Creationist Junk Debunked

Creationist Junk DebunkedA look at some of the most famous urban myths spread by creationists, and the fundamentalists who peddle them. The creator of Climate Change and From Big Bang to Us: Made Easy (@potholer54), is debunking creationist myths, and answering questions that fundamentalists have about the real evidence for our origins. Here are some of the myths being debunked in the playlist:

Atheists are immoral. A common criticism of atheists is that they have no values, no moral compass, and a philosophy of "if it feels good, do it." But is that really borne out by the evidence? And, if not, where does their moral compass come from?

Carbon dating doesn't work. Living snails that carbon-date to 2,300 years old, a living seal that was carbon-dated at 1,300 years old, and 8,000-year-old living penguins. Not to mention dinosaur bones that dated to 20,000 years ago. Obviously carbon dating doesn't work, unless you understand it.

Noah's Flood. This has nothing to do with questions about where all the water came from, where it went, and how all those animals got into the ark. It's about the sedimentary evidence that shows there never was a global flood.

Grand Canyon carved by floodwater. The Grand Canyon is such an icon of the Earth's geological history, of slow and steady uplift, erosion, submergence and deposition, that the creationist crowd thought it essential to tackle it head on.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 1 hour, 44 minutes)

Ratings: 8.96/10 from 50 users.

More great documentaries

183 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I find it funny how you always hear scientists saying, "We think so, but we're not completely sure," but you NEVER hear Christians saying anything of the like when talking about their religion.

  2. crime in the UK is higher.
    evil Americans having babies.
    no real facts to support your claims.
    so you resort to name calling.
    science has to change its mind so that it doesn't look stupid.
    i am happy to see you try to research something but come on man pick a real topic.
    we are dirt. we came from dirt. one day when we die we will turn back into dirt.
    Guess where i learned that.
    the Bible. and yes i believe in God. what do you believe in.
    nothing plus nothing is nothing.
    Man is like no other creature on the planet.
    the point to life isn't to fight but to love.
    do you know how many people pray for you.

  3. Is anyone able to make a video that is pure to the facts and not slamming other people? I thought one shouldn't stoop to another's level? You were able to draw out 1 point for 3 minutes with pictures of yawning. So all these pictures, that you put in, are the voice of everyone? Fun sound effects to sway the viewers opinion. Looks like all you did was outline 1 point in 10 minutes and slammed unrelated points of other people faith.

    Maybe watch with unbias and objectivity! Have an open mind! Isn't that what you tell us!

  4. Oooo, dude, your dad is going to be so mad when he sees the holes you put in his perfect lawn!
    Great series! I love it.

  5. This should be in the comedy section.

    Kent Hovind is a ridiculous Joke and it's sad that in the 21st century, people still believe the ridiculous fairy tales that he and his ilk use to control and extort money out of people.

    Luckily in our schools,(in New Zealnd) they stopped teaching fiction as fact back in the late 60s, and our school and political system is totally seperate and uninfluenced by the bulls*it artists pedaling their fairy stories.
    Now if we can just get the polititions to stop trying to pedal THEIR fairy stories...we will have an awsome country :-)

    1. How do you attain citizenship?

  6. It`s amazing how low people will sink to make money, praying on peoples ignorance.

  7. Interesting to hear so many creationists speak. They use a distinct ending after certain words. I don't know why they do it, but still I find amuzing

  8. ped·er·ast
    A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy.

    How fitting coming from a religious dude

  9. youre pretty intolerant aren't you Ian? Why cant you just f.... off? You dont hear christians say stuff like that very often do you? If people like you ruled the history we would still be in the stone age. Luckily you dont rule the world. Atheists like you rule North Korea and any other Communist country. Look how far that took them.
    Luckily for you, you probably live in the rich, well funded western part of the world. Which is grounded and based on Christianity and Christian values. Thats why we can enjoy this conversations on a advanced computer with the freedom of speech. Mostly in Christian countries. Got it mr. Griffiths?

    1. And you're pretty ignorant and unintelligent, aren't you Pederas.

      You have no business telling any poster to f.... off and your comment will be forward to a moderator for further action.

      If you have any further comments, I suggest that you act accordingly.

    2. ??
      I was writing in response to Ian Griffith who tells people to ¤¤¤¤ off, and religious in general this. I just pointed out how inappropriate it is to say this, and that even thou you disagree with their belief system you can show some respect. He says religious are all dictators. But, as no proven, it is him self, with good help from you, robertallen, who are the dictators. Reacting out loud on others when your in the same boat your self. Thank you gentlemen. You have proved my point:)
      Thou my bad English skills i think you can understand from the discussion that i just repeated Ian and turned his own stupidity back.

      So why do you get such an anger at me and no reaction at all at Ian?

      No, as most of users of this site I am not not unintelligent. Well educated. Read books, don't have TV and have a standard job for the government. What about you? Do you always assume that people you disagree with are unintelligent? And if you don't like their arguments, do you always attack them as persons and calling them unintelligent?

      just wander.

    3. If you've read so many books, why is your English so bad--and why don't you care how bad it is?

      I have no respect for anyone's belief system, least of all yours, considering the ignorance that obviously stems from. What you stand for deserves to be attacked and as mightily as possible.

    4. 1: Because there are some books that are in different languages than English. English is just my second language. I do care how bad it is, thats why I said "sorry for my bad English"

      2: As you say, you have no respect for anyones belief system. Thats why you attack persons i stead of the actually case. Youre attacks are not very mightily thou, they just frauds of anger and basically no substance. I just wonder how you get your universe from and what makes you so mad at anyone who disagree with you (but we don't even know what you mean)

      3: Since you don`t respect me or anyone else belief and see it as your life task too attack us, and still haven't presented a single argument from your own world view, I hardly see any point in continuing this "discussion". I feel sorry for you and your anger and I wish you all well.

