EVOLUTION CAN GO BLOW ITSELF

everythingisterrible.com

1. Clemente de la Cuadra: Even after prolonged exposure to Creat idiocy, this man manages to blow me up ...
2. Geoff Ozzy: That might be LITERALLY the dumbest video clip I've ever seen
3. Mr Henderson: Thank God, I'm atheist.
4. Uenbg: +Laurance Emory quote: "Easy to see if you just work steps backwards." I understand you have been taught a way of thinking that blurs the lines between fact and fiction/imagination/stories. Certain philosophers who refer to themselves and eachother as scientists are very good in telling a convincing story about how one thing gave rise to another by natural processes (or causes), which works very well on those who are already inclined to believe this is the way it happened. So no matter what system of biological machinery is shown, to some people the answer as to their origin will always be: 'Mother Nature/the Laws of Nature did it' (by the natural process of mutations acted upon by natural selection). They may not always phrase it that way or be completely honest about it. In many cases these people don't even require a step by step explanation about these mythological events of evolution and when asked for one a quick dodge is made towards a peculiar form of agnosticism ('we don't know yet', 'and we're fine with not knowing for now') to shift the burden of proof into the future (and continue to claim things like "evolution is a fact" as if to say that that's a good reason to believe that it's plausible that it happened either the way they just told it or something similar that is still caused by natural processes). It is an extremely closed minded view especially when combined with claiming that thinking any other way than according to philosophical naturalism (which is what it's called) is not "science" (which comes from the Latin word "scientia" meaning knowledge); a word that is also misused and misrepresented for propaganda and marketing purposes. Marketing in the sense of selling yourself and your stories as a reputable scientist and science (clique-behaviour plays an important role in this as well as the bolded parts of my comment to Jay Mahon further below that included quotations from the article called "The Manipulation of Information".) This type of appealing to agnosticism to hang on to philosophical naturalism (without being clear or honest about that; a few know exactly what they're doing, most follow along blindly because of misplaced trust and admiration) is anything but openminded and shouldn't be referred to as "science" (or those using it called freethinkers) and contrasted with what is "not science" according to these people; which they often do to conclusions drawn based on experiments and observations by people using inductive reasoning, such as the conclusion that something has been designed by a designer(s) with sufficient intelligence for that particular design or (piece of) self-replicating and adaptable machinery.
5. Cpt. Falco: Guys did you know bananas are shaped to perfectly be gripped in an ape-I MEAN HUMAN'S HAND CHECKMATE EVOLUTIONERS
6. HitodamaKyrie: By this logic, rockets and missiles couldn't exist either, because all of the engineers would have blown up.
7. Brad Hall: +daverollins Why?
8. David E: wow, i never thought i would actually get such a perfect example of argument from ignorance. I wonder if this tubesteak actually spoke to a scientist that speciailizes in this area.
9. Patrick vdv: another that makes you wonder ..."DAMN he was the fastest sperm in the bunch ???"
10. David: The guy speaking is definitely a creature that defies evolution. I'm surprised he got to (what I assume are) his sixties, without making some stupid mistake that would have made him die in a pathetic way somewhere along the way.
11. Uenbg: +Laurance Emory a good example of why these stories (unverified hypotheses could be another term for them) don't work logically or reasonably as actual evidence (they do function well as so-called evidence when used in combination with propaganda, or told in a propagandistic manner), is Dawkins' story regarding how the eye supposedly evolved, or why one supposedly is justified in believing that it happened by the natural process of mutations acted upon by natural selection, sometimes also referred to in short as "it evolved", or more cunningly hidden behind "nature invented....", "nature found a way to....", "x-organism found a way to/invented/etc.". These are all hidden 'Mother Nature did its' based on philosophical naturalism, a philosophy connected to multiple other philosophies and a way of thinking, not science/knowledge and a logically contradictory and biased assumption when selectively used, excluding past human activity resulting in designs and machinery from this way of thinking, since these are also not considered to be naturally caused and philosophical naturalists will remain quiet about the conclusions from archaeologists that are based on inductive reasoning regarding these, they use double standards, then it suddenly is allowed to conclude intelligent activity or intelligent causes and no one goes out of their way uploading endless videos that 'it's not science, or scientific' to draw and work with those conclusions. There's a video on youtube adressing some of the reasons why Dawkins' story about how it all works out doesn't work that way in reality, and why referring to the whole step-by-step imaginary gradual evolutionary process as a simple matter (like you said "easy to see") requiring not too many details and only the flimsiest of 'reasons'/excuses/'evidence' to believe this was caused by natural processes/evolution, is a rather lame attempt at reducing the burden of proof to pretty much just stories about how eyes of different organisms are supposedly evidence of some kind of evolutionary pathway being there (extremely simplified and rather twisted comparisons between these different eyes and including even imaginary eyes that no one has ever seen functioning in these stories, while talking past any consideration of what imaginary organism these imaginary eyes are supposed to have belonged to, not that it matters any more at that point, but it's like the icing on the cake of this vague storytelling enterprise, vague in leaving out details and keeping people in the dark as to what the real issues are for the laws of nature to overcome without FOREsight and designing/planning capabilities regarding all those different eyes, but in particular the human eye that is still left completely unanswered/unexplained by the stories, conveniently also ignoring or comepletely dismissing the conclusion by inductive reasoning that it was designed by a designer or designers with foresight and planning/designing capabilities (Newton's 'scientific method' turned upside down by philosophical naturalism posing as "science" and/or "reason"). “As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.” ― Isaac Newton Don't get what Newton called "Natural Philosophy" confused with philosophical naturalism, they are 2 entirely different animals. The video is called "Richard Dawkins : The Great Con-Artist" and the piece I'm talking about starts at 9:20 - 12:48. I assume you don't want to watch that but there's little sense in responding to this part of my comment about the eye without at least being bothered to spend those 3 minutes watching what I'm actually talking about (try typing 3 minutes worth of verbal communication, audio is so much easier).
12. Andre Smith: But god would have to be far, far more complex than a bombardier beetle.......
13. zee339: fucking dumbshit.  lying ass Christians lying about the world around them and violating their own laws to further their ends.
14. 777THUTH777: º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨¨¨°º¤ø„¸¨¨°­º¤ø„¸¨° ¨°º¤ø„¸ It is Complex¸„ø¤º°¨¨¨°º¤ø„¸„ø¤º°¨ ¸„ø¤º°¨ I don’t understand it„  ø¤º°¨„¸¨°º¤ø ``°º¤ø„¸So Gawd musta dun it that way¨¨°º¤ø„¸ ¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¨° ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø
15. my pp small , i was cucked and: only god could do that
16. Uenbg: +Laurance Emory quote: _"Doctor" of what? Divinity?_ Darwin's only diploma was a Bachelor of Arts in Divinity/the Divine studies, or now called Theology from Christ's College (notice how wikipedia and many pro-Darwin websites will only mention this diploma as a Bachelor of Arts, leaving something out for their readers without technically lying, also called a half-truth, a standard propaganda technique). At least this guy has a Phd in that field (not making him any more trustworthy, but that's another subject). He also majored in biology and is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh Dental School (before studying theology). But for Darwin it's not a problem right? No need to complain cause you've got no big issues with what he said. The demonstrated closed minds and ad hominems to avoid any rational response to what is said in the video are quite excessive in these comments. 2 Timothy 4:3,4 is really being overdone here, enough already, I already have collected enough observations regarding this subject, how thick does it need to be laid on. People that are right in the middle of the subject described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 aren't going to notice anyway no matter how obvious it is made by the same types of people when they start commenting on youtube videos like this.
17. daverollins: +Brad Hall My comment was meant to be ironic.
18. Legionario Cruel: "I don't know, therefore god"
19. Thomas Neal: this is right up there with Ray Comfort and the Banana.
20. Crabbytwo1: Do any of you Atheists know why we Christians Preach the only or any other Gospel? So that those who believe what we say have the opportunity to be saved. That's why I and others are here trying to allow you all to believe. Do you seriously think Man can outdo God? Only a stupid man would think they can. So the answer is to be Humble and not believe the Devil but believe the Lord who, after all, did die on the Cross for all of us. If you want an experience with God, search Revival Fellowship and talk to your nearest assembly Pastor. We are a worldwide orginisation so shouldn't be too hard to contact in this age of Unlimited Mobile and Home Phone plans. Unless it's too hard for you.
21. daverollins: Praise the Lord.
22. Terry Turner: Utterly useless and inaccurate... get an education 🤓
23. benchkey: Now every time I have explosive diarrhea I'll know god has his hand down there.
24. Laurance Emory: +Uenbg "when chemicals mix" they spray, don't seem to explode. If they did explode when mixed might explain why DON'T explode inside body. Electric eels would actually be more interesting.... How do snakes have such deadly venom? How do frogs have poison on their skins? Easy to see if you just work steps backwards. Saying some invisible being said "poof" is far less evidence that evolution.
25. Darkrra3: I don't believe this man is a Scientist. I truly don't, no scientist would destroy his reputation like this, now a creationist christian on the other hand would spew this shit all day long
26. Brad Hall: Amazing how ignorance translates into Christian "knowledge".
27. Iridescent Noise: Lol wow
28. Laurance Emory: "Doctor" of what? Divinity? Having doctorate doesn't make person expert in all fields, as this so clearly shows. How does beetle keep from blowing up? How does his rational side keep from imploding when his faith side kicks in? Or maybe it did....
29. Sodham G'morris: The incredible critters defying evolution are the critters babblin'-bible-babble 'bout the bombardier beetles.
30. You Don't Say?: COMPELLING ARGUMENT I BELIEVE IN JESUS NOW

EVOLUTION CAN GO BLOW ITSELF
64 Likes	64 Dislikes
13,303 views views	followers
Comedy	Upload TimePublished on 22 Jul 2015