@andrewrberkshire curse of Ham i have just heard of it.im from exactly turkey which the lower level of people's land as the darwin:) who knows .he may be rigth? ha? i believe evolution but not darwinian principles about the human species.altough his prediction is true that anglo saxons have dominated the world.
but no one said among us that we can colonize the africans or arabs or cristians u know it was the ottoman empire at that time.
@esraretin darwin was anti-slavery he almost got threw off the beagle for speaking his views tht slavery is wrong i doubt he would do this if he was racist
evolution is a hypothesis not a theory. It is poorly supported and has not been observed. We have observed natural selection, but not evolution. Natural selection is not evolution.
@andrewrberkshire OK, but I am telling it to you too and others on youtube, becuase many people are ignorant to the facts and have blindly followed the unsupported evolutionistic drivel. Millions of just-so arguements and millions of unsupported facts are not a theory made. If you were among the initiated you would know that evolution is on the out. It continues to be cited in papers because it is a requirement for grant money.
Hitler was following Christian principles as much as any "Christian" state governments today follows Christian principles. They don't. And neither did he.
Hitler used Christianity as a front. In actuality, Hitler used the evolution theory for his motive to create a pure white race. He introduced abortion (planned parent hood - as it was called) to the low class Germans, and encouraged sexual immorality among the higher class German race. Do your research.
Thanks for the video, I watched the one it was in response to and am glad someone took the time to discredit it :)
One question though - you mentioned Chinese records going back 15000 years? I couldn't find anything on this... I would be interested to find out more.
Thanks for pointing out that Hitler was just plain EVIL...I'm tired of hearing people bring up people like Hitler to point out inconsistencies in a religion or in evolutionary theory. Just because Hitler was influenced by Darwin or Jesus doesn't mean he represents them.
@nyangu33 there are primates today because we evolved together from a common ancestor that split up into numerous groups u fool that is why there are primates today
i'm sure the poster doesn't have the patience for this anymore, but what the hell, i'll tell u why..we didn't evolve from primates. all the great apes and humans branched out from a single common ancestor.
@nyangu33 Wow. This was addressed by Darwin himself in 1859 in the original publishing of the Origin of Species. Surprised that people still repeat that.
We did not evolve from current apes. We share a common ancestor with them. You did not evolve from your cousin. You and your cousin share an ancestor, your grandparent(s). Americans descend from europeans, but europeans are still around. That is because americans share the same ancestor with current europeans.
@nyangu33 Well it's obvious you have no knowledge of the process of evolution, apart from what you've read in some creationist handbook. Evolution says that we share a common ancestor. Once again, we did NOT come from primates, but we do share a common ancestor, and if you don't believe me just go down to your local museum and you will see that we are up to our ears in evidence.
@andrewrberkshire another thing i noticed in your video you where reading the selfish gene ... Richard Dawkins, now hold on your jumping everyones case for reading Behe and your reading Dawkins. oh and i like how you threw in "for the second time" I won't comment.
If you didn't care about what "retards" thought, you wouldn't be commenting. As for comparing Dawkins (one of the most highly respected biologists on the planet) to Behe (a dumbass who would rather make shit up than research) how pathetic. Get a life buddy.
Its is a theory because because the proofs required Darwin himself have not yet been proved. There are no transitional fossils. The other problem is irreducible complexity, which means transitional stages for complex functions provide no evolutionary advantage.
@lofattraction You have the balls to trot out irreducible complexity and then say read more books? You have to be scientifically illiterate to make such an absurd statement.
@andrewrberkshire Historically, incorrect scientific theories are eventually taken out when the evidence against it get's so overwhelming that they have no choice in the end. I'm pessimistic to Darwinism going anywhere soon for the fact that there is so much invested in it philosophically, economically. and culturally in academia. proven breakthroughs in modern mathematics and physics are now unsupported speculation because of the science on which it is supposed to be based. remember read slow
@chrislcolwell Why are you bothering to come back here 7 months after you've already made yourself look like a dumbass?
And historically, scientific theories are taken out when another theory better explains the same phenomena. But why am I bothering to tell this to a scientific illiterate? Get bent.
@andrewrberkshire i'm a scientific illiterate and your a fucking scientist right. first off you dident address what i said in the slightest you said something that everyone knows even i would agree that when they prove something wrong they throw it out, but with proof not theories. you said i made myself look like a dumbass well i'm not really concerned with the opinions of a bunch of retards. maybe you cry and try to slit your wrist when someone disagrees with you on YT but i could care less
A theory is not a process. A theory is an inferential abstraction of many observations, highlighting the principles that tie them all together. Since it is inferential rather than deductive, it may be incorrect or incomplete, but OTOH it has the power of making predictions about future observations. Darwin knew nothing about genetics, but evolution predicted that something like genetics had to exist common to all life to provide the mutation and heritability that evolution requires.
All species are transitional species. They all were something else before and is changing into someting new everytime they reproduse. Its just that we cant see it, because it happen very very slowly. A cow doesnt suddently give birth to a dog, and a dinosaur didnt give birth to a bird. It all happens gradually.
@jardarius: I agree, but there are species that are not transitional. Those are mainly extinct species, and most extant species (which have the potential to be transitional in the future, but aren't yet). One species that is both extant and transitional is the grey wolf, which is extant and gave rise to common dogs.
if this guy is going to argue against irriducible complexity then he shold read up and come back when he understands it better. plus i have just spent an hour and a half trying to find an article or a speaker (expert) on the subject of 15,000 year old chinese documents, cant find it anywhere if anyone knows where i can go to read that let me know where, i would like to read that, lastly if the planet was billions of years old we would have found one missing link fossel by now im sure ..we havent
Holy shit, you spent a FULL 90 minutes looking for something? Wow! That sure is a lot of time for research for a creationist. No missing links? Man is that old and tired rhetoric. Maybe if you spent more than 90 minutes your whole life researching you would see the thousands of documented and confirmed transitional fossils.
thousands?your a moron, minor evolution happens,cool but from one species to another they don't have any fossels for that. The so called links they have found are problematic in that the fossil record is incredibly incomplete and subject to the existence of a fossil record which may not exist due to the conditions necessary for the formation of fossils if you read what i wrote i said, i was asking for you to show me a link to a page i wasent calling you a lie, so get youre head out of your ass.
@chrislcolwell: Surely they do. Would you consider the Ambulocetus (furred, land dwelling carnivore) and the Blue Whale (ocean-living krill-eater) to be different kinds? If you do (and I don't see how you could not) then you're out of luck, because we have a whole series of fossils that show in gross and fine detail the macro-evolutionary events that lead from the former to the latter.
@andrewrberkshire your an idiot and can't read obviously i said i spent 90 min looking for an article on chinese docments and couldent find them and was asking if someone could point me in the right direction all you read was 90 min ran with that and started attacking me ..read what i said again this time let me give you a tip. first off since your an idiot, try this, slow down ok then read it and let your brain catch up to what was written then go kill yourself because your so dumb
@chrislcolwell: Disagree. IC is dependent upon the proposition of IC features. All such features that have been proposed have been debunked. If you know of something that you think is IC, then by all means, tell us what it is so we can debunk it.
You assertion about lack of transitions is wrong by at least a factor of thousands. As stated above all species with few exceptions are transitional, even some extant species. Again, tell us where a gap exists and we'll explain it for you.
if you look at the homosapien family tree essentially you can see most of those transitional forms. Austrolopithicus, homo erectus, homo hablius, neandertals. There are many manymany more forms, id recommend looking it up.
Your ignorance regarding this matter is embarrassing. The sad part is that you don't even recognize that the points you are making have been refuted many years ago. You argument is simplistic. When you get a little older maybe then we can continue this conversation.
Well said!I would have also included the FACT that DNA and microbiology have only strengthened one of the strongest scientific theories to come along in the last 150 years.Remember creationist,gravity is only a theory,and is still being tinkered with to this day.Does that mean gravity isn't a fact?
