Creationalists are needed. I mean, If they didn't derp around pointing it out, and causing my forehead to get a very large sore. I would never have became an atheist.
Is it just me or does everyone find it strange that creationists can utilize the findings of space probes without questioning how those probes got past the firmament that encloses the earth?
The sad part is 1000 years from now, when we're [hopefully] exploring the Galaxy and its wonders, there will still be creationists on Earth spewing their drivel and extremists in third-world countries killing themselves over who's religion is greater.
@GoblinXXX Sadly they'll probably just create new religions to kill each other over like they've always done . . . they're always be a small portion of the population who's religious . . . sadly.
@Beyondisme Something almost like this occurs near the end of the classic 1936 SF movie, "Things to Come": the small, elite scientist faction is counting down to launch a rocket to explore space, while a mass of obscurantist farmers, poets, etc., swept away by the pastoralist rhetoric of a rabble-rouser (Cedric Hardwicke, IIRC) are quite literally storming the gates to try to stop this symbol of progress.
The fact that you can't leave comments at the the original version of this video speaks volumes to me about how they deal with critical responses. If Psarrik is so certain he's right, why can't he handle a little criticism? Typical creationist.
To continue on what I said, religion is inherently unprovable and while people should be free to guess whatever they want, we should never have theocratic legislation respecting a faith. Anyway, I love your work, good luck man.
Well Shane, your knowledge of Astronomy is incredible and it is clear Creationists grasp for anything to keep their scripture seeming 100% factual. However there are genuine gaps that have to be considered. It is very possible that at some point beyond our measurement an architect initiated this universe like a seed. It would actually be logical as everything in nature seems to follow that pattern. Disproving that or proving it is just not likely. So many possible scenarios.
The evolutionary model states that color film came from modifications on black and white. But if that's true, why is there stilll black and white? What? Lots of people talk about "the evolution od Cinematography"
Creationist science IS real science, Atheists and evolutionists are fighting against the truth and the Christian whom invented science for that truth. I don't want to be apart of your religion, its a lie! Get lost!
@silveren777 20 billion years ago a big-bang happened and caused the universe to form, leaving no evidence of its arrival or departure - - 1 million years ago, humans gain consciousness and intelligence. We have the common sense to preserve the evidence, which could not have survived 19.9 billion years, of the big-bang and show it to the rest of the world. Thus proving Evolution is true.
Sound funny? Ya, I know, it sounds funny to me too. I can't believe ANYONE would believe this!!
@shanedk LMAO!!!! OMG!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! NO, STOP, YOU'RE GONNA MAKE ME DIE OF LAUGHTER!!! "The Big Bang is cosmology, and has NOTHING to do with evolution." Then why is it the beginning of the fairy tail you portray! XD HAHAHAHAHA!!!
"Bullshit. We have a PICTURE OF IT HAPPENING!"..... Are you for real? How do you observe something happening, and take a picture, if humans haven't evolved or even begun evolving, much less come to exist, until AFTER the big-bang... Nice religion.
@balvear Nice pig-ignorance. Do you not understand that to look out in space is to look back in time? If you see a star 1000ly away, you see it as it was 1000 years ago. If you look at galaxies 10Gly away, you see them as they were 10 billion years ago. And if you look at the microwave background from 13 and a half billion ly away, you're seeing the universe as if it were in its infancy.
Errr.. how long did you live in a cave? There are evidences for the Big Bang theory (Universe expansion and its homogeny, plus background cosmic radiation,...).
"which could not have survived 19.9 billion years"
Why would they dissapear? Do they have a used-by date like yoghurt?
@silveren777 We're not talking about already created objects, YOU are diverting from the subject. We're talking about a fairy tale explosion in space that cannot be recorded because, according Evolution, we didn't even begin to evolve then. How do you record an even if its JUST A THEORY and CANNOT be recorded due to limiting factors?... I smell a religion.
@balvear "We're talking about a fairy tale explosion in space that cannot be recorded because, according Evolution, we didn't even begin to evolve then."
Why do you need human beings evolving in order to have photons travelling through space? It's already been pointed out to you that evolution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Big Bang, so we'll just chalk this up as another of your LIES.
Oh, and the theory of gravity is based on recorded fact; so is germ theory.
Neither can I! And it turns out that in fact nobody does.
Evolutionists don't believe it. Big Bangist don't believe it. Creationists don't believe it.
And that's because the entire scenario you just laid out is a work of your own fiction, not even remotely related to the Big Bang theory or the Evolutionary theory.
So you get SOME credit for not being stupid enough to believe the things you hear yourself say, but 6.79 billion times more demerits for thinking everyone else does.
I for one think it was very considerate of the creationists to make a channel just to make it easier for Andromeda'sWake to find material to debunk. ;)
Shane, do you really believe that a Meteor slammed into the Earth (while the Earth was being formed by other meteor collisions), and pushed the opposite side of the planet out of itself, and... There is the Earth's newly born Moon?
"One such collision of a Mars sized object, with a molten Earth, gave us not only our 24 hour day, slowed down from the 15 hour rotation it had right after the impact, but also ejected our moon as well"
@ironman197268 The point where you said I claimed it "pushed the opposite side of the planet out of itself." That's not even CLOSE to it. And a Mars-sized object is a LOT bigger than a meteor.
@shanedk OK, I'm sorry I said the OPPOSITE side. My point is that this MARS sized object, hit a molten Earth and ejected the Earths Moon from whatever part of this molten Earths surface. Are we on the same page now?
@ironman197268 The Mars-sized object hit the Earth and flung out a lot of debris. The debris that was closest to the Earth fell back down; the debris that was far enough away was ejected into the solar system; the debris in the middle was in orbit and eventually coalesced into the moon.
@shanedk I mean the small stuff, like Iron, the Earth is loaded with it, and the moon is nearly absent of it. And what energy source put something so much bigger than a meteor (Mars sized) into motion? A PLANET sized meteor hurling through space?
@ironman197268 The moon does have iron. And inertia kept the planet sized object in motion. I'm not quite sure what you mean there, the object was never at rest, nothing ever is. If you mean on course to proto-earth, I imagine its course led it to inevitably hit proto-earth.
@shanedk Why did the moon not have an abiogenesis happen like the Earth did, if they both have the same elements? And why is the Earth and the moon getting further apart? After all, they both possess gravity. Shouldn't they be getting closer together according to the laws of physics? Where in the universe is another Mars sized object (other than Mars) hurling through space, getting ready to hit the Earth again? It's been 4.6 billion years, there's been plenty of time for that to happen again!!
@ironman197268 "And why is the Earth and the moon getting further apart? After all, they both possess gravity. Shouldn't they be getting closer together according to the laws of physics?"
No, gravity--tidal forces--is pulling the moon away by accelerating it in its orbit.
And obviously, once all the big guys have bombarded there's no more big guys to bombard anymore.
@ironman197268 By that logic everything in the Universe with mass should be getting closer and closer. Gravity is a force that affects everything with mass, but there are other forces too.
@ironman197268 planetoids orbit around the sun just like planets do, and for the same reasons. If the collision theory of the moons creation is correct, it also explains why the moon has less iron, as the earths iron to a large extent is confined to the core (inner and outer core) and less in the mantle.
However, are you saying that just because YOU DONT UNDERSTAND this that it is false ?
Maybe G-d was an evolutionist. Maybe he had to follow certain rules of creation. They are both theories, creationist dont know what created the universe and creationist only know who created it. As scientific knowledge grows we grow farther away from ideas of the past. In my oppinion the answers are somewhere in the middle. With G-d being all knowing he must of been a scientist and known that the process of science was necessary for creation. Love the points being made.
@NAguisrt "Hitler may have been raised a Catholic but he certainly was not practicing it when he murdered millions."
NOT true. He continued to practice it through and through, both in public and private life, including the day before he died with his Catholic marriage to Eva Braun (in private).
I have had to delete this comment as well, in combination with the previous warning.
Rather changed the subject there, but nevertheless I presume you are dredging up the old Stalin, Hitler & Pol Pot were atheists crap. This has been debunked Soooooo many times. Hitler was a Catholic & anti-semetism has it's roots in "The Jews killed jesus"
Stalin & Pol Pot did not kill BECAUSE they were atheists, they had an ideology which can be equated to religion, the slavish following of an idea which has no room for logic, reason or change when it is shown to be false.
@Wordavee1 God didn’t wish the universe into existence. He spoke it into existence. I see your contempt for God in characterizing Him in the way that you do. Your atheistic world-view is corrupt and bankrupt because it places Man at the center. Well, man simply isn't qualified for that position. And so I reject your thoughts on the origins of the material universe. You simply don't have a valid platform from which to make your decrees, god... may I call you god?
"God didn’t wish the universe into existence. He spoke it into existence."
Abragedabra, was that the word he used? Wished it, magiced it, willed it, thought it, spoke it, what's the difference?
To speak you have to have a mouth, tounge, breath, vocal cords, did god have them? If so, why? Does he need air? Why would he have to make a sound to create the world, surely a thought would be enough, & if he thought it into existence, then he wished to create, so as I said, he wished it.
"Your atheistic world-view is corrupt and bankrupt because it places Man at the center."
I'd say it is your rligion that places man at the centre, You are the ones who think the whole of the Universe was created for you, & that a superbeing cares for you & will look after you for ever if just you do as he says.
I say that man is just another animal, but with the ability to think beyond the boundaries of his immediate self needs, but eventually we will fade & die.
If we were to combine all our scientific knowledge into one single unit. A human experience unit, about 25% of that is confirmed. We have probably no awareness of even 1 percent of all that is, or that exists in the universe. Somewhere in there is evolution, a small percent, and even creation, a fraction of a percent. The bulk of it, at least 99%, is unknown, and yet to be discovered. Unnamed, not yet labeled dynamics and features completely beyond our experiences, and our imaginations..
@globalfraud ""lying creationist" is it really necessary to be so redundant?"
I think so. You have to differentiate between liars and idiots. Many creationists haven't a fucking CLUE about reality so when they say stupid stuff they're just being ignorant. Others, like William Lane Craig (and probably even Kent Hovind) know they're talking bullshit so they're liars.
@sinistar99 They don't know what they are talking about. The get fed this sunday school bullshit along with the message that they are informed. This is how people who are completely scientific illiterate can say ridiculous things without knowing that they are spouting rubbish and embarrassing themselves.
Plus, allow me to point out that misrepresenting science or atheists is to bare false witness.
Those who are against evolution are either insane, ignorant, or purposely dishonest. Judging from his supposed level of intelligence, I must say Spike is being dishonest. I wonder how much he got paid to insult his fellow scientists.
Where did you get that nonsense? Evolution can describe many things. Biology does not have a monopoly on the term. Just look at any dictionary. I was going to watch the video, but when I heard that, it completely discredited anything else you might say.
@Challagar Evolution is the unifying field of biology. That's what it is. You're making the same mistake Psarris did: you're conflating the WORD evolution to mean "change over time" with the THEORY of evolution which is biology.
@shanedk If you don't want to take the dictionary's word for it, then just google cosmological evolution. I found 8 proponents for the theory of cosmological evolution on just the first results page. You tell The American Association of Physics Teachers or the American Physical Society or NASA that they are wrong for using evolution in the same sentence as cosmology or for even using the term Cosmological Evolution!
@Challagar And here you go doing the exact same thing again! Looking the WORD evolution and conflating it with the THEORY.
Cosmological evolution deals with how things in the cosmos change over time (the dictionary definition of the word). It does NOT use the THEORY of evolution, though, because stars and galaxies do not mutate and do not pass on their characteristics to their children.
@shanedk I suppose you're right. You are so much smarter than NASA and the AAPT. You are the Master of semantics and dogma. We must bow down to your superior intelligence and intellect. *rolls eyes* Please, stop while you're ahead before you make yourself out to be any more foolish. You have been so indoctrinated that you can't even see how foolish you are.
Can you not wrap your head around the issue of context? The word "evolution" has different definitions and connotations, like numerous other words, depending on context. Cosmological evolution and the theory of evolution are two distinctly different concepts even though the same word is present. It's all a matter of context.
Dismiss it as semantics and dogma all you'd like. Do you also argue that scientists consider the Pokemon franchise to be accurate because it uses "evolution"?
@SeruQuik I am very familiar with context. Though I was not an English major, in all the tests I ever took, Reading comprehension was always my highest score on the exams. Spike was using evolution in the context of cosmological evolution and shanedk called him on it saying "evolution is biology." not the Theory of Evolution is biology. In the context of the section of the video concerning Jupiter it was dealing with cosmo evolution, not biological evolution.......
@shanedk "Psarris was using these to try and undermine THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!" Well of course he was. If the age of the earth isn't 4.5 billion year old then, of course, evolution could not have occurred. If cosmo evolution is shown to be false then bio evolution would be in serious jeopardy, as well. But that doesn't change the fact he was indeed speaking in context. You just don't like anyone showing facts that detract from your sacred belief, so you throw a hissy fit.
@Challagar Conclusion does NOT IN ANY WAY follow from the premise. Even if he were to refute modern cosmology, it would NOT disprove evolution or the 4.5 billion year old Earth. It would just mean that WE DON'T KNOW (using findings from cosmology) how old the Earth is; we'd still have that 4.5Gyr date from geology and all the other independent methods used to find that date.
You're just a desperate creationist taking their usual desperate tactics.
Proving 1 thing false does not prove any other things false - nor does it prove anything else true.
I know you desperately want it to be so, but that really only flaunts your lack of understanding in the scientific method. And, The Theory of Evolution stands entirely on it's own merits, and does not require evidence from outside theories. As does every single other theory we have in science - such as The Theory of Gravity.
There are 2 possibilities here, and he lies in both of them
First, he may have lied about his credentials. Is it worth mentionning that an engineer IS NOT an astronomer, even less an expert in planetary formation.
Second, he may have lied to his audience, knowing perfectly that his claims was bogus.
@trippinlikegod Cosmological Evolution does. Just google cosmological evolution and see how many non-ID or non-CS sites use the term Cosmological Evolution or use the term evolution when referring to cosmology.
I am an evangelical Christian who has come to reject the evangelical view of how things came to be. I believe an omnipotent God is behind it all but He did it through largely natural processes. I can't accept the Sunday school flannel graph explanation any longer. I don't believe, however, that mocking the evangelicals has any good purpose. Let's just do the science and let the fallacies fade away, eh?
Let the fallacies fade away just a bit further, and soon you'll be an atheist.
If you accept that god made all the universe by starting the big bang, then all you need is a different reason for the BB and god is no longer required. Also if you are rejecting the story of Adam & Eve, Eden & the temptation by the snake, then you are rejecting origonal sin & logically the need for JC to die on the cross, the whole basis of chritianity. Go on, you can do it!!
