This is Why Every Scientist Accepts Evolution

brainfoodlunch Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Well, not by actually refuting anything in it, like you might expect. The correct tactic is to just declare the title is a lie and therefore everything else in the video must be as well.

lcc402 Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Again, with the "fits perfectly" and "every other discipline". You are a "perfect" disciple of your Evolutionism. Just keep repeating these absolute statements and maybe it will make them true. Also, be sure you always maintain your firm commitment to naturalism and never even permit yourself the option of a creator - to which the evidence clearly points.

lcc402 Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Yes, let's group them all together as a bunch of uneducated cretins, the only problem is it doesn't wash with reality. There are many Phd's from respected schools and brilliant individuals. But, yes, I understand it is frustrating for you that not everyone shares your Evolutionism.

brainfoodlunch Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Ok, we get it. You don't like our choice of words. Now please put this infantile argument to rest. Do you have any REAL arguments against evolution or are we just going to talk semantics all day? While your at it you can stop making assumptions about me personally. I've fully considered the possibility of a creator and what evidence there might be of one. I was once a Christian and I certainly have looked at this issue from both perspectives. As I see it, there is no evidence for or against.

brainfoodlunch Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Sorry, but it's true. What arguments have you given? You've called our acceptance of evolution blind faith, you've said all evidence points to a creator without actually showing us any and you've repeatedly whined about our choice of words. This is tedious. Give us something real, worthwhile or intelligent. We'll still shoot it down but it least TRY to give us a challenge.

123Atheist Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - I know a little about everything, that's why I can say that all of the evidence points to evolution, but it's so hard to explain. Plus i'm lazy too :)

123Atheist Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - I'm talking about people like the pope or scientists that are exposed to the actual evidence. They aren't naturalists or materialists yet they believe evolution. Don't you think they know something that you don't.

123Atheist Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Look at my profile it has a list of evidence for evolution that hasn't been refuted. If you have any problems with it then tell me.

LeopardFrogPilboxhat Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - Question for creationists: Where did viruses come from? Did they exist before the fall? If so how did they reproduce without harming things? Like rabies: did rabies exist before the fall. If not then why do rodents make unique proteins to be immune against rabies?

gamesbok Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - No, no, no. This is obviously wrong. The alternate theory is obviously true. Invisible guy did it with magic. This theory is superior because it requires less thought, or indeed, any thought at all.

iamnuff1992 Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - zomg your right... im so glad you said that, Dons discription is too hard for me... il just stick with the magic skydaddy

iamnuff1992 Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - creationism scares me. i learned this stuff in school, about evolution i mean, im guessing some people over the age of about 40 did not learn this in school (otherwise there would be no creationists, its hard to dispute science when you KNOW it works) therfore if we just wait them out all the bible bashers would die off (old age and stuff) and each new generation would learn science. but these ingnorant creationists are tryng to get their bullshit in schools,

iamnuff1992 Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - more people teaching ingnorance to more children..., creationism is easy, why choose to learn when you can just say god did it? the human race as a whole will get stupider if creationism gets in to schools. there was a time when religion ruled all, when it was the law, when it was "how things worked" it was all "god does this", "god wants you to do this", and "god doesnt like this..." it was called "The dark ages" for a reason, dont forget that.

scourfish Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - I have zero problem with discussing creationism in schools, so long as it stays out of the science curriculum.

TAz69x Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - You didn't have to make a whole video. You could've just added the line: "...because unlike creationists, scientists aren't retarded"

gamesbok Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - I was in Africa, watching mud skippers, and I can see some differences in migrating to an essentially animal-free land environment, and one that's populated with preditors. Your idiology is hampering you.

Liberum69 Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - I freaking love this guy.

FromDimmuLand Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - Quote:(New research this, not OLD 'facts' like in the Vid) Only 10% of our DNA is being used for building proteins. It is this subset of DNA that is of interest to western researchers and is being examined and categorized. The other 90% are considered "junk DNA." The Russian researchers, however, convinced that nature was not dumb, joined linguists and geneticists in a venture to explore that 90% of "junk DNA." Their results, findings and conclusions are simply revolutionary!

FromDimmuLand Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - According to there findings, our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body but also serves as data storage and communication. The Russian linguists found that the genetic code —especially in the apparent "useless" 90%— follows the same rules as all our human languages.

FromDimmuLand Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - Cherry picking indeed, Evo picks out the 10% they have the 'brains' to work with, and call the other procent Junk hoping no one will look into it . Great Work ...

LeopardFrogPilboxhat Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - @FromDimmuLand Junk DNA doesn't mean what you think it means. The originator of the term junk DNA(Susumo Ohno) did so in a paper about possible functions of these sequences. It was long known that much of it plays proximate regulatory roles. Other regions provide raw material that get's transposed around and creates new genes like Ohno later showed in the nylonase study. This helps with genome evolution. Still there are many sequences that are evolutionary leftovers.

LeopardFrogPilboxhat Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - When Ohno proposed his idea the current thinking of the adapationist old guard was that all DNA served a function. From comparative genomics though this idea had to be discarded for a semi-conservative theory of function We now know that there are little elements that exist only because they code for their own copying and pasting. These are called retrotransposons. We know their function. Their function is only to make copies of themselves. Google "alu elements"

LeopardFrogPilboxhat Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - Don't confuse the evolutionists that post on the internet with scientists. In science they never argued that non-coding sequences were never had any role. We know quite a lot of the DNA are pseudogenes that look like working genes in other organisms, but have lost their ability to make a protein product. Other parts are areas of repeat errors, still more are the results of failed gene duplications. There are also retroviruses that have inserted themselves in there.

8NCLI8 Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - Don't confuse the creationists that post on the internet with scientists.

8NCLI8 Says:

Nov 25, 2009 - Also, please note that they will ignore any points that are brought up in the video which they do not have a counterargument for, and focus only on a single point to try and discredit the entire video :)