Are you a truth seeker? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. What it says will blow your mind.
As a atheist its funny how much more about the bible i know then christian cause when you really sit down and read it you realize wow this is obviously bullshit and convert to atheism and you realize wow i have wasting my sundays to a man who in the bible said he wished not to be worshipped
I never said he created anything, I said why cant we settle this debate by saying both sides are right?
Besides, what started the paradox that created the universe in the first place? And if anyone say god did then my next question is: where did he come from? And please don't say another god...
@Softeyes1-"I never said he created anything, I said why cant we settle this debate by saying both sides are right?"- Because....that would be saying he created everything. One side has evidence, the other is based solely on faith. And your argument would have to hinge on an unknown non-intervening non-personal god, because none of the current beliefs of god support the concept of a god not actively involved in specific creation events.
@Softeyes1-"I never said he created anything, I said why cant we settle this debate by saying both sides are right?"- Because....that would be saying he created everything. One side has evidence, the other is based solely on faith. And your argument would have to hinge on an unknown non-intervening non-personal god, because none of the current beliefs of god support the concept of a god not actively involved in specific creation events.
@Softeyes1-and again, if one has to suppose one god exist, then we would also have to suppose many gods exist. Who's to say there aren't more? How do we know alien beings didn't start this process instead? All these scenarios are based on no evidence, so they are all plausible if we have to enter into this realm of baseless assumptions.
@Softeyes1- Why do we have to say a god created anything at all? There's no such proof. Why do people say one god, when such logic would not be able to exclude many gods? How can you disprove many gods with no evidence if you accept one with no evidence?
@Softeyes1 - Why can't we just say particles created God? I mean, why can't we accept that our very existance and the world around us is God? We aren't seperate from it, we are part of it, just as the laws of thermodynamics, cubism, the banana and sea water are all part of it. And the idea of God.
Atheists are pure naturalists. They think nature (space time) is all their is. The great paradox is that nature (space time) can not account for life. Because of the law of biogenesis. Now if evolutionists can't accept a scientific law, then they can't be reasoned with. Imagining backwards is not science. Observing is. Its that simple. So logically something beyond space time is the cause for life. Evolution has never been observed. Biogenesis has. Abiogenesis is a mockery of science
- incorrect, whilst most atheists are naturalists it's not a requisite; all atheism tells you about someone is that they dont believe in a god and this does not necessarily exclude other elements of the supernatural.
"The great paradox is that nature (space time) can not account for life. Because of the law of biogenesis. Now if evolutionists can't accept a scientific law..."
- incorrect, the current evidence indicates that nature did produce life.
- 'the law of biogenesis' is not a scientific law; it's a name for an idea.
- Also biogenesis does not preclude abiogenesis from occurring (it only addresses spontaneous generation which is a completely different concept)
"Imagining backwards is not science. Observing is"
- nobody is 'imagining backwards' and observation is not the only form of scientific evidence eg. testable predictions are one of the strongest forms of evidence in science.
"Evolution has never been observed"
- evolution is observed all the time, any change allele frequency is an example of evolutionary process
"Abiogenesis is a mockery of science"
- no, abiogenesis is currently the best and most well evidenced explanation
@marigolds44 "They think nature (space time) is all their is" Can you offer a rational reason to not think that?
"law of biogenesis" There's no such law. It's a quote from Louis Pasteur which he did in response the refuted hypothesis of Spontanous Generation. It's NOT a scientific law.
"Observing is" Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
"So logically something beyond space time is the cause for life." You have a strange understanding of the word "logical".
I am a firm believer in Christ. But at the same time i accept the fact that science answers many questions in life, example evoloution. Most christians dont understand evoloution so dont listen.
@iBangGOODMusic So you don't believe in Moses writings. Jesus said if you don't belive Moses you don't believe Me. Evolution is not science, the only evolution
@marigolds44- Evolution can be proven through genetics and molecular biology, because the basics of evolution involve changes in genetic information of biological organisms. People who don't have a firm grasp of biology cannot understand evolution. There's no external evidence of moses except the Hebrew texts, and archeology dismisses the exodus story involving moses. The same for Jesus. So there's no reason not to think these are simply stories created by the writers of the text.
@marigolds44- Also according to genetic information, the human race could not have descended from two people( ie- adam & eve). It's not genetically possible. The human genome does not support that story, rather it show we share common decent with other organisms. Given the fact that both jesus & moses's geneolgy are linked to a fictional adam & eve, there is more reason to dismiss the stories along with Israel's exposed adaption & transformation of earlier creation myths.
@rooio3 Well, I am not trying to make a case for the bible to someone who doesn't believe the 4rth word. My point is evolution is impossible, We have enough scientific data to prove evolution did not happen ever. I'll even give you the prelife earth for a start. At this juncture. It is impossible for life to form from nature. You assume it had to. But the data shows it couldn't. it can't. The Law of biogenesis states - life only comes from life after its kind. its a scientific law
"My point is evolution is impossible, We have enough scientific data to prove evolution did not happen ever"
- incorrect, evolution is currently an incredibly well evidenced scientific theory (same level of evidentiary support as gravity)
"I'll even give you the prelife earth for a start"
- evolution deals with the first population of organisms that could reproduce with variation and were subject to natural selection, anything before that is the tailend of abiogenesis.