Wow, that was probably one of the best response's I have heard. Very in depth and reliable resources and a very logical and progressive thought process. Nice job!
a muslim because so many people believe adam eve is first human but i dont believe that because quran support this belief that there was human before adam like we are today we was not like this when life started sponge to human anyway your response was good
If it makes you feel better to call me a dumb ass.... Sure why not, I've been called worst. You might want to look up words like grammatical errors in the encyclopedia's before you arbitrarily decide that Grammar and miss spelling are distinct from another. That reminds me of that old saying, Who are you going to believe me, or you're lying eyes. You're a very amusing fellow.
It actually does make me feel better to call it how I see it. You continue to make insipid spelling errors and try to make me look foolish for missing a key causing a confusion in syntax or grammar. Get a fucking life nimrod.
I know that we all make spelling errors, I'm as guilty as the next guy, however when u try to put someone down or question their intelligence u might want to proof read the thread first before you post.
To what error are you referring exactly? The spell checker on my computer didn't catch any errors. Nice red herring though. The bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about.
If you cant even figure out your own simple error of saying "sounds like you SUPER up to date" when it was pointed out to you, why should I even waste my time in hoping you could understand anything as vast and complex as this subject.
I believe your exact words were, To what error are you referring to. Talk about Dodo'S I thought you were going to piss me off but you have left me with a big grin. Thanx man caus its been a bad day.
Blah blah blah, you is not a spelling error as you claimed. I missed typing the 'r' in order to change the grammatical meaning of the word. Not to mention if we're going to talk of proof reading... "Dodo'S' why the capitals? "Atengerg" ...what?
Also, no such thing as an evolutionist buddy, it's a creationist buzz word, just like macro-evolution. The reason macro is out of use is it doesn't describe anything. Macro/micro are the same thing just different amounts of time.
If there is anyone out there who thinks that only religious fanatics and 2,000 fringe scientist have a problem with the Darwinian Paradigm, I urge you to take a real close look at the implications of the Altenberg 16 summit last year.
If you think that the Altenberg 16 meeting has anything to do with supporting your retarded creationism, or attacking evolution in the slightest, you obviously haven't learned how to comprehend what you read. Darwinian evolution is 150 years old, no one but Dawkins and creationists refer to that anymore. The theory is so much different Darwin wouldn't even recognize it.
The theory is the same, its the data that has changed. Newton, Pastuer and Mendel would still recognize theirs. By the way I never said or even implied that the super stars of Altenberg supported ID. Calm TF down. SMOKE A FATTY.
Decent with modification does not fit the current observable evidence. This is the foundation of the theory. The scholars at Atengerg have stated the same, and are starting to look at a self organization theories as an alternative. The current modern theory that you speak of is not sufficient to explain macro evolution processes. This is well known by the most prominent researchers as discussed at Altenberg. Maybe u should hold on to your sorrow u may need it more than others.
Macro evolution eh? Speaking of old terminology. That term hasn't been used in the scientific community since the 70's. Sounds like you SUPER up to date on science.
You spoke of outdated terminologies and retarded thinking and feeling sorrow for those who don't believe as you do, and your accusing me of a red herring argument. Your logic is flawed and your incorrect about Goulds use of the term Macro evolution. According to talk origins a pro evolutionist site, the word macro evolution is a current term thats used today. Wikipedia also has it listed as a valid term. It was an evolutionist who I happened to like who coined the phrase not a creationist.
Oh really eh? Apparently you still need to work on your reading comprehension. You cited wikipedia.... well here's what wikipedia has to say on the subject: "The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution." Hmmm... I stick by my previous analysis of your intellect.
lol Evolution happens? It is observed? lol Get current dinosaurs are no longer considered to evolve into birds. lol proven fact?
wait you said something that is true. Evolution is a fairy tale.
Random mutations and natural selection cannot account for the diversity we see. We have been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years and ALWAYS hit a limit to the changes possible. Not sometimes, ALWAYS.
amino acids are like bricks they don't make buildings.
So when a new strain of Swine flu is out next year it must have been created by God? What amazes me is that certain creationists rely on evolution for medicine and then deny it's existence I guess you have never had to worry about your glyphosphate herbicide becoming useless to weeds in your garden. Perhaps those who refute evolution should stick to using just penicillin because it is impossible for new strains of bacteria to appear from old strains.Perhaps rely on prayer rather than technology
micro organisms displaying minor mutations and adapting to their environment is not evidence of evolution of all living organisms from a single ancestor. Sheesh !
So you admit that advantageous mutations do exist. Thats good. The idea that all life comes from a common ancestor is greatly supported by the fact that we share the massive majority of our DNA with yeast and other seemingly non related life forms. Have a look at some phylogeny charts some time. I think slime molds might be a bit far removed for some reason. Our major crops were engineered using radiation in the 50s. We selected the larger mutant grains and higher yields from maize/wheat etc.
I most certainly admit that mutations and adaptations exist. However, Observing similarity of DNA Is not evidence of common ancestry. It is evidence of similarity of DNA. There is no need to make up a story about how those similarities came to be. You could make up any story and change it along the way as you notice different details. That doesn't make it true.
Well now it seems you are beginning to catch on. Science is the exploration of God's creation. Evolutionism is a bed time story. Evolutionism has never been observed, has no know mechanism, and is mere speculation.
people choose to believe in creationism because they cannot understand the theory of evolustion and the big bang so they find a simple answer- god created the world the end. comnpared to how over millions of year organisms evolved to what they r 2day
Nazi, Marxist & Communist Regimes of Adolf Hitler/Joseph Stalin/Mao all adopted an identical policy. In order to fulfill mass genocide it was determined, humans had be reduced to animals. Therefore, each dictated the age of the earth could only to be taught using geologic origin and mandated Darwin's Teachings. The planted Piltdown Man (the missing link) was designed to create credibility and was in text books from 1913-53 until proven a Hoax.
Your exchange of comments with Eschatus2 is hilarious.
His last comment is truly wonderful. Full of clever, clever words and meaning almost nothing. It makes no difference whatsoever if you dress up a silly idea in fancy language. It is still a silly idea.
It makes me laugh the way creationists bend over backwards and twist themselves in knots in their futile attempts to claim scientific credibility.
No kidding eh? I couldn't believe the guy was spending so much time with a dictionary and thesaurus and so little with educating himself on what he's talking about, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised, creationists love dressing up shit and calling it gold.
Yeah dude, evolution isn't a fact. And maybe we Christians get sick of stubborn atheists! You did however stay polite and I give you respect for that at least, even if i don't support what you believe. Thank you for at least being reasonable, although I wish your mind could be changed.
The theory of evolution is a compilation of facts tested rigorously over the last 150 years that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is a fact that evolution happens, it has been observed both in labs and in the wild. Thank you for being polite in your comment, it's probably about as common as an atheist being nice to you in a comment (rare), however I suggest you look deeper into evolution and look outside creationist propagandist material. You will come to a different conclusion.
To be fair there are a lot of things that are still unexplained but the thing is there is no point just making up a that some being just created everything and then passing this nonsense on to the next generation and the next and the next and so the myth keeps going! Anyways good response man couldn't have put it forward any better myself!
If only everyone could just open their eyes and then a science book (brief history of time or selfish gene preferably) and come into the modern day!!! You did well debating with a redneck creationist because the thing which is really frustrating is they can just say that there is a god or the bible is correct and it is more difficult for an evolutionist to reply because you have to get so many books out and explain why were they just say things like "because it just is", or "you just should".
Evolution is NOT even theory; it's CONJECTURE, which is to say it's a GREAT BIG GUESS. Technically, Evolution is MISCONJECTURE. Many others outside of Christianity dont endorse Evolution. Thompson & Cremo (non-Christians) who wrote the monumental book, FORBIDDEN ARCHEAOLOGY, substantiate enormous errors in the Evolution-Uniformitarian Model. Its clear the data is severely misunderstood by Evolutionists; in reality there was a spontaneous mass polybiological explosion that created ALL life.
Right, there's not a shred of proof at all, definitely not museums full of millions of fossils, or countless tests done on DNA and genetic frequencies published and peer reviewed. And it definitely hasn't ever been observed in both labs and nature... not a chance. And there's no way that genetics has been used to permanently link homo sapiens and chimps, that just didn't happen.
Silly, itll be by virtue of its own weight. Science is long overdue for the next scientific paradigm shift on the controversial & titanic level as the Ptolemy Model to Copernicus Model shift. Books & entire disciplines will be abandoned to accommodate the coming Neoscientific Revolution, the coming Verascience. Historically, these rare periodic scientific paradigm shifts occur separated by long durations & ALWAYS occur from OUTSIDE the established scientific orthodoxy & NEVER from within.
Uh, not really. "Paradigm shifts" don't just happen because of time, there has to be reasonable evidence to topple an existing theory, which there isn't. And by outside, if you mean by religious zealots, that's never happened, and never will happen.
But what you refer to as "reasonable evidence" is not at all evident to the commanding scientific orthodoxy until "AFTER" the paradigm shift has already toppled the former scientific worldview & taken hold, requiring incremental time. It is impossible for them to recognize the "reasonable evidence" of the new paradigm shift because they are completely entrenched in their own paradigm of dogmatic precepts causing them to perceive the new alternative view as irrational, when in reality it is not.
I know you're trying really hard to sound smart, and sound like you know what you're talking about, but it doesn't work well. What you're basically saying is that science is going to through out the scientific method and it's policy of rigorous peer review in favour of political lobbying and religious zealotry based on ancient books. Nothing you've said makes any kind of sense.
You really need to do some reading. When significant anomalies have accrued against a current scientific paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of CRISIS & new ideas are applied by maverick outsiders, not jaded by current thought. A new radical paradigm emerges which gains a following & an intellectual conflict ensues between the vanguards of the new paradigm & the old guard hold-outs of the antiquated paradigm: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas Kuhn, 1962.
You really need to check your facts. I understand that you love the word paradigm, it doesn't make you right, it's just a word. Please take a month to actually examine the evidence for evolution so you can promptly be corrected.
Done that, been there. The Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Model is misinterpretation of the data & misconjecture. A more compressed model occurred where a spontaneous polybiological explosion ensued creating the entire genetic species pool of multifarious life all in unison. It was then periodic transterrestrial cosmocataclysms that precipitated mass polybiolysis that entombed percentages of the life into the hydraulic inundation & stratification affect producing the Fossil Record & GC, suddenly.
they think their religious interpretation is a "paradigm shift" ... mostly because they don't understand science.
basically they haven't studied philosophy. they don't even realize the obtuse implications of what they're thinking. their self-righteous religious egos are certainly getting the better of them.
in their atrophy, they have no recourse but to resort to stating their opinion loudly and prolifically, rather than directly and logically.
You know what my problem is i am from holland and i believe in evolution but here they dont have alot of information about it i dont understand all these complicated words and stuff LOL
it's a theory.... but it's not fact. but this one is a fact. this theory is fact. ......blah balh blah make up your mind fool.
Is a theory a theory or a fact?? I'll tell you....it's a theory, moron. Racism is all bullshit?? Have you been outside lately? Or do you never leave your geek quarters? It's amazing how much bullshit you think you know. Get a life fool. Live it while you piss it away trying to figure it out. God will explain things later. He knows, he made everything
The theory of evolution is NOT sceince. Just because the "scientific" community dropped the word 'theory' does not make it fact. When man stops believeing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he'll believe anything.
The Bible is a bunch of bullshit. The bible says incest is wrong (wich is true). But if you believe we all started from adam and eve we are all incest. Think about that for a moment. God does not exist. its "A fairy tale"
You answered your own question. MAN WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING. And you just happen to believe in the 1 god of 1000's of god available to man, just because of your culture or parents, maybe because your just to closed minded to think.
Again, MAN WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING, and you believe in a man made god.
Evolution is effing true. We have no clue or scientific proof jesus was born twice or god made a genesis . Darwin is show the proof to everyone. But the still religion guys specially christian guys trying to believe a genesis wow that's so dum. No reason to follow jesus. I just follow my own self
There's plenty of proof, have you been to a Natural History museum? I recommend the one in LA, you can see your fossolized Ancestors in person and mark the stages in mans evolution.
I'm not sure if you can also grasp that not everything becomes fossolized and most missing links were found by accident.
Now I want you to provide us with 1 scrap of evidence proving the bible has anymore validity than Harry Potter. please don't say you feel god or you just know, thats not proof or evidence.
Hi,I'm an Australian paleontologist and I feel obliged to ask something.
Of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates,261 have been found as fossils.When you exclude birds(which are poorly fossilized)the percentage rises to 87.8% As yet,there is no sustainable scientific evidence of transitional creatures.
My question is, are you suggesting we will bridge this phenomonal gap within the final 10 or so percent of fossils remaining un-earthed?
If you are indeed a paleontologist, and you choose to ignore the thousands of transitional fossils already uncovered than perhaps you should choose another career.
It's amazing that people will believe ANYTHING a scientist or doctor, for that matter says. You idiots don't realize how powerful the scientific community is and how much influence they have to royally fuck up the minds of unsuspecting morons like you. You guys eat up all of this shit with extra butter. There is no education, it's all endoctrination and you can't even see it. You are supposed to learn to think for yourselves. God forbid you go against their way of thnking. Idiots !!
Wow, so you grasp the process of brainwashing and Indoctrination, but you cannot grasp how it applies to you and your faith. You are a special type of moron and you spelled "Indoctrination" wrong.
Pretty much everything you wrote applies to the brainwashing your religion spoon feeds you. The difference between science and religion is, science is based on evidence and fact, religion is based on hear say from Bronze age peasants from Palestine and in all it's years hasn't presented any evidence.
By the way, please don't reply aldxrey, unless you take the time to study the comments you posted, than come back and sincerely apologize to everyone for being a completely ignorant moron.
If you can't see that your an idiot I completely understand, I've been noticing a pattern lately. Smart educated people are becoming Atheists, while uneducated rednecks are clinging to completely obvious falsehood and superstition.
The facts are at your disposal, try opening a book other than the bible.
This was a very well developed argument. You did your research and you spoke out. I actually didn't finish watching the video you responded against because it was simply too much. The setting, the lack of oratory skills; looked to me like a crazy person. I think that you would do well in a scientific field, and possibly public relations with respect to the layman public.
I think Hitler was an atheist who used religion to manipulate christians in Germany, who gladly killed Jews thinking god was on their side. Stalin was an atheist without a doubt.
But lets remember why we are against theism. We're against it because we reject dogma. Theism is a symptom of dogmatic thinking, and so is nazism and marxism. Theist can't point to Hitler and argue that he is the result of rejecting dogma. They're the ones that have something in common with hitler, not us.
While I agree about your views on dogma, and would lump Stalin in there as well as he was his own religion, I don't agree in any way that Hitler was an atheist. He was a christan occultist who felt god was with him in his genocide. Hitler's actions are very old testament, and easily justifide in a religious context. He also put every known atheist in concentration camps and considered them as filty as jews.
You might be right about hitler. But I think you and I would both agree that it is an irrelevant point. He was a dogmatist and that is why Hitler is the polar opposite of rational thinking people who happened to be labeled atheists. We are referred to as atheists, and think of ourselves as one, because we are most vehemently opposed to the dogma that is plaguing us at this moment.
If religion was dead and Nazism were still alive we would be labeled anti-Nazis or something instead of atheists.
I've read all these so called 'scientific proofs' in the quran, and it contains science present at the time of writing, but nothing trancendant. 98% of these supposed proofs are BS.
I have been reading your ongoing debate with NehpilimFree. I have not once seen him argue from a faith perspective, but only from one of science. You are the one who keeps bringing faith into the debate. This is something I find again and again when I am debating evolutionists. If a Creationist is arguing from a scientific perspective, why do so many evolutionists keep trying to make it about faith? If you can't argue from science, then you are guilty of what you accuse Creationists of.
Because Creationists don't understand science. That is why they are creationists. If you say you understand science, and you are a creationists, then you only think you understand science.
Religion is all about faith. If it was proven or not proven wrong, then it would be called science and history.
It is funny to see a creationist argue using science.
The term "cambrian explosion" was coined by evolutionists who saw that there was no evidence of slow, gradual transition in the fossil record. They needed some way to try to explain creation without God, because the evidence showed that creatures appeared fully formed, and went through little or no change in the geologic record(mainly just in size). The "Cambrian explosion" is exactly what creationists would expect to find, but evolutionists have put some ancient, unreliable date to it.