@Wordavee1 What other reason could there be for the Big Bang besides a creative action of the Creator, God. Nothing happens without a cause. I want to tell you something, mister: I believe and I know in my heart that God the Father created the universe and all that is in it through His Son, Jesus Christ. Don't be using your scare tactics of impending atheism to drive me a way from the TRUTH of how God accomplished the Creation. It's time we Christians take the TRUTH back from the atheists!
The default position for the creation of the universe is not god. what about the people who knew and believed in their hearts that Allah, Krishna, Thor, Odin, Ra were the ultimate beings who they prayed to, sacrificed to, died & killed in the name of. Where are they now?
To take back the TRUTH from atheists implies that atheists have the truth, & if the theists take it back & change it to their version, then it isn't the truth any more....... cont
......Apologists have been fighting for many years to resist the advances in science, but as years go by, more evidence is found in goelogy, cosmology biology, archeology& many other sciences that debunk the 10,000 year old earth, the flood, the exodus & the "history" at the time of jesus.
Aplolgists have no proof or science of their own, & they are reduced to quote mining, omissions of facts & plain lies to try & make religion feasible, but it is falling apart.
"What other reason could there be for the Big Bang besides a creative action of the Creator. Nothing happens without a cause."
Agreed, nothing happens without a cause. So what caused the creation god?
Theists say things like "He is eternal, the alpha & omega etc" but that is not an answer. The fact is, the appearance of a fully formed entity from nowhere, with the power to create the universe from nothing just by wishing it into existence is a lot more unlikely than the big bang.
@Wordavee1 All I can say is that we both are persons of faith. You place your faith in "nothing"; I place my faith in Someone. The God of the Bible is the only God of any religion who is placed outside of Time & Space. Therefore, there is no "appearance", as you put it. He is simply There. Any belief beyond that has no basis in anything. The God of the Bible is unique. He is the only God to offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sin of man. Don't lump Him in with the others.
@JohnDoeSchmoe Don't even dare to call something such as their 'ideas' and 'beliefs' as high as a hypothesis. It's not even CLOSE at being a hypothesis since for something to be a hypothesis it still needs to comply with the current laws of the universe, and God doesn't fit the bill in any way, shape or form.
@Razgrits I don't disagree there, when it comes to the scientific meaning of the word, but "the God hypothesis" is a pretty common way of talking about their claims, like chapter two of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", which is called "The God hypothesis".
@JohnDoeSchmoe Just because Dawkins said something, it doesn't make that statement correct, and hypothesis is the wrong way to refer to a deity. As it is some unproven theory. No, it's a retarded claim, and an even more retarded belief. Not a hypothesis, certainly not a theory, and 100% not true in this physical world.
@KaxMisha Not sure which one you're talking about (don't feel like watching the video again), but you can get all my pictorious creations here, under Creative Commons:
"Evolutionary models of our solar system". What about the astronomical models of the human anatomy? I guess that because creationists have one answer ("God did it!"), they just can't wrap their brains around the idea that real science has many different fields of study. To them, ALL other naturalistic explanations are "evolutionary". (Or, they're just plain stupid. You decide.)
Laplace wrote a book on the formation of the Solar System, and Napoleon ask why he hadn't mentioned God. 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
@gamesbok Except, it doesn't actually explain ANYTHING. The significance of Laplace's statement is that he filled in a hole that Newton had left to God: his Perturbation Theory explained how the solar system remains gravitationally stable, replacing Newton's "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." The God hypothesis explained NOTHING; we had to wait for Laplace to come up with the REAL explanation.
My argument against a 6,000 year-old cosmos is easy: show them the hubble deep field photo. Ask them how far away those objects are. ask them how fast light travels in the vacuum of space. The furthest objects couldn't be more than 6,000 light years away in a 6,000 year-old cosmos, or their light would not have reached us.
@123Atheist The solution to this tactic is to previously get them to claim that their god is incapable of lying, since this is the 'God is a liar' excuse.
@parlezuml I used that argument once to illuminate the absurdity within his argument. Unfortunately, he came back at me with me an even more absurd lie - the speed of light is not constant, it is gradually getting slower. How can you argue with someone who makes such statements? One would have more success arguing against a brick wall.
@Not2Sane I think there's a problem with that, too. If light is slower, it affects time (and gravity and a whole bunch of other fundamental stuff). But the problem is not the physics of the argument. It's that arguments based on faith alone cannot be countered with logic or evidence. They believe what they believe /because/ it's absurd. The less it makes sense, the stronger their faith has to be to believe it. It's like spanking someone who gets off on pain.
What I hate is long it takes to rebut lies that only take a few seconds for some creationist to spit out. I feel for the poor ninth grade Christian kids who are being forced to watch these propaganda videos.
@EthanMontgomery30 You've noticed that, huh? Creationists use that to their advantage in debates: they rattle off 100 different lies, knowing that the other side won't have time to rebut them all. They then claim victory with all of their points that stood unrefuted.
anyone who uses the term "evolutionism" is already void from argument just like when people say that evolution means no god is void from any intelligent arguments, they simply KNOW that these claims are lies but of coarse, the people they talk to are massively ignorant but mostly innocent and brainwashed from birth with jesus juice. i have nothing against my primitive ignorant ancestors for having religion but people of today have no excuse, even having no knowlege, logic defeats religion
I just don't understand how people can buy creationism. They get caught in so many lies and deceits its just sad. At least when a scientist is shown to be wrong he/she goes back to the drawing board.
" I entered that program and an atheist and an evolutionist. I left it as a creationists and a Christian."
Translation - I was a barely competent engineer but couldn't make it. I now can make a living as a voiceover in videos that I sell to credulous fools who don't want to think too hard. I really don't have any better way of making a living than being a charlatan."
The evolutionary model says that 1+1=2, and yet there are proofs on YouTube that show how 1+1=0 using the evolutionary concept of the Sqrt(-1). I mean the truth of evolution proves how false it is. How can we even be sure that Sqrt(-1) = i ? Therefore, since 1+1=2=0, god created all the plants and animals and all of their disturbing genetic defects. And, yes, god created the genetic defects for a reason too. I mean, look at how bad he fucked up his math.
"...I entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist; I left as a Christian and a Creationist."
Maybe its just me but every time I read statements like this I wonder what the impetus was. Not saying he was never an atheist, but what was the reasoning behind for lack of a nicer way of saying it, abandoning reason. My bet is there is a significant life change in there somewhere... marriage, death in the family etc...
@byteresistor At the very least it explains why he isn't working there anymore. Usually, NASA is looking for the smarter people to work for them. You know. The people WITH a brain. Frankly, I'm convinced he worked for NASA about as much as I'm convince Hovind is really a doctor.
@shanedk I don't think so. To say that would be an insult to hard working intelligent janitors. I doubt they would even hire an idiot like this to clean toilets for them, let alone get a promotion to sweeping floors.
lol nice job, but i have to agree with the guy that isnt u that got the hard to spell name, everything appeared cause god wanted real live barbie dolls not fake stuff, and after he had this whole argument with jeesus and all that bullshit he hid his face as soon as everyone actually started to listen to that bullshit and god never did anything about humans or anything at all with earth and thought he might go make another big bang for another universe or dimension or what ever by lighting a fart
"...I entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist; I left as a Christian and a Creationist."
So, to translate... he entered the space program as an intelligent human, and left as a retard. Were they that short of experimental chimps that they had to lobotomize this guy and use him instead? Damn animals rights activists! Is this what you wanted, you bastard hippies?!
