science has not proven anything like evolution occured. but that is the nature of religious dogma. isn't it? next the burden of proof will alway lay with those who claim theirs to a SCIENTIFIC position. christians who are honest only ever claim to have a religious position based on their own faith. as a believer in science one must provide proof for their claims, like evolving genomes. natural selection? of what? prexisting genetic traits. face it you disbelieve because you are free to do so
'Science has proven that things evolved' - is that a scientific thing, because it sounds like a bullshit intro to me...not very scientific at all because it is untrue.
@TREACLE97 I agree with you. Evolution is the Devil's lie because we can't possibly be related to primates, that's absurd. It's more probable and much more scientific to believe that early humans actually evolved from dirt and a rib bone, and that every living organism today is a product of incest. It clearly says so in God's Holy Scripture. I believe it, so it must be true.
Funny how Noah took only two of every animal onto his boat and yet there was no incest? Same thing with Adam and Eve. Religion is the root of all evil.
@HEC01 ok so went you said "When you guys find a fish turning into an amphibian, then well talk"
what exactly did you have in mind - but if a fish had amphibinan traits is it still considered to be a fish. By that logic you might as well say humans are monkeys with human traits
Fun Fact: Check out Liviticus 20, a great verse meriting the death penalty for cursing parents, adultry, doing your step mom, or daughter-in-law, homosexuality, marrying both woman and her daughter, and bestiality (kill the beast too). Dont forget death to those working on the sabbath. Good times y'all- let's get to butchering!
Sharia Law is totally against western reasoning, yet it's passed in western countrys, like the USA . The bible, Torah and Quran all have crazy laws, from cover to cover but If you haven't noticed, only Islam and Sharia enforce them. Jesus spoke against these laws. Reference-John 8:7. That is all.
If we're the sons and daughter of such a small number of human (those save by Noah), no wonder why we're so stubborn at understanding evolution underpinnings... ^^
Abigail, I guess I'll stop arguing with you, but I'm glad you recognize the theory of evolution as a proposed mechanic for the genesis of new types of LIVING things, unlike some creationists who believe it to address stars, planets and the universe . It's always nicer to debate with someone who doesn't grossly misunderstand what they're objecting to.
LOL! At 1:06 you ask if there is any kind empirical evidence that there is a limit to evolution. How about the fact that "macro" evolution is yet to be observed? Seems to me that if YOU believe it then it is you who needs to come up with the evidence. NOT speculation, or extrapolation, but evidence. Show ONE transitional form. Show just ONE example of small changes making a totally new creature (i.e. lizard to bird like your illustration). Just ONE would do & you could shut us up forever.
Great! Then we'll all be waiting for you to give us just ONE "lizard to bird" type animal that demonstrates macro-evolution, and thus lifts the entire theory from a faith-based belief system to fact. That should be easy since there are, according to you, "hundreds."
Transitional forms don't look like what you think they do. There are not sudden jumps based on arbitrary distinctions, like "bird" and "lizard." Rather, there are branching trees of similar creatures. You are essentially asking for a color between red and blue, without the possibility of purple. You are insisting on redblue.
Actually, what Creationists are looking for are birds, and then birds with some changes, birds with more NON-bird attributes, then birds with small lizard-like attributes, etc., all the way up to lizard with zero bird attributes.
It's not that we are against "purple." We are simply asking for CLEAR shades before it and after it. And with millions and millions of years to work with, there should be MILLIONS of examples of this. Yes, there are none. Logic, then, concludes it didn't happen.
But that's the point. They can't be provided. They have never once been provided. And yet, if evolution is true, millions and millions of examples should be available.
It is for this very reason that theories like "Punctuated equilibrium" spring up in your own ranks. If the "proof" was so clear and obvious no such theories would occur.
As Dr. Duane Gish from ICR wrote in his book: "The Fossils Still Say, 'No!'"
But I will tell you what puzzles Creationists. It's when clear design is not design to the evolutionist. The mathematical improbibilities of evolution are staggering, the design of all living things is MUCH more clear than any evolutionary "tree" you can provide, and yet we are looked at as nuts. Strange.
"How about the fact that "macro" evolution is yet to be observed?" - as micro and macro evolution are part of the same process (evolution) and the only difference is the ACCUMULATION of changes overtime, unless u can find a mechanism to prevent the accumulation of changes then you cant disprove it.
to say micro happens and macro doesnt is the same as saying you can walk a metre but u cant walk a mile.
@pmiller1967 We already did that - look it us on google there are thousands of them " just type in transitional fossils" or better yet how about actually going to a museum.
Of course if you are expecting to see a crocoduck you might be disappointed
@badpanda84 Oh, you mean in the museums where they take a jaw bone & a few teeth and create an ENTIRE animal, with skin and color, & then tell the gullible public that such an animal really existed as they've depicted? I'm failing to see the SCIENCE there.
Why can't we see a crocoduck? If millions of years of evolution is true, there should be BILLIONS of fossils for us to examine. There should be all kinds of crocoducks available. And yet, nothing. No real transitions at all.
@aThinkingChristian Ok you do realise that croocdile and duck are on diffrenet branches on the evoultionary tree - If we found a crocoduck that would actually disprove evoultion. You clearly dont know what a transitional fossil is.
@badpanda84 Yes, I do realize a crock & duck are on different branches of the so-called "evolutionary tree." Like you, I was using the word generically. I don't expect a skunkopotamus to be found either. But how about a whale/wolf? Or any of the other BILLIONS of transitional forms that should be out there? (continued)
And, yes, I also understand the "don't-you-know-how-scarce-fossils-are" argument. But it doesn't hold water. If the millions of years & evolution really happened, you should have more proof than you need. Darwin knew it wasn't proven, & expected over time it would be. It still isn't proven, so he was wrong & so is anyone who believes in the fairy-tale of evolution. But hope springs eternal in the hearts of those who really WANT something to be true, even when there is no proof.
@badpanda84 Then practically we should have millions and millions and millions of fossils showing a clear, unbroken transition from one animal to another. We don't have that at all. Furthermore, you would also have to demonstrate scientifically that the genetic information needed to transform one creature, let's say a gill-breathing fish, into another animal, a lung-breathing land animal, was already found in the DNA. To date there isn't a single shred of evidence that that is true.
@badpanda84 Only IF evolution is true. If it's not true, then none are transitional. So your whole argument rests on the assumption that evolution really happened, & that is debatable.
The issue isnt terminology, but rather factual observation. There is a transformation from one creature to another in the evolutionary scheme. The "magic" is proudly called "time" & "chance" & then labeled as "science" & made to look and sound intelligent, when its really speculation & nonsense.
@aThinkingChristian So what do you belive- that everything was created at the same time. that dinosaur were created at the same time as humans Then explain why we dont see dinosaur fossil next to human fossils.
Also for natural selection =/= random chance.
The only reason people are agaist evoultoin is because they belive it goes agaist the relgious beliefs.
@aThinkingChristian Ok, Dr. what is the truth? I'd also like the evidence for your argument. If it can not stand over above the mountain of evidence for evolution, you must admit you are wrong, and that evolution is more likely to be true than any theistic myth. Or you are a liar. Intellectual dishonesty is the same as telling bald-faced lies. Also, where did you get your doctorate in biology? Seeing as how you know more about it than biologists.
Yes, but many myths come from many cultures, including the geo-centric universe and the flat-earth hypotheses, this does not change their validity from a scientific standpoint.
not true. many ancient cultures knew what we know today with regards those two subjects such as the ancient greeks, in ancient india, egypt and arabic cultures all knew that we revolved around the sun, the earth is round etc etc. but even if this wasnt the case the fact that 230+ cultures all corroborate the story is obviously important.. unless you really honestly believe that several thousand years ago 230+ distant tribes and nations came together to make sure they got their story straight...
A few philosophers here and there hardly disproves that cultural consensus was flat-earth and geo-centric
Aside from all that, you're missing the point. Consensus of popular opinion is by no means proof. Cultures the world over have dragons, does that prove dragons exist? No, because there is absolutely no scientific supporting evidence of dragons, just as there is none for the flood.
Appealing to popular opinion is an acceptable argument for very few things and never in opposition to science
I understand your way of expressing about all this mishap. I just hope that you know that most scientists won't really go to the extent in proving other people wrong. And ther's a big difference between atheist, evolutionist, from scientists.
one good piece of evidence for evolution is the creation of the many breeds of dog. they all evolved from the gray wolf and diversified into many, many variations. just compare a chihuahua or a Pomeranian to a gray wolf and see the difference.
Plus the weird obsession with Lucy. It doesn't have a knee joint, it's missing this, it's missing that. It's as if it is the only fossil of an australopithicene in existance.
The weirdest thing about creationists is how they think that science books are like the bible. They think they must be infallible for all time. To find one flaw in a book on evolution therefore proves evolution is wrong. It is bizarre thinking. But it's why they keep bringing up stuff from 'On the Origins' from 150 years ago or they keep dredging up 100 year old quotes. Really messed up on how science works.
"Proof" that the flood did happen? Sorry, ain't no such thing. And your pathetic attempts at mathematics fail, since you assume a constant birth and death rate... At today's levels :P
Also, a global flood seems to have had zero influence on the chinese culture (which existed with no break both before and after this imaginary event supposedly took place) or the egyptian (ditto).
You really should try opening a history book sometime, instead of that bronze age myth collection you read....
'Also, a global flood seems to have had zero influence on the chinese culture (which existed with no break both before and after this imaginary event supposedly took place) or the egyptian (ditto).' Are you saying that the Chinese civilisation existet in the paleozoic??
one problem with your analogy about the population. up until the invention of antibiotics and the modern mendicine(approximately 300 years ago), the human population was a a more or less zero growth. in comes medicine and antibiotics and less people die of infections, colds, flu and others. that is how the population grew so fast
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Note: 10 years before he died Darwin renounced his own theory and became a Christian. He was looking for where we came from and why we are here. It was never about him being smarter or better than another human being. But today, this theory is used this way and to run away from the possiblity of God even though it is harder to prove than Einstein's Theories.
Note: Darwin did no such thing, and his theory is better supported at this point than Einstein's general relativity. In fact, due among other things to the need to constantly defend legitimate scientific research from creationist ignorance, it's the best supported scientific theory at all.
In fact dberry2003 is true. Darwin doubtet its own theory and changed opinions a lot. Mendel was ignored a long time for being monk. Sciense in the hands of a small group is dangerous.
He changed his opinions on a lot of things. He never renounced his theory, he did not convert TO christianity (in fact, he did the opposite, and became an agnostic... But only long after the publication of "Origin").
And science in the hands of the uneducated is far more dangerous than science in the hand of scientists, where it belongs.
That is a flat out lie. And you did not even get the lie correct. He was always a Christian you moron. He was said to have disavowed the theory of evolution on his deathbed, which is a creationist lie still promulgated to this day.
What is the deal with the creationist fascination with deathbed "confessions"? Right, because we all know we think most clearly and rationally when we are dying. Yup, our thoughts when our brain is shutting down and pumping us full of chemicals that tend to make us hallucinate trumps a lifetime of work any day.
Microevolution cannot account for macroevolution because micro happens below the species level and macro happens at or above it. We have not been able to observe mutations that add a higher quantity and quality of genetic material ever. How can this be called a fact if we have not been able to observe it?
Macroevolution is simply cumulative microevolution, and yes, they are precisely the same thing.
And we HAVE observed higher quantity of genetic material resulting from mutations, as well as mutations that add new features (I presume that is what you mean by "quality").
READ, you moron. I'm blocking you now, since it's obvious you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
How often is it that a mutation is good. Then how often do these mutations pass on to the next generation and so on? It is so rare that it cannot have anything to do with microevolution (which happens on a small scale). So again I ask, how does it then occur in macroevolution. If you are talking about somatic hypermutation, this is not the same chance mutation you speak of to explain evolution since it is a pre-programmed process. This isnt really the same thing.
Some are detrimental, some are advantageous. Some can be detrimental under some conditions, and advantageous under other conditions.
Every living human has several genes that are not found in either parent. Most of these genes have little or no influence on our phenotypes. Some of them do.
That is called evolution. Since it is below species level, it is also called microevolution.
You need to study up, right now you're just wasting both our times with your babble.
Immunities are not mutations. Organisms (like humans and bacteria) are designed to have immune systems to protect them from intruders. I do not deny mutations exist, I just deny they cause evolution. If microevolution is an adaptation to an organism's surroundings and circumstances, without the creation of new genetic material, then how can macroevolution produce new genetic material if it is the same thing on a larger scale. Kinda like going 2 miles down the road and growing a third thumb.
If micro and macro are the same, where is new genetic material created. In order for evolution to exist, there has to be a point where a species develops a mutation (new genetic material) which "catches on" and forms a new species. This is not microevolution in any way and thus cannot be macroevolution if "macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution, only over longer periods of time." Please give me just one proven example of a genetic mutation which has caught on.
Macro-Evolution is many Micro-Evolutions, A microwalk is to the kitchen, the only difference between a microwalk and a macrowalk (like going 2 miles down the road) is timescale.
Micro-Evolution is RANDOM; its gives rise to anything, bad, pointless and good. For example, We know that bacteria can become immune to Antibiotics... this is a genetic mutation that has been proven.
Mutations can be anything, changes in skin color even, Another thing that proves mutation happens is Down-Syndrome.
this video says nothing noteworthy. he gives no examples of macroevolution. he simply explains a theory. my point is this: though organisms may change to adapt to their surroundings and situation, it is only a result of the selection of pre-existing genetic material to pass on to its off-spring. new genetic material is not created. if you wish to dispute this point, give an example and show me where to research it.
Or you could research any of the millions of recorded cases of novel genetic material being formed by the simply method of mutation.
Natural selection alone is not evolution. Mutation is not evolution. Both together, however, is. And macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution, only over longer periods of time.
If you creationist morons bothered to do any research at all, it would be far easier to take you seriously.
where is there any empirical data that one creature has evolved into another entirerly different creature in the history of the planet? i would be impressed if you could come up one single case where "macroevolution" has ever occured.
If you by 'entirely different creature' mean speciation go to: youtube*com/ watch?v=57GkMivZ7T8 or talkorigins*com /faqs/faq-speciation*html
however, if you mean 'entirely different creature' in the same way Kent Hovind or Kirk Cameron does (dog giving birth to a bird) you should take a highschool biology class.
You, you are proof of macroevolution. We have a long and lengthy fossil record. Modern man appears only in the latest layers. For 99.999% of the fossil record modern man is not present. Only progressively more 'primitive' hominids. We were not here when Lucy walked the earth. Therefore, our ancestors in those times when modern humans did not exist must be other than modern humans.
I know, but in this case, as in most, I'm referring to christian creationists, because those are the ones we in the west meet most often. Just like most of my videos are about christianity, simply because that is the most common religion in my area.
Theistic evolution is a completely different thing, and honestly, I don't really have much of a problem with it. I just happen to believe that isn't how it works, but since neither side could ever conceivably prove that either way (except if god showed up in person, but he hasn't done that in a while for some reason), I see no reason to have an argument about that.
Ken Miller is a theistic evolutionist, for instance, and one of my absolute favourite evolutionary scientists.
To put it more explicitly than what has been hinted at by others; in science, a theory never ceases to be theory; a theory is the highest form of knowledge in science. A theory that has so much evidence behind it that it is, in practice, considered true, at least in it's essentials, beyond all reasonable doubt is still called a theory, and will forever be called a theory. A theory in the scientific context is a word with a completely different meaning than "theory" used in a layman sense.
Evolution was a theory 150 years ago. Today it's a proven fact. And, if one is able to think about why there is only feet and flips but no wheels in biological evolution, a matter which is so obvious, that only apes will have problems to understand it.
