Rainbows are the inteligent design of Leprechauns. At the end of a rainbow you can find both a pot of gold and the answers to all the deepest mysteries of life, such as why that aweful Jennifer Aniston movie was made :).
@rkyeun I didn't forget him. I don't think he's an out an out liar and deceiver like the rest of them. He's just a flawed "philosopher" who tries his damnedest to argue Yahweh into existence.
That's recently changed due to his behavior with recent DMCAs, even if his philosophical arguments weren't based on the very same lies and deceptions. :)
Dr. Craig's website, ReasonableFaith, had linked to it as having his videos available on YouTube. This makes him a liar when he says he never authorized it, if not directly indicating it is actually his account. When called on this in the forums, he blocked, banned, and deleted the thread.
@rkyeun Interesting. Ultimately they have to rely on that kind of behavior. If you don't have facts and evidence on your side, sooner or later you wind up lying about something to prove your point.
In my biology class, we wasted the first week talking about "Religion VS Science". When evolution came up my heart sank at the ignorance... with people coming up with proof against the theory of evolution, my teacher smacked them down. After that, you know what the same people did? Frickin just said "This is stupid..." the entire class, didn't even bother trying to understand it.
And people wonder why I'm against the ideas that evangelical churches pump into young minds...
PLEASE tell me the "Stein" clip and subsequent shot of pupils falling asleep, was a reference to Ferris Bueller's Day Off; in which he plays a dull teacher whose pupils are ...well, nodding off.
I just got through reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould, over 1400 pages that took me over 8 months of concentrated reading and study to understand it. And I still am unsure if I know all about it enough to explain it to others. But apparently these religious nutjobs can gloss over and think they know all about it. There is no corresponding 1400 page book on Intelligent Design, not even a 50 page book of evidence on their "science" of God did it.
Science works by thinking of a hypothesis, then trying to prove that idea. That how a scientist makes money. When they find a flaw it would be stupid of them to point it out. So your getting a biased opinion.
@entehrend Well for starters, a 'proper' scientist shouldn't do that, it's not how the scientific method goes. That said, if such a thing happens, it is very likely to be filtered out during the peer review and replication studies sages of the scientific method. that said, bad science will always be outed in the end as more methods and data are collected it will soon show if their theory is incorrect as it will not be consistent. Religion doesn't go through anything like that, it can just lie...
@entehrend well , A scientist works all his life , gathers information about something , studes it in advanced , and comes up with a hypothesis by testing and observing certain facts .... Basically when he presents his theory , it should have conclusive evidence to support it , It should be able to be observed and tested again and again , and it is experimented on,Well,the winners of the 2011 physics nobel prize , three people discovered the universe's rate of expansion has become faster -cotd
@entehrend well they spend 11 years looking a major number of stars and their luminosity and galaxies ,I think .... And they sound conclusive evidence to propose this theory ... I am sure of how it worked ,since I am not a scientist ,I just read about it a few months back .... So science is based on observable reality and myths ... and it highlights the truth not myths ,again ...
@entehrend thats why others skeptical scientists check there work. to make sure there is no bsing... unlike religion, the one still standing with a sword is right.
Appart from a great video, great song choice! Rhapsody in Blue was my favorite classical piece during the period of evolution during which I was "magically" morphing from a species of infertile dwarf into a fully procreating hominid!
yes potholer, as part of theory of evolution, we are destroying our children's minds if we introduce (Non)intelligent design... We must encourage our children to be more intelligent then us as parents, for those of you who don't know this, it can clearly be and fully explained by EVOLUTION...Intelligent design clearly ensures your children are DUMBER then their parents...
Ben Stein is an intelligent guy and I've seen him on many shows and with the BS that sprouts from his mouth means he is just a fraud. I read a recent article from him on The American Spectator and it was soppy gibberish. I think he is trying to play the religious for the fools they6 are and pump his readership and income. The guy who has a Western audience that disgusts me viscerally.
I'm not too big on global news but I live in California and i've never heard of anything like this being debated about in my school district is this debate still going on? (to teach creation "science" in public school?)
@rawrloler Unfortunately yes it is. Not so much in California or the upper east coast but in the mid west and the south (Texas) The debate rages on since most of the politicians in power believe in the bible
How this initial difference in the amount of the enatiomers arose remains an open question. There are many interesting ideas -- circularly polarised light from a nearby exploding star is one idea (and not as untestable as you may think). I'm very much looking forward to 2014 when the Rosetta probe lands on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. The probe has a GCMS with a chiral column designed to look at the chirality of the comet's amino acids. Can't wait!
Homochirality is entirely consistent with chemistry. Chemical systems tend towards the lowest energy (check any reaction energy diagram). Metabolising both L and D enantiomers requires 2 enzymes (or more elaborately 2 metabolic pathways). This is twice as much metabolic "effort" as is needed for an enzyme or pathway that only uses one enantiomer. Given a small initial difference in the proportions of the 2 enantiomers, homochirality is very likely from an evolutionary perspective.
just want to say thanks for all the time you have spent making these videos to educate people. This information needs to be available in entertaining... this is what you have done :)
@sculpt2live -- A 1997 Gallup poll foud that 5% of American scientists believe in YEC. But ‘scientist’ can include software programmers and dentists. And since Europeans and Japanese are far less likely to believe in YEC, the number of ‘scientists’ who believe will be commenurately less. So if we add other countries and subtract sciences not related to comology, geology and biology, we’d probably be down to a tiny fraction of one per cent.
@potholer54 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!!!
@HodEnoch ohhhhh dear.... you just made yourself look very silly.... if you watched more of Peter's videos you would understand the need to DO YOUR RESEARCH. unlucky....
@kerosenezen natural selection or intentional breeding reduces the amount of information in any given genome, mutations in most cases are harmful because they scramble or destroy genetic information, with a few exceptions like wingless beetles not being blown off windy islands into the sea to become extinct, that is all Biology 101.
Many like mutations may have similar advantages in specific situations yet are not observed to do well when placed back in the parent populations.
@HodEnoch intentional breeding =/= natural selection. Also, intentional breeding can cause genetic defects to get much worse (dogs). But natural selection decreasing information? Then how would you explain speciation?
I prefer evolution over ID simply because evolution explains all known biological facts without adding unnecessary entities. Therefore by occams' principle it's more right. If facts to the contrary will be found then evolution should be abandoned.
On the other side consensus by itself isn't convincing. One should judge the theory and not consensus as was in the past- like the consensuses on the ptolemaic system, tidal theory, martian canals or that galaxies are laplacian nebulae.
Why is everyone here missing a rather basic point? ID cannot be falsified, therefor it is not a scientific theory. Evolution CAN be falsified, although you would need a rather convincing amount of evidence to do so. Also, if creationists would please stop mixing up evolution with abiogenesis that would be great.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell University Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
@BigLundi The initial appearance of all life, is in each instance, a unique historical event that is not subject to repeated observation, subject to independent verification, which is required by the scientific method. Evolution is belief, not science. You are asking me for my belief. I agree with Dawkins in the Blind Watchmaker that the information content of the human genome is a digital database equivalent to 30 volumes of The Encyclopedia Britannica. How is speculation, we never observe it.
@achilles197474 I must ask, what is your definition of "The initial appearance of all life".
Because what you ask for with a hilariously vague statement like "The initial appearance of all life" is something that by its very nature cannot be repeatedly observed.
@achilles197474 Professor Sanford's authority as an expert does not mean that his word is law; I'm not sure what he means by 'random mutations consistently destroy information', but that statement by itself is nonsensical. In any case, random mutations are not the primary driving force behind natural selection.
Well done video, but you are confusing "science" with "scientism." Intelligent design does not require an "invisible being", a supernatural designer, but neither does it preclude one. You're playing with semantics. You mention that the overwhelming majority of scientists do not give any credence to intelligent design. But since when was truth decided by a majority vote? Ask Galileo...
You state that intelligent design does not concern itself with research and evaluation. Balderdash.
@MrSandykramer it's got nothing to do with majority of scientists reject it. It's that I.D. has shown NO research or experiment or observations in details that have ever gone through peer review. Though knowing them, they're more likely to try to find shortcuts and back doors to the scientific method. Because that's what creationists tend to do. Try to find gaps in evolution but kinda forget to mention that they can't explain anything about I.D. in observable detail.
@MrSandykramer "Center for Science and Culture", you should've just said "Discovery Institute" and saved me some time. Of ALL the works that page posted, only ONE work (Stephen Meyers) was published in a Science journal, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The very organization criticized the very work, and also Meyers decided to publish the work without the organization's Council authorization (an example of I.D.'s habit of WEDGING their way through the system). Try again.
There you go, moving the goalposts, redefining the issue from having gone through peer review to "published in a Science journal." I don't know from where you obtained your definition of science, but I suppose your definition will preclude anything which is favorable ( or neutral ) with regard to I.D. The works published by the Cambridge Univ. Press, Mich. State Univ. Press, Oxford Univ. Press entries (et.al), not to mention the articles by McIntosh, Dembski, others, suffice.
@MrSandykramer You seem to confuse FREE PRESS (clearly typed on your "source") with SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS researches which are extensively peer reviewed/edited. With the only one actually going through an actual scientific journal, turns out to have FAILED the peer review (by a landslide) AND the very author had tried to CHEAT HIS WAY past the peer review process. If there was plenty of evidence, you should be able to find them in the science journals, not the free press.
If you check the annotated bibliography, you will find a plethora of journals which are scientific in orientation. Pro-evolutionists once claimed that a lack of intelligent design peer-reviewed work was due to a lack of credibility. Once such articles are published, however, they seem to question the entire peer-review process. Essentially, those who are entrenched into naturalistic thinking will only support peer review if it agrees with them.
@MrSandykramer Considering that most, if not ALL, major creationist organizations have a habit (and a continuous streak) of outright LYING. I'd rather check sources like the "American Association for the Advancement or Science" and such. Secondly you keep trying to convince me (unsuccessfully) how MANY of those works have been published in science journals (they haven't) while AT THE SAME TIME, you're trying to criticize the entire peer review process. Stick with a consistent argument at a time.
Since 2006, AAAS's CEO Dr. Alan I. Leshner has published many op-ed articles discussing how many people integrate science and religion in their lives. He has opposed the insertion of non-scientific content, such as creationism or "intelligent design," into the scientific curriculum of schools. (WIKIPEDIA) So much for the purported neutrality of the AAAS. I fear that neither one of us shall be moved by the arguments of the other. So, with this riposte, I must say adieu.
@MrSandykramer That is a bad thing? He's just saying what every other scientist in the field is saying. Keep religion (I.D.) in RELIGION class, OUT of science class. Even all of those university journals that you mentioned before seemed to agree, because all of those documents that YOU pointed out appear in the RELIGIOUS journals of each Uni. Press, not SCIENCE. (A fact creationist websites constantly neglect to mention)
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi.
@MrSandykramer So you copy/pasted the entire thing from a creationist website, trust me, it's best to look things up. Because I did, and you'd be surprised to know that it's a BOOK, not a JOURNAL (again, no review to be found). Also, just for kicks, It's classified under "Theology" and "Philosophy of science" by Cambridge's own website.
@MrSandykramer Naturalism = The reason society and humanity has advanced. ex: Medicine, as opposed to praying for health.
Intelligent Design is the very poster child for dogmatism. Achieving its goals through lies, cheats, shortcuts, arrogance, and ignorance since it was ever conceived. And all of the major organizations are a testament to that.
If creationism gets taught in the classroom, I would like to see directed panspermia taught in classes as well as an alternative theory to broaden our minds to the possibilities.
The same may be said about so-called global warming "science." Read the e-mails from East Anglia University. And measure Al Gore's personal carbon footprint.
Man, I *still* can't believe that sign at the end *wasn't* just a huge caricature of the typical Christian! But it's SO much worse that it's actually genuine and real! Lol.
What if you believe that Intelligent Design happened through all the provable scientific theories? You accept all of them, however all you do is add the "spark" of a creator at the start of the Big Bang?
And I don't mean this to be knowledge based or scientific in any form, only belief/spiritually based?
Also you support further progression of scientific knowledge to better understand the origins of life and universe and in a way better understand "who" "what" or "where" is the creator, if there is one?
@Hunt2shoot The problem with creationists is that their concept of God is crippled by a literal interpretation of Genesis, not that a belief in God is in itself crippling, but science will never prove or disprove God and is not interested in that pursuit, and that really makes fundamentalists fearful and angry. I don't understand what they are afraid of, Jesus said "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free". And the way I see it, science is interested in the truth.
Exactly my thinking! Science is there to show the "how", spirituality/religion is there for the "why". Inherently there is nothing wrong with religion itself, it's the close minded people though that give religion a bad rap. I really don't understand why creationists are so threatened, but then again the Ortodox don't think of the Genisis as a literal interpretation, nor is it meant to be. The Bible is NOT or will ever be a scientific book, it is however a spiritual book.
@Hunt2shoot I would go as far as to say that Science is the how and why. The why should be expanded after the how, not before as the bible does. I would say there were fundamental flaws built in to religion without going into specific religions. Firstly would be the issue of exploitation of people who are open to accepting ideas under lacking evidence or even to the contrary.
The bible is many things, however I would like to see what you define as spiritual as I would argue the bible was not.
Of course there are numerous problems and flaws with religions, just as with any other "institution" such as our judicial system, our courts and parliaments, our "international peacekeeping systems" i.e UN, not to mention business, education systems and any other institutions. However flaws are not there to be ridiculed upon, but rather corrected and fixed and that I believe is what we should strive for within religions institutions.../cont
@Hunt2shoot I agree religious institutions are in dire need to be fixed and they do have their purpose as. believers get a type of placebo effect where they feel they are better, however this is a paradox. In order for this to work, you need to believe and it is the very belief in someone that does not exist that worries me and is the exploitable part of religion.
@roadkill1001 "Spirituality" is subjective. You yourself may not find spirituality within God, however another completely different person to you would. Spirituality to me means the "power" to anchor oneself when the self feels like is spiraling out of control. If you look at Carl Jung he describes it as "being able to suspend the notion that we can control our random reality and unburden our minds to deal with the parts of life we can control". It's a "crutch" to some, but a "hope" to others.
@Hunt2shoot Not to be too picky but the word spirituality means to find awe and wonder in ''something'' whether it be watching a colony of ants in a straight line or the perception that you are looked after by skydaddy.
As I have said the one part of religion that is good relies upon it's self to fool people into believing, which doesn't strike me as a useful institution
@roadkill1001 Like I said, its subjective. Regardless people would get fooled weather its religion, or financial fraud. Also you said "some institutions would need to be scrapped". Have you perhaps considered what would happen to the faithful if this were to be done? Where would they go then? Dangerous cults? Extremist groups? You have to admit it does keep the unstable masses grounded, and provides them with "comfort". It's not useful to you, but to chronically ill patients would provide hope.
@Hunt2shoot I would have to answer your question with a question. What do you mean where would they go? They can still have their churches, just not under tax-exempt status and can try and support themselves whilst paying their way.
@MrGSmith129 Their problem is that as soon as they accept the absurdity of large parts of the bible they must contend with the fact that rationally they must then question every aspect of it. Their only recourse is to deny rationality completely.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
In response to the text below this video, you should investigate the history of modern science to know that it was because of the Scientists belief that God created everything with an order and intelligibility that they pursued to seek how things work. So our great fields of science were started by those who made it a life goal to investigate. That is the very nature of a Christian... to want to know and relate to his Creator and to seek to understand the creation like Kepler, Newton, etc.
Creationists! Please! Think of all this effort you are wasting which you could actually spend doing something useful. If I had a creationist in my lab to autoclave my pipette tips I'd get so much more work done!
@egeswender Me too! I always liked him, he always portrayed himself as an intelligent, wry kind of person. Before Expelled, I never would have picked him for a science-denier.
I know we can make life from a sperm and an egg, but can we make complex life without a sperm and an egg? How did we go from single-celled organisms to the complex beings we are today. That is the only thing I don't quite understand.
Personally I blame the fucking Flintstones, none of us were aware that while we were lusting after Fred and Barny's wives that we were slowly being indoctrinated into a creationist ideology.
its simple.. see since the 1950's ALL they taught in school was the theory of evolution. so of course most people are going to believe in that theory. Most people are sheep and will believe what they have been taught there whole life.
@Crusader2311 for gods sake, before typing something in, read something about it. In US about 65% DONT believe in evolution. Easy to confirm, really. And yes, you are right, people are sheep. For 3000 years following same fairy tales and gods, with no evidence or consistency or coherence in those stories, people still cling to them. Makes them feel good. But now that their authority is being questioned and they cant defend it, fear of losing that nice feeling is overwhelming.
"oh, by the way, why shouldnt they teach evolution?"
Do they even teach?
I mean while these teachers in Wisconsin are demanding they keep there $89,000 a year in salaries and benifits as well as pensions and benifits for life after retirement,all footed by the Wisconsin taxpayers that put the "new evil Govener" in there,,2/3 of the children in those schools can't read at a proficient level at 8th grade.
in US 2010 1.2 billion per child spent on public education.& they're getting stupider Why?
@TheRealArchAngel Why? Because why bother?! If you are a politician and need people to listen to your sometimes stupid ideas, is it better to make them more educated or less? Of course less. Why do so many African And East Asian countries have dictatorship and totalitarianism? Cause people dont know better, they dont understand political or judicial steps necessary to change their positions. Same is happening in US. Media is all about entertainment - reality TV, comedy shows, etc
@TheRealArchAngel There berelly are any smart shows left, where actual knowledge is required. if you also take news channels in equation, it gets even worse. News are distorted. For political leaders, this state called 'herd", is extremely convenient. If Americans in 2001 were at least 10% more educated in geopolitical matters, war in Iraq would have never happened. Bad decisions are made when you lack knowledge, not have too much of it.
"If Americans in 2001 were at least 10% more educated in geopolitical matters, war in Iraq would have never happened."
Again, Northern Iraq was occupied by UN ever since SO Damn Insane was firing gas missiles at the Kurds Sect and UN was occupying southern Iraq and took away Iraq;'s sovereignty after he invaded kuiwait with the unoffical UN action against central Iraq by 144 nations led by US without security counsel after he''s been boldly violating UN laws for 10 years and laughing about it
"ince the 1950's ALL they taught in school was the theory of evolution"
Well, imy public school experience up to 3rd grade was saying a prayer in the morning and pledging allegence to the flag....only 2 tings a remember other then making a pggy bank between k-4 grade
In 5th grade I had my first crush,I like making Icecream in class and my next memory is playing odds or evens in 7th and 8th grade in b\between sharing 1 book from the 60's with 5 other students
nothing at all that blows up into an entire universe is the theory of evolution and it's correct! I take it as proof of God, the Scientist that made prepared this for us in "six periods of time" (14,000,000,000 years) and you can view it how you like becuase thats your God given right as an american
@ineedaname777777 No, that's not the theory of evolution at all. The ToE explains how life diversified once it had begun. That's all, nothing more. What you claim scientists say as 'nothing at all blowing up into an entire universe' is more to do with the Big Bang theory. But nobody says that 'nothing' expanded into the Universe, the theory states that *everything* expanded into the size it is now. So, the question is why do you misrepresent that theory?
@ineedaname777777 What? That's your response to me pointing out you'd misrepresented current scientific understanding? To suggest that truth is somehow subjective?
@Misterb0z the answer was clear in your question, did you really expect me to admit I was ignorant of something or made a mistake, I'm sorry but my super inflated ego won't allow that to happen! lol later
@ineedaname777777 Can't expect a creationist to know the difference between biology and cosmology... but you can expect them to deny most of what we know about both anyway.
@Juxtaroberto And I agree, Evolution happens, and it had been happening since time began. I am still trying to wrap my head around the probe flying so far it could take a picture of the big bang, what does this mean to the laws of physics and time? Does this mean time is relative to our location in space? We would age slower if we could build a shield around the earth, not that where not trying, (haarp and chemtrials)
@ineedaname777777 No, not since time began. Roughly 3 billion years ago (well, on this planet). The probe didn't fly far out, it simply pointed a camera far out, since the CMB radiation permeates the entire universe. No, we could age slower by moving faster. "Chemtrails?" Might as well get your tinfoil hat out.
@Juxtaroberto I've yet to look into this(and I will when ready), but that's one thing that still gets me.. How were the able to "take a picture" of the big bang? We're not the furthest planet/galaxy out.. and even if we were, it's not like we'd be be farther out than the photons, beta and gamma rays(they'd have been flung farther faster).. So how could we be taking a picture when the various rays/waves/whatever have got to be long since past us? :S
@xESOTERlC Well, it's not the actual Big Bang, it's about 300,000 years afterwards when atoms could form (and therefore, a lot of the photons could no longer be absorbed, as all elements absorb very specific wavelengths). The reason we can see it is because these photons were throughout the entire universe, bouncing off the hot "fog" that was the matter in the universe, and once atoms formed, they simply continued on their path unhindered. So these photons are in every part of the universe.
@Juxtaroberto I understand some of what you are saying, but I'm not understanding how any of that allows an actual "picture" to be taken >.< It still seems that all pertinent waves/rays/photons would have passed our point by now. The photons that are bouncing around would just bring illuminate where they're currently coming from--not where they originated. Makes perfect sense that we can see a million yr old supernova 1 million light yrs away
@xESOTERlC I guess that's because you're thinking of it as one source radiating photons. It wasn't like that. It was photons throughout the universe (which was already EXTREMELY large by that point), which were constantly being absorbed and emitted, until atoms formed. Then those photons could go free, and they were all over the universe, but because it was so big, we can still see it today. physicsforums(dot)com answers this question pretty well.