@JCLeSinge Just so everyone's clear, there is no evidence whatsoever that Psarris worked in the space program. And if he did, since his only degree is a Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering, then he worked there as an electrical engineer--in other words, he didn't really have anything to do with the actual physics of space.
@shanedk: Yeah, I was taking the piss. Sorry if that didn't come through clearly enough. I'm English; we do subtlety and sarcasm.
Seriously though, I figured Psarris was talking out his butt, implying he was an astronaut so people would think "See? This guy knows; he's been to space..."
I'm not at all surprised to know that Psarris' highest claim to science is as a spark-monkey.
He may have been employed for a short period of time at one of the many dozens of companies that do subcontract work for the military. Does that give him any credibility? Absolutely not. Typical creationist. But his rouse works for appealing to the many mindless, ignorant, scientifically illiterate fundies out there.
This is my first experience with a video from this producer and I can gladly report it won't be the last...excellent presentation, I am now compelled to dig through your catalog and keep watching.
@sanpeppy As a man once said, "That's not right, that's not even wrong!"
Go do some BASIC RESEARCH
shanedk 1 week ago
Creationalists are needed. I mean, If they didn't derp around pointing it out, and causing my forehead to get a very large sore. I would never have became an atheist.
SongofthePresence 1 week ago
Wow... Spike Psarris is like a third-rate Kent Hovind. Same tactics, but even lamer lies.
drunkenscotsman 2 weeks ago
Creation astronomy, wasn't that called astrology?
pegasusfreedom 3 weeks ago
"Creationism is fail, fail, FAIL!" lol brilliant.
StupidFuckism 1 month ago
Is it just me or does everyone find it strange that creationists can utilize the findings of space probes without questioning how those probes got past the firmament that encloses the earth?
fdasherv 1 month ago
The sad part is 1000 years from now, when we're [hopefully] exploring the Galaxy and its wonders, there will still be creationists on Earth spewing their drivel and extremists in third-world countries killing themselves over who's religion is greater.
Beyondisme 1 month ago
@Beyondisme Yes, and denying the existence of alien life because Earth is God's special creation.
Creationist: There is no alien life!
[Cuddly alien animal licks his face]
Creationist: Stop it! I said there's no alien life!
Cuddly alien: I wuv you.
Creationist: Oh, shut up!
shanedk 1 month ago 3
@shanedk Actually I think it would go more like:
Alien: Greetings, we're here to share with you the cures for all illness, space-travel, zero-point crystal fusion clean energy, food surplus -
Creationists: You're not an alien! You're a spawn of Satan!
Alien: wtf? I'm trying to help you -
Creationist:Begone, demon!
[throws holy water on Aliens]
Alien: For the love of xzlon! That's it, we're going back to Cyconis! Screw these primitive monkeys and their superstitions!
Beyondisme 1 month ago
@Beyondisme Nah, I have faith that humans will have found other reasons to kill each other in a thousand years, after religion has gone out of style.
GoblinXXX 1 month ago
@GoblinXXX Sadly they'll probably just create new religions to kill each other over like they've always done . . . they're always be a small portion of the population who's religious . . . sadly.
Beyondisme 1 month ago
@Beyondisme Something almost like this occurs near the end of the classic 1936 SF movie, "Things to Come": the small, elite scientist faction is counting down to launch a rocket to explore space, while a mass of obscurantist farmers, poets, etc., swept away by the pastoralist rhetoric of a rabble-rouser (Cedric Hardwicke, IIRC) are quite literally storming the gates to try to stop this symbol of progress.
50zcarsman 1 month ago
The fact that you can't leave comments at the the original version of this video speaks volumes to me about how they deal with critical responses. If Psarrik is so certain he's right, why can't he handle a little criticism? Typical creationist.
Keiththegamergeek 1 month ago
To continue on what I said, religion is inherently unprovable and while people should be free to guess whatever they want, we should never have theocratic legislation respecting a faith. Anyway, I love your work, good luck man.
leonheart00 1 month ago
Well Shane, your knowledge of Astronomy is incredible and it is clear Creationists grasp for anything to keep their scripture seeming 100% factual. However there are genuine gaps that have to be considered. It is very possible that at some point beyond our measurement an architect initiated this universe like a seed. It would actually be logical as everything in nature seems to follow that pattern. Disproving that or proving it is just not likely. So many possible scenarios.
leonheart00 1 month ago
@leonheart00
Any thing which is proposed to exist must cause the universe to differ in at least one way from that thing's non-existence.
If there is no such difference, the universe is exactly equal to the proposed thing not existing.
rkyeun 1 month ago
The evolutionary model states that color film came from modifications on black and white. But if that's true, why is there stilll black and white? What? Lots of people talk about "the evolution od Cinematography"
arachnophile01 1 month ago
0900
I think hes saying creationism is a evolutionary dead end.
Lobos222 1 month ago
Is Spike trying to disprove Jupiter?
AndrewDangerously 1 month ago 4
@AndrewDangerously In a sense, yes! He's saying that Jupiter would be impossible without the Voice of God speaking it magically into existence.
shanedk 1 month ago 5
Creationist science IS real science, Atheists and evolutionists are fighting against the truth and the Christian whom invented science for that truth. I don't want to be apart of your religion, its a lie! Get lost!
balvear 2 months ago
@balvear
Of course creationism is science, just like astrology is science. When one doesn't care about epistemology, everything goes...
silveren777 2 months ago
@silveren777 20 billion years ago a big-bang happened and caused the universe to form, leaving no evidence of its arrival or departure - - 1 million years ago, humans gain consciousness and intelligence. We have the common sense to preserve the evidence, which could not have survived 19.9 billion years, of the big-bang and show it to the rest of the world. Thus proving Evolution is true.
Sound funny? Ya, I know, it sounds funny to me too. I can't believe ANYONE would believe this!!
balvear 1 month ago
@balvear "20 billion years ago a big-bang happened" 13.7 billion.
"leaving no evidence of its arrival or departure" Bullshit. We have a PICTURE OF IT HAPPENING!
"Thus proving Evolution is true." The Big Bang is cosmology, and has NOTHING to do with evolution.
I can't believe that creationists are THIS ignorant yet this certain of their bogus ranting!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk LMAO!!!! OMG!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! NO, STOP, YOU'RE GONNA MAKE ME DIE OF LAUGHTER!!! "The Big Bang is cosmology, and has NOTHING to do with evolution." Then why is it the beginning of the fairy tail you portray! XD HAHAHAHAHA!!!
"Bullshit. We have a PICTURE OF IT HAPPENING!"..... Are you for real? How do you observe something happening, and take a picture, if humans haven't evolved or even begun evolving, much less come to exist, until AFTER the big-bang... Nice religion.
balvear 1 month ago
@balvear Nice pig-ignorance. Do you not understand that to look out in space is to look back in time? If you see a star 1000ly away, you see it as it was 1000 years ago. If you look at galaxies 10Gly away, you see them as they were 10 billion years ago. And if you look at the microwave background from 13 and a half billion ly away, you're seeing the universe as if it were in its infancy.
There IS A PICTURE OF IT HAPPENING. DEAL with it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@balvear
Errr.. how long did you live in a cave? There are evidences for the Big Bang theory (Universe expansion and its homogeny, plus background cosmic radiation,...).