The defintion of "theory" differs between science, and real life. A ordinary life theory, is a guess. But a scientific theory is the Idea that best fits the data.
oh and one more thing cap shit, I'm not the pussy you are, I can actual pontificate my views. And if you had any balls you would of done the same. So little pussy, I will not block you because it is as chicken shit as it gets. It shows you can't support your own regurgitated BS. Your block= my checkmate
Again, you are free to believe whatever you like. I am blocking you because I have no interest in wasting my time "debating" someone who quite clearly has no interest in learning, and who knows nothing about what they want to "debate".
harveycoco if you are paying attention you will notice nearly ALL creationist YTbers ban comments and ratings (after they get their first 5/5 of course) or ban someone the first time they point out some contradicting evidence. However you will also note that atheit/scientific don't do this, how about not calling the host a dip-shit like a five year old and maybe you'll get some respect.
I would ban anyone who calls me a dip-shit in a debate because I can instantly have a good idea of what kind of person I'm talking to. Your lucky CapnOrdinary let you comment as much as he did, You wouldn't have benn given that much rope on my channel.
Finally caption dip shit, What is it called when some one much smarter, rubs up against your best argument and destroys your logic? well if you where able to support any of them. I take that to mean if we where cell mates, you would be my little bottom bitch salad tosser. I'll take your silence to mean that you like tung punching my dirt star.
You have not managed to graze my logic, so don't flatter yourself. So far all you've brought on is self-aggrandising melodrama and ad-homs. And learn to spell before you insult the intellect of your betters.
Proof does not apply? out side of theoretical mathematics? That makes my laugh so hard, what a dip shit. I'm going to show your comments to all my buddies at the lab. This proves that all of your unoriginal shit you're saying, came start from your ass. What is theoretical mathematics any way? your an idiot.
All your buddies at the lab? Let me guess, you're the janitor? Nice try, but proof does in fact not apply to science outside of math, no. Disproving things is possible, proving a scientific theory is not. And anyone with a rudimentary science education would know that.
And since it seems that my argument has more to offer in the way of proof, the existence of the universe it's self. And when I say that I think that all of this must have come from some great unknown sources, rather than from no source. You saying that there is no source to the existence of the universe, sounds like you're sort on proof yourself. I think there is a source, I don't know what that is, and thats what I call god. You can't prove otherwise.
So far you have barely offered an argument, let alone any evidence. Proof does not apply to science outside of theoretical mathematics.
And no, I am not claiming there is no source. I am claiming I don't know, and therefore I will not call the possible source anything, until I see some evidence that there is a source and it has certain properties. You are the one jumping to conclusions here.
what a buffoon you turned out to be, not to mention a start up pussy. You make a video, put your self out there as saying you are smarter than any one how believes there is a god. And when you get a little rebuttal, you fold like a little girl, and reply to all my comments and then block me? are you really that goofy? well I guess that prove you don't have a clue.
If you had been paying attention, then no, I did not say I was smarter than every believer. That would make no sense, as I was a believer myself for the majority of my life. And I blocked you because I have no interest in debating people who make it plain they do not know what they are talking about. I have also blocked this second account, btw, and I'll also block any further accounts you come up with.
The real question is, no matter the time line, is evolution infinite or finite? was there a beginning to the universe or not?
Can you scientifically prove that there was nothing and that some thing came in to existence from this nothing? When in fact that, scientist can't even observe or understand what it is that seems to make up most of the Universe anyway.
evolution has every thing to do with the beginning of the universe. As in if you follow evolution all the way back to where it started. You really are a true pseudo intellectual.
I know the big bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing. YOU DID. if you follow evolution far back enough, where does it stop? or is it infinite?
it's not that hard, what came first? the chicken or the egg?
Ether answer is the same. Your argument can represent ether answer. My question is simple also, what came before the chicken and the egg? The answer is easy too.
your proof runs into the same problems. The flood is an old metaphor, and is easy to see that it is not literal. But the question is true. At some point the animals came into existence. This is true for both sides. The idea that essentially all life evolved from the same single sell organisms is has strange as the arch.
what evidence is that? Your use of inductive reasoning?
Thats a two way street. Where is your proof ? Wouldn't it just be easer to show the proof that there is no god, than to ask that proof be provided to the contrary? When was that all you needed to premise, to validate an argument? pray tell.
What does evolution have to do with the existence of god(s)?
The evidence that all life evolved from single celled organisms is abundant. If we look at the life forms present during Earth's 4.5 billion year history, it has quite clearly gone from single celled organisms first, then multi-cellular, until eventually we end up here.
it's not that hard captain dip shit, where does all your evolution start? at some point signal sell organisms came into being. I say that they came into beginning from some unknown source, you have no proof that the universe came into existence from a source of nothing. If you did not, then you would be an agnostic, dumb ass, and you said that you where an atheist. do you not even know the definitions of your own belief? I think that fact proves you are a a complete moron.
So how did it all start...spontaneous generation? That was disproved over 200 years ago. As for the big bang theory... you may want to check out the law of angular momentum. All planets and galaxies should be going in the same direction.
When atheist's somehow negate this from their overall analogy, its nothing more that intulectual dishonesty. If we are going to get into antireligionistic dogma lets start at the begining and include make belive multi-verses upon which, like or not your theory rests and curently depends on.
Intellectual dishonesty? How's inventing an explanation that doesn't explain anything, as creationists do, for intellectual dishonesty? How's denying the overwhelming fact of evolution for intellectual dishonesty?
I'm going to give you the usual challenge now. If you choose not to accept it, or fail to answer it, this discussion is over and you will be blocked.
I made a video (long ago) called "Presentation (and challenge)". Apart from introducing me, it also contains three questions which I will now require you to answer, if you expect me to spend any more of my time discussing this with you.
An infinite eternal entity/force opperating out side our universe is the only answer to the something question this is not really disputed, atheists postulate this force as a multi-verse or something similar.
This math hopefully explains the main objection I have with atheism/evolution because there is no natural law to explain getting something from nothing.
The anthropic principle defines it DOES NOT explain the why or how. Using the anthropic principle to explain fine tuning is like using the word employed to explain someone in work. You have just commited intellectual suicide as have many atheists before you. Please stick to explanations if you want to expain something.
It appears you have not understood what I said. The anthropic principle works very well when taken together with any of the working explanations for quantum theory (which, despite the fact that it is rather incomprehensible, does work).
You see when the probabilty of something happening by naturalistic causes is greater than the number of atoms in the universe the something becomes impossible and not just improbable, because the raw materials needed are less than the chance neccesatates. Its like trying to throw a 7 on a six sided dice.
Now what this means is not that people have to accept I.D. what it does mean however is the failing theory of evolution is unproven and unscientific as regards its testability and as such CAN NOT be used as evidence against I.D. or be seen as more scientific.
Wrong, from start to finish. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact is undeniable, the theory is neither failing nor unscientific (unlike I.D. which is not only failing, it's stillborn).
You can belive in the impossible if you want explaining away the necessary improbable truth. But i'll stick to the very simple logical 1=1 not your ilogical 0=1 equasion dressed up in monkeys and type writers that only work with infinity of wich the universe is not its is calcuable mass not infinite.
The calculable mass of the universe is (hypothesised to be) 0.
Your god is imaginary, there is nothing logical about assuming a non-created creator based on arguments from personal incredulity combined with the supposed fact that everything must have a cause (which, if it were true, would disprove god).
The universe has a begining we know this. That doesn't mean infinite life is impossible it just means it must opperate out side the limits of our universe and the natural laws within it. Scientific theory accepts the possibility of things happening out side our universe and reality, infact it in some cases requires it.
And as for simple to complex life being proven fact in what lab has this been proved it takes(if true) millions of years. do you want the name of an evolution who admits evolution isn't proven fact. Many admit it is unprovable.
Simple to complex evolution has been proven by the fossil record. It is untestable in human terms, due to the time constraints, but it is nonetheless a fact.
The fossil record can not prove evolution because IT DOES NOT SHOW BIRTH OR REBIRTH. How ever it could corroberate it, but it doesn't. Evolution requires billions of transitional fossils not the hand full we find scaterd accross it. Where do you think the puntuated equalibrium theory spawned from, the lack of transitional fossils.
You're wrong, for the very obvious reason that fossilization is exceedingly rare. Nevertheless, thousands of transitional fossils, that are obviously so, have been found.
The even bigger problem with the evolution is biogenesis, evolution doesn't and CAN NOT explain how this happens. So not only is it impposible to see and test in a science lab it doesn't even have a start point. Its worth remembering aswell many NON CREATION scientists don't not accept the theory of evolution.
Anyway, evolution assumes that a replicator already exists, it does not account for, nor does it claim to account for, how that replicator got there. That's abiogenesis' job, which has nothing to do with evolution.
Name a SINGLE "NON CREATION scientist" (ie. a non religious scientist) in the field of biology who does not accept evolution.
Burt Thompson PHD... I'm not going to write an inclusive list but here's one... ABIOGENENIS ok.. You should do some reserch on the probability of spontanious abiogenesis its very interesting, and impossible.
Sounds more like you should research it. Try talkorigins, they have a very nice FAQ on abiogenesis. And they employ REAL scientists, unlike people like AiG or ICR.
As for Burt Thompson, I asked for someone that was not religious. While Thompson is not a christian nor a creationist, he still most certainly has a religious axe to grind.
The burden of truth lies with everyone, however it lies more firmly with evolution because evolution makes the claim that it does not require faith. Macroevolution can not be proved because it takes to long to observe, making it impossible to test, meaning it requires faith canceling itself out by definition and untestable nature.
You say speciation is macroevolution, speciation produces sub speices not NEW speices. In all test done in the 30 years fruit fly's have remained fruit fly's. That some can not interbreed is not macroevolution are this requires evolution above the level of species, speciation DOES NOT DO THIS!
Lets face facts there can be no evidence of true upward macroevolution it takes to long to observe(if true which it isn't anyway), and lets stop all this subspieces are macroevolution nonsence.
I'll make it simple for you what you have to do is take a fruit fly or more resonably a sub species of fruit fly and produce something that isn't a fruit fly or sub species of fruit fly.
And before you start stamping your feet, please remember evolution teaches single cell to man, i'm only asking for one up hill step in this process. Evolutions argue new species are being created all time and when they say that they mean new species not sub species, but that it goes unseen in the incect world. So lets see it in the lab
The burden of proof lies with you. Science has shown that species can change, that genes can mutate, and that relatively small differences in genes produces entirely new species, which can then evolve further in different directions. Your job is to provide evidence to suggest that there is an upper limit to this process.
This was the whole point of this video, in case you didn't notice.
(1)Untill science can show a true new species(not fruit fly to fruit fly but fruit fly to new fly.) using natural selection and the evolutionary process in lab conditions then evolution will remain unproven. And there is a time frame limit to this process.
(2)Now I don't know how many generations of fruit fly have been bred in lab conditions in total, but its a truely staggering amount infact to do simple math: A fruit flys life cycle is around 10 days. So over a year that equates around 36 generations, over the around 100 years or so of tests that becomes 3,600.
(3)Homo sapiens evolutionary time frame(1,000,000 years ago to present)if we work on a 20 year life cycle would utilise around 50,000 genorations split in to atleast 10 stages... The last three homo-heidelburgenesis onto homo-antecessor and finialy the 2 new branches of neanderthal and modern man(spanning around 100,000 years).
(4)Now allthough at first glance you may be exclaiming 3,600 is a long way off 50,000!!! Its worth noting fruit flys are much simpler geneticaly than homo-sapiens infact they only have a few chromosomes per cell. The typical number of chromosomes in a human cell is 46 meaning small scale mutations would have a greater effect and less mutations should be needed for a noticable change within the fruit fly populus.
science has not proven anything like evolution occured. but that is the nature of religious dogma. isn't it? next the burden of proof will alway lay with those who claim theirs to a SCIENTIFIC position. christians who are honest only ever claim to have a religious position based on their own faith. as a believer in science one must provide proof for their claims, like evolving genomes. natural selection? of what? prexisting genetic traits. face it you disbelieve because you are free to do so
cwross1976 4 months ago
Apparently creationists missed the grain of sand example in college.
HimesInu 7 months ago
'Science has proven that things evolved' - is that a scientific thing, because it sounds like a bullshit intro to me...not very scientific at all because it is untrue.
TREACLE97 1 year ago
@TREACLE97 I agree with you. Evolution is the Devil's lie because we can't possibly be related to primates, that's absurd. It's more probable and much more scientific to believe that early humans actually evolved from dirt and a rib bone, and that every living organism today is a product of incest. It clearly says so in God's Holy Scripture. I believe it, so it must be true.
StupidCreationist 1 year ago
@TREACLE97
Because saying "it was the MagicMan wot dun it" is obviously very scientific.
bluemoonrising26 10 months ago
Funny how Noah took only two of every animal onto his boat and yet there was no incest? Same thing with Adam and Eve. Religion is the root of all evil.
00kelevra00 1 year ago
tiktalik and archaeopteryx.
the same crap as always. When you guys find a fish turning into an amphibian, then well talk.
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 actually we already have - its called the mudskipper
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 mudskipper is an amphibious fish. so what? a fish with certain trats of an amphibian is suposed to disprove something?
HEC01 1 year ago
@HEC01 "When you guys find a fish turning into an amphibian, then well talk"
Exactly that what you asked for - I fish turing into an amphibian
badpanda84 1 year ago
@HEC01 ok so went you said "When you guys find a fish turning into an amphibian, then well talk"
what exactly did you have in mind - but if a fish had amphibinan traits is it still considered to be a fish. By that logic you might as well say humans are monkeys with human traits
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 grand scale evolutionary theory says fishes to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammals.
HEC01 1 year ago
Comment removed
litefogg 1 year ago
LET THERE BE EVOLUTION!
LoboDeMedianoche13 2 years ago
Fun Fact: Check out Liviticus 20, a great verse meriting the death penalty for cursing parents, adultry, doing your step mom, or daughter-in-law, homosexuality, marrying both woman and her daughter, and bestiality (kill the beast too). Dont forget death to those working on the sabbath. Good times y'all- let's get to butchering!
SouthernWhiteTrash 2 years ago
SouthernWhiteTrash...Check out sharia law.
litefogg 2 years ago
So the best you can do to defend your religion is point out that others are equally evil?
Nice work.
CapnOrdinary 1 year ago
Sharia Law is totally against western reasoning, yet it's passed in western countrys, like the USA . The bible, Torah and Quran all have crazy laws, from cover to cover but If you haven't noticed, only Islam and Sharia enforce them. Jesus spoke against these laws. Reference-John 8:7. That is all.
litefogg 1 year ago
If we're the sons and daughter of such a small number of human (those save by Noah), no wonder why we're so stubborn at understanding evolution underpinnings... ^^
Acrimonator 2 years ago
you deserve a sub
Scarecrow545 2 years ago
Abigail, I guess I'll stop arguing with you, but I'm glad you recognize the theory of evolution as a proposed mechanic for the genesis of new types of LIVING things, unlike some creationists who believe it to address stars, planets and the universe . It's always nicer to debate with someone who doesn't grossly misunderstand what they're objecting to.
Orayn 2 years ago
LOL! At 1:06 you ask if there is any kind empirical evidence that there is a limit to evolution. How about the fact that "macro" evolution is yet to be observed? Seems to me that if YOU believe it then it is you who needs to come up with the evidence. NOT speculation, or extrapolation, but evidence. Show ONE transitional form. Show just ONE example of small changes making a totally new creature (i.e. lizard to bird like your illustration). Just ONE would do & you could shut us up forever.
pmiller1967 2 years ago
Apparently not, because we have found hundreds. Also, whoops, guess you forgot to read the channel rules.
Blocked.
CapnOrdinary 2 years ago
Great! Then we'll all be waiting for you to give us just ONE "lizard to bird" type animal that demonstrates macro-evolution, and thus lifts the entire theory from a faith-based belief system to fact. That should be easy since there are, according to you, "hundreds."
abigailmiller 2 years ago
Transitional forms don't look like what you think they do. There are not sudden jumps based on arbitrary distinctions, like "bird" and "lizard." Rather, there are branching trees of similar creatures. You are essentially asking for a color between red and blue, without the possibility of purple. You are insisting on redblue.
Orayn 2 years ago
Actually, what Creationists are looking for are birds, and then birds with some changes, birds with more NON-bird attributes, then birds with small lizard-like attributes, etc., all the way up to lizard with zero bird attributes.
It's not that we are against "purple." We are simply asking for CLEAR shades before it and after it. And with millions and millions of years to work with, there should be MILLIONS of examples of this. Yes, there are none. Logic, then, concludes it didn't happen.
abigailmiller 2 years ago
And if we provide them, you will say that they were designed that way to begin with. There's no convincing you.
Orayn 2 years ago
But that's the point. They can't be provided. They have never once been provided. And yet, if evolution is true, millions and millions of examples should be available.
It is for this very reason that theories like "Punctuated equilibrium" spring up in your own ranks. If the "proof" was so clear and obvious no such theories would occur.
As Dr. Duane Gish from ICR wrote in his book: "The Fossils Still Say, 'No!'"
abigailmiller 2 years ago
But I will tell you what puzzles Creationists. It's when clear design is not design to the evolutionist. The mathematical improbibilities of evolution are staggering, the design of all living things is MUCH more clear than any evolutionary "tree" you can provide, and yet we are looked at as nuts. Strange.
abigailmiller 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CapnOrdinary "Also, whoops, guess you forgot to read the channel rules."
I have to read the channel rules before I post here? Please block me too, fascist.
yvranx 2 weeks ago
"How about the fact that "macro" evolution is yet to be observed?" - as micro and macro evolution are part of the same process (evolution) and the only difference is the ACCUMULATION of changes overtime, unless u can find a mechanism to prevent the accumulation of changes then you cant disprove it.
to say micro happens and macro doesnt is the same as saying you can walk a metre but u cant walk a mile.
"Show ONE transitional form" -
tiktaalik (fish-amphibian
archyopterix (reptile-bird)
types10000 2 years ago 6
@pmiller1967 We already did that - look it us on google there are thousands of them " just type in transitional fossils" or better yet how about actually going to a museum.
Of course if you are expecting to see a crocoduck you might be disappointed
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Oh, you mean in the museums where they take a jaw bone & a few teeth and create an ENTIRE animal, with skin and color, & then tell the gullible public that such an animal really existed as they've depicted? I'm failing to see the SCIENCE there.
Why can't we see a crocoduck? If millions of years of evolution is true, there should be BILLIONS of fossils for us to examine. There should be all kinds of crocoducks available. And yet, nothing. No real transitions at all.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian Ok you do realise that croocdile and duck are on diffrenet branches on the evoultionary tree - If we found a crocoduck that would actually disprove evoultion. You clearly dont know what a transitional fossil is.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Yes, I do realize a crock & duck are on different branches of the so-called "evolutionary tree." Like you, I was using the word generically. I don't expect a skunkopotamus to be found either. But how about a whale/wolf? Or any of the other BILLIONS of transitional forms that should be out there? (continued)
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
And, yes, I also understand the "don't-you-know-how-scarce-fossils-are" argument. But it doesn't hold water. If the millions of years & evolution really happened, you should have more proof than you need. Darwin knew it wasn't proven, & expected over time it would be. It still isn't proven, so he was wrong & so is anyone who believes in the fairy-tale of evolution. But hope springs eternal in the hearts of those who really WANT something to be true, even when there is no proof.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian Techincally every fossil is transitation because its a transition from sometime to soemthing else.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Then practically we should have millions and millions and millions of fossils showing a clear, unbroken transition from one animal to another. We don't have that at all. Furthermore, you would also have to demonstrate scientifically that the genetic information needed to transform one creature, let's say a gill-breathing fish, into another animal, a lung-breathing land animal, was already found in the DNA. To date there isn't a single shred of evidence that that is true.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian Firstly every single fossil is transitional. So every fossil we find is transitional
Secondly "transform is not really the correct term" no one is claimin that one animal magiaclly morphs into anoother.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Only IF evolution is true. If it's not true, then none are transitional. So your whole argument rests on the assumption that evolution really happened, & that is debatable.
The issue isnt terminology, but rather factual observation. There is a transformation from one creature to another in the evolutionary scheme. The "magic" is proudly called "time" & "chance" & then labeled as "science" & made to look and sound intelligent, when its really speculation & nonsense.
aThinkingChristian 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian So what do you belive- that everything was created at the same time. that dinosaur were created at the same time as humans Then explain why we dont see dinosaur fossil next to human fossils.
Also for natural selection =/= random chance.
The only reason people are agaist evoultoin is because they belive it goes agaist the relgious beliefs.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@aThinkingChristian Ok, Dr. what is the truth? I'd also like the evidence for your argument. If it can not stand over above the mountain of evidence for evolution, you must admit you are wrong, and that evolution is more likely to be true than any theistic myth. Or you are a liar. Intellectual dishonesty is the same as telling bald-faced lies. Also, where did you get your doctorate in biology? Seeing as how you know more about it than biologists.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
"he Bible already says that at the end of the world there will be a great turning away,"
By that logic world should have ended right about after Jesus's death. Christianity was it's lowest for about fourty years after that, anyway.
"and people wearing tattoos"
OH GOD TATOOS RUN AWAY ITS THE END OF THE WORLD
You just can't make this shit up...
SexyMelon 3 years ago
Study anthropology you'll quickly discover the flood "myth" doesnt just come from the bible. It is in fact root of 230 cultures.
LokiTeslar2012 3 years ago 2
Yes, but many myths come from many cultures, including the geo-centric universe and the flat-earth hypotheses, this does not change their validity from a scientific standpoint.
borrofburi 3 years ago
not true. many ancient cultures knew what we know today with regards those two subjects such as the ancient greeks, in ancient india, egypt and arabic cultures all knew that we revolved around the sun, the earth is round etc etc. but even if this wasnt the case the fact that 230+ cultures all corroborate the story is obviously important.. unless you really honestly believe that several thousand years ago 230+ distant tribes and nations came together to make sure they got their story straight...
LokiTeslar2012 2 years ago
A few philosophers here and there hardly disproves that cultural consensus was flat-earth and geo-centric
Aside from all that, you're missing the point. Consensus of popular opinion is by no means proof. Cultures the world over have dragons, does that prove dragons exist? No, because there is absolutely no scientific supporting evidence of dragons, just as there is none for the flood.
Appealing to popular opinion is an acceptable argument for very few things and never in opposition to science
borrofburi 2 years ago
I understand your way of expressing about all this mishap. I just hope that you know that most scientists won't really go to the extent in proving other people wrong. And ther's a big difference between atheist, evolutionist, from scientists.
linktriscuit 3 years ago
one good piece of evidence for evolution is the creation of the many breeds of dog. they all evolved from the gray wolf and diversified into many, many variations. just compare a chihuahua or a Pomeranian to a gray wolf and see the difference.
nightoftherobots 3 years ago
Plus the weird obsession with Lucy. It doesn't have a knee joint, it's missing this, it's missing that. It's as if it is the only fossil of an australopithicene in existance.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
The weirdest thing about creationists is how they think that science books are like the bible. They think they must be infallible for all time. To find one flaw in a book on evolution therefore proves evolution is wrong. It is bizarre thinking. But it's why they keep bringing up stuff from 'On the Origins' from 150 years ago or they keep dredging up 100 year old quotes. Really messed up on how science works.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You should be more concerned with proof that
the flood did happen and the evidence for the flood..
consider the population today..and population
doubles approx. every 150 years....then back
track the math..down to less than ten people and look at the time(date) A LOT ONE SPECIES IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME......
Web-search Chester Bedell/atheist who made a mistake and has proved the existance of God to thousands...
gerry37g 3 years ago
"Proof" that the flood did happen? Sorry, ain't no such thing. And your pathetic attempts at mathematics fail, since you assume a constant birth and death rate... At today's levels :P
Also, a global flood seems to have had zero influence on the chinese culture (which existed with no break both before and after this imaginary event supposedly took place) or the egyptian (ditto).
You really should try opening a history book sometime, instead of that bronze age myth collection you read....
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
'Also, a global flood seems to have had zero influence on the chinese culture (which existed with no break both before and after this imaginary event supposedly took place) or the egyptian (ditto).' Are you saying that the Chinese civilisation existet in the paleozoic??
