Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 30)
Posted by James on November 19, 2011 · 50 Comments
Following Casey Luskins flapping on the video Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover, Luskin has earned himself the honor of being the subject of Why do people laugh at creationists Part 30. The Discovery Institute has all but abandoned intelligent design (the rebranding of creationism- see video) as a lost cause, they even go on record saying they dont think it should be taught in schools! They initially set up a peer review journal of their own (Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design) but abandoned it after they got called out on the lineage of intelligent design to creationism. Luskin helped set up intelligent design and evolution awareness clubs, but stated that the management believed the designer was the God of the Bible, and then happily goes on camera and states that intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, despite all the diagrams he has connecting the two on the IDEA webpage. What really astounds me about these guys is they have utterly lost, and yet they dont have the dignity to accept that they were wrong graciously. Instead all you get is a bunch of bitter misfits doing their best to sow disinformation and throw as much mud as possible but for what gain? All I see is a bunch of jerks committing spiteful intellectual vandalism for their personal gratification. Really what do these people hope to gain by pretending there is controversy where none exists?
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Another superb video by AronRa clearing things up about taxonomy which YouTube administration removed without any reason. If you haven’t yet, please subscribe to AronRa’s channel: www.youtube.com
at 3:38 Luskin says “Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about discussing the scientific theory of design in classrooms.”
One major problem with that statement is that “design” is NOT a scientific theory. It’s barely an hypothesis. It takes a hell of a lot more than dressing creationism up in a lab coat to qualify as a scientific theory. Luskin is a lying snake.
@scorand and a silly one!
@fonymaster your comment perfectly shows that creationism is true, only an ass would comment against the truth.
@PachucoDesigns this is very true..
Oh crap sorry i meant to like this but i clicked the wrong button
I feel so guilty
@scorand It’s not even a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an EDUCATED guess based on known facts. Intelligent design is basically closing your ears and saying “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you.”
@PTKPiper
Truth my ass.
thunderfoot sounds almost excited destroying this one, rather than his usual sarcastic tone!
inteligent design isnt even a therory its a hypothisis
The only people laughing at creationists are those who refuse to love the “Truth”. All others are not laughing, just those who don’t know better. “It is the truth that sets you free”.
@divinegod102 …looking directly in the face of someone. It is a figure of speech. Moses was the only man prior to Jesus (in the old covenant) who stood directly in the full presence of the LORD God. That is why Moses face shined as he came down the Mount Sinai.
@divinegod102 there is no contradiction, just misinformation. Read the passage in its context. “Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.” Exodus 3:6. Your right, no man has seen God. At least prior to Jesus Christ. The scripture Exodus 33:11, face to face in Hebrew translates “in the presents of”. Just because your in the present of someone doesn’t mean your…
@PTKPiper “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.” Exodus 33:11
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” John 1:18
Why the contradictions in a book supposedly the “word and wisdom” of “god”? I hope you don’t teach this crap to your children because IT IS a form of mental abuse.
@divinegod102
You can refine it, curve it, harness it, & dress it up…but all of that will not change it!
Bhahaa creation science, that’s a good one:D
i loved the
“creation science ***haha creation science***”
@throktor1 God loves me… but I’ll burn in hell if he exists and I didn’t say hi? But he also forgives my sins because of love? So he loves me? But if that’s not good enough for his “judgement day” he’ll send me to a very unpleasant time out forever? You love me so much you’ll send me to hell?
So why would I follow someone who can’t make up their mind? Or is a hypocrite? I also might have played football and I do wear shoes that aren’t made from just cotton or leather. Sorry.
Y’know, I’ve said time and time again that, as a person who supports education as being of paramount importance, I believe creationism SHOULD be tought in schools. My problem is the idea that creationism should be tought in science classes, as an alternative to legitimate, verifiable science. Creationism is an important issue in the world and in history, and should be tought. But NOT in science classes. It should be tought in history or social sciences, where it’s actually relevant.
At 8:05 he highlighted the H in the next sentence he was trying to point out. Therefore his entire argument is invalid and jesus christ is out lord and savior. god loves you but you will all burn in hell for all eternity because you dont believe in him and worship him.
@divinegod102 for since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21 NIV)
@divinegod102 likewise is even truer.
@PTKPiper If an idiot proposes a foolish thing, it is a foolish thing. If a billion people believed in it, it is still a foolish thing, which is the bible in this case.
@jaimeraim Good point.
I can’t explain how tired I am of hearing the term ‘Darwinist’. I do not go to church and worship Darwin, I do not read a Darwin bible, I don’t have some religious model of Darwin in my living room.
Darwin did not start a religion. Darwinism is not a system of beliefs. Please, please, PLEASE stop using this term. It is nonsensical and it’s just frigging ANNOYING.
I would just call myself a scientist who accepts the theory of evolution. That’s it.
@PTKPiper and I believe in apes? You’re the one that thinks a zombie that makes water into wine and that walk on water as a legitimate story that ACTUALLY happened? Do you watch “The Flintstones” as a documentary? (repost)
Any sources for your claims?
its funny how he speeds up when making a strong point. the only problem is that i needed a dictionary to understand a few of those words
ROFL THIS IS HILLARIOUS
@TheUnbelievingPublic rewatch…and perhaps take note this time…there are still lizards, even though there are also snakes… anyway – if you want to understand – enroll in evo biology class and pay attention…
@TheUnbelievingPublic, if you dont understand what aronra is trying to teach and show, just watch it again, even i have to sometimes lol.
Apes exist today because they branched off from the same branch millions of years ago, so apes and humans are the same by definition as they are at the same stage of evolution, human evolution just took a slightly different path that allowed us to be smarter, but we are still monkeys.
Have you even watched this? We DID NOT come from apes. We are STILL apes.
Then there should be a man like ape among us if you are correct.
But we do not see any, this is my point, we should be able to see apeman, a very primitive human like being, but we don’t..
It did’nt happen like you think iy did.
We are one of a group of apes that are alive today. Why shouldnt other apes exist along with us? That doesn’t mean we’re identical as we took a different evolutionary paths but our close relation is beyond dispute. (Chimps and bonobos are our nearest cousins in the animal world and share almost 98% of our DNA! -that means we were interbreeding once millions of yrs ago) All life is related.
If we were apes why are there still apes around today?
“I didn’t evolve from monkeys because I’m smarter then a monkey”
Your a Fucking Monkey Mate… And so am I!
Thanks for mirroring this video, Akatam0t0ma. I have been saying precisely this for a while now. It’s a valuable lesson for evolution enthusiasts to learn. All too often I cringe when I hear someone who is otherwise well-versed on supporting real science come up with the line, “We’re not descended from monkeys! We’re descended from apes!” In fact, we’re descended from both … furthermore we remain both in the same way that we’re descended from and remain mammals.
ShalomYal, yes, using modern classifications, we should either stop using the term “fish” as an official designator (which is what has happened) because to make it a monophyletic taxon name, all vertebrates, including us, would have to be classified as “fish”.
However, this doesn’t mean we no longer have a way of talking about life on Earth. It just means we try and make our taxonomic classifications reflect the real relationships between the named groups. Polyphyletic bad. Monophyletic good.
The key here is “share all their defining characteristics”. Birds don’t share the defining characteristics of fish, so even if their ancestors did, you can’t say birds are fish now.
The end result of all of this is that we then call all life “bacteria like” and then we no longer have a way of talking about life on earth
Maybe, we should keep on going back as far as we can.
you miss my point. Yes we are apes and never stoped being apes – But then the vid goes on to say we are also monkeys because apes share all of their defining characteristics just like birds are a subset of dinosaurs etc. I could just as easily say that dinosaurs are a subset/branchoff of reptiles and they to fish – so are birds really fish etc.
“Bible thumpers” are intelectual vandals
I think you should watch the video again. We are apes because we never stopped being just that: apes. It isn’t “going back” to define us at all.
I find this quite interesting. Thanks But – aren’t we all fish or bacteria by this argument? How far back can/should one go on our to define ourselves?
Thanks for the mirror!
There are a lot of people who get really upset about the way things go down on YouTube, and your explanation is the most sensible, cohesive one I’ve come across yet.
YouTube has no real customer service at all, so if anyone wants to lodge a serious complaint (such as insufficient customer service, breach of contract, etc.) the best option seems to be the Better Business Bureau. DonExodus2 did a great video on this with step-by-step instructions in his video “Recent Events”.
I’m gonna mirror this too.
I’ve seen a few comments: “Why did YouTube remove this??”
Let’s be honest: There are no “YouTube moderators.” A team of people carefully screening vids and scanning the flagged vids?? No… There is no-one at the helm.
Flagging a video simply adds weight on one side of an algorithmic index. Many flags in a few views = yanked video & “strike” on the channel.
It’s not the bible-thumpers who “have YouTube by the balls.” It’s ANY small group of people who don’t mind lying. (Like bible-thumpers.)
Our monkeyhood lmao!
I can’t figure out either, why they would
remove this??? Maybe because of the
breast feeding pic? But that can’t be
right because YT features many breast
feeding vids….so idk what the hell??
I have never in my life considered the fact
that we came from apes or haha monkeys
offensive. I mean, if it’s true, it;s true, end
of story….and so what! We had to come from
somewhere right?
ohoh, I shouldn’t have said that lol
haha Eddie Izzard!