The anus: The Achilles' heel of creationism.

This is not bad at all (especially last 3 minutes or so), except some parts are really not adapted for layman.

Every once in a while I I'll mention that insects are animals-- never do this, unless you are prepared to defend yourself against the ignorant masses.

I like how he says that we are animals that that's a fact and we can prove it. Of course you can prove it because the definition has been decided upon. One can easily change the definition in such a way the humans are not included. So he can't prove anything other than humans fit into the current definition.

I don't have any problem with humans being animals I just laugh that he doesn't realize he's being just as silly about his point of view as the people he is attacking. Except he's being worse because he's being a condescending ass.

The point of the video is that every taxonomic branch is connected and there is scientifically proven evolutionary lineage for every existing animal on the planet.
Categorizing humans as animals is *not* the point of this video- it's mention only pro-form to show the logical path of the evolution.

When a scientist is a condescending ass somehow it's not as annoying than when a religious person fits the same description.

@Rebel: Of course you're wrong. Animals are only those creatures that are cute and furry.

Yeh... stuff like that happens all the time for me.

I once got into an argument with my mom about whether or not alcohol can freeze. Well, she's the adult, she's the smart one, she knows what she's talking about. Except, it does freeze. (-114 centigrade, but still.)

No, the point of the video is not that every taxonomic branch is connected. The point of the video is to point out that creationists are wrong. It simply uses taxonomy to make that point.

My two favorite users are TM, and Nika.

Actually, this video could have been made without even mentioning the creationism: evolution is not some anti-creationist devil tool, it's a fact.

@Rebel: hopefully not in that order. :P

There is no order. You both remind me of Emperor Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith, when he tells Anakin that there is no evil, only points of view. It's entertaining to watch two very polar views.

In real life TM and I would be great friends. The kind that get thrown out of a diner for having very loud discussions.

You're right nika, the video could have been made without mentioning the creationism. However, it wasn't. I say all this without even discussing evolution vs. creationism. That argument has very little importance to me. I believe in God, but I also believe that God has performed many scientific acts in the Universe. To some there may be a contradiction there and it is a thought process that can't be fully explored on a comment section, but evolution does not offend me. The tenor of the video does.

And as for order...I have no problem with nika being on top...

Good...

Nika usually is on top.

Are there really people who believe insects are not animals? That idea is completely groundless. (perhaps even more than the idea of there being a god)

Are there any evolution videos you like TM? I remember you taking issue with "Evolution in 7 minutes" where monkeys and humans were direct ancestors. Awesome.

I am going to be marked ignorant now, which is fair enough if I get to post the question: "Why do I have to choose?". Why is either creationism of darwinism the definitive answer?

If you're not interested in the subject, you don't have to choose. If you are, it's either one or the other because they are completely incompatible with each other.

They're not definitive answers, they're just the best explanations people have accepted.

God and evolution are not incompatible.
That type of evolution that has come to be known as Darwinism (popularly), is.

It's all a matter of degrees. The aspect of evolution that religious people have a problem with is transformism. Though some have a problem with ALL evolution, many only have a problem with one creature evolving into another. It's easy to see why Darwinists go there but not so easy to why religious people don't and perhaps the reason is different for different religions.

I happen to belong to a religion that has no official stance on the issue and a religion that views the universe differently than most modern Christian religions. For example, we don't believe that God created the universe out of nothing, ex nihilo, but rather he organized existing matter. We believe a bunch of other stuff too that have caused critics to label us the "god makers" but that's a different post entirely.

I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design however, because despite what evolutionist think, it is not about putting God into science. For me, it's lack of specificity on just who the designer is makes it unappealing. I do believe that God created the universe and that it isn't a finished project. I also don't think God commands everything to everything it does. I think he creates living things with a set of tools and they go about their business. I have no problem with saying the most powerful set of tools, DNA, changes and so changes the creature. Does that apply to mankind? Perhaps. The thing is, I find the idea of a god, or gods, or God, to be so much more interesting than random chance. I like Genesis better than genesis.

Well, I find the random chance that brought us here to be just as fascinating as the idea of a supernatural force starting it all. The random chance just has observable evidence, and I can't ignore it in favor of a possibly more exciting option.

Finding one theory more interesting than another isn't really grounds for taking it as truth, is it? I find the theory that benevolent aliens crash-landed in Roswell in 1947 more interesting than the "it-was-a-hot-air-balloon" theory, but the evidence points to the hot air balloon - so I think that one's probably true, and the other false, even if I don't like it as much. I'm not saying that God doesn't exist, just that preferring one answer to another - to any question at all - isn't grounds for believing in it.
Now, on the matter of evolution itself:
I think that evolution - including transformism - is the real way that everything came to being. There is overwhelming evidence to say so, and furthermore, if species didn't change through reproduction, everybody would look exactly the same (even if we didn't have the huge number of fossils, we could infer that evolution occurs simply because newborn babies take the genetic trains of both parents and that each newborn looks unique - therefore, species will eventually lose certain traits and add new ones; if evolution couldn't happen, each member of each species would have to all look exactly the same).
I was raised Catholic, and we do believe in evolution, even the devout, religious Catholics (or, they're supposed to, anyway), so your comment that "religious people" dislike evolution isn't really accurate. As it says in the Chatechim, "methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God."
Now, this serves not only as backup for my initial claim that Catholics accept evolution, but also to launch a second argument: that we're here, and that the laws of physics are here (To those who dispute God's existence: I'm speaking within the context of God's existence, so just bear with me) and that the physical universe, its contents (I.E. us), and therefore the universe's laws are of God's invention. God used the big bang to form the physical universe and evolution to create animals.
No conflict there.

"Finding one theory more interesting than another isn't really grounds for taking it as truth, is it?" No, of course not, never has been and I certainly didn't imply that it was. However, throughout history people have delved into those areas that interest them most. Einstein wasn't passionate about the patten office, it was something else that interested him, physics. Certainly he didn't begin thinking about his theories because he already knew they were true but rather because thinking about them fascinated him and engaged him.

Evolution isn't the way everything "came into being" as you wrote something must exist for evolution to work upon. The evolution of life by definition requires life. In the end for all the evolution tells us it still leaves the question of the ultimate origin unanswered. The big bang is the creation of the universe, the primordial soup the creation of life but those two theories are not the ultimate answer to where it all began. So no matter which side you take the solution it provides is not complete. In religion that's OK, because of faith. In science not so much...

But that's not the same thing. Delving into what you find most interesting is fine - accepting the story you like better is an entirely different matter.
And when I said "everything came into being", I didn't really mean "everything". I suppose I should have been more specific, but I said "everything" in the common sense: when people say "this always happens to me", they don't mean that "that event happens constantly to me, without stopping", they mean "that happens to me often". It's the same sort of colloquialism. I suppose that I should have been clearer - but seeing as I'm writing this in the comments of a video on the internet, I think that a colloquialisms can be used.
Anyway, I know perfectly well that evolution isn't the origin of "everything". I also mentioned the big bang as the origin of the physical universe, didn't I? I know we haven't yet discovered the ultimate origin of the universe. Also, my point wasn't about God, but about evolution and religion, and how they are not in conflict.

"my point wasn't about God, but about evolution and religion, and how they are not in conflict." They don't have to be in conflict, depending upon definition, but they certainly are currently in conflict.

Okay, then, about how they are not mutually exclusive.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but under the current climate they are.

Just because people say they are doesn't mean that they actually are.

i honestly cant believe that there are any hardcore creationists are out there.
after all of the evidence for evolution, and they still push for creationism to be taught in school?
that makes about as much sense as teaching abstinence as a good safe sex method.