Eskon2 3 years ago
Are you saying that Noah did?
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
one problem with your analogy about the population. up until the invention of antibiotics and the modern mendicine(approximately 300 years ago), the human population was a a more or less zero growth. in comes medicine and antibiotics and less people die of infections, colds, flu and others. that is how the population grew so fast
avalsonline 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Note: 10 years before he died Darwin renounced his own theory and became a Christian. He was looking for where we came from and why we are here. It was never about him being smarter or better than another human being. But today, this theory is used this way and to run away from the possiblity of God even though it is harder to prove than Einstein's Theories.
dberry2003 3 years ago
Note: Darwin did no such thing, and his theory is better supported at this point than Einstein's general relativity. In fact, due among other things to the need to constantly defend legitimate scientific research from creationist ignorance, it's the best supported scientific theory at all.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
In fact dberry2003 is true. Darwin doubtet its own theory and changed opinions a lot. Mendel was ignored a long time for being monk. Sciense in the hands of a small group is dangerous.
Eskon2 3 years ago
He changed his opinions on a lot of things. He never renounced his theory, he did not convert TO christianity (in fact, he did the opposite, and became an agnostic... But only long after the publication of "Origin").
And science in the hands of the uneducated is far more dangerous than science in the hand of scientists, where it belongs.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
That is a flat out lie. And you did not even get the lie correct. He was always a Christian you moron. He was said to have disavowed the theory of evolution on his deathbed, which is a creationist lie still promulgated to this day.
Couldn't even get the lie correct.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
What is the deal with the creationist fascination with deathbed "confessions"? Right, because we all know we think most clearly and rationally when we are dying. Yup, our thoughts when our brain is shutting down and pumping us full of chemicals that tend to make us hallucinate trumps a lifetime of work any day.
califoniania 3 years ago 2
lies created by phsyco christian named lady rose. she was not at his bedside. she made the whole thing up.
avalsonline 3 years ago
Microevolution cannot account for macroevolution because micro happens below the species level and macro happens at or above it. We have not been able to observe mutations that add a higher quantity and quality of genetic material ever. How can this be called a fact if we have not been able to observe it?
mjdillaha 3 years ago
You are absolutely and utterly wrong.
Like I said, you really need to study up.
Macroevolution is simply cumulative microevolution, and yes, they are precisely the same thing.
And we HAVE observed higher quantity of genetic material resulting from mutations, as well as mutations that add new features (I presume that is what you mean by "quality").
READ, you moron. I'm blocking you now, since it's obvious you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
How often is it that a mutation is good. Then how often do these mutations pass on to the next generation and so on? It is so rare that it cannot have anything to do with microevolution (which happens on a small scale). So again I ask, how does it then occur in macroevolution. If you are talking about somatic hypermutation, this is not the same chance mutation you speak of to explain evolution since it is a pre-programmed process. This isnt really the same thing.
mjdillaha 3 years ago
Most mutations are neutral.
Some are detrimental, some are advantageous. Some can be detrimental under some conditions, and advantageous under other conditions.
Every living human has several genes that are not found in either parent. Most of these genes have little or no influence on our phenotypes. Some of them do.
That is called evolution. Since it is below species level, it is also called microevolution.
You need to study up, right now you're just wasting both our times with your babble.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
Immunities are not mutations. Organisms (like humans and bacteria) are designed to have immune systems to protect them from intruders. I do not deny mutations exist, I just deny they cause evolution. If microevolution is an adaptation to an organism's surroundings and circumstances, without the creation of new genetic material, then how can macroevolution produce new genetic material if it is the same thing on a larger scale. Kinda like going 2 miles down the road and growing a third thumb.
mjdillaha 3 years ago
Microevolution is adaptation - macroevolution is adaptation.
Microevolution is caused by a combination of mutation and natural selection, creating novel genetic material. So is macroevolution.
And immunities are caused by mutations.
If you have no idea what you're talking about, it's often better to just shut up.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
If micro and macro are the same, where is new genetic material created. In order for evolution to exist, there has to be a point where a species develops a mutation (new genetic material) which "catches on" and forms a new species. This is not microevolution in any way and thus cannot be macroevolution if "macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution, only over longer periods of time." Please give me just one proven example of a genetic mutation which has caught on.
mjdillaha 3 years ago
Macro-Evolution is many Micro-Evolutions, A microwalk is to the kitchen, the only difference between a microwalk and a macrowalk (like going 2 miles down the road) is timescale.
Micro-Evolution is RANDOM; its gives rise to anything, bad, pointless and good. For example, We know that bacteria can become immune to Antibiotics... this is a genetic mutation that has been proven.
Mutations can be anything, changes in skin color even, Another thing that proves mutation happens is Down-Syndrome.
Sayargh 3 years ago
this video says nothing noteworthy. he gives no examples of macroevolution. he simply explains a theory. my point is this: though organisms may change to adapt to their surroundings and situation, it is only a result of the selection of pre-existing genetic material to pass on to its off-spring. new genetic material is not created. if you wish to dispute this point, give an example and show me where to research it.
mjdillaha 3 years ago
Or you could research any of the millions of recorded cases of novel genetic material being formed by the simply method of mutation.
Natural selection alone is not evolution. Mutation is not evolution. Both together, however, is. And macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution, only over longer periods of time.
If you creationist morons bothered to do any research at all, it would be far easier to take you seriously.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
where is there any empirical data that one creature has evolved into another entirerly different creature in the history of the planet? i would be impressed if you could come up one single case where "macroevolution" has ever occured.
mjdillaha 3 years ago
If you by 'entirely different creature' mean speciation go to: youtube*com/ watch?v=57GkMivZ7T8 or talkorigins*com /faqs/faq-speciation*html
however, if you mean 'entirely different creature' in the same way Kent Hovind or Kirk Cameron does (dog giving birth to a bird) you should take a highschool biology class.
Pottan23 3 years ago
You, you are proof of macroevolution. We have a long and lengthy fossil record. Modern man appears only in the latest layers. For 99.999% of the fossil record modern man is not present. Only progressively more 'primitive' hominids. We were not here when Lucy walked the earth. Therefore, our ancestors in those times when modern humans did not exist must be other than modern humans.
Again, you are proof of macroevolution.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
You need to distinguish between Christians and creationists, they're not one in the same...thx!
Starmexus84 3 years ago
I know, but in this case, as in most, I'm referring to christian creationists, because those are the ones we in the west meet most often. Just like most of my videos are about christianity, simply because that is the most common religion in my area.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
Understood. I'd like to see a video against folks like me who are evo-creationists. Meaning I believe in evolution just that it was began by God
Starmexus84 3 years ago
Theistic evolution is a completely different thing, and honestly, I don't really have much of a problem with it. I just happen to believe that isn't how it works, but since neither side could ever conceivably prove that either way (except if god showed up in person, but he hasn't done that in a while for some reason), I see no reason to have an argument about that.
Ken Miller is a theistic evolutionist, for instance, and one of my absolute favourite evolutionary scientists.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
I see FYI God NEVER showed up in person that is a Christian myth...
Starmexus84 3 years ago
I agree. No god has ever shown up in the history of man. That's what leads me to believe there isn't one.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
Great stuff, but will it get through to them? Uh Uh!!!
wordavee 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and macro-evolution isnt a fact
its a theory
THEORY of evolution
dapadge 4 years ago
And you're in violation of my channel rules. Whoops.
Also: Endogenous Retroviral DNA. Macroevolution is a fact. Get over it.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Why is it so hard for creationist to understand the meaning the word THEORY i a scientific context?
xellos88 4 years ago
Becuase if they understand it, thier fragile world collapses, something they truly fear.
Portiadude 4 years ago 6
THEORY of gravity. You floating around on the ceiling?
Atomic and Nuclear THEORY; is Hiroshima still there?
Quantum THEORY; did the sun stop shining six thousand years ago?
THEORY of electromagnetism, is your computer powered by electricity or pixie dust?
Your argument carries NO WEIGHT.
