ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
This man is promoting atheism through evolution. Hence, one can see why we have creationists who say evolution is a theory to promote atheism. I've studied Darwinian evolution and to my knowledge all it deals with is already existing matter. It can't answer what was before existing matter, hence, there will always be the possibility of God. And hence the argument will go on and on. Personally I think creationism is misguided, however, people do have the right to voice their opinion and be heard.
@modomnoc1 the problem is that the creationist, religious people in america are actively working AGAINST science and FOR ignorance. they actually hate science. evolution is in no way a means of promoginb atheism but it's not really surprising that a lot of people who accept the scientific fact of evolution are also agnostics because there is no proof of god's existance and if you're a scientifically minded person it makes sense not to believe in him.
I'm sorry, if you believe in a 6,000 year old planet and take metaphors as TRUE, Historical events.....I can't talk with you and I can't take you seriously. I'm thrilled that you people have "read" the bible, but now it's time to...GO..READ...OTHER...BOOKS. I included quotations because so many of you are confused, if not completely incapable of explaining, the book which you claim has all the answers. You don't even understand your own religion. The message of peace& love eludes you.
Thoughtful video. But God is most definitely real and Evolution is most definitely not. If you doubt it, read 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
Nah you need fancy tools for that. Look up at the night sky and look at the stars there are billions of miles away and take billions of years for that light to get to earth.
No it can't nobody knows what the earth was made of in your scientific early earth and their is no evidence to support that the earth has always been the same so how can you say that. To be real keep listening to these scientist who get funding when their right. Its a conflict of interest. But beyond that these people want evolution to be right so bad that they have lied on many occasions. The scientific community lacks credibility b/c of it. U trust'em with your soul. So sad.
@Luke13PL what you are trying to tell me is that becuase you cannot prove God through science of means of natural means he doesn't exist? You use your spirit, which in the Bible says is part of God, to see God. You don't believe so you can't see. Blinded. If God doesn't exist, then please tell me how the world was created? Don't tell me it was a clash of particles and what not cause thats bs.
@TheIronSights lol the clash of particles is bs??? I could ask you the same thing where did God come from..... cuss he had to come from somewhere he couldnt just always exist... there had to be a beginning...... The only reason you believe in God is because you were raised that way...... i was a full out catholic and raised that way but then i opened myself to the world..... "clash of particles is bs." wtf.... There is NO prove of god......
@Luke13PL I was raised to believe in God. But i went to church and hated it. It wasn't until recent years that I began to understand what being a Christian and believing in God was. If God told you about his begining your mind wouldn't be able to comprehend or begin to comprend the complexity of nature, hypothetically saying he had a "creator" which I don't believe. Its just some that is. We were made in His image.
@Luke13PL As the only intelligent life on this earth, being able to walk upright, talk, have opposable thumbs and such means that we had an intelligent designer, God. We did not evolve this way. You're telling me you are an evolutionist thinker then?
@TheIronSights The basic problem is that the people who attack evolution have not actually studied it. If they did, they would see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age.
The basic problem is really people who compare creation with evolution, when that's comparing apples and oranges. Creation is BEFORE life was on earth, evolution is AFTER life was on earth.
Yes, creationism depicts the origin of the universe and life, but that's the key word, ORIGIN. Evolution does NOT depict the origin of life, it depicts how organisms change and adapt to their environments. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, abiogenesis does. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory for the origin of life, NOT evolution.
@AlanYugi9689 Yes, yes, if I were immature and pedantic I, too, might have pointed this out. I made a poor assumption; that you yourself had misused the word "evolution". It's so extremely common amongst Creationists that I usually just let it go by, in the interests of communication. I see that I was wrong this time. Perhaps more to the point, for you, is the fact that the Genesis creation myth does cover the topic of speciation, which IS compare-able to evolution.
Yes, I would agree that the genesis account does cover speciation. It makes PERFECT sense that all the living organisms we see today are a product of evolution. God simply created the first set of living organisms and guided evolution to create all life up until he created Adam. After that, either he continued guiding evolution throughout history, or he just let nature do its work itself. I agree that evolution is a sound theory, but not abiogenesis.
And I understand why abiogenesis is preferable, it's something we can test and falsify, whereas with creation, we cannot observe or test it as it happened when we were not here. Abiogenesis does not sit well with me because there has yet to be convincing evidence. I don't know too much about abiogenesis, so if you could perhaps tell me of any evidence, I would appreciate that.
@TheIronSights you honestly believe we have the best design.... granted we are the most intelligent species but the other things i must disagree with you....lets start with walking up right.... Why do we have back pain then, its been proven that the reason is because there is a flaw of how are backs are designed, almost all other species dont suffer from this...... howcome its so dangerous for women to have a pregnancy... the only reason its so successful nowadays is because of science...
@TheIronSights you honestly believe we have the best design.... granted we are the most intelligent species but the other things i must disagree with you....lets start with walking up right.... Why do we have back pain then, its been proven that the reason is because there is a flaw of how are backs are designed, almost all other species dont suffer from this...... howcome its so dangerous for women to have a pregnancy... the only reason its so successful nowadays is because of science...
@TheFunkyDomination Which can be ignored with a refutation of science. What people don't realize is that science and religion are inherently incompatible. Science dictates that one must keep an open mind and discard disproved theories. Religion dictates that one must believe certain things even when presented with 'tempting' evidence against their beliefs.
NEW YORK - Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.
Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.
In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.
this guy was really soft spoken but he was funny. lol Look im catholic but you cant deny some things. I hate people that just look the other way to facts.
About cenks explanation...I think Dawkins would three stooges slap both of them for not answering that we didnt evolve from the apes that are still here but from a common ancestor.
There is another side to the intelligent design debate, based on science not religion. Some scientists see distinct mechanical functions in their studies of microbes and cells.
In fact, Darwinism is now a cult that allows no other theory to intrude... if you value your career, that is.
A fascinating documentary I found on YouTube includes this topic among others. "FreeGlobalEnergy" is full of science reports that will surprise and awe you and you have to see the ending.
ActOfFreedom says "Some scientists see distinct mechanical functions in their studies of microbes and cells. "
Uh, so? Please don't tell me you're referring to the whole irreducible complexity argument that's been debunked a hundred fucking times.
Science welcomes all theory's with testable proven results. Intelligent design is a theological concept that cannot be tested or proven in any way. It's a fantasy story, not a scientific theory.
See the playlist. The pictures of microbes are described in terms of mechanical processes. There are magnetic generators-- stalled by patent disputes.
Darwin was inspired by Malthus, an "economist" who asserted that charity only prolonged the suffering of the poor, and that starvation was God's cure for lack of virtue. The subtitle of "origin of the species" is-- "preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."
If you dispute Darwin, you are tossed out of the scientific world.
The theory of evolution is such an important, rock solid cog on which the advancement of so many other sciences has been based on that it's virtually impossible for it to be completely false.
We can make so many verifiable predictions based on it's model that there is no reason to "dispute" evolution as a whole.
Creationism cannot make one single verifiable prediction. It's not science.
There is personal testimony in the video "FreeGlobalEnergy" where professors and scientists discuss the inability to dissent-- again, NOT because of religious issues, but because of what they have seen in the laboratory.
I can see that there is a real hostility about this issue. I can't even SUGGEST that Darwin's theory is not the complete answer without being threatened on every side.
Dawkins says himself-- there are missing links-- but he defends the theory nonetheless.
Your first paragraph has nothing to do with evolution.
Again let me repeat this. Every evolutionist admits that Darwin was wrong about aspects of evolution. His original theory has been changed in light of new facts, largely DNA evidence.
That said, you seem to be pretty confident that evolution isn't a fact, even though literally thousands of scientific advances have been made due to it, can you provide a source of I.D contributing any improvements to science?
Intelligent design theories are based on microbiology and what is observed in the laboratory.
Nevertheless, Darwinism is a cult which allows no dissenters. It is more unproven than most realize. Darwin's theories resulted in the development of eugenics. He was just one in a line of scientists concerned with population control. This theory- at first- included God, and why God allowed evil. It evolved into a replacement for God. It's an interesting story, actually.
You're a disingenuous swine that's attempting to obfuscate reality vs fiction in order to blind-side the ignorant and unsuspecting. How about you just gtfo before you get messed up by people *with* knowledge. Kthnx
There are no ID theories. Theories are developed through repeated passing of scientific tests and predictions. ID has a hypothesis. That's about as good as it gets for you. Please understand the difference before you inject misinformation into this conversation. This is as civil as I get, by the way. Any replies that mirror your other comments will be recognized as comically hostile and, justly, result in ridicule fraught with vulgarity.
Slow down there, booster. Are you dropping the idea that ID has actual theories? I would like to get this issue ironed out before the next step. I have clearly stated my point and you seem to want to talk about the baffling mysteries of heredity. Do you stand by your comment that ID has actual theories or do you admit that, in fact, they are only hypotheses? I would like you to correct yourself before we go on. This isn't an opinion. You're saying something false and I'd like you to address it.
To untangle this, you can find the particular video that I'm speaking about and discern for yourself how factual it is.
I only suggested something that I had seen that proposed an alternative theory. If you want divine authority, I can't give it to you.
I will say one more thing.
Science can be prone to do some very stupid things for some very stupid reasons, in the scope of "discovery." Science itself can be very biased dependent on many things. They, are not holy priests. comprende?
That's a strawman. Sperm don't know anything. They simply carry DNA to the host. Your question is just as irrelevant as asking, "how does a viral spike protein know how to fold".
Funny, I was going to suggest something similar to you. Have you found an irreducibly complex structure, yet? The old Intelligent Design attempt at using the bacterial flagella and the eye (among others) were debunked long ago, and I'm interested in seeing what you come up with. You, still, have yet to use anything but fallacies in our conversation...
I refer you to the video. You can judge for yourself whether it satisfies your evidence parameters. ID by an advanced intellect does not necessarily mean an invisible deity. Consider Atlantians, UFOs, etc
Part of the total picture here-- is that our scientists can now grow body parts in the laboratory.
With THAT in mind, it is not a big leap to see the real possibility of an advanced intellect ALSO putting those pieces together-- and setting in motion the evolvement of life forms on earth
I did at the outset of this debate, and the video proposes nothing but lies and outmoded ideas (which were done via the scientific method).
Aliens or god, it does not matter - the need for an intelligent designer is not there, and no evidence substantiates such a designer. You cannot interject unsubstantiated ideas into science. If you did, it wouldn't be science.
Creating life in a lab is really easy, trust me, I'm a biochemist ;)
I've found it strange that humans can be millions of years old, and yet it has only been in the last 4000 years that we advanced from total ignorance to space exploration-- mind you-- despite the prohibitions on science that were active throughout most of those years.
We may be only one civilization of many that have come and gone-- into dust over millinia.
The last video in the playlist explains it-- polar changes.
My evidence (proof is only applicable in mathematics) is in DNA, not necessarily in the fossil evidence. The DNA/protein evidence is far stronger than anything, and supports the fossil record with amazing accuracy.
As a biochemist, I look more to the protein evidence (DNA is tied heavily with proteins, of course). It's a smashing blow to any thought of an irreducibly complex biological structure.
As a biocemist, would you mind answering a question I have?
It is:
If the tombs of the Pharoahs were sealed so tightly that it preserved artifacts for thousands of years, how can there be accurate carbon dating?
For instance,
how can we accurately distinguish between one king's date and another if carbon dating is skewed? Are we left to use other evidence to prove the date?
I'm exploring the idea that the tombs were all built during one period.
The carbon dating in your scenario is the most perfect form - there has been no mineralization of the bone, ie, the bone is still bone. Decay of Carbon 14 is in a very closed system, making the dating accurate to within weeks of when the individual died. In this system, there is no reservoir effect.
I'm not sure if I answered your question, because I'm not sure what your level of expertise on carbon dating is, but to sum it up, one can be very sure of the date. There is no skewing there.
What do you mean by artifacts? Like, clay pots and such? Carbon dating works on that which was living, and even then, only if that living thing lived on land, and didn't eat a lot of fish. Carbon dating would work very well for dating a wool blanket, but not at all for a clay pot - other forms of radiometric dating would work well on that, though.
As for why, it has to do with how Carbon 14 is formed, and how it gets into a living organism. Feel free to PM me for a cool explanation on that
Darwinism doesn't exist. There is only evolution by natural selection. Nice try with the fallacy, though.
Eugenics has been around since the Hebrews. Ethnic cleansing is not something brought upon the world by Darwin, lol.
There is tremendous decent within the field of evolution, too, though not in the way you're thinking. The common ancestor regarding a variety of proteins are being hotly debated, as is the case with protists.
Thomas Robert Malthus published an essay on "the Principle of Population."
This Malthusian principle was portrayed in Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" when Scrooge said, "If the poor want to die then let them do it and decrease the surplus population."
Darwin had no thesis for his work until he read Malthus's essay. He then wrote "Origin of the Species."
Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, took this further and coined the terms "nature vs nurture" and is considered the father of eugenics.
These theories were part and parcel of an economics theory that considered the importance of controlling the population.
I'll quote from B.Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy"--
"Darwinian competition was not of this limited sort; there were no rules against hitting below the belt. The framework of law does not exist among animals, nor is war excluded as a competitive method."
These things are discussed in a frame of economics and competition, and survival of the fittest.
Irrelevant much? That doesn't address my original point regarding eugenics, nor does it have anything to do with the validity of evolution by natural selection. It's the most complete strawman I've ever seen!
Malthus and others were making the leap from NATURAL selection to CONTROLLED selection- referring to the breeding of better animals, etc.
THAT-- is CREATIONISM, pure and simple.
Malthus's version of this uses CAPITALISM as the background by which that CREATIONISM and eliminating of the UNFIT can take place.
This entire line of discovery came through an ECONOMIC theory of God sorting the sheep from the goats-- the goats being the poor. Darwin built on that theory.
Who cares what Darwin based his theory on? The modern synthesis theory of evolution has almost nothing to do with anything Darwin proposed. The only applicable thing is evolution by natural selection. Now, we have a more complete fossil record, we can see via endogenous retrovirus's in DNA, the DNA code itself, and in protein sequence and structure who has a common ancestor with whom.