"At this juncture. It is impossible for life to form from nature"
- the evidence begs to differ.
"But the data shows it couldn't. it can't. The Law of biogenesis states - life only comes from life after its kind"
- ROFL no, the law of biogenesis is simply a statement against spontaneous generation ie. 'La génération spontanée est une chimère' = 'Spontaneous generation is a dream'.
it is not a scientific law, it is an idea put forth by Louis Pasteur.
@marigolds44-My point about the bible is that it simply ancient literature, not historical fact, known to anyone who study ancient religion and the archeology and history of them. That's the mistake you make, which is where your error in evolution is rooted. If atheists are pure naturalists, then theists are simply naive and gullible...the essence of what faith requires of it's followers. Evidence present facts whether a person is an atheist or a believer.
@marigolds44 "My point is evolution is impossible" Your point is wrong.
"I'll even give you the prelife earth for a start" Then you left the realm of evolution theory and entered abiogenesis. A common, dishonest creationtard strategy.
"It is impossible for life to form from nature" How do you know and why haven't you informed the scientific community?
"But the data shows it couldn't" And which data is that? Where can I review it?
@rooio3 In the evolution paradigm, nature and space time is sentient. Because it causes planets to form, stars, it forms DNA from chemicals, The force is all around us, it lives in us, be one with the force Luke. Evolutionists live in a starwars make believe land. Thats why people attempt to connect with the force through meditation,
etc. Nature is not alive. Why can't people see that. It has no will. DNA is the source code for life. Nature is incapable of making DNA. The idea is absurd
"DNA is the source code for life. Nature is incapable of making DNA..."
- no, DNA is chains of nucleotides that do particular things in response to eachother and their environment. We sometimes refer to it as a code for the sake of analogy but in reality it is not compliant with the definition of code.
- The evidence indicates that nature did produce DNA and has already been demonstrated to produce RNA (the same as DNA except single-stranded instead of double)
@marigolds44-First of all, Evolution is not...abiogenesis, a separate theory. Evolution states nothing about how life first began. All it says is that biological life change in gene pool over time...since life began. Regardless of what people think of abiogenesis, it won't affect the evidence for evolution. You have proven you don't understand the theory. The evidence is clear, and genetics prove it, whether you like it or not.
Strange when people generally consider others who believe in invisible beings to be.....delusional or mentally ill. Evolution has evidence. That evidence is genetic, because evolution is change in gene pool. That's not a made up story, like creation myths not dependent on evidence. One can't doubt this process occurs. We know it happened. The theory is meant to explain how it happens. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Simply how biological life change over time. That's all.
The laws of nature say life only rises from other living life, paradox here. So evolutionist make up a story and call it science. completetely unreasonable. Evolution could not happen. Logically there is a God who is sprit utside the laws of nature. Nature itself is not a creative force. if you believe it is then you are delusional, and can't be reasoned with
@RivardMatthew There is no such thing as religion; only truth and lies. Evolution is just a made up story. Think objectively. I'm glad we both are able to express your view. But I am 100 percent right, no doubt in my mind. Evolution does not happen in any form
There is no such thing as religion; only truth and lies. GRAVITY is just a made up story. Think objectively. I'm glad we both are able to express your view. But I am 100 percent right, no doubt in my mind. GRAVITY does not happen in any form.
Now you know how you sound to everyone else :) Evolution a scientific theory of the same level of evidentiary support as gravity and your assertions that you 'really really know its false' arnt worth jack without evidence.
@marigolds44 "But I am 100 percent right" Assertion of certainty without being able to prove your claims is always an indicator of indoctrination, brainwashing and dogmatic thinking. Such mentality makes any kind of progress impossible.
"Evolution does not happen in any form" Then why does my mother need a new flu shot every year? Does the jewish zombie come down from the clouds to create a new flu virus every year?
@ScientificBob "Then why does my mother need a new flu shot every year?"
Speaking of indoctrination, brainwashing, and dogmatic thinking. Strong indication right here, as this was your response to "evolution not happening in any form". No coincidence evolutionary theory borrows from intellectual dishonesty. The sad truth.
"...jewish zombie..."
Can't even get the basics of Christianity down right? Why bother even mentioning it
Answer the question please. If no evolution happens, then why do people need new flu shots every year? Does your god come down from the clouds on a regular basis to create new flu strains?
@ScientificBob "If no evolution happens, then why do people need new flu shots every year?"
If a tree falls in the middle of an uninhabited forest, how many bees are in the back seat of my car? There is no relation, as evolution is not responsible for the need of a new flu shot. Your confusion stems from the inherently ambiguous definition of "evolution", and how any and all change is being equivocated as the same.
There's nothing ambiguous about it. Evolution is the changing of allele frequencies in population gene pools between generations. That's it. It encompasses everything that can be defined in terms of differences in allele frequencies, from the differences between a father and his son to the differences between a dinosaur and a bird.
@gorilla199uncensored To call evolution science is a joke. Mass assumptions, ambiguous and elastic definitions, inferences equated to fact, theories built on no evidence, theories built on other theories, evidence and information misrepresentation, plenty of equivocation, just to name a few. People believe in evolution no more dogmatically than others believe in religion. No real, critical understanding, blind acceptance and mindless propagation
LOL funny how you must deny facts to pretend your story book is correct. But you must because you know its wrong.
"People believe in evolution no more dogmatically than others believe in religion."
Funny how you insult science by calling it a rleigiuon the stupid thing you believe in for no reason, this shows you knwo how low and silly religion is.
Sorry why did god create humans with inactive tail DNA? LOL
Believe whatever nonsense you will, you don't even know anything about these "facts" you ignorantly accuse of me denying. You are completely lost, yet for some reason you believe what you say is somehow meaningful.
"Funny how you insult science by calling it a rleigiuon "
For one, I doubt you really know anything about science. Secondly, I didn't say science, I said evolution, and thirdly, I didn't call it a religion.
For which there is more reason to believe in than an atheistic world view, which is the real "stupidity". Just because you want to remain in denial does not mean there is “no reason”.
“ this shows you knwo how low and silly religion is.” I don't use the word “religion”, nor do I believe in it. But even at that, you know nothing of religion to begin with, so stop wasting your time parading your unintelligence.
“Sorry why did god create humans with inactive tail DNA? LOL”
Vestigiality is a poor argument for evolution, not that you would know much about that. Even at that however, this argument is irrelevant. Scientists “perceiving” a vestigial trait in humans equates to God not existing? Sure, continue to enjoy your reality denying, that is until the day comes when that reality will hit you square in the face, with you not being able to do a thing about it.
Hmmm the creatard didnt mention why its imaginary god gavce humans inactive DNA for tails!
Provide evidence
YOUR GOD EXISTS
IT DID IT!
LOL You wont as even you knows theres none, thats why youhave a baseless belief and no evidence.
There sa reason you rleigion is dying rapidly in the first world, theres a reason churches went to the less educated people in 3rd world countires to brain wash them into religion.
I did. The question was to the point and quite apt.
« atleast try to maintain DECENCY »
Creationists are the kind of people who, without knowing anything or wanting to learn anything about a subject, start ranting about how impossible things claimed in that field of science are. They don't deserve decency. They deserve derision.
@kevinisaac70- of the region starting with the 5th millennium BCE. Their religious beliefs would be the inspiration for all the much later inhabitants of the region, to include the Israelites, from mythology to religion to astrology.
@kevinisaac70-We know, from archeological evidence, the first civilization in the region were the Sumerians. Curious the bible never mention these earlier people. We know the Sumerians were the first civilization to form writing with cuneiform, the first to form city states, invented the wheel, the first to develop a complex system of metrology- mathematics, astronomical records. Strange the bible seem to have omitted this entire history
@rooio3 "......Strange the bible seem to have omitted this entire history"
Who said that? Sumerians are referred in the bible as the people of the "land of Shinar" in Genesis 10 : 10
nd again, bible is **not a History text book** that needs to include all the events of history which may need millions of pages.. how many times would u expect the same answer from me?
@kevinisaac70-The human body is controlled by a thinking brain, composed of chemical reactions. That's what drive a person's thought process. Nothing magical there. As for samson, no, I'm not wrong. Says clearly in scripture his hair began to grow after it had been cut. Such verse would not be written if only "the spirit" worked magic. All the focus on his hair would not be significant to begin with. You lack knowledge of the ancient world. The Sumerians predate the Israelites.
@rooio3 "Says clearly in scripture his hair began to grow after it had been cut. Such verse would not be written if only "the spirit" worked magic......."
1) And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them..... Judges 14 : 19
2) And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid.... Judges 14 : 6
Bible says that about his hair coz he was a nazarene, and so it was highlighted....
@kevinisaac70-The old testament are ADAPTATIONS of older polytheistic stories. The significance isn't the similarities, but the differences that expose the plagiarism.The flood story of noah copy the exact same structure of the Sumerian flood myth. The difference is the Israelite version altered the capricious gods into one moral god. Never bothered to change the same narrative elements. The hero in that flood myth gained immortality, yet he and noah seem
@kevinisaac70-to have the exact same experience of being chosen to build a boat, loading it with animals to escape a flood, sending out a sequence of birds to look for land, resting the boat on a mountain top, offering a sacrifice, and a promise with a rainbow. The latter Israelite version simply used the same motif for a different purpose. They saw the stories as useful stories and altered them to insert their own god. Because these stories traveled on tablets, naturally, they
@kevinisaac70-were aware of them. They took stories that were familiar and changed them. It what Israel does-with its creation, eden, flood stories. It's called Patternism- one culture influences the next. You cannot sit there and make the statement that the bible is not a history book when it goes on to tell history from creation. Shinar is in reference to Babylon, not the far earlier Sumerian civilization. The first civilization is not a minor event.
