Making videos for YouTube, finally!

For years, I’ve had a YouTube channel, but lacking a webcam I was unable to make actual videos. So I was content to favorite videos by others and make comments. But that all changed when I finally bought a webcam after several months of hesitation and learned how to edit files on my computer to make videos too.

Here is my first, made purely to test the systems.

Satisfied with that result, I produced this one a couple of days later about one of my favorite topics:

And this will be just the beginning!

5 thoughts on “Making videos for YouTube, finally!

  1. Hey Dale,

    Been a while since I commented. Good videos, especially on Creationism. Last week I got into a debate with Casey Luskin on one of the few posts on “Evolution News & Views” that was accepting comments. The last comment did not even get accepted; curious, since I did not even get nasty or make fun. Shame, since I thought I asked him a really good question.

    • Krissmith777, did you post about this debate on your own blog? If so, please link to your blog entry here. If not, make such a blog entry ASAP. Then link to it here. I’ve got to see what you could do to scare a lawyer like Casey (who struck out long ago) Looskanin into banning you from his site.

      Evolution News and Views is so dishonest and bigoted that it makes FOX News look, well, fair and balanced. I wrote about ENaV here:

      But to show I’m not all bad, try viewing this third video I made:

      Feel better?

      • The post I had the debate with him on is here:

        He seemingly deliberately avoided approving my last comment since you will not find it on his blog post.

        But I think what scared him was this:

        I told him about Herman J. Muller who in 1918 used Evolutionary theory to predict the existence of what HE would call “irreducible complexity.” I gave him a quote from Muller’s paper (which is available online).

        Here’s the quote that I wanted Luskin to answer to:

        Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must it produced upon the “reaction system” that had been brought into being have derived its survival value from the effect which by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors. (link: )

        I told Luskin to take note of the common idea that Muller had with Michael Behe; the difference being that Muller in 1918 used Evolutionary theory to predict the existence of what we would call “Irreducible complexity.”

        I then asked him that if Irreducible Complexity were such a threat to Evolution like Behe says, then why did scientists so long before him use “Darwin’s hated theory” to predict the existence of such complex organisms.

        I wish he would have at least approved that comment… But oh well. I guess he ran like a coward.

        (Dale Husband: What’s really ironic here is that irreducible complexity would actually be an example of FLAWED design, since a truly superior design would have backups in case of failure of part of the design. An Intelligent Designer could have made all designs in organisms with such backups. Of course, we humans DO have such backups in our bodies [we can live with only one kidney, for example]. But the examples of irreducible complexity we know of only show the present state of the design in question; they do not prove it was ALWAYS irreducible. Such examples can be explained by the actual nature of evolution by natural selection: it is driven not by the survival of the fittest at all, but by the REPRODUCTION of the FIT ENOUGH.)

        • Oh wow, I never thought it that way before. That is a good point! I might use that on a Creationist next time I am confronted with IC. Thank for pointing that one out.

      • I kept checking the post to see if the comment would be approved. Then after a day or two, the post had been closed to comments.


        Well, perhaps the fact that others were posting in opposition had something to do with his closing it; some of them more qualified on the matter. You will see “Olorin” posting on it. He actually has has some legit scientific credentials.

        (Dale Husband: It appears that Evolution News and Views has upgraded its graphics to look slicker, but a pile of crap that is painted every color under the rainbow is still crap.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s