Humorous explanation of Physics "Theory of Everything" has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence? Are you not then at this time simply parroting things to me that you don't really understand, not being a paleontologist yourself?

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

They aren't actually the same thing; one has scientific evidence to back it up, the other does not. It does not logically follow that because microevolution takes place, macroevolution also must take place. It is the secular creation story which presupposes it, but isn't supported by the evidence.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power. There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming.

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

At this point, you would have to either monumentally stupid or willfully ignorant to believe in it.

Your video, SciShow - The Theory of Everything...A Little Bit Closer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

SciShow - The Theory of Everything...A Little Bit Closer has been added as a related post - related requested by Fantomas on that post.

To answer my own question, it's the 2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate.
Full debate available here:
http://videosift.com/video/Isaac-Asimov-Memorial-Debate-The-Theory-of-Everything

Looks like @kceaton1's getting serious.

You may not speak out but i've decided to. If anyone is concerned about the seemingly unfair statements i make about shinyblurry then my comment section can show the proof. I have engaged him in discussion a number of times of science/theism, and the results are poor. He doesn't offer you the same respect he expects you to give him, i find him egotistical and obnoxious and completely uninterested in serious discussion. Read my discussions with him if you don't believe that - there's proof which is the test of any theory as we all know.

People like shinyblurry don't even realise that their zealotism drives people away from the religion.

Let me make a statement regarding the big bang theory. Firstly, all scientific theories are put in place to explain the facts. A theory takes everything we know, balls it up into a bunch of connections, and offers us a way of understanding that phenomenon. The big bang theory is not "complete", that is why it's still an active field of study. There are so many scientists right now trying to improve on theories that it's hard to even imagine.

You read a web page like that - almost entirely signed by scientists from the US and mostly "independent researchers"? And suddenly you think you know about the big bang. And in it one person suggests the idea that rigidly adhering to old forms is harmful to scientific advancement, but you take it to mean something else as far as i can tell - shame on you.

The big bang predicts the initial distribution of elements that we see reflected in the universe today - mostly hydrogen, a bit of helium and trace other elements. It actually predicts using only PROVEN SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES (that are testable to anyone on earth) what time and at what temperature different particles were able to form. From that, it predicts what chemical composition the universe has, and finds that it's in agreement. Do you even realise the significance of that? I don't think you do, your brain has been trained by religion to look for things like that and see only design. And that's also why you can't understand scientific theories. You really need to open your mind to how other people think, blurry, and i mean that with kindness.

Do you really think the big bang is so far away from the truth, in your ignorance? Have you looked at it in the kind of depth you need to to understand it? If not, i kindly ask that you stop spouting rubbish in the same way i don't go about trashing your unfounded, ungrounded theories every time you mention theism.

i didn't intend to speak out on @kceaton1's behalf, but i'm pretty sick of blurry canvassing for converts with misinformation myself. His links and statements provide nothing of substance to the argument. It doesn't matter what religion kceaton is, as a theist yourself i'm surprised you act cocky about another's choice of religion. Doesn't your religious claptrap say something like do unto other as you would have them do unto you? In my opinion under your own religion you will be going to hell for being so manipulative and insulting to others.

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^shinyblurry:
That's quite a rant, Kceaton. Unfortunately, you cannot use the light travel time problem to falsify YEC. The SBB model also has a light travel time problem, specifically the horizon problem. Check out what some scientists published in New Scientist Magazine:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
I'm sorry you were indoctrinated into the Mormon church. My heart goes out to you, but you've thrown away the baby with the bathwater. It isn't too difficult to falsify the Mormon God, but neither does that make atheism the natural conclusion.
>> ^kceaton1

One:
I've known about this study since day one, does it surprise me, hahahahahaha. I think most people are morons. NO IT DOESN'T! I think we have one of the worst educations systems in the world, you may think your belief driven gospel knowledge may keep you safe, flying up there in the sky, BUT I'll take a damned engineer EVERYDAY over your damned God!
Two:
About my past. This is the THIRD time you've said this same thing. This is borderline abuse, FUCK YOU! Get off your high horse your are not an immortal moral high judge sent here to Earth to tell us what was a wrong or "sorrowful" mistake. I'm sorry, I'm being really damned aggressive right now, but I'm tired of your cockeyed charades and your imperative to make sure every Mormon that is or ever was KNOWS how "sorry" you are for them.
---
I'm tired of the targeted trolling!
That also means I will never qualify your "horizon" crap with a response, because it doesn't deserve one. I know this came off rude so sorry for that, on the other hand it was suppose too.

Thanks!!
In reply to this comment by lucky760:
*promote

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I've never heard electrons used in the example before, but the idea that you share some of the same atoms that made up Jesus or Mozart is not just some abstract concept. Statistically, there are so many atoms that make up just one body, that the idea that a few of them made their way into your body is not just possible, it's practically statistically inevitable.


well.. duh ?

Next in the series: http://videosift.com/video/Theory-of-Everything-What-is-Matter

Good point! I changed the title to reflect what the YT post shows.

>> ^jonny:

If the series were a book entitled "Introduction to the Standard Model", this video would be the prologue. I think swedishfriend was expecting chapter 1 (or perhaps the Cliff's Notes).
>> ^critical_d:
I think it's an intro in the sense that the forthcoming videos from the author will go deeper into the topic of the Standard Model.
Otherwise I am not sure what you mean by "wrong embed".>> ^swedishfriend:
this was an intro to the intro... wrong embed?

If the series were a book entitled "Introduction to the Standard Model", this video would be the prologue. I think swedishfriend was expecting chapter 1 (or perhaps the Cliff's Notes).
>> ^critical_d:

I think it's an intro in the sense that the forthcoming videos from the author will go deeper into the topic of the Standard Model.
Otherwise I am not sure what you mean by "wrong embed".>> ^swedishfriend:
this was an intro to the intro... wrong embed?

I think it's an intro in the sense that the forthcoming videos from the author will go deeper into the topic of the Standard Model.

Otherwise I am not sure what you mean by "wrong embed".

>> ^swedishfriend:

this was an intro to the intro... wrong embed?

Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote