| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Help keep poeTV running

And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 14
kelpfoot - 2009-02-28

Praise Cthulhu for the world and all its wonders.

Randroid - 2009-02-28

GLAD to see someone exposing the lies of the "International Scientific Community "( conicndentaly most of them are jews...... ) for all i know the reptiles and their washington illuminati cyniks have already started breading a new species of Negro SUpermen in the Balearic sea... the greatest HOAX OF EVOLUTION perpgtrated by greybeards with ailements of the SOUL and assblastin MUSLIM astrologers (obamailures) with anime adiction


The Man from A.C.O.R.N.

kamlem - 2009-02-28

You misspelt 'EVILUTION'

Randroid - 2009-02-28

filter "evilution" to "Barack Lucifer TAX AND SPEND LIEBERALS Electronic Jihad 2.0 Corinthians 15:54-57 BLACK RAPTOR"

ProfessorChaos - 2009-02-28

I deeply appreciate this guy.

dancingshadow - 2009-02-28

But there's a very good argument that absolutely refutes this...

glasseye - 2009-02-28

Best two seconds of silence ever.

Syd Midnight - 2009-02-28

You know good and well that weapons-grade English sarcasm like this will fly over most peoples heads, but the Youtube comments are still hilarious.

thebaronsdoctor - 2009-02-28

This man is a treasure.

Camonk - 2009-02-28

This video combines two of my favorite things: British guys being sarcastic and the flagellum motor.

allcaps - 2009-02-28

I actually...

I actually don't get this. That's not as crushingly obvious as it's pretending to be. Creationists go on and on about the parallels between biological construction and mechanical construction, as he's pointing out. But if you yanked apart the wheel and axle of a car, you could still go and find another purpose for each of the parts. You could even find those parts in numerous other machines, most of which wouldn't resemble the car at all. A designer, working along mechanical rules, would naturally seek to limit the number of unique elements used in construction. It's just more economical. Every manufacturer in the world knows this, which is why most machine parts are standardized. That the Intelligent Designer used this pore-thing to stick the flagellum out of, rather than creating a whole new device.. well, that just makes good sense.

Also, I don't believe that IDers deny microevolution, as that would be denying directly observable evidence - most clearly observable in the rapid mutability of bacteria. Therefore I don't think his sarky "germs cause bad things" argument would elicit anything more than shrugs from a committed IDer, even from the more explicitly religious ones. That Creation has strayed from God's intended path is a foundational belief of Christianity.

So -1 star, for preaching to the choir. Not that I want him to stop...

takewithfood - 2009-02-28

I think potholer did a pretty terrible job with this one. He didn't explain himself very well and sort of missed his own point.

You're right that it makes sense that an Intelligent Designer COULD make the flagellum out of "existing parts" - but that isn't the creationist argument. The actual argument is that the flagellum could NOT have been made in any other way, that it is too complex to have arisen on its own, since its individual parts have no function. They are trying to say that the chances of these useless parts being created and assembled just so are simply too improbable. Thus, magic man musta dun it.

But that argument contains a big fat lie, which is what potholer should have focused on. Many of the basic components DO have functions of their own.

So basically, the ID folks say "Could have done it," while scientists say "natural selection could have done it too." So it comes down to which is more likely: natural selection, or magic man/God/Invisible Pink Unicorn/etc? Occam's Razor obviously favours the scientists.

As for the microevolution issue, no, most IDers don't seem to deny microevolution. I think potholer's intensely moot point was that if an intelligent designer exists, s/he's also a huge prick for creating nasty stuff that hurts people. He suggests that this is in contrast to the concept of a loving God, as though that means there can't be any God at all. It's a stupid argument, which is why he made a pretty half-hearted stab at it. I don't think he's terribly serious about it, he's just being snarky.

allcaps - 2009-03-01

Okay, I think you're right. I also think MY argument is totally more elegant. These IDers are missing a trick if they're arguing a line that dead-end. If you never hear from me again, it's because I've found my niche! PRAISE JESUS!!

Syd Midnight - 2009-03-01

I think this was less of a lesson and more of a troll. You have to pay close attention to what he's saying to get through the desert-dry sarcasm, so by being subtle he's outed most of his detractors and some of his supporters as idiots who aren't even listening to his slow and careful explanations. It was a great way of lampooning creationists while calling out the Gommorahs on his side.

Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement