Quantcast

«

»

Jun 05 2014

Dear Mr Atheist allow me to destroy evolution in 3 minutes!

That’s the title of a video I was sent that is supposed to utterly crush my faith in evolution. By the way, why is it that people who worship faith as a perfectly valid way of knowing so insistently insist that evolution is wrong because it takes too much faith to believe in it? Shouldn’t that be a sign to them that it’s even better than God?

I don’t know why anyone is impressed. It’s an ignoramus ranting at his cell phone camera, reciting tired, familiar creationist tropes.

evolution is not a science…because it was never observed…which is why it is called a theory.

But people have observed and documented evolution, and done experiments to test its predictions, gone out in the field and the lab to do science guided by the theory. Of course it’s a science! And it’s called a theory because it’s predictions have been successfully tested, and the mechanism has a lot of useful properties to inform the science. I don’t think he knows what “theory” actually means, but if you stuck it out to the end, you know his grasp of language is rather weak.

Then he blathers on with creationist misconceptions about evolution. We developed different characteristics because we willed it? “Will” doesn’t play any role in evolutionary theory. And of course he has to trot out Creationist Thermodynamics, which he defines as chaos can never produce order…because it defies the logic and laws of science, which is not something the laws of thermodynamics claim, and naturally he has to babble about tornado in a junkyard. Thanks, Fred Hoyle, your legacy lives on!

Then he wraps it all up with made-up etymology. You know what universe means, right? Uni, one; verse, like in a poem. Therefore Uni-verse means one single spoken statement, just like the book of Genesis says. Too bad the dictionary says otherwise:

late Middle English: from Old French univers or Latin universum, neuter of universus ‘combined into one, whole,’ from uni- ‘one’ + versus ‘turned’ (past participle of vertere ).

As long as we’re making up word origins, I think it’s clear that it’s like “united” + “versus”, meaning “everyone against”, reflecting the inimical, conflict-driven nature of existence, and therefore we have to all gather and laugh at the dumb-ass obnoxious mouth-breather who made that video.

90 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    richardelguru

    Interestingly (or possibly not) he almost has a point with “verse, like in a poem” since the etymology of verse according to the OED (online) is:
    Old English fers, corresponding to Old Frisian fers (West Frisian fêrs, North Frisian fês, etc.), Middle Dutch (Dutch) and Middle Low German vers, Old High German, Middle High German vers, fers (German vers), Old Norse (Danish, Swedish) vers, < Latin versus a line or row, spec. a line of writing (so named from turning to begin another line), verse, < vertĕre to turn; in Middle English reinforced by or newly < Anglo-Norman and Old French (also modern French) vers (= Provençal vers, Italian verso, Spanish verso, Portuguese verso) from the same source.

    Of course the almost-rightness of that merely serves to highlight the completely-wrongness of the rest.

  2. 2
    Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm

    mouth-breather

    *side-eye*

  3. 3
    timgueguen

    His universe comment makes me think of the New Age types who go on about how disease is “dis-ease,” so all you have to do is have a positive outlook and you won’t get sick, or you’ll soon be able to think your sickness away if you are.

  4. 4
    tbtabby

    BionicDance already took this guy apart. All he’s really doing it regurgitating Kent Hovind talking points that were debunked before he went to jail. He obviously did no research on his own.

  5. 5
    petemoulton

    Well, it’s obvious, PZ. This maroon’s abject ignorance trumps your, and all other evolutionary biologists’, decades – lifetimes, even – of dedicated research. Why can’t you see that? /sarc

  6. 6
    David Marjanović

    “Will” doesn’t play any role in evolutionary theory.

    It did in Lamarck’s evolutionary theory, dead as it is.

  7. 7
    LykeX

    This is part of why creationists are so frustrating to deal with; they never change their arguments or position in the face of evidence. They keep parroting argument decades after they’ve been ripped to bits. The same nonsense is continually peddled to the masses despite the fact that it’s demonstrably wrong.