Great arguement! Now I don't need to post it. And what was the sponge in the Cambrian fossil record? A sponge! And what has the sponge been in every fossil record since? A sponge! Where is the evidence of evolution?
Speciation in fruit flies and antibiotic resistant bacteria in no way prove Darwinian evolution. Change within a kind does not produce another kind. Fruit flies have always been fruit flies and will always be fruit flies. Nothing in science has, or can show any different.
You seem to not be able to follow up on your previous lines of questioning, maybe because you know you're full of shit? I feel no need to refute anything you've said in the 5-6 comments you left a couple days ago, it's all been thoroughly refuted within the comments section of this video, and almost every video made on youtube about evolution. If you stupid creationists can't find time to make up NEW lies instead of relying on the old ones, it's not even fun anymore.
Again with the insults? Whether or not You choose to refute my comments, there is no need for hostility. You have shown yourself intelligent enough to debate rationally, but also on many occasions you fall back on insults. They add nothing of value to the debate.
Actually, there's a great reason to insult. You know your lies have been proven wrong for years, yet you continue to spread them. You are science's equivalent of a terrorist. You're standing in the way of the progress of humanity and threatening the development of children all over your country. Persist in ignorance if you must, but keep it to your damn self.
I'd just like to address two points that you made: 1)Radio-carbon dating. If the dating methods used by scientists are so reliable, then why do different methods often render different dates on the same evidence? Also, different people conducting the testing often come up with different dates despite using the same method. 2) You said that "15,000 year old chinese writings disprove the age of the Bible". Many would argue that the 6,000 year old Bible (approx), would disprove the age of the other
1) Different dating methods are used for different ages/materials in order to get accurate read outs. Different methods often result in different dates because they're testing different things. All scientific testing is double blind, especially dating, please give specific examples of innaccurate dating that isn't hovindian.
2) This doesn't make any sense. That's like me saying that myself being born in 1987 disproves events of the 1830s.
what they do not understand is the scientific discipline ... this is pretty much how it works ...
1 .. scientifics observe something
2 .. they make a hypothesys (organized guess)
3 .. test the hypothesys and if it's not proven to be wrong, it becomes a THEORY.
All findings after Darwin's death confirm and support Darwin's Theory and Darwin's predictions have all come true so far. DNA was found (just like he said it must exist), more fossils have been found,
Thanks a lot! I would say, the general ideal of Darwin's theories have come true, but the theory has advanced and increased in understanding in such a vast way that I don't think Darwin would recognize it if he saw it!
Great video just a correction. About the racism part Darwin was a vegetarian and believed that all beings had no greater or lesser intrinsic value you stated all races among humans but Darwin felt all beings in general. But this is my favorite of the many idiotic creationist arguments.
It's one of my favourites as well, especially since the biblical explanation of ethnicity is blatantly racist, and the whole 'chosen people' idea is also pretty damn racist!
I'd say that theories encompass facts and laws in a coherent way that makes them make sense. Scientists use the laws and facts contained in theories to make testable predictions so that we can learn more about the phenomena the theory explains.
Thanks Ryan, and yeah, it's extremely frustrating that no matter what is said you don't get through to creationists. They are completely determined to destroy their own brain.
human evolution is NOT a fact. get your facts straight lol. but yeah, this video makes such a lame attempt at sounding educated, but it is ignoring all logic.
You know what's lame? Ignoring 150 years of evidence collected and organized into the most important theory in all of science, just because you're a slave to a 2000 year old book with more contradictions than one person can count.
A creator exists that's all there is too it.If you believe the universe and all that is in it is a big bag of chance then your a fuckin idiot.
RadOne83 6 months ago
darwin was racist. dont lie .he mentioned all asians or africans as lower type of human species .why do evolutionists hide it?
esraretin 8 months ago
@esraretin If you'd have read Voyage of the Beagle I doubt you'd make up those lies. Yet your religion has the curse of Ham.
andrewrberkshire 8 months ago
@andrewrberkshire curse of Ham i have just heard of it.im from exactly turkey which the lower level of people's land as the darwin:) who knows .he may be rigth? ha? i believe evolution but not darwinian principles about the human species.altough his prediction is true that anglo saxons have dominated the world.
but no one said among us that we can colonize the africans or arabs or cristians u know it was the ottoman empire at that time.
esraretin 8 months ago
@esraretin darwin was anti-slavery he almost got threw off the beagle for speaking his views tht slavery is wrong i doubt he would do this if he was racist
darkglobe09 8 months ago
evolution is a hypothesis not a theory. It is poorly supported and has not been observed. We have observed natural selection, but not evolution. Natural selection is not evolution.
elinikk 9 months ago
@elinikk Keep telling yourself that.
andrewrberkshire 9 months ago
@andrewrberkshire OK, but I am telling it to you too and others on youtube, becuase many people are ignorant to the facts and have blindly followed the unsupported evolutionistic drivel. Millions of just-so arguements and millions of unsupported facts are not a theory made. If you were among the initiated you would know that evolution is on the out. It continues to be cited in papers because it is a requirement for grant money.
elinikk 8 months ago
@elinikk You're wrong, but it's funny how you creationists are so insistent in spite of everything in the world being against you.
andrewrberkshire 8 months ago
Hitler was following Christian principles as much as any "Christian" state governments today follows Christian principles. They don't. And neither did he.
Hitler used Christianity as a front. In actuality, Hitler used the evolution theory for his motive to create a pure white race. He introduced abortion (planned parent hood - as it was called) to the low class Germans, and encouraged sexual immorality among the higher class German race. Do your research.
Breakdown916 9 months ago
@Breakdown916 No true scotsman fallacy.
andrewrberkshire 9 months ago
"I am now and forever a catholic"
Adolf Hitler
Mien Kampf
hakaboy6924 10 months ago
Thanks for the video, I watched the one it was in response to and am glad someone took the time to discredit it :)
One question though - you mentioned Chinese records going back 15000 years? I couldn't find anything on this... I would be interested to find out more.
nethken 1 year ago
Thanks for pointing out that Hitler was just plain EVIL...I'm tired of hearing people bring up people like Hitler to point out inconsistencies in a religion or in evolutionary theory. Just because Hitler was influenced by Darwin or Jesus doesn't mean he represents them.
Cheers
wlongard 1 year ago
@wlongard No problem. Merry xmas.
andrewrberkshire 1 year ago
Watching this after a chain Geerup's videos was so incredibly refreshing. It's nice to see somebody with a camera posting something intelligible.
bolerometal 1 year ago
@bolerometal Thank you very much. I'm glad this video still holds up after over 2 years.
andrewrberkshire 1 year ago
@nyangu33 there are primates today because we evolved together from a common ancestor that split up into numerous groups u fool that is why there are primates today
FiachlaGearfer 1 year ago
so why are primates still here?? if we so called evoled from them. does that interupt the whole theroy???
nyangu33 1 year ago
@nyangu33 No.
andrewrberkshire 1 year ago
@andrewrberkshire Not only that but modern humans (Homo Sapiens) are primates.
jityr2 1 year ago
@nyangu33
i'm sure the poster doesn't have the patience for this anymore, but what the hell, i'll tell u why..we didn't evolve from primates. all the great apes and humans branched out from a single common ancestor.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@nyangu33
We would be primates by definition even if evolution weren't true.
Daruqe 1 year ago
@nyangu33 Wow. This was addressed by Darwin himself in 1859 in the original publishing of the Origin of Species. Surprised that people still repeat that.
We did not evolve from current apes. We share a common ancestor with them. You did not evolve from your cousin. You and your cousin share an ancestor, your grandparent(s). Americans descend from europeans, but europeans are still around. That is because americans share the same ancestor with current europeans.
danoso0931 1 year ago
@nyangu33 Well it's obvious you have no knowledge of the process of evolution, apart from what you've read in some creationist handbook. Evolution says that we share a common ancestor. Once again, we did NOT come from primates, but we do share a common ancestor, and if you don't believe me just go down to your local museum and you will see that we are up to our ears in evidence.
tjweiler1 1 year ago
Darwin didn't have mutations or any of that... so I guess it is dead.
FlyingSpahghettiMan 1 year ago
@andrewrberkshire another thing i noticed in your video you where reading the selfish gene ... Richard Dawkins, now hold on your jumping everyones case for reading Behe and your reading Dawkins. oh and i like how you threw in "for the second time" I won't comment.
chrislcolwell 1 year ago
If you didn't care about what "retards" thought, you wouldn't be commenting. As for comparing Dawkins (one of the most highly respected biologists on the planet) to Behe (a dumbass who would rather make shit up than research) how pathetic. Get a life buddy.
andrewrberkshire 1 year ago
Read some more books dude
lofattraction 1 year ago
Its is a theory because because the proofs required Darwin himself have not yet been proved. There are no transitional fossils. The other problem is irreducible complexity, which means transitional stages for complex functions provide no evolutionary advantage.
lofattraction 1 year ago
@lofattraction You have the balls to trot out irreducible complexity and then say read more books? You have to be scientifically illiterate to make such an absurd statement.
andrewrberkshire 1 year ago
@andrewrberkshire
agreed.
by saying what he did, he confirmed that he lacks even the basic education.
UninstallingWindows 1 year ago
@andrewrberkshire Historically, incorrect scientific theories are eventually taken out when the evidence against it get's so overwhelming that they have no choice in the end. I'm pessimistic to Darwinism going anywhere soon for the fact that there is so much invested in it philosophically, economically. and culturally in academia. proven breakthroughs in modern mathematics and physics are now unsupported speculation because of the science on which it is supposed to be based. remember read slow
chrislcolwell 1 year ago
@chrislcolwell Why are you bothering to come back here 7 months after you've already made yourself look like a dumbass?
And historically, scientific theories are taken out when another theory better explains the same phenomena. But why am I bothering to tell this to a scientific illiterate? Get bent.
andrewrberkshire 1 year ago
@andrewrberkshire i'm a scientific illiterate and your a fucking scientist right. first off you dident address what i said in the slightest you said something that everyone knows even i would agree that when they prove something wrong they throw it out, but with proof not theories. you said i made myself look like a dumbass well i'm not really concerned with the opinions of a bunch of retards. maybe you cry and try to slit your wrist when someone disagrees with you on YT but i could care less
chrislcolwell 1 year ago
@chrislcolwell lol chris, your comments are fun to read because they're so damned stupid.
bimmerboy3589 1 year ago
A theory is not a process. A theory is an inferential abstraction of many observations, highlighting the principles that tie them all together. Since it is inferential rather than deductive, it may be incorrect or incomplete, but OTOH it has the power of making predictions about future observations. Darwin knew nothing about genetics, but evolution predicted that something like genetics had to exist common to all life to provide the mutation and heritability that evolution requires.
puncheex 1 year ago
All species are transitional species. They all were something else before and is changing into someting new everytime they reproduse. Its just that we cant see it, because it happen very very slowly. A cow doesnt suddently give birth to a dog, and a dinosaur didnt give birth to a bird. It all happens gradually.
jardarius 2 years ago
@jardarius: I agree, but there are species that are not transitional. Those are mainly extinct species, and most extant species (which have the potential to be transitional in the future, but aren't yet). One species that is both extant and transitional is the grey wolf, which is extant and gave rise to common dogs.
puncheex 1 year ago
if this guy is going to argue against irriducible complexity then he shold read up and come back when he understands it better. plus i have just spent an hour and a half trying to find an article or a speaker (expert) on the subject of 15,000 year old chinese documents, cant find it anywhere if anyone knows where i can go to read that let me know where, i would like to read that, lastly if the planet was billions of years old we would have found one missing link fossel by now im sure ..we havent
chrislcolwell 2 years ago
Holy shit, you spent a FULL 90 minutes looking for something? Wow! That sure is a lot of time for research for a creationist. No missing links? Man is that old and tired rhetoric. Maybe if you spent more than 90 minutes your whole life researching you would see the thousands of documented and confirmed transitional fossils.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
thousands?your a moron, minor evolution happens,cool but from one species to another they don't have any fossels for that. The so called links they have found are problematic in that the fossil record is incredibly incomplete and subject to the existence of a fossil record which may not exist due to the conditions necessary for the formation of fossils if you read what i wrote i said, i was asking for you to show me a link to a page i wasent calling you a lie, so get youre head out of your ass.
chrislcolwell 2 years ago
@chrislcolwell: Surely they do. Would you consider the Ambulocetus (furred, land dwelling carnivore) and the Blue Whale (ocean-living krill-eater) to be different kinds? If you do (and I don't see how you could not) then you're out of luck, because we have a whole series of fossils that show in gross and fine detail the macro-evolutionary events that lead from the former to the latter.
puncheex 1 year ago
@andrewrberkshire your an idiot and can't read obviously i said i spent 90 min looking for an article on chinese docments and couldent find them and was asking if someone could point me in the right direction all you read was 90 min ran with that and started attacking me ..read what i said again this time let me give you a tip. first off since your an idiot, try this, slow down ok then read it and let your brain catch up to what was written then go kill yourself because your so dumb
chrislcolwell 1 year ago
@chrislcolwell: Disagree. IC is dependent upon the proposition of IC features. All such features that have been proposed have been debunked. If you know of something that you think is IC, then by all means, tell us what it is so we can debunk it.
You assertion about lack of transitions is wrong by at least a factor of thousands. As stated above all species with few exceptions are transitional, even some extant species. Again, tell us where a gap exists and we'll explain it for you.
puncheex 1 year ago
@chrislcolwell Eosimias sinensis, the Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Proconsul africanus, Afropithecus turkanensis, Turkanapithecus kalakolensis, Sivapithecus indicus, hecus bambolii, Lufengpithecus lufengensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, lopithecus africanus, Paranthropus aethiopicus, H. Erectus and H. Habilis. H. Egaster and H. Heidelbergensis.
gamesbok 1 year ago
1. Evolution is not a fact.
2. Your illustration about follows is embarrassing. If evolution is true, there should be many transitional fossils....
llscottjr 2 years ago
if you look at the homosapien family tree essentially you can see most of those transitional forms. Austrolopithicus, homo erectus, homo hablius, neandertals. There are many manymany more forms, id recommend looking it up.
asdfbobbyasdf 2 years ago
dude...I don't know how to tell you this, but those are not transitional fossils. I recommend you revisit what "transitional' means.
llscottjr 2 years ago
There are several transitional species. Look it up fucktard.
akmemin 2 years ago
Your ignorance regarding this matter is embarrassing. The sad part is that you don't even recognize that the points you are making have been refuted many years ago. You argument is simplistic. When you get a little older maybe then we can continue this conversation.
llscottjr 2 years ago
Confronting creationist with fact is like administering medicine to a corpse.
VanGoghsEar1890 2 years ago
Well said!I would have also included the FACT that DNA and microbiology have only strengthened one of the strongest scientific theories to come along in the last 150 years.Remember creationist,gravity is only a theory,and is still being tinkered with to this day.Does that mean gravity isn't a fact?
VanGoghsEar1890 2 years ago
You are right and Geerup is an idiot!
wesleysonic 2 years ago
Wow, that was probably one of the best response's I have heard. Very in depth and reliable resources and a very logical and progressive thought process. Nice job!
Monotonous25 2 years ago
Thank you very much! That's one hell of a compliment! Also thanks for subscribing!
