1) Tell me why we are supposed to believe that science in infallible, when experience shows us that there aer countless examples of theories being proven wrong when better information comes along?
2) Tell me why we are supposed to believe that scientists have pure intentions (ie no agenda), when in the field of evolution especially, there are many examples of poor and outright fraudulant "proof' of evolution that have been exposed over the years?
@BrotherofWord "Tell me why we are supposed to believe that science in infallible"
I never said it was. Putting words into other peoples mouths is a pretty dishonest tactic.
"when experience shows us that there aer countless examples of theories being proven wrong when better information comes along?"
The ability to adapt, refine, and even toss out explanations is a strength of science, not a weakness. Compare that to creationist who continue to believe even if their claims are proven false.
@BrotherofWord "when in the field of evolution especially, there are many examples of poor and outright fraudulant "proof' of evolution that have been exposed over the years?"
Evolution already rests on mountains of evidence. When forgeries were exposed they were abandoned, for example Piltdown man would have been exposed had scientists been allowed access to the find at the time rather than 50 years later.
@BrotherofWord On the other hand creationists continue to site known and documented forgeries such as the paluxy tracks, malachite, and moab man as if they were true.
Make sure you go take a good close look at my channel rules before you comment here again. Pay close attention to those about making sure your statements are factually accurate and checking your own claims.
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
what is the point in debating you if I dont find YOUR resources to be true.you will just block me as you did apologeticlight ? simply because your resources are invalid ?
Whether or not you find them to be true is of no relevance. Evolutionary theory is based on mountains of scientifically verified evidence and observation. All apologeticlight had to do was demonstrate an understanding of this evidence and the way science works. Until that is done, I see no reason to take his claims (or those of other creationists) seriously.
imalrightfornow wrote: ""Whether or not you find them to be true is of no relevance." are you being serious ? Do you know what this means ? this means that I could make up a total lie give reference to a source that supports the lie .
and the entire time every one has to believe it or you simply claim it is irrelavant and block them?" While removing my own reply to take care of a spelling error I erased yours by accident. My respoonse: Nice quotemine. Now read the rest of what I wrote.
The simple fact is that creationists often claim evolution states things that it does not (for example evolution does not state a monkey gave birth to a human or that a dog gave birth to a cat). This is why I ask they demonstrate their knowledge of the subject and the scientific method (as you are now required to do) before I engage in any serious discussion. This is not a difficult concept to understand or some form of oppression but simply a way to make sure I don't waste my time.
Thank you for the invite to a discussion,but im afraid I would rather not do that right now (Im a little rusty in that current area at this moment in time)possibly later,but not now.I would like to study this more before I dive into it,surely you understand this ?
The arguments put forth by ID advocates can be shown to be nonsense from a scientific standpoint, and they have been. That does not mean it is in any way scientific. The same can be said for the face on Mars, alien abductions, free energy, and far to many other topics to mention here. I fail to see where any double standard is in place.
You will also find this topic addressed in the index of creationist claims (the link is given in rule #3 on my channel home page)under numbers CI101, and CI110.
Do you think I'm interested in hearing what an astronomer thinks about evolutionary theory, or what a city engineer thinks about big bang theory? Such tactics are commonly used by creationists to say they have scientific support for their ideas.
That's interesting, because I (a YEC) once subscribed to theistic evolution. But evolution, as admitted by even some secular proponents, has serious flaws. Some of them I consider critical.
Most claims of flaws in evolutionary theory come from poor understanding of the subject or have nothing at all to do with evolution. I'd be curious to hear just what you think some of these supposed flaws are after you complete the tasks outlined here.
Frebtec you are the second person to successfully complete those tasks. As long as you follow the rules listed in my channel home page you may list a few of your objections to evolutionary theory.
Freptec wrote as a comment in another video: "Headset isn't cheesy; I don't even have a mic or web cam.
Anyway, I am a YEC (former theo evo) science teacher and have observed both creationists with limited to thorough knowledge of evolutionary theory, as well as evolutionists with limited to thorough knowledge of creationist models."
More against "intelligent design" of the human body:
1) The darling example of "extreme perfection"--the eye: we not only have a blind spot, but also a "reversed retina"; i.e., light must pass through several retinal layers before even reaching receptors. Some other species have "properly designed" retinas with receptors in front. And, they see far better than we do.
I think all trebob27 did was just say he basically turned his back on creationism for perfectly valid reasons, if I remember correctly. I like the way he handles these topics and posts. It challenges people to research their topics
I am myself a Christian and I am constantly baffled by the anti-evolution stance of many christians.
