| 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
 | | 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
| | 'Debating' a creationist (part 1) - 241 sec
Well venomfangx still wants a 'debate' but still has failed to realize that he needs to know something about the subject, otherwise he is just expressing an opinion.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone got one.
In science an opinion has almost no merit. It needs to be supported by physical evidence reasoned logic, and an extensive insight into the knowledge that has previously been gained by scientific research before anyone will seriously entertain the concept.
Venomfangx has none of these factors.
Auteur : Thunderf00t
Tags: venomfangx debate evolution amazing science Atheism funny stupid creationism creation God Dawkins Religion christ
| | 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 Thought - 212 sec
The Evolution of Creationist Thought, by Robin Ince
Auteur : tehcovmeme
Tags:evolution evovle creationism creation creationist thought god magic man
| | Creationist quote mine collapse - 482 sec
Creationist quote mine collapse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
Credit:
Atheist Experience http://www.atheist-experience.com
07/27/09 #563
Auteur : PiroNiro
Tags: Atheist experience religion appeal to authority argument from quote mining Charles Darwin Darwinist evolution creationist agnostic theism god Austin community evolutionist Matt Dillahunty
| | What Every Creationist Must DENY - 558 sec
Evolution is a scientific THEORY. Theories are supported by MILLIONS of independently verifiable FACTS. To deny evolution is to deny all of those facts and the hundreds of scientific techniques used to observe them. Worse yet, to deny evolution is to deny reason and logic, the core of the scientific method. Creationists are willing to deny all of this for evolution, yet have no problem exploiting the fruits of science for their own benefit, i.e. cars, computers, modern medicine.
Just like falling is a fact and gravity is a theory that describes why you fall, organisms evolving and speciating are facts and the theory of evolution explains why. If you are willing to deny evolution, why not gravity, germs, atoms, electricity, etc. They are all theories too.
Funny thing is, evolution, both micro and macro, have been directly observed. So to deny evolution is to deny a direct observation. It's the equivalent of denying the sky is blue yet refusing to look up.
I should add, scientists do not BELIEVE in evolution. We ACCEPT it because of the enormous pile of data supporting it. Just like we accept that gravity follows an inverse square law, matter is composed of atoms, germs cause disease, and moving electrons constitute electricity. Scientific theories are not a faith. You can test them yourself and falsify them. Do you have faith your computer runs on electrons or do you accept it? Think about it.
To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bwia12zadw6
Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.
Auteur : cdk007
Tags: Evolution Intelligent Design ID Creationism Fact Logic Transitional Fossil Data DNA Education
| | Creationist Lunacy Invades Science Museum. - 562 sec
Please refrain from putting your fist through the monitor. This video is maddening! Watch these creationist fools indocrinate these kids with their nonsense.
Auteur : agnosticman77
Tags: agnosticman77 creationists dawkins god hovind bible science jesus ken ham hitchens evolution genesis funny atheist christian
| | Kerli The Creationist - 218 sec
Kerli
the creationist
love is dead
This is an old
And funny poem
I accidentally
Overheard
It keeps
The little children
Playing
And bigger children
Spread the word
My memory is bad
So I always tend
To forget how it goes
But
Life is my creation
Is my best friend
Imagination
Is my defense
And I'll keep walking
When skies are grey
Whatever happens
Was meant that way
You're no better
Or no worse
Than the others
We are all the same
And life
Is just a moment
You might as well
Enjoy this day
It's time
To start believing
That everything
You want is on it's way
And
Life is my creation
Is my best friend
Imagination
Is my defense
And I'll keep walking
When skies are grey
Whatever happens
Was meant that way
We'll be growing
Into knowing
While we're floating
Keep on going (more)
Auteur : MusicKitty1
Tags: alternative kerli love is dead the creationist
| | New form of Creationist Censorship. - 339 sec
Playlist of videos that were attacked:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8xj3R6GH3AY&feature=PlayList&p=FF1C111BCE83A648&index=0&playnext=1
Creationists have apparently created a bot that hits opposing videos with 80+ 1-star ratings in a very short amount of time. This bot hit this channel HARD several months ago. I didn't make a video response about this back then for various. However, I recently learned that this bot is *STILL* hitting videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thCBtJhvwVA
Thus, it's likely that inaction, in this case, would mean capitulation!
The star rating have a huge impact on the visibility of YT videos by affecting their appearance on searches, recommended videos and related videos. Therefore, artificially hitting a video with 80+ or some odd stars is a form of censorship. This is completely in-line with previous creationist tactics, which include not only censorship on their own channels, but false DMCAs, flagging campaigns and mass-down-voting of comments.
Voting 5 to the affected videos would be very much appreciated. Also, please keep in mind that a major component of this channel is to encourage open discussion and dialog. This seems to be something that creationists don't want. By repairing this damage you are allowing the conversation to continue!
Thank you. Sincerely.
PiroNiro
For more information regarding this incident, please refer to the following videos by CDK007 and Thunderf00t.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V21dOI6NOs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRqeIXqux8A
Here are two smaller channels that were pretty much crippled by this bot. Please give them a hand as well.
http://ca.youtube.com/user/deBeuk
http://ca.youtube.com/user/VivoVitamBonam
Song:
"The Rise of Satan"
By: kingj4life3
Gifs taken from YTMND
Auteur : PiroNiro
Tags: Creationist Censorship vote bot PiroNiro Thunderf00t CDK007 Evolution Attack Richard Dawkins Harris Hitchens Hirsi Ali Kent Eric Hovind CSE VenomFangX Christian Science Evangelism Discovery Institute atheism atheist Christianity god religion Expelled Ben Stein YTMND Rabidape Desertphile
| | I was a Creationist - 289 sec
This video is sort of a follow on to the one I made last week about how I became an atheist ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDpbL9X3iyg ). It discusses one aspect of that transition: How I let go of the myth of Creationism.
I mention the "Institute for Creation Research" ( htt://www.icr.org/ ). I do not recommend this site for the weak-minded. It contains dangerously flawed "logical" arguments.
Visit the AL forums for a more liberal comments section or just to checkout other AtheistLiberty videos and blog entries: http://www.atheistliberty.com
Music Credit:
Soul to Squeeze by the Red Hot Chili Peppers
Auteur : atheistliberty
Tags: atheist logic creationism intelligent design christian muslim islam god religion education school
| | 1000 Years of Creationist 'Achievements' - 287 sec
Highlighting what science has achieved over the last 1000 years and comparing it to religions achievements.
Music, theme from Bladerunner
Auteur : Thunderf00t
Tags: evolution science Atheism radio creationism creation God Dawkins Religion christ kirk Cameron venomfangx Kent hovind
| | '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
| | Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - 322 sec
In this video I will address some of the misconceptions, lies, and other false claims made by creationists regarding mutations.
Due to time constraints I will only be addressing the most commonly used creationist arguments regarding mutations.
Throughout this video I will use superscripted numbers to indicate sources.
At the end of the video I will list my references; the superscripted numbers will correspond to particular sources
Claim 1: Mutations are Rare
Actually mutations are fairly common.
Consider the following facts:
-In humans, the average mutation rate per genome per replication is 0.0041.
-We must also take into consideration that the mutation rate may actually be higher than this, because mutations with very small effects may be hard to detect.
-This number may seem small to some people, but consider the following:
-- in humans, the number of cell divisions prior to sperm formation in a male of age 30 is about 4002.
-- This works out to about 1.6 mutations per sperm cell.
-Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has approximately 64 new mutations1.
-Also, mutation rates are generally higher, and life cycles shorter, in lower organisms. This is why bacteria, and other lower organisms, evolve faster than humans do.
-Even if many of these mutations occur in 'junk' DNA (by some estimates 'junk' DNA accounts for 90% of human DNA2), mutations are not nearly as rare as many creationists would like people to believe.
Claim 2: Most Mutations are Harmful
Most mutations are actually neutral.
One study estimated around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans3.
Many non-neutral mutations are harmful, but a small fraction are beneficial.
Harmful mutations are removed from the gene pool via natural selection; beneficial mutations stay in the gene pool via natural selection.
Claim 3: Mutations are purely random, random processes never build anything.
This claim completely ignores the fact that natural selection is a non-random process.
Mutations may be random, but natural selection is not.
To put it simply: if a mutation helps the organism survive in its environment, then it will go on to reproduce and pass on its genetic material; if a mutation does not help the organism survive (if the mutation is harmful), then the organism dies out and does not pass that mutation on (the harmful mutation is removed from the gene pool).
Claim 4: Mutations do not add information, traits, etc.
Most creationists make this claim, but refuse to define what they mean by information.
Since creationists refuse to define what they mean by 'information', I will tackle the possibilities that could apply to genetics and evolution.
If they are talking about each nucleotide (or set of nucleotides) as being 'information', then frameshift mutations CAN add information4.
If they are referring to new traits being added, then mutations DO add information.
Here are a few examples:
-The development of nylonase in Flavobacterium Sp. K1725.
-Adaptation to high and low temperatures by E. Coli6.
-Some mutations in humans provide resistance to HIV7.
- Eero Mäntyranta, among other members of his family, has naturally aberrant high blood hemoglobin due to a mutation in the erythropoietin receptor (EPOR) gene8.
This list could on for quite a while, but you get the point...
By any definition of information that can be applied to evolution, mutations DO add information.
As you can clearly see, creationist claims regarding mutations are false.
Creationists simply choose to ignore the scientific evidence in favor of their dogmatic beliefs.
References
1) JW Drake et al, "Rates of Spontaneous Mutation",Genetics 148:1667-1686, April 1998 http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1667
2) Harter, R., "Are Mutations Harmful?". Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#append_1
3) Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.
4) Johnson, G. B. (2006). The Living World, Fourth Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
5) Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe. 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
6) Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.
7) Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219.
8) de la Chapelle A, Traskelin AL, Juvonen E. (1993). "Truncated erythropoietin receptor causes dominantly inherited benign human erythrocytosis." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 90(10):4495-9.
Auteur : GreenDragon23
Tags:refute refuting evolution creation creationism religion god deity delusion reason mutation intelligent design ID
| | Eddie Izzard vs Creationist Theory - 385 sec
http://Noware.tk a clip from the standup show
Auteur : pyramidofdoom
Tags: eddie izzard christian fundementalist creationist darwin theory
| | Creationist Qualifications - 145 sec
It is no secret that most creationists are uneducated in science. Nothing demonstrates this better than this amusing clip.
The young earth creationist in this video is a great example of how uneducated the supporters of creationism/ID are.
When you hear an argument, consider where you heard it from! Yes, I know that if a person is educated, it doesn't necessarily mean they're right. But at least they know what their talking about, unlike most creationist speakers.
Auteur : HelixTheThinker
Tags: ID Intelligent Design Debate Qualification Creationist Idiot Retarded Moron Uneducated
| | Creationist Junk Debunked #3 - 629 sec
More nominees for the coveted Golden Crocoduck. In this video I debunk: (1)A ficticious mountain of fossils in Australia, (2) a $250,000 offer for any proof of evolution, (3) 'missing' rocks in the Grand Canyon, (4) Richard Dawkins thinks life came from space aliens, (5) God shaped planets perfectly round.
My apologies for the extra 30 seconds at the end. It seems YouTube is no longer cutting off videos at 10 minutes.
(Music: "La Gagua" by Celia Cruz)
Auteur : Potholer54debunks
Tags: potholer54 creation evolution atheism Christianity
| | 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 Junk Debunked -- #2 - 561 sec
This is the second video in my series debunking creationist junk. It will look at some of the nominees for the coveted Golden Crocoduck, awarded for the biggest breach of the 9th Commandment in furtherance of the creationist cause.
Debunked in this video: The rings of Saturn show a young Earth -- We should be able to find a crocoduck -- Life should spring out of a jar of peanut butter -- God made bananas -- The Earth is flat.
The original of this video had to be withdrawn very soon after it was launched, because there were audio upload problems and because one of the nominees exposed himself as a satirist.
Auteur : Potholer54debunks
Tags: Saturn rings Potholer54 atheism evolution creation Christian
|
|
