A thought: Do you believe in evolution at all levels, cellular to entire organism. If so, have you looked into the cellular level mechanisms that are in place to do housekeeping of the cells. What I'm trying to say is that without all of these functions existent in a cell it would probably die. This being the case how do the cellular level mechanisms change without destroying the entire organism bit by bit. Just a thought.
I don't understand why so many people believe in evolution as fact, though. What if the people with flowers on their feet never get attacked? Or, more importantly, what about human nature? Your ability to survive, biologically, is really not necessarily very relevant to your ability to exist any longer, with the one exception of susceptibility to disease... most of which is also no longer biological (if you've been drinking since you were 5, alcohol will harm you less).
but today if you are born with flowers on your feet you receive disability money and you are taken care of while the one who has bare claws probably ends up in jail.
Hi there. I hate this video. I could make a much better one today, if I were still making YouTube videos.
I know you're being silly, at least a little, but you touch on an aspect of humanity that bugs me. Anyone, even the weak, can survive in the human race, and reproduce. We are unnaturally stagnating the progressive nature of 'survival of the fittest' evolution. Just my opinion, though.
@veko Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Sorry for replying to such an old video, but I felt like I should clarify your misconceptions of evolutionary theory. For one, evolution is fact. The theory is just how we explain it.
Your example with the bear has its flaws... this is survival of the fittest. Evolutionary theory stresses reproductive ability. If the creature with the flowers on his feet is able to lure a mate, and the one with the claws can't, the survival of the latter is moot. The flower gene will be passed on.
Sorry, suumr, let me make it easier to understand. Please, give me some scientific proof for evolution, thank you.. If you need a definition of what scientific proof is, I will help there, too.
@suumr. For something to be scientific it must be.... 1. Observable 2.Able to be tested by experimentation 3.Repeatable 4. Verifiable So, there you go. The "Big Bang" is definitely outside the realm of science, thereby becoming merely a belief. Also, macro evolution (transmutation) is not scientific by definition making it a belief, too. Hence the word evolutionism... a religion.
The big bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Are you trying to discredit one theory by calling it something else and declaring it unprovable? Ignorant and irresponsible.
Nevertheless, though we can't duplicate the event of our cosmic origin, we can (and are) constantly working to examine its circumstances. Our experiments and observations of the universe around us have helped cement big bang theory as the closest we have to an answer to that question.
A repeatable experiment to prove macroevolution to your stringent specifications would have to be conducted over thousands of years. When such limitations on experimentation are present, we turn to the next best possible means: observation. In this case, of the fossil record, DNA, and comparative biology. Do you realize that we almost have TOO MUCH evidence in support of evolutionary theory? It's fucking everywhere! Seriously, if you don't get it, it's because you don't want to.
It's funny when evolution nay-sayers bring up shit like "it can't be repeated, so it's false!" Of course, this retarded claim usually flies in the face of whatever fucked up religious beliefs they hold instead. You come off sounding like a hypocritical jackass.
Just because you call evolutionism a religion doesn't make it one. All I want is to understand the world around me, and this is the best answer. Veritable mountains of evidence versus a rotting old book of lies? No contest.
Even if people WERE brainwashed to believe in evolution, at least evolutionists don't enforce rules and judgement with eternal damnation if you don't believe the same thing.
yeah... i didnt say anything to belittle education. my point is that you cant complain about christians pushing their religion on you, when evolution is forced on students by LAW. LAAAAAAAW. the same kind of thing that forced religion on people for hundreds of years.
You don't have to go to church or school. Neither is forced on you. Then again, the difference between facts based on agreed experimentation and observation by thousands of trained professionals versus something written thousands of years ago is drastic and hard to compare.
Evolution is part of science FACT. If it offends your beliefs in fairy tales, that's your problem. Thank your god that YouTube isn't against his way or you wouldn't even have the chance to come here with your crap.
hm, im actually not all that religious, but i find it very interesting that you attacked me assuming that i was. There was a lot of hostility in your last reply despite what i last said did not call for it. Are you making these videos and such because you want to expand people's understanding of evolution? or are you on a crusade againt christianity?
p.s. our school system is called "compulsory" for a reason. That means it is required by law.
i am SO glad you realize that evolution is NOT science and purely just theory. though it can be proven untrue. many different basis of evolution is either lies or unreliable pretenses. i have 2 friends that say "both sides to the creation and evolution arguement get frustrated because one has proof and the other has nothing but faith" of course he THINKS that evolution is purely true, which he is wrong and was probobly brainwashed to believe. well thanks for that, you gave me hope =)
Before reading Yourfaceandmum's message, I never actually read all of your message. Thing is, evolution is a theory, religion is a hypothesis. There is no facts backing up religion. Zero. Evolution has thousands behind it. Only reason we can't prove it is because human lifespan is less then a 100 years on average instead of, at least, 100,000.
MRKetter81 the difference between micro and macro evolution is just a matter of time and space saying you don't belive in micro evolution but believe is like saying you believe in water but not lakes.
If biological life doesn't evolve then we must conclude that the world was once very crowded. 98% of the creatures that have ever lived on this planet are now not living on this planet (referring to species). Without evolution, we are left with the option that every extinct insect, reptile, mammal, dinosaur, mollusk, cetacean, crustacean, whatever... every kind were once all living on the planet at the same time. Can any anti-evolutionist claim that to be the case with a straight face?
How did winged creatures evolve and where is the fossil record to validate this transformation? I don't understand how a creature can develop a stub of a wing and somehow natural selection preserves this stub within the species and it continues to develop from stubs into wings over millions of years. It seems that wings would have to appear as a sudden unprecedented mutation; not a defensible probability, as is macroevolution as a whole.
There is a fundamental difference between an extra leg and an entirely different set of appendages, let alone appendages with a complex new function like flight. A more appropriate question would be, "Ever seen a cow with wings?" The answer is no, and that is precisely my point. Radical mutations purported by macroevolution to engender new species are: 1) not verified by the current fossil record, and 2) not a remotely feasible probability. Microevolution, conversely, is a proven fact.
Most creatures of flight are birds. The size and shape of a cow makes it impossible to fly. Our world has been designed by wonderous miricles. Sadly, No one was there to see the first bird fly, and we don't have records of every creature that's ever existed.
You're reading too deeply into the analogy. What I'm saying is that there was a transition from land to air. That is a huge leap. Explain how that leap was made via mutation. You can't because you either have to have a fully functional set of wings or you have stubs that just get in your way. This is one of the more salient examples of why macroevolution doesn't work, and it's why many leading scientists are aborting the theory.
Firstly, you're making the common assumption that anyone who opposes evolution is ipso facto religious. Maybe my sn seems Christian, I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but anyway, I simply think there is no theory at present that can scientifically explain the origin of life. I'm not religious, but I do respect the concept of ID. Anyway, your ad hominem rebuttal sidesteps my argument entirely. Is it fair to say you have no counterpoint to my original land-to-air proposition?
I had a really awesome reply but, for some reason, I couldn't post it earlier...the whole point of it was this: Google "Evolution of the Wing". The internet is a wonderful source of information. Though we weren't there to see some of these things that happened, we have theories of how it could have happened. Study, research, and hypothesis until you find the truth, I say.
I've googled such things before, but I'm not completely swayed. Agree to disagree I suppose. Anyway, I feel bad hogging the whole comment forum to myself. I'll continue to research with an open mind, though, hope you do the same. Happy holidays.
thelight: A bird's wing is not radically different than other mammalian appendages. Have you examined bone structures? There's a comparison between the forearm of an ape, and the fin of a whale. They are remarkably similar. We don't disprove the connection between apes and whales by saying that no ape ever mutated and jumped in the ocean, able to breath water, do we? There are legitimate answers to the question, in books, on tv, and on the net. Do some research.
Also, your statement "many leading scientists are aborting the theory"... this is something ID supporters continue to pose without evidence. The scientific community does not view evolution as the controversial drama you would like the general public to believe. Can you cite a source for your statement?
I'm not saying ghost hunting shows where people scare the crap out of themselves in some castle is proving the supernatural..but using scientific tools and technology is proving that there is indeed a supernatural..but why is it possible to say the paranormal exists,yet God doesn't. Since God is usually portrayed as a"supernatural being".
Welcome to the root of the only thread of argument left to religious people. I've been here since I first become an atheist realizing what my parents told me was a lie, not of their design but of the design of men centuries before.
Good reply, I don't see necessarily that one has to make the choice to believe either in God or evolution but I understand that your video was an explanation of evolution.
You just explained the "natural selection" version of evolution (fail to see how thats evolving but whatever). Then explain how this is a arguement for how if we kill off enough dogs they will no longer be dogs?
Also explain to me how mutations can be benifical. Because I haven't found one that is, outside of natural selection. Even sometimes in natural selection mutation is more fatal than helpful.
Actually it's evolution by natural selection. There's plenty of videos here on Youtube explaining it all.
I don't see the argument of how beneficial mutation is as relevant. Mutations are part of nature and happen, whether benefiting the host of them or not.
Wother definded natural selection or with a evolution in front of it, I'm well aware of what that you find that does not suport the actual evolution that in debate.
Yes mutation is very relevant, because it's the only way your going to any creature change from being what they are.
Cats make cats, Dogs make Dogs, ect.
Only with mutation (and this is the main argument used by leading naturalists.) are you going to go from species to another
What I was trying to say; There are 2 versions of evolution. One well accepted by Theists the other a completely Naturalist idea Micro and Macro evolution. Your using the existing valid Microevolution to prove Macroevolution.
Drop a ball. After one second it will fall 9.8 meters. Let it fall for longer? Chances are it will continue falling until something stops it(extinction is a common stopper).
Either you're pretending to be an idiot or you really don't know...go read about it. If you don't know about the subject at hand, how can you argue against it. That'd be like a computer illiterate person arguing if Perl or Lisp is better.
Anywho...you're kind of boring me...I've heard your argument before, a dozen times. Yawn.
So basicly you dont want to answer my question and this discussion is reduced to name calling. Well then far be it that we should continue the conversation based on a rational interchange, when you fail to live up to any foundations of doing so.
It's not that I don't want to answer your questions, it is why do I have to teach you about evolution? Go look it up. Less of my time wasted that way.
nice video. i want to worship you and good things will happend but they may not , i might have to wait you might say no or maybe yes. rejecting evolution is rejecting genes , science, and most important ,....
This "fact" that Darwin didn't agree with natural selection doesn't have much to back it up. Mind telling me where I can find information on this concept? Everything I've read about darwin (including books about him) never say anything about him turning against the truth he unveiled.
Also, don't ignore the fact that we know way more about our world then they did during Darwin's time. There wasn't as much evidence to back up his claim like, you know, the discovery of DNA.
That was a story written by a christian journalist looking to take advantage of the evolution controversy and make a cheap buck. Even his family refuted the claim Darwin "turned" on evolution. His dying words were to his daugther telling her what a good wife she'd make. Darwin was never sorry for his great discovery.
You're god and Jesus? that's crazy. Who knew he was sitting around on the internet. If they existed you'd think they'd have something better to do with their time then this.
If you meant "there" instead of "this" you're the one claiming there's a guy in the sky. In other words, You have to prove he exists. I don't have to prove he doesn't exist. It's the simple concept of argument. If I claim I have a penny in my closed fist you don't have to prove I don't. I have to prove I do.
I'm only a servent of the Father and a friend to the son.
Here is an arguement for you: VenomFangX. Maybe you've heard about this dude. Maybe not. In any case, he can give a much more convincing argument than I can, what with only so much space.
You mean that guy who 'proves' time isn't infinite through an analogy of candy bar offerings? Humans invented the concept of time. As a friend of mine once said, "Time exists to keep everything from happening at once."
Point being humans made up time, humans made up gods as well.
Also, remember, most Christians are atheists too. They don't believe in any of the past worshiped deities and neither do I. I just take it one god further.
C.S. Lewis once said, "Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn't have guessed. That's one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It's a religion you couldn't have guessed."
So, in your eyes, Christians are Atheists. Um, no, they aren't. Atheism is the moral desision that there is no God to judge our behavior, Christianity is the exact opposite.
Atheism is the denial of religion, and if I am a Christian, I think that makes me quite the opposite. I believe in God, not zeus or Allah or vishu or whatever.
I believe in Religion because I happen to think beyond the material world, and that there is hope for man-kind after death. "It doesn't make sense" is a point of view from someone who cannot understand what is beyond the material world
Atheism is the refusal of gods or religion. I really depends on how to define it. And, no, before you ask, I have no religion either. I believe in the improvement of my family, myself, and the world. In that order.
A comedian once said (not direct quote) "I guess we'll see what's true when we die...unless I am, then we won't."
I ask you, what really makes you believe that there is no God? Is it science? Is it conflict? Or maybe its just your insecurity and/or confusion. Christianity is in a similar order, except it goes like this:
1-God
2-Others
3-yourself
You might not realize it, but I personally fit my family, my friends, the world, and even you into that second category.
My reason not to believe in a god is a combined effort. A guy in the sky creating the world doesn't make more sense then the world being created through nature, I don't need the security of believing I'll go somewhere after I die, I understand my place in the world and don't need more purpose then the purpose I already have, and believing in facts that are seen in the world around me makes more sense then believing in something written in a book.
If God is God, then he isn't a guy, persay, but a spiritual being. As for your understanding of your place in the world. Well, congradulations, but what about the next world. If you are willing to gamble your eternity then that is your problem. Besides, I think most of the world's facts prove that the book is right.
I have difficulty seeing the sex of your deity as relevant.
Next world? You mean Mars? I'll probably be dead by the time it is colonized for public use. And, yes, I know what you really mean. I just think you're being silly.
You look at me and say I'm not preparing for the afterlife. I look at you and say there is no afterlife and you're wasting your short existence preparing for something that doesn't exist. It's all perspective.
Which of the "world's facts" prove that old novel right?
"God created man in his own image." - Genesis 1:27
Maybe this imaginary character is a spiritual being, but he's a spiritual being of human characteristics.
In the 'next world' bit I was being sarcastic. I find billions believing in one to be very laughable.
You do good things because of god, I do good things because it is right. I don't see you and I as that different. Only difference is, Christians usually have other reasons to add too that first reason.
P.S. Two things. Saying I have an un-material mind is rude. Don't be rude, please. I might feel like blocking you if you are.
Second, just so I know, why are you arguing with me? For the sake of arguing or to try to prove to me that there is a god? I don't want to sound rude, I just want to know your reason. My reason is because you're posting comments on my video.
I do things because god has made the law of what is right and what is wrong. Inadvertly, you and I serve an equal law. I guess I am arguing with you because you had the nerve to first soil the good name of my god, then attempt to justify it.
Really, I respect that you believe in something, but I don't have to, and I don't, respect what you believe in. With or without a deity I believe there are logical laws to be followed.
If you don't like what I say, you can choose not to listen. I won't be offended. I assure you, though, I have no reason to respect that 'spirit' you believe in. It is nothing more then a fool's hope passed from generation to generation.
I can see that you don't care for my religion, but if there are logical laws, then you would consider the beliefs of others, as somewhat important to said others.
I expect you to critize religion, simply because I already know that you have loaw-to no un-material mind. You can be insulted, but because you have not even CONSDERED the possiblity of an eternal life or deity, you have already proven that to me and everyone else.
Like I said, I respect your right to live free to believe what you want, but I don't have to respect that belief.
P.S. Just because I don't believe in your deity and after life hocus pocus doesn't mean I'm materialistic. Stop trying to create stereotypes. It is both foolish for you and offensive to me.
If you disrespect my belief, you are disrespecting me! They are not two unrelated things!
I am not being steriotypical. If you don't believe that there is more to this world than thoughts, feelings, and emotions then you have an unmaterialistic mind. I'm sorry to tell that to you, but as long as you reject the existence of the spirit and thje afterlife, you are of the unmaterialistic mind.
Who ever said I didn't believe there was anything more to this world? I just don't believe there is anything after it. I don't have to believe in a gun in a sky and his happyland to be of an unmaterialistic mind.
You say you don't believe in God..yet there's good proof out there about the supernatural. If God was truly easily disproved,then there wouldn't be an argument about his existence to this day. Though the same science,has been used on trying to prove whether or not the supernatural is real..and they end up with some unexplained answers.
I'm not saying that my point is saying people try to disprove God..but people try to disprove the supernatural,and can't. IMO it seems apparent that there is an"afterlife"but people just cannot come up with explanations for the unanswered questions.
Now am I saying I believe in ghosts? No not really,but I do believe in somewhat"paranormal"beings. If science fails to disprove the supernatural,then why would it prevail in disproving God?
God's existance is based on faith, thus you can't prove he exists.
I know, completely stupid defense, but that's how dumb religious people are. I'm not arguing against religion, I'm arguing for science. For facts and truth. Not bullshit dogma.
His arguments seem convincing until you actually engage your brain, unfortunately the kind of people who like his video's find it much easier not to, and just accept the crap he spouts because it's what they want to hear.
I've sometimes heard evolution called a fact, and I've said it myself. Evolution is the fact, and Natural Selection is the theory that accounts for it.
I take it as fact in so much that it is how the world works but who knows, maybe, and forgive me for the Douglas Adams reference, the dinosaur bones were buried by the people who built earth. Just maybe.
Evolution isnt random, genetic mutations are refered to as being random, though that is just a way of saying that the reasons for them are highly complex and effectively undeterminable.
Evolution has nothing to do with a belief.
PLEASE look up the term 'theory' in wikipedia. Theories can never be facts, they are 2 different things.
'Scientific theory' is different to everyday use of the word 'theory'.
If you watched what the whole video, you'd probably have seen the part where I said "It is still a theory since we can't prove it 100% correct." That statement there makes it quite obvious I realize theories aren't facts. Don't try to twist my words.
Oops, forgot to reply to your other points. Evolution is defined as, usually, upward change. Sorry I didn't clarify myself, but I was talking about it on the most simplistic terms as opposed to what it seems you assume I was talking about which is evolution of life forms.
Second, evolution, just like everything else, has everything to do with belief. Some fools believe evolution to be false. Their beliefs are based off of ignorance or denial, usually.
ringo ? is that you ?
Theheavymetalmeat 9 months ago
Is this the guy who won the ultimate fighter?!
actionjackson864 1 year ago
Did someone really title their video "Atheistic Evolution Sucks?" What is atheistic evolution?? LOL
nosajj12345 1 year ago
A thought: Do you believe in evolution at all levels, cellular to entire organism. If so, have you looked into the cellular level mechanisms that are in place to do housekeeping of the cells. What I'm trying to say is that without all of these functions existent in a cell it would probably die. This being the case how do the cellular level mechanisms change without destroying the entire organism bit by bit. Just a thought.
mgadmusic 1 year ago
I don't understand why so many people believe in evolution as fact, though. What if the people with flowers on their feet never get attacked? Or, more importantly, what about human nature? Your ability to survive, biologically, is really not necessarily very relevant to your ability to exist any longer, with the one exception of susceptibility to disease... most of which is also no longer biological (if you've been drinking since you were 5, alcohol will harm you less).
Rayvn7 2 years ago
Dude believe in God and read His Word. It will help you.... Please, let me know if I can help you with any questions that you have.... Thanks...
thechessstick 2 years ago
but today if you are born with flowers on your feet you receive disability money and you are taken care of while the one who has bare claws probably ends up in jail.
truth3712 2 years ago
Hi there. I hate this video. I could make a much better one today, if I were still making YouTube videos.
I know you're being silly, at least a little, but you touch on an aspect of humanity that bugs me. Anyone, even the weak, can survive in the human race, and reproduce. We are unnaturally stagnating the progressive nature of 'survival of the fittest' evolution. Just my opinion, though.
veko 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@veko Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 4 months ago
Sorry for replying to such an old video, but I felt like I should clarify your misconceptions of evolutionary theory. For one, evolution is fact. The theory is just how we explain it.
Your example with the bear has its flaws... this is survival of the fittest. Evolutionary theory stresses reproductive ability. If the creature with the flowers on his feet is able to lure a mate, and the one with the claws can't, the survival of the latter is moot. The flower gene will be passed on.
suumr 2 years ago
Evolution is fact? LOL LOL LOL Start using your brain!
thechessstick 2 years ago
While "LOL LOL LOL Start using your brain" might be considered by some to be a brilliant counter-argument, I'm going to need a bit more to work with.
In stating that evolution is fact, I point to the entirety of scientific evidence in support of the theory as proof.
Do you have an alternative explanation? If so, what is the evidence?
suumr 2 years ago
@suumr. Give me a few examples please. I know that none exist. But I am willing to give you a chance.
thechessstick 2 years ago
You really need to learn to be more specific. Otherwise, I can save myself a lot of time just by telling you to go read any scientific journal.
Every living thing is an example of evolution.
suumr 2 years ago
Sorry, suumr, let me make it easier to understand. Please, give me some scientific proof for evolution, thank you.. If you need a definition of what scientific proof is, I will help there, too.
thechessstick 2 years ago
I don't need a definition of scientific proof, but I'm curious, so let's pretend I do. What is it?
suumr 2 years ago
@suumr. For something to be scientific it must be.... 1. Observable 2.Able to be tested by experimentation 3.Repeatable 4. Verifiable So, there you go. The "Big Bang" is definitely outside the realm of science, thereby becoming merely a belief. Also, macro evolution (transmutation) is not scientific by definition making it a belief, too. Hence the word evolutionism... a religion.
thechessstick 2 years ago
The big bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Are you trying to discredit one theory by calling it something else and declaring it unprovable? Ignorant and irresponsible.
Nevertheless, though we can't duplicate the event of our cosmic origin, we can (and are) constantly working to examine its circumstances. Our experiments and observations of the universe around us have helped cement big bang theory as the closest we have to an answer to that question.
suumr 2 years ago
A repeatable experiment to prove macroevolution to your stringent specifications would have to be conducted over thousands of years. When such limitations on experimentation are present, we turn to the next best possible means: observation. In this case, of the fossil record, DNA, and comparative biology. Do you realize that we almost have TOO MUCH evidence in support of evolutionary theory? It's fucking everywhere! Seriously, if you don't get it, it's because you don't want to.
suumr 2 years ago
It's funny when evolution nay-sayers bring up shit like "it can't be repeated, so it's false!" Of course, this retarded claim usually flies in the face of whatever fucked up religious beliefs they hold instead. You come off sounding like a hypocritical jackass.
Just because you call evolutionism a religion doesn't make it one. All I want is to understand the world around me, and this is the best answer. Veritable mountains of evidence versus a rotting old book of lies? No contest.
suumr 2 years ago
what is the actual distance between your eyes center/center? i'll start the betting at 190mm.
googlemyface 2 years ago
Nothing random has happened EVER in the history of human life.
MsBlackPhotography 3 years ago
What? We must not be living in the same universe.
veko 3 years ago
Even if people WERE brainwashed to believe in evolution, at least evolutionists don't enforce rules and judgement with eternal damnation if you don't believe the same thing.
yourfaceandmum 3 years ago
you're right, even worse
evolution and forced on us by LAW (in school)
fancracker33 2 years ago
Learning sucks. Luckily you have a choice to avoid it. You can drop out of school and get a job at McDonald's any time you want.
veko 2 years ago
yeah... i didnt say anything to belittle education. my point is that you cant complain about christians pushing their religion on you, when evolution is forced on students by LAW. LAAAAAAAW. the same kind of thing that forced religion on people for hundreds of years.
fancracker33 2 years ago
You don't have to go to church or school. Neither is forced on you. Then again, the difference between facts based on agreed experimentation and observation by thousands of trained professionals versus something written thousands of years ago is drastic and hard to compare.
Evolution is part of science FACT. If it offends your beliefs in fairy tales, that's your problem. Thank your god that YouTube isn't against his way or you wouldn't even have the chance to come here with your crap.
veko 2 years ago
hm, im actually not all that religious, but i find it very interesting that you attacked me assuming that i was. There was a lot of hostility in your last reply despite what i last said did not call for it. Are you making these videos and such because you want to expand people's understanding of evolution? or are you on a crusade againt christianity?
p.s. our school system is called "compulsory" for a reason. That means it is required by law.
fancracker33 2 years ago
Actually, my reason for this videos is somewhere in between. It's to show that religion's attacks on science are ignorant and wrong.
Required by law to a certain age. I'm pretty sure that you can drop out at 16 in most states.
veko 2 years ago
i am SO glad you realize that evolution is NOT science and purely just theory. though it can be proven untrue. many different basis of evolution is either lies or unreliable pretenses. i have 2 friends that say "both sides to the creation and evolution arguement get frustrated because one has proof and the other has nothing but faith" of course he THINKS that evolution is purely true, which he is wrong and was probobly brainwashed to believe. well thanks for that, you gave me hope =)
Metelex808 3 years ago
Before reading Yourfaceandmum's message, I never actually read all of your message. Thing is, evolution is a theory, religion is a hypothesis. There is no facts backing up religion. Zero. Evolution has thousands behind it. Only reason we can't prove it is because human lifespan is less then a 100 years on average instead of, at least, 100,000.
veko 3 years ago
MRKetter81 the difference between micro and macro evolution is just a matter of time and space saying you don't belive in micro evolution but believe is like saying you believe in water but not lakes.
link643 3 years ago
If biological life doesn't evolve then we must conclude that the world was once very crowded. 98% of the creatures that have ever lived on this planet are now not living on this planet (referring to species). Without evolution, we are left with the option that every extinct insect, reptile, mammal, dinosaur, mollusk, cetacean, crustacean, whatever... every kind were once all living on the planet at the same time. Can any anti-evolutionist claim that to be the case with a straight face?
prospero811 3 years ago
can't prove gravity? lol. jump out a window
Jace1283xmod 3 years ago
How did winged creatures evolve and where is the fossil record to validate this transformation? I don't understand how a creature can develop a stub of a wing and somehow natural selection preserves this stub within the species and it continues to develop from stubs into wings over millions of years. It seems that wings would have to appear as a sudden unprecedented mutation; not a defensible probability, as is macroevolution as a whole.
thelight43tdubb 4 years ago
Ever seen a cow with extra legs?
How this sort of thing happens is explainable, I just can't do it for you since I lack a doctorate in biology.
veko 4 years ago
There is a fundamental difference between an extra leg and an entirely different set of appendages, let alone appendages with a complex new function like flight. A more appropriate question would be, "Ever seen a cow with wings?" The answer is no, and that is precisely my point. Radical mutations purported by macroevolution to engender new species are: 1) not verified by the current fossil record, and 2) not a remotely feasible probability. Microevolution, conversely, is a proven fact.
thelight43tdubb 4 years ago
Most creatures of flight are birds. The size and shape of a cow makes it impossible to fly. Our world has been designed by wonderous miricles. Sadly, No one was there to see the first bird fly, and we don't have records of every creature that's ever existed.
sweetpeasandducks 4 years ago
You're reading too deeply into the analogy. What I'm saying is that there was a transition from land to air. That is a huge leap. Explain how that leap was made via mutation. You can't because you either have to have a fully functional set of wings or you have stubs that just get in your way. This is one of the more salient examples of why macroevolution doesn't work, and it's why many leading scientists are aborting the theory.
thelight43tdubb 4 years ago
So...instead of it happening through freak mutations, some mystical being in the sky created them...that's definitely a better theory. Good job.
veko 4 years ago
Firstly, you're making the common assumption that anyone who opposes evolution is ipso facto religious. Maybe my sn seems Christian, I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but anyway, I simply think there is no theory at present that can scientifically explain the origin of life. I'm not religious, but I do respect the concept of ID. Anyway, your ad hominem rebuttal sidesteps my argument entirely. Is it fair to say you have no counterpoint to my original land-to-air proposition?
thelight43tdubb 4 years ago
I had a really awesome reply but, for some reason, I couldn't post it earlier...the whole point of it was this: Google "Evolution of the Wing". The internet is a wonderful source of information. Though we weren't there to see some of these things that happened, we have theories of how it could have happened. Study, research, and hypothesis until you find the truth, I say.
veko 4 years ago
I've googled such things before, but I'm not completely swayed. Agree to disagree I suppose. Anyway, I feel bad hogging the whole comment forum to myself. I'll continue to research with an open mind, though, hope you do the same. Happy holidays.
thelight43tdubb 4 years ago
thelight: A bird's wing is not radically different than other mammalian appendages. Have you examined bone structures? There's a comparison between the forearm of an ape, and the fin of a whale. They are remarkably similar. We don't disprove the connection between apes and whales by saying that no ape ever mutated and jumped in the ocean, able to breath water, do we? There are legitimate answers to the question, in books, on tv, and on the net. Do some research.
planetdarwin 4 years ago
Also, your statement "many leading scientists are aborting the theory"... this is something ID supporters continue to pose without evidence. The scientific community does not view evolution as the controversial drama you would like the general public to believe. Can you cite a source for your statement?
planetdarwin 4 years ago
Its adapted. LOL.
SnakeCIA1 3 years ago
this is not evolution, though.
MsBlackPhotography 3 years ago
I'm not saying ghost hunting shows where people scare the crap out of themselves in some castle is proving the supernatural..but using scientific tools and technology is proving that there is indeed a supernatural..but why is it possible to say the paranormal exists,yet God doesn't. Since God is usually portrayed as a"supernatural being".
Joshanatrix 4 years ago
That super natural bullshit has never been proven by science. Good try, though.
veko 4 years ago
Yet it's never been disproven either,tousche
Joshanatrix 4 years ago
Welcome to the root of the only thread of argument left to religious people. I've been here since I first become an atheist realizing what my parents told me was a lie, not of their design but of the design of men centuries before.
Glad you could join me.
veko 4 years ago
what I think he means is that some people might not believe in God,but will believe in a presence of the supernatural due to evidence from whatever
IpawnyouLoser 4 years ago
No one like that is here. Irrelevent.
veko 4 years ago
Well gluons have never been proven or God not existing hasn't been proven.
SnakeCIA1 3 years ago
no, it hasnt, nice try tho
Zfender67 3 years ago
Everything happens...but, on this occasion, what are you saying hasn't? You could be talking about anything.
veko 3 years ago
why don't we just evolve into immortal dinosuars?!?!? evolution sucks
zak4999 4 years ago
Good reply, I don't see necessarily that one has to make the choice to believe either in God or evolution but I understand that your video was an explanation of evolution.
Tony63efc 4 years ago
good 'n clear.
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
You just explained the "natural selection" version of evolution (fail to see how thats evolving but whatever). Then explain how this is a arguement for how if we kill off enough dogs they will no longer be dogs?
Also explain to me how mutations can be benifical. Because I haven't found one that is, outside of natural selection. Even sometimes in natural selection mutation is more fatal than helpful.
MRKetter81 4 years ago
Actually it's evolution by natural selection. There's plenty of videos here on Youtube explaining it all.
I don't see the argument of how beneficial mutation is as relevant. Mutations are part of nature and happen, whether benefiting the host of them or not.
veko 4 years ago
Wother definded natural selection or with a evolution in front of it, I'm well aware of what that you find that does not suport the actual evolution that in debate.
Yes mutation is very relevant, because it's the only way your going to any creature change from being what they are.
Cats make cats, Dogs make Dogs, ect.
Only with mutation (and this is the main argument used by leading naturalists.) are you going to go from species to another
MRKetter81 4 years ago
I admit, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...are you arguing against what I say or for what I say?
veko 4 years ago
Looking at my reply I can see I was tired lol
What I was trying to say; There are 2 versions of evolution. One well accepted by Theists the other a completely Naturalist idea Micro and Macro evolution. Your using the existing valid Microevolution to prove Macroevolution.
I'm asking how does one prove the other?
MRKetter81 4 years ago
Drop a ball. After one second it will fall 9.8 meters. Let it fall for longer? Chances are it will continue falling until something stops it(extinction is a common stopper).
veko 4 years ago
Ok.. so how is extinction going to make a dog breed anything other than a dog?
MRKetter81 4 years ago
Who said it would?
Either you're pretending to be an idiot or you really don't know...go read about it. If you don't know about the subject at hand, how can you argue against it. That'd be like a computer illiterate person arguing if Perl or Lisp is better.
Anywho...you're kind of boring me...I've heard your argument before, a dozen times. Yawn.
veko 4 years ago
So basicly you dont want to answer my question and this discussion is reduced to name calling. Well then far be it that we should continue the conversation based on a rational interchange, when you fail to live up to any foundations of doing so.
MRKetter81 4 years ago
It's not that I don't want to answer your questions, it is why do I have to teach you about evolution? Go look it up. Less of my time wasted that way.
veko 4 years ago
nice video. i want to worship you and good things will happend but they may not , i might have to wait you might say no or maybe yes. rejecting evolution is rejecting genes , science, and most important ,....
nutrition facts.
Ishimaru4Death 4 years ago
" Yo bro you look like jesus :D "
Absoulutley, in that he has long hair. Spitting image mate.
shrouded60606 4 years ago
flowin hair buddy
lifelongfiction411 4 years ago
how a statment of one person can bring such surtenty, than hundreds of prophets being ignored.
darwin was sorry about his theory before he died, he come to relise that evolution is imposible, to bad he could'nt write a book about that...
ACommonSense 4 years ago
This "fact" that Darwin didn't agree with natural selection doesn't have much to back it up. Mind telling me where I can find information on this concept? Everything I've read about darwin (including books about him) never say anything about him turning against the truth he unveiled.
veko 4 years ago
Also, don't ignore the fact that we know way more about our world then they did during Darwin's time. There wasn't as much evidence to back up his claim like, you know, the discovery of DNA.
veko 4 years ago
That was a story written by a christian journalist looking to take advantage of the evolution controversy and make a cheap buck. Even his family refuted the claim Darwin "turned" on evolution. His dying words were to his daugther telling her what a good wife she'd make. Darwin was never sorry for his great discovery.
workingclassbum 4 years ago
Yo bro you look like jesus :D
tzarBHD 4 years ago
That's because I am Jesus. Feel free to kiss my feet and worship me.
veko 4 years ago
How dare you claim to be the Son of God, you fucked-up bastard
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
Mainly because there is no god and thus no son of god. I mock the Easter Bunny in the same fashion.
veko 4 years ago
This is the God and a Son of God, and no arguement you can present proves otherwise.
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
You're god and Jesus? that's crazy. Who knew he was sitting around on the internet. If they existed you'd think they'd have something better to do with their time then this.
If you meant "there" instead of "this" you're the one claiming there's a guy in the sky. In other words, You have to prove he exists. I don't have to prove he doesn't exist. It's the simple concept of argument. If I claim I have a penny in my closed fist you don't have to prove I don't. I have to prove I do.
veko 4 years ago
I'm only a servent of the Father and a friend to the son.
Here is an arguement for you: VenomFangX. Maybe you've heard about this dude. Maybe not. In any case, he can give a much more convincing argument than I can, what with only so much space.
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
You mean that guy who 'proves' time isn't infinite through an analogy of candy bar offerings? Humans invented the concept of time. As a friend of mine once said, "Time exists to keep everything from happening at once."
Point being humans made up time, humans made up gods as well.
Also, remember, most Christians are atheists too. They don't believe in any of the past worshiped deities and neither do I. I just take it one god further.
veko 4 years ago
C.S. Lewis once said, "Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn't have guessed. That's one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It's a religion you couldn't have guessed."
So, in your eyes, Christians are Atheists. Um, no, they aren't. Atheism is the moral desision that there is no God to judge our behavior, Christianity is the exact opposite.
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
Do you believe in Zues? No? Not believing in a god is atheism.
So you believe in religion because it doesn't make sense?
veko 4 years ago
Atheism is the denial of religion, and if I am a Christian, I think that makes me quite the opposite. I believe in God, not zeus or Allah or vishu or whatever.
I believe in Religion because I happen to think beyond the material world, and that there is hope for man-kind after death. "It doesn't make sense" is a point of view from someone who cannot understand what is beyond the material world
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
Atheism is the refusal of gods or religion. I really depends on how to define it. And, no, before you ask, I have no religion either. I believe in the improvement of my family, myself, and the world. In that order.
A comedian once said (not direct quote) "I guess we'll see what's true when we die...unless I am, then we won't."
veko 4 years ago
I ask you, what really makes you believe that there is no God? Is it science? Is it conflict? Or maybe its just your insecurity and/or confusion. Christianity is in a similar order, except it goes like this:
1-God
2-Others
3-yourself
You might not realize it, but I personally fit my family, my friends, the world, and even you into that second category.
You're correct, we WILL see.
OverHedge99 4 years ago
My reason not to believe in a god is a combined effort. A guy in the sky creating the world doesn't make more sense then the world being created through nature, I don't need the security of believing I'll go somewhere after I die, I understand my place in the world and don't need more purpose then the purpose I already have, and believing in facts that are seen in the world around me makes more sense then believing in something written in a book.
veko 4 years ago
If God is God, then he isn't a guy, persay, but a spiritual being. As for your understanding of your place in the world. Well, congradulations, but what about the next world. If you are willing to gamble your eternity then that is your problem. Besides, I think most of the world's facts prove that the book is right.
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
I have difficulty seeing the sex of your deity as relevant.
Next world? You mean Mars? I'll probably be dead by the time it is colonized for public use. And, yes, I know what you really mean. I just think you're being silly.
You look at me and say I'm not preparing for the afterlife. I look at you and say there is no afterlife and you're wasting your short existence preparing for something that doesn't exist. It's all perspective.
Which of the "world's facts" prove that old novel right?
veko 4 years ago
If you had any sort of un-materrial mind, you'd all know that I was talking about a spiritual being, not a man.
Next World as in HEaven or hell. I don't think it's a laughing matter.
In preparing for the afterlife in the way the bible commands, I'm making the life I have on Earth more excellent for me and everyone around me.
Show me one that isn't right.
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
"God created man in his own image." - Genesis 1:27
Maybe this imaginary character is a spiritual being, but he's a spiritual being of human characteristics.
In the 'next world' bit I was being sarcastic. I find billions believing in one to be very laughable.
You do good things because of god, I do good things because it is right. I don't see you and I as that different. Only difference is, Christians usually have other reasons to add too that first reason.
veko 4 years ago
P.S. Two things. Saying I have an un-material mind is rude. Don't be rude, please. I might feel like blocking you if you are.
Second, just so I know, why are you arguing with me? For the sake of arguing or to try to prove to me that there is a god? I don't want to sound rude, I just want to know your reason. My reason is because you're posting comments on my video.
veko 4 years ago
I do things because god has made the law of what is right and what is wrong. Inadvertly, you and I serve an equal law. I guess I am arguing with you because you had the nerve to first soil the good name of my god, then attempt to justify it.
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
Really, I respect that you believe in something, but I don't have to, and I don't, respect what you believe in. With or without a deity I believe there are logical laws to be followed.
If you don't like what I say, you can choose not to listen. I won't be offended. I assure you, though, I have no reason to respect that 'spirit' you believe in. It is nothing more then a fool's hope passed from generation to generation.
veko 4 years ago
I can see that you don't care for my religion, but if there are logical laws, then you would consider the beliefs of others, as somewhat important to said others.
I expect you to critize religion, simply because I already know that you have loaw-to no un-material mind. You can be insulted, but because you have not even CONSDERED the possiblity of an eternal life or deity, you have already proven that to me and everyone else.
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
Like I said, I respect your right to live free to believe what you want, but I don't have to respect that belief.
P.S. Just because I don't believe in your deity and after life hocus pocus doesn't mean I'm materialistic. Stop trying to create stereotypes. It is both foolish for you and offensive to me.
veko 4 years ago
If you disrespect my belief, you are disrespecting me! They are not two unrelated things!
I am not being steriotypical. If you don't believe that there is more to this world than thoughts, feelings, and emotions then you have an unmaterialistic mind. I'm sorry to tell that to you, but as long as you reject the existence of the spirit and thje afterlife, you are of the unmaterialistic mind.
Ichitaiki101 4 years ago
Who ever said I didn't believe there was anything more to this world? I just don't believe there is anything after it. I don't have to believe in a gun in a sky and his happyland to be of an unmaterialistic mind.
veko 4 years ago
You say you don't believe in God..yet there's good proof out there about the supernatural. If God was truly easily disproved,then there wouldn't be an argument about his existence to this day. Though the same science,has been used on trying to prove whether or not the supernatural is real..and they end up with some unexplained answers.
Joshanatrix 4 years ago
There's long arguments to find over why people like the idea of god. The simple answer is this:
1. People fear death.
2. People like controlling other people.
There may be more points to be found to understand man's need for religion, but that's about it.
veko 4 years ago
I'm not saying that my point is saying people try to disprove God..but people try to disprove the supernatural,and can't. IMO it seems apparent that there is an"afterlife"but people just cannot come up with explanations for the unanswered questions.
Joshanatrix 4 years ago
What makes it apparent? I've never seen any respectable proof of the existence of any afterlife.
veko 4 years ago
Well I don't believe any of us would sitting here in a chair playing around on youtube. I do believe it actually involves going to see it
Joshanatrix 4 years ago
Now am I saying I believe in ghosts? No not really,but I do believe in somewhat"paranormal"beings. If science fails to disprove the supernatural,then why would it prevail in disproving God?
Joshanatrix 4 years ago
God's existance is based on faith, thus you can't prove he exists.
I know, completely stupid defense, but that's how dumb religious people are. I'm not arguing against religion, I'm arguing for science. For facts and truth. Not bullshit dogma.
veko 4 years ago
Sorry, I forgot to log off my friends account before replying
OverHedge99 4 years ago
His arguments seem convincing until you actually engage your brain, unfortunately the kind of people who like his video's find it much easier not to, and just accept the crap he spouts because it's what they want to hear.
01000001011100100111 4 years ago
what if claws defends his brother and his brother escapes, so the flower feets Survives! Evolution.
jghicks28 4 years ago
Then no claws are born past that and the species goes extinct. :P
veko 4 years ago
lol... claw flowers
Flash6891 4 years ago
I've sometimes heard evolution called a fact, and I've said it myself. Evolution is the fact, and Natural Selection is the theory that accounts for it.
That may or may not be wholly accurate.
HanifXHier 4 years ago
I take it as fact in so much that it is how the world works but who knows, maybe, and forgive me for the Douglas Adams reference, the dinosaur bones were buried by the people who built earth. Just maybe.
veko 4 years ago
Forgiveness for Douglas Adams? Bah! No forgiveness required.
HanifXHier 4 years ago
this video should be called how to sucessfully make a video response to some sucker that doesnt understand what he is saying himself. 5 stars.
kavudiego 4 years ago
5 stars
OpenMindedCatholic 4 years ago
Evolution isnt random, genetic mutations are refered to as being random, though that is just a way of saying that the reasons for them are highly complex and effectively undeterminable.
Evolution has nothing to do with a belief.
PLEASE look up the term 'theory' in wikipedia. Theories can never be facts, they are 2 different things.
'Scientific theory' is different to everyday use of the word 'theory'.
pdoeman 4 years ago
If you watched what the whole video, you'd probably have seen the part where I said "It is still a theory since we can't prove it 100% correct." That statement there makes it quite obvious I realize theories aren't facts. Don't try to twist my words.
veko 4 years ago
Oops, forgot to reply to your other points. Evolution is defined as, usually, upward change. Sorry I didn't clarify myself, but I was talking about it on the most simplistic terms as opposed to what it seems you assume I was talking about which is evolution of life forms.
Second, evolution, just like everything else, has everything to do with belief. Some fools believe evolution to be false. Their beliefs are based off of ignorance or denial, usually.
I hope you understand what I mean, now.
veko 4 years ago
"Evolution is defined as, usually, upward change." Yes, why in 'The Descent of Man' is teleology being imported?
neothomist1275 4 years ago