    5. And I feel only contempt for you, your religion and those like you.

    6. Religion has not been responsible for ANY breakthroughs in technology or advancement in society. Facts are facts.

  10. can religion please just **** off? i wonder how far ahead man would be by now if it wasn't held back by the dictatorship of different religions. not to mention you don't ever hear atheists fighting over who believes in no 'God' the most......religion on the other hand.

  11. Lets get one thing straight, this film is a 1-900-dial a joke production, and yes ill say it, you atheist are dummer than the rocks GOD set on this planet, and now i will prove it, so hold on to your seats. Underdumb is smacking you atheist around and its funny, but under dumb didnt study the Bible; OOPPSS but i did, soooo, let us start with the source,the Bible, 66 books penned by 40 men guided by the holy spirit Written in hebrew and the text is in what known as the Heptetic structure! Discovered by Ivan Panin, a Harvard grad in mathematics, which he spent 50 years, generated over 43,000 hand written pages over the sevens in the Bible,In good english, I dont care what kind of a degree you, einstein, Bigfoot, or pick your poision.may have, there is no one on this planet smart enough to write a geneology using the 75 rules of 7 in a book of that size,WITH EVIDENCE, i challenge any atheist to try it, and the score , holy spirit 1 atheist 0, moving right along, red sea crossing, did it happen, Sodom and Gomorrah, did it burn, did Alexander the great run the planet, its in the Bible, Red sea, human and horse bones have been retrieved from the MIDDLE of it as well as chariot wheels, which divers are not allowed to touch , how did the get there,the stone marker that has pharo, fire, and egypt, still readable TO THIS DAY, WITH EVIDENCE,Sodom and Gomorrah, found, the whole place is burnt and sufur deposits have been dug out of stone turned to ash, WITH EVIDENCE, AAAAnd the score, Holy spirit 2 atheist 0, Oh , im still waiting to see a baboon evolve into a man, use his handy, type something on this site, decide wither the curtains should match the drapes, i know , it sounds stupid, so much to evolution, so if you want to claim that you came from a baboons booty, be my guest, cause if you know better, youll do better, I can do this all day,one more thing, you are cursed with the sin of death, NO one on this planet has a contract saying how long you will live, you could die while your reading this,AND YOU WILL MEET OUR MAKER JUST AS SURE AS YOU ARE READING THIS- WITH EVIDENCE; the end score, HOLY Spirit 3 atheist 0, I do not want to be on the team of loosers, this and more evidence of GODS presence is all over this planet, the problem with you atheist is simple, YOU DONT WANT TO LOOK AT IT,

    1. Most stories include many truths. I saw this great film 'Independences Day'. This huge house painted in white, housing the leader of the USA, is destroyed by a large laser. I checked on google, this place is real, therefore as you argue, aliens exist. Also you know the town they go to in Harry potter, called London, thats REAL aswell, and paddington station, therfore wizards and platform 13 3/4 are real. Do you have any proof other than a bunch of tales loosely based in reality?

    2. Kings Cross Station and it was platform 9 3/4. Apart from that, I totally agree with you.

    3. jayzeah
      just a couple of quick things. where does evolutionary theory claim "a baboon evolve into a man," ? also you have a very low threshold for what constitutes evidence for your god.

    4. Let's get one thing straight. You don't know what you're talking about.

      1. We don't know who wrote the books of the bible, as all of them are anonymous and several seem to have been written by the same author while others by several. The current names were later attributions.

      2. The books which managed to be included in the bible were written by men, guided by the views and politics of their time, not by your fairy tale "holy spirit."

      3. And just what does heptetic mean?

      4. Ivan Panin was a quack who spent 50 years of his life on meaningless drivel. Giving him any credence merely because he graduated from Harvard is as obtuse as your knowledge of basic mathematics.

      5. You haven't the faintest idea what evolution is about.

      6. You don't know the first thing about the collection of books called the bible, much less anything more than anybody else about god whose existence you cannot prove.

      The remainder of your post is gibberish and I advise that you read the comment policy about preaching. This thread is not your personal pulpit.

    5. lets answer his questions 1.i know who wrote it all 40 men that these cannons were chosen, that was easy
      2. and 3. what is the shape , and again take my challenge to write a genenolgy, and we do have google
      4. a russian that made it into harvard, a grad too,you didnt , so
      whos the quack
      5.i think i do, you say monkeys chimps and baboons are still EVCOLVING INTO PEOPLE, thats strange, I still want to see 1 working beside you, IMPRESS ME,
      6. you have no idea what ive studied, and if i typed it all, it would be scary, even for me

      as far as gibberish we walked different paths in study, you yours, me mine, you put your info out, and i do the same, im not preaching,

    6. 1. You don't know who wrote the books which form the canon and no one else does either. For your information, the earlist manuscripts we have are all anonymous. The names by which these books are now known were appended in about the 4th century. In short, you know nothing about the collection in which you profess such expertise.

      2., 3. As for biblical geneology, "Matthew" and "Luke" agree on Christ's lineage from Abraham to David, but after that differ radically. So your "75 rules of 7" is complete nonsense both biblically and mathematically--obviously you've never heard of the law of small numbers.

      4. You have not offered one iota of support for Ivan Panin other than his alma mater which is by itself no indication of the worth of his assertions which are rightly regarded by mainstream biblical scholarship (the only type the matters) as sheer bunk.

      5. Your statement anent primates evolving into people displays a lack of even the basics of biology (evolution) and to call your assertion (or challenge, if you prefer) a strawman endows it with a patina of respectability to which it is hardly entitled.

      6. Again, don't try to snow anyone on this website. From your posts, you haven't studied anything at all. And while you're at it, don't try to lay it all on "different paths of study." It's simply a matter of knowledge versus ignorance.

    7. Sir , dont tell me what ive studied, in the Bible there are 66 books, BUT there is a library where ALL of the cannons are, discovered with the scrolls, in 6 foot clay jars, ALL OF THE CANNONS so now my question , Whats the name of the library, 2nd, every hebrew letter has a numeric value, in english , letters have no numeric value,both scriptures add up perfectly, IN HEBREW, nice try , no cigar
      3rd, im not here to preach, you have google , you find Ivan panins work yourself,sir
      your 5th statement is a joke to me which i will add your 6th statement as well,your quote "you haven't studied anything at all. And while you're at it, don't try to lay it all on "different paths of study." It's simply a matter of knowledge versus ignorance."
      wait , repeat that 1," It's simply a matter of knowledge versus ignorance"
      when i see a chimp, monkey dolphin, or a dog and cat take a driver license test , ill be impressed, until then ,sir, you have no right to call anyone ignorant in this chat forum, because a baboon driving a porche on the autobahn, is a new level of weird to me, so how ignorant did that sound, evolution, huh!

      I hope thats straight

    8. You spell canon as well as you do Pliny.

      Now, which 6-foot clay jars containing the "entire canon" (note spelling of word) are you referring to and when do they date? As a matter of fact, which canon are you referring to?

      Don't insult the intelligence with any serious consideration of gematria. All it reflects is an ignorance of basic mathematics and in this light, Panin whom I have read about was no more than a quack.

      In short, your statements concerning the bible and biology (evolution) and everything else reflect the education, understanding and intelligence of a troglodyte. Achem was right about you.

    9. This is kind of funny: "...when i see a chimp, monkey dolphin, or a dog and cat take a driver license test , ill be impressed"

      Why would any of those creatures (other than a primate) try to drive a vehicle designed by and for humans, anyway? A kitty car would be designed completely differently from a dolphin car, right? Different body types, different methods of steering, etc.

      As for chimps, all you have to do is google it. Driving a car is not beyond their skill level. (Whether we want to share the road with!) *you* are, posting on this website, with no regard to spelling or composition. Now *that's* impressive!

    10. Wouldn't it be funny if chimps or perhaps bonobos turned out to be better and safer drivers on the whole than humans? Now, that would certainly set science, in particular evolution, on its ear.

    11. I don't know...chimps seem to have pretty bad tempers, road rage might be an issue--especially when humans treat them like, you know, animals...

    12. Again, how about bonobos?

    13. road rage, but easily distracted? lol!

    14. @jayzeah:

      You know, people like you make me hate the human race, for a while anyway.

      Do not preach. Do not tell anyone how long they should live and die especially while reading your drivel, no one is cursed with the sin of death! death is a part of life.

      You are uttering threats veiled or no. Any more such garbage and you will be banned. Consider this warning number 1#

    15. I cannot resist the temptation to add to my former post by commenting on three more items of ignorance in yours.

      1. The Red Sea is a mistranslation of the hebrew "Yam Soof," meaning sea of reeds. If you trace the path of the exodus described in the Old Testament, the Red Sea is completely out of the way. This gives the lie to your statement about human and horse bones and chariot wheels having been retrieved from it (but contradictorily and conveniently which divers are not allowed to touch). As a matter of fact, there is no mention of the supposed exodus from Egypt in the many secular records we have from the time. An event as great as that described in the bible would have had, among other things, a severe economic impact on the Egyptian economy which would have merited its inclusion in these records. In addition, excavations in the subject area of the desert have produced absolutely no artifacts--a little strange considering the number of wanderers.

      2. Sodom and Gemorrah have never been discovered or their existence verified in any way. The traces of burning and sulphur to which you refer say nothing, as these could have been the result of any number of things

      3. There are no grounds for your claims of biblical prophecy of the coming of Alexander the Great which seem based on your lame and far-fetched interpretation of certian passages in the Book of Daniel.

      Real score: Spirit (you) 0.

    16. Delusional.

  12. UmberDumb, You said that the 'Earth is Flat' and 'Earth is center of the universe' was scientific ideas. WRONG They're religious dogma from the middle ages, the ancient greek and eyption both knew the earth was round, the greek even tried to calculate the size of the earth and they were within 5% of the true value. This is the start of science as we know it. Thankfully for you the Lord is a forgiving God, he will forgive you for abusing the special talents of reason that he let us evolve, he will forgive you the crime of impeding mans understanding of the universe, and he will forgive you spreading lies in his name. Myself, think you should burn in hell, for you listen to satan the deceiver, the imprisionaire of your own ignorance, and you make no effot to free yourself from sin.

  13. This doc still hasn't proved: how morals exist without God, the effectiveness of C-14 dating, how trees can be found in multiple sediment layers which supposedly represent millions of years or how water could possibly go uphill to carve out the Grand Canyon.

    Just kidding; it did all those things :D

  14. This joke will go on until the World ends and we will never have any peace.

  15. Truly amazing that folks like unterdumb make statements w/out any proof, but then "faith" is an amazing thing. Take the concept of god for instance. There is absolutely no proof for the existence of a/any god/s and yet the masses feed on that opiate and dream of their Xanadu.

    1. And to make matters, worse they condemn those who don't believe as they do, especially those demanding evidence.

    2. I never realized it until I just read you're comment; but I am now aware at the irony of those who demand proof that God DOESN'T exist but don't demand proof FOR Gods existence.

    3. What are you talking about?

    4. Your comment was responsible for random observation I had, which I shared.

    5. I still can't figure out what you're talking about.

  16. Well - That's ten minutes of my life I ain't getting back!

  17. My first degree was a double major Advertising & Human Studies, the second degree Anthroplogical Forensics and the advanced Master was in Forensics & Chemistry. Might I ponder your credentials??

    1. Then from your statements about evolution, it's obvious you never learned anything.

    2. come back when you have a degree in biological anthropology

    3. With so much information readily available, you really don't need a degree to understand the basics. The problem is that there are too many like uberdumb who would rather post than bother.

    4. so you have two masters?

    5. In light of some of his statements, do you think he really has these degrees?

    6. Right, I do not believe you have any degrees, is anybody supposed to trust a troll?

      edit: unless you can prove you have these degrees?

    7. "Anthroplogical" Forensics, huh? You would think someone with a degree would know how to spell the degree he claims to have earned. I think the only Master you have is a Mastercard.

    8. That could be just a typo, but your last sentence is right on point.

    9. I'm sure it was a typo (maybe), but this community college graduate finds a perverse pleasure in correcting such a lettered individual...this individual, specifically.

    10. What can you expect from a creationist? Please do not consider this an apologia.

    11. I have just reread your original comment. That was not the comment of an highly educated individual. An educated person may have ideas that are a little off centre but he would offer those ideas in an articulate manner. What I read could have been written by Jethro Bodine.

    12. Now that you mention it, Max Baer, Jr. is still alive.

  18. I have to admit I laughed pretty hard for the last video in the playlist.

  19. A rose by any other name is still a rose...just a long as my name for a rose is biblical while yours is named by a godless atheist.
    And that pretty much sums up this documentary.

    1. Just what are you saying? And what other type of atheist is there?

  20. Urban dictionary: "Uberdumb"...(Pants on head r*tarded)

    "Someone to be so r*tarded that they wear their pants on their head instead of on their lower body region."

    Face it folks, you have been "trolled" by Uberdumb!

    1. Poe's Law

  21. Yep, you got me. LOL. I suppose you have never read any scientific Journals/books? As you have come to your beliefs solely on your own. Of course I have read, both sides of the issue as opposed to your one sided thinking/review. Oh and Einstein couldn't spell, or tie his own shoes for that matter. I have x3 degrees one advanced. I am a free thinker and enjoy the perspectives of most. They don't have to agree with me as I am "Uberdumb. " Never claimed to know it all. LOL. With all the blind faith we can both find our way to the truth.

    1.'re trolling, as RikG01 pointed out.

    2. You are full of it. You just named silly Einstein myths, that are told to make kids with problems hope that they might become as great.

      Silly troll.

  22. Cookies and Koolaid for all later.

  23. Show me proof that a creature came out of the sea, became (over time) something totally new (a wolf) then went back to the sea as a dolphin? Now class, don't use the tired old images of paws within fins. That's a have to have for successful swimming/flexibility. Nope the teeth have nothing in common. Yes similar genetics but all things on this planet have some of that. That's because we are from earth, "dust ot dust" same recycled matter.

    1. You're right about all things (and by this I assume you mean all living things) having similar biology. Doesn't that tell you something--and I don't mean something supernatural, hence idiotic?

      You really want proof of creatures coming from the sea and then going back again? You want proof of paws turning into fins? Before you pooh-pooh these facts, try reading some standard books on biology, genetics and biochemistry, scientific subjects about which you know nothing, because there's obviously a serious gap in your education.

  24. Back to proof, the burden is on you all who proclaim it. I look out on the earth and see the proof of creation even as I type this message.

    1. You don't see anything; you conjecture.

  25. Kateye, you profess to be a member of a cult as you infer I am. "Here, pass me your glass, you need a double."

    1. Uber Dumb: I belong to no cult. I profess no faith in anything.

      You're the one making all the foolish statements, and I think that turning the tragedy in Jonestown into a meme shows your real lack of compassion and respect for others. Grow up and post something meaningful.

      Edit: Actually any inference that you are a cult member comes only from you. I merely pointed out that the reference you used was inappropriate for your attempted insult.

  26. I believe the ignorant name calling/slander grows from fear of the unknown. Fear that you do not have the answers. You see, although I enjoy a good search for truth I do not have to know all because I have faith that I will one day. My God is an assume God. He will forgive you your doubts. Keep searching for truth. Be kind until you can't, then stop.

    1. And this post demonstrates the sheer idiocy of faith.

  27. With regard to faith, the cult of science has many followers that follow with blind faith until the next new discovery (although another theory is consumed as fact). At least person who believe in a higher power/creator are consistant.

    1. Wrong as usual. Science and faith are opposites, one being based on hard evidence and the other on nothing. Debasing science to the level of faith is as ignorant as your equation of scientific theory with fact. A theory is composed of facts, not the other way around.

      Your last sentence is pointless--and the word is consistent.

  28. No need to name call. That's a sign of stupidity. Never set out to prove science wrong. Over time science will "prove" that on it's own in "many" areas, not "All." Darwin was a racist who believed the root of man was in Africa (no real proof). French DNA the oldest, "proven" by science, for the time being. Darwin/ darwinians believe the lighter a person the further advanced man is.
    Uberdumb refers to, I do not have all the answers, nor do you.

    1. Despite what you've read on some ignorant and deceptive creationist website, Darwin was not a racist in the modern sense and claiming that he was indicates that you know nothing about him, much less what he meant by races.

      Whether you like it or not, it's been proven time and time again that the root of man is in Africa. I have no idea where you're getting your misinformation that French DNA is the oldest--again, I suspect from some creationist website.

      I don't have all the answers, but as you lack the education, you have none of them.

  29. I love the tom foolary of scientific-cultists that will buy anything with "theory", "proven" attached to it. All the while insulting and growing angrier at Creationists for having just as relivent theroies about all things. Let's revisit, Scientific theories/facts " the earth is flat", "the earth is the center of the universe", "something crawled out of the ocean, became a wolf then went back to the ocean, became a dolphin", "High land gorilla's are a myth." On and on. Drink the koolaid sheeple.

    1. Uberdumb
      okay what are your "just as relivent theroies " (sic) for creationism and the evidence to back them up?

    2. Then if it so why don't you prove beyond any doubt that science is wrong. Should be easy from what you say.

    3. nice work trollololollolololol

      You almost sound like a creationist but went a bit too far, though. None of them are THAT stupid.

    4. Lol, nice catch.

      The mention of koolaid was a nice touch, although since it was a religious cult that had their sheeple drinking it, the attempt kind of turned back on itself.

      The name 'Uber dumb' kind of gave it away, though.

    5. I don't think the merry pranksters were a religious cult.......

    6. Just what are you talking about, or do you know?

    7. .....*stares blankly at the ignorance*

  30. I look at it this way...who cares? If someone wants to believe in a creator, go ahead, if you don't want to believe in a creator, thats ok too. The "it's my way or no way" mentality is one of the reasons why we have so damned much trouble in this world today. I don't care what you believe and you should not care what I believe, I won't try to force my beliefs onto you and I would appreciate the same consideration from you. Live and let live...why is that so damned hard to understand?

    1. Unfortunately, this is not what happens. See Kitzmiller v.Dover School District.

    2. The problem is that creationists are trying to get their nonsense tought in schools as fact. They're trying to affect the way laws work.
      Believing in fairytales is their business, people are allowed, nay entitled to their beliefs. But the moment they start trying to force their self-induced stupidity on the rest of society, it becomes bad for everyone.

      Societies based on the main monotheistic religions, innevitably turn to violence to enforce the oppression of thoughts and people. Creationist America or Creationist Britain would look no different than Taliban Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Education is the best way to free people from the shackles of extremist beliefs.

      That is why it matters.

  31. "If you do the research Kirk..." (place in video 6:46) Are you kidding me... Creationist do NO RESEARCH... they follow what they hear and could care less about facts. Why do you think they believe in the theory of god's existence. They must rely on faith itself but it is a FACT that it is not truth and it is not certainty. They will do anything to justify what they believe.

    1. Including lie, distort and cheat--and they call atheists immoral and unethical.

  32. It is time for religionists to turn on the critical thinking part of their brain. It's there; they are just too afraid, too lazy, or too brainwashed to use it. Like Richard Dawkins says," If you don't think Science is awesome, then"

    1. that's a little closed minded don't you think?

  33. Great stuff. Refreshes some of my knowledge and great relaxation with laugh listening to creationist stuff.

  34. Big bang: It turns out that there is no thing as "nothing". (Just like zero is a mathematical concept we have imagined) There is existence therefore, prior, there was potential for existence. Potential for existence is something, not "nothing". So . . . there never was "nothing" and subsequently there is no mystery or need for a creator. Who, by the way according to you "nothingers" would require creator of that creator.

    1. As Hawking says the universe came from absolutely nothing, no need for a prime mover. I came to the conclusion that there is always a something, because a nothing had to be made from a something, even looked at "Null Physics" but that did not cut it, bad reviews, so far anyway. Take a look at my link, a lot of info. So the answer is out there sans any invisible gods.

  35. Nice one. If you want some fun watch it ;)

  36. Brilliant series. Detailed, intersting comparisons, along with great humour. Fun and educational.

  37. For sure the Big Bang did happen, and if Noah's flood was a reality, it did not cover the planet. But how do you explain where that little ball of matter came from that made up the Big Bang? We know that the basic hydrogen atom has a limited half life, and therefore had to have a beginning, and yet it was there in that little ball of matter. How did it come from nothing to help form the Big Bang? How do you know there are not other Big Bangs going on in the universe and can we say they all happen in the three dimensions recognized by us humans? No we can't. Can we prove that there are not dimensions unrecognizable by the human mind? No we can't because we are limited to planet earth and her immediate surroundings.
    It takes faith to believe in the Higgs-Boson particle, which is at present only a hypothetical particle in particle physics, but without it, we could not have mass anywhere in the universe. Scientists have so much faith in that little elementary particle as the basic elementary particle that they built the Hadron collider at a cost of $millions.

    1. Scientists have merely CONJECTURED the existence of the Higgs-Boson particle and are now taking elaborate steps to verify their conjecture. If this is successful, it will become THEORY. So once again, you have failed to denigrate science to the level of faith and once again you are dead wrong.

    2. " But how do you explain where that little ball of matter came from that made up the Big Bang?"

      came from a quantum singularity that we are still trying to understand.

      scientists have evidence and good reason to hypothesis the existence of the higgs boson and they are consistently getting closer and closer.

      science is able to make education hypothesis and then test them. faith in religion doesnt do this.

      what reliigon does is what you just did. you listed a number of things we dont know yet and you place a fake answer (god) in there. if you had lived 1000 years ago you would have been saying god was the answer to other things we didnt know yet.

      you have to see how that is not a logical position to take.

    3. Hey Epicurus, have you ever seen the interview with retired Nasa Physicist, he has a pretty cool explanation of the double slit expirement, IMO, the best response to a difficult question that I have heard yet. Check it out, let me know what you think, also, I'm quite certain that when he uses the term "computer" he actually is using it as a metaphor for consciousness.

      EDIT* Link : ) /watch?v=-RMOGFaOLSQ @ youtube

    4. i have not watching it i will give it a look one day.