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
sponge to man i believe in evalution and i am
a muslim because so many people believe adam eve is first human but i dont believe that because quran support this belief that there was human before adam like we are today we was not like this when life started sponge to human anyway your response was good
TheXTheMD 2 years ago
If it makes you feel better to call me a dumb ass.... Sure why not, I've been called worst. You might want to look up words like grammatical errors in the encyclopedia's before you arbitrarily decide that Grammar and miss spelling are distinct from another. That reminds me of that old saying, Who are you going to believe me, or you're lying eyes. You're a very amusing fellow.
benthemiester 2 years ago
It actually does make me feel better to call it how I see it. You continue to make insipid spelling errors and try to make me look foolish for missing a key causing a confusion in syntax or grammar. Get a fucking life nimrod.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
I know that we all make spelling errors, I'm as guilty as the next guy, however when u try to put someone down or question their intelligence u might want to proof read the thread first before you post.
benthemiester 2 years ago
To what error are you referring exactly? The spell checker on my computer didn't catch any errors. Nice red herring though. The bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
If you cant even figure out your own simple error of saying "sounds like you SUPER up to date" when it was pointed out to you, why should I even waste my time in hoping you could understand anything as vast and complex as this subject.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Because you said it was a spelling error you fucking dumb ass, not a grammatical error. Nice try though, pompous ass.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
I believe your exact words were, To what error are you referring to. Talk about Dodo'S I thought you were going to piss me off but you have left me with a big grin. Thanx man caus its been a bad day.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Blah blah blah, you is not a spelling error as you claimed. I missed typing the 'r' in order to change the grammatical meaning of the word. Not to mention if we're going to talk of proof reading... "Dodo'S' why the capitals? "Atengerg" ...what?
Also, no such thing as an evolutionist buddy, it's a creationist buzz word, just like macro-evolution. The reason macro is out of use is it doesn't describe anything. Macro/micro are the same thing just different amounts of time.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
If there is anyone out there who thinks that only religious fanatics and 2,000 fringe scientist have a problem with the Darwinian Paradigm, I urge you to take a real close look at the implications of the Altenberg 16 summit last year.
benthemiester 2 years ago
If you think that the Altenberg 16 meeting has anything to do with supporting your retarded creationism, or attacking evolution in the slightest, you obviously haven't learned how to comprehend what you read. Darwinian evolution is 150 years old, no one but Dawkins and creationists refer to that anymore. The theory is so much different Darwin wouldn't even recognize it.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
The theory is the same, its the data that has changed. Newton, Pastuer and Mendel would still recognize theirs. By the way I never said or even implied that the super stars of Altenberg supported ID. Calm TF down. SMOKE A FATTY.
benthemiester 2 years ago
If you think the theory hasn't changed and adapted to the data you've never learned what science is in the first place. Kind of sad.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Decent with modification does not fit the current observable evidence. This is the foundation of the theory. The scholars at Atengerg have stated the same, and are starting to look at a self organization theories as an alternative. The current modern theory that you speak of is not sufficient to explain macro evolution processes. This is well known by the most prominent researchers as discussed at Altenberg. Maybe u should hold on to your sorrow u may need it more than others.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Macro evolution eh? Speaking of old terminology. That term hasn't been used in the scientific community since the 70's. Sounds like you SUPER up to date on science.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
You spoke of outdated terminologies and retarded thinking and feeling sorrow for those who don't believe as you do, and your accusing me of a red herring argument. Your logic is flawed and your incorrect about Goulds use of the term Macro evolution. According to talk origins a pro evolutionist site, the word macro evolution is a current term thats used today. Wikipedia also has it listed as a valid term. It was an evolutionist who I happened to like who coined the phrase not a creationist.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Oh really eh? Apparently you still need to work on your reading comprehension. You cited wikipedia.... well here's what wikipedia has to say on the subject: "The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution." Hmmm... I stick by my previous analysis of your intellect.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
@benthemiester I did. Darwin still rules.
gamesbok 1 year ago
lol Evolution happens? It is observed? lol Get current dinosaurs are no longer considered to evolve into birds. lol proven fact?
wait you said something that is true. Evolution is a fairy tale.
Random mutations and natural selection cannot account for the diversity we see. We have been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years and ALWAYS hit a limit to the changes possible. Not sometimes, ALWAYS.
amino acids are like bricks they don't make buildings.
all culture is under 10,000
mejc2 2 years ago
It's truly sad there are people as stupid as you around.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Maybe I shouldn't have turned down Mensa. Then maybe you would respect my knowledge.
mejc2 2 years ago
Nope. Random internet claims mean jack shit.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
LOL.
mejc2 2 years ago
So when a new strain of Swine flu is out next year it must have been created by God? What amazes me is that certain creationists rely on evolution for medicine and then deny it's existence I guess you have never had to worry about your glyphosphate herbicide becoming useless to weeds in your garden. Perhaps those who refute evolution should stick to using just penicillin because it is impossible for new strains of bacteria to appear from old strains.Perhaps rely on prayer rather than technology
pooperscooper71 2 years ago
micro organisms displaying minor mutations and adapting to their environment is not evidence of evolution of all living organisms from a single ancestor. Sheesh !
mejc2 2 years ago
So you admit that advantageous mutations do exist. Thats good. The idea that all life comes from a common ancestor is greatly supported by the fact that we share the massive majority of our DNA with yeast and other seemingly non related life forms. Have a look at some phylogeny charts some time. I think slime molds might be a bit far removed for some reason. Our major crops were engineered using radiation in the 50s. We selected the larger mutant grains and higher yields from maize/wheat etc.
pooperscooper71 2 years ago
I most certainly admit that mutations and adaptations exist. However, Observing similarity of DNA Is not evidence of common ancestry. It is evidence of similarity of DNA. There is no need to make up a story about how those similarities came to be. You could make up any story and change it along the way as you notice different details. That doesn't make it true.
mejc2 2 years ago
Sounds like an assertion from a desperate denier that has no clue about why science has come to the conclusions it's come to.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Science and evolutionism are not related. Evolutionism is a fairy tale science is real.
mejc2 2 years ago
Right, there's never been any scientific research on evolution, just bed time stories. Retard.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Well now it seems you are beginning to catch on. Science is the exploration of God's creation. Evolutionism is a bed time story. Evolutionism has never been observed, has no know mechanism, and is mere speculation.
mejc2 2 years ago
Wow, I truly feel sorry for you.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
NOW THAT IS FUNNY! you finally said something that made me chuckle. YOU feel sorry for me. I should charge you tuition.
mejc2 2 years ago
Oh my, the only thing more pathetic than a creationist is one that believes he's a genius. I hope someday you become literate.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
@mejc2 I've seen some stupid posts in my time, but nothing remotely as bad as yours.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@mejc2 What would you accept as evidence of common descent?
gamesbok 1 year ago
people choose to believe in creationism because they cannot understand the theory of evolustion and the big bang so they find a simple answer- god created the world the end. comnpared to how over millions of year organisms evolved to what they r 2day
clinicsheets 2 years ago
Nazi, Marxist & Communist Regimes of Adolf Hitler/Joseph Stalin/Mao all adopted an identical policy. In order to fulfill mass genocide it was determined, humans had be reduced to animals. Therefore, each dictated the age of the earth could only to be taught using geologic origin and mandated Darwin's Teachings. The planted Piltdown Man (the missing link) was designed to create credibility and was in text books from 1913-53 until proven a Hoax.
Humanity bought into Satanic Evolution
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
Your exchange of comments with Eschatus2 is hilarious.
His last comment is truly wonderful. Full of clever, clever words and meaning almost nothing. It makes no difference whatsoever if you dress up a silly idea in fancy language. It is still a silly idea.
It makes me laugh the way creationists bend over backwards and twist themselves in knots in their futile attempts to claim scientific credibility.
Well, it would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
No kidding eh? I couldn't believe the guy was spending so much time with a dictionary and thesaurus and so little with educating himself on what he's talking about, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised, creationists love dressing up shit and calling it gold.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Yup, a polished turd is still a turd.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Thanks for the links to the vids on sponges etc.
Good response, esp. on the transitional fossils
Jumbie40 2 years ago
Yeah dude, evolution isn't a fact. And maybe we Christians get sick of stubborn atheists! You did however stay polite and I give you respect for that at least, even if i don't support what you believe. Thank you for at least being reasonable, although I wish your mind could be changed.