Even if Darwin was wrong about everything, it wouldn't change the evidence we now have.
This guy is just a fountain of charisma, and he had me captivated the entire interview with his perky and inviting voice.
Someone get this guy an agent and get him to Hollywood stat! We can not let what is undeniably the greatest speaker of our generation waste his talents.
One side works rigorously to prove itself WRONG before it even admits it's found something new, versus some monk writing about his bad dreams, or some goat fucking idiot in the bronze age writing about a god who has the same racist, sexist agenda as them.
We're to RESPECT those idiots? FUCK them. They're wrong, and should feel ashamed for it.
Although normally we don't think of humans as apes, taxonomically humans ARE apes. (It's similar to the distinction between humans and animals. Colloquially we talk about humans as being distinct from animals, but, in scientific terms, humans ARE animals.)
He got autoimmune diseases by nature? That sounds highly unlikely. Probably man caused.
To me he is presenting some of the flaws in modern, corporate sponsored evolutionary theory. How ironic. It's funny how the people who rail hardest against religious dogma often are the quickest to accept scientific dogma.
Agreed, he doesn't seem to know much of exactly how... crushing evolution- and some of the other sciences are to Christianity and religions in general.
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 6 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
This man is promoting atheism through evolution. Hence, one can see why we have creationists who say evolution is a theory to promote atheism. I've studied Darwinian evolution and to my knowledge all it deals with is already existing matter. It can't answer what was before existing matter, hence, there will always be the possibility of God. And hence the argument will go on and on. Personally I think creationism is misguided, however, people do have the right to voice their opinion and be heard.
modomnoc1 1 year ago
@modomnoc1 the problem is that the creationist, religious people in america are actively working AGAINST science and FOR ignorance. they actually hate science. evolution is in no way a means of promoginb atheism but it's not really surprising that a lot of people who accept the scientific fact of evolution are also agnostics because there is no proof of god's existance and if you're a scientifically minded person it makes sense not to believe in him.
mandolinroad 1 year ago
Great to hear Clint Eastwood on the Phone.....Go Ahead Punk make my Evolution.
dilwich123 1 year ago
what are some other evoultions like a caterpillar into a butterfly so i can use to argue with.
some evoultions that are easy to see that u couldnt argue something that would evolve in our lifetime
Luke13PL 1 year ago
I'm sorry, if you believe in a 6,000 year old planet and take metaphors as TRUE, Historical events.....I can't talk with you and I can't take you seriously. I'm thrilled that you people have "read" the bible, but now it's time to...GO..READ...OTHER...BOOKS. I included quotations because so many of you are confused, if not completely incapable of explaining, the book which you claim has all the answers. You don't even understand your own religion. The message of peace& love eludes you.
rinka777778 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thoughtful video. But God is most definitely real and Evolution is most definitely not. If you doubt it, read 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
byScrooby 2 years ago
kirk cameron is the joke of the century.
Lekeeon 2 years ago 3
Young earth can be debunked by carbon dating
Fuck Kirk Cameron
TheFunkyDomination 2 years ago 9
Nah you need fancy tools for that. Look up at the night sky and look at the stars there are billions of miles away and take billions of years for that light to get to earth.
hank1972 2 years ago 4
But thats which craft HERITIC HERITC
;)
TrueManaBeast 2 years ago
No it can't nobody knows what the earth was made of in your scientific early earth and their is no evidence to support that the earth has always been the same so how can you say that. To be real keep listening to these scientist who get funding when their right. Its a conflict of interest. But beyond that these people want evolution to be right so bad that they have lied on many occasions. The scientific community lacks credibility b/c of it. U trust'em with your soul. So sad.
NavaGator29 2 years ago
can u give me one example of god existing... something that i could see clearly? i doubt it
-------------
btw i used to be a full out catholic but then i got smart
Luke13PL 1 year ago
@Luke13PL no you got naive. you fail to see.
TheIronSights 1 year ago
@TheIronSights then give me an example....
Luke13PL 1 year ago
@Luke13PL what you are trying to tell me is that becuase you cannot prove God through science of means of natural means he doesn't exist? You use your spirit, which in the Bible says is part of God, to see God. You don't believe so you can't see. Blinded. If God doesn't exist, then please tell me how the world was created? Don't tell me it was a clash of particles and what not cause thats bs.
TheIronSights 1 year ago
@TheIronSights lol the clash of particles is bs??? I could ask you the same thing where did God come from..... cuss he had to come from somewhere he couldnt just always exist... there had to be a beginning...... The only reason you believe in God is because you were raised that way...... i was a full out catholic and raised that way but then i opened myself to the world..... "clash of particles is bs." wtf.... There is NO prove of god......
Luke13PL 1 year ago
@Luke13PL I was raised to believe in God. But i went to church and hated it. It wasn't until recent years that I began to understand what being a Christian and believing in God was. If God told you about his begining your mind wouldn't be able to comprehend or begin to comprend the complexity of nature, hypothetically saying he had a "creator" which I don't believe. Its just some that is. We were made in His image.
TheIronSights 1 year ago
@Luke13PL As the only intelligent life on this earth, being able to walk upright, talk, have opposable thumbs and such means that we had an intelligent designer, God. We did not evolve this way. You're telling me you are an evolutionist thinker then?
TheIronSights 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69
The basic problem is really people who compare creation with evolution, when that's comparing apples and oranges. Creation is BEFORE life was on earth, evolution is AFTER life was on earth.
AlanYugi9689 1 year ago
@AlanYugi9689
Try again, Alan.
When people speak of Creation and Creationists
they are referring to the myth
recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible.
This Creation myth depicts the origin
of the universe, the earth, and all life on earth.
The basic problem, as you so neatly illustrate,
is ignorance of the subject matter.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69
Yes, creationism depicts the origin of the universe and life, but that's the key word, ORIGIN. Evolution does NOT depict the origin of life, it depicts how organisms change and adapt to their environments. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, abiogenesis does. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory for the origin of life, NOT evolution.
AlanYugi9689 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69
Yes, I would agree that the genesis account does cover speciation. It makes PERFECT sense that all the living organisms we see today are a product of evolution. God simply created the first set of living organisms and guided evolution to create all life up until he created Adam. After that, either he continued guiding evolution throughout history, or he just let nature do its work itself. I agree that evolution is a sound theory, but not abiogenesis.
AlanYugi9689 1 year ago
@AlanYugi9689
You are welcome to your opinion, of course.
Personally, abiogenesis seems preferable
to an invisible magician waving his wand.
And you are always stuck with the conundrum
of an uncreated creator,
the originator with no origin.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69
And I understand why abiogenesis is preferable, it's something we can test and falsify, whereas with creation, we cannot observe or test it as it happened when we were not here. Abiogenesis does not sit well with me because there has yet to be convincing evidence. I don't know too much about abiogenesis, so if you could perhaps tell me of any evidence, I would appreciate that.
AlanYugi9689 1 year ago
@AlanYugi9689 Check out a great video by cdk007 titled Abiogenesis. It's shows that abiogenesis is possible because of chemistry.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@TheIronSights you honestly believe we have the best design.... granted we are the most intelligent species but the other things i must disagree with you....lets start with walking up right.... Why do we have back pain then, its been proven that the reason is because there is a flaw of how are backs are designed, almost all other species dont suffer from this...... howcome its so dangerous for women to have a pregnancy... the only reason its so successful nowadays is because of science...
Luke13PL 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheIronSights you honestly believe we have the best design.... granted we are the most intelligent species but the other things i must disagree with you....lets start with walking up right.... Why do we have back pain then, its been proven that the reason is because there is a flaw of how are backs are designed, almost all other species dont suffer from this...... howcome its so dangerous for women to have a pregnancy... the only reason its so successful nowadays is because of science...
Luke13PL 1 year ago
@TheIronSights "how the world was created?"
Which version of Creation in the Bible do you like best?
Genesis Chapter ONE,
in which humans were created AFTER plants and animals?
Or chapter TWO, in which man was created BEFORE plants and animals?
Chapter ONE,
in which man and woman were created at the same time?
Or chapter TWO,
in which man was created before the plants
and woman was created after the animals?
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@TheFunkyDomination Which can be ignored with a refutation of science. What people don't realize is that science and religion are inherently incompatible. Science dictates that one must keep an open mind and discard disproved theories. Religion dictates that one must believe certain things even when presented with 'tempting' evidence against their beliefs.
CaptainKanuk42 1 year ago
Comment removed
AlanYugi9689 1 year ago
Go apes
TheFunkyDomination 2 years ago
MSNBC
NEW YORK - Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.
Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.
In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.
Xenite227 2 years ago
I dig how matt answered the questions- part scientific knowledge and part distain at the moronic questions
hammy606 2 years ago
lols this guy is totally stoned
westneilc 2 years ago 3
He has hay fever.
ARom101 2 years ago
Mr. Young only makes % sense...he also sounds either sleepy or high.
unabomberman 2 years ago
he mentions that he has hay fever..
ARom101 2 years ago
I missed that... ...and suddenly he's not cool anymore.
unabomberman 2 years ago
Thank you Cenk, for not just sitting there and agreeing with this guy.
foureyes99 2 years ago
this guy was really soft spoken but he was funny. lol Look im catholic but you cant deny some things. I hate people that just look the other way to facts.
david3188col 2 years ago
eww, Matt Young sounds like a really fun guy - not. Get him a cup of coffee or something.
audadvnc 2 years ago
I want to point out that it's not "our" theory of evolution, it's "the" theory of evolution.
Cenk's explination makes more sense than the professor's question regarding "why are there still apes".