@xESOTERlC (cont'd) You just have to find the right wavelength at which to look for them. The reason they are visible as microwaves is because they were very high energy, but as the universe expands they are redshifted, which stretched out their wavelengths, making them low energy.
@Juxtaroberto but seeing the big bang seems crazy. I guess I understand being able to get a picture of the universe like 14 billions years ago(after the big bang), but only seeing things that are that distance from the earth(14 billion light yrs away.. or not that far i guess for slower types of readable wavelengths).. guess my understanding is limited.. kicked out of school 10th grade n tryin to teach myself a lot of the basics
When u talked about the rainbow, I just had a doubt, so the colours come from the white light descomposition, the arc form comes from the water's index of refractation. But, does anyone here know what can't we see rainbows when u get close to them?
Yes - all rainbows are in the refraction of light from the vapor in the air. You can only see the rainbow in certain angles. As you get closer, the angle changes, and the optical illusion (since that's what a rainbow is) vanishes. It 'seems' to have a distance because are minds are accustomed to assigning such labels on visible objects.
I forgot the actual physics part, but I hope that answers your question. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. ;)
Whoops, the first sentence is horrible. Let me try again: rainbows are formed when sunlight is spread apart and diverted to the eye by water vapor in the air.
@ShinigamiSirius Thanks, now I get it. I want to be sure though, u say that rainbows have no distance? So when we think it's x meters away from us, in reality it's like in our eyes?
Rainbows are the inteligent design of Leprechauns. At the end of a rainbow you can find both a pot of gold and the answers to all the deepest mysteries of life, such as why that aweful Jennifer Aniston movie was made :).
MisterTutor2010 3 days ago
"What is the age of the Earth? When did the 'creation' /actually/ occur? And, of course, we're going to go to... The Lord of the Rings."
rkyeun 4 days ago
Trust In the flying spaghetti monster.
MisterTutor2010 6 days ago
I wonder who's truly more dangerous: Ken Hamm, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, or Ray Comfort.
ChipArgyle 1 week ago
@ChipArgyle
Don't forget William Lane Craig.
rkyeun 4 days ago
@rkyeun I didn't forget him. I don't think he's an out an out liar and deceiver like the rest of them. He's just a flawed "philosopher" who tries his damnedest to argue Yahweh into existence.
ChipArgyle 3 days ago
@ChipArgyle
That's recently changed due to his behavior with recent DMCAs, even if his philosophical arguments weren't based on the very same lies and deceptions. :)
rkyeun 3 days ago
@rkyeun If it's the DrCraigVideos account you're talking about, are you sure it's actually him that's involved with it?
ChipArgyle 3 days ago
@ChipArgyle
Dr. Craig's website, ReasonableFaith, had linked to it as having his videos available on YouTube. This makes him a liar when he says he never authorized it, if not directly indicating it is actually his account. When called on this in the forums, he blocked, banned, and deleted the thread.
That sounds certain enough for government work.
rkyeun 3 days ago
@rkyeun Interesting. Ultimately they have to rely on that kind of behavior. If you don't have facts and evidence on your side, sooner or later you wind up lying about something to prove your point.
ChipArgyle 3 days ago
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 4 weeks ago
potholer has such an awesome taste in music
viking977 1 month ago
In my biology class, we wasted the first week talking about "Religion VS Science". When evolution came up my heart sank at the ignorance... with people coming up with proof against the theory of evolution, my teacher smacked them down. After that, you know what the same people did? Frickin just said "This is stupid..." the entire class, didn't even bother trying to understand it.
And people wonder why I'm against the ideas that evangelical churches pump into young minds...
Boss5414 2 months ago
PLEASE tell me the "Stein" clip and subsequent shot of pupils falling asleep, was a reference to Ferris Bueller's Day Off; in which he plays a dull teacher whose pupils are ...well, nodding off.
Paul07791 2 months ago
I've got a great word for the caption shown in 9:18:
.....THE FACT THAT I'M AN IDIOT THAT DO NOT THINK.
2000yurien 2 months ago
I just got through reading The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould, over 1400 pages that took me over 8 months of concentrated reading and study to understand it. And I still am unsure if I know all about it enough to explain it to others. But apparently these religious nutjobs can gloss over and think they know all about it. There is no corresponding 1400 page book on Intelligent Design, not even a 50 page book of evidence on their "science" of God did it.
nash984954 3 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@nash984954 This is so true. People have no idea about how science is complicated.
It's like creationists who say that radiometric dating is wrong without knowing what is an unstable element.
Same goes for evolution. They never know how to explain evolution properly.
ivanlagrossemoule 1 month ago
These idiots are trying to sound oh so reasonable but they want to undermine science and teach in its place fairy tales.
nash984954 3 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is the only "scientific theory" that needs laws to protect it!"
co2isgoodal 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is an absolute disgrace to science.
Objects never order anything, mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered.
Evolution is so irrational that it should be removed from all classrooms.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago in playlist Science Vs Religion
Science works by thinking of a hypothesis, then trying to prove that idea. That how a scientist makes money. When they find a flaw it would be stupid of them to point it out. So your getting a biased opinion.
How is that any better then religion
entehrend 3 months ago
@entehrend Well for starters, a 'proper' scientist shouldn't do that, it's not how the scientific method goes. That said, if such a thing happens, it is very likely to be filtered out during the peer review and replication studies sages of the scientific method. that said, bad science will always be outed in the end as more methods and data are collected it will soon show if their theory is incorrect as it will not be consistent. Religion doesn't go through anything like that, it can just lie...
TheBanile 3 months ago
@entehrend well , A scientist works all his life , gathers information about something , studes it in advanced , and comes up with a hypothesis by testing and observing certain facts .... Basically when he presents his theory , it should have conclusive evidence to support it , It should be able to be observed and tested again and again , and it is experimented on,Well,the winners of the 2011 physics nobel prize , three people discovered the universe's rate of expansion has become faster -cotd
djay00009 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@entehrend well they spend 11 years looking a major number of stars and their luminosity and galaxies ,I think .... And they sound conclusive evidence to propose this theory ... I am sure of how it worked ,since I am not a scientist ,I just read about it a few months back .... So science is based on observable reality and myths ... and it highlights the truth not myths ,again ...
djay00009 3 months ago
@entehrend thats why others skeptical scientists check there work. to make sure there is no bsing... unlike religion, the one still standing with a sword is right.
compendiumgravemind 2 months ago
@entehrend
By peer review. Look it up.
Thetarget1 2 weeks ago
Rhapsody in blues!!!!!!
NoneShaltPass 3 months ago
Appart from a great video, great song choice! Rhapsody in Blue was my favorite classical piece during the period of evolution during which I was "magically" morphing from a species of infertile dwarf into a fully procreating hominid!
VoxSweden 3 months ago
yes potholer, as part of theory of evolution, we are destroying our children's minds if we introduce (Non)intelligent design... We must encourage our children to be more intelligent then us as parents, for those of you who don't know this, it can clearly be and fully explained by EVOLUTION...Intelligent design clearly ensures your children are DUMBER then their parents...
timdnwd 4 months ago
@timdnwd Luckily for you, he does not literally say that.
PointlessSteel 4 months ago
Ben Stein is an intelligent guy and I've seen him on many shows and with the BS that sprouts from his mouth means he is just a fraud. I read a recent article from him on The American Spectator and it was soppy gibberish. I think he is trying to play the religious for the fools they6 are and pump his readership and income. The guy who has a Western audience that disgusts me viscerally.
GenericGenerator 4 months ago
Great video, thank you for the dose of logic and reason! Let the poor kids learn on their own
Fishwhistle954 5 months ago
I'm not too big on global news but I live in California and i've never heard of anything like this being debated about in my school district is this debate still going on? (to teach creation "science" in public school?)
rawrloler 5 months ago
@rawrloler Unfortunately yes it is. Not so much in California or the upper east coast but in the mid west and the south (Texas) The debate rages on since most of the politicians in power believe in the bible
XxSequndaEtapaXx 4 months ago
@XxSequndaEtapaXx thank god I don't live in those places xD thanks for the information
rawrloler 4 months ago
How this initial difference in the amount of the enatiomers arose remains an open question. There are many interesting ideas -- circularly polarised light from a nearby exploding star is one idea (and not as untestable as you may think). I'm very much looking forward to 2014 when the Rosetta probe lands on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. The probe has a GCMS with a chiral column designed to look at the chirality of the comet's amino acids. Can't wait!
oldsynner 5 months ago
Homochirality is entirely consistent with chemistry. Chemical systems tend towards the lowest energy (check any reaction energy diagram). Metabolising both L and D enantiomers requires 2 enzymes (or more elaborately 2 metabolic pathways). This is twice as much metabolic "effort" as is needed for an enzyme or pathway that only uses one enantiomer. Given a small initial difference in the proportions of the 2 enantiomers, homochirality is very likely from an evolutionary perspective.
oldsynner 5 months ago
just want to say thanks for all the time you have spent making these videos to educate people. This information needs to be available in entertaining... this is what you have done :)
whiterabit09 5 months ago
@sculpt2live -- A 1997 Gallup poll foud that 5% of American scientists believe in YEC. But ‘scientist’ can include software programmers and dentists. And since Europeans and Japanese are far less likely to believe in YEC, the number of ‘scientists’ who believe will be commenurately less. So if we add other countries and subtract sciences not related to comology, geology and biology, we’d probably be down to a tiny fraction of one per cent.
potholer54 6 months ago
@potholer54 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 6 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
A racemic mixture is a mixture of enantiomers of ONE compound. Sugars and AA's are used completely differently in the body.
Timmay123456789 5 months ago
@potholer54
Since when have scientific paradigms been overturned ( or established ) by the electoral process?
MrSandykramer 4 months ago
are you kidding me? people who believe this need help.
HodEnoch 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HodEnoch Maybe you should watch it again. Obviously you didn't learn anything.
mcrflyleafdisturbed 6 months ago
are you kidding me!
the person or people who put this video together would not know science if it slapped them in the face.
HodEnoch 6 months ago
@HodEnoch your proof that they don't know science please
finderfinder100 6 months ago
@HodEnoch lol was that retorical or do you really not know who Potholer54 is?!
W1kk3dMango 6 months ago
Comment removed
kerosenezen 5 months ago
@HodEnoch ohhhhh dear.... you just made yourself look very silly.... if you watched more of Peter's videos you would understand the need to DO YOUR RESEARCH. unlucky....
kerosenezen 5 months ago
@kerosenezen natural selection or intentional breeding reduces the amount of information in any given genome, mutations in most cases are harmful because they scramble or destroy genetic information, with a few exceptions like wingless beetles not being blown off windy islands into the sea to become extinct, that is all Biology 101.
Many like mutations may have similar advantages in specific situations yet are not observed to do well when placed back in the parent populations.
HodEnoch 5 months ago
@HodEnoch intentional breeding =/= natural selection. Also, intentional breeding can cause genetic defects to get much worse (dogs). But natural selection decreasing information? Then how would you explain speciation?
PointlessSteel 4 months ago
For the parts where the Creationists were talking, you should've played "Entry of the Gladiators"...just saying, it goes perfectly
Tarynus 6 months ago
I'm genuinely trying to find some information on actual science of creationism... I'm getting pathetically predicable results...
Nervousification 7 months ago
I prefer evolution over ID simply because evolution explains all known biological facts without adding unnecessary entities. Therefore by occams' principle it's more right. If facts to the contrary will be found then evolution should be abandoned.
On the other side consensus by itself isn't convincing. One should judge the theory and not consensus as was in the past- like the consensuses on the ptolemaic system, tidal theory, martian canals or that galaxies are laplacian nebulae.
comnenus42 7 months ago
Why is everyone here missing a rather basic point? ID cannot be falsified, therefor it is not a scientific theory. Evolution CAN be falsified, although you would need a rather convincing amount of evidence to do so. Also, if creationists would please stop mixing up evolution with abiogenesis that would be great.
muta4thefail 7 months ago
In science even Nobel prize winners can indeed be wrong. Nothing in my biology class said that random mutation destroys information.
Nverdis 7 months ago
when the first time, we start to know something alive?
BodeHaryanto 7 months ago
I hate Ben Stein.
ZDWario 7 months ago
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell University Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 He's an expert that you respect...why? Because he disagrees with evolution?
Fine, let's say for the sake of argument evolution is false. What's your theory?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi The initial appearance of all life, is in each instance, a unique historical event that is not subject to repeated observation, subject to independent verification, which is required by the scientific method. Evolution is belief, not science. You are asking me for my belief. I agree with Dawkins in the Blind Watchmaker that the information content of the human genome is a digital database equivalent to 30 volumes of The Encyclopedia Britannica. How is speculation, we never observe it.
achilles197474 7 months ago
@achilles197474 *sigh*
That's not what I asked for. What...is...your...theory?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@achilles197474 I must ask, what is your definition of "The initial appearance of all life".
Because what you ask for with a hilariously vague statement like "The initial appearance of all life" is something that by its very nature cannot be repeatedly observed.
passwordresetisbroke 7 months ago
@achilles197474 Professor Sanford's authority as an expert does not mean that his word is law; I'm not sure what he means by 'random mutations consistently destroy information', but that statement by itself is nonsensical. In any case, random mutations are not the primary driving force behind natural selection.
ExaltedLeader 7 months ago
"They based this on knowledge not their religious beliefs"
The Catholic Priest who theorized the Big Bang proves his point.
batistaker123 8 months ago
Well done video, but you are confusing "science" with "scientism." Intelligent design does not require an "invisible being", a supernatural designer, but neither does it preclude one. You're playing with semantics. You mention that the overwhelming majority of scientists do not give any credence to intelligent design. But since when was truth decided by a majority vote? Ask Galileo...
You state that intelligent design does not concern itself with research and evaluation. Balderdash.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
@MrSandykramer it's got nothing to do with majority of scientists reject it. It's that I.D. has shown NO research or experiment or observations in details that have ever gone through peer review. Though knowing them, they're more likely to try to find shortcuts and back doors to the scientific method. Because that's what creationists tend to do. Try to find gaps in evolution but kinda forget to mention that they can't explain anything about I.D. in observable detail.
alias100 8 months ago
@alias100
Look up
"Center for Science and Culture: Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)"
You'll find dozens of examples.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
@MrSandykramer "Center for Science and Culture", you should've just said "Discovery Institute" and saved me some time. Of ALL the works that page posted, only ONE work (Stephen Meyers) was published in a Science journal, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The very organization criticized the very work, and also Meyers decided to publish the work without the organization's Council authorization (an example of I.D.'s habit of WEDGING their way through the system). Try again.
alias100 8 months ago
@alias100
There you go, moving the goalposts, redefining the issue from having gone through peer review to "published in a Science journal." I don't know from where you obtained your definition of science, but I suppose your definition will preclude anything which is favorable ( or neutral ) with regard to I.D. The works published by the Cambridge Univ. Press, Mich. State Univ. Press, Oxford Univ. Press entries (et.al), not to mention the articles by McIntosh, Dembski, others, suffice.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
@MrSandykramer You seem to confuse FREE PRESS (clearly typed on your "source") with SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS researches which are extensively peer reviewed/edited. With the only one actually going through an actual scientific journal, turns out to have FAILED the peer review (by a landslide) AND the very author had tried to CHEAT HIS WAY past the peer review process. If there was plenty of evidence, you should be able to find them in the science journals, not the free press.
alias100 8 months ago
@alias100
I suggest you read Thomas Kuhn's "Nature of Scientific Revolutions" ( or a review of same.)
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
@alias100
If you check the annotated bibliography, you will find a plethora of journals which are scientific in orientation. Pro-evolutionists once claimed that a lack of intelligent design peer-reviewed work was due to a lack of credibility. Once such articles are published, however, they seem to question the entire peer-review process. Essentially, those who are entrenched into naturalistic thinking will only support peer review if it agrees with them.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
@MrSandykramer Considering that most, if not ALL, major creationist organizations have a habit (and a continuous streak) of outright LYING. I'd rather check sources like the "American Association for the Advancement or Science" and such. Secondly you keep trying to convince me (unsuccessfully) how MANY of those works have been published in science journals (they haven't) while AT THE SAME TIME, you're trying to criticize the entire peer review process. Stick with a consistent argument at a time.
alias100 8 months ago
@alias100
Since 2006, AAAS's CEO Dr. Alan I. Leshner has published many op-ed articles discussing how many people integrate science and religion in their lives. He has opposed the insertion of non-scientific content, such as creationism or "intelligent design," into the scientific curriculum of schools. (WIKIPEDIA) So much for the purported neutrality of the AAAS. I fear that neither one of us shall be moved by the arguments of the other. So, with this riposte, I must say adieu.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
@MrSandykramer That is a bad thing? He's just saying what every other scientist in the field is saying. Keep religion (I.D.) in RELIGION class, OUT of science class. Even all of those university journals that you mentioned before seemed to agree, because all of those documents that YOU pointed out appear in the RELIGIOUS journals of each Uni. Press, not SCIENCE. (A fact creationist websites constantly neglect to mention)
It's not hard to get. Faith = Untestable data.
alias100 8 months ago
@alias100
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
@MrSandykramer So you copy/pasted the entire thing from a creationist website, trust me, it's best to look things up. Because I did, and you'd be surprised to know that it's a BOOK, not a JOURNAL (again, no review to be found). Also, just for kicks, It's classified under "Theology" and "Philosophy of science" by Cambridge's own website.
alias100 8 months ago
@alias100
Naturalism = dogmatism
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
@MrSandykramer Naturalism = The reason society and humanity has advanced. ex: Medicine, as opposed to praying for health.
Intelligent Design is the very poster child for dogmatism. Achieving its goals through lies, cheats, shortcuts, arrogance, and ignorance since it was ever conceived. And all of the major organizations are a testament to that.
alias100 8 months ago
@alias100
Your disparaging but unsubstantiated remarks vis-a-vis I.D. do not add anything to your arguments.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
@alias100
"FREE PRESS" is a website, NOT a journal. The citations found on the page indicate the publishing origins of the literature...
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
Well done video, but you are confusing "science" with "scientism." Intelligent design does not require a supernatural designer.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
Well done video, but you are confusing "science" with "scientism."
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
If creationism gets taught in the classroom, I would like to see directed panspermia taught in classes as well as an alternative theory to broaden our minds to the possibilities.
animals0feel1pain2 8 months ago
Religion is a money making scam. They belong in prison with Bernie Madoff
alexgreat 8 months ago
@alexgreat
The same may be said about so-called global warming "science." Read the e-mails from East Anglia University. And measure Al Gore's personal carbon footprint.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
Man, I *still* can't believe that sign at the end *wasn't* just a huge caricature of the typical Christian! But it's SO much worse that it's actually genuine and real! Lol.
macgeek2004 8 months ago
the ending is freaking scary.
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@manhunt48 shut up retared kid troll and go fucking cry in the corner instead of spam shit everywhere you adopted kid.
au25 8 months ago
@manhunt48 guess what? even in that you fail, aitheists got nothing.
au25 8 months ago
Oh, lord, I wish secular wisdom on these theistic jackasses.
comsympinko 8 months ago
No one can truely know how the universe came to existance so it had to be created by magic. I'M SENDING MY CHILDREN TO HOGWARTS!
Reaper081087 9 months ago
death to all creationists.
LordHines420 9 months ago
@LordHines420 I laughed! I see what you did there! Man, you acted like a terrorist, haha, how funny.
...
...
Wait a minute! I'm a terrorist! You have insulted me! Die!*Push on explode button*
...
...
Ok, so the button isn't working. I'll be back.
oratadin 8 months ago
@oratadin i was being serious...
LordHines420 8 months ago
Potholer's use of music is superb. Just sayin'.
MrEdLoop 9 months ago
Question.
What if you believe that Intelligent Design happened through all the provable scientific theories? You accept all of them, however all you do is add the "spark" of a creator at the start of the Big Bang?
And I don't mean this to be knowledge based or scientific in any form, only belief/spiritually based?
Hunt2shoot 9 months ago
@Hunt2shoot
I.e sort of like a Diest
Hunt2shoot 9 months ago
@Hunt2shoot
Also you support further progression of scientific knowledge to better understand the origins of life and universe and in a way better understand "who" "what" or "where" is the creator, if there is one?
Hunt2shoot 9 months ago
@Hunt2shoot The problem with creationists is that their concept of God is crippled by a literal interpretation of Genesis, not that a belief in God is in itself crippling, but science will never prove or disprove God and is not interested in that pursuit, and that really makes fundamentalists fearful and angry. I don't understand what they are afraid of, Jesus said "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free". And the way I see it, science is interested in the truth.
MrGSmith129 8 months ago
@MrGSmith129
Exactly my thinking! Science is there to show the "how", spirituality/religion is there for the "why". Inherently there is nothing wrong with religion itself, it's the close minded people though that give religion a bad rap. I really don't understand why creationists are so threatened, but then again the Ortodox don't think of the Genisis as a literal interpretation, nor is it meant to be. The Bible is NOT or will ever be a scientific book, it is however a spiritual book.
Hunt2shoot 8 months ago
@Hunt2shoot I would go as far as to say that Science is the how and why. The why should be expanded after the how, not before as the bible does. I would say there were fundamental flaws built in to religion without going into specific religions. Firstly would be the issue of exploitation of people who are open to accepting ideas under lacking evidence or even to the contrary.
The bible is many things, however I would like to see what you define as spiritual as I would argue the bible was not.
roadkill1001 8 months ago
@roadkill1001
Of course there are numerous problems and flaws with religions, just as with any other "institution" such as our judicial system, our courts and parliaments, our "international peacekeeping systems" i.e UN, not to mention business, education systems and any other institutions. However flaws are not there to be ridiculed upon, but rather corrected and fixed and that I believe is what we should strive for within religions institutions.../cont
Hunt2shoot 8 months ago
@Hunt2shoot I agree religious institutions are in dire need to be fixed and they do have their purpose as. believers get a type of placebo effect where they feel they are better, however this is a paradox. In order for this to work, you need to believe and it is the very belief in someone that does not exist that worries me and is the exploitable part of religion.
Some institutions just need to be scrapped.
roadkill1001 8 months ago
@roadkill1001 "Spirituality" is subjective. You yourself may not find spirituality within God, however another completely different person to you would. Spirituality to me means the "power" to anchor oneself when the self feels like is spiraling out of control. If you look at Carl Jung he describes it as "being able to suspend the notion that we can control our random reality and unburden our minds to deal with the parts of life we can control". It's a "crutch" to some, but a "hope" to others.
Hunt2shoot 8 months ago
@Hunt2shoot Not to be too picky but the word spirituality means to find awe and wonder in ''something'' whether it be watching a colony of ants in a straight line or the perception that you are looked after by skydaddy.
As I have said the one part of religion that is good relies upon it's self to fool people into believing, which doesn't strike me as a useful institution
roadkill1001 8 months ago
@roadkill1001 Like I said, its subjective. Regardless people would get fooled weather its religion, or financial fraud. Also you said "some institutions would need to be scrapped". Have you perhaps considered what would happen to the faithful if this were to be done? Where would they go then? Dangerous cults? Extremist groups? You have to admit it does keep the unstable masses grounded, and provides them with "comfort". It's not useful to you, but to chronically ill patients would provide hope.
Hunt2shoot 8 months ago
@Hunt2shoot Tax all religious functions, put it into education.
roadkill1001 8 months ago
@roadkill1001 How does that answer my previous question?
Hunt2shoot 8 months ago
@Hunt2shoot I would have to answer your question with a question. What do you mean where would they go? They can still have their churches, just not under tax-exempt status and can try and support themselves whilst paying their way.
That being the first step at least.
roadkill1001 8 months ago
@MrGSmith129 Their problem is that as soon as they accept the absurdity of large parts of the bible they must contend with the fact that rationally they must then question every aspect of it. Their only recourse is to deny rationality completely.
Huttate1 8 months ago
Comment removed
achilles197474 7 months ago
Comment removed
slowmopoke 9 months ago
@slowmopoke *an
viking977 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
@achilles197474 if evolution is a fairy tail, then what is your theory?
eleminatus 8 months ago
keep making videos please. you make so much damn sense its not even funny. tradition is the key factor that holds progress back. the fear of change.
zmmonahan 10 months ago
In response to the text below this video, you should investigate the history of modern science to know that it was because of the Scientists belief that God created everything with an order and intelligibility that they pursued to seek how things work. So our great fields of science were started by those who made it a life goal to investigate. That is the very nature of a Christian... to want to know and relate to his Creator and to seek to understand the creation like Kepler, Newton, etc.
KURTZ4FREEDOM 10 months ago
this man clearly doesn't even know what science is... science is the search for truth. the very fact he is arguing is just stupid..
ThomasWinkworth 10 months ago
Excellent videos potholer, I'm slowly getting through them all.
SANHEDRIN666 10 months ago
"Creation and Miracles, Past and Present (full length) "
This video disproves all anti-Creation and anti-God theories.
catholicpeter 11 months ago
@catholicpeter: You'd be the first person in human history to provide conclusive proof. Remember that.
Amazing how some people just assume through lack of knowledge that they're the first person to try.
EddieTheFishReturns 11 months ago
@catholicpeter
Which in turn, has been refuted themselves.
I found nothing new in this video that hasn't already been said before. "Swing and a miss"
ryoh01 10 months ago
Creationists! Please! Think of all this effort you are wasting which you could actually spend doing something useful. If I had a creationist in my lab to autoclave my pipette tips I'd get so much more work done!
hesaurus 11 months ago
It makes me sad that ben stein is an idiot.
egeswender 11 months ago
@egeswender Me too! I always liked him, he always portrayed himself as an intelligent, wry kind of person. Before Expelled, I never would have picked him for a science-denier.
jolluxz 10 months ago
Eve eats fruit, God gets pissed, thus sin, now all creaters die?
What if we find life else were in the universe, they die also because of eve?
TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE 11 months ago
I know we can make life from a sperm and an egg, but can we make complex life without a sperm and an egg? How did we go from single-celled organisms to the complex beings we are today. That is the only thing I don't quite understand.
Nextbigthingg 11 months ago
"but can we make complex life without a sperm and an egg"
some complex lifeforms procreate by budding. so yes.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@Nextbigthingg Research it and you will find the answer, even here on youtube there are people that have explained this cdk007, for example.
NathanWubs 11 months ago
@Nextbigthingg well go learn, if you have questions, look for answers from experts in the field
cabot2jville2010 9 months ago
Personally I blame the fucking Flintstones, none of us were aware that while we were lusting after Fred and Barny's wives that we were slowly being indoctrinated into a creationist ideology.
I still think Wilma was hotter than Betty though.
123backinyerface 11 months ago
its simple.. see since the 1950's ALL they taught in school was the theory of evolution. so of course most people are going to believe in that theory. Most people are sheep and will believe what they have been taught there whole life.
Crusader2311 1 year ago
@Crusader2311 for gods sake, before typing something in, read something about it. In US about 65% DONT believe in evolution. Easy to confirm, really. And yes, you are right, people are sheep. For 3000 years following same fairy tales and gods, with no evidence or consistency or coherence in those stories, people still cling to them. Makes them feel good. But now that their authority is being questioned and they cant defend it, fear of losing that nice feeling is overwhelming.
eleminatus 11 months ago
@Crusader2311 oh, by the way, why shouldnt they teach evolution?
eleminatus 11 months ago
"oh, by the way, why shouldnt they teach evolution?"
Do they even teach?
I mean while these teachers in Wisconsin are demanding they keep there $89,000 a year in salaries and benifits as well as pensions and benifits for life after retirement,all footed by the Wisconsin taxpayers that put the "new evil Govener" in there,,2/3 of the children in those schools can't read at a proficient level at 8th grade.
in US 2010 1.2 billion per child spent on public education.& they're getting stupider Why?
TheRealArchAngel 11 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Why? Because why bother?! If you are a politician and need people to listen to your sometimes stupid ideas, is it better to make them more educated or less? Of course less. Why do so many African And East Asian countries have dictatorship and totalitarianism? Cause people dont know better, they dont understand political or judicial steps necessary to change their positions. Same is happening in US. Media is all about entertainment - reality TV, comedy shows, etc
eleminatus 11 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel There berelly are any smart shows left, where actual knowledge is required. if you also take news channels in equation, it gets even worse. News are distorted. For political leaders, this state called 'herd", is extremely convenient. If Americans in 2001 were at least 10% more educated in geopolitical matters, war in Iraq would have never happened. Bad decisions are made when you lack knowledge, not have too much of it.
eleminatus 11 months ago
"If Americans in 2001 were at least 10% more educated in geopolitical matters, war in Iraq would have never happened."
Again, Northern Iraq was occupied by UN ever since SO Damn Insane was firing gas missiles at the Kurds Sect and UN was occupying southern Iraq and took away Iraq;'s sovereignty after he invaded kuiwait with the unoffical UN action against central Iraq by 144 nations led by US without security counsel after he''s been boldly violating UN laws for 10 years and laughing about it
TheRealArchAngel 11 months ago
@eleminatus Wherever I go, there you are, crying like a little bitch.
By the way, it's spelled "barely," dumbass.
RadarGuidedVermin 5 months ago
Eleminatus prefers the Teletubbies.
RadarGuidedVermin 5 months ago
"ince the 1950's ALL they taught in school was the theory of evolution"
Well, imy public school experience up to 3rd grade was saying a prayer in the morning and pledging allegence to the flag....only 2 tings a remember other then making a pggy bank between k-4 grade
In 5th grade I had my first crush,I like making Icecream in class and my next memory is playing odds or evens in 7th and 8th grade in b\between sharing 1 book from the 60's with 5 other students
Barely remember anything 9th-12th
TheRealArchAngel 11 months ago
"Barely remember anything 9th-12th"
Oh wait. Jumping off the trampoline and almost giing the teacher a heatattck...lol...but I'm on a tangent
"Most people are sheep and will believe what they have been taught there whole life"
especially in the bullshit xcalled Public Schools run by Teacher Union demands
Personally feel it was a waste of my time to be there reading books in the back of the class cause I was "to advanced" to participate in class
Public schools are a joke
TheRealArchAngel 11 months ago
Such an amazing video! Thanks.
BrooklynRagtag 1 year ago
3:04 That soundtrack fits Ben Stein perfectly... He is so confused, it's funny to me. :)
WunderWaffel270 1 year ago
thanks
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
We owe it all to Nikola Tesla !
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
nothing at all that blows up into an entire universe is the theory of evolution and it's correct! I take it as proof of God, the Scientist that made prepared this for us in "six periods of time" (14,000,000,000 years) and you can view it how you like becuase thats your God given right as an american
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
@ineedaname777777 No, that's not the theory of evolution at all. The ToE explains how life diversified once it had begun. That's all, nothing more. What you claim scientists say as 'nothing at all blowing up into an entire universe' is more to do with the Big Bang theory. But nobody says that 'nothing' expanded into the Universe, the theory states that *everything* expanded into the size it is now. So, the question is why do you misrepresent that theory?
Misterb0z 1 year ago
@Misterb0z "your life, your experience, your knowledge, is your truth, your truth is important, but it is not the truth"
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
@ineedaname777777 What? That's your response to me pointing out you'd misrepresented current scientific understanding? To suggest that truth is somehow subjective?
Misterb0z 1 year ago
Comment removed
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
@Misterb0z the answer was clear in your question, did you really expect me to admit I was ignorant of something or made a mistake, I'm sorry but my super inflated ego won't allow that to happen! lol later
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
Comment removed
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
@ineedaname777777 Can't expect a creationist to know the difference between biology and cosmology... but you can expect them to deny most of what we know about both anyway.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto I don't deny what any one knows
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
@ineedaname777777 We know evolution happens.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto And I agree, Evolution happens, and it had been happening since time began. I am still trying to wrap my head around the probe flying so far it could take a picture of the big bang, what does this mean to the laws of physics and time? Does this mean time is relative to our location in space? We would age slower if we could build a shield around the earth, not that where not trying, (haarp and chemtrials)
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
@ineedaname777777 No, not since time began. Roughly 3 billion years ago (well, on this planet). The probe didn't fly far out, it simply pointed a camera far out, since the CMB radiation permeates the entire universe. No, we could age slower by moving faster. "Chemtrails?" Might as well get your tinfoil hat out.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto lol, I agree but it's something I can name you know.
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto I've yet to look into this(and I will when ready), but that's one thing that still gets me.. How were the able to "take a picture" of the big bang? We're not the furthest planet/galaxy out.. and even if we were, it's not like we'd be be farther out than the photons, beta and gamma rays(they'd have been flung farther faster).. So how could we be taking a picture when the various rays/waves/whatever have got to be long since past us? :S
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC Well, it's not the actual Big Bang, it's about 300,000 years afterwards when atoms could form (and therefore, a lot of the photons could no longer be absorbed, as all elements absorb very specific wavelengths). The reason we can see it is because these photons were throughout the entire universe, bouncing off the hot "fog" that was the matter in the universe, and once atoms formed, they simply continued on their path unhindered. So these photons are in every part of the universe.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto I understand some of what you are saying, but I'm not understanding how any of that allows an actual "picture" to be taken >.< It still seems that all pertinent waves/rays/photons would have passed our point by now. The photons that are bouncing around would just bring illuminate where they're currently coming from--not where they originated. Makes perfect sense that we can see a million yr old supernova 1 million light yrs away
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC I guess that's because you're thinking of it as one source radiating photons. It wasn't like that. It was photons throughout the universe (which was already EXTREMELY large by that point), which were constantly being absorbed and emitted, until atoms formed. Then those photons could go free, and they were all over the universe, but because it was so big, we can still see it today. physicsforums(dot)com answers this question pretty well.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC (cont'd) You just have to find the right wavelength at which to look for them. The reason they are visible as microwaves is because they were very high energy, but as the universe expands they are redshifted, which stretched out their wavelengths, making them low energy.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto but seeing the big bang seems crazy. I guess I understand being able to get a picture of the universe like 14 billions years ago(after the big bang), but only seeing things that are that distance from the earth(14 billion light yrs away.. or not that far i guess for slower types of readable wavelengths).. guess my understanding is limited.. kicked out of school 10th grade n tryin to teach myself a lot of the basics
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto
Of the jabbering of fools there is no end.
MrSandykramer 8 months ago
When u talked about the rainbow, I just had a doubt, so the colours come from the white light descomposition, the arc form comes from the water's index of refractation. But, does anyone here know what can't we see rainbows when u get close to them?
rolingpingu 1 year ago
@rolingpingu
Yes - all rainbows are in the refraction of light from the vapor in the air. You can only see the rainbow in certain angles. As you get closer, the angle changes, and the optical illusion (since that's what a rainbow is) vanishes. It 'seems' to have a distance because are minds are accustomed to assigning such labels on visible objects.
I forgot the actual physics part, but I hope that answers your question. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. ;)
ShinigamiSirius 1 year ago
@ShinigamiSirius
Whoops, the first sentence is horrible. Let me try again: rainbows are formed when sunlight is spread apart and diverted to the eye by water vapor in the air.
ShinigamiSirius 1 year ago
@ShinigamiSirius Thanks, now I get it. I want to be sure though, u say that rainbows have no distance? So when we think it's x meters away from us, in reality it's like in our eyes?
rolingpingu 1 year ago