GreenTeaHeRo 2 years ago
The theory of evolution is a compilation of facts tested rigorously over the last 150 years that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is a fact that evolution happens, it has been observed both in labs and in the wild. Thank you for being polite in your comment, it's probably about as common as an atheist being nice to you in a comment (rare), however I suggest you look deeper into evolution and look outside creationist propagandist material. You will come to a different conclusion.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
evolution is not a fact.. if you tell yourself so.. you are blocking your way to the truth.. good luck discovering the truth bitch..
aietes 2 years ago
To be fair there are a lot of things that are still unexplained but the thing is there is no point just making up a that some being just created everything and then passing this nonsense on to the next generation and the next and the next and so the myth keeps going! Anyways good response man couldn't have put it forward any better myself!
airbornlegend 2 years ago
If only everyone could just open their eyes and then a science book (brief history of time or selfish gene preferably) and come into the modern day!!! You did well debating with a redneck creationist because the thing which is really frustrating is they can just say that there is a god or the bible is correct and it is more difficult for an evolutionist to reply because you have to get so many books out and explain why were they just say things like "because it just is", or "you just should".
airbornlegend 2 years ago
Evolution is NOT even theory; it's CONJECTURE, which is to say it's a GREAT BIG GUESS. Technically, Evolution is MISCONJECTURE. Many others outside of Christianity dont endorse Evolution. Thompson & Cremo (non-Christians) who wrote the monumental book, FORBIDDEN ARCHEAOLOGY, substantiate enormous errors in the Evolution-Uniformitarian Model. Its clear the data is severely misunderstood by Evolutionists; in reality there was a spontaneous mass polybiological explosion that created ALL life.
Eschatus2 2 years ago
Right, there's not a shred of proof at all, definitely not museums full of millions of fossils, or countless tests done on DNA and genetic frequencies published and peer reviewed. And it definitely hasn't ever been observed in both labs and nature... not a chance. And there's no way that genetics has been used to permanently link homo sapiens and chimps, that just didn't happen.
^
| Sarcasm.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
A house of cards.
Eschatus2 2 years ago
Then topple it.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Silly, itll be by virtue of its own weight. Science is long overdue for the next scientific paradigm shift on the controversial & titanic level as the Ptolemy Model to Copernicus Model shift. Books & entire disciplines will be abandoned to accommodate the coming Neoscientific Revolution, the coming Verascience. Historically, these rare periodic scientific paradigm shifts occur separated by long durations & ALWAYS occur from OUTSIDE the established scientific orthodoxy & NEVER from within.
Eschatus2 2 years ago
Uh, not really. "Paradigm shifts" don't just happen because of time, there has to be reasonable evidence to topple an existing theory, which there isn't. And by outside, if you mean by religious zealots, that's never happened, and never will happen.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
But what you refer to as "reasonable evidence" is not at all evident to the commanding scientific orthodoxy until "AFTER" the paradigm shift has already toppled the former scientific worldview & taken hold, requiring incremental time. It is impossible for them to recognize the "reasonable evidence" of the new paradigm shift because they are completely entrenched in their own paradigm of dogmatic precepts causing them to perceive the new alternative view as irrational, when in reality it is not.
Eschatus2 2 years ago
I know you're trying really hard to sound smart, and sound like you know what you're talking about, but it doesn't work well. What you're basically saying is that science is going to through out the scientific method and it's policy of rigorous peer review in favour of political lobbying and religious zealotry based on ancient books. Nothing you've said makes any kind of sense.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
You really need to do some reading. When significant anomalies have accrued against a current scientific paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of CRISIS & new ideas are applied by maverick outsiders, not jaded by current thought. A new radical paradigm emerges which gains a following & an intellectual conflict ensues between the vanguards of the new paradigm & the old guard hold-outs of the antiquated paradigm: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas Kuhn, 1962.
Eschatus2 2 years ago
You really need to check your facts. I understand that you love the word paradigm, it doesn't make you right, it's just a word. Please take a month to actually examine the evidence for evolution so you can promptly be corrected.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Done that, been there. The Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Model is misinterpretation of the data & misconjecture. A more compressed model occurred where a spontaneous polybiological explosion ensued creating the entire genetic species pool of multifarious life all in unison. It was then periodic transterrestrial cosmocataclysms that precipitated mass polybiolysis that entombed percentages of the life into the hydraulic inundation & stratification affect producing the Fossil Record & GC, suddenly.
Eschatus2 2 years ago
Yeah.... Not really.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
they think their religious interpretation is a "paradigm shift" ... mostly because they don't understand science.
basically they haven't studied philosophy. they don't even realize the obtuse implications of what they're thinking. their self-righteous religious egos are certainly getting the better of them.
in their atrophy, they have no recourse but to resort to stating their opinion loudly and prolifically, rather than directly and logically.
abyssquick 2 years ago
You know what my problem is i am from holland and i believe in evolution but here they dont have alot of information about it i dont understand all these complicated words and stuff LOL
neckbreakermc 2 years ago
You are extremely attractive.
dtmeli 2 years ago
Thank you!
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Hahaha, no need to thank me, it's all you!
dtmeli 2 years ago
it's a theory.... but it's not fact. but this one is a fact. this theory is fact. ......blah balh blah make up your mind fool.
Is a theory a theory or a fact?? I'll tell you....it's a theory, moron. Racism is all bullshit?? Have you been outside lately? Or do you never leave your geek quarters? It's amazing how much bullshit you think you know. Get a life fool. Live it while you piss it away trying to figure it out. God will explain things later. He knows, he made everything
aldexrey 2 years ago
You betray your stupidity by showing you have no clue what a theory is. Have fun with your imaginary friend douche bag.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
Hey Andy....go fuck yourself wanker. You seem to be on the same ship of fools.
Besides, I don't give a shit what you think.
aldexrey 2 years ago
Don't care what I think? then don't watch and comment on my videos you donkey's ass.
andrewrberkshire 2 years ago
The theory of evolution is NOT sceince. Just because the "scientific" community dropped the word 'theory' does not make it fact. When man stops believeing in God he doesn't believe in nothing, he'll believe anything.
aldexrey 2 years ago
The Bible is a bunch of bullshit. The bible says incest is wrong (wich is true). But if you believe we all started from adam and eve we are all incest. Think about that for a moment. God does not exist. its "A fairy tale"
icantafford 2 years ago
It's when you start believing in bronze-age gods that you believe anything.
revjimbob 2 years ago
You answered your own question. MAN WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING. And you just happen to believe in the 1 god of 1000's of god available to man, just because of your culture or parents, maybe because your just to closed minded to think.
Again, MAN WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING, and you believe in a man made god.
AtheistRevolutionX 2 years ago
thanks ! great work !
sentenced988 2 years ago
Evolution is effing true. We have no clue or scientific proof jesus was born twice or god made a genesis . Darwin is show the proof to everyone. But the still religion guys specially christian guys trying to believe a genesis wow that's so dum. No reason to follow jesus. I just follow my own self
damnodf 3 years ago
Proof? What proof? Where? Where are the fossils?
aldexrey 2 years ago
There's plenty of proof, have you been to a Natural History museum? I recommend the one in LA, you can see your fossolized Ancestors in person and mark the stages in mans evolution.
I'm not sure if you can also grasp that not everything becomes fossolized and most missing links were found by accident.
Now I want you to provide us with 1 scrap of evidence proving the bible has anymore validity than Harry Potter. please don't say you feel god or you just know, thats not proof or evidence.
AtheistRevolutionX 2 years ago
Agree for the most part, however the so called "proof" in museums is fabricated and far from actual proof.
tbousu22 2 years ago
Hi,I'm an Australian paleontologist and I feel obliged to ask something.
Of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates,261 have been found as fossils.When you exclude birds(which are poorly fossilized)the percentage rises to 87.8% As yet,there is no sustainable scientific evidence of transitional creatures.
My question is, are you suggesting we will bridge this phenomonal gap within the final 10 or so percent of fossils remaining un-earthed?
benbourke 3 years ago
If you are indeed a paleontologist, and you choose to ignore the thousands of transitional fossils already uncovered than perhaps you should choose another career.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
You're a smart dude Andrew! keep it up.. ;)
KhrizTv 3 years ago
Thanks Khriz!!!
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
It's amazing that people will believe ANYTHING a scientist or doctor, for that matter says. You idiots don't realize how powerful the scientific community is and how much influence they have to royally fuck up the minds of unsuspecting morons like you. You guys eat up all of this shit with extra butter. There is no education, it's all endoctrination and you can't even see it. You are supposed to learn to think for yourselves. God forbid you go against their way of thnking. Idiots !!
aldexrey 2 years ago
Wow, so you grasp the process of brainwashing and Indoctrination, but you cannot grasp how it applies to you and your faith. You are a special type of moron and you spelled "Indoctrination" wrong.