    If the creationists were just wrong or ignorant of the facts, that would be one thing. We’ve all suffered from that at one time or another. That can be fixed.
    However, the big names of creationism are quite deliberately spreading misinformation to their audience. They know it’s nonsense, yet they keep selling it to the rank-and-file, who don’t know any better. That’s why we keep hearing the same tediously idiotic arguments over and over and over again.

    Further down, the problem has to do with their basic attitude towards truth. The scientific attitude is to try and discover what’s true. The religious attitude is to try to defend what you already “know” to be true. This leads to such fundamental dishonesty that any rational discussion quickly becomes impossible.

    In that sense, the presuppositionalists are actually more honest than anyone else. They explicitly state the argument that’s actually at the core of faith: I’m right because I just know I am.

  8. 8
    Thomathy, Such A 'Mo

    Let’s not let this devolve into an argument about dictionary universe-ists.

  9. 9
    cartomancer

    The made-up etymology is a staple of high medieval scholarship. Isidore of Seville was the go-to guy for these. My favourite is his etymology of the word “cadaver”, which he presumes to be a composite of the first letters of CArnis DAta VERminibus – “meat given to the worms”. That was ringed round with moralistic presumptions drawn from christian theology too.

    But I doubt this bloviating beard man is aware of the fine tradition he’s operating in…

  10. 10
    Marcus Ranum

    What’s interesting is that, while evolutionary science has progressed considerably since Darwin’s time, creationist and religionist arguments have not. It’s as if their best efforts ceased, um, evolving, around the time of Augustine, and since then all they’ve been able to do is stir them around and repeat them over and over in spite of their being conclusively refuted again and again.

  11. 11
    Simon Owens

    The guy doesn’t even know how to tell time. “Allow me to destroy evolution in 3 minutes!” shouts guy in a nearly five minute video.

  12. 12
    nomadiq

    I had the misfortune of coming across this video on Facebook about two days ago. Yes, it is a rant from someone who is truly clueless. But it’s not just the cluelessness that bothers me. We could fill pages with rebuttals to his comments.

    What is really bothering me today is the very beginning. This guy evokes some unnamed “atheist” as his nemesis. This is so damn safe. Its the start of a straw-man argument. Why would I want to listen to his rant without better context? Which atheist? At least he could tell us whether it was some random person on an internet forum, or whether it was his cousin. I’d like to know why this atheist really got his goat. Otherwise, I tend to believe he just made this atheist up. Especially when it is followed by a rant that sounds like it was read off straight from a transcript of a Hovind youtube video.

    I guess what I am saying is, I don’t see this guy as even making an argument for his position. He is not arguing against anyone. Its just a bunch of words. Not to mention that this particular collection of words doesn’t even have any bearing to reality.

  13. 13
    Chengis Khan, The Cryofly

    Nice to see evolution in full tilt.
    The guy seems well adapted for coprophagy.

  14. 14
    samihawkins

    Turn phone sideways you idiot! It’s one thing to videotape an ignorant rant, it’s quite another to do it in portrait mode.

  15. 15
    OverlappingMagisteria

    Even accepting his bad etymology for “universe”, it doesn’t work with the Biblical account. God didn’t just make one statement: “Let there be.” He made many statements: “Let there be light. Let there be a vault. Let the water gather to produce land. Let there be two lights. Let there be creatures…. etc etc” It took the Biblical god many statements over the course of 6 days to create the universe.

  16. 16
    samihawkins

    I forgot to use the word ‘the’ and instead talked like a caveman in a comment calling someone else an idiot.

    This hasn’t been my morning.

  17. 17
    Naked Bunny with a Whip

    Today is a gift…that’s why it’s called the present!

    Arrgh.

  18. 18
    mykroft

    Well, the arguments were convincing to him (i.e. it reinforced his existing biases), therefore it must be convincing to everyone else.

    This is proof in their world. It’s not the facts that count, it is whether the message resonates with them. If if feels true, it must be true.

  19. 19
    Akira MacKenzie

    timgueguen @ 3

    Or the Zeitgeist astro-theology loons who insist that the word “Sunset” comes from “Son of Set.”

  20. 20
    marko

    @samihawkins That was the first thing that crossed my mind when I say the video this morning!

