Hello, I'm A Scientist

2012, Science  -   40 Comments

This is a compilation of videos made by logicked in which he thoroughly debunks John Morris Pendleton's claims.

It certainly does create a strong feeling of trust when someone on TV or in a video says "Hello, I'm a doctor" or "Hello, I'm a scientist".

Probably this is why we should automatically believe everything Chemist John Morris Pendleton says. He makes a thoroughly convincing and honest case for a young Earth.

Logicked begins with: "Hello Chemist John Morris Pendleton! Why did you feel the need to tell us that you're a Chemist. Could it be that you're fraud. You know that ill-fitting garage-sale lab coat doesn't help your cause very much."

Ratings: 7.16/10from 68 users.

More great documentaries

40 Comments / User Reviews

  1. flybow

    6000 years ago huh. Well all that oil we use everyday does not exist then.

  2. Rev

    Sounds like IndustryOfBlame doesn't understand what the hell satire and entertainment is. They must also have come across The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and complained about how it was too much comedy and not enough news reporting.

  3. ikallicrates

    Have any of you tried Googling 'John Morris Pendleton'? There's no such person. Have any of you read YouTube's personal info on 'Logicked', the guy in the top hat with his head in a bag? He claims 'My name is Maaarttitin Bjorrrnnssennen and I probably live in Iran', My guess is 'Pendleton' and 'Logicked' are one and the same person. The whole thing is a hoax, but funny stuff.

    1. Michael Jay Burns

      Your Google is broken, I Googled the name and the clip being mocked is one of several hits.

    2. Andrew Thompson

      Also, John is also featured in Carl Boughs vids. Obviously JMP isn't considered important enough to warrant even the briefest mention anywhere

  4. Oilanderp Oilanderp

    What a waste of time.

  5. englishjakes

    lol funny as it is and there were some hilarious parts i don't agree with bashing religion. religion can be a huge source of strength to people who wish to turn their lives around for the better, and some people need to believe in something to find meaning in their lives. i have had moments in my life that i felt i was worthless and my life felt like the REM song mad world but i found that by trying to improve my self going to college and being more active really helped. i didn't need religion to find meaning but some people do and you shouldn't mock them. i don't agree either about religious people trying to convert me to their religion if u want me to convert show me proof of god definitive proof not some feeling, or blind faith cos my brain doesn't work that way i need something anything. by proof i mean say a repeatable experiment. anyhow no one is ever going to convert a logical thinker by trying to debunk science there is just to much proof.

    1. hisxmark

      Religion is a means of coping, it is true. So are other forms of delusional belief.

  6. Slim

    I support scientific knowledge as much as anyone, but I find the narrator of this video has an extremely annoying, almost childish tone.

    1. Michael Jay Burns

      look up "mocking"

    2. Andrew Thompson

      It makes it entertaining as well as informative though, which as both an aspiring researcher and a goofy bloke myself, I very much appreciate

  7. Deborah Macaoidh Selim

    This is why I know nothing. That is just great. Good ol' creation science.

  8. GenericDerek

    to add I think the video you're debunking is a sunday school science video lol Crazy people are fun to laugh at though.

  9. GenericDerek

    I like the videos man, but I gotta ask why are you even bothering? These "hyper christians"/creationists are a dying breed, just ignore them and they will fade away.

    1. Michael Jay Burns

      They control the Texas school book selection process. Publishers recently refused to print the "Intelligent Design" biology textbooks that they required for Texas schools. They are dangerous and they are NOT going away. Ignore them at your peril.

  10. Wayne Siemund

    Over 4.5 hours of some guy debunking the comments of some fool. I prefer my stand up comedy to get to the punch line sooner.

  11. Code000

    Where can i get that opening song? Wedding material!

  12. Guest

    Endless ad hominem attacks make it kind of hard to watch, but still, I liked that the narrator actually took the time to find (and cite) original sources. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with idiots that still doubt Darwin. We live in an age where DNA has (for all intents and purposes) proven how interwoven the web of evolution is.

  13. jon jenkins

    friggin hilarious

  14. StillTruth

    It's impossible that this complexity came from nothing....1 & 2 Law of Thermodynamics....Irreducible Complexity....the need for DNA and Proteins to co-exist ergo not evolve....the day after creation - Adam was a mature man, the trees were mature trees, but for some reason idiotic liberal sheep believe that rocks would only be a day old.....

    1. robertallen1

      1. "It's impossible that this complexity came from nothing." Who says that it did?

      2. What about the first and second laws of thermodynamics which you probably don't understand in the first place?

      3. What does the co-existence of DNA and proteins have to do with evolution?

      4. "the day after creation - Adam was a mature man, the trees were mature trees, but for some reason idiotic liberal sheep believe that rocks would only be a day old." Is this supposed to mean something.

      You've obviously been visiting creationist websites and not even beginning to understand what you have posted. And you talk about idiotic liberal sheep.

    2. shanesmith1

      1. The foundation of the theory of evolution is based on organic information (complexity [DNA]) originating from non-organic substances. Primordial soup, that for millions (even billions I think, Im not up to date with the current and ever changing timelines) stewed upon the hot rock of earth and somehow the liquid mix with no living matter became alive. Darwin said that.

      2. An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. Perhaps your correct in that roberttallen1 didnt understand why the laws of thermodynamics are relevant to evolutuion. put plainly, how can a system that has reached thermal equilibrium continue to evolve within its own system. This is of course relevant more so to celestial bodies and astrological evidence but is important on the micro evolution subject

      3. Termites (white ants) have a unique enzyme in their stomachs that enables them to breakdown cellulose (wood stuff). This particular enzyme does not exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom. Without this enzyme they would not be able to breakdown the wood and consume it. Though they can live off other sources of sustenance for a time, they require this cellulose to procreate. How then did they "evolve" to eat something that would kill them if they ate it without the enzyme? suggesting they built up a resistance to the wood is like saying one day this human suddenly started eating steel and not only did it no kill him but it became humanities number one food source. This co-existence of DNA was required from the start for termites to exist. There are examples like this everywhere.

      4. Its supposed to mean that the gap theory exists. That god created the planets and the environment over a long period of time.

      Haha this is my first post on this website

    3. Samuel Morrissey

      1. Evolution deals with the evolution of life, after the event you are talking about, namely Abiogenesis.These are totally separate areas of study - how life began may or may not have any bearing on the process of evolution which is an overarching and inevitable progression that is driven largely though not exclusively by environmental pressures. (organic or otherwise)

      Darwin did not say anything about abiogenesis in a scientific sense, at least not as far as I am aware.

      2. The earth is not and never was an isolated system, as it gains energy from the sun. Life traps this energy and uses it to hold entropy at bay momentarily. What do the laws of thermodynamics say about evolving complexity in open systems?

      3. Because a chemical is apparently unique to a particular species as far as we know does not mean a) that it is, or b) that it always was. It is still very likely that many species share the exact same piece of DNA that codes for the proteins needed to produce the termites cellulose digestive enzyme, but in those species the relevant code is inactivated (in between active sections) or junk (at either end of the chromosome).

      Regardless, your question about 'how' something could have evolved implies a rather naive conception of evolution. The forces driving it are myriad, some breathtakingly obvious and simple (natural selection) others far more subtle (interactions between entirely different organisms, say between mammals and viruses for instance) not to mention the plethora of possible environmental pressures. To keep this brief, you can not isolate an evolution event in that way. It is not that simple.

      4. Any supporting evidence for that idle speculation?

    4. Deborah Macaoidh Selim

      Yeah, that was pretty funny.

    5. Darkieee

      2: The main word here is isolated. The earth isn't isolated, energy and material is coming in and going out all the time.

      3: Most Caucasians can drink cow milk, and use other milk products without getting sick, asians and native americans can't. Does that mean that God didn't want them to drink milk, or that we (caucasians) slowly got used to it to the point that it's now in our DNA?

    6. robertallen1

      And a suggested number 4. Appendicitis and colitis.

    7. Michael Jay Burns

      Whitey (me and my fellow lactophiles) did not "get used to it." Those ancestors of ours with the gene that allowed them to tolerate milk as adults survived better than their contemporaries who did not have that gene since the time when Whitey culture domesticated cows and milk became a food source for them. The prevalence of that lacto-tolerance gene in the modern Whitey population and its rarity in the cultural groups who did not herd milk cows is a text book example of natural selection.

  15. wald0

    Yep, this chemist guy is a real id10t, that is for sure, but- I don't care for this kind of format, mostly just insulting the guy and making fun of him. Its cool for a few minutes but after that it starts getting just as annoying as trying to listen to the chemist. I like the way Bart Ehrman goes about debunking the idea that the bible is a historical document, no insults aimed personally at the opponent, no mocking what he said or asserted, just lays out his perfectly logical, well supported case for why it cannot be used as a historical document. When we, atheists in general I mean, go about attacking this way, mocking and insulting, we give the theists cover to hide behind. They can always say that our mocking them and insulting them shows we have a personal issue of some kind with them but no real argument to present. I know we get tired of stating the same facts over and over in support of evolution, the age of the universe, etc. but we have to keep doing it. We're never going to get people to listen, to truly question their lives, if we just call them st*pid.

    1. robertallen1

      Have you ever noticed how boring most of the theistic debates, examples of which are found on You Tube, are with their neat formats and well-behaved speakers and moderators. It's easier to get people to listen when there's some if not considerable vitriol in the proceeding.
      I like Bart Ehrman. I have read at least seven of his books and regard him as one of the foremost New Testament scholars--his knowledge is staggering, but.quite frankly, he's too nice--it's like enlisting the Marquess of Queensbury when a Jack Dempsey is needed. For example, he had all the ammunition he needed to wipe the floor with William Lane Craig and opted to be a gentleman instead.

  16. Christian Klinckwort Guerrero

    But you realy appear to be the i*iot, prick

  17. Christian Klinckwort Guerrero

    Gues what, black man. YOU SUCK you make this interesting debate disgusting, your language

  18. Christian Klinckwort Guerrero

    why coward behin a black mask?

  19. J. Andrew Roussakis

    this guy is a complete i*iot. no scientist ever refers to the bible as a legitimate reference for any kind of scientific verification, unless they are complete M*RONS! watch at own risk, and for a good laugh

  20. IndustryOfBlame

    I don't really need to watch this 281 minute long commentary rant since I'm not a young earth creationist, but if I were I'd probably be put off by the annoying voice, condescending tone and rampant sarcasm throughout this "debunk session", and hence any educational value would be lost.

    "logicked" is just a backslapper for the majority crowd of youtube atheists trying find common ground to express their adolescant frustrations. TheAmazingAtheist is by far the worst example of this, just seeing his face makes me feel offended despite the fact that I'm an atheist myself.

    These people should let scientists argue for science and stop behaving like the mob of religious zealots they dislike so much.

    1. Hodd

      Well said brother!!

    2. anna miller

      Unfortunately, many atheists are making up for the lost time spent bowing down to the hammer of the religious community.
      We can hardly be surprised at their reaction. A reaction that is both predictable and quite necessary.

    3. Michael Jay Burns

      Yeah, we're still sore about that Inquisition thing and the ranting of the modern right wing zealots reminds us that those guys are dangerous.

  21. Christian Tintin Johansson

    I think it's awesome that some people really believe that "chemist John" is right :P at the same time I feel scared when I realize people who believe this dude are out there, driving cars, performing surgery and educating our young. The world will end if we don't work hard to stop this madness.

    1. robertallen1

      Performing surgery?

    2. Michael Jay Burns

      I know a Pathologist in that tribe so I would not be surprised if there were some bible-thumping surgeons (not many though I would guess).