"which could not have survived 19.9 billion years"
Why would they dissapear? Do they have a used-by date like yoghurt?
silveren777 1 month ago
@silveren777 We're not talking about already created objects, YOU are diverting from the subject. We're talking about a fairy tale explosion in space that cannot be recorded because, according Evolution, we didn't even begin to evolve then. How do you record an even if its JUST A THEORY and CANNOT be recorded due to limiting factors?... I smell a religion.
balvear 1 month ago
@balvear "We're talking about a fairy tale explosion in space that cannot be recorded because, according Evolution, we didn't even begin to evolve then."
Why do you need human beings evolving in order to have photons travelling through space? It's already been pointed out to you that evolution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Big Bang, so we'll just chalk this up as another of your LIES.
Oh, and the theory of gravity is based on recorded fact; so is germ theory.
shanedk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@balvear
So what? The fact we didn't exist at the Big Bang doesn't mean we can't pick up indirect evidence for it; get your logic straight.
"How do you record an even if its JUST A THEORY and CANNOT be recorded due to limiting factors?"
How could you ask such a stupid question while you have no clue on what a theory is?
silveren777 1 month ago
@balvear
Neither can I! And it turns out that in fact nobody does.
Evolutionists don't believe it. Big Bangist don't believe it. Creationists don't believe it.
And that's because the entire scenario you just laid out is a work of your own fiction, not even remotely related to the Big Bang theory or the Evolutionary theory.
So you get SOME credit for not being stupid enough to believe the things you hear yourself say, but 6.79 billion times more demerits for thinking everyone else does.
rkyeun 1 month ago
So in a nutshell -- real science trumps creationist science!
BacklTrack 3 months ago
@BacklTrack A moron creationist, creation scientist, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny are racing for a $20 bill in the street. Who gets it?
johnrainrules 3 months ago
Evolution ... Jupiter WHAT
Jupiter has chromosomes?
Mitche23 3 months ago
Ah the wonders of the English language; words can have more than one meaning.
micometer 3 months ago
I for one think it was very considerate of the creationists to make a channel just to make it easier for Andromeda'sWake to find material to debunk. ;)
GoblinXXX 4 months ago
Shane, do you really believe that a Meteor slammed into the Earth (while the Earth was being formed by other meteor collisions), and pushed the opposite side of the planet out of itself, and... There is the Earth's newly born Moon?
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268 That's not how any scientist says it happened.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk That's what you said happened in this video at 8:02.
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268 Absolutely not! Watch it again!
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk At 7:52 you say...
"One such collision of a Mars sized object, with a molten Earth, gave us not only our 24 hour day, slowed down from the 15 hour rotation it had right after the impact, but also ejected our moon as well"
What am I missing man?
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268 The point where you said I claimed it "pushed the opposite side of the planet out of itself." That's not even CLOSE to it. And a Mars-sized object is a LOT bigger than a meteor.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk OK, I'm sorry I said the OPPOSITE side. My point is that this MARS sized object, hit a molten Earth and ejected the Earths Moon from whatever part of this molten Earths surface. Are we on the same page now?
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268 The Mars-sized object hit the Earth and flung out a lot of debris. The debris that was closest to the Earth fell back down; the debris that was far enough away was ejected into the solar system; the debris in the middle was in orbit and eventually coalesced into the moon.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk All right, then shouldn't the Earth and the moon have amazing similarities, other than their almost perfectly spherical shape?
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268 They do: the moon is made of the same stuff as the Earth's crust.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk The Earth's crust is made out of green cheese?
johnrainrules 4 months ago
@shanedk I mean the small stuff, like Iron, the Earth is loaded with it, and the moon is nearly absent of it. And what energy source put something so much bigger than a meteor (Mars sized) into motion? A PLANET sized meteor hurling through space?
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268 The moon does have iron. And inertia kept the planet sized object in motion. I'm not quite sure what you mean there, the object was never at rest, nothing ever is. If you mean on course to proto-earth, I imagine its course led it to inevitably hit proto-earth.
dbzssj4678 4 months ago
@ironman197268 No, there's lots of iron on the moon.
Yes, there were LOTS of things that big hurling through space in the EBP. The Earth was one of them!
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk Why did the moon not have an abiogenesis happen like the Earth did, if they both have the same elements? And why is the Earth and the moon getting further apart? After all, they both possess gravity. Shouldn't they be getting closer together according to the laws of physics? Where in the universe is another Mars sized object (other than Mars) hurling through space, getting ready to hit the Earth again? It's been 4.6 billion years, there's been plenty of time for that to happen again!!
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268 The moon never had liquid water or an atmosphere.
shanedk 4 months ago
@ironman197268 "And why is the Earth and the moon getting further apart? After all, they both possess gravity. Shouldn't they be getting closer together according to the laws of physics?"
No, gravity--tidal forces--is pulling the moon away by accelerating it in its orbit.
And obviously, once all the big guys have bombarded there's no more big guys to bombard anymore.
shanedk 4 months ago
@ironman197268 By that logic everything in the Universe with mass should be getting closer and closer. Gravity is a force that affects everything with mass, but there are other forces too.
johnrainrules 4 months ago
@johnrainrules Ironically, though, in this case it is actually gravity. There's a good video around here somewhere showing why; I'll try to find it.
shanedk 4 months ago
@johnrainrules Found it: /watch?v=inES_eAexN8
shanedk 4 months ago
@ironman197268 planetoids orbit around the sun just like planets do, and for the same reasons. If the collision theory of the moons creation is correct, it also explains why the moon has less iron, as the earths iron to a large extent is confined to the core (inner and outer core) and less in the mantle.
However, are you saying that just because YOU DONT UNDERSTAND this that it is false ?
ExcaliburClan 4 months ago
Maybe G-d was an evolutionist. Maybe he had to follow certain rules of creation. They are both theories, creationist dont know what created the universe and creationist only know who created it. As scientific knowledge grows we grow farther away from ideas of the past. In my oppinion the answers are somewhere in the middle. With G-d being all knowing he must of been a scientist and known that the process of science was necessary for creation. Love the points being made.
aBenDragon 4 months ago
Go ahead and live in your darkness... nothing will reach you. goodbye.
NAguisrt 4 months ago
@NAguisrt Spoken like someone with no response to the arguments.
shanedk 4 months ago
@NAguisrt "Hitler may have been raised a Catholic but he certainly was not practicing it when he murdered millions."
NOT true. He continued to practice it through and through, both in public and private life, including the day before he died with his Catholic marriage to Eva Braun (in private).
I have had to delete this comment as well, in combination with the previous warning.
shanedk 4 months ago
NAguisrt, false accusations are NOT allowed on this channel. Your comment was deleted. First warning.
shanedk 4 months ago
@NAguisrt
Rather changed the subject there, but nevertheless I presume you are dredging up the old Stalin, Hitler & Pol Pot were atheists crap. This has been debunked Soooooo many times. Hitler was a Catholic & anti-semetism has it's roots in "The Jews killed jesus"
Stalin & Pol Pot did not kill BECAUSE they were atheists, they had an ideology which can be equated to religion, the slavish following of an idea which has no room for logic, reason or change when it is shown to be false.
Wordavee1 4 months ago
@Wordavee1 God didn’t wish the universe into existence. He spoke it into existence. I see your contempt for God in characterizing Him in the way that you do. Your atheistic world-view is corrupt and bankrupt because it places Man at the center. Well, man simply isn't qualified for that position. And so I reject your thoughts on the origins of the material universe. You simply don't have a valid platform from which to make your decrees, god... may I call you god?
NAguisrt 4 months ago
@NAguisrt "God didn’t wish the universe into existence. He spoke it into existence."
