The Web's Best Videos on Evolution, Creationism, Atheism and More

This is a video introduction to a website containing over 600 (now about 1,000) excellent videos discussing evolution and creationism, atheism and theism, and more. Use the site to prepare yourself to debate creationists, or--if you're a creationist--to understand the evidence.

Here is the link: http://introducedrat.com/evolution.htm

The list will be updated periodically as new videos appear.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• god
• evil
• bible
• theodicy
• good
• love
• scripture
• evidence
• atheism
• religion
• christian
• christianity
• islam
• faith
• atheist
• theist
• evolution
• creationism
• creationist
• philosophy
• darwin
• christ
• jesus
• belief

[Mogley52]

ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 The Bible CLEARLY states that AT A MINIMUM the devil and false prophet will burn forever. It's right there in Revelation 20:10-15. So either the Bible is wrong and you're right, or you're right and the Bible is wrong. But if the Bible is wrong, then how much of it can be trusted, eh?

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 Clearly you need to sit down and view the list of videos linked to in this video. EVERYTHING you've claimed has been successfully refuted many times over by people who actually study the science. Just look up the "index of creationist claims" to see how nothing you've said is new or impressive.

The ONLY way you can hope to get around the fact that nearly 100% of all life and earth scientists accept evolutionary theory is to posit some massive, worldwide conspiracy. Good luck!

[Mogley52]

SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 Bullshit. The fact that the universe had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago does NOT indicate the universe could not have sustained itself. The universe could have spontaneously formed from the quantum void, much like particles appear and disappear "out of nothing." And that's just ONE purely naturalistic hypothesis that is supported by the evidence. Resorting to supernatural explanations is simply irrational, given that there ARE more plausible naturalistic explanations.

[Mogley52]

EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 No, explaining how the diversity of species EVOLVED through natural mechanisms means no supernatural explanation is NECESSARY.

If you really don't understand how cells could evolve from non-living material, then you need to study abiogenesis. If you're not willing to do that, at least google "how life evolved" and study the New Scientist link to see just one example of the steps that may have occurred using purely naturalistic means. Chemicals to cells was not just one step.

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 Just because creationists agree with the scientific evidence for entropy doesn't mean they are right and scientists are wrong. And what's your evidence that spontaneous order cannot occur "to any significant degree" from chaos? Crystals form highly ordered structures from simple chemicals, which disproves your claim right there. Entropy is a factor of the universe, but so what? It has no negative implications for evolution, nor positive for creationism.

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 "Einstein ... didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator."

So you're saying Christianity is false because Einstein didn't believe in the Christian God?

You're making what is called an "Argument From Authority" fallacy. Just because an individual is an expert in one thing does NOT make him an expert in something unrelated.

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 We KNOW the universe isn't eternal because of the expansion of the universe, redshifting, the cosmic background radiation, etc. They all point to a universe 13.7 billion years old. What caused the universe we don't know for certain yet, but quantum theory predicts multiple universe. There is certainly NO indication that any god exists. My video Deconstructing the Kalam Cosmological Argument shows takes apart the god claim and has yet to be successfully refuted by fundies.

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 Creationists have yet to come up with any mechanism that would prevent speciation beyond so-called "kinds" (in fact, they don't even have a scientific definition of "kind"!).

You have some notion that there are "incomplete" evolutionary forms. That's simply wrong, since all species are constantly evolving. Pre-adaptation explains how organs develop from OTHER features used for OTHER purposes.

You REALLY need to read some actual science articles, not refuted creationist bullshit.

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 Again, you're so wrong. Ring species are real-world examples of species that have evolved into new species from a common ancestor. Species A can breed with B, and B with C, and C with D, but D can no longer breed with A. That's how speciation often occurs.

Nature doesn't have to "invent" new genes, merely transpose, duplicate or otherwise change them and allow random mutation to introduce variation on which natural selection can act.

[Underlings]

@Mogley52 Wow, you really don't understand even the basics of evolutionary theory, do you? The answer to your question is PRE-ADAPTATION, which anyone who studies evolution knows. It's why "intelligent design" failed in the Dover court case, since scientists produced examples of pre-adapted features that completely refuted all the supposed evidence used to support "irreducible complexity."

And your claim is SO outdated. We've since found Tiktaalik as a fish-tetrapod link.