Re: Scientific Evidence that supports Creationism, pt1

A response video to Evangolution's third installment of his Science vs. Evolution series. I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions and add my 2 cents.

I'd like to add, I am not an expert in these fields, nor am I a good public speaker. If you find mistakes, feel free to call me on them, no worries. I hope I was clear enough to be understood.

Most of the information I talked about, I double-checked with Wikipedia or Talkorigins before I posted this vid.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• evangolution
• creationism
• christianity
• evolution
• design
• science

[finderfinder100]

Does anyone elses wonder what Dodo tatse like?

[cerebulon]

@finderfinder100 According to the sailors, it was horrible. It was oily and bitter and nothing could cover up the taste. However, they were low on provisions and really needed protein and the birds would just stand there and let you kill them. So it came down to convenience over quality.

[pilgrimpater]

Excellent rebuttal. Just one thing. Haeckel's theory is wrong, however embryology as a whole can only make sense in light of evolution. Such things as the common branchial slits (which become gills in fish and other things in other creatures), the empty yolk sac, the hair atavism that is common between us & chimps but which disappear in us, our tail, the bird tail which has the same no of vertebrate as reptiles only to lose most by hatching etc etc. Haeckel was part right but went too far.

[cerebulon]

@pilgrimpater I was a bit noobish when I made this vid. I've learned more about exactly why Haeckel's illustrations were in error and I don't really feel that his error was all that severe in reality. When you consider the time he was living in and how less refined his tools were than what we have today, it's amazing he was able to produce such detailed and accurate illustrations in the first place. I wrongly make it sound as if his entire theory is nonsense. I need to amend this video.

[finderfinder100]

@cerebulon they might have need a good batter and a deep fryer. If you deep fry something and do it right you can make shoe leather almost edible. Not that the sailors had a deep fryer on hand.

[Pemex5555]

Couldnt have said it better myself!

well said

[ndbass09]

It's fine. You spoke well, but I don't believe it was a translation error. At the time of translation(1611?) the King James version made perfect sense to all who spoke English. However, merely because of how the English language has evolved, some words mean different things than they did hundreds of years ago, or have become so archaic people don't recognize them. Would you be offended if we PM'd this? I don't want to spam your video comments

[cerebulon]

I apologize for the emotion and accusation of dishonesty in my response to you. It was completely inappropriate and unwarranted. I'm sorry. I just find myself annoyed by the standard claim of translation error, as a way to dismiss a point of contention. I do stand by the meaning of the word though. The primary meaning is repented - it can be cross-referenced as the correct contextual meaning since it was used under similar conditions earlier in Genesis and in Kings.

[cerebulon]

Typically, you select the version of the definition that supports your argument, but are not honest enough to include the other valid meanings which are indeed, repented and regretted. The word you speak of is "nacham." It's more common meanings are: "was grieved, suffered grief, repented, regretted." The verse is not a mistranslation by any means. In addition, even if we accept your definition, it still reveals that God changed his mind and that his original decision had been wrong.