And you somehow think that makes it make sense all of a sudden?
And THERE IS NO CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.
shanedk 4 months ago
@NAguisrt
"God didn’t wish the universe into existence. He spoke it into existence."
Abragedabra, was that the word he used? Wished it, magiced it, willed it, thought it, spoke it, what's the difference?
To speak you have to have a mouth, tounge, breath, vocal cords, did god have them? If so, why? Does he need air? Why would he have to make a sound to create the world, surely a thought would be enough, & if he thought it into existence, then he wished to create, so as I said, he wished it.
Wordavee1 4 months ago
@NAguisrt
"Your atheistic world-view is corrupt and bankrupt because it places Man at the center."
I'd say it is your rligion that places man at the centre, You are the ones who think the whole of the Universe was created for you, & that a superbeing cares for you & will look after you for ever if just you do as he says.
I say that man is just another animal, but with the ability to think beyond the boundaries of his immediate self needs, but eventually we will fade & die.
Wordavee1 4 months ago
If we were to combine all our scientific knowledge into one single unit. A human experience unit, about 25% of that is confirmed. We have probably no awareness of even 1 percent of all that is, or that exists in the universe. Somewhere in there is evolution, a small percent, and even creation, a fraction of a percent. The bulk of it, at least 99%, is unknown, and yet to be discovered. Unnamed, not yet labeled dynamics and features completely beyond our experiences, and our imaginations..
950horsepower 5 months ago
It boggles the mind how they cannot get the distinction between the theory of evolution and (insert completely unrelated scientific discipline here).
419Films 6 months ago
", I am sure that when Darwin made his Theory of Evolution, he meant BIOLOGY! NOT ASTRONOMY, you fucktard! how stupid is this creationist?! sheesh!
falutak 6 months ago
All "scientists" who spew lies such as this are either bribed, ignorant, malicious, or a combination of all three.
MunkyDrag0n 6 months ago
Why are these people allowed to give speeches?
AgowTisro 6 months ago
@AgowTisro Because fools and idiots will pay them money to.
shanedk 6 months ago 5
@shanedk Bingo! creationist idocy is well funded big-time!
Lennon4ever1 4 months ago
creationist and scientist are oxymorons
giam333 7 months ago
@shanedk "lying creationist" is it really necessary to be so redundant?
globalfraud 8 months ago 12
@globalfraud ""lying creationist" is it really necessary to be so redundant?"
I think so. You have to differentiate between liars and idiots. Many creationists haven't a fucking CLUE about reality so when they say stupid stuff they're just being ignorant. Others, like William Lane Craig (and probably even Kent Hovind) know they're talking bullshit so they're liars.
warren52nz 1 month ago 3
LOL! ~sigh~ funny but still I find it depressing to be born among the boxes of dumb rocks....
Licmycat 8 months ago
You have to hand it to the Creationists to keep trying, no mater how many times they are proven wrong.
atchisrj1 8 months ago
WTF? What evolutionary theory tells anything at all about planet spinning speed? Huh? OMG what is wrong with these people?
sinistar99 9 months ago
@sinistar99 They don't know what they are talking about. The get fed this sunday school bullshit along with the message that they are informed. This is how people who are completely scientific illiterate can say ridiculous things without knowing that they are spouting rubbish and embarrassing themselves.
Plus, allow me to point out that misrepresenting science or atheists is to bare false witness.
no2religions 9 months ago
Those who are against evolution are either insane, ignorant, or purposely dishonest. Judging from his supposed level of intelligence, I must say Spike is being dishonest. I wonder how much he got paid to insult his fellow scientists.
MunkyDrag0n 10 months ago
"Evolution is biology"
Where did you get that nonsense? Evolution can describe many things. Biology does not have a monopoly on the term. Just look at any dictionary. I was going to watch the video, but when I heard that, it completely discredited anything else you might say.
Challagar 10 months ago
@Challagar Evolution is the unifying field of biology. That's what it is. You're making the same mistake Psarris did: you're conflating the WORD evolution to mean "change over time" with the THEORY of evolution which is biology.
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk If you don't want to take the dictionary's word for it, then just google cosmological evolution. I found 8 proponents for the theory of cosmological evolution on just the first results page. You tell The American Association of Physics Teachers or the American Physical Society or NASA that they are wrong for using evolution in the same sentence as cosmology or for even using the term Cosmological Evolution!
Challagar 10 months ago
@Challagar And here you go doing the exact same thing again! Looking the WORD evolution and conflating it with the THEORY.
Cosmological evolution deals with how things in the cosmos change over time (the dictionary definition of the word). It does NOT use the THEORY of evolution, though, because stars and galaxies do not mutate and do not pass on their characteristics to their children.
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk I suppose you're right. You are so much smarter than NASA and the AAPT. You are the Master of semantics and dogma. We must bow down to your superior intelligence and intellect. *rolls eyes* Please, stop while you're ahead before you make yourself out to be any more foolish. You have been so indoctrinated that you can't even see how foolish you are.
Challagar 10 months ago
@Challagar
Can you not wrap your head around the issue of context? The word "evolution" has different definitions and connotations, like numerous other words, depending on context. Cosmological evolution and the theory of evolution are two distinctly different concepts even though the same word is present. It's all a matter of context.
Dismiss it as semantics and dogma all you'd like. Do you also argue that scientists consider the Pokemon franchise to be accurate because it uses "evolution"?
SeruQuik 10 months ago
@SeruQuik I am very familiar with context. Though I was not an English major, in all the tests I ever took, Reading comprehension was always my highest score on the exams. Spike was using evolution in the context of cosmological evolution and shanedk called him on it saying "evolution is biology." not the Theory of Evolution is biology. In the context of the section of the video concerning Jupiter it was dealing with cosmo evolution, not biological evolution.......
Challagar 10 months ago
@SeruQuik You inadvertently supported my argument by bringing up context. Spike was using it in a cosmological context, not in a biological context.
Challagar 10 months ago
@Challagar That is patently untrue! Psarris was using these to try and undermine THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk "Psarris was using these to try and undermine THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!" Well of course he was. If the age of the earth isn't 4.5 billion year old then, of course, evolution could not have occurred. If cosmo evolution is shown to be false then bio evolution would be in serious jeopardy, as well. But that doesn't change the fact he was indeed speaking in context. You just don't like anyone showing facts that detract from your sacred belief, so you throw a hissy fit.
Challagar 10 months ago
@Challagar Conclusion does NOT IN ANY WAY follow from the premise. Even if he were to refute modern cosmology, it would NOT disprove evolution or the 4.5 billion year old Earth. It would just mean that WE DON'T KNOW (using findings from cosmology) how old the Earth is; we'd still have that 4.5Gyr date from geology and all the other independent methods used to find that date.
You're just a desperate creationist taking their usual desperate tactics.
shanedk 10 months ago
@Challagar
Proving 1 thing false does not prove any other things false - nor does it prove anything else true.
I know you desperately want it to be so, but that really only flaunts your lack of understanding in the scientific method. And, The Theory of Evolution stands entirely on it's own merits, and does not require evidence from outside theories. As does every single other theory we have in science - such as The Theory of Gravity.
tdjdk 8 months ago 3
@Challagar Were you home schooled? It shows.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@shanedk
He commented again too: another appeal to etymology and an appeal to authority.
vspqbd 10 months ago
Expecting truth from a religious zealot is like expecting a politician to be honest!
MsWanderer1 10 months ago 2
ANd this guy worked for NASA ?