    I actually took the futile step of commenting on it on facebook, basically just to suggest that a better way to the truth is to admit you don’t know it to start with. “I don’t need to ask questions, or find out how things work, or put in any effort to understand stuff – god done it; finished.”

  21. 21
    marko

    @samihawkins, my comment above was regarding your comment number 14, rather than 16 :)

  22. 22
    Zeno

    The smugly ignorant seem to enjoy lecturing at people, mouthing phrases and arguments that they picked up and passed along without examination. These folks are just meme vectors, not thinkers.

  23. 23
    kelvinwoelk

    Anyone else think it looks as if he’s waiting on a roller coaster or airplane? Why? I guess the world couldn’t wait another minute or for more professional production values to have evolution proven wrong. Also, a friend once told me that no man over 30 should ever wear a baseball hat backwards, and whatever his age, he might have done well to follow that advice. Not a comment on baseball, just saying the general look, juxtaposing professional sports and religion, does no favors to whatever credibility he believes he has, in my opinion.

  24. 24
    twas brillig (stevem)

    re dictionary defs.:
    “Theory” is one such word that is consistently misused. The scientists’ version of the word is, “a useful model that can be used to make predictions about other events”, and so on, while the layman’s version is, “A guess” (“hypothesis” in science language). It is lamentable that when the creotods want to debate scientists using science as their weapon, they refuse to use words the same way their opponent uses them. Like debating an ancient Roman, by using ‘pig-Latin’. Buhhhhtt, I think I know why they don’t: if they used words the same way, it would be too obvious, even to themselves, how wrong their arguments are. So they just avoid ‘cognitive dissonance’ by using their own definitions and expect their opponents to follow suit.
    I guess they never heard Sagan (orrr was it Feynman?) who said, “The way to disprove a theory is MORE science.” They try to refute Science using LESS Science. No, no, no, won’t work that way. Try using Science to refute Science. Fight Fire with Fire. ^_^

  25. 25
    Mark DiDomenico

    Why oh why did you make me watch that, PZ? Why do you hate us?

  26. 26
    chigau (違う)

    I’m not a Mister so I guess I’m safe.

  27. 27
    richcon

    Whenever someone claims to me that evolution is “just a ‘theory’”, I just say “So is gravity”. That has a remarkable ability to stop them, at least for ten seconds or so.

    Of course, they’re not quite the same. Newton’s theory of gravity, unlike Darwin’s theory of evolution, might actually be wrong.

    (Or at the least it’s a useful approximation that’s inprecise at very close proximities.)

  28. 28
    Paul

    What is it that keeps pulling this fuckwit’s eyes off to his right? Teleprompter? Checklist? What?

  29. 29
    LykeX

    It is lamentable that when the creotods want to debate scientists using science as their weapon, they refuse to use words the same way their opponent uses them. Like debating an ancient Roman, by using ‘pig-Latin’.

    Reminds me of a scene from the Danish play Erasmus Montanus. The young Erasmus has been to the city to be educated and returns to his childhood village. He gets into a discussion, in latin, with the local priest, only the priest doesn’t speak proper latin at all, he just blabbers random words. However, since nobody else in the village knows latin, they all think the priest is winning the argument because Erasmus doesn’t know how to respond to the nonsense.

  30. 30
    gussnarp

    Someone sent you this thinking it would actually convince you, or to get you to mock it?

    Because of all the ways creationists are ignorant, thinking that regurgitating the same pathetic, tired, ignorant arguments and thinking they’ll convince anyone who has even the most rudimentary understanding of the science, let alone a subject matter expert, has got to be the most ignorant.

    Sorry for using ignorant three times in one sentence, but these arguments deserve nothing less.

  31. 31
    marko

    @Paul 28, I hope I’m wrong, but I couldn’t help wonder if what was pulling his eyes off to his right was the road. I am making the assumption that he is in America and driving, as Americans do, on the wrong side of the road, so is unlikely to have a right hand drive car, but is it possible he is driving while recording his incoherent rant?

  32. 32
    carlie

    Then he wraps it all up with made-up etymology. You know what universe means, right? Uni, one; verse, like in a poem. Therefore Uni-verse means one single spoken statement, just like the book of Genesis says. Too bad the dictionary says otherwise:

    Even if that were true, does he then think that he’s a magician and that everything has a true name and once he understands it he can control it? All it would mean is that some people who believed in a certain religion used its concepts to invent words to describe things. Or does he think language is also a gift directly from God rather than something developed by people?

  33. 33
    Crimson Clupeidae

    Naked Bunny with a Whip @17:

    Today is a gift…that’s why it’s called the present!

    Not if one speaks German…..

  34. 34
    jstackpo

    Let us all give thanks for PZ for watching this tripe so we won’t have to.

    I came to it a day or so ago and offed it after about 3 seconds. I don’t like being yelled at.

    Thank you!

  35. 35
    richardelguru

    15
    Overlapping @ 15

    ‘God didn’t just make one statement: “Let there be.”’

    You’re right. That wasn’t God, it was the Beatles, wasn’t it?

  36. 36
    Bill Morton

    I said it before and I’ll say it again. If you made a drinking game out of these same old tirelessly repeated anti-evolution tropes stated in this video, I would be legally dead from alcohol poisoning by the end of it.

  37. 37
    favog

    My sister-in-law posted that one on her Facebook feed, and I in response also labelled it “blather”. Gratifying to know that PZ and I came up with the same term, makes me feel pretty smart. ;)

    I also googled the actual derivation of the word universe, and it seems he lifted that false one from a Mr. Kent Hovind … I’m sure I need say no more.

  38. 38
    chigau (違う)

    He’s driving a car.
    Recording himself ranting while operating a motor vehicle.
    Arrest him.

  39. 39
    CHARLES

    @ 28 Paul and 31 Marko
    A lot of the comments at the linked take-down reckon he was driving whilst filming this.If so at some time he’ll win a Darwin award – I just hope he doesn’t take out anyone else.

  40. 40
    Tony! The Queer Shoop

    I love the arrogance of these fools.
    “I can take down the Theory of Evolution even though I’ve never studied it and don’t understand it and I know better than all the people who have spent years studying it.”

  41. 41
    Olav

    Chigau #38:

    He’s driving a car.
    Recording himself ranting while operating a motor vehicle.
    Arrest him.

    He is not driving, he is in the passenger’s seat.

    Now imagine having to listen to all that nonsense while driving.

    BTW I did not make it 20 seconds into that video. His manner of speech gets on my nerves.

  42. 42
    Menyambal

    I, too, thought he was strapped into a rollercoaster seat. The backwards hat might have made sense there. All it does is show he is sadly behind the times, but still influenced by trends. The sports logo reminds me of the similarities of sports-fandom and religion.

  43. 43
    Matrim

    Uni, one; verse, like in a poem. Therefore Uni-verse means one single spoken statement

    Been a while since I’ve heard that one. Last time was coming from VenomFangX (is he still mucking about? I haven’t bothered to check in years). It that an old Kent Hovind staple? Seems like most of Exxie’s stuff was.

  44. 44
    PZ Myers

    It’s no worry if he’s driving. It’s obvious he isn’t thinking at all about what he’s saying, so no distraction.

  45. 45
    Holms

    That video was like a bullet point list of every cliche, fired out faster and denser than I have ever heard before. If there is even a single person that did not win ‘creationist bingo’, I will be amazed.

  46. 46
    twas brillig (stevem)

    based on the hoarde’s responses to the video blather, [won't watch it myself] I’ll just assume that he is just reciting all the nonsense he’s read at other creotation sites. He doesn’t even think about their blather, just repeats it as Word, for all the evilutionists to wither away and thank him for pointing out their errors. Thank you, sir, for showing us how wrong you are…
    The hat thing I can “understand”; he needs the hat to mask the receding hairline (or thining pate), and backwards so the brim doesn’t keep hitting the phone and over shading his face for the camera.

  47. 47
    Menyambal

    Evolution never will be a science.

    Because it will never be observed? That’s pretty damn confident. It might be observed someday, mightn’t it?

    It has been observed, already, and the way the planet is set up, it must happen. All that raving about the way the world is, and he doesn’t see that sexual over-reproduction is evolution.

