| creationist museum - 463 sec
big waste of money
Auteur : depro9
Tags:Jesus god fake religion murder
 | | Creationist WOM versus Evolutionist WOM - 571 sec
... a video presentation from johnmoore of the BRAND AUTOPSY MARKETING PRACTICE
********************
Which came first ... Word-of-Mouth Marketing or Marketing worthy of Word-of-Mouth? It's similar to the age-old question of which came first--the Chicken or the Egg? This particular question has Creationists going up against Evolutionists in heated debates. Same goes for Word-of-Mouth Marketing where in one corner you have WOM Creationists and in the other corner you have WOM Evolutionists debating which method is best.
johnmoore, the marketing medic from the Brand Autopsy Marketing Practice, adds his unique perspective to this raging debate by dissecting the differences between Creationist WOM and Evolutionist WOM.
Auteur : BrandAutopsy
Tags:Marketing Business Branding Strategy Advertising Bloggers
| | Creationist Junk Debunked #1 - Introduction - 595 sec
A look at some of the most famous urban myths spread by creationists, and the fundamentalists who peddle them. This video is the first of a series that will debunk creationist myths, and answer questions that fundamentalists have about the real evidence for our origins.
(Music: "Mercy Street" by Peter Gabriel, "Je Vous Emmerde" by Philippe Katerine)
Auteur : Potholer54debunks
Tags: Potholer54 Potholer54debunks christianity god evolution creation atheism evolutionist creationism
| | 'Debating' a creationist (part 2) - 358 sec
My latest attempt to reason with venomfangx.
In the meantime it looks like Venomfangx has now utterly lost the plot, claiming in his latest video (initially entitled 'I can disprove Evolution (How I won the Nobel Prize)) that:
'I expect my nobel prize to be given to Shawn, the possessor of the Venomfangx youtube account.'
It is difficult to know how to respond to that other than to say that he has formally unplugged from reality. This is such an utterly wild statement that its no longer in the realm of mere ignorance and stupidity, but into the range of 4* batshit crazy!
He also has given up actually appearing in his videos (I can't think where he got that non-narcissistic idea from!)
*Edit 19th May 08*
Well VFX has deleted the video claiming he has won a Nobel Prize (can't think why he did that! but dont worry though VFX I have a copy for the record). He now claims merely to have disproved evolution, and all it took was a 10 minute unfocused ramble where he ignores virtually everything that has been discovered over the last 150 yrs. Regrettably a display of ignorance is not an accepted method of 'disproving' something in the scientific literature.
Clips taken from:
The Matrix
Apollo Staging, and the last men leaving the moon
The Inner Life of the Cell (Harvard)
Mars Spirit/ Opportunity mission animation (Nasa)
VW crash testing
ATP sythase (unknown source)
Morphable faces (http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/~blanz/ )
I think the girl getting kissed is Justine Joli (unknown source)
for use in a video that is copyright free for educational purposes.
Auteur : Thunderf00t
Tags: venomfangx debate evolution amazing science Atheism funny stupid creationism creation God Dawkins Religion christ
| | Top 25 Creationist Fallacies - 1499 sec
The Extant Dodos explain the meaning of the top 25 most common logical fallacies used by creationist speakers with examples from the most popular creationist speakers.
Auteur : ExtantDodo
Tags: Evolution Creationism Ken Ham Kent Hovind cse cseministry Way of the Master WotM
| | Creationist Skeptics, Evolution and Religion - 488 sec
Creationists are the ultimate skeptics
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa013&articleId=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&modsrc=most_popular
http://saintgasoline.com/2007/04/01/if-creationists-held-their-religion-to-the-same-unreasonable-standards-they-set-for-evolution/
Creationists are the ultimate skeptics. They will believe in men being raised from the dead and talking ghosts that can impregnate virgins without even a shred of evidence, but when confronted with the evidence for biological evolution they transform into staunch critics upholding the highest burdens of proof ever constructed.
The theory of evolution is actually supported with a wide array of evidence. Evolution is right up there with basic principles of elementary physics in terms of observational support. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, critics adopt standards of such unreasonableness that virtually nothing could be considered true if we applied such standards across all areas of inquiry and knowledge. The creationist's argument is based on selectively raising standards. If other proposed ideas were supported by evidence to the degree that biological evolution is, creationists would certainly not doubt these ideas, for example, the theory of gravity and the atomic theory. However, the theory of evolution is fair game for doubt, because creationists selectively demand implausible degrees of evidence for its truth, and won't accept anything less.