Dogs don't give birth to cats because their reproductive cells are incompatible. Furthermore, have you ever seen a male cat try to impregnate a dog?
DrQuijano 2 years ago
About cenks explanation...I think Dawkins would three stooges slap both of them for not answering that we didnt evolve from the apes that are still here but from a common ancestor.
nijaexhile3 2 years ago 3
There is another side to the intelligent design debate, based on science not religion. Some scientists see distinct mechanical functions in their studies of microbes and cells.
In fact, Darwinism is now a cult that allows no other theory to intrude... if you value your career, that is.
A fascinating documentary I found on YouTube includes this topic among others. "FreeGlobalEnergy" is full of science reports that will surprise and awe you and you have to see the ending.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
ActOfFreedom says "Some scientists see distinct mechanical functions in their studies of microbes and cells. "
Uh, so? Please don't tell me you're referring to the whole irreducible complexity argument that's been debunked a hundred fucking times.
Science welcomes all theory's with testable proven results. Intelligent design is a theological concept that cannot be tested or proven in any way. It's a fantasy story, not a scientific theory.
ogjimkenobi 2 years ago
See the playlist. The pictures of microbes are described in terms of mechanical processes. There are magnetic generators-- stalled by patent disputes.
Darwin was inspired by Malthus, an "economist" who asserted that charity only prolonged the suffering of the poor, and that starvation was God's cure for lack of virtue. The subtitle of "origin of the species" is-- "preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."
If you dispute Darwin, you are tossed out of the scientific world.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
Not if you dispute him using facts.
The theory of evolution is such an important, rock solid cog on which the advancement of so many other sciences has been based on that it's virtually impossible for it to be completely false.
We can make so many verifiable predictions based on it's model that there is no reason to "dispute" evolution as a whole.
Creationism cannot make one single verifiable prediction. It's not science.
ogjimkenobi 2 years ago 2
Plenty of well known scientists have disagreed with Darwin on many issues. Darwin was wrong about aspects of evolution most famously DNA.
Why isn't Craig Venter, Richard Dawkins, or any other evolutionist for that matter "tossed out of the scientific world?"
You are either dishonest or ignorant, maybe a mixture of the two.
z515515z 2 years ago
There is personal testimony in the video "FreeGlobalEnergy" where professors and scientists discuss the inability to dissent-- again, NOT because of religious issues, but because of what they have seen in the laboratory.
I can see that there is a real hostility about this issue. I can't even SUGGEST that Darwin's theory is not the complete answer without being threatened on every side.
Dawkins says himself-- there are missing links-- but he defends the theory nonetheless.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
Your first paragraph has nothing to do with evolution.
Again let me repeat this. Every evolutionist admits that Darwin was wrong about aspects of evolution. His original theory has been changed in light of new facts, largely DNA evidence.
That said, you seem to be pretty confident that evolution isn't a fact, even though literally thousands of scientific advances have been made due to it, can you provide a source of I.D contributing any improvements to science?
z515515z 2 years ago
There is no such thing as an irreducibly complex structure, if that's to what you're referring. That argument is old hat.
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
Intelligent design theories are based on microbiology and what is observed in the laboratory.
Nevertheless, Darwinism is a cult which allows no dissenters. It is more unproven than most realize. Darwin's theories resulted in the development of eugenics. He was just one in a line of scientists concerned with population control. This theory- at first- included God, and why God allowed evil. It evolved into a replacement for God. It's an interesting story, actually.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
You're a disingenuous swine that's attempting to obfuscate reality vs fiction in order to blind-side the ignorant and unsuspecting. How about you just gtfo before you get messed up by people *with* knowledge. Kthnx
NwZ2 2 years ago
There are no ID theories. Theories are developed through repeated passing of scientific tests and predictions. ID has a hypothesis. That's about as good as it gets for you. Please understand the difference before you inject misinformation into this conversation. This is as civil as I get, by the way. Any replies that mirror your other comments will be recognized as comically hostile and, justly, result in ridicule fraught with vulgarity.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
Indeed, I respect threats, but don't pass your indignation off as intelligence. Play nice... like you learned in school... er... whatever.
I have a question, btw.
How do sperm know that there is a need to stand upright? How do sperm know to develop thumbs so they can use tools?
Where exactly is this link-- that the unborn know how to evolve to become more efficient?
The video proposes that ALIENS may be the intelligent life that designs life forms. WE are able to do it now, ourselves
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
Slow down there, booster. Are you dropping the idea that ID has actual theories? I would like to get this issue ironed out before the next step. I have clearly stated my point and you seem to want to talk about the baffling mysteries of heredity. Do you stand by your comment that ID has actual theories or do you admit that, in fact, they are only hypotheses? I would like you to correct yourself before we go on. This isn't an opinion. You're saying something false and I'd like you to address it.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
To untangle this, you can find the particular video that I'm speaking about and discern for yourself how factual it is.
