'creation science' is intellectually dishonest cancer, fucking kill yourself
janny pls act
Elijah Perry
Do you have any proof that it's wrong or bad science? It is a school of thought in science.
Isaac Ward
This isn't religion versus science, this is creation science, there's a difference.
Ryder Murphy
>open video >I don't know how to say that word, so I'll pretend And you want me to waste 30 minutes on it? No, creationists say it's a field of science. Nobody else does
Brandon Parker
The Supreme Court once ruled it as science.
Chase Jackson
>And you want me to waste 30 minutes on it? She actually makes some good points, tell me if you can refute any of them mister smart man.
Luis Butler
I scrolled in to the comments that it is deliberately idiot. My bad for not noticing it's a bait
Jose Watson
There is no logical premise for a belief in a God.
Science is based on falsifiable logical inquiry.
Logical hypotheses are tested through experimentation and the subsequent mathematical analysis of empirical evidence.
Therefore, creationism is not a science.
Luke Perry
a court of a state where 100% of his political party is religious claim is a science, so what?
I will not bother watching a YouTube video of a barelly literate woman speaking of thing she does not understand. If you want provide a time stamp for a particular argument I will watch it, but no way I'll listen to this end to end
William Wilson
>I don't understand evolutionary biology, therefore it is incorrect.
Ethan Reed
Eurofag here. How is this even possible ? We may have loudmouth muslims that strongly rejects evolution but they keep it shut and never ever our government will allow this shit in classrooms. Why are the USA so divided by a debate that isn't even one ? Why are the bullshitters so strong ? These are honest questions, an answer would help.
Justin Bailey
Because it says so in the Bible.
James Howard
Because in most of Europe the church is something strictly regulated by the state, therefore is boring. In America religion is a industry and if behaves as entertainment. It's a show, and it is not important that a shows make sense to make money, it just has to be famous, or famigerate
Nathaniel Scott
Because if you get people really strongly invested in lies like creationism, they won't be distracted by things that matter like the economy.
Jace Taylor
> creation > science no
Juan Morgan
>evidence for creation fgt pls creation relies upon belief, not evidence
No because evolution is a theoretical process. It would be like falsifying multiplication, it does not make any sense. You can falsify evolution applied to biology >if we found out human bodies from 4 billions years ago, biology evolution cannot be trye
Henry Cox
Friendly reminder that Lamarckism is still a thing someplaces.
Nicholas Watson
>open second link >one has to observe the world trough the lenses of religion, because God is real. I suppose we should really start killing deformed people too, since with lens of religions on the eyes, the only explanation is that they have sinned
Camden Bailey
Creation Science is science because it is distinguishing what is natural and what is design by using the scientific method.
>9:30 in the same way you can spell help with beads on a rope you can spell....
He is being held prisoners and wants to be extracted
Aaron Torres
>The footprints were created by something too but it's natural because why the fuck not Bullshit harder
Isaiah Howard
Stop posting 1 hour long video and start quoting, nobody will actually watch them.
Robert Rivera
Oh my sides, I laughed so hard my sides are hurting.
Henry Jenkins
Courts know Jack shit about science tho
Jace Wilson
They have things called Frye hearings.
David Taylor
Be honest OP, creation is not science
Juan Scott
So? Someone with a Humanities degree should be killed for even uttering the word ''science''
>Back to your echo chamber
Xavier Gomez
> Starts with a conclusion, then works backwards to confirm. Oh look I found a fossil, this must prove evolution ! even though the rest of the 99% percent of the fossils are nowhere to be found for some reason
> Hostile to criticism evolutionists right there
> Uses vague jargon to confuse and evade their made up terms are basically self-fulfilling prophecies for evolution
> grandiose claims that go beyond claims Like how they are convinced thats how it happened even though they have zero evidence that goes back thounsands of years
> Cherrypicks favorable evidence here's a few transitional fossils we found on digging sites, no fossils were found elsewhere but you don't need to know it
> Relies on testimonials or weak evidence lol what testimonials ?
> unrepeatable results one word to describe evolution would be unrepeatable
> lone mavericks more like scam artists
> inconsisten and invalid logic evolution happened because I must rebel against religion !!!
> Dogmatic and unyielding Like how they force evolution in schools to poor free-minded students and make them fail if they reject it.
Thomas Perry
>creation >science
Fuck off back to . One can only hope they have adapted to dealing with your cancerous shitposting.
Lucas Thompson
Give me 1 example of a piece if evidence that you would accept as falsifying creation.
Ryder Ward
How is evolution open to criticism? Anybody who criticizes it is met with hostility and mockage.
Brody Brown
Give an example of falsifying evolution.
Ryan Sullivan
Try giving actual critic and not blatant nonsence
Austin Campbell
Don't be confuse. Science has no interest in to prioritising some theory over the other. Yes, there are scientists that have interest in defending their own particular theory, but for each of them there are ten that would love to disprove evolution and become the new Darwin. Science is the only human construct that has interest into changing itself.
It is your side that has interest in the conclusions, because it's your side that is already invested in the Christian god.
So please consider who is actually being dogmatic before posting, because everything you said is exactly the opposite of what you wrote
Jace Collins
I'm sorry some people have been rude to you. Please list your problems with evolution and I will address them and show you it makes sense.
Evan Mitchell
Humans rests 2 billions years old
Carter Williams
>Oh look I found a fossil, this must prove evolution ! even though the rest of the 99% percent of the fossils are nowhere to be found for some reason >I don't know what a fossil is
>evolutionists right there Only hostile to creation """scientists""" who criticise things they don't understand or have studied by reading online creation websites and regurgitating outdated and unscientific arguments.
>their made up terms are basically self-fulfilling prophecies for evolution Bait. I hope. Unless you honestly think naming the processes of evolution is "confusing". In which case kill yourself and never open a science textbook in your life.
>Like how they are convinced thats how it happened even though they have zero evidence that goes back thounsands of years The processes have been discovered and it is more than a plausible explanation that fits for the whole timeline of life on Earth. Nothing far-fetched there, unless you have a competing hypothesis that explains how life diverged from the 3.5 billions years old microbial fossils that have been discovered until now. Do you?
>here's a few transitional fossils we found on digging sites, no fossils were found elsewhere but you don't need to know it This level of denial and lack of scientific knowledge belongs to tbqh.
>one word to describe evolution would be unrepeatable Look up evolution experiments.
>evolution happened because I must rebel against religion !!! bait
>Like how they force evolution in schools to poor free-minded students and make them fail if they reject it. Yeah, who knew that failing to learn a scientific fact would result in failing the class.
Overall, you did pretty bad. You flaunting your ignorance made me respond to this drivel but that won't happen again. Based on your "opinions", you belong on . Fitting I guess, since they believe in Gods and Demons as well.
Joshua Sullivan
Human bones in a 10Myo strata A specimen of any kind of alternate DNA
Stop posting hour long videos over and over m8, this is Veeky Forums, nobody is going to bother watching any of this. How many times does this need to be said: GREENTEXT ARGUMENTS OR GTFO
Adam Lee
Yes, as was the question. Pay attention.
Gavin Thompson
I watched into the first the first 5 minutes, and then skipped at random trough it. Everything I saw was him quoting other people passages without context, and the one I saw were not strong argument either.
If you want provide a time stamp I'll look into it, else pick a hour long video in YouTube that is pro evolution and watch that yourself.
Carson Hall
you realize that the very people that wrote the creation myth, the jews, no longer believe in it. jews have moved away from the torah/old testament and towards rabbinic literature like the talmud. christians bought into some goofy creation myth from some other religion that didn't really believe it anyway
There is literally no evidence of evolution. Where are the "in-between" stage species? yeah, they don't exist because evolution does not exist. Animals and species did not evolve nor are they evolving now.
Kayden Edwards
...
Camden Hill
I think all of it makes valid points, are you just so opposed to the idea of creation?
Where are the link between humans and monkeys no one has found that shit yet, humans are so vast in numbers you would think there would be quite a few missing link skeleton lying around.
Aiden Green
>Antibiotics bacterial resistance >Peppered moth in England >Conserved genes and molecular mechanisms between species ok dud
Michael Gray
...
Eli Bell
There are you retard, that argument was used in the fifties, we have tons of humans rest of all ages
The gap in the human development is an argument used 50 years ago, that nobody but creationists take seriously
Ian Nguyen
>read about sun one >check Wikipedia >4 linked explanation, plus the one that single cell bacteria can live in water in almost any condition >creationists believe this prove young earth Wtf it would disprove the age of earliest living creature at most
Kayden Torres
How do you explain it then?
Mason Baker
Einstein believed in Creationism, he even said Religion without Science is dumb and Science without religion is lame.
Hudson Bell
There are the rest you are asking for
Jackson Morgan
What?
Juan Allen
Also the Pope is a quantum physics Ph.d. Once he said that in 3 to 4 years he would find god particles and make photons collide with them thus proving once and for all the existence of God. There's a video on youtube where he explains the experiment and a theoretical paper is link in the description look it up.
Elijah Stewart
The do called missing links you are asking for are not missing, they have been found and catalogated
Nathan Sanchez
According to poe's law it is impossible to tell if OP is trolling or actually believes this shit.
If anyone really wants to whiteknight this, talkorigins.org has all the creationists claims and arguments to disprove them. Seriously you can just copypasta most of the stuff there
Well OP you got a (you) are you happy now?
Jason Morris
is it really that hard to believe that we might live in a created universe though?
I mean we already know at this point that the creation of matter is possible
Gabriel Hall
B8
Grayson Thomas
No, it's hard to believe that somwthibg created billions of galaxies with billions of stars just to use them as light on the night sky, and then hidden most of the cool frequencies outside of the visible spectrum
Lincoln Kelly
well see I don't think there's necessarily any reason to believe that if our universe was created it was created with any intentions for all of it to turn out the way it has the universe is pretty big and complex so doesn't it seem likely that if something created it whatever that thing was might have lost control of it soon after? if it even had control to begin with its just like having a kid its a lot easier to make one than it is to control its whole life after its born
Nathan Powell
God can do whatever he wants with his Universe, fact is no one can disprove Creationism or they themselves would be Impotent and therefore would be God themselves.
Ayden Adams
My reply was to the omnipresent underlying implication on creationists, that a created universe implies the cristhian god. There is no way to tell if the universe was created or not, but saying that we can know the mind of God is despicable.
Everything else is just not provable, so it may very well have lost control over the universe, but this are just words we can't prove
Jacob Scott
here's the thing I don't get about this
if according to religion god really is omnipresent then doesn't that just mean that god is the universe? because how can you call god omnipresent if its an entirely separate entity from the universe which is literally everything that exists in our reality?
and if thats the case then wouldn't that make this whole debate pointless? because if god and the universe are one and the same then wouldn't that mean that science is actually just about exploring and learning more about the nature of god which is essentially the same way that religion itself would be described
Sebastian Barnes
I'm not a science denyer or a creationist, but the best science evidentiality for a creationist existence is the following: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
Brandon Lewis
>Einstein believed in Creationism No he did not.
Easton Anderson
Yes, but people keep saying that he cares if gay people can marry or not
Henry Martinez
that's not Megan Fox?
Landon Murphy
and so this has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.
Jackson White
Do you actually not know how that works or are you just trolling?
Aaron Walker
yes he did, why then did he make that comment about science and religion being complimentary?
Isaac Morris
Yes it is.
Jaxson Garcia
What about at 12:46 into the video isn't she making a good point there?
Adam Russell
...
Hudson Sanders
Liberals are the real creationists. Equality as they understand it is more incompatible with evolution than their caricature.
Kayden Young
Prove it you deluded faggit
Anthony Bennett
Well, nobody can do a foot yet. I would be really surprised if in 100 years robotic foot would not be better than biological ones. Consider that 20 years ago robots looked impossible and now people can kick then and they manage to keep their equilibrium Check the last Boston dynamic video.
And we are comparing a 20 years achievement with a 4 billions one. If you check every functionality of the foot, you can trace it back across the archaeological data and you will find you that it has mostly decayed across the last millenia, monkeys foot are much better than ours, but we lost some functionalities because we no longer needed them
MODS MODS MODS There's like 3 fucking rules for Veeky Forums and this idiot managed to break one. Thread should 404 before too long I bet.
Brayden Fisher
>falling for the evolution meme It's a theory and a bad one at that user, grow up and stop being an autistic atheist.
Brandon Anderson
Ah, the arraignment of baitedness. such a petty soliliquous development in the life and times of this incrementational existance. Dissolocutionally, such an accusation is widespread amongst those denizens of such a forum as this. Such an interlocution inevitariably leads one to assert a number of logical "fallacies," the likes of which include the impossibility of one such that he is of the disposition most true to the ideology in question, simply put, thusforth such a fallacy has been known in the present day and age as a "strawman" or a "slippery slope" fallacious argumentation. one of the concerns with such an argument as "bait" is a supplemenation of one "murphies law," a statute which holds that one extreme argument may be so similar to that of a comedic appropriatation of such as to be indistinguisable from it. this concern though, as far as can be determined by an unbiased and logically unfallacious mind such as have considered the issue, is nevertheless wrought by one slight issue, which is that one can never "prove" the truth value of the stipulation of murphies law using a proof-theoretic analysis, which imbues a degree of uncertainness into the "law." one solution thusly would almost certainly be to accept the non-baitedness of such a claim, taking such a stance as the "null hypothesis" of the claimant, who should be required to prove his own stance as an impressionist of extremism before a communal forum shall take his own thoughts as bait or such as.