When I first saw this video like a year or so ago, I thought it was a poe video, comedy poking fun at fundamentalists :P. I didn't know it was serious, how sad!
i can never find a link to the original video. any ideas? Not that i agree with it, just want to watch it all the way through without commontary over it.
well, it would be "Cretaceous Park", or if we're anal "Maastrichtian Park", since this is T-rex :P
(The Maastrichtian was the last stage of the Cretaceous, from ~73-65.5 MA; stage was named after rock outcrops around the city of Maastricht, the Netherlands. T-rex lived in this stage. and yes, sorry, I just get carried away when it comes to to fossil life)
I know-it's silly isn't it? Velociraptor, Parasaurolophus, T-rex, Triceratops, and Spinosaurus. all are Cretaceous. even the one non-dinosaur regularlarly featured (Pteranodon), is Cretaceous!
I personally think they should have had Allosaurus as the villain, with JP III having Edmarka, to be consistent with the title. but for some reason, they don't sound as catchy (neither does Cretaceous park)
don't get me started on that. I don't even know what compelled them to make those up. I mean, reptilian beings before there were tetrapods? the paleontologist in me is gasping at this point
as to the mesozoic park: yeah, that would be accurate. but as I mentioned,any alternative (my examples were Cretaceous and Maastrichtian) just doesn't have the ring to it that "Jurassic" has. there's just something about it, that gives it appeal.-a certain air of sexiness if you will XD
@Albukhshi "I mean, reptilian beings before there were tetrapods? the paleontologist in me is gasping at this point"
I could forgive them if they'd just left it at Silurians; it is a cool name after all. But then they tried to fix it by calling them Eocenes, which is too LATE a period, and then came the most cringe-worthy designation: Homo reptilia! The more they tried to fix it, the worse they made it!
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Silurian episodes, but geez...
yeah, my Mom (also a Dr. Who fan), tells me that. but the problem is, I don't have a TV (mom's in Texas, I in Colorado), and Hulu doesn't always deliver. but yes, I will watch it when I have the chance.
yeah, maybe they should have left it at "sliurian". at least the name "sounds" OK.
The debate between Creationism and Evolution is over. These days, denying children evolution because it conflicts with "faith" is like discrediting math because calculators are too complicated. The sooner Creationists accept Evolution, the sooner science can move forward in our classrooms.
@TheTiamarth If someone honestly thinks the universe is less than 7,000 years old, then even if he isn't retarded, he's crippling his intellect so much that he might as well be.
@shanedk It's not a matter of intellect. It's a matter of belief. You believe one thing, Creationists believe another. Big deal.
Did you know that Albert Einstein, arguably one of the most brilliant men to walk the earth, was a Pantheist? He was a Creationist. He believed that God and the universe was one thing.
@TheTiamarth Was Albert a biologist? He was a physicist so he hardly could have been an authority on this subject anyways. He wasn't a Christian, and he certainly didn't believe the universe was 6,000 years old or nearly anything proclaimed in this video.
Creationists like to say Evolution is a religion just like Creation, or say that Creationism is science just like Evolution, neither of which is true of course, and Evolution doesn't require faith.
@shanedk@shanedk Pantheism is indeed Creation. It isn't the traditional, Christian view of Creation, but it teaches that the universe was created. It teaches that God is in everything.
And regardless of what Einstein believed before Hubble, his opinion changed. His intellect wasn't damaged in any way.
@TheTiamarth Spinozan pantheism--the kind Einstein adhered to--has NO kind of creation WHATSOEVER. Just because you have a god doesn't mean you have a creator.
"And regardless of what Einstein believed before Hubble, his opinion changed. "
@shanedk No. Spinozan Pantheism states (and I quote) "God, however, who is the first cause of all things, and also the cause of himself [causa sui], makes himself known through himself."
I copied/pasted that quote directly from an article explaining the nature of Spinozan Pantheism.
Now, I suppose I could be reading it wrong, mis-interpreting it somehow. But, I'm pretty sure that says God created everything.
@TheTiamarth Wait, if your definition of a Creationist is someone who believes that God created everything with no further specifics....then that would mean the biologist Kenneth R. Miller, in severe opposition to the Intelligent Design movement and a Roman Catholic, who believes that god created the universe but that that god would not be a deceitful god by placing all of the evidence for Evolution - is a Creationist.
Sorry, Spinozan Pantheism is far from Creationism.
@pat5168 It doesn't need any more specifics. If someone or something created the universe, then there had to have been a creation.
Plus, I still reference the quote in my previous comment (from an article explaining what Spinozan Pantheism is), which directly says God created the universe. But none of this has anything to do with my original point. Not all of these Creationists are retarded.
@TheTiamarth By your definition, then, one can be a creationist and an evolutionist at the same time--like Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins. No, the only definition that makes sense to the debate is one where creationism DENIES EVOLUTION. What you're talking about has another term: "theistic evolution."
@shanedk Look up Creationism in your dictionary, the exact definition is: "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution." Basically what I said. If something was created, then there had to have been a creator.
I never once mentioned Evolution. Heck, neither of these ideologies make sense to me. But that WASN'T the point of this debate.
@TheTiamarth This discussion is about a video debunking creationist crap. The creation/evolution debate has well-defined sides.
Also, READ YOUR OWN FUCKING DEFINITION: "living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, RATHER THAN by natural processes SUCH AS EVOLUTION." According to YOUR OWN DEFINITION, you CANNOT be a creationist and accept evolution!
@shanedk My original point was that not all Creationists are retarded. I was not interested in debating any aspect of the video because I agree and disagree with pieces of it. I am not Creationist, nor am I an Evolutionist.
That said, I never once said that Creation and Evolution was one thing. I never mentioned Evolution at all. They cannot be the same thing, because they are exact opposites. The definition I posted was not mine, it was the Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.
@TheTiamarth By the definition you just posted, neither Kenneth Miller nor Albert Einstein qualify as creationists. Yet you keep insisting that they are!
@pat5168@shanedk Not at all. The definition I posted said God caused all things. How is He going to go about doing that? Well, even if He caused the Big Bang he had to have created the explosion. If He started Evolution rather than creating things the way Genesis says He did, then He still would have had to have created the planets, and the environment which made Evolution possible. The word "cause" must be where you're getting confused. Otherwise, you're both talking in circles.
@TheTiamarth If your argument is that not all Creationists are retarded, and your definition of Creationist includes all Theists, then we're both done here, come back when you can comprehend what kind of people we're talking about here.
@TheTiamarth I will put this simply for you. Your criteria, by all objective standards, for determining whether someone is a Creationist is if they believe their particular deity created the universe, with no other specifics. This makes all Theistic Evolutionists - No matter how much they support Evolution and clarify their discontent for YE or OE Creationism - a Creationist. This is why you argue for intellect as irrelevant, you don't identify the foundations of Creationism. I will if I must.
@TheTiamarth Theistic Evolutionists do accept Evolution and that their particular deity created the universe about 14 billion years ago, but not much else can be said about them that would be covering all of those people and I am not in the condition to do so.
All Creationists share key traits, such as the belief the earth and the universe is 6,000 years old (For YEC) and that all lifeforms fall into categories of unrelated created kinds.
@shanedk It also says that God is the cause of all things. As in everything. Of which the universe is a part. Therefore He essentially created it, perhaps by some accident, perhaps on purpose. But regardless, He was the cause of it, which strongly implies a creation of some kind.
@TheTiamarth "But regardless, He was the cause of it,"
No, the philosophy states that God was created ALONG WITH the universe (since he actually IS the universe). In order for him to be the CAUSE of the universe, he would have to exist before the universe did.
@shanedk Uhm. No it doesn't. Let me quote it once again. "God, however, who is the first cause of all things, and also the cause of himself [causa sui], makes himself known through himself."
Now, show me where it says God was created along with the universe. Because I see a sentence that basically says, "God is the cause of all things. He caused everything and He caused Himself. He makes Himself known through Himself."
@lagerbaer Christianity gets justified in innumerable ways, which sometimes contradict each other. This is tactically useful for the apologist, because when one justification gets disproven, then can switch to another that isn't affected by the refutation.
And when *that's* disproven, they can switch back, hoping everyone's forgotten the first one.
@shanedk The creationists offer a surpless of comedy along with the occasional urge to bang your head against the wall because facts won't sink into their heads lol. Good video.
I admire a lot of your work. But false generalisations like this do not only harm the cause of spreading the word (because they feed into the preconceptions of believers), but are intolerable for somebody who wants to be taken seriously as an educator, since they show a disturbing lack of understanding of the psychological dispositions involved.
It's NOT a false generalization. I've been debating creationists for over TWENTY YEARS! I have yet to run into a SINGLE ONE who didn't lie to preserve his creationist beliefs--because the ones who WEREN'T liars STOPPED BEING CREATIONISTS!
@rkyeun >"Creationism is a lie. Thus all who tell it are liars."
Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive
If a person you trust deceits you by telling you a lie, and you honestly believe that person and henceforth spread the lie: who is the liar? You? That person? Both of you?
OBVIOUSLY, you are still an honest person. Every creationist who honestly believes in creationism is not a liar - only wrong. And if you treat them as liars, you are the dick.
go on creationists teach your child what you believe disprove evolution and science. trust me your descendants will become haftwit, imbecile moron in due time. poor creationists' children..
As long as we haven't found every single generation of organisms, there's always going to be a missing link. However, using our brains, we can deduce that they are close enough to skip a generation.
A clarification. the tissue they talk about from a T-rex WAS real. An Archaeologist used acid to strip away fossilized bone and it had the side effect of reconstituting some of the tissue. I saw an interview with the woman. She also stated in her interview that the idea creationists have grabbed onto that the fossil was not millions of years old REALLY pissed her off. She was very upset they misrepresented her work. She affirmed the fossil was about 63 million years old.
"The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient."
"We did not evolve from a rock", and yet we exist on a floating rock in space. We call it Earth, the irony.
A biologist is going to confirm the story in there book, the same as a preacher is going to confirm the story of there book.
The actual facts are not being presented here, just the same old arguments from the theists and Atheists. Carbon dating relies on a constant decay rate, and yet we know for a science fact that this is not constant and varies. Dating anything becomes implausible.
@shanedk Lol, clearly you do not understand radio carbon dating.
"Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5730 years, meaning that the amount of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5730 years due to radioactive decay. "
@shanedk That is amusing, you did not address the variation when quoting me. Your point was clearly suggesting that I was a LIAR for suggesting that Carbon dating relies on a constant decay rate. Clearly proving it has not changed your opinion of me being a LIAR, and I can only conclude that correcting you again will result in the same response. FYI C14 is constantly being produced, and the rate of its production and its decay can be affected by cosmic rays and the magnetosphere. Pff n00b!
@shanedk I am far from a creationist, but an interesting conclusion. Maybe you should take the time to look in to what I say before making any conclusions. It can be found on google scholar, but they may be a little to advanced for your primitive brain.
"This amazing article was recently found in the scientific literature.
Physicists are stirred by claims that the sun may change what’s unchangeable—the rate of radioactive decay
@shanedk You choose to be ignorant like most Christians do, it is well documented in the academic community, and should be no real surprise that what we once thought of as a cosmological constant has turned out not to be. My background is in physics and I know what I am talking about.
@TCupUK Which admits that they don't have any real data and if true would make the Earth older than 6,000 years by quite a lot. Also it in no way invalidates the amount of radiation released. If the amount of radiation we think was released over billions of years was in fact released in the past 6,000 years there would be some nasty consequences to all life on Earth.
@shanedk Ask your wife how good you are at reading emotions, understanding how to flow with how someone is going to feel by what you say. I agree using emotions to drive in a point is crucial. The art of the 'emotional close' to any talk makes or breaks that talk usually. When someone believes one thing and has strong emotions behind it, and you want to sway them to something else, you can't do it with the opposite pole. You have to bring them to middle first. Then swing them. Ask wife.
@bearglades I am not disputing that they are or are not scum. Some of them are and some are just deluded. All I am saying is if you want to make the scientific community come off as professional, compassionate and just, you don't want to be dragged down into emotional name calling because that is the game of the evangalists, not the scientists. You stoop to their level is all I am saying. Not getting emotional and staying clear headed wins every time.
@nyclear Stooping to their level would be using emotion INSTEAD of an argument, NOT in addition to. Emotional arguments are powerful, and that's why they're winning with so many people. If we avoid the emotional ramifications we lose.
@shanedk isaac asimov has a beautiful quote in his collection "the martian way and other stories". "you can't fight an emotion filled campaign with cold numbers." that's probably not an exact quote, but i haven't read the book in ten years... sorry.
we have to be passionate, emotional, even enraged when dealing with these imbeciles and their religious zealotry. the future of the entire human race may well depend on our side winning the argument.
Although I agree with everything you said that debunks creationism, I think you did science a disservice by calling creationists 'scum'. If somehow we believed the same ideas they did we too might be a little panicked to convert everyone. I mean gosh, if I thought everyone was going to hell unless they understood what I did, I would be a little panicked too!
@nyclear "I think you did science a disservice by calling creationists 'scum'. If somehow we believed the same ideas they did we too might be a little panicked to convert everyone."
By telling blatant lies and falsely impugning the character of others?
@shanedk Yes actually. If you want to play on the same level and call them on their shit using words like 'scum', that is your choice. Or you can play at a higher level and simply show the facts without pointing fingers. It's more impactfull for those on the fence. The creationist call us evil and then you back at them calling them scum. It puts you on the same playing field rather than staying in a place of logic and compassion.
@nyclear So do you think that it is wise to pretend that the leaders of the creationist movement are making an honest mistake, when it can be shown that they are in fact being dishonest.
@johnrainrules I think as a scientist you just disprove obvious mistakes whether intentional or unintentional. Otherwise you are stooping to their level and giving them too much credit. Say they are wrong, say they are being dishonest but bringing words in like 'scum' is just the other side of the same coin as they calling us 'evil'. It doesn't help your credibility but rather puts you in as another extremest on the other side.
@johnrainrules Hey, quick question: when someone replies to something I have said under a video, is there an easier way to reply back without going to 'see all comments'? I don't seem to see a place to reply right from my inbox. Is there? Thanks.
@shanedk Hey, quick question: when someone replies to something I have said under a video, is there an easier way to reply back without going to 'see all comments'? I don't seem to see a place to reply right from my inbox. Is there? Thanks.
@nyclear If someone ran around brainwashing children to shut out reason, ignore evidence, and distrust the scientific process and community, while simultaneously creating lies about our world... I'm sure it would compromise their thought processes, and since those children will be less likely to contribute to society, quality of life, medicine, astronautics, etc. Many would consider the person or people who brainwashed these kids, as scum.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@chadd990 Only idiot lying creationists still say the "missing link." The scientific term is "transitional form" and there are THOUSANDS of them that have been found. DEAL with it.
@chadd990 It's not comic relief to come in and behave exactly the same way as the worst of the creationists do, reiterating their argument--and their superior attitude--verbatim.
@evoTARDSareINSANE What are you talking about you fucking lunatic? Classic idiotic religious responce, no substance or proof, just random big headed bullshit. First of all Athiesim is not a religion nor is evolution, its a theory you moron, secondly unfound ape man? Are you talking about the missing link? If so more than 3 have been found from different time periods, do you have proof for god yet? No...what a shock. Ignoring the proof, how can you call anyone ignorant. You cretin.
Christians when they hear about evolution their tiny minds cant take it so they say stuff like "What? I don't remember being a monkey yesterday" such idiots.
But, if you find anything that proves that no life become from no-living thing and try to spread the word, maybe you "disappear". Otherwise, if you try to explain that nothing became everything in a explosion, maybe you'll be honoured...
...so that video actually gets used in schools in america? That is just fucked up beyond all reason. I would laugh at the video but the idea that people show it to children to try and make them believe the glowing bullshit thats all over it is just worrying...
I think Thunderf00t covered most of this ground in one of his Why Do People Laugh At Creationists videos, minus the part about the T-Rex blood (which potholer54 addressed). Still, a good debunking vid to dispel disinformation is always appreciated, keep up the good work. :)
this is true; the location of the tiktoolik fossil was "predicted" by evolutionists. evolution is making predictions that are being validated in the field. creationism is losing steam with each passing decade. when Galileo first confronted the pope, it took centuries for the world to finally accept the truth, but eventually they couldn't deny it anymore. the same will happen with evolution, eventually.
Actually they found blood cells BUT that has no purpose in the case other than to show that organic structures are better at surviving furthermore only on the INSIDE of these bones did they find sutch things + these things were found accidentally.
@aClockworkBoec No, it's YOUR FUCKING LIES that are doing it. YOU are the one ignoring the truth.
In your post, you engaged in: Appeal to Ridicule, No True Scotsman, False Equivalency, Strawman--not to mention your own ignorance at STILL insisting that abiogenesis is a part of evolution WHEN IT ISN'T--and changing the subject as well, to abiogenesis instead of the so-called "blood cells" found in the T-Rex fossil when THE DISCOVERER HERSELF says it isn't!