@kevinisaac70-You are correct, the bible is not historically or archeologically accurate. There was no invasion of Canaan by Israel described in the bible, instead a steady culture continuum. Ancient Israel essentially were indistinguishable from the Canaanites and worshiped the same deities. There was no exodus out of egypt- instead we find egypt conquered Israel in canaan, establishing military posts, at a time when the bible supposedly describe Israel occupying canaan. Also confirmed
@kevinisaac70- in the biblical text itself with names that were not in existence until a latter period showing the author composing the exodus story behind the backdrop of 6-5th century BCE egypt. So no, we know elements of the biblical text are not true. Same applies to its plagiarism of religious motifs of earlier times. Since later biblical stories rely on these modified adaptions, it causes a domino effect of false accounts based on mythology.
its easy to say that all things are evolved just by a simple logic and animation..... but is there any genius out there who can explain how something came from nothing or how a nucleus or a cell came from a non living thing???
When are u going to stop thinking like fools and start believing in God????
"but is there any genius out there who can explain how something came from nothing or how a nucleus or a cell came from a non living thing???"
Nice plead from ignorance, but do you know why a plead from ignornace is a logical fallacy? First you will have to learn what logically fallacy is tho!
But science does say either of those 2 ignorant things you claim, but your story book does.
@kevinisaac70-"is there any genius out there who can explain how something came from nothing or how a nucleus or a cell came from a non living thing"- but isn't that what believers in god think? That god produced something out of nothing...the difference being magic...and that's not foolish thinking? Again, evolution does not focus on the origin of the universe. It explains what happens now, since life appeared. You are talking about cosmogony, not evolution.
@rooio3 i hope u noted tat in the above video, it says that nucleus (which is a living thing) was evolved from a group of non-living molecules....
And i want to say to u that those who believe in God are not fools to just believe in something with no logic.... Its just easy to believe in evolution but do some research keeping away your adamant blind belief apart for a while, you will come to know the truth!
@kevinisaac70- The video can say whatever it wants. The THEORY of evolution, however, says nothing about how life began. Simply how it evolves SINCE appearing. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution because it is a separate theory, not part of the same theory. The study of how biological life arises does not effect the evidence of how biological life evolves now.
@rooio3 OK.... I know that already but, science can never explain how matter came into existence neither can you........
If you are a person with good logical thinking, then you would never hold on to the THEORY OF EVOLUTION "alone"..... It looks like you are just trying to escape yourself by just giving an irrelevant answer....
« but, science can never explain how matter came into existence neither can you »
In fact, there are some rather convincing theoretical models for that as well; models that have so far been shown consistent with the available observational data.
The Standard Model of particle physics, combined with the ΛCDM model of cosmology explain how particulate matter coalesced from a quark-gluon plasma some time after the onset of the Big Bang.
@MrGralgrathor "The Standard Model of particle physics......after the onset of the Big Bang."
Note the second point.... My question was something and ur answer is some other thing.. I asked whether there is any theory that explains how matter came into existence....
2. A reasonable, logically thinking person would at least tentatively accept an explanation that seems to be consistent with the available observational data. Regarding biological diversity, evolutionary theory is such a model.
@kevinisaac70-"I am debating with u only with the Holy Bible"- studying different religions, particularly ancient religions, will enlighten you on the sources of the material that influenced biblical religion. That is the mistake, particularly christians make, because they know no better of factors outside their religion that actually influenced their religion. Nothing about the bible is "holy". It is simply a book of ancient literature.
@kevinisaac70-"OK.... I know that already but, science can never explain how matter came into existence neither can you."- science can compose theories based on existing data...which it has. That is about as much anyone can do. I find it funny you would say one can't explain such a thing, yet religion falsely claim to do just that, with no supporting evidence and you think it logical. The current theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis) provide the best explanation
@rooio3 "yet religion falsely claim to do just that, with no supporting evidence and you think it logical..."
The Bible was not written as a book that can help for researches..So, u cant expect science in there.. Its a Book of truth and also, many parts in the Bible are missing and hence,continuity is lost. Only for that reason, we need to do further research.
"modern evolutionary synthesis provide the best explanation" - It does not explain the inner biology.
Yes it does. It explains how the facts in biology fit together. Why we find nested hierarchies in biology, at all levels ranging from the molecular to gross anatomy. Why we find atavisms and matching ERV-distributions. Why we find diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology. And so on.
@rooio3 A biologist cannot explain the theory of evolution.... In that case, how can just a anthropologist or a palaeontologist can explain evolution.... That's why I say, its easy for a anthropologist to explain such theories but its impossible for any one (including a biologist) to prove such theories with an inner logic...
« how can just a anthropologist or a palaeontologist can explain evolution »
Well, they can, if they have a working knowledge of genetics and population dynamics. The principles involved are not that difficult to understand. (In fact, I find it impossible to understand why creationists have such a hard time grasping them - certainly they must exert great mental effort to keep themselves from understanding...)
