Yapper

So handsome

Thanks for teaching me!

Nice video

can you try to not be disgusting in the videos

Thanks! Using this for a class!

Keep up the good work

Thank you for your video

Good leson

Hi there! Are you still planning to do more grade levels?

You're so handsome lol

You have a lot of rubic cubes

🤨

Loving the program but was having difficulty getting child to watch the videos. I found listening to these videos at 1.5 speed helped my student (and me) to engage.

this is so skibidi

Sir, is there a difference between tephra and pyroclast?

The famous Halleys comet appears after every years ?

:)

cool

that is the best demostration evwe for wind creation

so how did yall find this video

Your not handsome lol

My dream is to study about historic creatures but my whole family hate it

It hurts when he mentions Kids and i am 26 yo Just know about this information 💔

Great

My favorite part is while he’s using coding….a very modern science, as reasoning to prove creationism. I don’t even care to expand more on how ridiculous that is

Thank u for ur videos and thoughts

Lol so it just got 2 1 size and stop growing the moon?

So he’s identifying how they adapt and evolve within their own species couple with the environment. I can see how things evolve and adjust to it environment, but it does not change species although one may have come from one source is just identify that everything comes from one source it doesn’t identify the different diversity of each species we all came from the dirt ingredients, but there’s cake there is buildings there are medicine there are television all those things don’t have the same DNA

There is no debate. Creationism relies on magic. Magic isn't real. If you have arguments against evolution, then fine, but replacing it with magic or magical invisible beings in the sky is completely absurd. It's the "I Dream Of Jeannie" theory and it's ridiculous. Maybe you think evolution is ridiculous, then fine, come up with a better explanation that doesn't rely on superstition, magic, and invisible beings in the sky.

😀 P r o m o S M

Faith is something that " atheist scientist" dont have. Ok I guess you used to be a handsome useless butthole 1 million years ago.

i was tripping and its crazy windy rn and i was like wait a second 😂

Science is open minded. Creationism/religion is closed minded. Science promotes evolution as the theory that best fits the facts. If another theory were to evolve science would promote that theory. We have no better explanation for life on earth then evolution. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is based on belief alone with very little evidence to support it. If someone from the creationism camp could propose a scientific theory as strong as evolution it would be debated seriously. Until they can science should not even hold discussions about this with creationists. Creationists arguments only exist in the gaps. Once they believed God created everything as it is now. Science has since shown very strong evidence for evolution of species, so they now retreat to the beginning and say yes but God started it all. Creationists don't provide evidence that can stand up for their theory. What they do is say is science can't explain everything so that proves there must be God. Their argument is science can't prove God doesn't exist. Of course it can't, it is very difficult to prove a negative but then again science isn't the remote bit interested in proving there is no God.

I wanna burguh frum wundys, Wustun buckun.

HandsomeScienceTeacher: please find another job. Or give yourself a different name: "Handsometeacherwhoistooscaredtotellthetruthtohisfundamentalistchristianpayingcustomers"

there is no coherent "theory of creationism". No creationist has ever demonstrated that any part of that idea explains any of the observed facts of archaeology, geology, chemistry etc. So you are comparing a fanciful story to science, and there is little to compare except that it is trivial to demonstrate that many of the events in the story are not supported by any observation.

Bro can you give me one frog for dissection 😅

science works with models. surely you know that,as science teacher. every available data show that evolution is happening and has been happening on Earth for several billion years. creationism, in every plausible model, was used before it was shown obsolete. step by step, piece by piece. it started to crack before newton and I guess you can say it ended with darwin. over 160 years ago! there is no debate, only attempts to educate those who are lied to by apologists. but it is hard to educate someone who doesn't want to be educated. so, as science teacher, you can teach others about how wrong people used to be,because they didn't understand what we understand now. and how gradually creationism was shown wrong in every plausible model anyone tried to make. 51:52 - 52:07 [in the billions of years that have occured, the "spark" of life should've happened multiple times] 1) nothing to do with evolution, that's abiogenesis 2) based on what? as I've said, science works with models. which model did you use to predict that ? I understand what you mean intuitively,but intuition doesn't do much in science. especially if it is based on ignorance. .. as you should know,as science teacher. what you are saying, if you say [it should've happened multiple times ] ok, so you know : a) concrete conditions needed for "spark" b) conditions on Earth were met multiple times for it. again, I understand what you mean intuitively,but you should be able to think scientifically about questions you have. how would you examine those, not just "it doesn't make intuitive sense based on my ignorance on that specific topic".

Confusing. You pretend to "teach" science. Then you conclude with some sort of silly strawman. First know this: Biological evolution is not debated against creationism in ANY scientific manor as creationism definitionally is a beLIEf, and it simply doesn't have a model. This is in contrast to biological evolution which is measured to five sigma certainty with independent support from many other FIELDS of science. These ideas might be contrasted well, but attempting to elevate a non model, even non-modelable imaginary construct that can't be supported by anything but fallacious logical arguments is near criminal. You should be very ashamed. Secondly, let's use your same fallacy and see if you accept that "creationism" never happened again. So rejecting evolutionary biology for that reason you MUST also reject creationism. Can you? Did your biases get in the way?

A Note About This Unit: Evolution is a challenging topic to teach in any setting. This is even more true when the audience being targeted are homeschooled families. The dichotomy within the homeschool community around the topic of evolution and creationism is strong and fierce. On the one hand, there is a group who strongly advocates that creationism be taught in science. I will call these individuals "creationists." Please know that I do not do this in a derogatory manner. On the other hand, there are evolutionists, who fiercely advocate that only evolution should be taught in a science class. Again, please do not think I am using the term evolutionist in a derogatory way. When I wrote the HandsomeScienceTeacher courses, my original intent was to teach evolution and leave creationism out of it. Right up until the moment I recorded this video in fact. Throughout the past year, as I have worked on developing these courses, there has never really been any doubt in my mind that I was going to approach the topic of evolution from a strictly scientific standpoint. Remember, however, that these videos are not scripted. It was perhaps five seconds before I hit the record button, that I mentally called an audible, and decided to instead take a different approach. I decided that perhaps a better way to address evolution was to still teach it in its entirety so that I am true to the science. Which is my job as a science teacher. But, instead of insisting that the theory be accepted as absolute, I would instead use the tension between the two sides to create a unit around the importance of being objective. The truth is, that on this issue both sides lack true objectivity. Both the evolutionists and the creationists tend to be less than willing to consider anything outside of their own views. Evolutionists state that evolution is an absolute fact. That it definitely happened. So strongly are they convinced of this that they typically cannot see their own lack of objectivity. This unwillingness to consider anything outside of evolution to explain the diversity of life on Earth is a problem that runs counter to how science is supposed to be done. They will insist they are objective, but when asked whether they would consider any other explanation for life, they state that there is no need to, because all the evidence points to evolution. Know that I am generalizing. Not all evolutionists are guilty of this lack of objectivity. But, many are. Creationists are often guilty of this as well. Though I will say that I tend to see more open-mindedness among creationists than I do in circles of evolutionists. This is often because believing in creationism does not preclude someone from also believing in evolution. Many who believe in a creator also accept the theory of evolution. The objectivity granted by those who do not need evolution to be true but who are willing to accept it, if evidence can be found to support it, tends to allow for a more honest examination of the evidence. What matters isn't that intelligent people agree with each other. What matters is only that they able to remain objective as they make up their mind. Which is how I attempt to teach this lesson. By focusing on objectivity, my hope is that I can fully teach evolution, without insisting that it be accepted as absolutely factual. Students who complete this unit will walk away with a full understanding of the science behind evolution. However, they will be given the opportunity to use their own objectivity to draw conclusions about whether or not they believe the theory taught. I think where I perhaps failed though, is that my own biases come out a little too strongly. I apologize for this. In attempting to show countervailing evidence, my own lack of belief in the theory of evolution I think comes through more strongly than I had intended. My plea to the learner is that you ignore my bias. Your job is not to believe me. The views expressed are simply my opinions, where were shared in an effort to show that there are alternative views. Your job is to learn about the theory of evolution. To attempt to remain objective. To examine all the evidence, and then to make up your own mind about it. I respect anyone who disagrees with me. So long as you drew your conclusions objectively.

I was just wondering, do cells have age, and if they do, does it affect them like it does humans. Do they have mature and immature stages of life?

Does the boat on the open ocean actually rise and fall as the (supposed) 600 mph tsunami wave, zipping across the surface of the ocean, passes under it? Back in the old (pre GPS days) the physicists could get away with fabricating such lies. But, with an external system that allows quite precise x, y and z positions and motion, did all the ships with GPS on board, for example, record that rise and fall as any tsunami wave passed under it? Tsunamis are COMPLESTELY misunderstood by...the mathematical physicists as they insist on using the wrong math to support their wrong concept of how a tsunami works. This is not the venue to try to explain it but, the short answer is that the mechanism of the tsunami persists in the ocean for the same reason sound persists so well in the air...which the mathematical physicists also COMPLETELY misunderstand. They think both have something to do with "waves". Actually, any waviness that's observed is a byproduct. Sort of like a flag flapping in the wind is a manifestation of the wind and not part of the wind itself. To understand tsunamis (and sound and the wind and virtually every other physics phenomena), one needs to scrap everything learned in science classes and KZbin videos and re-think it correctly. Which of course is exactly what the geniuses of science will refuse to do up to and including the time they take their last breath of air on this Earth. salaphysics.com 101922

How do you I you the driver kaise chalate ho

𝓅𝓇o𝓂o𝓈𝓂

What is changing temperatures so fast that it would create went in different directions, based on this video we should only have wind circling in one direction at all times or a much slower pace

I remember that!!!

Please make video playlist for 4x4

Your videos deserve more attention. I already can solve the cube under 30 sec, and it's kinda sad that I can't learn it from your videos.

Butts and buttholes are different though!