There are 2 possibilities here, and he lies in both of them
First, he may have lied about his credentials. Is it worth mentionning that an engineer IS NOT an astronomer, even less an expert in planetary formation.
Second, he may have lied to his audience, knowing perfectly that his claims was bogus.
conclusion, the man is here only for money.
Acrimonator 10 months ago
@Acrimonator Or 3) He did work for NASA, but as a file clerk or a janitor or something. He never says what job he actually had at NASA.
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk I thought I heard him say he was an engineer, but that may be me... :P
Acrimonator 10 months ago
@shanedk
He did say he was an engineer around 0:30-0:32.
vspqbd 10 months ago
Evolution doesn't say a goddamn thing about Jupiter... I love it.
trippinlikegod 11 months ago
@trippinlikegod Cosmological Evolution does. Just google cosmological evolution and see how many non-ID or non-CS sites use the term Cosmological Evolution or use the term evolution when referring to cosmology.
Challagar 10 months ago
Yea, his video made me pity his critical thinking skills.
TGGeko 11 months ago
what a bunch of gobshite.
Boxanadu 1 year ago
Wow, I've actually heard of this guy before in a debunking video. What a complete fool...
CRISNCHIPS12398 1 year ago
I am an evangelical Christian who has come to reject the evangelical view of how things came to be. I believe an omnipotent God is behind it all but He did it through largely natural processes. I can't accept the Sunday school flannel graph explanation any longer. I don't believe, however, that mocking the evangelicals has any good purpose. Let's just do the science and let the fallacies fade away, eh?
NAguisrt 1 year ago
@NAguisrt
Let the fallacies fade away just a bit further, and soon you'll be an atheist.
If you accept that god made all the universe by starting the big bang, then all you need is a different reason for the BB and god is no longer required. Also if you are rejecting the story of Adam & Eve, Eden & the temptation by the snake, then you are rejecting origonal sin & logically the need for JC to die on the cross, the whole basis of chritianity. Go on, you can do it!!
Wordavee1 4 months ago
@Wordavee1 What other reason could there be for the Big Bang besides a creative action of the Creator, God. Nothing happens without a cause. I want to tell you something, mister: I believe and I know in my heart that God the Father created the universe and all that is in it through His Son, Jesus Christ. Don't be using your scare tactics of impending atheism to drive me a way from the TRUTH of how God accomplished the Creation. It's time we Christians take the TRUTH back from the atheists!
NAguisrt 4 months ago
@NAguisrt
The default position for the creation of the universe is not god. what about the people who knew and believed in their hearts that Allah, Krishna, Thor, Odin, Ra were the ultimate beings who they prayed to, sacrificed to, died & killed in the name of. Where are they now?
To take back the TRUTH from atheists implies that atheists have the truth, & if the theists take it back & change it to their version, then it isn't the truth any more....... cont
Wordavee1 4 months ago
@NAguisrt
......Apologists have been fighting for many years to resist the advances in science, but as years go by, more evidence is found in goelogy, cosmology biology, archeology& many other sciences that debunk the 10,000 year old earth, the flood, the exodus & the "history" at the time of jesus.
Aplolgists have no proof or science of their own, & they are reduced to quote mining, omissions of facts & plain lies to try & make religion feasible, but it is falling apart.
Wordavee1 4 months ago
@NAguisrt
"What other reason could there be for the Big Bang besides a creative action of the Creator. Nothing happens without a cause."
Agreed, nothing happens without a cause. So what caused the creation god?
Theists say things like "He is eternal, the alpha & omega etc" but that is not an answer. The fact is, the appearance of a fully formed entity from nowhere, with the power to create the universe from nothing just by wishing it into existence is a lot more unlikely than the big bang.
Wordavee1 4 months ago
@Wordavee1 All I can say is that we both are persons of faith. You place your faith in "nothing"; I place my faith in Someone. The God of the Bible is the only God of any religion who is placed outside of Time & Space. Therefore, there is no "appearance", as you put it. He is simply There. Any belief beyond that has no basis in anything. The God of the Bible is unique. He is the only God to offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sin of man. Don't lump Him in with the others.
NAguisrt 4 months ago
Creationists are funny.
I'm happy they exist: We have something to mock at.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
"Unfortunately for evolution", (sic) he says...
How would the same facts (if they were even true) be "fortunate for creationism"?
Because they can "solve" everything by saying "God decided to create it that way"?
The God hypothesis in that manner is an answer that solves everything, with no evidence, and in so doing, actually solves nothing.
JohnDoeSchmoe 1 year ago 2
@JohnDoeSchmoe Don't even dare to call something such as their 'ideas' and 'beliefs' as high as a hypothesis. It's not even CLOSE at being a hypothesis since for something to be a hypothesis it still needs to comply with the current laws of the universe, and God doesn't fit the bill in any way, shape or form.
Razgrits 1 year ago
@Razgrits I don't disagree there, when it comes to the scientific meaning of the word, but "the God hypothesis" is a pretty common way of talking about their claims, like chapter two of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", which is called "The God hypothesis".
JohnDoeSchmoe 1 year ago
@JohnDoeSchmoe There's also Vic Stenger's book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis."
shanedk 1 year ago
@JohnDoeSchmoe Just because Dawkins said something, it doesn't make that statement correct, and hypothesis is the wrong way to refer to a deity. As it is some unproven theory. No, it's a retarded claim, and an even more retarded belief. Not a hypothesis, certainly not a theory, and 100% not true in this physical world.
Razgrits 1 year ago
Anyone who uses the non-word "evolutionism" seriously is a total dolt who does not deserve to be listened to.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple
I think it's deliberate. It's just another way they try to reduce evolution to the level of a religious belief.
Wordavee1 4 months ago
Science is far ahead of religion. I don't understand yet religions are always trying to disprove Science. Religion Is NO SCIENCE at all!
flightkiller09 1 year ago
Great video, man. Hey, could you perhaps PM me a link to the Facepalm picture you used? It can come in handy in many situations! ;)
KaxMisha 1 year ago
@KaxMisha Not sure which one you're talking about (don't feel like watching the video again), but you can get all my pictorious creations here, under Creative Commons:
flickr.com/photos/shanedk/
shanedk 1 year ago
"Evolutionary models of our solar system". What about the astronomical models of the human anatomy? I guess that because creationists have one answer ("God did it!"), they just can't wrap their brains around the idea that real science has many different fields of study. To them, ALL other naturalistic explanations are "evolutionary". (Or, they're just plain stupid. You decide.)
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
@GoblinXXX I'm working on the Planetary Theory of Disease, myself.
(Actually, they already have that--it's called "astrology.")
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk It is clear that the warlike influence of Mars has affected my bodily humours, causing me to grow Bilious and Aphysical.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
@GoblinXXX I hate it when that happens...
shanedk 1 year ago 2
@Tripockets bye!
MichaelTannock 1 year ago
@MichaelTannock I miss him already.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
Laplace wrote a book on the formation of the Solar System, and Napoleon ask why he hadn't mentioned God. 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Except, it doesn't actually explain ANYTHING. The significance of Laplace's statement is that he filled in a hole that Newton had left to God: his Perturbation Theory explained how the solar system remains gravitationally stable, replacing Newton's "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." The God hypothesis explained NOTHING; we had to wait for Laplace to come up with the REAL explanation.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk That is exactly what Lagrange meant. He was being sarcastic.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Ah, I see.
shanedk 1 year ago
@Tripockets
Well done, sir. You have effectively shut down any and all debate with your well-supported and clear argument.
No points for you.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
My argument against a 6,000 year-old cosmos is easy: show them the hubble deep field photo. Ask them how far away those objects are. ask them how fast light travels in the vacuum of space. The furthest objects couldn't be more than 6,000 light years away in a 6,000 year-old cosmos, or their light would not have reached us.
parlezuml 1 year ago
@parlezuml lol Then they'd ruin the entire debate by saying that God created it to look like it's old.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@123Atheist The solution to this tactic is to previously get them to claim that their god is incapable of lying, since this is the 'God is a liar' excuse.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey And even get them to claim that it's Satan who is the Prince of Lies.
shanedk 1 year ago
@parlezuml I used that argument once to illuminate the absurdity within his argument. Unfortunately, he came back at me with me an even more absurd lie - the speed of light is not constant, it is gradually getting slower. How can you argue with someone who makes such statements? One would have more success arguing against a brick wall.
Not2Sane 1 year ago
@Not2Sane I think there's a problem with that, too. If light is slower, it affects time (and gravity and a whole bunch of other fundamental stuff). But the problem is not the physics of the argument. It's that arguments based on faith alone cannot be countered with logic or evidence. They believe what they believe /because/ it's absurd. The less it makes sense, the stronger their faith has to be to believe it. It's like spanking someone who gets off on pain.
parlezuml 1 year ago
The study of FACEPALMOLOGY :)
nccflorin23 1 year ago
What I hate is long it takes to rebut lies that only take a few seconds for some creationist to spit out. I feel for the poor ninth grade Christian kids who are being forced to watch these propaganda videos.
EthanMontgomery30 1 year ago
@EthanMontgomery30 You've noticed that, huh? Creationists use that to their advantage in debates: they rattle off 100 different lies, knowing that the other side won't have time to rebut them all. They then claim victory with all of their points that stood unrefuted.
shanedk 1 year ago
astro theology
DSCW33 1 year ago
anyone who uses the term "evolutionism" is already void from argument just like when people say that evolution means no god is void from any intelligent arguments, they simply KNOW that these claims are lies but of coarse, the people they talk to are massively ignorant but mostly innocent and brainwashed from birth with jesus juice. i have nothing against my primitive ignorant ancestors for having religion but people of today have no excuse, even having no knowlege, logic defeats religion
blazereef 1 year ago
I just don't understand how people can buy creationism. They get caught in so many lies and deceits its just sad. At least when a scientist is shown to be wrong he/she goes back to the drawing board.
jeans1515 1 year ago
" I entered that program and an atheist and an evolutionist. I left it as a creationists and a Christian."
Translation - I was a barely competent engineer but couldn't make it. I now can make a living as a voiceover in videos that I sell to credulous fools who don't want to think too hard. I really don't have any better way of making a living than being a charlatan."
drfoxcourt 1 year ago 4
holy motherfcking sht , US put this guy in space program? fck! human should've gone to mars without this fcker drag us down.
joshchu 1 year ago
The evolutionary model says that 1+1=2, and yet there are proofs on YouTube that show how 1+1=0 using the evolutionary concept of the Sqrt(-1). I mean the truth of evolution proves how false it is. How can we even be sure that Sqrt(-1) = i ? Therefore, since 1+1=2=0, god created all the plants and animals and all of their disturbing genetic defects. And, yes, god created the genetic defects for a reason too. I mean, look at how bad he fucked up his math.
MultiPaulinator 1 year ago 18
@MultiPaulinator Keeper!
shanedk 1 year ago
Why do the creatards lie so much ?? Dont they know they are sinning??
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
"...I entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist; I left as a Christian and a Creationist."
Maybe its just me but every time I read statements like this I wonder what the impetus was. Not saying he was never an atheist, but what was the reasoning behind for lack of a nicer way of saying it, abandoning reason. My bet is there is a significant life change in there somewhere... marriage, death in the family etc...
Ammdar 1 year ago
Wait what? He was an ENGINEER on a space program? My uncle was a dentist, does that make him an expert on astronomy?
byteresistor 1 year ago 13
@byteresistor If he cleaned the astronauts' teeth before liftoff, apparently, according to creationists...
shanedk 1 year ago 4
@byteresistor At the very least it explains why he isn't working there anymore. Usually, NASA is looking for the smarter people to work for them. You know. The people WITH a brain. Frankly, I'm convinced he worked for NASA about as much as I'm convince Hovind is really a doctor.
Ripley747 1 year ago
@Ripley747 Hey, he MIGHT have been working at Goddard. If nothing else, I'm sure they need SOMEBODY to sweep the floors...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I don't think so. To say that would be an insult to hard working intelligent janitors. I doubt they would even hire an idiot like this to clean toilets for them, let alone get a promotion to sweeping floors.
Ripley747 1 year ago
lol nice job, but i have to agree with the guy that isnt u that got the hard to spell name, everything appeared cause god wanted real live barbie dolls not fake stuff, and after he had this whole argument with jeesus and all that bullshit he hid his face as soon as everyone actually started to listen to that bullshit and god never did anything about humans or anything at all with earth and thought he might go make another big bang for another universe or dimension or what ever by lighting a fart
Cookmonster789 1 year ago
"...I entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist; I left as a Christian and a Creationist."
So, to translate... he entered the space program as an intelligent human, and left as a retard. Were they that short of experimental chimps that they had to lobotomize this guy and use him instead? Damn animals rights activists! Is this what you wanted, you bastard hippies?!
JCLeSinge 1 year ago 5
@JCLeSinge Just so everyone's clear, there is no evidence whatsoever that Psarris worked in the space program. And if he did, since his only degree is a Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering, then he worked there as an electrical engineer--in other words, he didn't really have anything to do with the actual physics of space.
shanedk 1 year ago 5
@shanedk: Yeah, I was taking the piss. Sorry if that didn't come through clearly enough. I'm English; we do subtlety and sarcasm.
Seriously though, I figured Psarris was talking out his butt, implying he was an astronaut so people would think "See? This guy knows; he's been to space..."
I'm not at all surprised to know that Psarris' highest claim to science is as a spark-monkey.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@shanedk
He may have been employed for a short period of time at one of the many dozens of companies that do subcontract work for the military. Does that give him any credibility? Absolutely not. Typical creationist. But his rouse works for appealing to the many mindless, ignorant, scientifically illiterate fundies out there.
joelkness 1 year ago
@joelkness
I did a remodel job on one guy's office at a National Guard depot.
I guess by creationist standards that makes me an expert in military protocol...
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
"The Evolutionary Model makes certain predictions about how fast planets will spin"
As a student who has a limited scientific knowledge... this physically hurts me.
KolinKrake 1 year ago
This is my first experience with a video from this producer and I can gladly report it won't be the last...excellent presentation, I am now compelled to dig through your catalog and keep watching.
TheGunpowderTreason 1 year ago
Make more vids, man. I like to watch 'em :).
kaczan3 1 year ago
"The Evolutionary Model makes certain predictions about how fast planets will spin"
Fail. Just..god dammit... this man is not an astronomer
Ferix 1 year ago
hollychapmanxe has been blocked for spamming.
shanedk 1 year ago
lawandafortunaph has been blocked for spamming.
shanedk 1 year ago
I'm glad I've never met a creationist, because every time I hear one talking I want to punch their face so hard their skull becomes concave.
Omnywrench 1 year ago 2
The pwnage... its so epic....
shorty962 1 year ago