    5. Wouldn't it be nice if she did? That would equate you with Paul.

    6. To answer your questions regarding the beginning honestly and with dignity - I don't know. 'Anyone' that tells you different is deliberately lying - read creationists.

      To address some of the statements in your chaotic post, H1 hydrogen (protium) - the stuff me and you mean when we say 'hydrogen' is stable, non radioactive and does not therefore have a limited halflife. H2 hydrogen (deuterium) is also stable so the above also applies. H3 hydrogen (tritium) is the first isotope of hydrogen that is radioactive, through beta decay with a half life of roughly 12 years. This is sometimes used in luminous paint as well as various nuclear physics applications, but is not commonly found in nature, rather it is bred in nuclear reactors. Other heavier isotopes have been created in laboratories but these never occur naturally.

      It does not take faith to believe in the Higgs particle, or rather to refine your poor choice of words, it does not take faith to predict and expect the Higgs particle, all it takes is the combined knowledge of billions of experimental results regarding the fundamental particles.

      And would you believe it, there is now a vast amount of observational evidence mainly from but not exclusively the LHC, that confirms the existence of a fundamental particle with the exact properties predicted of the Higgs.

      But this is not the point, it is irrelevant whether or not the expectations and predictions are found to be correct or not, only that we know one way or the other. That is a fundamental part of science, in that it does not root for one outcome over another, only the truth. There is no faith involved.


  38. The creationists deliberately twist evidence, quote mines, lies and use all kinds of dishonest tricks to build their case. It's ridicules and pathetic, it needs to be ridiculed and not taken serious. It should not be taken serious, because that might send signals that their arguments deals with actual problem. Now I am talking about their so-called science. Their influence in politics and the education system should be taken serious, though.

    1. THERE sir you are wronger than two left feet

    2. His spelling is terrible, but he's right on point. You're the one with two left feet.

  39. as pure crap! lmao

  40. Just for the record, cosmology, abiogenesis and geology have nothing to do with evolution. Alot of creationists seems to think it does. Evolution is the FACT that living organisms change over time, the theory of evolution seeks to explains how it happens. And that's about it. What creationists have a problem with is not evolution specifically, it is science is general. It's just a semantic trick, when they use the term evolutionists as the counterpart to creationists.

  41. Hovind....dude you just got owned!

  42. Brilliant and funny ;-) However, what really amazes me is how believers of ANY meme picks and chooses information from anywhere as long as it 'fits', and how they (unknowingly?) present this information to their followers using every manipulating trick in the book (ex. presenting their view in the light of an even more wild idea)

    The funny (and scary) part, is that we ALL consolidates our memes (memes: religion, politics, myths etc). The only thing that sorts BS from gold is.. Tadaee.. Science!

    Man, i love Science! ;o)

    1. sooooooo true!! I agree completely.

  43. @g issac: The Earth is flat folks are on one end; the Earth is round folks are on the other end. the truth lies somewhere in between.

    Yeah, right, buddy! Let's see: ZERO evidence for creationists; hundreds to thousands of scientists for evolution.

    Absolutely asinine.

    Lets try another one: the theory of gravity is just a theory, so it is equally valid as the theory that there's no gravity.

    Shall I continue?

    1. you have quite a sharp grasp on our reality seeing that
      96% is unknown. who is asinine ?

    2. And just how are you calculating the 96%. Now, who's asinine?

  44. Creationists are on one end, evolutionists are on the other. The truth lies somewhere in between. I am definitely not a religious fanatic and I brush off the junk that many people 'preach'; however, even the ignorant know that most of science is grounded in theory. Besides, more than half of what was widely accepted in science when I was a child is now known to be FALSE.

    1. g isaac
      first off do not tell others to STFU. next how/why does the truth have to lie somewhere in the middle? god either exists or doesn't. what does the middle of that look like? also can you elaborate on " more than half of what was widely accepted in science when I was a child is now known to be FALSE." now please limit your response to things that scientists widely acepted. not some misunderstanding of what they were proposing in the media or society in general but actual accepted science.

    2. ok , list every example of half of what was widely accepted in science when I was a child is now known to be FALSE , id imagine the list will be huge...

    3. Flying cars. Remember that one? It proves science is a failure. Ok... not a good example. How about the one where all you have to do is eat a pill and you have supper? Actually, that didn't even make sense at the time. There has to be something. He'll enlighten us.

    4. Errr maglev train remember that one?

    5. Were flying cars and 'dinner pills' ever accepted science? Or are you remembering Tom Swift?

    6. I can't say that it ever was accepted as science in academia but it was a part of popular science in the sixties. I remember going to Expo 67 in Montreal and there many exhibits and films that mentioned flying cars and the dinner (supper in my part of Canada) pill as possible or likely in the future. It was an optimistic era in spite of the threat of nuclear holocaust. Nothing like the doom and gloom of popular science today.

      Do kids still read Tom Swift? I remember reading those books as a boy.

    7. I preferred Mark Tidd, Oliver Optic and Hugh Lofting. From my observation, kids don't read much of anything anymore; our culture has completely changed.

    8. I don't know about Tom Swift today. I inherited the books (along with Hardy Boys) from my older brother. It's probably why I've always been a *sci-fi* and fantasy enthusiast. (yea, yea, I liked unicorns and rainbows same as any other girl...but had no problem taking them to the moon, Mars, and beyond!).

      I know they were popularly talked about--the flying cars and dinner/supper pills--but did they ever actually exist? Except for Tang of course!

    9. More like the Jetson's. ruhhh rohhh reorge.

    10. can you list just one or two examples?

    11. "Besides, more than half of what was widely accepted in science when I was a child is now known to be FALSE."

      Damn! How old are you? 80-90 y.o? If more than half of the accepted sciences has been shown to be untrue since you were a child, you might be even older.. but I thought you might be exaggeration abit. :-)

    12. And yet I was taught, when I was a child, that there was a God who created us all. A 'fact' that I have yet to see any prof for what so ever. Also If you was taught anything in school that is in fact false you were probably sent to a creationist school without even knowing.

    13. No, the truth doesn't lie somewhere between. Like all too many, you obviously have no idea what constitutes a scientific theory.

      P.S. Based on your last statement, you must be well over 100 years old.

    14. Unknowingly, you have provided the reason why science can be reliable. Its the willingness to accept error and change theory as observation and testing prove the old paradigm to be inaccurate. Religion, on the other hand, remains static or tries to. The core at almost every religion never changes. It can't because it leaves the religion open to chaos. The Reformation is a good example.

    15. I don't think you understand what "theory" is in science. A theory is not a hunch or a guess or an imperfect fact or something lacking facts. A theory will never become a fact. It is not some lower level of certainty on some kind of hierarchy of knowledge with facts on the top and theories on lower rungs somehow waiting for the evidence that will elevate them to facts. A theory is not a fact that lacks evidence or is somehow less certain than a fact. This is not what theory and fact mean in science. A fact and a theory are different things and have different roles in science

      A fact is raw data. A description of an aspect of the world. The Earth orbits the sun is a fact. The sun rises is a fact. Apples fall is a fact. Germs cause disease is a fact. A fact is, as Stephen Jay Gould put it "something that is so well established that it would be perverse to deny it".

      A theory however is a comprehensive explanation of an aspect of the world. It explains facts and puts them together into a coherent, testable whole. The theory of gravity is a theory because it explains why apples fall to the ground. The germ theory of disease is a theory because it explains why we get sick. These are theory but they also explain facts. Evolution is the same. It is a fact and a theory. The two are not contradictory in science

    16. Gravity exists, we know that. We have good theories why but no physical means to prove it. Because a theory is not quantifiable
      doesn't mean you will jump off a cliff to disprove it.
      This is a different kind of faith. Faith in science.

    17. What do you mean by "faith" in science? Your inference is not clear.

    18. "We have good theories why but no physical means to prove it." Do you mean "them?" If so, your statement is false and displays the usual misunderstanding of a scientific theory and by extension, science itself. Also, it is also particularly insulting when someone tries to degrade science to the level of faith when it's the direct opposite.

    19. The difference between a faith based claim and a scientific claim is that the claims of science can be refuted. The claims of faith cannot. The claims of science stand or fall on the evidence that the natural world provides. The claims of faith are claims made regardless of evidence.

      To be scientific, a claim must be testable and refutable. If a claim is not testable and refutable then it can not be called scientific. One of the most powerful tools within scientific theory is theory's ability to make predictions about what we should expect to find if the theory is correct. Theory makes the prediction, science then looks for the evidence. If evidence emerges, then it powerfully validates theory, if it is not found or if evidence to the contrary is found then theory must be reevaluated or even rejected.

      For example, evolutionary theory makes it very easy to refute. It positively invites refutation. Find a mammal in the pre Cambrian and the theory of evolution falls. However, find fossil evidence in the pattern and time line as predicted by theory and the theory is greatly strengthened. Consistant evidential validation of prediction, especially from different sources further validates theory until the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be "perverse to withhold provisional consent" as Gould put it

      That doesn't mean it is proved. Science isn't in the business of proof. If you want proof then look to internally consistent disciplines such as mathematics or logic. Science doesn't deal in certainty. That IS the realm of faith.

    20. I agree but would challenge the statement that "certainty" is the realm of faith. I'd say that faith only offers false certainty, imagined truth, certainty that is no different than a child's certainty in the existence of Santa or unicorns. Whereas science deals in certainty of truth. eg Evolution if fact, we can say with certainty that the mechanism of Evolution is Natural Selection.
      I suspect though that I'm quibbling the over the meaning of the word "certainty".

    21. "Gravity exists, we know that. We have good theories why but no physical means to prove it. Because a theory is not quantifiable
      doesn't mean you will jump off a cliff to disprove it.
      This is a different kind of faith. Faith in science. "

      Completely, entirely wrong I'm afraid. Firstly, you've misunderstood the scientific use of the word 'theory'.

      Secondly, Newton demonstrated the existence of gravity through calculation and experiment. He measured the arc of movement of thrown and propelled objects. Demonstrating the measurable, observable, predictable effect of an exisiting force upon objects. This was demonstrated succinctly by the crew of Apollo 11, who found on their arrival, exactly what Newton predicted, gravity, 1/6th that of Earth. Predicted, calculated, observed.

      Thirdly, Newton used his hypothesis and mathematical calculations, to predicts the path of objects moving through space. These calculations were proven to be correct by peers. This is why we have the famous Halleys Comet. Halley was one of Newton's peers who used Newton's work to predict the movement of the Comet. Observed, tested, predicted.

      Fouthly, Gravity had been quantified. It is measured in Newtons, which are used by pilots and astronauts, also called g's or g-forces. Gravity is the best, explanation of the observable, predictable facts. Theory does not mean 'guess'. Evolution is fact, evolution by natural selection is the best explanation of the observed, predicted, facts. No faith is necessary at all because the evidence is all there.

      Faith is only ever needed by people who have no evidence. religion requires faith. Gravity, evolution, science, do not.