Yes it is. I could explain it to you in just two pages of text and a few drawings. Of course such explanations are already available online. Try Berkely's website, for instance. It has a pretty decent Evolution 101 section.
Wouldn't do to go into too much details. Just understanding the basic principles is sufficient to give you the general idea. Mechanisms of variation, mechanisms of selection, mechanisms of speciation, and so on.
« its impossible for any one (including a biologist) to prove such theories »
And this is where we go back to square one, and explain to you that theories in science are NEVER proven. This goes for evolutionary theory, for relativity theory, for atomic theory, for EVERY theory. Theories are *substantiated*, *confirmed*, *verified* (and sometimes rejected) based on *evidence* (NOT proof!), but they're NEVER "proven".
« then what's the difference between a living and a non living body? »
The way the particles of the body interact: chemistry and mechanics. A living body has chemical processes which maintain the tissues against decay. A living body has chemical processes that form the neural signaling patterns that constitute the mind.
@kevinisaac70-of how evolution occurs because of the collected data. There is nothing irrelevant about that, only to those who have no firm understanding of the current theory. "If you are a person with good logical thinking"..how in the world can you make such a statement when the bible is full of illogical nonsense usually found in fables, myths, legends. A talking animal is logical? Magical hair? A full adult body grown from a rib? Water walking..flying people..etc.
@rooio3 "how in the world.. A talking animal is logical?.."
Do u think its more stupid to believe in those things than believing in the following concepts that u claim to be true?
1.multi-lobed hearts came form a single lobed hearts
2.Man originated from a small micro organism
3.And sixth sense(human) came from single sense(plants)
What stupid logic do u find in those things?But the things that are given in the bible were done by a Super Power..Hope u know the meaning of "Super Power"
« multi-lobed hearts came form a single lobed hearts »
What is incredible about that? Explain how a continuous process of variation and selection could not result in the development of a different heart structure - ESPECIALLY since we can observe similar developments TODAY.
But never mind about what we observe today; that's for later. First explain why you think the development of a new morphology of the heart should be impossible by natural processes.
... Sorry, that third point did not make any sense to me. Humans are not descended from plants, for one thing. And what should I read into your reference to six or one senses?
A logic that says that if evolution and speciation leading to different morphologies can be observed today, then over a longer time such morphological and behavioural divergences must certainly be more pronounced. A logic that says that if that is indeed the case, then we should find evidence of that in the fossil record. A logic that says that since we do indeed find that supporting evidence in the fossil record, there must be something to this idea.
@kevinisaac70-Quoting scripture does not make it true. Sorry. quoting ancient literature is no more important than quoting hamlet. The bible has many influences from Hellenism, to the Ancient Near East civilizations. This is old news to anyone who studies ancient religions. The bible is not an accurate portrayal of ancient Israel, shown from historical and archeological data. Old news.
@rooio3 So, you have no more proof that ur concept is right... This is the best way for u to end this, by just saying the same old story once again..... Oh dear!!!!!
@kevinisaac70-Things in the bible done with "super power"? Like harry potter? hmmm. There's no reason not to believe in the possibility of the many other myths of the ancient world if that's the case. Again, refresh and update yourself on the current theory of evolution. That would clear up your misunderstanding of the theory. All evolution is- simply change in gene pool over time. It...does NOT...deal...with..the origin..of...life. Read and understand. It will do you some good.
@rooio3 "Things in the bible done with "super power"? Like harry potter?....."
ok.. did the concepts of "electric current", "magnetic field", "electric charge" made any sense wen u first heard abt them? but how did u start believing in them? apply the same logic here...
Answer this question.. Human body is not just made of bones and flesh but is driven a spirit. So, FROM UR POINT OF VIEW, ISN'T IT A MAGIC? so, is nature a magician?? lol....
@kevinisaac70- "Even Samson was given power after he lost his hair before his death"- you left out the part that his hair began to grow again after it had been shaved. Fail. The bible is a book of literature written, censored, & revised by many authors over an extensive period of time. It isn't a book of truth according to archeological evidence. It is a book of modified ancient motifs from other cultures blended together, as seen by evidence from these earlier cultures.
@rooio3 "you left out the part that his hair began to grow again after it had been shaved....."
Again you are wrong... Samson's power came as the Holy Spirit came mightily upon him..... not because of his hair...though he was not asked to cut or to shave his hair as he was called to be a Nazarene....
@kevinisaac70-Yes, the creation, eden, flood stories are Israelite adaptations of older motifs. In many cases they copies the exact same story structure nearly word for word. They simply changed them to use the stories for their own purposes- an action that, unfortunately for Israel, exposes their manipulation of these existing motifs. "A biologist cannot explain the theory of evolution."- you need to do better research. CLEARLY.
@rooio3 "In many cases they copies the exact same story structure nearly word for word...."
Hey hey kid! What are u talking about... The Bible is NOT A WEB CONTENT that needs to BE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED!! In the olden days Bible was written not in webpages but on structures like clay tablets (invented by the Sumerians)
Truth can/will be everywhere unlike stories that are specific for a particular civilization..So there is no wonder even if some stories are similar to the old testament.
@rooio3 {"A biologist cannot explain the theory of evolution."- you need to do better research. CLEARLY}
What research do u want to answer a simple logical question...
ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF POSSIBLE : Can u make a dead man alive (consider a person who died with insufficient oxygen) by giving him oxygen after he is dead? Even that man has the same components in his body including proteins and amino acids?
What makes the difference between a dead body and a living body??
@kevinisaac70- "And i want to say to u that those who believe in God are not fools to just believe in something with no logic"- how does that sentence make any logical sense? Would we not think a person who believes a real leprechaun lives today.. to be.....foolish? It's easy to believe in evolution because of evidence. Scientific theories rise and fall on the basis of data. I study ancient religions. I'm certainly well versed in the world's current major religions, so there isn't
@kevinisaac70- anything any religious believer can tell me that I don't already know. There certainly isn't any truth in them. What I do find is many religious people are unaware of certain elements of their own religion, or the historical and archeological background behind them. So, perhaps one should tell a "believer" to do some adequate research and discover the unfortunate messy truth about their own religion.
@rooio3 "anything any religious believer can tell me that I don't already know. There certainly isn't any truth in them. What I do find is many religious people are unaware......." May be I don't know every minute thing that is given in the Bible but u know that u don't know everything about science...
Don't talk about other people ... the debate is between you and me or we can say, between science and Religion....
« When are u going to [...] start believing in God? »
As soon as it becomes reasonable to do so. In other words, when a testable claim regarding the existence of gods is sufficiently substantiated using independently verifiable evidence.
@kevinisaac70 hey there...some of us have different beliefs... many religions...I guess you must accept that there are people who doesn't think like you...live peacefully.
Why is someone usually considered "ignorant" if they refuse to believe this happened by chance, considering the odds? Example - Pre-existing "soup" for evolution to take place, rise of consciousness etc...
I can't speak for everyone here, but they're not considered ignorant because they refuse to believe it, they're considered ignorant because they refuse to look into even the most basic science behind it, and because they tend to use very fallacious arguments to back up their claims.
I may have worded it poorly. Most of the more vocal opponents to evolution have no idea what evolution is, thinking it is abiogenesis. Whenever someone says "Came from nothing", "Just a theory" etc., they haven't looked at it for a second.
However if it hadn't happened we wouldn't have this conversation.
Please note that I said clearly that I can't speak for everyone, meaning both the deniers and the accepters. (You can't "believe" in a scientific theory, you accept it)
On a final note, it is my belief that evolutionists and in fact many scientist are very similar to our ancient ancestors. They are afraid that there may be something bigger than themselves in the universe and this scares the hell out of them, This would mean they are not in control. So they make these theories to explain things they don't understand and and they cling to things that they can fathom, yet just look around you and you will see a different picture than they one they paint for you.
@gwildgoose It is my belief that people who have a hard time accepting evolution, and even reject it, are similar to those who believed the world was the center of everything. They are afraid that their origin may be more complex than a spell over dirt and this scares the hell out of 'em. That would mean their life rule book is suddenly more questionable. They'd lose control. So, they reject all things that conflict with their own conclusions & cling to the past. Just look around, things change.
@abcdefwoo1234 I believe that the theory is great if it fits your belief. The truth is what we make it. If one person wants to believe it, he has that right. If another wants to believe in a skydaddy controling us puppets that he has that right to believe it. If someone else had a different belief then who are we go tell him he is wrong. It would just as wrong for us to say he was wrong as it would be for them to say we are wrong. Belief is true as long as you believe it.
@jwforlife2 I don't know about you, but if I was believing something that wasn't the reality because I lacked knowledge or experience in one way or another, I would definitely want someone to tell me I was wrong or show me evidence for something else being the actuality. At least then I'd have my own self to blame if I just turned right back to my previous belief when I had the chance the think about it and consider any new evidence. Arguments don't have to always be bad things.
@TheFailTrollingAss- I am not the one who thinks we are monkeys- you may think we are, but I am not the one saying we came from monkeys. Although I am not sure about you. You are an evolutionists, therefore in your mind you are a monkey, that is not my opinion but your opinion sir. The mere fact of your existence proves my point, the smartest animals are not always the ones to survive.
@gwildgoose We are not monkeys, we are humanoids. More specifically humans. You are entirely wrong in assuming evolutionists feel we are monkeys. We are similar, but not the same thing.
@gwildgoose Hey look he responded to a monkey! OH AH OH AHH!!! LMAO people like you make my day mate. ;D told you don't reply to a monkey since you tihnk we dont know anything but SCREAAAM!!! lmao!!
LOL, what makes all these video about evolution so funny is that the people (or should I say evolved monkeys) act like they are smart enough to know what they are talking about. So what we have are a bunch of monkeys defending the fact they are monkeys. How ironic. And they jump up and down and scream at you because you don't buy into their "theory" - ask yourself, would you listen to a monkey? careful how you answer that. LMAO!!!!!
@gwildgoose what makes all these people like you about not realizing that we are monkeys is that yall act like a bunch of smart ass thinking evolotion dose not exsist with no prove it diddintt happend. ask yourself - would you listen and reply back to this comment to a monkey? Since monkeys just scream at you LOL. careful how you answer that boy. LMFAO XD
@Erkekerkege Do you mean 'How did we acquire emotions due to evolution?' Because I don't think that emotions are organisms that can evolve. If that's the case the answer is simple. Only the reltatively intelligent organisms that could feel emotions would survive and the organisms that wouldn't would die. For example, why do we feel fear? It is because all of the humanoids that couldn't feel fear died because they would be eaten by other animals like tigers since they
and ... the evolution of man ... 1 - as to how the human mind evolved? 2 - human. conditions that cause nature wanted to shed its feathers? 3 - human. While the 4 foot. was more difficult than the 2-legged? 4 - human. Why felt the need of speech? 5 - Darwin, as you are, even when not ambitious. What is your love for this evolution? The evolution of science refuted, but those who think ideologically. Never give up.
@Erkekerkege Well, the eye evolved because we needed a way to see. Why do you think eyes are different for each species? Because each species has a different environement which they have to cope with. We have our eyes due to our specific environement faactors we have to cope with while a bat has its eyes due to the environement factors it has to cope with. The human mind became so efficient due to the competition between the early humans and neanderthals. The neanderthals
@Erkekerkege Oh and your not arrogant at all. Be a little introspective and notice how I made arguments to support my claim while all you did was attempt to insult me. Grow up.
@Erkekerkege are believed to have been smarter and much stronger than early humans. Because of this they did not have to use there mind as much and relied on strength. However, because early humans were much weaker only the more intelligent humans who could think would survive and due to this the humans became more and more intelligent until we surpased the neanderthal's intelligence. After a while natural selection killed off the neanderthals and only early humans lived.
@Erkekerkege The reason we walk on 2 legs is so that we could use tools in our hands and walk around with them. Because we were weaker than most other predators we had to use our mind to create tools to hunt and eat. If we walked on all fours, how can we carry tools efficiently. We needed speach because we hunted in packs. If we didn't have some sort of speach we wouldn't have been able to hunt as efficiently and due to this natural selection killed off many human "tribes"
@Erkekerkege that did not communicate. Nearly all social animals have some form of communication due to this, we just have our own. I can't really understand the rest of what you said after that although I think it is suppossed to be an insult. If you want to have a civilized debate don't make this personal unless of course you feel it is not possible to actually debate against what I am saying. In which case, show all the readers how even you know you are wrong.
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you a truth seeker? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. What it says will blow your mind.
haveaplum 20 hours ago
And btw marry cheated on joseph
connertr987 20 hours ago
As a atheist its funny how much more about the bible i know then christian cause when you really sit down and read it you realize wow this is obviously bullshit and convert to atheism and you realize wow i have wasting my sundays to a man who in the bible said he wished not to be worshipped
connertr987 20 hours ago
Carl Sagan!
Andromedonian 2 days ago
@rooio3
I never said he created anything, I said why cant we settle this debate by saying both sides are right?
Besides, what started the paradox that created the universe in the first place? And if anyone say god did then my next question is: where did he come from? And please don't say another god...
Softeyes1 3 days ago
@Softeyes1-"I never said he created anything, I said why cant we settle this debate by saying both sides are right?"- Because....that would be saying he created everything. One side has evidence, the other is based solely on faith. And your argument would have to hinge on an unknown non-intervening non-personal god, because none of the current beliefs of god support the concept of a god not actively involved in specific creation events.
rooio3 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Softeyes1-"I never said he created anything, I said why cant we settle this debate by saying both sides are right?"- Because....that would be saying he created everything. One side has evidence, the other is based solely on faith. And your argument would have to hinge on an unknown non-intervening non-personal god, because none of the current beliefs of god support the concept of a god not actively involved in specific creation events.
rooio3 3 days ago
@Softeyes1-and again, if one has to suppose one god exist, then we would also have to suppose many gods exist. Who's to say there aren't more? How do we know alien beings didn't start this process instead? All these scenarios are based on no evidence, so they are all plausible if we have to enter into this realm of baseless assumptions.
rooio3 3 days ago
Alot of people argue whether evolution or god created life/humans. Why can't we just say god created particles and we evolved from there?
Softeyes1 4 days ago
@Softeyes1- Why do we have to say a god created anything at all? There's no such proof. Why do people say one god, when such logic would not be able to exclude many gods? How can you disprove many gods with no evidence if you accept one with no evidence?
rooio3 4 days ago
@Softeyes1 - Why can't we just say particles created God? I mean, why can't we accept that our very existance and the world around us is God? We aren't seperate from it, we are part of it, just as the laws of thermodynamics, cubism, the banana and sea water are all part of it. And the idea of God.