I only suggested something that I had seen that proposed an alternative theory. If you want divine authority, I can't give it to you.
I will say one more thing.
Science can be prone to do some very stupid things for some very stupid reasons, in the scope of "discovery." Science itself can be very biased dependent on many things. They, are not holy priests. comprende?
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
That's a strawman. Sperm don't know anything. They simply carry DNA to the host. Your question is just as irrelevant as asking, "how does a viral spike protein know how to fold".
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
If you close your eyes and wish... very very hard... maybe you can grow hair on your head so your kids will not end up bald.
Tell me how it turns out.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
Funny, I was going to suggest something similar to you. Have you found an irreducibly complex structure, yet? The old Intelligent Design attempt at using the bacterial flagella and the eye (among others) were debunked long ago, and I'm interested in seeing what you come up with. You, still, have yet to use anything but fallacies in our conversation...
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
I refer you to the video. You can judge for yourself whether it satisfies your evidence parameters. ID by an advanced intellect does not necessarily mean an invisible deity. Consider Atlantians, UFOs, etc
Part of the total picture here-- is that our scientists can now grow body parts in the laboratory.
With THAT in mind, it is not a big leap to see the real possibility of an advanced intellect ALSO putting those pieces together-- and setting in motion the evolvement of life forms on earth
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
I did at the outset of this debate, and the video proposes nothing but lies and outmoded ideas (which were done via the scientific method).
Aliens or god, it does not matter - the need for an intelligent designer is not there, and no evidence substantiates such a designer. You cannot interject unsubstantiated ideas into science. If you did, it wouldn't be science.
Creating life in a lab is really easy, trust me, I'm a biochemist ;)
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
Where is YOUR proof?
A skeleton that could well be a malformed human?
I've found it strange that humans can be millions of years old, and yet it has only been in the last 4000 years that we advanced from total ignorance to space exploration-- mind you-- despite the prohibitions on science that were active throughout most of those years.
We may be only one civilization of many that have come and gone-- into dust over millinia.
The last video in the playlist explains it-- polar changes.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
My evidence (proof is only applicable in mathematics) is in DNA, not necessarily in the fossil evidence. The DNA/protein evidence is far stronger than anything, and supports the fossil record with amazing accuracy.
As a biochemist, I look more to the protein evidence (DNA is tied heavily with proteins, of course). It's a smashing blow to any thought of an irreducibly complex biological structure.
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
As a biocemist, would you mind answering a question I have?
It is:
If the tombs of the Pharoahs were sealed so tightly that it preserved artifacts for thousands of years, how can there be accurate carbon dating?
For instance,
how can we accurately distinguish between one king's date and another if carbon dating is skewed? Are we left to use other evidence to prove the date?
I'm exploring the idea that the tombs were all built during one period.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
The carbon dating in your scenario is the most perfect form - there has been no mineralization of the bone, ie, the bone is still bone. Decay of Carbon 14 is in a very closed system, making the dating accurate to within weeks of when the individual died. In this system, there is no reservoir effect.
I'm not sure if I answered your question, because I'm not sure what your level of expertise on carbon dating is, but to sum it up, one can be very sure of the date. There is no skewing there.
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
thank you.
BTW
sorry about your having
"TooMuchButtHair"
lol
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
Sorry, if I could ask just one more...
suppose the bodies WERE these kings, but the tombs and artifacts were from one particular period...
with artifacts, is dating reduced to a span of time-- even hundreds of years-- rather than pinpointed to the time of the bodies in the tombs?
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
What do you mean by artifacts? Like, clay pots and such? Carbon dating works on that which was living, and even then, only if that living thing lived on land, and didn't eat a lot of fish. Carbon dating would work very well for dating a wool blanket, but not at all for a clay pot - other forms of radiometric dating would work well on that, though.
As for why, it has to do with how Carbon 14 is formed, and how it gets into a living organism. Feel free to PM me for a cool explanation on that
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
Darwinism doesn't exist. There is only evolution by natural selection. Nice try with the fallacy, though.
Eugenics has been around since the Hebrews. Ethnic cleansing is not something brought upon the world by Darwin, lol.
There is tremendous decent within the field of evolution, too, though not in the way you're thinking. The common ancestor regarding a variety of proteins are being hotly debated, as is the case with protists.
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
Thomas Robert Malthus published an essay on "the Principle of Population."
This Malthusian principle was portrayed in Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" when Scrooge said, "If the poor want to die then let them do it and decrease the surplus population."
Darwin had no thesis for his work until he read Malthus's essay. He then wrote "Origin of the Species."
Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, took this further and coined the terms "nature vs nurture" and is considered the father of eugenics.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
These theories were part and parcel of an economics theory that considered the importance of controlling the population.
I'll quote from B.Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy"--
"Darwinian competition was not of this limited sort; there were no rules against hitting below the belt. The framework of law does not exist among animals, nor is war excluded as a competitive method."
These things are discussed in a frame of economics and competition, and survival of the fittest.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
Irrelevant much? That doesn't address my original point regarding eugenics, nor does it have anything to do with the validity of evolution by natural selection. It's the most complete strawman I've ever seen!
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
Malthus and others were making the leap from NATURAL selection to CONTROLLED selection- referring to the breeding of better animals, etc.
THAT-- is CREATIONISM, pure and simple.
Malthus's version of this uses CAPITALISM as the background by which that CREATIONISM and eliminating of the UNFIT can take place.
This entire line of discovery came through an ECONOMIC theory of God sorting the sheep from the goats-- the goats being the poor. Darwin built on that theory.
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
Who cares what Darwin based his theory on? The modern synthesis theory of evolution has almost nothing to do with anything Darwin proposed. The only applicable thing is evolution by natural selection. Now, we have a more complete fossil record, we can see via endogenous retrovirus's in DNA, the DNA code itself, and in protein sequence and structure who has a common ancestor with whom.
Even if Darwin was wrong about everything, it wouldn't change the evidence we now have.
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
I think it was a NOVA program that set out to answer the question: "what is our closest biological relative?"
The result was:
the sponge
ActsOfFreedom 2 years ago
The phylum Porifera is not our closest biological relative...
TooMuchButtHair 2 years ago
wow this guy has a horrible attitude and voice. he sounds like he was pissed to do the interview. or just woke up. one or the other
willr91 2 years ago
if 'god' tackled with evolution then the mutations didnt need to be gong through natural selection, all would be positive.
logoth80 2 years ago
This guy is just a fountain of charisma, and he had me captivated the entire interview with his perky and inviting voice.
Someone get this guy an agent and get him to Hollywood stat! We can not let what is undeniably the greatest speaker of our generation waste his talents.
eugenethelamb 2 years ago
That kind of sarcasm has no place on the internet, sir. Mostly because noone will ever get it.
eirefrance 2 years ago
Wow. Snoozy-snoozerton. I like the topic though. Next time get someone who isn't on quaaludes. XD
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
I'm getting sleepy. Most lifeless guest I've heard on this show ... condescending too.
Mernie9 2 years ago 2
He's right to be condescending.
One side works rigorously to prove itself WRONG before it even admits it's found something new, versus some monk writing about his bad dreams, or some goat fucking idiot in the bronze age writing about a god who has the same racist, sexist agenda as them.
We're to RESPECT those idiots? FUCK them. They're wrong, and should feel ashamed for it.
EziekielNightwind 2 years ago 15
@EziekielNightwind Dude ur a fag
Carkeexlol 1 year ago
@Carkeexlol
That's the best argument I've ever heard. Maybe you should go learn to spell before trying to debate with someone.
EziekielNightwind 1 year ago
Although normally we don't think of humans as apes, taxonomically humans ARE apes. (It's similar to the distinction between humans and animals. Colloquially we talk about humans as being distinct from animals, but, in scientific terms, humans ARE animals.)
agl125 2 years ago
actually, apes and humans have a common ancestor, and groups split off this common ancestor.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
This guy is a really bad speaker. He doesn't make his points worth a damn.
keithrockerboblewis 2 years ago
...Matt young sounds like he just woke up or something.
But he's right, creationism fails on so many levels.
SaviorMachine84 2 years ago 4
He got autoimmune diseases by nature? That sounds highly unlikely. Probably man caused.
To me he is presenting some of the flaws in modern, corporate sponsored evolutionary theory. How ironic. It's funny how the people who rail hardest against religious dogma often are the quickest to accept scientific dogma.
TheGiantRobot 2 years ago
With autoimmune diseases, we find we are getting them more and more because of two reasons:
A)toxic materials in the environment
B)Babies used to die from them. Now they don't. A baby with an autoimmune disease becomes an adult with autoimmune disease.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
WTF is scientific dogma? Questioning everything, testing everything, and verifying everything?
That is dogmatic?
EziekielNightwind 2 years ago 4
No, that's not what dogma is.
TheGiantRobot 2 years ago
This guy hardly knows anything of evolution.
Smurfkiller921 2 years ago
Agreed, he doesn't seem to know much of exactly how... crushing evolution- and some of the other sciences are to Christianity and religions in general.
Cyraside 2 years ago
I understood what he said, but he's not exactly a good representative.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
He is probably a much better author than a speaker.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
Why is there a pop-up ad for Young Christian Singles with a video about evolution?
AverageAdam 2 years ago 3
Youtube. Ftw?
bladerzahn 2 years ago
LOL conservative google employee's maybe? :p
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Mine is "Creation vs. Evolution" by the Good News Magazine Organization. Something tells me their "good news" is not very good for my brain.
eirefrance 2 years ago