I think you misunderstand what evolution is. Evolution is a gradual change of heritable characteristics from generation to generation. You can observe evolution in organisms with fast Reproduktion cycles. Evolution doesn't say how old the earth or the universe is. That is a completely different field of science. I understand that you didn't want to argue on what is true. But I think you have to know what evolution is and what it's not. Evolution is science and not a religion
Religious zealots like to call evolution a belief because they're either brainwashed or flat out lying and angry because there's tons of evidence supporting evolution and ZERO evidence supporting their favorite belief.
@@com.7869 what's your definition of the word 'theory' here? there's 2 commonly used definitions: the colliqual one: used as a synonym for "guess"..."im not sure who did this, but i have a theory they're still in the room right now" the scientific one, however, is much different, a theory in science is the highest standard we have...something is only given the 'title' of theory if it's gone through many many MANY tests and attempts at falsifying it, checking it from every way and angle scientists are able to until it's as close to 100% certainty its correct as can be, and even then we dont accept that it's 100% "proven" as we're still open to it being shown to be false in the future... it's constantly trying to prove something's wrong and failing to do so, as opposed to assuming something's right and anything that confirms it is evidence for it, and anything that might not gets an excuse. if you still dont get it after that slightly long winded explanation, lmk, i can try again :)
On one side, we have incredible amounts of supporting evidence vs the creationist side which doesn't really have any demonstrable evidence to support it.
@@shanewilson7994 evolutionist refuse to acknowledge evidence and then claim there is none, all the whole ignoring HUGE holes in their evidence. Like evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, circular definition of homology and when it's not homology it's simply "convergent evolution", fine tuning and lack of time to accomplish the vast evolution of life from single celled life to arguing on the internet in 550million years.
How evolution works First step in the process. Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place. Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random. Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this. Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations. The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur. This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction. There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution.
@@marcj3682 So still no point as it does not say why you are incontinent. In agreement or in denial of reality? Everything I wrote is supported by verifiable evidence.
You see the only reason to laugh at what I wrote is religion. Or perhaps amazement that someone can so clearly explain a well understood process that is supported by more than adequate evidence. Losing control of your bladder is medical problem you should get help with.
All the ideas are on the table but like or not you promoting religion and it is against the US constitution to promote religion in schools. Stop being so dishonest with yourself and then with others.
In regard to your remarks about "positioning." Your comments are just factually wrong. Indeed, in regard to the concept of what you're referring to by "positioning," you're literally describing what it is that creationism pseudoscience promoters do: Trying to "position" their particular personal religious beliefs as "science" when in fact the pseudoscience promoting rhetoric they use is both anti-science and unscientific. Meanwhile, in the real world, biological evolution is an ACTUAL broad field of scientific research BUILT ON the actual scientific results of research about all kinds of different aspects of and details about biological that have been published in the professional science literature of biology, genetics, and paleontology. THUS, when you say that we are merely "positioning" biological evolution as science as a marketing tactic, you are literally displaying an example of "positioning" yourself. It's a unequivocal FACT that biological evolution is scientific. It's an unequivocal empirical fact that the modern scientific concept of biological evolution (which entails all kinds of different lines of scientific research results in multiple fields of science) is build on scientific research. In employing the term "positioning" to describe biological evolution as merely a marketing ploy to portray evolution as "science," you're promoting a factually false claim, from the get-go. You further assert that people who do actually rely on the actual science as merely positioning "creationism as a religion, and therefore a myth, a fantasy, a 'feel good' story that has nothing to do with reality." Except - yet again - that's not "positioning" (merely some "marketing" ploy), it's the empirical fact of the matter. It is a FACT that young earth creationism pseudoscience promoters who engage in the rhetorical charades they engage in in trying to pretend that their particular personal religious beliefs are "scientific" - i.e., they're the ones literally engaging in the "positioning" tactics you're referring to - are doing so because of their particular RELIGIOUS belief in some RELIGIOUS doctrines based on their particular RELIGIOUS interpretations of MYTHOLOGICAL stories in a RELIGIOUS book. These are the actual facts. And the exact argument you use here about "positioning" is thus exposing your argument as employing exactly the "positioning" tactic you're referring to in the first place. And then you engage in more of your own "positioning": Referring to creationism as a pseudoscience is merely "name-calling," it's not an argument. Even worse, you assert that "it's not a carefully thought out premise with evidence behind it." Uh... Yes, it is a carefully thought out premise, and in regard to creationism pseudoscience itself, the rhetoric that creationism pseudoscience promoters use is PERMEATED with THEIR OWN religious rhetoric about their religious belief in the religious doctrines they've built out of their religious interpretations of some mythological stories in a religious book. (So your remark here is literally based on an obviously bogus premise that what creationism pseudoscience promoters themselves actually say doesn't exist.) Well, you're half-right. It's not an argument: It's a statement of fact. If I point out the fact that flat-earth promotion is a pseudoscience, that's not mere "name-calling," it's a factual statement. Your "positioning" argument seems to be based on the absurd premise that pseudoscience doesn't even exist. But in fact pseudoscience exists, and there are numerous examples of pseudoscience. Young earth creationism happens to be an obvious example of such pseudoscience - and in fact it's one of the most obviously pseudoscientific and popular examples of pseudoscience promotion on the planet. And on top of that is the fact - again, the fact - that it's a pseudoscience that is explicitly promoted on the basis of religious belief in some particular religious doctrines based on religious interpretations of some mythological stories in a religious book. (Indeed, you even mentioned some specific details of that religious mythology toward the beginning of your video - which is why it's so bizarre to them make a subsequent argument based on pretending that those mythological stories don't even exist and that young earth creationists aren't relying on their religious interpretations of those stories, which makes your argumentation incoherent.) Stating the FACT that creationism is a religion-based pseudoscience isn't merely "name-calling" - it's a statement of fact. And, of course, your very own argumentation here CONTRADICTS ITSELF - because in referring to the statement of the fact that biological evolution is scientific as merely "positioning" you are literally engaging in the very name-calling that you're criticizing. So your own discussion here is two-faced.
I'm not sure how I ended up algorithmically being offered a 450-view video that is so fraught with misinformation and propaganda, but while I'm here I might as well add to the lambasting: 2:54 Having simultaneous different ages within a frame of reference is antithetical to general relativity, and anybody espousing this view clearly has zero clue how relativity works and seems to have a layman's misunderstanding of the twin paradox. 8:28 Very rich to talk about vying for power by positioning a worldview, while the United States attempts to reelect a man whose previous vice president was a YEC, while the 2nd in line for succession behind the VP is a YEC from a state which just mandated that The Ten Commandments must be posted in every classroom... 12:24 Creation versus evolution is about all the things you say - exclusively because the creationist pundits are making it into that. In an actual scientific context, YEC claims are untestable, unfalsifiable, demonstrably false, or not indicative of the YEC position over existing scientific theories or other hypotheses. Those reasons are why it is, in fact, a pseudoscience - and that's why it's not taught in science class except in fundamentalist Christian schools.
You act like people are suppressing others from spreading the truth of religion when literally thousands of creationist vs atheist are available on the same platform youre posting to. Im having trouble taking you seriously.
If all ideas deserve a seat at the table until we all look at them untill we decide if they have any merit.... what happens when we decide they don't have any merit? Are we supposed to entertain all ideas no matter how improbable or impossible so long as any individual anywhere chooses to support it? At some point we have to, not so much suppress as, dismiss those ideas that cannot be supported outside of myth and fantasy. Even then, those who chose to believe in myth and fantasy are free to do so just dont expect society to bend policy and development around such unsupported and sometimes dangerous ideas (dangerous in terms of making room for said idea can bring harm to others. Should we give Flat Earth a "seat at the table" when considering global navigation, space exploration and educating our children on the physical nature of the universe? Im sure even you would say some ideas are beyond consideration. and if you do then the fact is you believe in the same censorship as everyone else, you just want to dictate where the line is drawn.
No, he's not. I read a book, written by a physicist, that asserted that the Earth was 6000 years old, while the rest of the Universe was 13.5 billion years old. He said there was a :black hole" in the center of the Earth, which warped space-time.
@@MrWeezer55 I fully understand what you're saying. But this guy had a real PhD from an accredited university, as described by the publisher. I think he was an atmospheric physicist, not an astrophysicist.
@@MrWeezer55 Actually, being qualified in one specialty of a scientific or technical field, doesn't make one competent in all areas. I have a chemical engineering degree, and according to the criteria of the American Chemical Society, I'm entitled to claim the title of "Chemist." But I'm no more qualified to discourse on "advanced organic synthesis," than on the semantics of Middle English. But I COULD write a book on the topic, and truthfully claim to be a degreed chemist.
Apparently, going by this, the one thing creationism versus evolution is not and cannot be about is what is actually true. That's not the issue, we are ultimately told. Let's pretend the ideas are roughly equal and both should be indefinitely entertained. Even though these two ideas make incompatible claims and one ought to be pretty well exposed by now. And who is being suppressed anyhow? I have no trouble finding new material daily on this topic from all kinds of people, credentialed or not.
I think you may want to look some more into the scientific evidence for evolution, which has been accumulating for the past 200+ years, from about a dozen disciplines, and then come back to your argument. Without that understanding, your position sounds speculative and conspiratory.
Lol still plenty of gaping holes in all those disciplines that leave it strictly in the realm of theory and religion. Have you ever tried to steelman the counter arguments? Like he said around the 7 min mark there are scientists on both sides. Read a book written by man that other men say is true.... Some it's a bible and some it's a science text book, they require the same amount of faith.
You wint tell us about this imagined medical procedure? Or are you just making things up? Religious zealots make things up all the time. You say all ideas should be discussed yet not one single church has EVER discussed. My school, which is not a religious school, has classes on religion and science. So you have just proved churches are bad.
Yes they are. This guys that Noah was real. If you mean something very different from what is in the Bible, evolution directed by a god, which he denies, then OK but its untestable and unneeded to explain reality.
@@bilal535 Yes. Any religion that claims the Earth is young or there was a Great Flood or many other claims that are disproved like most of Genesis and even Exodus are incompatible with science.
@@bilal535 The problem is that the only gods that are compatible with science are not testable or simply match what science shows to not need a god to be as it is.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv ok but you can try to argue for God's existence through philosophy to try to find the best explanation for the nature of reality. Would that be conclusive? Probably not.
to suppose that a naturalistic theory and a supernatural hypothesis should be given equal treatment supposes they're of comparable quality, which they simply aren't. creationists aren't victims and there is no anti-creation conspiracy.
