Dance Showdown Presented by D-trix – Episode 1
Posted by James on November 26, 2012 · 50 Comments
Subscribe to DanceOn: bit.ly Contestant bios: bit.ly Extended Rehearsals from this episode: bit.ly WEEK 1: THE FIRST 6 CONTESTANTS REHEARSE Come back next week to see the next 6 contestants rehearse! In the nail-biting first episode, the first six YouTube stars (out of 12) meet their professional dance choreographer for the very first time. They get down to business, learning and rehearsing their tricky dance routines for an upcoming dance battle. The results range from painful to pleasantly surprising. Will our stars pull it together in time to perform in the first round of Dance Showdown? DanceOn Network has a new original series. You’ve seen So You Think You Can Dance. You’ve seen Dancing with the Stars…but you’ve never seen moves quite like those featured on the new reality show: Dance Showdown Presented by D-trix. Twelve dance-challenged YouTube stars pair off with four professional dancers to train, sweat, fail, and ultimately perform in an epic dance battle to win 000 CASH. YOU, the audience, vote for the winner. In the end, only one dancer or troupe can triumph as the ultimate Dancer and go home with cold hard cash! Subscribe to catch new episodes of Dance Showdown Season 2 every Friday! DanceOn Channel: ???www.youtube.com DanceOn Twitter: @DanceOnNetwork ? FEATURING: Sam Betesh (xJawz) ? www.youtube.com Kingsley (ItsKingsleyBitch) ? www.youtube.com Tay Zonday ?www.youtube.com Kyle Mooney, Beck Bennett, Nick Rutherford (Good Neighbor) www.youtube.com Hannah …
Video Rating: 4 / 5
wazooloo.com Detecting bedbugs with shaved armpits to prove evolution. Potholer54 needs to be filled in on thermodynamics, dinosaurs are not birds no matter how loudly you say it, and Ian covers some viewer comments. This is Episode 1 of the first season of Genesis Week. http genesisweek.com
Video Rating: 0 / 5
KINGSLEY!!!?
Dope freshness? SAAAN!!
this is season 1 you know? right
why is tay? wearing lipstick and why does it perfectly match his hoodie?
Way better than season 2..?
chocolate rain?
Kingsley!?
whats the name of that song being used? for obama girl’s dance?
kingsley!!!!!!!? 😀
KINGSLEY? YESSSSS 🙂
who? watched this after the 2 season? xD
GOLD? GALIL. High five!
ObamaGirl has a crush on Tanaka….. TanakaGirl!!!?
chocolate rain!!?
KINGSLEY! xD so lucky?
Kingsley!!!!!?
OMG OMG? KINGSLEY!! :O!!
Ian Eastwood? !!! <3
The swifters are? here
CHESTER? SEEEEEEEE
CHIMNEYSWIFTTTTTTTT
MSHANNAHMIXXXXXXXX
They should? get Nova!
Pvp? Saab
Aw man, smosh isn’t in? it?
2:50? dem shorts….
hahaha ahhhh Hannnaaaaaah!!? my exact reaction lol
@CDUTT360 the beginning of this universe was just the collapse of the last one,? there now it’s infinite again…
So Wazoolo are you just straight up? removing my comments?
You are an embarrassment to human kind. Stop making these idiot videos of you ranting about logical videos, reports, studies and people your brainwashed? head fails to fully comprehend and understand.
“sorry your wrong if the universe is infinite and eternal than yes it would not need an explanation but thats not the case we know that it had a beginning”
-Not really. We know THIS universe began with the big bang. But the eneryg/matter from the big bang could have come from another universe or could have? always been in a constant loop of big bang and big crunch. There are many theories
“we know? if something had a beginning than it would need a cause ”
-Are you pulling out? the Kalam?
“we know? if something had a beginning than it? would need a cause”
-What do you mean by “cause”. William Lane Craige has deceived you apologist into thinking the kalam is a decent argument. It is NOT.
-Everything that has ever “began” to exist has a MATERIAL cause. And is made of preexisting material. Premise? 1 of the Kalam use the equivocation fallacy.
This would be more correct “we know? if something had a beginning than it would need a MATERIAL cause”
At the end of? your comment, you make the point yourself. If the universe would need an explanation, then the explanation would need an explanation etc. You just go one step too far, by imagining a God. The universe began and science is trying to explain it, but not much evidence has yet been discovered. Science is all about explaining things.
We may never see beyond the initial point of our universe, but we might find shadows of other universes coming into existence, disproving any creator.
Here is why that argument fails (from Carl Sagain):
…we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and? decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we? say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?
“we know? if something had a beginning than it would need a cause”
-What do you mean by “cause”. William Lane Craige has deceived you apologist into thinking the kalam is a decent argument. It is NOT.
-Everything that has ever “began” to exist has a MATERIAL cause. And is made of? preexisting material. Premise 1 of the Kalam use the equivocation fallacy.
This would be more correct “we know? if something had a beginning than it would need a MATERIAL cause”
“sorry your wrong if the universe is? infinite and eternal than yes it would not need an explanation but thats not the case we know that it had a beginning”
-Not really. We know THIS universe began with the big bang. But the eneryg/matter from the big bang could have come from another universe or could have always been in a constant loop of big bang and big crunch. There are many theories
“we know? if something had a beginning than it would need a cause ”
-Are you pulling out the Kalam?
sorry your wrong if the universe is infinite and eternal than yes it would not need an explanation but thats not the case we know that it had a beginning and we know if something had a beginning than it would need a cause and an explanation. God doenst need a creator because he is the creator if God needed an explanation then that explanation would need an? explanation etc etc which is absurd and would make science and anything trying to attempt to explain something null and void
I’d be? hiding in a hole if I was him…
InternetDisciple is the saddest character on the internet. When he can show that metaphysical? things exist, then we’ll take him seriously.
See what happened there? InternetDisciple is in a never ending loop? of retardation.
“…from where do you get the assertion that metaphysical things do not need a creator and physical things do?”
Physical things are, by nature, finite things. Metaphysical things are not necessarily finite.
Please let me know if you still don’t understand why the metaphysical doesn’t necessarily need a Creator.?
Abiogenesis has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to form a cell are nothing but? speculation with experiments that have failed abysmally!! Also intelligence is required to synthesize, manipulate and copy pre-existing cellular information! So? even? with chemists present, it cant be done!? Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins! Life comes from Life!!
Again if you didn’t understand the first time,from where do you get the assertion that metaphysical things do not need a creator and physical things do? What makes you even think? there are such things as metaphysical? You have no evidence and it is not a result from any logic thought experiment.
you truly are a idiot. perfect example of? straw man.
“The argument that the universe does, but God doesn’t need a creator is just silly? and absurd.”
Then is the second time that you invoked God. With whom are you are trying to converse?
Regardless, you still seem to be making the mistake of trying to put physical limitations on the metaphysical.
“Nowhere in the definition of the physical universe does it say it needs to be created,”
Then look for your definition elsewhere, my friend.
If someone is trying to convince you to believe that nothing accounts for the existence of? the universe, then ask that person to give you a few more examples of things for which nothing accounts for their existence. And then watch them squirm.
No danger of? me commiting suicide. 😀 If I believed in God I might, but since this is the only life I have, I don’t want to throw it away.
Hi Sauna. We explained that multiple times. InternetDisciple has a profound mental disability (see this video v=_BMbxmzxqRI). I’ve seen him getting pwned by at least a dozen people here for two weeks, but he simply repeats the same idiocy perpetuating in himself the delusion that he’s correct. It doesn’t matter how often and how? many people prove him wrong.
I’m just saying this so you don’t end up committing suicide.
Nowhere in the definition of the physical? universe does it say it needs to be created. So, you are just assuming that it needs to be created. Who says the metaphysical doesn’t need to be created? Where did that rule come from? Again you are making an assumption that has no basis in either logic or evidence.
The argument that the universe does, but God doesn’t need a creator is just silly and absurd. If God doesn’t need a creator, then the universe certainly doesn’t either…
Hi, my friend.
Do you? still not know if books contain information or not?
“What created God?”
Well, I haven’t yet tried to name the Creator, but the question ‘What created the Creator?’ has the built-in assumption that the Creator needs to be created. No. Only things bound by the laws of physics need a Creator.? The Creator of those laws would not be bound by them.
Don’t make the mistake of trying to apply the limitations of the laws of physics to the metaphysical, my friend.
What created? God?