Pretty much everything you wrote applies to the brainwashing your religion spoon feeds you. The difference between science and religion is, science is based on evidence and fact, religion is based on hear say from Bronze age peasants from Palestine and in all it's years hasn't presented any evidence.
AtheistRevolutionX 2 years ago
Fuck you
aldexrey 2 years ago
By the way, please don't reply aldxrey, unless you take the time to study the comments you posted, than come back and sincerely apologize to everyone for being a completely ignorant moron.
If you can't see that your an idiot I completely understand, I've been noticing a pattern lately. Smart educated people are becoming Atheists, while uneducated rednecks are clinging to completely obvious falsehood and superstition.
The facts are at your disposal, try opening a book other than the bible.
AtheistRevolutionX 2 years ago
fuck you
aldexrey 2 years ago
I accept your surrender, now get back in your sand box.
AtheistRevolutionX 2 years ago
This was a very well developed argument. You did your research and you spoke out. I actually didn't finish watching the video you responded against because it was simply too much. The setting, the lack of oratory skills; looked to me like a crazy person. I think that you would do well in a scientific field, and possibly public relations with respect to the layman public.
xXCatalystic37Xx 3 years ago
Thak you VERY much! I'm working on my speaking skills lately, hoping to get better. And yes, Geerup is insane.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
Good vid.
I think Hitler was an atheist who used religion to manipulate christians in Germany, who gladly killed Jews thinking god was on their side. Stalin was an atheist without a doubt.
But lets remember why we are against theism. We're against it because we reject dogma. Theism is a symptom of dogmatic thinking, and so is nazism and marxism. Theist can't point to Hitler and argue that he is the result of rejecting dogma. They're the ones that have something in common with hitler, not us.
GenOcidalDespot 3 years ago
While I agree about your views on dogma, and would lump Stalin in there as well as he was his own religion, I don't agree in any way that Hitler was an atheist. He was a christan occultist who felt god was with him in his genocide. Hitler's actions are very old testament, and easily justifide in a religious context. He also put every known atheist in concentration camps and considered them as filty as jews.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
You might be right about hitler. But I think you and I would both agree that it is an irrelevant point. He was a dogmatist and that is why Hitler is the polar opposite of rational thinking people who happened to be labeled atheists. We are referred to as atheists, and think of ourselves as one, because we are most vehemently opposed to the dogma that is plaguing us at this moment.
If religion was dead and Nazism were still alive we would be labeled anti-Nazis or something instead of atheists.
GenOcidalDespot 3 years ago
And you would be absolutely correct about your assumption, I completely agree.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
well said.
dingleburrie 3 years ago
Thanks.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
I've read all these so called 'scientific proofs' in the quran, and it contains science present at the time of writing, but nothing trancendant. 98% of these supposed proofs are BS.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
Different species of Butterlies? Big deal. They're still butterflies. They've always been butterflies, and they always will be.
buckman2000 3 years ago
I have been reading your ongoing debate with NehpilimFree. I have not once seen him argue from a faith perspective, but only from one of science. You are the one who keeps bringing faith into the debate. This is something I find again and again when I am debating evolutionists. If a Creationist is arguing from a scientific perspective, why do so many evolutionists keep trying to make it about faith? If you can't argue from science, then you are guilty of what you accuse Creationists of.
buckman2000 3 years ago
Because Creationists don't understand science. That is why they are creationists. If you say you understand science, and you are a creationists, then you only think you understand science.
Religion is all about faith. If it was proven or not proven wrong, then it would be called science and history.
It is funny to see a creationist argue using science.
andrewslinuxbox 3 years ago
The term "cambrian explosion" was coined by evolutionists who saw that there was no evidence of slow, gradual transition in the fossil record. They needed some way to try to explain creation without God, because the evidence showed that creatures appeared fully formed, and went through little or no change in the geologic record(mainly just in size). The "Cambrian explosion" is exactly what creationists would expect to find, but evolutionists have put some ancient, unreliable date to it.
buckman2000 3 years ago
Great arguement! Now I don't need to post it. And what was the sponge in the Cambrian fossil record? A sponge! And what has the sponge been in every fossil record since? A sponge! Where is the evidence of evolution?
buckman2000 3 years ago
Speciation in fruit flies and antibiotic resistant bacteria in no way prove Darwinian evolution. Change within a kind does not produce another kind. Fruit flies have always been fruit flies and will always be fruit flies. Nothing in science has, or can show any different.
buckman2000 3 years ago
You seem to not be able to follow up on your previous lines of questioning, maybe because you know you're full of shit? I feel no need to refute anything you've said in the 5-6 comments you left a couple days ago, it's all been thoroughly refuted within the comments section of this video, and almost every video made on youtube about evolution. If you stupid creationists can't find time to make up NEW lies instead of relying on the old ones, it's not even fun anymore.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
"you stupid creationists..."
Again with the insults? Whether or not You choose to refute my comments, there is no need for hostility. You have shown yourself intelligent enough to debate rationally, but also on many occasions you fall back on insults. They add nothing of value to the debate.
buckman2000 3 years ago
Actually, there's a great reason to insult. You know your lies have been proven wrong for years, yet you continue to spread them. You are science's equivalent of a terrorist. You're standing in the way of the progress of humanity and threatening the development of children all over your country. Persist in ignorance if you must, but keep it to your damn self.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
I'd just like to address two points that you made: 1)Radio-carbon dating. If the dating methods used by scientists are so reliable, then why do different methods often render different dates on the same evidence? Also, different people conducting the testing often come up with different dates despite using the same method. 2) You said that "15,000 year old chinese writings disprove the age of the Bible". Many would argue that the 6,000 year old Bible (approx), would disprove the age of the other
buckman2000 3 years ago
1) Different dating methods are used for different ages/materials in order to get accurate read outs. Different methods often result in different dates because they're testing different things. All scientific testing is double blind, especially dating, please give specific examples of innaccurate dating that isn't hovindian.
2) This doesn't make any sense. That's like me saying that myself being born in 1987 disproves events of the 1830s.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
and no contradictions yet
holandes84 3 years ago
GREAT VIDEO
what they do not understand is the scientific discipline ... this is pretty much how it works ...
1 .. scientifics observe something
2 .. they make a hypothesys (organized guess)
3 .. test the hypothesys and if it's not proven to be wrong, it becomes a THEORY.
All findings after Darwin's death confirm and support Darwin's Theory and Darwin's predictions have all come true so far. DNA was found (just like he said it must exist), more fossils have been found,
holandes84 3 years ago
Thanks a lot! I would say, the general ideal of Darwin's theories have come true, but the theory has advanced and increased in understanding in such a vast way that I don't think Darwin would recognize it if he saw it!
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
Great video just a correction. About the racism part Darwin was a vegetarian and believed that all beings had no greater or lesser intrinsic value you stated all races among humans but Darwin felt all beings in general. But this is my favorite of the many idiotic creationist arguments.
Profilename666 3 years ago
It's one of my favourites as well, especially since the biblical explanation of ethnicity is blatantly racist, and the whole 'chosen people' idea is also pretty damn racist!
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
I'd say that theories encompass facts and laws in a coherent way that makes them make sense. Scientists use the laws and facts contained in theories to make testable predictions so that we can learn more about the phenomena the theory explains.
Pirwzwhomper 3 years ago
I would definitely agree with that!
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
Clear, concise argument, kudos to you. Unfortunately you're not getting through to anyone who doesn't understand already.
ryandiggies 3 years ago
Thanks Ryan, and yeah, it's extremely frustrating that no matter what is said you don't get through to creationists. They are completely determined to destroy their own brain.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
human evolution is NOT a fact. get your facts straight lol. but yeah, this video makes such a lame attempt at sounding educated, but it is ignoring all logic.
ultimatekingj 3 years ago
You know what's lame? Ignoring 150 years of evidence collected and organized into the most important theory in all of science, just because you're a slave to a 2000 year old book with more contradictions than one person can count.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago