Recommended educational Youtube channels for the evidence of evolution

[In situ]

And yet another fail at offering evidence.

You fail to understand that the purpose of a scientific theory is not to tell a story, but to explain observations. You also fail to understand that an observation is an evidence that either support or refute an explanation. You also fail to understand that the so called "scientific method" is only a quality assurance policy that the evidence really are the evidence they claim to be.

In other words, you deny that factual observations exists and that is why you give such an unintelligent impression on me. To reason with you is like reasoning with a 5 year old child, because you behave immature and are unreasonable in you denial of the evidence that support the theory of evolution.

 

[In situ]

Proof that God exists and is creator.

Are you seriously referring to Gentry as a reliable scientific source? If anyone every ignored the so called "scientific method" or principles then it is Gentry. It is well known how bad quality and fraudulent his so called "research" is... His research is a joke...

 

[In situ]

Why do you claim worthless links are evidence, based on the scientific method?

And why do do squeeze in those word "scientific method" everywhere, like it would mean something? It does not, it only makes your sentences looks like a word salad. One almost gets the impression it is a mantra you use to make yourself feel more confident with all the nonsense you manage to assert...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know if anyone has posted this link yet. It lists hundreds of evolution videos:

http://introducedrat.com/evolution.htm

 

[In situ]

Proof that God exists and is creator.

Question is rather why do you post "a proof that god exists" in my thread? The purpose of my OP was to highlight a source of information for those that like to get first hand information about the evidence for evolution.

Set aside the fact that one can neither proof or disprove the existence of a deity, what relevant information is this post supposed to add to the OP? Unless you want to argue, the false claim , that one cannot believe a deity exists and at the same time believe evolution to be true, I have difficulties to see what relevance your "Proof that God exists" has?

I already know you do not regarded this as evidence. If you do not like to consider it to be evidence, then it is not much I can do about that, right? Or do you want me to go into a fruitless "yes it is evidence - no it is not evidence" argument with you? What is you purpose with your post more then telling me that you disagree with what is evidence ?

You asked in a previous post in this thread if I know what the scientific method is. Why do you ask this? Are you trying to show I don't, and I am also curious why do you would think that is the case? Do you want to discuss the evidence or do you want to discuss if it is evidence ?


What is the purpose with your posts in this thread?

 

[PsychoSarah]

 

[In situ]

Do they offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life, from an alleged single life form of long ago?

It'd be amazing if they did that.

To return to one of you old comments in this thread:

The evidence presented in the reference is evidence that show life is a nested set. I don't know what your idea of evidence is, but based on what you ask it seams like you think there is some kind of The Ultimate Evidence, some kind of single fact, that proves everything to right in the entire theory. If that is the case, then evidence does not work that way.

You use evidence to support claims. If life share a common ancestor then life must be a nest set. Observational evidence tells us that life is a nested set. And since it so important for you; yes these observation are based on the
"scientific method" - whatever it is you - or anyone - mean with that, in the sense that they are scientific evidence.

Now you also ask for evidence "long ago", I am sorry, but the evidence that life is nested set does not address the time span needed to evolve the life we see today. The evidence only adress the observational fact that life is a nested set. The reasons for that evolution takes time and the evidence that support is waste (comes mainly from physics and Earth since - not biology) and I don't have time nor feel for going though that right now.

 

[In situ]

Trying to be ironical? Or do you think I must read and respond to own thread when you find it proper?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Trying to be ironical? Or do you think I must read and respond to own thread when you find it proper?

In all honesty, I find this image I have found so funny, that I am just looking for excuses to use it. And I would say a thread being revived after 2 months of no one posting in it qualifies.

 

[juvenissun]

That's not very brave. Are you so afraid that new information will cause you to reconsider your ideas? How will you ever grow and learn?

That is extremely brave.
I am not brave enough to do that. I would take a peek on the noise and I might be distracted as a consequence.

 

[CarlaB]

I think it's about time most atheists here stopped and smelt the coffee, the very very very last thing creationists here are interested in is evidence, the very very very last thing they want to do is stop believing as they do, they deliberately do not read about evolution because they know deep down that it's true, why would anyone deliberately keep their children and themselves away from information, they cry, 'teach both sides' but do not teach both sides to their own children, Why? because they know how damaging evolution would be to their beliefs, that's why they avoid evolution like the plague.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think it's about time most atheists here stopped and smelt the coffee, the very very very last thing creationists here are interested in is evidence, the very very very last thing they want to do is stop believing as they do, they deliberately do not read about evolution because they know deep down that it's true, why would anyone deliberately keep their children and themselves away from information, they cry, 'teach both sides' but do not teach both sides to their own children, Why? because they know how damaging evolution would be to their beliefs, that's why they avoid evolution like the plague.

Only damaging to one's beliefs if they need to take every bit of the bible literally.