ThetaOmega 4 years ago
To put it more explicitly than what has been hinted at by others; in science, a theory never ceases to be theory; a theory is the highest form of knowledge in science. A theory that has so much evidence behind it that it is, in practice, considered true, at least in it's essentials, beyond all reasonable doubt is still called a theory, and will forever be called a theory. A theory in the scientific context is a word with a completely different meaning than "theory" used in a layman sense.
MightyTiny 4 years ago 2
Evolution was a theory 150 years ago. Today it's a proven fact. And, if one is able to think about why there is only feet and flips but no wheels in biological evolution, a matter which is so obvious, that only apes will have problems to understand it.
WolYou 4 years ago
The defintion of "theory" differs between science, and real life. A ordinary life theory, is a guess. But a scientific theory is the Idea that best fits the data.
Lithiadict 3 years ago
you forget about the water animals that didnt go on the boat.... the flying ones aswell dont need much room inside
dapadge 4 years ago
do you seriously believe the literal interpretation of geneis? even noahs flood?
how far detached from reality are you?
Brettah31 4 years ago 3
oh and one more thing cap shit, I'm not the pussy you are, I can actual pontificate my views. And if you had any balls you would of done the same. So little pussy, I will not block you because it is as chicken shit as it gets. It shows you can't support your own regurgitated BS. Your block= my checkmate
harveycoco 4 years ago
Again, you are free to believe whatever you like. I am blocking you because I have no interest in wasting my time "debating" someone who quite clearly has no interest in learning, and who knows nothing about what they want to "debate".
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
harveycoco if you are paying attention you will notice nearly ALL creationist YTbers ban comments and ratings (after they get their first 5/5 of course) or ban someone the first time they point out some contradicting evidence. However you will also note that atheit/scientific don't do this, how about not calling the host a dip-shit like a five year old and maybe you'll get some respect.
KameWaOni 4 years ago 2
I would ban anyone who calls me a dip-shit in a debate because I can instantly have a good idea of what kind of person I'm talking to. Your lucky CapnOrdinary let you comment as much as he did, You wouldn't have benn given that much rope on my channel.
KameWaOni 4 years ago
Finally caption dip shit, What is it called when some one much smarter, rubs up against your best argument and destroys your logic? well if you where able to support any of them. I take that to mean if we where cell mates, you would be my little bottom bitch salad tosser. I'll take your silence to mean that you like tung punching my dirt star.
harveycoco 4 years ago
You have not managed to graze my logic, so don't flatter yourself. So far all you've brought on is self-aggrandising melodrama and ad-homs. And learn to spell before you insult the intellect of your betters.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Proof does not apply? out side of theoretical mathematics? That makes my laugh so hard, what a dip shit. I'm going to show your comments to all my buddies at the lab. This proves that all of your unoriginal shit you're saying, came start from your ass. What is theoretical mathematics any way? your an idiot.
harveycoco 4 years ago
All your buddies at the lab? Let me guess, you're the janitor? Nice try, but proof does in fact not apply to science outside of math, no. Disproving things is possible, proving a scientific theory is not. And anyone with a rudimentary science education would know that.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
And since it seems that my argument has more to offer in the way of proof, the existence of the universe it's self. And when I say that I think that all of this must have come from some great unknown sources, rather than from no source. You saying that there is no source to the existence of the universe, sounds like you're sort on proof yourself. I think there is a source, I don't know what that is, and thats what I call god. You can't prove otherwise.
romney27 4 years ago
So far you have barely offered an argument, let alone any evidence. Proof does not apply to science outside of theoretical mathematics.
And no, I am not claiming there is no source. I am claiming I don't know, and therefore I will not call the possible source anything, until I see some evidence that there is a source and it has certain properties. You are the one jumping to conclusions here.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
what a buffoon you turned out to be, not to mention a start up pussy. You make a video, put your self out there as saying you are smarter than any one how believes there is a god. And when you get a little rebuttal, you fold like a little girl, and reply to all my comments and then block me? are you really that goofy? well I guess that prove you don't have a clue.
harveycoco 4 years ago
If you had been paying attention, then no, I did not say I was smarter than every believer. That would make no sense, as I was a believer myself for the majority of my life. And I blocked you because I have no interest in debating people who make it plain they do not know what they are talking about. I have also blocked this second account, btw, and I'll also block any further accounts you come up with.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
The real question is, no matter the time line, is evolution infinite or finite? was there a beginning to the universe or not?
Can you scientifically prove that there was nothing and that some thing came in to existence from this nothing? When in fact that, scientist can't even observe or understand what it is that seems to make up most of the Universe anyway.
romney27 4 years ago
Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. Nothing. That branch of science is called cosmology.
The Big bang theory does not state, nor has it ever stated, that something came from nothing. That's creationism's gig.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
You will also find that that particular fallacy is banned on this channel according to my channel rules, and therefore you are now blocked.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
evolution has every thing to do with the beginning of the universe. As in if you follow evolution all the way back to where it started. You really are a true pseudo intellectual.
I know the big bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing. YOU DID. if you follow evolution far back enough, where does it stop? or is it infinite?
harveycoco 4 years ago
it's not that hard, what came first? the chicken or the egg?
Ether answer is the same. Your argument can represent ether answer. My question is simple also, what came before the chicken and the egg? The answer is easy too.
I don't know.
romney27 4 years ago
The answer is simple: The egg came first. A few million generations of dinosaur eggs, to be specific. Which also answers your second question.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
your proof runs into the same problems. The flood is an old metaphor, and is easy to see that it is not literal. But the question is true. At some point the animals came into existence. This is true for both sides. The idea that essentially all life evolved from the same single sell organisms is has strange as the arch.
romney27 4 years ago
Strange, maybe, but all evidence seems to suggest that it happened nonetheless.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
what evidence is that? Your use of inductive reasoning?
Thats a two way street. Where is your proof ? Wouldn't it just be easer to show the proof that there is no god, than to ask that proof be provided to the contrary? When was that all you needed to premise, to validate an argument? pray tell.
romney27 4 years ago
What does evolution have to do with the existence of god(s)?
The evidence that all life evolved from single celled organisms is abundant. If we look at the life forms present during Earth's 4.5 billion year history, it has quite clearly gone from single celled organisms first, then multi-cellular, until eventually we end up here.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
it's not that hard captain dip shit, where does all your evolution start? at some point signal sell organisms came into being. I say that they came into beginning from some unknown source, you have no proof that the universe came into existence from a source of nothing. If you did not, then you would be an agnostic, dumb ass, and you said that you where an atheist. do you not even know the definitions of your own belief? I think that fact proves you are a a complete moron.
harveycoco 4 years ago
im thinking romney IS harvey .. both are making the same spelling mistakes.. for example "sell" rather than "cell"
memoryofakiss 4 years ago
theres no proof evolution has ever happened actually theres proof that it hasnt, its in the FOSSILS very plain and simple they haven't changed.
ChawkyPower 4 years ago
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Sheesh, don't you creationists ever get the urge to maybe look shit up before you open your dumb mouths?
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Good video - good observations!...as for Ken Ham - most of the Ham is between his ears I think. lol.
kalsolarUK 4 years ago
So how did it all start...spontaneous generation? That was disproved over 200 years ago. As for the big bang theory... you may want to check out the law of angular momentum. All planets and galaxies should be going in the same direction.
sexipsychexxx 4 years ago
You've been listening to Kent Hovind I see.
May I suggest a brief search of the talkorigins archive at talkorigins (DOT) org.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night"
-Isaac Asimov, Russian-born - American author
Zombiefisting 4 years ago
When atheist's somehow negate this from their overall analogy, its nothing more that intulectual dishonesty. If we are going to get into antireligionistic dogma lets start at the begining and include make belive multi-verses upon which, like or not your theory rests and curently depends on.
soulreble007 4 years ago
Intellectual dishonesty? How's inventing an explanation that doesn't explain anything, as creationists do, for intellectual dishonesty? How's denying the overwhelming fact of evolution for intellectual dishonesty?
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
I'm going to give you the usual challenge now. If you choose not to accept it, or fail to answer it, this discussion is over and you will be blocked.
I made a video (long ago) called "Presentation (and challenge)". Apart from introducing me, it also contains three questions which I will now require you to answer, if you expect me to spend any more of my time discussing this with you.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
An infinite eternal entity/force opperating out side our universe is the only answer to the something question this is not really disputed, atheists postulate this force as a multi-verse or something similar.
soulreble007 4 years ago
Nonsense. The multiverse explanation is a byproduct of quantum theory, but even in a single universe there is still no need for a creator.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Evolutionary equassion: 0=1
I.D. equassion: 1=1, (1=something 0=nothing
This math hopefully explains the main objection I have with atheism/evolution because there is no natural law to explain getting something from nothing.
soulreble007 4 years ago
This explains nothing. Atheism does not claim something from nothing, and evolution certainly doesn't.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
The anthropic principle defines it DOES NOT explain the why or how. Using the anthropic principle to explain fine tuning is like using the word employed to explain someone in work. You have just commited intellectual suicide as have many atheists before you. Please stick to explanations if you want to expain something.
soulreble007 4 years ago
It appears you have not understood what I said. The anthropic principle works very well when taken together with any of the working explanations for quantum theory (which, despite the fact that it is rather incomprehensible, does work).
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
You see when the probabilty of something happening by naturalistic causes is greater than the number of atoms in the universe the something becomes impossible and not just improbable, because the raw materials needed are less than the chance neccesatates. Its like trying to throw a 7 on a six sided dice.
soulreble007 4 years ago
Which probability is it you are claiming is that large? And how did you calculate it?
And btw, no it doesn't, it merely becomes very very very improbable.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
A probability of 10^-100 relates to the chance enzimes coming together to produce life from non life
soulreble007 4 years ago
Calculated how, exactly?
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Now what this means is not that people have to accept I.D. what it does mean however is the failing theory of evolution is unproven and unscientific as regards its testability and as such CAN NOT be used as evidence against I.D. or be seen as more scientific.
soulreble007 4 years ago
Wrong, from start to finish. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact is undeniable, the theory is neither failing nor unscientific (unlike I.D. which is not only failing, it's stillborn).
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Its possible though evolution in its complete holistic form IS NOT. There are not enough atoms in the universe to support its probability.
soulreble007 4 years ago
Explain what you mean by "evolution in its complete holistic form". That sentence makes no sense to me.
And what is it you claim is "possible" now?
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Its whole procces from the big bang to now, star formation, planet formation, abiogenesis, simple to complex life.
soulreble007 4 years ago
Big bang to now: Very possible. Plus, anthropic principle.
Star formation: Very possible. Plus, anthropic principle.
Abiogenesis: Very possible. Plus, anthropic principle.
Simple to complex life: Proven fact.
What seems to be the problem?
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
You can belive in the impossible if you want explaining away the necessary improbable truth. But i'll stick to the very simple logical 1=1 not your ilogical 0=1 equasion dressed up in monkeys and type writers that only work with infinity of wich the universe is not its is calcuable mass not infinite.
soulreble007 4 years ago
The calculable mass of the universe is (hypothesised to be) 0.
Your god is imaginary, there is nothing logical about assuming a non-created creator based on arguments from personal incredulity combined with the supposed fact that everything must have a cause (which, if it were true, would disprove god).
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
The universe has a begining we know this. That doesn't mean infinite life is impossible it just means it must opperate out side the limits of our universe and the natural laws within it. Scientific theory accepts the possibility of things happening out side our universe and reality, infact it in some cases requires it.
soulreble007 4 years ago
And as for simple to complex life being proven fact in what lab has this been proved it takes(if true) millions of years. do you want the name of an evolution who admits evolution isn't proven fact. Many admit it is unprovable.
soulreble007 4 years ago
Simple to complex evolution has been proven by the fossil record. It is untestable in human terms, due to the time constraints, but it is nonetheless a fact.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
The fossil record can not prove evolution because IT DOES NOT SHOW BIRTH OR REBIRTH. How ever it could corroberate it, but it doesn't. Evolution requires billions of transitional fossils not the hand full we find scaterd accross it. Where do you think the puntuated equalibrium theory spawned from, the lack of transitional fossils.
soulreble007 4 years ago
You're wrong, for the very obvious reason that fossilization is exceedingly rare. Nevertheless, thousands of transitional fossils, that are obviously so, have been found.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Wrong. We know that space-time has a beginning. Not the same thing.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
The even bigger problem with the evolution is biogenesis, evolution doesn't and CAN NOT explain how this happens. So not only is it impposible to see and test in a science lab it doesn't even have a start point. Its worth remembering aswell many NON CREATION scientists don't not accept the theory of evolution.
soulreble007 4 years ago
I'm sure you mean ABIOGENESIS, not biogenesis.
Anyway, evolution assumes that a replicator already exists, it does not account for, nor does it claim to account for, how that replicator got there. That's abiogenesis' job, which has nothing to do with evolution.
Name a SINGLE "NON CREATION scientist" (ie. a non religious scientist) in the field of biology who does not accept evolution.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
Burt Thompson PHD... I'm not going to write an inclusive list but here's one... ABIOGENENIS ok.. You should do some reserch on the probability of spontanious abiogenesis its very interesting, and impossible.
soulreble007 4 years ago
Sounds more like you should research it. Try talkorigins, they have a very nice FAQ on abiogenesis. And they employ REAL scientists, unlike people like AiG or ICR.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
As for Burt Thompson, I asked for someone that was not religious. While Thompson is not a christian nor a creationist, he still most certainly has a religious axe to grind.
He just calls his god Krishna.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
The burden of truth lies with everyone, however it lies more firmly with evolution because evolution makes the claim that it does not require faith. Macroevolution can not be proved because it takes to long to observe, making it impossible to test, meaning it requires faith canceling itself out by definition and untestable nature.
soulreble007 4 years ago
Speciation events are macroevolution, and have been observed. You are, to put it plainly, wrong.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
You say speciation is macroevolution, speciation produces sub speices not NEW speices. In all test done in the 30 years fruit fly's have remained fruit fly's. That some can not interbreed is not macroevolution are this requires evolution above the level of species, speciation DOES NOT DO THIS!
soulreble007 4 years ago
Lets face facts there can be no evidence of true upward macroevolution it takes to long to observe(if true which it isn't anyway), and lets stop all this subspieces are macroevolution nonsence.
soulreble007 4 years ago
I'll make it simple for you what you have to do is take a fruit fly or more resonably a sub species of fruit fly and produce something that isn't a fruit fly or sub species of fruit fly.
soulreble007 4 years ago
And before you start stamping your feet, please remember evolution teaches single cell to man, i'm only asking for one up hill step in this process. Evolutions argue new species are being created all time and when they say that they mean new species not sub species, but that it goes unseen in the incect world. So lets see it in the lab
soulreble007 4 years ago
The burden of proof lies with you. Science has shown that species can change, that genes can mutate, and that relatively small differences in genes produces entirely new species, which can then evolve further in different directions. Your job is to provide evidence to suggest that there is an upper limit to this process.
This was the whole point of this video, in case you didn't notice.
CapnOrdinary 4 years ago
(1)Untill science can show a true new species(not fruit fly to fruit fly but fruit fly to new fly.) using natural selection and the evolutionary process in lab conditions then evolution will remain unproven. And there is a time frame limit to this process.
soulreble007 4 years ago
(2)Now I don't know how many generations of fruit fly have been bred in lab conditions in total, but its a truely staggering amount infact to do simple math: A fruit flys life cycle is around 10 days. So over a year that equates around 36 generations, over the around 100 years or so of tests that becomes 3,600.
soulreble007 4 years ago
(3)Homo sapiens evolutionary time frame(1,000,000 years ago to present)if we work on a 20 year life cycle would utilise around 50,000 genorations split in to atleast 10 stages... The last three homo-heidelburgenesis onto homo-antecessor and finialy the 2 new branches of neanderthal and modern man(spanning around 100,000 years).
soulreble007 4 years ago
(4)Now allthough at first glance you may be exclaiming 3,600 is a long way off 50,000!!! Its worth noting fruit flys are much simpler geneticaly than homo-sapiens infact they only have a few chromosomes per cell. The typical number of chromosomes in a human cell is 46 meaning small scale mutations would have a greater effect and less mutations should be needed for a noticable change within the fruit fly populus.