When I first saw this video like a year or so ago, I thought it was a poe video, comedy poking fun at fundamentalists :P. I didn't know it was serious, how sad!
Boss5414 1 day ago
@Boss5414 Oddly enough, that proves Poe's Law.
johnrainrules 1 day ago
Where can I find the original video?
sachatheslayer 1 day ago
@sachatheslayer They took it down. I don't know of anywhere else online you can see it.
shanedk 1 day ago
@shanedk So they finally started using their brains? Gotta give em' credit for that! :p
sachatheslayer 1 day ago
Bravo!
jacktala1 1 day ago
i can never find a link to the original video. any ideas? Not that i agree with it, just want to watch it all the way through without commontary over it.
ourhandsaretied 3 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
@ourhandsaretied Safe bet it was removed after the creators realized how easy it was to debunk.
TBTabby 3 days ago
All Humans and most animals are "pot heads" debunk that!
MrYmm420 5 days ago
IF we found T-rex red blood cells than we would have a fucking Jurassic Park somewhere. Creationists fail again.
XxI3ioHazardxX 2 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@XxI3ioHazardxX
well, it would be "Cretaceous Park", or if we're anal "Maastrichtian Park", since this is T-rex :P
(The Maastrichtian was the last stage of the Cretaceous, from ~73-65.5 MA; stage was named after rock outcrops around the city of Maastricht, the Netherlands. T-rex lived in this stage. and yes, sorry, I just get carried away when it comes to to fossil life)
Albukhshi 2 weeks ago
@Albukhshi The funny part about Jurassic Park is that most of the animals are from the Cretaceous period.
XxI3ioHazardxX 2 weeks ago
@XxI3ioHazardxX
I know-it's silly isn't it? Velociraptor, Parasaurolophus, T-rex, Triceratops, and Spinosaurus. all are Cretaceous. even the one non-dinosaur regularlarly featured (Pteranodon), is Cretaceous!
I personally think they should have had Allosaurus as the villain, with JP III having Edmarka, to be consistent with the title. but for some reason, they don't sound as catchy (neither does Cretaceous park)
Albukhshi 2 weeks ago
@XxI3ioHazardxX They could have just called it Mesozoic Park and not had to worry about it.
Of course, it's not anywhere near the can of worms the Silurians on Doctor Who are...
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
don't get me started on that. I don't even know what compelled them to make those up. I mean, reptilian beings before there were tetrapods? the paleontologist in me is gasping at this point
as to the mesozoic park: yeah, that would be accurate. but as I mentioned,any alternative (my examples were Cretaceous and Maastrichtian) just doesn't have the ring to it that "Jurassic" has. there's just something about it, that gives it appeal.-a certain air of sexiness if you will XD
Albukhshi 2 weeks ago
@Albukhshi "I mean, reptilian beings before there were tetrapods? the paleontologist in me is gasping at this point"
I could forgive them if they'd just left it at Silurians; it is a cool name after all. But then they tried to fix it by calling them Eocenes, which is too LATE a period, and then came the most cringe-worthy designation: Homo reptilia! The more they tried to fix it, the worse they made it!
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Silurian episodes, but geez...
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
and for the record: I do like Doctor who-though I haven't watched it in a while.
Albukhshi 2 weeks ago
@Albukhshi You should: it's gotten really, REALLY good!
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
yeah, my Mom (also a Dr. Who fan), tells me that. but the problem is, I don't have a TV (mom's in Texas, I in Colorado), and Hulu doesn't always deliver. but yes, I will watch it when I have the chance.
yeah, maybe they should have left it at "sliurian". at least the name "sounds" OK.
Albukhshi 2 weeks ago
@Albukhshi Netflix has lots of them. I think they have all of them since 2005.
shanedk 2 weeks ago
@shanedk
I'll give that a try as soon as I have the money. thanks!
Albukhshi 2 weeks ago
The debate between Creationism and Evolution is over. These days, denying children evolution because it conflicts with "faith" is like discrediting math because calculators are too complicated. The sooner Creationists accept Evolution, the sooner science can move forward in our classrooms.
ImmortalPhoenix13 4 weeks ago 8
Not all Creationists are retarded. They may not think with science all of the time, or perhaps even with logic, but they're not all retarded.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth If someone honestly thinks the universe is less than 7,000 years old, then even if he isn't retarded, he's crippling his intellect so much that he might as well be.
shanedk 4 weeks ago 3
@shanedk It's not a matter of intellect. It's a matter of belief. You believe one thing, Creationists believe another. Big deal.
Did you know that Albert Einstein, arguably one of the most brilliant men to walk the earth, was a Pantheist? He was a Creationist. He believed that God and the universe was one thing.
This has nothing to do with intellect.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth Was Albert a biologist? He was a physicist so he hardly could have been an authority on this subject anyways. He wasn't a Christian, and he certainly didn't believe the universe was 6,000 years old or nearly anything proclaimed in this video.
Creationists like to say Evolution is a religion just like Creation, or say that Creationism is science just like Evolution, neither of which is true of course, and Evolution doesn't require faith.
pat5168 4 weeks ago
@pat5168 My point was not that he had an authority on the subject, it was that he was brilliant. A man whose intellect was astounding.
Nor did I say anything about Creationists and their lies. I was trying to explain that not all of these people are retarded.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth Pantheists aren't creationist. Einstein believed the universe was infinite and creatorless until the observations of Hubble.
shanedk 4 weeks ago
@shanedk @shanedk Pantheism is indeed Creation. It isn't the traditional, Christian view of Creation, but it teaches that the universe was created. It teaches that God is in everything.
And regardless of what Einstein believed before Hubble, his opinion changed. His intellect wasn't damaged in any way.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth Spinozan pantheism--the kind Einstein adhered to--has NO kind of creation WHATSOEVER. Just because you have a god doesn't mean you have a creator.
"And regardless of what Einstein believed before Hubble, his opinion changed. "
Not about that it didn't.
shanedk 4 weeks ago
@shanedk No. Spinozan Pantheism states (and I quote) "God, however, who is the first cause of all things, and also the cause of himself [causa sui], makes himself known through himself."
I copied/pasted that quote directly from an article explaining the nature of Spinozan Pantheism.
Now, I suppose I could be reading it wrong, mis-interpreting it somehow. But, I'm pretty sure that says God created everything.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth Wait, if your definition of a Creationist is someone who believes that God created everything with no further specifics....then that would mean the biologist Kenneth R. Miller, in severe opposition to the Intelligent Design movement and a Roman Catholic, who believes that god created the universe but that that god would not be a deceitful god by placing all of the evidence for Evolution - is a Creationist.
Sorry, Spinozan Pantheism is far from Creationism.
pat5168 4 weeks ago
@pat5168 It doesn't need any more specifics. If someone or something created the universe, then there had to have been a creation.
Plus, I still reference the quote in my previous comment (from an article explaining what Spinozan Pantheism is), which directly says God created the universe. But none of this has anything to do with my original point. Not all of these Creationists are retarded.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth By your definition, then, one can be a creationist and an evolutionist at the same time--like Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins. No, the only definition that makes sense to the debate is one where creationism DENIES EVOLUTION. What you're talking about has another term: "theistic evolution."
shanedk 4 weeks ago
@shanedk Look up Creationism in your dictionary, the exact definition is: "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution." Basically what I said. If something was created, then there had to have been a creator.
I never once mentioned Evolution. Heck, neither of these ideologies make sense to me. But that WASN'T the point of this debate.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth This discussion is about a video debunking creationist crap. The creation/evolution debate has well-defined sides.
Also, READ YOUR OWN FUCKING DEFINITION: "living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, RATHER THAN by natural processes SUCH AS EVOLUTION." According to YOUR OWN DEFINITION, you CANNOT be a creationist and accept evolution!
shanedk 4 weeks ago
@shanedk My original point was that not all Creationists are retarded. I was not interested in debating any aspect of the video because I agree and disagree with pieces of it. I am not Creationist, nor am I an Evolutionist.
That said, I never once said that Creation and Evolution was one thing. I never mentioned Evolution at all. They cannot be the same thing, because they are exact opposites. The definition I posted was not mine, it was the Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth By the definition you just posted, neither Kenneth Miller nor Albert Einstein qualify as creationists. Yet you keep insisting that they are!
shanedk 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth So by that definition, Ken Miller isn't a creationist, even though by your own criteria for him and Einstein they are.
pat5168 4 weeks ago
@pat5168 @shanedk Not at all. The definition I posted said God caused all things. How is He going to go about doing that? Well, even if He caused the Big Bang he had to have created the explosion. If He started Evolution rather than creating things the way Genesis says He did, then He still would have had to have created the planets, and the environment which made Evolution possible. The word "cause" must be where you're getting confused. Otherwise, you're both talking in circles.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth If your argument is that not all Creationists are retarded, and your definition of Creationist includes all Theists, then we're both done here, come back when you can comprehend what kind of people we're talking about here.
pat5168 4 weeks ago
@pat5168 What are you talking about?
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth I will put this simply for you. Your criteria, by all objective standards, for determining whether someone is a Creationist is if they believe their particular deity created the universe, with no other specifics. This makes all Theistic Evolutionists - No matter how much they support Evolution and clarify their discontent for YE or OE Creationism - a Creationist. This is why you argue for intellect as irrelevant, you don't identify the foundations of Creationism. I will if I must.
pat5168 4 weeks ago
@pat5168 Alright, I know very little about Theistic Evolutionists. I apologize.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth Theistic Evolutionists do accept Evolution and that their particular deity created the universe about 14 billion years ago, but not much else can be said about them that would be covering all of those people and I am not in the condition to do so.
All Creationists share key traits, such as the belief the earth and the universe is 6,000 years old (For YEC) and that all lifeforms fall into categories of unrelated created kinds.
pat5168 3 weeks ago
@pat5168
I want a toco!
TheMrgoku1985 3 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth So in other words no matter how much of what you belief is proven to be false, you still refuse to accept you're wrong. . .
Isnt that rather typical.
manhunt48 4 days ago
@manhunt48 No. I accepted that I was wrong and walked away. Perhaps you failed to read the entire discussion. Isn't THAT typical.
TheTiamarth 4 days ago
@TheTiamarth No, it says essentially that God is the universe, and that God got himself created when the universe did.
shanedk 4 weeks ago
@shanedk It also says that God is the cause of all things. As in everything. Of which the universe is a part. Therefore He essentially created it, perhaps by some accident, perhaps on purpose. But regardless, He was the cause of it, which strongly implies a creation of some kind.
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
@TheTiamarth "But regardless, He was the cause of it,"
No, the philosophy states that God was created ALONG WITH the universe (since he actually IS the universe). In order for him to be the CAUSE of the universe, he would have to exist before the universe did.
shanedk 4 weeks ago
@shanedk Uhm. No it doesn't. Let me quote it once again. "God, however, who is the first cause of all things, and also the cause of himself [causa sui], makes himself known through himself."
Now, show me where it says God was created along with the universe. Because I see a sentence that basically says, "God is the cause of all things. He caused everything and He caused Himself. He makes Himself known through Himself."
TheTiamarth 4 weeks ago
Hey man, great video. Where did you find this information? Just curious, want to annoy my creationist father.
SomeOddworld 1 month ago
Cretards are sociopaths
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
On a rather obscure point: If Christianity isn't based on works then why does it get cited as a source of morality?
lagerbaer 1 month ago
@lagerbaer Christianity gets justified in innumerable ways, which sometimes contradict each other. This is tactically useful for the apologist, because when one justification gets disproven, then can switch to another that isn't affected by the refutation.
And when *that's* disproven, they can switch back, hoping everyone's forgotten the first one.
KapStuf 1 month ago
>Please cite your source
watch?v=q3L6soPRksc
u mad, bro?
Breaker242 1 month ago
@Breaker242 More FUCKING CREATIONIST LIES, debunked MANY times in these comments.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 1 month ago 14
@shanedk
yeeahh... u mad.
Breaker242 1 month ago
@Breaker242 That's how honest people react when others tell blatant lies. Of course, as a creationist, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
shanedk 1 month ago
Comment removed
Breaker242 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk
Sure bro. Obviously, MSNBC and Sciencemag are ultra-biased young earth creationist propaganda outlets.
Breaker242 1 month ago
@shanedk The creationists offer a surpless of comedy along with the occasional urge to bang your head against the wall because facts won't sink into their heads lol. Good video.
01101100d 1 month ago
@shanedk >"ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS"
I admire a lot of your work. But false generalisations like this do not only harm the cause of spreading the word (because they feed into the preconceptions of believers), but are intolerable for somebody who wants to be taken seriously as an educator, since they show a disturbing lack of understanding of the psychological dispositions involved.
smarthandsomeguy 23 hours ago
@smarthandsomeguy "But false generalisations like this"
It's NOT a false generalization. I've been debating creationists for over TWENTY YEARS! I have yet to run into a SINGLE ONE who didn't lie to preserve his creationist beliefs--because the ones who WEREN'T liars STOPPED BEING CREATIONISTS!
shanedk 18 hours ago
@shanedk You wrote:
> "ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS"
A statement I called a false generalization.
You try to defend that statement by writing:
>"the ones who WEREN'T liars [...]"
Thanks for supporting my point by taking a hit to the foot. :D
What now?
1) you have a good laugh and give me a thumbs up (like an honest creationist/person being shown to be wrong would)
2) you come up with some twisted argument to resolve the dissonance (like a dishonest creationist)
I have my popcorn ready. ;-)
smarthandsomeguy 3 hours ago
@smarthandsomeguy
Creationism is a lie. Thus all who tell it are liars.
It's not a generalization, it's more a definition.
rkyeun 18 hours ago
@rkyeun >"Creationism is a lie. Thus all who tell it are liars."
Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive
If a person you trust deceits you by telling you a lie, and you honestly believe that person and henceforth spread the lie: who is the liar? You? That person? Both of you?
OBVIOUSLY, you are still an honest person. Every creationist who honestly believes in creationism is not a liar - only wrong. And if you treat them as liars, you are the dick.
smarthandsomeguy 3 hours ago
@smarthandsomeguy
So if you just keep lying, but have faith that you're right because you just heard yourself say it, then it's not lying and you're not a liar!
No, sorry, that can't work.
But yeah, I can be quite a dick. No apologies there.
rkyeun 1 hour ago
@Breaker242 >hears "Please cite your source"
>immediately pauses video and doesn't watching the following few minutes
>goes directly to favorites and copies link to incredible creationist video
pythor2 1 month ago
@pythor2 doesn't continue watching*
pythor2 1 month ago
@pythor2
>link to video about 2005 discovery
>heathen starts rambling about some retarded 1998 book
>"HURRDURRR ARGUMENT REFUTED"
Breaker242 1 month ago
@Breaker242 Why don't you see what Schweitzer herself--a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN--has to say about you fucking creationists LYING about her discovery?
shanedk 1 month ago
@Breaker242 he named the source in the video above...you mad bro?
GreedyCapybara7 1 month ago
go on creationists teach your child what you believe disprove evolution and science. trust me your descendants will become haftwit, imbecile moron in due time. poor creationists' children..
philippineatheist67 1 month ago
As long as we haven't found every single generation of organisms, there's always going to be a missing link. However, using our brains, we can deduce that they are close enough to skip a generation.
hagamablabla 2 months ago
A clarification. the tissue they talk about from a T-rex WAS real. An Archaeologist used acid to strip away fossilized bone and it had the side effect of reconstituting some of the tissue. I saw an interview with the woman. She also stated in her interview that the idea creationists have grabbed onto that the fossil was not millions of years old REALLY pissed her off. She was very upset they misrepresented her work. She affirmed the fossil was about 63 million years old.
TheThunderduck 3 months ago
@TheThunderduck
watch?v=fgpSrUWQpl
Your peer revied source?
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago
"The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient."
Pff N00b
I suppose Stanford are creationists also :p
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK How come the only place I can find this reference when Googling is creationist websites?
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Goggle this:
"Stanford Report, August 23, 2010
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements"
It is the Stanford University website.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK Reference to a peer-reviewed journal or it didn't happen.
shanedk 3 months ago
"We did not evolve from a rock", and yet we exist on a floating rock in space. We call it Earth, the irony.
A biologist is going to confirm the story in there book, the same as a preacher is going to confirm the story of there book.
The actual facts are not being presented here, just the same old arguments from the theists and Atheists. Carbon dating relies on a constant decay rate, and yet we know for a science fact that this is not constant and varies. Dating anything becomes implausible.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "Carbon dating relies on a constant decay rate"
No it doesn't, LIAR!!!
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Lol, clearly you do not understand radio carbon dating.
"Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5730 years, meaning that the amount of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5730 years due to radioactive decay. "
Pff, n00b.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK That is NOT the same thing as the varying levels of C-14 you mentioned, LIAR. YOU go fucking learn, science n00b!!!
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk That is amusing, you did not address the variation when quoting me. Your point was clearly suggesting that I was a LIAR for suggesting that Carbon dating relies on a constant decay rate. Clearly proving it has not changed your opinion of me being a LIAR, and I can only conclude that correcting you again will result in the same response. FYI C14 is constantly being produced, and the rate of its production and its decay can be affected by cosmic rays and the magnetosphere. Pff n00b!
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK That causes the initial C14 ratio to vary, AND THEY KNOW THIS, AND THEY ACCOUNT FOR THIS. That's your FIRST lie.
Your SECOND lie is that THIS IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE HALF-LIFE OF C14!!!
DOUBLE-liar! Typical creationist.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk I am far from a creationist, but an interesting conclusion. Maybe you should take the time to look in to what I say before making any conclusions. It can be found on google scholar, but they may be a little to advanced for your primitive brain.
"This amazing article was recently found in the scientific literature.
Physicists are stirred by claims that the sun may change what’s unchangeable—the rate of radioactive decay
By Davide Castelvecchi
November 22nd, 2008; Vol.174 #11 (p. 20)"n00b
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK You're using creationist rhetoric from creationist sources. It is NOT what real science says. I've corrected you on it and you've LIED.
We see this all the time: creationists pretending not to be creationists. I didn't just fall off the fucking turnip truck.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk You choose to be ignorant like most Christians do, it is well documented in the academic community, and should be no real surprise that what we once thought of as a cosmological constant has turned out not to be. My background is in physics and I know what I am talking about.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@shanedk Jenkins and Fischbach
Stanford Report, August 23, 2010
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
Pff n00b
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK Which admits that they don't have any real data and if true would make the Earth older than 6,000 years by quite a lot. Also it in no way invalidates the amount of radiation released. If the amount of radiation we think was released over billions of years was in fact released in the past 6,000 years there would be some nasty consequences to all life on Earth.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
Creationists are fucking liars and scum bags. What do you think of me? I could care less.
baxtar1963 3 months ago
@shanedk Ask your wife how good you are at reading emotions, understanding how to flow with how someone is going to feel by what you say. I agree using emotions to drive in a point is crucial. The art of the 'emotional close' to any talk makes or breaks that talk usually. When someone believes one thing and has strong emotions behind it, and you want to sway them to something else, you can't do it with the opposite pole. You have to bring them to middle first. Then swing them. Ask wife.
nyclear 3 months ago
@bearglades I am not disputing that they are or are not scum. Some of them are and some are just deluded. All I am saying is if you want to make the scientific community come off as professional, compassionate and just, you don't want to be dragged down into emotional name calling because that is the game of the evangalists, not the scientists. You stoop to their level is all I am saying. Not getting emotional and staying clear headed wins every time.
nyclear 3 months ago
@nyclear Stooping to their level would be using emotion INSTEAD of an argument, NOT in addition to. Emotional arguments are powerful, and that's why they're winning with so many people. If we avoid the emotional ramifications we lose.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk isaac asimov has a beautiful quote in his collection "the martian way and other stories". "you can't fight an emotion filled campaign with cold numbers." that's probably not an exact quote, but i haven't read the book in ten years... sorry.
we have to be passionate, emotional, even enraged when dealing with these imbeciles and their religious zealotry. the future of the entire human race may well depend on our side winning the argument.
clutterfish 3 months ago
Although I agree with everything you said that debunks creationism, I think you did science a disservice by calling creationists 'scum'. If somehow we believed the same ideas they did we too might be a little panicked to convert everyone. I mean gosh, if I thought everyone was going to hell unless they understood what I did, I would be a little panicked too!
nyclear 3 months ago
@nyclear "I think you did science a disservice by calling creationists 'scum'. If somehow we believed the same ideas they did we too might be a little panicked to convert everyone."
By telling blatant lies and falsely impugning the character of others?
shanedk 3 months ago 3
@shanedk Yes actually. If you want to play on the same level and call them on their shit using words like 'scum', that is your choice. Or you can play at a higher level and simply show the facts without pointing fingers. It's more impactfull for those on the fence. The creationist call us evil and then you back at them calling them scum. It puts you on the same playing field rather than staying in a place of logic and compassion.
nyclear 3 months ago
@nyclear So do you think that it is wise to pretend that the leaders of the creationist movement are making an honest mistake, when it can be shown that they are in fact being dishonest.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@johnrainrules I think as a scientist you just disprove obvious mistakes whether intentional or unintentional. Otherwise you are stooping to their level and giving them too much credit. Say they are wrong, say they are being dishonest but bringing words in like 'scum' is just the other side of the same coin as they calling us 'evil'. It doesn't help your credibility but rather puts you in as another extremest on the other side.
nyclear 3 months ago
@johnrainrules Hey, quick question: when someone replies to something I have said under a video, is there an easier way to reply back without going to 'see all comments'? I don't seem to see a place to reply right from my inbox. Is there? Thanks.
nyclear 3 months ago
@shanedk Hey, quick question: when someone replies to something I have said under a video, is there an easier way to reply back without going to 'see all comments'? I don't seem to see a place to reply right from my inbox. Is there? Thanks.
nyclear 3 months ago
@nyclear If someone ran around brainwashing children to shut out reason, ignore evidence, and distrust the scientific process and community, while simultaneously creating lies about our world... I'm sure it would compromise their thought processes, and since those children will be less likely to contribute to society, quality of life, medicine, astronautics, etc. Many would consider the person or people who brainwashed these kids, as scum.
BearGlades 3 months ago 12
@BearGlades All true. Thank you for your short essay on the atheist.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
I believe in evolution and I'm a Christian.
