13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Uploaded by: AronRa
Video Description:
Every "evolutionist hoax" ever alleged was either fabricated or misrepresented to such a degree that each contributes to a growing list of creationist frauds.
Here's the link: http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/13thFFoC.html

Tags for this video: atheism creationism Darwin evangelism evolution

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by AronRa

Related Videos

For Atheists, For Agnostics, For Muslims and everyone else who does NOT believe that Jesus Christ is The Son Of God ! Think sincerely about this... Would You Die for a Lie ? Thank you for watching !	Re: 13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism	11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

CBS: Cindy McCain On Abortion, Creationism	Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)	Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists

Share This Video:

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

"It is no good when ... ( 8 hours ago by ozpowermo)

"It is no good when you know your case is completely unfounded to say that you cannot see an 'exact' quotation anywhere in the comments." So you can't quote anybody? Therefore you're a LIAR! Being exact is the key here, because YOU alleged somebody around here is making the comments... now when you're saying that I said something I don't want you to put words in my mouth (or in this case- keyboard). I'm only going to defend what is on the record, not what your wild imagination comes up with.

"Of course modern ... ( 8 hours ago by ozpowermo)

"Of course modern evolutionists disagree with Darwins definition. Everything relevant has been ditched. Once the God created complex DNA was discovered their heads hit the ground fast." YADA-YADA-YADA! FAIL! You just gave two definitions, which one of them was different from Darwin's? You're yet to tell us what Darwin's definition is :). I have asked you for DARWIN'S definition of species, you are LYING again! Stop lying, Darwin didn't define species with either of these.

"confirmed to be ... ( 8 hours ago by ozpowermo)

"confirmed to be bright lights with no substance do the evolutionists immediately response by saying: 'You are a liar.'" You claimed that somebody around THIS particular video commented and you are yet to provide us with a quote... your excuse was that you couldn't provide the exact quote. That means that you're lying! Nobody said what you claim was said, you can't back it up, and we won't defend positions which you come up with- i.e. STRAW MAN arguments! Therefore, I call you a LIAR!

Array ( 8 hours ago by hume1947)

(2 of 2)
Robert Reisz of the University of Toronto said the half-shell theory may be half wrong. He proposes another view: that this ancient swimmer did indeed have a full top shell, but not a fully hardened one made entirely of bone-like material. Also writing in Nature, he suggested that the new specime
n wasn't so primitive, and that it may have shed some shell material as it adapted to swimming - evolving from an even earlier turtle ancestor with its origins on dry land."

Array ( 8 hours ago by hume1947)

(1 of 2)
Danikar @ **"im curious hume, what do you think of the new basal turtle that was found which has teeth and only the bottom of a shell?." ** No agreement on the age of the fossil. Also the evidence is that it did have a full top shell. THUS it is not a transitional fossil. nor has it been fully
verified what animal it is! Google: 220-million-year-old turtle leaves researchers shell shocked, Canada "But as soon as a new turtle discovery emerges, so do new theories. .....

"220- ... ( 8 hours ago by ozpowermo)

"220-million-year-old turtle leaves researchers shell shocked" Oh, I know how you LOVE turtles, sharks and other species which don't interbreed much... that still has me wondering: how did they diversify? How long has it been since I asked you this? Two weeks, three weeks, a month? It's been a long time hume, and your fantasy fairy tale doesn't explain it, you can't account for the diversity of life based on your fairy tale... what next? Cook some wood lately?

Array ( 8 hours ago by hume1947)

Danikar @
** "alright, ill play your game. what was the original theory and whats the new one?" **
Check these out! Google: He cooked up a new theory on evolution, boston Google: DO WE NEED AN EXTENDED EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS? blackwell

Array ( 7 hours ago by hume1947)

SexyMelon @
** "There is no unanimity among paleoanthropologists as to the classification of human fossil forms preceding the classical Neanderthal in Europe."
This is a direct quote from a single document that would not qualify as a peer-reviewed document, dated year 2000. I'm not exactly an expert in the area, but I would suspect the statement to be wrong or taken out of context **
1) Why wrong? 2) Any evidence to contradict it? Google: TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION AND THE ORIGIN OF MAN*

Array ( 7 hours ago by hume1947)

SexyMelon @
Re: Alleged ancestry line leading to Homo sapiens.
** "However, if there are any disagreements, they would certainly not qualify for "can't even agree on our ancestry line" as it has been clear for a very long time now." **
The fact is there is no agreement between evolutionists on the correct ancestry line from the alleged most recent common Ancestor of the chimp
man right through to Homo sapiens.
It is no good arguing that you have a list when your evidence is doubted.

"You have failed to ... ( 7 hours ago by Danikar)

"You have failed to highlight the fact that your first fact of evidence is not acceptable. THUS if the foundation of any argument / case fails, everything from that point fails" your making the erroneous assumption that any particular piece of evidence is foundational. like, the validity of the various fossils dont rely on the validity of homo habilis

"Evolutionists ONLY ... ( 7 hours ago by Danikar)

"Evolutionists ONLY believe this fable because it is part of their dogma. No person with an ounce of commonsense would agree. And some of them are grown up men!" you completely avoided my explanation. simple question. isuppose you had a step brother and you shared the same father but had different mothers. would the most recent male and female common ancestor of you and your step brother have lived at the same time?

"I call it ... ( 7 hours ago by Danikar)

"I call it evolutionist's depression" mocking a serious problem with your story wont help you any "Danikar it would give me depression to believe that the first 'Adam' allegedly lived 80,000 years after his wife 'Eve'. " you make two false assumptions. 1) that they were married, 2) that the most recent common ancestor was the first ancestor

"If your theory of ... ( 7 hours ago by Danikar)

"If your theory of evolution was true - we would obtain many real transitional fossils of not fully formed animals" define 'not fully formed' it looks like you are about to have another misconception of what evolution expects

"He cooked up a new ... ( 7 hours ago by Danikar)

"He cooked up a new theory on evolution, boston" lol, the title is misleading as the article only deals with one selective pressure which would only apply to us and has nothing to do with the actual the actual theory of evo. again, nothing to do with the base theory of evo. grats hume, you failed terribly again. im curious, can you state the main theory?

"No agreement on ... ( 7 hours ago by Danikar)

"No agreement on the age of the fossil." false "Also the evidence is that it did have a full top shell. THUS it is not a transitional fossil." actually there isnt evidence of a top shell. people have just noted the possibility. you completely ignored its teeth

Then what is a ' ... ( 6 hours ago by Yeeksquilack)

Then what is a 'half-formed' leg? Evolution would not produce anything that was 'half-formed.' You would never get legs that end at the knee or anything like that. That can't possibly be what you think. From the article: "The stumpy hind-limb is only 2cm (0.8in) long, and was presumably utterly useless to the animal in life." One pair of legs fully formed but tiny to the point of uselessness. In modern snakes, legs are either gone or shrunk to tiny spurs.

"IF the first is ... ( 6 hours ago by Yeeksquilack)

"IF the first is wrong the rest are false." What are you talking about? Nothing was 'false!'

Gaining the ability ... ( 6 hours ago by Yeeksquilack)

Gaining the ability to digest a substance you weren't able to before is pretty beneficial, especially if the only other option is starving to death. "A creature changing its food source is a natural thing allowed within the variation of the DNA." If you agree that creatures can vary their DNA, you've accepted that evolution happens, because that's basically what it is. And natural selection is a process that would happen even if evolution didn't. You obviously don't understand it.

"Why wrong?" ... ( 4 hours ago by SexyMelon)

"Why wrong?" Because there is currently a unanimous agreement in the academia about most major aspects of recent human evolution. Scientists will always disagree about things, but these things are pretty much set is stone by now. And I suspect they were for a way longer time since I learned about it back in school. Just check out the general literature or the examples I provided. "Any evidence to contradict it?" I can't find a direct quote but, again, refer to previous examples.

"Google: TAXONOMIC ... ( 4 hours ago by SexyMelon)

"Google: TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION AND THE ORIGIN OF MAN*" This still throws up the random document you're obviously referring to, and, as I said, I could not disagree with it or your interpretation of it more. However, if there is a disagreement on such matters, I fail to see how it in any shape way or form places any current scientific theory in bad light.

"...there is no ... ( 4 hours ago by SexyMelon)

"...there is no agreement between evolutionists on the correct ancestry line from the alleged most recent common Ancestor of the chimp
man right through to Homo sapiens." I'll be honest, I don't know for sure if there is, but I'll say that there most probably is as we have thousands of fossilised and living examples of either species as well as multiple transitional forms between them as well as outstanding similarities in genetic code of the two that implies that we share a common ancestor.

*either species as ... ( 4 hours ago by SexyMelon)

*either species as well as multiple transitional and branching forms in line to and from either of them.

"Google: He cooked ... ( 4 hours ago by SexyMelon)

"Google: He cooked up a new theory on evolution, boston" A random person speculating about the relationship of adopting cooking and progress of mankind. Maybe you should learn to read past the title. "Google: DO WE NEED AN EXTENDED EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS?" No synapsis available, unverifiable.

"1) It was not a ... ( 3 hours ago by ozpowermo)

"1) It was not a beneficial mutation." So eating food is not a beneficial mutation? "2) A new food source at only 2% efficiency is hardly beneficial..." When you have an abundant and easy to get food source it's more beneficial to eat it, even if it's harder to process! "3) A creature changing its food source is a natural thing allowed within the variation of the DNA." Then you should be able to give one example of any OTHER animal that has adapted to digest man-made non-organic materials!

Tell a friend:

Humor Shqip

Portokalli Show, Stupcat, Cumili, Humor Shkodran, Video humoristike

13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

URL
Embed Code