Notice how these facts could only truly be considered criticisms of evolutionary theory if we expected complete and total mathematical proof for biological evolution. The problem, of course, is that empirical sciences do not deal with formal proofs of absolute certainty, and must instead rely on evidence and probability, like much of our every day knowledge.
In normal scenarios, creationists do not have such high standards of proof. If, for instance, they found a half-eaten deer carcass surrounded by wolf paw prints, the reasonable conclusion is that the wolves ate the deer. If subsequently they found wolves near by, covered in deer blood, and analyzed the vomit of one wolf and found that it contained deer meat that would be further evidence in support of the rather obvious conclusion that wolves ate the deer in question.
Now, if some wolf-loving skeptic wanted to protect the wolves from this charge of murder, he could adopt the creationist strategy and utilize unreasonably high standards of proof to shield him from criticism. He could argue, for instance, that because no one "observed" the wolves eating the deer, we could doubt the conclusion.
For this skeptic, all the evidence pointing towards the wolves means nothing to him if we cannot directly observe the event in question. He could also remark that the wolf theory leaves out certain details. For instance, it doesn't tell us exactly how many wolves were involved, or whether the wolves first attacked from the right or left side, or whether the deer happened to be looking down at its feet when the attack occurred. They could argue that deer are faster than wolves so it is impossible. The skeptic could argue that these "gaps" in the theory rule out the wolf hypothesis.
Of course, any reasonable person can see that the wolf skeptic sets his standards of proof way too high. We need not directly observe the event, nor explain every trite and inane detail in order to know that the wolves did indeed eat the deer. The evidence of the eaten deer carcass, the wolf paw prints, and blood spattered wolves, the deer meat in the vomit, and so on, all show without a doubt that the deer was eaten by the wolves.
Creationists use almost the exact same sorts of arguments against evolution. When they argue that huge biological changes resulting from evolution have never been observed, they do not realize that scientists need not directly observe single-celled organisms becoming primates in order to reasonably conclude that such an event occurred, just as those who believe that the wolves ate the deer need not directly observe the event to know that it truly happened, given the abundance of evidence supporting the claim.
Auteur : FightingAtheist
Tags:atheist atheism religion jesus church bible god faith christian satan science creationism evolution islam mormon
| | Creationist Prick Of The Week: Ken Ham - 229 sec
Couldn't find my microphone which sux but here's Ken Ham, this weeks Creationist Prick Of The Week.
If anyone want's proper, reasoned argument against Ken, you can find it in extantdodo's vids here:
http://uk.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ExtantDodo&p=r
Auteur : Twackius
Tags:creationist ken ham creation museum answers in genes jesus christ atheist atheism christian christianity evolution god
| | A Typical Conversation with a Creationist - 558 sec
Antiglobalists rebuttle to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mT9Wc_DgiI
If anyone wants to read the entire "debate" we had, please go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6jvDOKq8dI
This is a dramatic recreation of an actual conversation I had with a Creationist in the comment section of another video. Once i realized he just came to pick a fight, I blocked him. I stick by everything in this video. This is but an example to show those of you who intend to start a conversation with these anti-rationalists.
Auteur : eddygoombah
Tags: creationists live in their own world
| | Creationist Logic is Impeccable - 117 sec
I love creationist logic...
----------------
While it may not have been the same person, I think it's fairly probable. It'd be a hell of a coincidence if it wasn't.
----------------
I honestly don't care about the key mark that much - it's just the hypocrisy that astounds me.
----------------
Note: I realize not all Christians are like this. I have many Christian friends and family - so fuck off.
Auteur : healthyaddict
Tags:healthyaddict healthy addict car keyed darwin loves you dollar 10 000 myspace fuck creationist logic is impeccable
| | The Creationist - Kerli - 219 sec
this is the third song in kerlis new album "love is dead":
the creationist
Disclaimer: i do not own the art or music
Auteur : xxFxRxExYxAxx
Tags: love is dead the creationist kerli
| | The Creationist Museum - Part 1 - The Protesters - 482 sec
***Read***
I will have Part 2 (inside the museum) up as soon as possible.
Read my blog entry about it: http://healthyaddict.blogspot.com/
Auteur : healthyaddict
Tags:Creation Museum Creationist Rally For Reason Ken Ham protest healthyaddict rrs evolution intelligent design id atheist
| | Creationist Methodology - Part 3b - 335 sec
Creationist method #6: Painting creationism with a veneer of science. Creationists like to use the vocabulary of science to confuse their audience (and even themselves). They use words like falsification, data, theory, fact, etc., but generally in ways that are not consistent with their scientific denotations. Other pseudoscientists (promoters of Uri Geller and Edgar Cayce, for example) use words like force or energy, likewise inappropriately. The creation advocate comes out with in a lab coat and a test tube and is accompanied by a model of a molecule. He may even have a doctor's title, but it is often not an earned doctorate in a science field. Clearly they are attempting to misrepresent themselves as authorities on the subjects about which they pontificate.
Auteur : TheFallibleFiend
Tags: creation creationists creationism evolution darwin methodology problems analysis misrepresentation
| | Creationist Name and Shame Series - driver1100 - 582 sec
This is a new series that will be produced as and when I have dealings with any Creationist on YouTube. The sad and simple truth is that you cannot reach many of these people with facts and evidence as they are too closed minded to accept it. In addition, many of them are so inured and hopelessly dependant on their belief system and have been convinced by their Evangelical ministers (or Rabbis or Imams) that they will fight dirty to protect their belief even if that belief is not under attack by science.
The only recourse for these people is ridicule. Thunderf00t has his video series on why people laugh at Creationists and this is designed to complement that. He has more scientific knowledge than I do (I'm not a scientist) and can explain the science behind his refutations of creationists. The purpose of my video series is to out Creationists whereve I come across them and show other people, using their own words, just how stupid, fanatical, unreasoning and vile these creationists really are.
Each video in the series will address a single Creationist, their infractions, and the evidence that they have committed these infractions. Never again will a Creationist be able to make the claim that they haven't taken anything out of context, because I will show them for the liars that they are.
For this particular video, we will be addressing the user by the name of driver1100. His infractions include, but are not limited to: Quote mining, Outright Dishonesty, Wilful Ignorance, Disingenuous Behaviour, Hypocrisy, and a number of other ethically questionable actions that honest people will not commit.
Links provided in the video:
http://arachnophiliac.info/burrow/evolution_of_snakes.htm
The Evolution of Snakes
An enthusiast web site for snake handlers.
http://members.tripod.com/wellsking/Nathistory.htm
The Natural History of Snakes
A Tripod Member Site.
http://keralaarticles.blogspot.com/2007/03/evolution-in-snakes.html
Evolution In Snakes
(Note that this site is not authored by an English speaking scientist. As such the use of language is not eloquent and can be misused, as has been the case with driver1100).
Further video material:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
An English scientist in the States who is responsible for the popular "Why Do People Laugh At Creationist" video series, of which I would like to see more.
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007
Another very intelligent evolutionary proponent. His videos provide explanations for why Creationist proposals are flawed and what would happen to our universe if some of their claims were true.
www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
A Journalist based in Australia who has made excellent videos in his "Made Easy" series that cover topics such as Evolution, Cosmology and Abiogenesis. While not a scientist, he does possess research skills that have resulted in excellent video material which provides instruction and information to people who are willing to learn.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ExtantDodo
Their critical analysis series makes a point by point refutation of many of the popular Creationist Video Series and demonstrates hundreds of logical fallacies in each one as and when they occur. For those of you who keep insisting the universe had a beginning, this is specifically addressed in a "Critical Analysis of Lee Strobel's Case For A Creator".
http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2
A Christian Evolutionary Proponent who accepts the scientific evidence for evolution and has made several instructional videos on the subject. Very knowledgeable and proof positive that not all Christians are Creationists or indeed insane.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
His series "The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" are insightful watching material that cover topics addressing various claims of Creationists fanatics and why their claims are wrong.
Auteur : fs3d
Tags: creation creationism dishonesty disingenuous evolution hypocrisy mining name quote shame
| | Waterloo Road: Creationist Argument - 243 sec
The Reverend tries to use the memorial assembly as an opportunity to talk to the students about faith, suicide and his creationist beliefs.
Auteur : BBCWorldwide
Tags: BBC Worldwide Waterloo Road School Creationism Religion
| | A video for a creationist - irreducibly complex? - 276 sec
Note: when I say "codwell", I mean "cogwheel"...
A portuguese creationist, known as Mats, sent a video this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWK3xJzL5E, saying that's an example of an irreducilbly complex system.
The guy mixes english expressions with portuguese because he takes everything from creationist sites. No wonder why he doesn't even understand the meaning of "irreducible complex".
Anyway, I learned we should always make some questions to the adversaries in a debate to fully undertand their points-of-view and make them spit all the stupidity to avoid them turning back ("I didn't say that!"). The questions I asked were very simple:
1) If you add something before the first part of the system - the first pinion/cogwheel -, and it still works, would it be an irreducible system? (1)
He answered: yes, because if we remove any part of the system, it will not work the same way. That shows he doesn't understand the concept, and "irreducible" is meaningless to him...
2) If you remove the first part of the system, will it stop to function?
He answered: yes. But that's a logical contradiction. Quoting Behe: «any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional» (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm). When something is added to an irreducible complex system, the new system becomes reducible, because you may remove that thing and you get the previous functional system. And, by definition, if you remove that added thing, the resulting system is non-functional.
Dominoes are good to ilustrate that. You make a chain of dominoes. If you make the first domino to fall, the others also fall. If you add a domino, becoming the first one, it's the same thing: all the dominoes fall if that one falls. If you remove it, you get the previous chain. You know it works the same way. A chain of dominoes is not irreducibly complex, and that "Incredible Machine" (computer game title) is not irreducibly complex for the same reason.
Now creationists say the mutations only decrease information. (2) With a similar reasoning you can show that if a mutation, from state X to state Y, decreases information, then going back to state Y increases information. That's a simple inverse operation.
Added notes:
(1) Mats didn't understand my question: I was asking if the resulting system would still be IC. He answered "yes", but he said the precursor system ("x") would still be IC, and didn't say anything about the new system ("x+1"). But we can conclude the Honda commercial doesn't show an IR. I start showing it without the first pinion ("y = x - 1") and at the end of the video I show the beginning of the advertisement with the first pinion colliding the pinion I showed on first place ("y + 1 = x"). Check mate!
(2) "Now creationists say the mutations only decrease information." should be "Now creationists say the mutations can't increase information". Creationists, like Mats, say mutations can only decrease or scramble information. But the point remains: if from state X to state Y the information is decreased, then from state Y to state X the information is increased.
Auteur : pedroac
Tags: pedroac creationist irreducible complexity design information dominoes refutation
| | Creationist prick of the week: Marcus Ross - 626 sec
A new edition of Creationist Prick Of The Week before I head down to the Glastonbury Festival.
Auteur : Twackius
Tags:atheist atheism glastonbury god bible religion jesus christ christian creationist creationism islam muslim church
| | Creationist Name & Shame Series - NegradomusX 2 of 2 - 409 sec
This is a series that will be produced as and when I have dealings with any Creationist on YouTube. The sad and simple truth is that you cannot reach many of these people with facts and evidence as they are too closed minded to accept it. In addition, many of them are so inured and hopelessly dependant on their belief system and have been convinced by their Evangelical ministers (or Rabbis or Imams) that they will fight dirty to protect their belief even if that belief is not under attack by science.
The only recourse for these people is ridicule. Thunderf00t has his video series on why people laugh at Creationists and this is designed to complement that. He has more scientific knowledge than I do (I'm not a scientist) and can explain the science behind his refutations of creationists. The purpose of my video series is to out Creationists whereve I come across them and show other people, using their own words, just how stupid, fanatical, unreasoning and vile these creationists really are.
Each video in the series will address a single Creationist, their infractions, and the evidence that they have committed these infractions. Never again will a Creationist be able to make the claim that they haven't taken anything out of context, because I will show them for the liars that they are.
This video is a departure. The user I am dealing with today is neither a Creationist (that I know of) or a Christian (his profile specifies he is an Agnostic, though an Agostic what is not specified). His username is NegrodamusX, a rather hateful and angry individual who just loves to pick a fight. Further details are in the video itself.
This is part 2 of 2. Comments are NOW OPEN on this video. Be advised however, that while I encourage free speech (including dissenting opinions unlike some people) I will NOT tolerate inflammatory comments, name calling, trollish responses or spam material. Preaching and Protelysing will also be removed. ANY breach of these rules will result in the offending omment being removed and the offending user being placed in time out with the rest of the misbehaving children.
Further video material:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i02cHHN7NGU - "The Truth About Islam" a video showing some highlights as to what some muslims will be prepared to do or say in the name of their religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J34Ub8q2niE - Hot Air Video: The speech that CAIR did not want you to see. The speaker is very critical of CAIR's actions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIAV1Z8fvlg - This is what happens when a Muslim calls a radio station to complain about comments made by the radio host - The host asks why he's outraged at comments being made but not outraged at the criminal and murderous actions of his own people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYvwKJp3mxk - 'The Atheist' movie vs Reality - Thunderf00t examines this piece of Christian Propoganda and compares it to the reality of the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk-eT-DeVHk - Some funny animated recreations of Biblical stories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUWZLBDz5eY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D_IqTFBOyc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd40HxB9ijI
The "We've Heard It Already" 3 part series - A series of arguments that Theists keep using even though we've heard it all before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXzladhscMQ
'A secular world is a Sane world' by Pat Condell
Auteur : fs3d
Tags: bigotry hypocrisy religion atheism belief faith virtue intolerance islam christianity hate suicide bombings
| | Magic Man: Robin Ince on the history of Creationist Thought - 198 sec
Magic Man
UK Comedian Robin Ince on the history of Creationist Thought. From the show "Comedy Cuts" which aired March 15, 2003 on ITV2 in the UK.
Auteur : Roland00
Tags:Magic Man Robin Ince Creationist
| | VenomFangX Is A Stupid Creationist (5 of 6) - 886 sec
Satan Invented Evolution Part 5 Living Fossils
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hKa77qb45c4
PALUXY "MAN PRINTS"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
POLYSTRATE FOSSILS
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html
GLOBAL FLOOD (of creationist bullshit, maybe)
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html
Auteur : TheAmazingAtheist
Tags:VenomFangX TheAmazingAtheist Evolution Was Invetned By Satan Atheist Creationism Creationist Big Bang So Forth
| | 'Debating' a creationist (part 3) - 518 sec
Oks this is the last round. The latest video of venomfangx is a bunch of rambling fallacies loosely tied together. Indeed you could spend half an hour just untangling his latest video, and it would serve little purpose, and would really be quite dull...
For example, hes wrong from the first line about 'unless you can validate a theory its useless'. You cannot 'validate' a theory..... Well exactly, if the guy doesn't even understand the scientific method, whats the point in explaining why his implementation of what he doesn't understand is wrong!
His second line is wrong too, about it being untestable if the inside of watermelons are blue.
Well infact hes even wrong on his premise.... Color is due to the light you receive from an object. The inside of the watermelon has no light, therefore it has no color, neither red or blue!
However the pigment molecules are there, and you could monitor these by a non-invasive method such as nmr.
Incidentally, VFX just copied this argument off Hovind. When Hovind used it it was bull too! Ahh the joy of being able to think for yourself rather than just parrot idiots eh venom!!
Anyways, venom is obviously an attention whore, and while I have no problem in using him as a poster boy for creationists stupidity (a role in which he actually plays a beneficial role for civilization), he seems to be laboring under the delusion that I have nothing better to do than explain to him why hes wrong on almost everything he says.
....so in an attempt to draw a line under this and get back to actually doing something useful myself, I have simply called for a straight up vote.
Clips from:
Apollo 11, intel 45nm tech, DNA molecular visualization and others, used for educational purposes.
Voting after 2 days (ca 5000 votes, ratings = 4.97 = 97.8% (remember it goes from 1-5 stars, not 0-5)-#1 top rated this week, #2 top rated all time education):
Votes for TFoot = 4890
Votes for VFX = 110
To see the rating stats of VFX see:
http://youtube.com/api2_rest?method=youtube%2Evideos%2Eget%5Fvideo%5Finfo&video_id=7711MfObzio
For current video ratings see
http://youtube.com/api2_rest?method=youtube%2Evideos%2Eget%5Fvideo%5Finfo&video_id=oHbHeqd7meE
Auteur : Thunderf00t
Tags: venomfangx debate vote evolution amazing science Atheism funny stupid creationism creation God Dawkins Religion christ
|
|