    … hours ….

    Hours are a human construct. Days, now, that is a natural thing, and the number of days don’t fit evenly into a year, because it wasn’t designed. And the seasons? Right now, the seasons are changing due to global warming.

    Yellowstone….

    You do realize that Yellowstone is a giant malfunction? It’s evidence that the inside of the earth is not as described in the Bible, and it is a place where animals die, and people die, when the seasons get rough, or they fall into boiling water. And where Old Faithful does not operate like clockwork, but where scientists can predict the time of the next eruption by observing the patterns of that geyser.

  48. 48
    unclefrogy

    soon as he started om about science I stopped watching as I was eating at the time and did not want any indigestion or other problems.
    he is probably on a buss with a church group going to preach some where to “testify” to convert lost souls.
    I don’t know or care really.
    uncle frogy

  49. 49
    coffeehound

    evolution is not a science…because it was never observed…which is why it is called a theory

    Well, duh. You didn’t expect a scientist to know anything about the definition of science, did you? They get they’re working definitions from Ken Ham and Ray Comfort and well, random guys like you…..what did you say you did again?

  50. 50
    coffeehound

    Their. Gah.

  51. 51
    MJP

    Why is “mouth-breather” an insult? There are many things that can cause people to breathe through their mouths which have nothing to do with being dumb.

  52. 52
    coffeehound

    @32,

    Even if that were true, does he then think that he’s a magician and that everything has a true name and once he understands it he can control it? All it would mean is that some people who believed in a certain religion used its concepts to invent words to describe things.

    This- in English. I wonder if the sense of the word in the original text is similar, it might not be in this direct “one statement” way.

  53. 53
    knowknot

    @1 richardelguru
     

    Interestingly (or possibly not) he almost has a point with “verse, like in a poem” since the etymology of verse according to the OED (online) is: (…)

    Well… no. Because the only sense in which there’s a “verse” in “universe” is in the same sense that there’s “ham” in a “hammer.”
     
    “Universe” < OFr "univers"
    < Latin "universum" (noun form)
    < "universus" (adjective, "whole," "all within one")
    < "unus" (one) + "versus” (PP of vertere, “to turn”)
     
    So, in literal piecemeal, something like “turned into one thing.”
     
    Thanks (in this case) to Latin for removing the metaphor from the mouth of the metaphorical.

  54. 54
    knowknot

    Oops. The above is made pointless by Carlie @32.

  55. 55
    grumpyoldfart

    I tell Christians that (just for the sake of argument) I will go along with everything they have to say about evolution — so now the ball is back in their court and I ask them to prove the existence of god.

    They kick up a fuss and demand that I must defend evolution but I tell them, “No, whatever you say about evolution is OK by me, so let’s get back to this god of yours.”

  56. 56
    ck

    MJP wrote:

    Why is “mouth-breather” an insult?

    Not sure, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it originated with the fact that many with physical or developmental disabilities often do not or cannot close their mouth when breathing.

  57. 57
    lpetrich

    cartomancer #9:

    cadaver – Wiktionary That expression is caro data vermibus — “flesh given to the worms”

  58. 58
    CJO

    So, in literal piecemeal, something like “turned into one thing.”

    I think the literal meaning is more like “one turning” as in the “wheel” of the night sky, versus being the present participle.

  59. 59
    CJO

    Re: my 58

    Ah, no, past participle, my mistake. I was thinking the sense partook of the literal “turning of all” and that “turning (into)” was more an English idiom, but it does seem that knownot was correct and the sense in the Latin of versus was “turned, changed” more than “turned, spun around”

  60. 60
    magistramarla

    It’s even worse when you are a woman who has to deal with one of these know-nothings. I was stuck in a van with one of them, who pulled out all of these stupid so-called arguments and was very condescending to me. It doesn’t help that I’m not a science person, but I at least understand more about science than these creationists.

  61. 61
    Ichthyic

    sounds like he says his name is Josh Bernstein.

    is this the guy?

    http://www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com/

  62. 62
    Hank_Says

    Okay, quite apart from the ridiculous, transcendentally-ignorant nongument he’s making (which barely rates a mention longer than this first part of the sentence), I’m deducting a total of four hundred billion points from this chap: first, for dressing like Fred fucking Durst; second, for using portrait-orientation video; third because Jesus H look at the fucking ROAD you dolt; fourth, because do you really need to phrase your words like some “cool guy” rapping pastor? No, you don’t, so don’t.

  63. 63
    Ichthyic

    Why is “mouth-breather” an insult? There are many things that can cause people to breathe through their mouths which have nothing to do with being dumb.

    it’s quite an old insult, actually.

    let me fetch the urban dictionary…

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mouthbreather

    as to whether it is appropriate? that’s a different issue.

  64. 64
    Ichthyic

    is this the guy?

    naw, not him, wrong eye color now that I look closer.

  65. 65
    Tony! The Queer Shoop

    grumpyoldfart @55:
    I like your response to creatoads.

  66. 66
    Hank_Says

    Further to my #62: looked at Fred’s FB page; turns out he IS some kind of douchey bro-pastor, full of hard consonants and cadence, signifying nothing.

  67. 67
    mikeyb

    His atheist friend was spot on – this guy is “idiotic moronic and stupid.” As soon as he opens his mouth this troglodyte spouts out one creationist myth and non sequitur after another, although I’m sure he’s too fucking dumb to recognize all the sources of his propaganda. What a total tool.

  68. 68
    pooduck13

    Well I was entertained.

    I Can’t wait for the next installment of Science From a Man in a Backwards Baseball Cap

  69. 69
    garydargan

    Had a discussion on the weekend with to university graduates. One with a masters in molecular biology. Both rejected evolution. When I presented evidence from molecular biology she rejected it because she had witnessed scientists fake evidence therefore her evidence was false. Of course her evidence for the validity of her scriptures is that they are historical documents verified by witnesses to the events. Of course that was followed by the usual argument that nobody witnesses evolution.

    The argument got truly bizarre when I asked her to produce her witnesses to the scriptural events but that’s what I would expect from someone who devotes all that study to science then rejects it completely.

  70. 70
    John Pieret

    The tides are evidence of order? Shades of Bill O’Reilly!

    Well, the videoblogger is in good company … ignorant blowhards flock together!

  71. 71
    prae

    The best part is where he babbles about thermodynamics, and then mentions the sun.
    So close, yet so very far…

  72. 72
    Ichthyic

    Had a discussion on the weekend with to university graduates. One with a masters in molecular biology.

    I got you beat. I used to have lunch with a guy who was getting his PhD in the molecular and cell biology dept at UC Berkeley.

    his graduate studies were being funded by…

    rev sun myung moon

    you might have heard his name…

    Jonathan Wells.

    people are really good at compartmentalizing their crap.

    However, it’s still very rare you will find a creationist doing good science, anywhere.

    Wells is no exception. Past grad school, he hasn’t done a single bit of actual science.

    even compartmentalization has its limits.

  73. 73
    imoldgregg

    It’s nice to see Kevin James getting work again.

  74. 74
    U Frood

    If you dismiss all evidence of evolution as “probably falsified” wouldn’t you at least entertain the possibility that the witnesses to the “historical documents” might have falsified their accounts?

  75. 75
    What a Maroon, oblivious

    MJP, 51

    Why is “mouth-breather” an insult? There are many things that can cause people to breathe through their mouths which have nothing to do with being dumb.

    For that matter, why is “dumb” an insult? I haven’t noticed a direct correlation between the amount of speech produced and intelligence in humans.

    Oh, and while we’re doing pretend linguistics, did you know that the term “folk etymology” derives from the French expression “faux étymologie”?

  76. 76
    David Marjanović

    “Theory” is one such word that is consistently misused. The scientists’ version of the word is, “a useful model that can be used to make predictions about other events”, and so on, while the layman’s version is, “A guess” (“hypothesis” in science language).

    …No, no, no. “Guess” in science language is “speculation” or… “guess”. “Hypothesis” and “theory” are distinguished by size: a theory explains more of the world than a hypothesis does. (Of course there has never been an attempt to define the amount.)

    Of course, they’re not quite the same. Newton’s theory of gravity, unlike Darwin’s theory of evolution, might actually be wrong.

    It is wrong. Under those few conditions where you can actually tell, it disagrees with observations that the general theory of relativity explains perfectly well.

    Under conditions where you can’t tell, it’s still used, because relativity is a horror to calculate.

    Today is a gift…that’s why it’s called the present!

    Not if one speaks German…..

    …where the meaning of Gift has narrowed down to “poison”. :-)

    It’s no worry if he’s driving. It’s obvious he isn’t thinking at all about what he’s saying, so no distraction.

    Thread won.

    Well… no. Because the only sense in which there’s a “verse” in “universe” is in the same sense that there’s “ham” in a “hammer.”

    Well, no: “verse” and “universe” have a common ancestor, as the rest of comment 1 explains in quite some detail.

    faux étymologie

    That would be fausse étymologie, because etymology is a she, not a he.

  77. 77
    What a Maroon, oblivious

    That would be fausse étymologie, because etymology is a she, not a he.

    Like I said, pretend linguistics.

  78. 78
    cardinalsmurf

    What concerns me most about this video (and the repeated blathering of most creationists) is the success rate. I learned of this video from the CNN.com front page. Apparently he was interviewed on BBC a couple years ago as well, although not for his ideas on creation.

    If he’s trending on FB still, it makes me sad. I guess I should be used to being disappointed in my fellow humans by now. Still sad.

  79. 79
    cardinalsmurf

    @Ichthyic: No, close on the name though. Not Josh Bernstein. Joshua Feuerstein.

    https://www.facebook.com/joshua.feuerstein.5

    https://www.youtube.com/user/shockwavTV

  80. 80
    P. Zimmerle

    I don’t know why anyone is impressed.

    Wait, people are impressed by this guy!?

  81. 81
    Ichthyic

    Not Josh Bernstein. Joshua Feuerstein.

    ah.

    *looks at page*

    and ewww…

  82. 82
    zeusz1ll4

    You fail to understand what a scientific ‘theory’ is. “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation” read it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory.

    Science use empirical evidence, rigorously tested and peer reviewed to come up with an assertion that, to the best of our knowledge, these are the facts.

    Religion is happy to take outlandish, unsubstantiated, Bronze Age folklore by unknown authors as absolute fact.

    When you form your world view on empirical observations you don’t need to hammer the square peg of your beliefs into the round hole of reality.

  83. 83
    Christopher Porter

    I think his theory was that he was the one driving the red LAMBO! https://plus.google.com/+Lamborghini/posts

  84. 84
    Dawn-Marie Stevens

    The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the “survival of the fittest” theory of the evolutionists. The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the “survival of the fittest” theory of the evolutionists.Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.
    If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don’t. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don’t. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.
    Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.
    Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun’s rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn’t there in the beginning. Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas. The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn’t working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin. The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.Evolution is Scientifically ImpossibleEvolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 – before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.
    Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President’s Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.
    What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. The Indoctrination System Called “Education” The educational system teaches children not to think. Any student who uses logic and solid scientific evidence to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into submission. The students who submit become non-thinking robots who dare not question the dogma presented. A forth-grade elementary school class was observed at the park playing a three-legged race game, where adjacent legs of the two kids were placed into a bag. The kids must cooperate with each step in order to run. The kids thought it was great fun. The teacher told them they were being trained to cooperate. Actually, it was brainwashing kids into conforming to a system in which they are not allowed to have individual thoughts or opinions. They must become a “team player” and submit to peer pressure. Communist countries have used this same brainwashing technique for decades. The brainwashing of school children continues by teaching them there is no absolute right or wrong, and the teacher is absolutely positive about it. Whatever the children think is right for them is OK. That is of course until they question evolution. They are then told they are wrong. This brainwashing results in children who are unable to think logically, scientifically, and accurately. Scientific Fact No. 1 – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.The body and soul of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was the idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin’s theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new. The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the “evolutionary tree” have many flaws. One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly.
    Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly.
    We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection. Birds aren’t the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let’s examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can’t breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let’s get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve. Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection. Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical logic of an evolutionist.Scientific Fact No. 2 – Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong. The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human “family tree” is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution. Why do they claim the above discovery is “close to the missing link”? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey. A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct. It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people. A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a “missing link” has been found. Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his “Theory of Evolution.” Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species. Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different. The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

  85. 85
    LykeX

    You know, if you’re going to copy-paste something, common courtesy (and basic honesty) demands that you give a link.

    For fuck’s sake, you couldn’t even copy it right. You copied the first part twice – from “The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology” to “This is the same as the “survival of the fittest” theory of the evolutionists.“).

    You’re so incompetent, you can’t even cheat right.

    If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don’t

    Because natural selection is constrained by the ancestry of the species in question. That’s why mosquitoes don’t suddenly turn into elephants. This is a prediction of evolution, not a refutation of it.

    Not that this is the only thing wrong with that load of feces, but I just wanted to give one example, so you couldn’t claim that I’d unfairly dismissed it. Fact is that this article is wall-to-wall nonsense and you’re too ignorant on the subject to realize it.

    I strongly encourage you to actually study what the theory of evolution is, from actual scientific sources. The apologists you’re relying on are lying to you and the moment you study some actual science that will become very clear indeed. Good luck.

  86. 86
    Lofty

    Eskimo people, being clever, stole their fur off animals that evolved fur over millions of years. It took them hardly more than a few thousand years to perfect the technique. Much faster than waiting for humans to evolve into lolcats themselves.

  87. 87
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong.

    Wrong, a Scientific law is usually mathematical. It allows one to calculate something over a given range, like the ideal gas law. Which doesn’t work at high pressures and high temperatures. You are one stupid idjit.

    This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors.

    A Scientific Theory is back by a huge amount of data, and makes very accurate predictions. For the ToE, that is a million or so scientific paper, that back the ToE both directly and indirectly. It is rock solid, unlike you fuckwittery, which is nothing but wishful thinking of delusional fools. And a scientific theory is made up of scientific laws. I should know. I’m a professional scientist who has taught at the university level. Your source is at best stupid person pretending without evidence that common definitions of words are the precise definitions and words used by scientists. *snicker*
    Another fault of you screed by stupid people for stupider people, science is only refuted by more science. which should be published in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and cited by you during your screed. Not one link to the scientific literature. Your screed is dismissed without evidence. You have no evidence…..
    Oh, and for evolution by random mutation and natural selection: (notice links to the scientific literature) Lenski 1, Lenski 2, and Schneider.

  88. 88
    Amphiox

    They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle

    You demonstrate your ignorance of wholly half the evolutionary story of melanin. See dark skin protects against UV, but LIGHT skin also has an advantage. It allows for greater vitamin D production from sunlight. Dark skin is the ancestral variant that all humans share. When some humans moved to northern latitudes, the advantage of lighter skin for vitamin D production outweighed the advantage of dark skin for UV protection. Thus those populations that needed skin production of vitamin D evolved lighter skin. The Inuit (Eskimo is an outdated and racist term) however got lots of vitamin D from their fat-rich diet and did not need to produce much vitamin D from their skin, and thus, with no selection pressure to favor light skin, they retained the ancestral darker skin tone. EXACTLY as evolutionary theory would predict.

    (folate is also thought to be involved in this picture as well as vitamin D)

    (Inuit May be darker skinned than the average European, but they are much lighter skinned than the average African)

    As for fur, there is more than one evolutionary way to skin a cat. Fur is one. Feathers is another (article and Antarctic birds don’t have much in the way of fur). Blubber is another (article whales don’t have much in the way of fur). Raised metabolic rate is another (Great White and Greenland sharks don’t have much in the way of fur). And having a big intelligent brain that can figure out how to make clothes, build shelters, and harness fire is yet another.

  89. 89
    Lofty

    Oh and very hairy people are just a simple genetic change away from the less well endowed.

  90. 90
    Rey Fox

    Not that I’m going to watch it or anything, but I’ll offer a tiny feeble defense of his use of vertical video. Since the only thing being filmed is his face, then there’s no real need to turn the phone sideways.

Leave a Reply