  45. I really liked it! I wish the creators of this movie (BRAVO!) a good luck in the future as the creationists will continue to try their best to give s*upid arguments as always. I'm so fed up with them all! We live in a 21st century! I was sure this will be a clever age but no...I was wrong, I feel Iike I'm the fish out of water when I see and hear all of these fairy like statements how they present the reality. It's easy to say things and it's difficult to disprove (bravo to the filmakers) them especially as they are in such big numbers. I was sure that one day logic will rule, but look at the masses, what do they like, s*upidity, ignorance and fairy tales (check just the music charts for a joke). I'm lucky enough to live in Europe, but am I really? Same s*upidiy is ravaging everywhere, more and more ppl are born with no real standing. I'm even more distressed as i asked some of my much younger friends where they stand on this point and I got a really bleak outcome, they asked: What are you saying, you don't belive in anything? Hahahaha! I believe in reason and I hope the reason will stay put! And Vlatko, I hope some spelling progamme would be added here, as I had a stroke and my spelling is terrible, and English is not my native language.

    1. You got your point across just fine. I understood every word of it.

  46. Everyone knows that its a fact that God impregnated a virgin 2012 years ago, and the God-child once dead became a zombie that roamed for 3 days before going into the sky.

    Those Scientologists though... they are wackos who believe absurd things.

    1. Hahahahahahaha I haven't laughed so hard in a long while. Zombie! LOL - Thanks !

  47. Living in the South (in America) i would like to apologize to the rest of the world for our ignorance to facts.

    I feel like a fish out of water here and would very much like to move to a less coven-like society. preferably one that doesn't deem fire an act of god's anger.

    1. You mean it's not. How come every time I burn myself I invoke his name?

    2. Don't apologize... I'm a transplanted Southerner, living in the Northeast (an hour west of NYC) for the last 17 years, having moved here when I was 30. There is very nearly just as much ignorance and outright stupidity here as there is there, I can tell you honestly and (I think) objectively. It's not a regional problem, it's a national problem, probably much of it having to do with what economic class you're in. But don't lose heart! Be as sharp and wise as you can be where you are: The South does need it, too...

    3. If you apologize for being a Southerner then you're no Southerner.

  48. But..but...there's a coming together at the end! (and it's funny, too, if you enjoy Brit humor--which I do!).

    Part 3 is priceless: "Oy! Miller! You i*iot! We can't carbon date that [fossilized dinosaur bone]! There's no f***ing carbon in it!

    Part 8 is even better...Billy Crone on the earth's magnetic field:
    "If we extrapolate just 20,000 years ago"
    "How long?"
    "Just 20,000 years ago"
    "Twenty million?"
    "Not 20 million"
    "Twenty billion?"
    "Not 20 billion, just 20,000 years ago, the heat produced by the magnetic field would have liquified the earth!"
    "Get the f*** out of here!"
    "That's just 20,000 years ago! And a million years ago, folks--get this--the magnetic field would have been so strong it would have VAPORIZED our planet!"

    You all are right that the mud-slinging is getting to be a bit much, but really, when you consider that creationism just isn't for Americans anymore, you ought to be getting scared.

    This topic can be dealt with humorously or rancorously, but in the end, who benefits from having a dumbed-down, gullible population?

    I don't care how funny or loud the conversation gets, we need to keep having it.

    1. Kateye70
      agree completely. rarely do i fin myself laughing during a doc. i found it well researched ,funny and informative.

    2. potholer is great been subscribed to him for a number of years now.

    3. Epicurus
      so have i. i would be willing to bet if our subscriptions were limited to biology and creationism/ID debunking there would be many similarities. have you seen any darkmatter2525 or NonStampCollector ?

    4. yup absolutely.

    5. Potholer's jabs at truthiness are quite funny. I must look for more from him; very entertaining.

    6. Well said

  49. my only complain its the video quality. everything else is dead on.

  50. i see there is a censor hovering.....?too extreme or too non-conforming?let 'em post or there will be no discussion!there will be no mud slinging,i swear-by-god (get it?)!

    1. I get it .....wink wink......

  51. yet another smear campaign against creationists.
    As amusing as it is, this kind of production is childish and getting old.

    1. it's childish to teach this to smear that campaign!

    2. Oh, I agree, but seriously, after seeing so much of this crap slung from both sides, its time to stop and clean the walls off for a proper round intelligent discussion whether people listen to it or not. There is nothing to be gained from this constant slashing at each others throats with spoons and butter knives. We don't need to sling poo to get our point across.

    3. you're right,but the discussion is knives & spoons are the only weapons left to cut the cheese .as the saying goes:kill 'em all
      & let 'common sense' sort 'em out!!!

    4. there are COUNTLESS more serious docs about evolution and the flaws in intelligent design/creationism.

      there are only a handful of these more humorous ones.

      this one also addressed many many claims made by creationists that are still used today so the information is there.

      its kind of hard to disagree with something so wrong without poking fun at it though. it also keeps the information less dry.

    5. I thought it was straight forward, and for the getting old part I would like to mention that it is over two years old.

    6. Creationists deserve to be smeared and Dover did a fine job. The only problem is that creationists are still around.

  52. i'm mesmerized how much upheavel this topic (ID) still causes & emotions are always attached.....even from the educated.i treat the mis-informed with a slight comic approach & enjoy the rhetoric diarrhoea as such (comic relief,that is).but,every niche has to be filled & it's sad, that some choose to do so.

    1. Particularly with stateside in an election year.

  53. Funny, but to anyone who did science at school a little laboured. It's great to debunk the nonsense of creationism but a bit boring for the intelligent majority.

  54. Fun and brilliant! :)

  55. i'm an atheist but only when i beat up creationists!god bless 'em...

    1. When I was bartending I used to beat up on both sides. Actually, I never asked or cared. Either way they ended up out on the street.

  56. Just make sure you're an atheist, atleast on the internet.

  57. here we go again.