I remember this guy.

Kicked out of Tulane university for one of the worst research papers in its history. This is the guy that doesn't even believe in how our eyes function:

"There is in fact no evidence at all that having this layer of nerve fibres (which are largely transparent) in front of the receptors significantly blocks, distorts or diffracts the incoming light in any way."

Total ripoff artist.

If you believe he was ever an Atheist, then I have a secret to tell you.

I am the Batman.

"I began to listen to what I was saying, and what I was saying wasn't making very good scientific sense"

Therefore, MAGIC!

What a moron...

Should be in the * lies channel. But, I don't want to make waves with Shiny.

But this guy has been shown to be the precise charlatan he is 1,000 times before. But this video keeps popping up every year or so.

He's been dead for years, but this is still used as some sort of PROOFZ! that Jesus etc.

I found his wikipedia page:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_became_creationists_after_studying_the_evidence

Notice how he uses the term "evolutionist"?

Now, why would someone use such an archaic, unscientific word?

Oh, right.

"In order to treat evolution as a category of religions, evangelic christians commonly use the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe scientists, thus implying through language that the issue of evolution is a matter of religious belief.

The goal of this argument is to equate the validity of the theory of evolution with the pseudoscientific concept of Intelligent Design."

shiny fails again. another negative voted sift to your name. Congrats

you know how creationists like to shift the burden of proof. It's somehow not on them to prove their claims. somehow atheists are supposed to disprove god.

so obviously posting a video of a charlatan "converting" proves creationism.

its so obvious now.

I, however, have no problems making waves with shiny. *lies I'm just not privileged enough

Invocations (lies) cannot be called by VoodooV because VoodooV is not privileged - sorry.

@VoodooV



May Glass Tiger make your day proper.




and a delicious day it shall be.

You seem to entirely miss the point of sifting a video with your banter.

You sift, it gets voted on... you do not fail you sift.

@BoneRemake

maybe you should actually read my "banter"

I didn't say shiny's video fails again. I said shiny fails again. He has already admitted his sole agenda is to push the creationist viewpoint and he has, again, failed to do that with his latest "evidence" He doesn't give a fuck about you dude, so I really wouldn't waste your energy "defending" him.

@VoodooV

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

oh.

I did read it again.

Hurruh.

oh and that is read it again, not read it in general like the prickly dickly pear you presented. I was mistaken, you where dicken. it happens.

" actually read my banter " pretty stupid thing to say after I comented on it. I think we both fucked up, you with your wording and such and such and me with my such and such.

I have cookies in the oven, it is 7 almost 8 am.

fuck yourself everyone. I have cookies .

oh and I was not defending him, but sifting is sifting and I thought you were being a weiner about his sifting, not his failing as a sifter in general. I post things people do not like, he posts things of that nature, you might, I dunno..

everyone fuck off, I am going to bake crab legs and boil crab legs and see which is better, also I have rice made and some mashed potatoes. I dunno wtf goes with crab legs.... I know butter does, and butter goes with rice and potatoes so score for me on all 3 counts.

Thin red line is a fucked up movie.

HEY Shinyblurry - god does not talk to you, that voice is called intuition and conscience. that light you saw might be a brain tumor, you ever see the documentary called " Phenomenon" it had a guy named John Travolta in it .

...the question he should of asked is how on earth was he granted a PhD?
I mean, believe in creation if you like... but to no be able to answer the questions posed by that graduate student means that you do not have a graduate level understanding of evolutionary theory.

I totally lost it once he busts out his thinking pipe. Filled with cool aid I presume.

I never understood why God just can't create through evolution. Can't one say that evolution is the way God works? God seems to have evolved from the Old Testament God to the New Testament God.

Anyway, one piece of for or against doesn't add up to much other than to bring out the God-haters.

lol thinking pipe.

What is his 'doctorate' in? It can't possibly be math or science. He doesn't understand either.
'I could buffalo a student, but for the first time I began to listen to my own explanation'....just OMG, so as a professor, you never paid attention to the object of study you taught! Ooooooooooh...long Johnson!
"most of them are fully formed organisms in their own right"....so let's ignore ALL those that aren't and say they never existed. What a buffoon!
This is the shining example of a 'scientist' that learned about 'creationism' and 'converted'...the problem being he wasn't a scientist (certainly not a good one that followed the scientific method), and he obviously knew about creationism before his conversation with the student (or was even more dense than he appears). This means he's a bold faced liar, like most proselytizers, that minimizes other ways of thinking and/or facts while maximizing 'belief'. Duh!
There is no 'conversion' possible, as science is not analogous to religion, the only conversion possibly would be one of his thought process, from a thinking person willing to examine reality and willing to be wrong (which it seems he never was) to one willing to believe mythos without (or contrary to) evidence.

You've quoted that without understanding what he is talking about, or what the controversy actually is. Evolutionists suppose that the human eye is poorly designed because of a layer of nerve fibers in front of the eye. They base this partly on the fact that the octopus, whose eyes have a similar design to ours, have the same nerve fibers located in the back of the eye. They say the nerve fibers in front impair our vision in comparison, and perhaps they might a little(dont know if they do or not), but it is for a tradeoff. The truth that is missing from the discussion is that the nerve fibers in front have a purpose, which is to block damaging radiation that the octopus isn't exposed to because it is underwater. That is why the octopus can have the nerve fibers in the back of the eye and we have them in front.

What is your proof that he wasn't an atheist? Where did you read that he was kicked out of the University? I wouldn't be surprised that he was kicked out of the University after he converted, but I've never read that he was kicked out.

God uses the weak things of this world to shame the strong. The accolades of the world do not enhance or diminish the presentation of the truth. God will use it because He uses all things for those good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

I'm still waiting for your reply here:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Incoherence-of-Atheism#comment-1720373

He's wrong, I do care about you. How have you been doing?

The question isn't whether He could use evolution; He could definitely use evolution or any other means He wanted to create the world and everything in it. The question is did He evolution? I don't think He did, you are free to disagree with that.

I would object though to the idea that God in the Old and New Testament are any different. The New Testament is the fuller revelation of who God is, because Jesus revealed the Father to us through His life and testimony. The overriding purpose of God is still the same, though, and that is seamlessly presented through the whole scripture. How do you think they differ?

Let's assume your god exists for the purposes of this argument.

If so, I am 99% certain that It (surely something as outside the human experience as God doesn't have a gender?) definitely "did evolution".

Why?

Evidence. An absolutely ungodly (pun intended) amount of it. There's no need to rehash it here, it's been documented and debated here, there and pretty much everywhere on the web. And it's done. Settled question. Evolution, like gravity, is real. There is no argument. At least, none that you, me or any creationist is qualified to make.

And here's the next part... you personally, are absolutely entitled to your opinion that evolution is wrong. And that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the reality of the universe.

As for the guy in the video... I have no idea how he became a professor, because he fails to answer the most basic question a student has for him (hint: mutations don't produce "beneficial" changes, they just produce changes. it's the environment that selects the beneficial changes)

Because most fundamentalists will say with 100% certainty that evolution doesn't happen, and everything that exists was created as it exists by Gawd 6000 years ago.
Evolution is not proof that there's no Gawd, it's only proof that the old testament is absolutely ridiculous when viewed as fact.
Most Christian fundamentalists don't see the evolution of Gawd from the old to new testament, as evidenced by the fact that they rail against things forbidden in the old testament and ignore the idea that Jebus erased all sin and re-wrote the "law" to read 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' as the most important and overriding law.

Shiny uses the term "Evolutionists", therefor loses the argument. But, s/he starts from the weakest of grounds to begin with, so it's expected.

The "debate" of science vs religion has been over for ages. I'm not debating that. Just commenting on the dumb terms that creationists have to use to defend their fantasies.

Shiny, from the context in which Volump used the quote, it really seems that he did understand what Lumbsten was saying, and was accurately pointing out that it is incorrect, or at least misleading. The human eye has a pretty significant blind spot as the result of the nervous connections having to pass through the layer of photoreceptors. While there are some who argue that the layout of the vertebrate eye helps to cope with damage cause by UV radiation, it doesn't make sense to argue that it functions this way because it is 'designed' for use out of water. The eyes of fishes have the same design (...extremely good evidence for evolutionary relatedness), and fish, of course, usually use their eyes underwater.
A stronger argument suggesting an adaptive trade-off between the costs of having nervous connections in front of the photoreceptors and some other benefits of this anatomy would be that the arrangement of the vertebrate eye allows for the photoreceptors to be closer to their blood supply in the choriod.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

#1 request for next version of VideoSift. Quotes made by people I've ignored should be ignored too.

I don't see why I should be forced to read the inane ramblings of a religious nutcase demagogue since he apparently hasn't a objective cell in his brain and refuses to read anything out side of his narrow, myopic worldview.

Personally, I don't think Shinyblurry believes a damn thing he says. He's just here to troll people and make them angry. Just like the lame, disgusting trolls everywhere else. It's sad really. He makes a strong case for atheism.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

Dude, sorry about your parents, but becoming a vigilante is just not the way. See a psychiatrist to deal with your loss.

And watch out for jokers.

Evolution happened and happens all the time, it would take an imbecile to deny it. Look at what cows were and are now; look at how bears used to be and how they are now. Look at how fish with predators tend to become more and more camouflaged as generations pass; conversely look how they get more colorful when there are no predators. This is all natural selection.

It's not a hard theory to test.

This guy, unexplicably, evolved into a guy with a diploma. It's a natural mutation that will not be selected for the next generation.