to as "law" by scientific laymen, such as yourself. Gravitational Theory is a set of newtonian principles that lawfully explain the phenomenon of matter attraction. A theory is NOT the same thing as a hypothesis; hypotheses become theories when they are validated. You should do some actual research before speaking.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Science is actually leaning toward the existence of God
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy Uh no, it's actually not. Whoever told you that is lying to you.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals Bro don't start with me. You have your black and white way of looking at life and I'll include the gray. I do my own personal research, and I come to my own conclusions. If you choose to believe that life just randomly happened or if you choose to believe that "Multi-verse" initiated the start of our galaxy you're doing on FAITH. If I choose to believe that a creator exists somewhere in the depths of space or where ever one may exist I will do that because of FAITH. GET OFF MY DICK
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy Define a 'black and white life perspective' and then explain how it applies to me. I doubt you do any actual research- and by research I mean the kind conducted by students and professors in an accredited public university. You probably skim religious websites for "science". If you knew anything about real science, you'd know enough no to say "I come to my own conclusions". Life did not occur randomly, but by a nonrandom sequence of abiogenetic processes.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@anthonyboy I don't need faith. I have science. I can prove the shit I say. You cant.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals What(by your standards) you consider proof that God does not exist is proof (by others' standards) that God does exist. Your science is bunch of theories, and you choose to believe those theories BY FAITH.
Religion is also a bunch of theories and some people choose to believe those theories by FAITH.
anthonyboy 1 year ago
@anthonyboy Yeah I mean it's obvious now that you don't know anything about science or how proofing works. You don't even know what a Scientific Theory is; which in fact is a validated hypothesis. Just so you're aware, gravity is a theory. And it's true. So is Evolution.
My conclusion that god does not exist is based on the fact that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate his existence.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@anthonyboy @anthonyboy Yeah I mean it's obvious now that you don't know anything about science or how proofing works. You don't even know what a Scientific Theory is; which in fact is a validated hypothesis. Just so you're aware, gravity is a theory. And it's true. So is Evolution.
My conclusion that god does not exist is based on the fact that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate his existence.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@anthonyboy Does it require the same amount of faith to disbelieve in santa as it does to believe in him?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Pretty funny man! haha...
I was so ready to answer the 10 questions posed by the religious zealot that I presumed made this video based on the title.
While I would have answered your questions a little differently, you did a pretty good job.
steelrain2012 1 year ago
@steelrain2012 how would you have responded?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals probably with more intolerance and malicious attacks on the evil people that push for the misinformation of our youth. You handled yourself gracefully my man.
steelrain2012 1 year ago
@steelrain2012 I realized that stooping to their level doesn't work
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Damn, some people are retards. They don't know how to take a joke anymore. :D The creationists see "atheist" and automatically think "EVIL >O" and are already pissed off and ready to attack every single word you say. :) I love your random silliness :D "AWWW LOOK AT THE KITTY!" I lol'd. :)
SkelanimalKitteh 1 year ago
Troy: four letters.
The Blue Spirals: Fourteen letters.
SHORTER? WHAT?!
LessthanJake14 1 year ago
@LessthanJake14 sarcasm much?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals But, it wasn't funny...?
Or relating to anything? Unless you're trying to make a pun about the siege of Troy, but that's still non-sequiter.
LessthanJake14 1 year ago
@LessthanJake14 Uh, what? Siege of troy? And you obviously dont know what a non-sequitor even is. Do I really need to explain the joke to you? "Jason is longer than Joe" is the joke. It's a joke because it's OBVIOUSLY not true. Jesus christ.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals Your sense of humour, in that case, is diabolical.
It's like you're trying to break the ice, in a fucking Youtube video.
I mean, it's not even a joke. It's not witty or anything. It's not like "My name's Troy, but call me The Blue Spirals, much more normal".
But Jesus, it's so unimportant anyway! Goddamn!
LessthanJake14 1 year ago
@LessthanJake14 Your emotional trauma as a result of my sense of humor is not going to produce a change in the way I make youtube videos. if this subject were unimportant to you, you'd not have typed a diatribe on my page about how you can't deal with jokes that need to be explained to you. If you dont like my videos or my humor, you have the right to fuck the fuck off.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals WHY U MAD BROOO?
LessthanJake14 1 year ago
@LessthanJake14 nobody sounds mad but you. do you have any science or theology questions?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Next time you make a video you should add a little background music.
mrfuzzer1 1 year ago
From what iv heard from a friend. "Not sure how true this is" But science is now starting to say Life is even possible now without a earth like planet. Cant remember everything he was going on about. but something about life being found in some deadly poison. lol sry about the lack of info. but makes me think, life could be more likely than what we think on other planets.
SSDEdward 1 year ago
Is it just me or does Ann Coulter look like Skeletor from He-Man?
How do you explain the Universe? 42.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
@Jonstern1983 Ann Coulter is indisputable evidence that there is no god.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals LOL
SSDEdward 1 year ago
Whomever asked question 4 did not think it through.
greenblue49 1 year ago
I believe that the things that science HAS explained is the work of God. True science glorifies God!
greenblue49 1 year ago
@greenblue49 Oh really? And what science is that exactly?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@greenblue49 Just ignore him, he made this video just for mass comments and views. He is just no lifer who doesn't know what to do with his life so he made this stupid video in order to make some views and to make virtual debate. Just go to some real life amphitheater then make some discussions not over the internet, you will just make yourself more stupid than you are. O&O
nikolavelickovic 1 year ago
wow, go read more of wikipedia then make stupid videos. Sorry, but you're just one no lifer geek who cries for views on youtube. To make you more easier on ''scientific'' way. Why should some normal man even make a video which will be against religion with those stupid 'answers and facts'. If you are atheist and you want to spam religion go to some REAL LIFE presentation then open a debate about it, its easy to find places nowdays in the things that we call schools (even primary one)...
nikolavelickovic 1 year ago
@nikolavelickovic I am a student at the University of California, and I have accrued an audience of 4,000 people online for this video. Thats far more people than I might ever have the opportunity to speak to in real life regarding this subject. It seems like you fail to understand the nature of the digital age- information is widespread and easily accessible due to the internet; the fastest medium of mass communicative transit on earth.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@nikolavelickovic (Part 2) And furthermore, this video files no complaints against religion; it answers questions that religious people ask. All of my information is fact and can be found online or in the library of any university. And as far as things getting "more easier" (sic), it sounds a lot like you don't have much of an education whatsoever.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals Digital age yes. And if you are leading some debate you should be more mannered not to make some stupid voices when you are reading a question or something. For someone who is arguing on internet manners are on first place. I bet that you're afraid to speak same in real life to your ''students''.
nikolavelickovic 1 year ago
@nikolavelickovic It's funny that you are demanding that I behave in a way you see fit, on a communication medium designed with freedom of speech in mind. I speak and type exactly the way I intend to, and if you are offended by my silly voices, you need a thicker skin. In case you didn't read what I said (and of course you didn't), I am not a teacher, I am a student- I don't have "students". And no, I'm not afraid to discuss this in person. I made this video because I get asked so much IRL.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@Blue Sprials, My apologies as an Brit I was brought up to believe that Americans didn't 'get' sarcasm or irony.
estebanrey 1 year ago
I love how educated some people are (Troy), because my mother was raised in Poland, they didn't teach her religion, they didn't explain to her the big bang theory, or evolution. Everything was explained by "god", she can't simply accept the fact that that's not how life works. Christians don't love god, they fear him, that is why they obey him so much, the fear of going to "hell". I want no part in being scared of my "god". What you are is not faith, its fear.
MarcyPhelps 1 year ago
@MarcyPhelps It is unfortunate that the world fails to teach its inhabitants about science. Perhaps we'd have fewer wars and ethnocentrism if it did. And yes, I believe god would be hard-pressed to convince anybody to love him if he were not threatening them with eternal torment.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
I stopped after you said that 'BlueSpirals' was shorter than 'Troy'
estebanrey 1 year ago
@estebanrey yeah sarcasm is really difficult for some people to digest, it's like physics
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
idiot
proghead 1 year ago
@proghead Well spoken and well elucidated. I bet you have a lot to say.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Evolution is bullshit mind control...we came from mud non living materials..LOL..as bacteria..and on and on all the way up to apes and humans...CRAP!!!..Lies!!!..or better yet on the backs of crystals bullshit
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Sorry, where did you say you got your science degree?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals sorry where were u brainwashed?
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv And I suppose the truth, that has been obscured by 2,000 years of scientific research and fact, is something bible-related right?
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals oh yeah its all fact Evolution explains everything,,we are nothing more than bacteria..there is no creator and we came from mud..and on all the way up to apes and then modern humans..Lucy is forsure becoming human..ok right ..LOL
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Evolution does not attempt to explain why life exists; evolution merely explains how it came about and how it changes throughout generations. It explains speciation and adaptation. It's interesting to me that you claim to understand evolution enough to discredit it, yet you are unable to even provide evidence that you know its definition.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals oh yes it does..it clearly states life changing adapting in variation.and origins...but evolution can explain all of this clearly..when they cant even explain how bacteria cells change into incredibly complex organisms..sorry i look at both sides..and evolution has lies..u should not elimninate the possibility of a creator
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Abiogenesis is an explanation of how inorganic matter came to make organic matter; IE, how life came to be. It does not attempt to explain 'why'. Evolution merely explains how early life changed and adapted over time, and explains the diversity of present life. Evolution produces 0 lies, because it's simply a report of scientific observations. And it quite elegantly explains how life evolved from single-celled organisms. the more you speak, the less you appear to know about evolution.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
I wish you hadn't done the 'British' accent for the 'religious nutter'. We are far less likely to be god botherers in the UK than the US. Otherwise.... Great work...
TopRobbo1970 1 year ago 2
Time unfolded when the dimension of space did. "Before" is temporal, it is an undefined term in this case.
99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct.
darketernal3 1 year ago
i can only imagine the effort that went into the audio
Ferrymartyr 1 year ago
Wow, that 'reading out the question' voice is REALLY annoying, lol
MeBeMat 1 year ago
We don't need science to dismiss the gods we created. We give way too much credibility to theists when we attempt to prove or disprove a negative.
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago
We do need science to debunk pseudoscience, however. And religion uses pseudoscience for its own gain.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@BlueSpirals I can agree with that.
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago
love the voice of the guy asking the questions haha
vrd180 1 year ago 2
The delicate virgin flower prancing through the endless fields of wonder and Atheist pantyhose was really uneccessary!!!! Other than that, it was informative.
candyluvpotion 1 year ago
Hi Troy. I'm a palaeontologist and it's good to see a coherent, intelligent video like yours up here. Keep up the good work!
jamesneenan 1 year ago
gotta fight the power, man
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
Well thank you. Again I'm not a christian arguing for the bible and against you I'm just asking this. I don't really agree with every single word but yes for the most part this makes good sense. Do you know if it's possible to bring white people back if they die out?
AJballer 2 years ago
'white' people will never die out unless we're talking about some mass apocalyptic extinction. that wipes out the northern hemisphere. and yes, presumably natural selection could take place once more and a similar occurrence could follow. i doubt it would be exactly the same.
BlueSpirals 2 years ago
just like if you can find me an explanation of how we're not all black. Seeing as how we all originated from africa. Since the gene that causes black skin is overwhelmingly dominant and since we were all the same at one time we should've stayed black. How do you get white people out of black people. I'm not being an asshole I figure maybe you have the answers I seek. And don't call me stupid for asking this, there are things you don't know too. Unless you know everything.
AJballer 2 years ago
"Black" is a blanket word we use to describe people with a certain skin color from point X to Z. All humans share genetic relics of african ancestry; we are ALL distant Africans. When ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa into Europe and Asia 60,000 years ago, the populations with lighter skin had an advantage- they could synthesize more vitamin D from the sun. In places where the sun is weaker than Africa, darker skinned people would become vitamin D starved, and would not survive.
BlueSpirals 2 years ago
Thus, people with lighter skin had more access to vitamin D, and they survived better in colder climates. JUST LIKE how animals with thick fur survive in polar regions better than animals with no fur. In places where the sun RARELY shines, like in the polar regions, humans had to get their vitamin D from their diet- Inuit people of the far north got most of their vitamin D from fish, and thus did not die out. This explanation is in EXCELLENT accordance with the genetic ancestry of humans.
BlueSpirals 2 years ago
by the way, my explanation of why blacks turned into whites (and all the other colors) is a perfect example of darwinian Natural Selection. Organisms and populations with BENEFICIAL traits out-compete and out-survive organisms and populations lacking them. If you are very dark-skinned, you have a LOT of melanin to protect you from the strong African sun- but in ancient times, before we had ample, well-rounded diets, you were FUCKED if you tried to survive in areas where the sun doesn't shine.
BlueSpirals 2 years ago
Theory or not, you're telling me you can prove something that happened millions or even billions of years ago? You're telling me you personally fucking know!? evidence my ass dude. I believe in evolution, obviously we have the mule and africanized bees. But saying that it explains our origins, I just don't agree. You find me some evidence that puts me without doubt that it did, and me and you will be on the same page.
AJballer 2 years ago
Uh yeah, we can prove things that happened billions of years ago, it's called potassium-argon dating. You should read about chemistry. We can determine the half-life (when they experience radioactive decay) and determine exactly how old they are. Potassium-argon dating is accurate up to 4 billion years. Carbon dating is accurate up to 60,000 years, and is especially effective on plant and animal fossils.
BlueSpirals 2 years ago
And yeah, I DO personally fucking know, because I have seen the evidence for evolution. Are you familiar AT ALL with genetics or the fossil record? Do you even know what the genetic code IS? You're just using blatant arguments from incredulity over and over again- "I dont know something, therefore I cant believe it." It is NOT my job to give you evidence, it's right there, I even cited it IN MY FUCKING VIDEO. Start by googling "evidence for evolution", you will find millions of citations.
BlueSpirals 2 years ago
Why don't you just let the people who ask you these questions figure it out for themselves. Why do you waste your time answering questions asked by either people who are too dumb to comprehend your answer, or argumentatively asking you and are going to call bullshit no matter what your answer is?
AJballer 2 years ago
Because no matter how stupid some people are, TRYING to teach them about science is NEVER a waste of time. The entire world should be exposed to science and educated in it. Education is the bane of fundamentalism. What I am doing now is the LEAST waste of time I commit in my life. Making videos that help educate the world is a waste? What a fucking joke dude. And no, I dont call bullshit when someone disagrees with me. I only call it when they are FULL OF BULLSHIT.
BlueSpirals 2 years ago
Well you seem to show what I feel is undue animosity toward me. Thank you for the lecture on science, however I feel in one way or another I already knew the majority of what you're saying. I don't know what you have evidence of, our origins I presume you mean, The "evidence" (Theory and hypothesis) is not entirely convincing to me, Science make me feel stupid? I'm glad for science actually, without it we wouldn't have modern medicine or understanding of the world around us.
AJballer 2 years ago
I have no animosity towards you as a person or your religious beliefs- but I do begrudge you your childish misconceptions and blatant straw men you are guilty of committing on my page. What evidence would you like me to give you? On what subject? Abiogenesis? Evolution? the big bang? I can provide you with more scientific evidence than you could imagine. I also highly doubt you knew most this stuff before you saw my video, because you're demonstrating you STILL dont get a lot of it.
BlueSpirals 2 years ago