The Bible is indicative of a God who uses processes. Who grows things and nurtures things. It seems reasonable that God had his hand upon life on earth, and manipulated matter (as he did later in the Bible) to achieve his creation. Nurtured, and intentional evolution.
okay trebob...i can answer your silly little test,and i dont get what you are trying to prove by it, i studied science and have a full understanding, but it still doesnt make sense because WHO says what the scientist say is true, there is NO-ONE including you that has actually gone out and scientifically studied the earth and beings...i cant believe you turned your back on God
Where did I say I turned my back on God? That is your straw man argument and you are welcome to it if it makes you feel better. The fact that you resorted to this tactic is a dead giveaway that you do not, nor do you want to, understand the topic in question. As a result of this and your behavior in your other comments, which includes making threats and preaching (which in this case is nothing but trying to change the subject) you may now consider yourself blocked.
I only wish that everyone would explore what they believe to be true for themselves. Accepting what a person of authority tells you in "blind faith" only holds you back. This may be a bit harsh, but when I watched 100 reasons why evolution is stupid, by Kent, I had visions of Hitler. Just because someone is charismatic doesnt mean they are right, or that they are not lying to you.
Wow! those creationist points in astronomy were the very same things that got me completely interested in creationism, until, of course, I actually read the schollarly references of these creationists. I'll will never forgive these losers for stealing my facsination for science and giving me pseudoscience. Truth is so much better than their lies.
These are a great set of prerequisites. Oddly enough, the Atheists I see making fun of the Bible generally show that they have at least read it. Creationists seem to just create (hence their name, I guess) their own reality and call it evidence.
Do you think ID and creationism are the same thing? Well they aren't. Creationism is a sort of belief, and ID is the science that supports it. Now you can take ID and come to any conclusion you want. But even after that, you have some stuff to work out logically.
"Do you think ID and creationism are the same thing?"
They are the same thing and the two terms are used interchangeably by supporters of both ideas. A main textbook for intelligent design, Of Pandas and People, was in draft stage in 1987 when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision made teach "creation science" unconstitutional. Early drafts of the book show that it was a creationism book, using the word "creation" and cognates throughout.
Drafts made after the Edwards decision show that the authors simply substituted the term "intelligent design" for "creation" (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005. Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), AM Session, Part 2, talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/dover/day6am2(dot)html#day6am539).
"ID is the science that supports it" The problem is ID has no science that supports it. At the 2005 Dover trials Ken Miller shot down Behe's claims about so called irreducible complexity. Other claims that ID is science also fall apart (talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CI/CI001(dot)html)
As you have failed to respond to the tasks in this video at this point, I suggest you not try replying until you can demonstrate a better understanding of these concepts.
Dude. try this as a question for the creationists and ID people (the same crowd) . Name one scientific breakthrough that has benefited human kind as a result of the paradigm of creationism or id? I cant find one (big surprise) This is a real challenge. So far nothing. I am so over the debate over the facts etc. but this one question seems to stop them dead. Wheres the tangible benefit? Hmm. Lets see what they come up with.
While I agree with your idea in concept, be careful to err on the side of being accomodating. You might alienate someone who approaches this link with a genuinely open mind. I know I tend to argue in an adversarial manner even when I'm open to what the other side has to say. This link will only change minds if there are more articulate responses from our Creationist friends. (as amusing as the trainwreck posts are)
I've had one person try and that user didn't identify his/her self as a supporter of science or of creationism. That user also only got 3 out of 4. As for the rest who have been directed here: most I never hear from again, some reply with insults and logical fallacies resulting in their account being blocked, and I've had one person decide to do further research and get back to me at a later point in time.
I can only but notice that all creationist (but one) who have posted here have explicitly violated the rules outlined by you, outlined for actively participating as your guests. That means that you (and rabidape) picked exactly the central point. They are so angry because the core of their matter gets exposed in your video. If you take their basic ignorance of Science and evolution out of the equation, they're unwilling to participate to any debate.
u r so darn gay the devil has takin over ur body KENT HOVIND gives u huge proof that evolution is not science it is a FALSE and I repeat FALSE religion dude u r possest God loves u turn from ur wicked ways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"KENT HOVIND gives u huge proof" Kent Hovind has no teaching credentials in any scientific field, and his "PH.D" is from a non-accredited diploma mill. Check out ExtantDodo's videos for a critique exposing Hovind's lies.
"evolution is not science it is a FALSE and I repeat FALSE religion" Evolution is not a religion and has been supported by overwhelming evidence for over 100 years so quit repeating the same straw man argument. More on this in an upcoming video.
"or u can be 4 ever torcherd and burning in hell" Historically, threats mixed with bad grammar, netspeak, and insults have done nothing in the way of re-converting me. Since this seems to be all you are capable of, no more of your comments will be allowed until you complete the tasks outlined in this video and you can post by the guidelines laid out in my channel page.
Maybe the number of scientists who believe evolution didn't took place, isn't so big. But hey, who says that quantity is what matters and not quality? Seems to me you are really pissed off and a coward too, for taking away my postings! To incommoding, right? That's what all evolutionists do when are confronted with the truth. Bunch of cowards!!
What comments of yours have I removed? None, because I felt you had a point that was worth addressing. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame. On the flip side many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma. The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.
To put it gently, the claims if young earth creationists are not ignored but have been repeatedly shown to be wrong. Since you appear to have no knowledge on the subject of evolution or the scientific method and have resorted to name calling, no more of your comments will be posted until you accomplish the four tasks outlined in my video and post by the guidelines I have laid out in my channel page.
First tell me: where are the missing links? Why is every human perfect how it is, why are dinasours 100 percent dinasours why is there nothing between them. That goes for every animal because evolutionist failed to find fossils to capture the missing links.
Why is there proof that Dinasours lived with humans at one point of time, i thought they lived billions of years ago.
Why did Creation defeat Evolution over 500 trials if Creation is completely wrong?
"Why did Creation defeat Evolution over 500 trials if Creation is completely wrong?"
The question you should be asking is: Why is creation not accepted by the scientific community if evolution is completely wrong?
In all the court and school board hearings I have heard of creationism found favor due to deep religous motivations and not due to scientific standards.
In many such court cases, a deep religous motivation was later discovered and the decision overturned (this is what happened with the disclaimers in Cobb county) and the judge at the recent Dover trials saw through the religous propoganda presented by Mike Behe and other ID advocates.
If you want to continue commenting on my videos you may proceed 1 of 2 ways. Either complete the tasks outlined in this video, or post your long since falsified nonsense here:
Just the fact that we have an appendix (a useless organ that by the way people are now being born WITHOUT IT) is enough to show that we are still changing
"The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost."
There have been cases of people who have been found, usually on laparoscopy or laparotomy, to have a congenital absence of their appendix. There have been no reports of impaired immune or gastrointestinal function in these people.
Are you so sure of your own investigations so that you can claim that? I sincerely doubt it, but hey, its your call anyway. Why don't you put to wall every scientist (non creationist) who believes so then? Why don't you imprison every priest and every believer from this world, cause they are to stupid to understand science? What is this? A witch haunting? Why all this hate????
I dont think its a case of stupidity that prevents people from understanding evolution. It is usually deliberate ignorance.
In any case locking people up for their beliefs is exactly what Atheists do not want! (I cannot speak for theistic evolutionists, but id assume they agree)
In particulary was this guy called Charles Darwin who came with a strange theory, but then rejected her. How about that? Could it be that he understood how wrong he was? Do you want some quotes of him to regarding this? I have no problem offering you. Was he also miss understood science?
If you are emplying the overused story that Darwin rejected evolution on his deathbed, you would agian be wrong. The "Lady Hope Story" has long been known to be false.
Just a brief question: how came that so many physicists and scientists came to the conclusion that evolution didn't took place, based on the evidence that the universe (and biology) is showing. Or is that all of them are showing a non understanding of science in general, as you put it?
"how came that so many physicists and scientists came to the conclusion that evolution didn't took place"
In the United States, less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. Don't give me this "many scientists" crap.
well in 500 words is no place for scientific debates also, about topic regulations: there is no such regulations.this is the freedom,or not anymore? or can you provide me a link to this regulations?
Did I specify the manner in which the replies must be made? No. The "regulations" as you call them are ones specific to my vids and channel to avoid having to repeatedly debunk the same creationist nonsense.
I have strived to understand evolution scientificaly and it makes no sense to me. As for creation I have studied the Bible and documentaries and it is becoming realistic based on archeology and discoveries of ancient artifacts. Please point me to some documentation to help me better understand evolution. Thanks for responding.
Check out ExtantDodo's series of videos. He reviews the seminars of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and gives numbered references to scientific sources which he lists at the end of each video. That should give you a good start.
Ken Miller would be another good source. At the recent Dover trials he presented evidence debunking "irriducible complexity" to which the ID supporters had nothing to say. A youtube search for "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" should bring it up.
If you can see past Dawkins Atheism, his books such as The Blind Watchmaker, Ancestors Tale and The Selfish Gene are all excellent explanations of evolution.
Id recommend one thing while reading.. if you dont agree with evolution, at least try to understand evolution from an evolutionists point of view.
Also, do not assume the bible conflicts with evolution.
My comment to your challenge is how you refute creatism according to the bible. It sounds like you are saying my way or the highway. If you want to block me that is fine.
"It sounds like you are saying my way or the highway." Not at all. I am saying that most of the people I have met who deny the scientific theory of evolution cannot properly define it. Until they can, they give me no reason to take their claims seriously.
Wrong again. Evolution has said the same thing since it was first proposed: mutations leave some offspring better suited to their environments and more likely to pass on those mutations to their offspring. You were told what you needed to do if you wanted to be taken seriously here, and you kept spamming anyway. Consider yourself blocked.
Very enjoyable. You are able to present your views without coming across as condescending. It is interesting that I see no posts from the 'other' side here....
great job. you might want to check out talkorigins dot org , it has a ton of creationist claims and rebuttles inculding logic and references to scholarly sources
I use talkorigins a lot. I've not seen any creationist individual or organization capable of refuting any of the information contained within the site. Restating the original debunked claim doesn't count.
i even pointed a creationist to the site and he said something along the lines of "i don't want to hear what they think, this is a discussion between you and me"
@trebob27
1) Tell me why we are supposed to believe that science in infallible, when experience shows us that there aer countless examples of theories being proven wrong when better information comes along?
2) Tell me why we are supposed to believe that scientists have pure intentions (ie no agenda), when in the field of evolution especially, there are many examples of poor and outright fraudulant "proof' of evolution that have been exposed over the years?
BrotherofWord 1 week ago
@BrotherofWord "Tell me why we are supposed to believe that science in infallible"
I never said it was. Putting words into other peoples mouths is a pretty dishonest tactic.
"when experience shows us that there aer countless examples of theories being proven wrong when better information comes along?"
The ability to adapt, refine, and even toss out explanations is a strength of science, not a weakness. Compare that to creationist who continue to believe even if their claims are proven false.
trebob27 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@BrotherofWord "Tell me why we are supposed to believe that scientists have pure intentions (ie no agenda),"
The process of peer review actually holds back personal bias and personal agendas.
trebob27 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@BrotherofWord "when in the field of evolution especially, there are many examples of poor and outright fraudulant "proof' of evolution that have been exposed over the years?"
Evolution already rests on mountains of evidence. When forgeries were exposed they were abandoned, for example Piltdown man would have been exposed had scientists been allowed access to the find at the time rather than 50 years later.
trebob27 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@BrotherofWord On the other hand creationists continue to site known and documented forgeries such as the paluxy tracks, malachite, and moab man as if they were true.
Make sure you go take a good close look at my channel rules before you comment here again. Pay close attention to those about making sure your statements are factually accurate and checking your own claims.
trebob27 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
what is the point in debating you if I dont find YOUR resources to be true.you will just block me as you did apologeticlight ? simply because your resources are invalid ?
imalrightfornow 3 years ago
Whether or not you find them to be true is of no relevance. Evolutionary theory is based on mountains of scientifically verified evidence and observation. All apologeticlight had to do was demonstrate an understanding of this evidence and the way science works. Until that is done, I see no reason to take his claims (or those of other creationists) seriously.
watch?v=MqKMIM10uQw
trebob27 3 years ago
imalrightfornow wrote: ""Whether or not you find them to be true is of no relevance." are you being serious ? Do you know what this means ? this means that I could make up a total lie give reference to a source that supports the lie .
and the entire time every one has to believe it or you simply claim it is irrelavant and block them?" While removing my own reply to take care of a spelling error I erased yours by accident. My respoonse: Nice quotemine. Now read the rest of what I wrote.
trebob27 3 years ago
The simple fact is that creationists often claim evolution states things that it does not (for example evolution does not state a monkey gave birth to a human or that a dog gave birth to a cat). This is why I ask they demonstrate their knowledge of the subject and the scientific method (as you are now required to do) before I engage in any serious discussion. This is not a difficult concept to understand or some form of oppression but simply a way to make sure I don't waste my time.
trebob27 3 years ago
Thank you for the invite to a discussion,but im afraid I would rather not do that right now (Im a little rusty in that current area at this moment in time)possibly later,but not now.I would like to study this more before I dive into it,surely you understand this ?
imalrightfornow 3 years ago
Your next comment on any of my videos, if you choose to make one, will be an attempt to respond to the tasks given here.
trebob27 3 years ago
The arguments put forth by ID advocates can be shown to be nonsense from a scientific standpoint, and they have been. That does not mean it is in any way scientific. The same can be said for the face on Mars, alien abductions, free energy, and far to many other topics to mention here. I fail to see where any double standard is in place.
trebob27 3 years ago
Yes. I do believe I covered this in another video. watch?v=1ebfIh_Ailk
trebob27 3 years ago
You will also find this topic addressed in the index of creationist claims (the link is given in rule #3 on my channel home page)under numbers CI101, and CI110.
trebob27 3 years ago
Do you think I'm interested in hearing what an astronomer thinks about evolutionary theory, or what a city engineer thinks about big bang theory? Such tactics are commonly used by creationists to say they have scientific support for their ideas.
trebob27 3 years ago
That's interesting, because I (a YEC) once subscribed to theistic evolution. But evolution, as admitted by even some secular proponents, has serious flaws. Some of them I consider critical.
Frebtec 4 years ago
Most claims of flaws in evolutionary theory come from poor understanding of the subject or have nothing at all to do with evolution. I'd be curious to hear just what you think some of these supposed flaws are after you complete the tasks outlined here.
trebob27 4 years ago
Frebtec you are the second person to successfully complete those tasks. As long as you follow the rules listed in my channel home page you may list a few of your objections to evolutionary theory.
trebob27 4 years ago
Freptec wrote as a comment in another video: "Headset isn't cheesy; I don't even have a mic or web cam.
Anyway, I am a YEC (former theo evo) science teacher and have observed both creationists with limited to thorough knowledge of evolutionary theory, as well as evolutionists with limited to thorough knowledge of creationist models."
trebob27 4 years ago
(cont'd)
2) Breathe & eat/drink through same hole. Leads to death by choking. (Consider dolphins, who don't have this problem.)
3) Prostate: just ask older men their thoughts on this. LOL
4) Genitals: "like an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system." -Tyson
Neil deGrasse Tyson, on "Stupid Design": /watch?v=FgSaTYLYRGI
Eskarina6 4 years ago
Fantastic video & comments, trebob27!
More against "intelligent design" of the human body:
1) The darling example of "extreme perfection"--the eye: we not only have a blind spot, but also a "reversed retina"; i.e., light must pass through several retinal layers before even reaching receptors. Some other species have "properly designed" retinas with receptors in front. And, they see far better than we do.
(cont'd)
Eskarina6 4 years ago
I think all trebob27 did was just say he basically turned his back on creationism for perfectly valid reasons, if I remember correctly. I like the way he handles these topics and posts. It challenges people to research their topics
NeutralGrounder 4 years ago
So trebob are you still a Christian?
I am myself a Christian and I am constantly baffled by the anti-evolution stance of many christians.
The Bible is indicative of a God who uses processes. Who grows things and nurtures things. It seems reasonable that God had his hand upon life on earth, and manipulated matter (as he did later in the Bible) to achieve his creation. Nurtured, and intentional evolution.
JoelJoel321 4 years ago
okay trebob...i can answer your silly little test,and i dont get what you are trying to prove by it, i studied science and have a full understanding, but it still doesnt make sense because WHO says what the scientist say is true, there is NO-ONE including you that has actually gone out and scientifically studied the earth and beings...i cant believe you turned your back on God
monkjeyskrongil 4 years ago
Where did I say I turned my back on God? That is your straw man argument and you are welcome to it if it makes you feel better. The fact that you resorted to this tactic is a dead giveaway that you do not, nor do you want to, understand the topic in question. As a result of this and your behavior in your other comments, which includes making threats and preaching (which in this case is nothing but trying to change the subject) you may now consider yourself blocked.
trebob27 4 years ago
Uh, those would be called geologists and biolologists in the broadest terms.
Shadyhunter04 4 years ago
I only wish that everyone would explore what they believe to be true for themselves. Accepting what a person of authority tells you in "blind faith" only holds you back. This may be a bit harsh, but when I watched 100 reasons why evolution is stupid, by Kent, I had visions of Hitler. Just because someone is charismatic doesnt mean they are right, or that they are not lying to you.
TRN80 4 years ago
Wow! those creationist points in astronomy were the very same things that got me completely interested in creationism, until, of course, I actually read the schollarly references of these creationists. I'll will never forgive these losers for stealing my facsination for science and giving me pseudoscience. Truth is so much better than their lies.
piousunbeliever 4 years ago
MYSTERIOUS NAUTILUS!!!
aavallone 4 years ago
These are a great set of prerequisites. Oddly enough, the Atheists I see making fun of the Bible generally show that they have at least read it. Creationists seem to just create (hence their name, I guess) their own reality and call it evidence.
soulhunger1 4 years ago
If anyone believes that humans are perfect, I am afraid that they are far from it:
"The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but 'intelligence' in its design. It is built upside down and backwards"
-Cited from Michael Shermer in 'Why Darwin Matters'
Tailage 4 years ago
hey, great video, i loved reading your responses to the posts by other ppl. going to read your other vids now
jab2ur 4 years ago
Do you think ID and creationism are the same thing? Well they aren't. Creationism is a sort of belief, and ID is the science that supports it. Now you can take ID and come to any conclusion you want. But even after that, you have some stuff to work out logically.
RebdsRits 4 years ago
You got 1 out of 4.
"Do you think ID and creationism are the same thing?"
They are the same thing and the two terms are used interchangeably by supporters of both ideas. A main textbook for intelligent design, Of Pandas and People, was in draft stage in 1987 when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision made teach "creation science" unconstitutional. Early drafts of the book show that it was a creationism book, using the word "creation" and cognates throughout.
trebob27 4 years ago
Drafts made after the Edwards decision show that the authors simply substituted the term "intelligent design" for "creation" (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005. Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), AM Session, Part 2, talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/dover/day6am2(dot)html#day6am539).
trebob27 4 years ago
"ID is the science that supports it" The problem is ID has no science that supports it. At the 2005 Dover trials Ken Miller shot down Behe's claims about so called irreducible complexity. Other claims that ID is science also fall apart (talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CI/CI001(dot)html)
As you have failed to respond to the tasks in this video at this point, I suggest you not try replying until you can demonstrate a better understanding of these concepts.
trebob27 4 years ago
Dude. try this as a question for the creationists and ID people (the same crowd) . Name one scientific breakthrough that has benefited human kind as a result of the paradigm of creationism or id? I cant find one (big surprise) This is a real challenge. So far nothing. I am so over the debate over the facts etc. but this one question seems to stop them dead. Wheres the tangible benefit? Hmm. Lets see what they come up with.
herrinband 4 years ago
Not bad. I'll work it into a video some time in the coming month.
trebob27 4 years ago
While I agree with your idea in concept, be careful to err on the side of being accomodating. You might alienate someone who approaches this link with a genuinely open mind. I know I tend to argue in an adversarial manner even when I'm open to what the other side has to say. This link will only change minds if there are more articulate responses from our Creationist friends. (as amusing as the trainwreck posts are)
adeist 4 years ago
Aaaaaaaand.... No response. Predictable.
higgism 4 years ago
Have any creationists answered the challenge?
superfisto 4 years ago
I've had one person try and that user didn't identify his/her self as a supporter of science or of creationism. That user also only got 3 out of 4. As for the rest who have been directed here: most I never hear from again, some reply with insults and logical fallacies resulting in their account being blocked, and I've had one person decide to do further research and get back to me at a later point in time.
trebob27 4 years ago
[RE endiscomi1] - Remember folks, the more CAPITALISATION and EXCLAMATION marks you USE the MORE CORRECT you ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Katsuro1984 4 years ago
Good one! Put those creationists through their paces. The truth will set them free.
trumbone 4 years ago
Good Show!
Also, good work standing up to the wackos on this site.
Mars2i0 4 years ago
I can only but notice that all creationist (but one) who have posted here have explicitly violated the rules outlined by you, outlined for actively participating as your guests. That means that you (and rabidape) picked exactly the central point. They are so angry because the core of their matter gets exposed in your video. If you take their basic ignorance of Science and evolution out of the equation, they're unwilling to participate to any debate.
Well done!
schrodcat 4 years ago
u r so darn gay the devil has takin over ur body KENT HOVIND gives u huge proof that evolution is not science it is a FALSE and I repeat FALSE religion dude u r possest God loves u turn from ur wicked ways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or u can be 4 ever torcherd and burning in hell
endiscomi1 4 years ago
"KENT HOVIND gives u huge proof" Kent Hovind has no teaching credentials in any scientific field, and his "PH.D" is from a non-accredited diploma mill. Check out ExtantDodo's videos for a critique exposing Hovind's lies.
"evolution is not science it is a FALSE and I repeat FALSE religion" Evolution is not a religion and has been supported by overwhelming evidence for over 100 years so quit repeating the same straw man argument. More on this in an upcoming video.
trebob27 4 years ago
"or u can be 4 ever torcherd and burning in hell" Historically, threats mixed with bad grammar, netspeak, and insults have done nothing in the way of re-converting me. Since this seems to be all you are capable of, no more of your comments will be allowed until you complete the tasks outlined in this video and you can post by the guidelines laid out in my channel page.
trebob27 4 years ago
Lol funny how they just cant handle rational thinking
blaziermissy 4 years ago
Maybe the number of scientists who believe evolution didn't took place, isn't so big. But hey, who says that quantity is what matters and not quality? Seems to me you are really pissed off and a coward too, for taking away my postings! To incommoding, right? That's what all evolutionists do when are confronted with the truth. Bunch of cowards!!
searchthetruth 4 years ago
What comments of yours have I removed? None, because I felt you had a point that was worth addressing. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame. On the flip side many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma. The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.
trebob27 4 years ago
To put it gently, the claims if young earth creationists are not ignored but have been repeatedly shown to be wrong. Since you appear to have no knowledge on the subject of evolution or the scientific method and have resorted to name calling, no more of your comments will be posted until you accomplish the four tasks outlined in my video and post by the guidelines I have laid out in my channel page.
trebob27 4 years ago
First tell me: where are the missing links? Why is every human perfect how it is, why are dinasours 100 percent dinasours why is there nothing between them. That goes for every animal because evolutionist failed to find fossils to capture the missing links.
Why is there proof that Dinasours lived with humans at one point of time, i thought they lived billions of years ago.
Why did Creation defeat Evolution over 500 trials if Creation is completely wrong?
kiddo500 4 years ago
"First tell me: where are the missing links?"
They aren't missing. They have been known about for some time, regardless of how much creationists try to ignore the evidence.
trebob27 4 years ago
What does evolution predict a transitional to be?
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Human ancestry
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
Dinosaur-bird
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
Fish-tetropods
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html
Land mammals-whales
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
trebob27 4 years ago
"Why is there proof that Dinasours lived with humans at one point of time"
There isn't any. The best creationists can do is point out the Paluxy footprints which are a known hoax.
(talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/paluxy(dot)html
(skepticfriends(dot)org/forum/showquestion(dot)asp?faq=4&fldAuto=49)
trebob27 4 years ago
"Why did Creation defeat Evolution over 500 trials if Creation is completely wrong?"
The question you should be asking is: Why is creation not accepted by the scientific community if evolution is completely wrong?
In all the court and school board hearings I have heard of creationism found favor due to deep religous motivations and not due to scientific standards.
trebob27 4 years ago
In many such court cases, a deep religous motivation was later discovered and the decision overturned (this is what happened with the disclaimers in Cobb county) and the judge at the recent Dover trials saw through the religous propoganda presented by Mike Behe and other ID advocates.
trebob27 4 years ago
If you want to continue commenting on my videos you may proceed 1 of 2 ways. Either complete the tasks outlined in this video, or post your long since falsified nonsense here:
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=SGKUcKYUIfY
trebob27 4 years ago
lmao
Humans aren't designed perfectly
Just the fact that we have an appendix (a useless organ that by the way people are now being born WITHOUT IT) is enough to show that we are still changing
pan5464 4 years ago
"a useless organ that by the way people are now being born WITHOUT IT"
Do you by chance have a source or reference for that?
trebob27 4 years ago
stupid you tube and its non link comments
"The Story of Evolution" Joseph McCabe
"The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost."
pan5464 4 years ago
There have been cases of people who have been found, usually on laparoscopy or laparotomy, to have a congenital absence of their appendix. There have been no reports of impaired immune or gastrointestinal function in these people.
pan5464 4 years ago
Lol.. Yeah, ID decides to put some of my most prized possession hanging off my body! Thx God! >.<
sighuponsigh 4 years ago
Are you so sure of your own investigations so that you can claim that? I sincerely doubt it, but hey, its your call anyway. Why don't you put to wall every scientist (non creationist) who believes so then? Why don't you imprison every priest and every believer from this world, cause they are to stupid to understand science? What is this? A witch haunting? Why all this hate????
searchthetruth 4 years ago
What hate? You're the one talking about imprisoning people for their scientific and religious beliefs.
trebob27 4 years ago
I dont think its a case of stupidity that prevents people from understanding evolution. It is usually deliberate ignorance.
In any case locking people up for their beliefs is exactly what Atheists do not want! (I cannot speak for theistic evolutionists, but id assume they agree)
TawntheAtheist 4 years ago
In particulary was this guy called Charles Darwin who came with a strange theory, but then rejected her. How about that? Could it be that he understood how wrong he was? Do you want some quotes of him to regarding this? I have no problem offering you. Was he also miss understood science?
searchthetruth 4 years ago
If you are emplying the overused story that Darwin rejected evolution on his deathbed, you would agian be wrong. The "Lady Hope Story" has long been known to be false.
trebob27 4 years ago
Darwin did not recant on his deathbed, the story was refuted by Darwins family at the time to story came to light (1915).
In any case, it wouldnt really matter what he thought in the end. People can be correct and then change their minds... ;)
TawntheAtheist 4 years ago
Just a brief question: how came that so many physicists and scientists came to the conclusion that evolution didn't took place, based on the evidence that the universe (and biology) is showing. Or is that all of them are showing a non understanding of science in general, as you put it?
searchthetruth 4 years ago
"how came that so many physicists and scientists came to the conclusion that evolution didn't took place"
In the United States, less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. Don't give me this "many scientists" crap.
trebob27 4 years ago
Look up project steve if you have any doubts..
TawntheAtheist 4 years ago
well in 500 words is no place for scientific debates also, about topic regulations: there is no such regulations.this is the freedom,or not anymore? or can you provide me a link to this regulations?
Ibelieve12 4 years ago
Did I specify the manner in which the replies must be made? No. The "regulations" as you call them are ones specific to my vids and channel to avoid having to repeatedly debunk the same creationist nonsense.
trebob27 4 years ago
I have strived to understand evolution scientificaly and it makes no sense to me. As for creation I have studied the Bible and documentaries and it is becoming realistic based on archeology and discoveries of ancient artifacts. Please point me to some documentation to help me better understand evolution. Thanks for responding.
iamgod666666 4 years ago
Check out ExtantDodo's series of videos. He reviews the seminars of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and gives numbered references to scientific sources which he lists at the end of each video. That should give you a good start.
trebob27 4 years ago
Ken Miller would be another good source. At the recent Dover trials he presented evidence debunking "irriducible complexity" to which the ID supporters had nothing to say. A youtube search for "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" should bring it up.
trebob27 4 years ago
Thanks for the info I will research them and get back to you when I think i have a better grip on the theory. Thanks again.
iamgod666666 4 years ago
If you can see past Dawkins Atheism, his books such as The Blind Watchmaker, Ancestors Tale and The Selfish Gene are all excellent explanations of evolution.
Id recommend one thing while reading.. if you dont agree with evolution, at least try to understand evolution from an evolutionists point of view.
Also, do not assume the bible conflicts with evolution.
TawntheAtheist 4 years ago
cdk007 has some good vids explaining basic concepts in biology as well.
trebob27 4 years ago
My comment to your challenge is how you refute creatism according to the bible. It sounds like you are saying my way or the highway. If you want to block me that is fine.
iamgod666666 4 years ago
"It sounds like you are saying my way or the highway." Not at all. I am saying that most of the people I have met who deny the scientific theory of evolution cannot properly define it. Until they can, they give me no reason to take their claims seriously.
trebob27 4 years ago
well one reason we can not properly define it is because they keep alternating their theory.
kiddo500 4 years ago
Wrong again. Evolution has said the same thing since it was first proposed: mutations leave some offspring better suited to their environments and more likely to pass on those mutations to their offspring. You were told what you needed to do if you wanted to be taken seriously here, and you kept spamming anyway. Consider yourself blocked.
trebob27 4 years ago
Very enjoyable. You are able to present your views without coming across as condescending. It is interesting that I see no posts from the 'other' side here....
jkp1187 4 years ago
Nice!!!
zen3rgy 4 years ago
God implodes when poked with fact :3
GuuZilla 5 years ago
*cheers* Good one, Rob.
diva0217 5 years ago
great job. you might want to check out talkorigins dot org , it has a ton of creationist claims and rebuttles inculding logic and references to scholarly sources
evirus 5 years ago
I use talkorigins a lot. I've not seen any creationist individual or organization capable of refuting any of the information contained within the site. Restating the original debunked claim doesn't count.
trebob27 5 years ago
i even pointed a creationist to the site and he said something along the lines of "i don't want to hear what they think, this is a discussion between you and me"
evirus 5 years ago