ProtestantsRUs 3 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs
"I believe in evolution and I'm a Christian"
Well, at least you got one out of two correct.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
The missing link is still missing, otherwise it'd be called the FOUND link. lulz
chadd990 4 months ago
@chadd990 Only idiot lying creationists still say the "missing link." The scientific term is "transitional form" and there are THOUSANDS of them that have been found. DEAL with it.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk
I was joking. You don't have to be a dick though, even if I wasn't.
chadd990 4 months ago
@chadd990 And you didn't have to be a pathetic troll.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk
aww... not a fan of comic relief?
chadd990 4 months ago
@chadd990 It's not comic relief to come in and behave exactly the same way as the worst of the creationists do, reiterating their argument--and their superior attitude--verbatim.
shanedk 4 months ago
I told my mother about this. She hastily read John 6:29 out loud to me. 'shrug'
Amashkitotamoes 4 months ago
Which school room did you get this from? It has to be satire, right? Heh.. right?
Amashkitotamoes 4 months ago
"Ok here's a cooincidence for you. Almost every religion in the world is based on works. Christianity is graced through faith... No works."
*spits out coffie, violently* Are you KIDDNG ME?! =.=
Amashkitotamoes 4 months ago
such stunning ignorance from the evotard community
How's that unfound ape-man religion working for ya?
evoTARDSareINSANE 4 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE What are you talking about you fucking lunatic? Classic idiotic religious responce, no substance or proof, just random big headed bullshit. First of all Athiesim is not a religion nor is evolution, its a theory you moron, secondly unfound ape man? Are you talking about the missing link? If so more than 3 have been found from different time periods, do you have proof for god yet? No...what a shock. Ignoring the proof, how can you call anyone ignorant. You cretin.
itchygonads 4 months ago
Christians when they hear about evolution their tiny minds cant take it so they say stuff like "What? I don't remember being a monkey yesterday" such idiots.
TBlenx1995 5 months ago
@TBlenx1995 I am afraid that idiot is YOU.
aClockworkBoec 5 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Well, i have heard people say that.
TBlenx1995 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TBlenx1995 I am sure you have. What are you going to do about that?
aClockworkBoec 5 months ago
@aClockworkBoec What makes you say that?
ControltheDistance 4 months ago
@ControltheDistance My mind, enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
aClockworkBoec 4 months ago
@aClockworkBoec No such thing as the holy spirit.
itchygonads 4 months ago
It should be like you say - not good or evil.
But, if you find anything that proves that no life become from no-living thing and try to spread the word, maybe you "disappear". Otherwise, if you try to explain that nothing became everything in a explosion, maybe you'll be honoured...
marcelobetel 5 months ago
So Killian, How come you don't like creationists?
snarky77005 5 months ago
...so that video actually gets used in schools in america? That is just fucked up beyond all reason. I would laugh at the video but the idea that people show it to children to try and make them believe the glowing bullshit thats all over it is just worrying...
N64isgreat 5 months ago
I think Thunderf00t covered most of this ground in one of his Why Do People Laugh At Creationists videos, minus the part about the T-Rex blood (which potholer54 addressed). Still, a good debunking vid to dispel disinformation is always appreciated, keep up the good work. :)
zawarudowryyyyyy 5 months ago
What these creatards don't understand is; micro-evolution is a grain of sand and macro-evolution is a beach.
panterguy 5 months ago
@panterguy Then show me this "beach"
aClockworkBoec 5 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Google "observed instances of speciation." You'll have all the examples you could ever want!
shanedk 5 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Look out your window.
panterguy 5 months ago
@panterguy I am looking. There's some trees that were always been trees and that will always be trees.
aClockworkBoec 5 months ago
this is true; the location of the tiktoolik fossil was "predicted" by evolutionists. evolution is making predictions that are being validated in the field. creationism is losing steam with each passing decade. when Galileo first confronted the pope, it took centuries for the world to finally accept the truth, but eventually they couldn't deny it anymore. the same will happen with evolution, eventually.
Zontertes 5 months ago
Thank you so much for posting this sir!
Creationist are just plain old scum and scam artists trying to convert people to their god...
GrOuNdZeRo7777 5 months ago
thank you I got some creationists hassling now i can shove it in their face
human453 6 months ago
But it was also accidental...at first.
Sara3346 6 months ago
Wow your fast to respond but my comment was about how it had little base value...
Sara3346 6 months ago
Actually they found blood cells BUT that has no purpose in the case other than to show that organic structures are better at surviving furthermore only on the INSIDE of these bones did they find sutch things + these things were found accidentally.
Sara3346 6 months ago
@Sara3346 No, they found remnants of collagen; they found no blood cells, intact or otherwise.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Actually, they did found soft tissue and blood cells.
aClockworkBoec 5 months ago
@aClockworkBoec NO...THEY...DID...NOT!!! They ONLY found the remnants of collagen! That's IT!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk hahahahahahahahahaha Whaaaaat?!
/watch?v=sWWbgeFuVAU
aClockworkBoec 5 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Oh, great, another video full of LIES from creationist LIARS.
See below from the quotes FROM THE DISCOVERER HERSELF--who IS A CHRISTIAN--and see EXACTLY what she thinks about you FUCKING LIARS abusing her work!
And if there's ANY HONESTY AT ALL left in you, you can see what the findings REALLY are here: goo(DOT)gl/KBmqg
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk hahahaha, oh man, truth hurts, especially when evolution looks stupid.
she is a christian? really? not everyone who claims to be a christian is really a christian. christian needs to be borne again.
well, let me know if you see that chemical elements decided to join together and form the building blocks of life.
aClockworkBoec 5 months ago
@aClockworkBoec No, it's YOUR FUCKING LIES that are doing it. YOU are the one ignoring the truth.
In your post, you engaged in: Appeal to Ridicule, No True Scotsman, False Equivalency, Strawman--not to mention your own ignorance at STILL insisting that abiogenesis is a part of evolution WHEN IT ISN'T--and changing the subject as well, to abiogenesis instead of the so-called "blood cells" found in the T-Rex fossil when THE DISCOVERER HERSELF says it isn't!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk which lies? abiogenesis is a part of evolution. please show me that a bacteria can evolve into a multicellular organism.