RobGrunwald 3 days ago
Atheists are pure naturalists. They think nature (space time) is all their is. The great paradox is that nature (space time) can not account for life. Because of the law of biogenesis. Now if evolutionists can't accept a scientific law, then they can't be reasoned with. Imagining backwards is not science. Observing is. Its that simple. So logically something beyond space time is the cause for life. Evolution has never been observed. Biogenesis has. Abiogenesis is a mockery of science
marigolds44 5 days ago
@marigolds44
"Atheists are pure naturalists"
- incorrect, whilst most atheists are naturalists it's not a requisite; all atheism tells you about someone is that they dont believe in a god and this does not necessarily exclude other elements of the supernatural.
types10000 4 days ago
@marigolds44
"The great paradox is that nature (space time) can not account for life. Because of the law of biogenesis. Now if evolutionists can't accept a scientific law..."
- incorrect, the current evidence indicates that nature did produce life.
- 'the law of biogenesis' is not a scientific law; it's a name for an idea.
- Also biogenesis does not preclude abiogenesis from occurring (it only addresses spontaneous generation which is a completely different concept)
types10000 4 days ago
@marigolds44
"Imagining backwards is not science. Observing is"
- nobody is 'imagining backwards' and observation is not the only form of scientific evidence eg. testable predictions are one of the strongest forms of evidence in science.
"Evolution has never been observed"
- evolution is observed all the time, any change allele frequency is an example of evolutionary process
"Abiogenesis is a mockery of science"
- no, abiogenesis is currently the best and most well evidenced explanation
types10000 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marigolds44 "They think nature (space time) is all their is" Can you offer a rational reason to not think that?
"law of biogenesis" There's no such law. It's a quote from Louis Pasteur which he did in response the refuted hypothesis of Spontanous Generation. It's NOT a scientific law.
"Observing is" Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
"So logically something beyond space time is the cause for life." You have a strange understanding of the word "logical".
ScientificBob 2 days ago
I am a firm believer in Christ. But at the same time i accept the fact that science answers many questions in life, example evoloution. Most christians dont understand evoloution so dont listen.
iBangGOODMusic 5 days ago
@iBangGOODMusic So you don't believe in Moses writings. Jesus said if you don't belive Moses you don't believe Me. Evolution is not science, the only evolution
that happens is in the imagination.
marigolds44 5 days ago
@marigolds44- Evolution can be proven through genetics and molecular biology, because the basics of evolution involve changes in genetic information of biological organisms. People who don't have a firm grasp of biology cannot understand evolution. There's no external evidence of moses except the Hebrew texts, and archeology dismisses the exodus story involving moses. The same for Jesus. So there's no reason not to think these are simply stories created by the writers of the text.
rooio3 5 days ago
@marigolds44- Also according to genetic information, the human race could not have descended from two people( ie- adam & eve). It's not genetically possible. The human genome does not support that story, rather it show we share common decent with other organisms. Given the fact that both jesus & moses's geneolgy are linked to a fictional adam & eve, there is more reason to dismiss the stories along with Israel's exposed adaption & transformation of earlier creation myths.
rooio3 5 days ago
@rooio3 Well, I am not trying to make a case for the bible to someone who doesn't believe the 4rth word. My point is evolution is impossible, We have enough scientific data to prove evolution did not happen ever. I'll even give you the prelife earth for a start. At this juncture. It is impossible for life to form from nature. You assume it had to. But the data shows it couldn't. it can't. The Law of biogenesis states - life only comes from life after its kind. its a scientific law
marigolds44 5 days ago
@marigolds44
"My point is evolution is impossible, We have enough scientific data to prove evolution did not happen ever"
- incorrect, evolution is currently an incredibly well evidenced scientific theory (same level of evidentiary support as gravity)
"I'll even give you the prelife earth for a start"
- evolution deals with the first population of organisms that could reproduce with variation and were subject to natural selection, anything before that is the tailend of abiogenesis.
types10000 4 days ago
@marigolds44
"At this juncture. It is impossible for life to form from nature"
- the evidence begs to differ.
"But the data shows it couldn't. it can't. The Law of biogenesis states - life only comes from life after its kind"
- ROFL no, the law of biogenesis is simply a statement against spontaneous generation ie. 'La génération spontanée est une chimère' = 'Spontaneous generation is a dream'.
it is not a scientific law, it is an idea put forth by Louis Pasteur.
types10000 4 days ago
@marigolds44-My point about the bible is that it simply ancient literature, not historical fact, known to anyone who study ancient religion and the archeology and history of them. That's the mistake you make, which is where your error in evolution is rooted. If atheists are pure naturalists, then theists are simply naive and gullible...the essence of what faith requires of it's followers. Evidence present facts whether a person is an atheist or a believer.
rooio3 4 days ago
@marigolds44 "My point is evolution is impossible" Your point is wrong.
"I'll even give you the prelife earth for a start" Then you left the realm of evolution theory and entered abiogenesis. A common, dishonest creationtard strategy.
"It is impossible for life to form from nature" How do you know and why haven't you informed the scientific community?
"But the data shows it couldn't" And which data is that? Where can I review it?
"Law of biogenesis " No such thing.
ScientificBob 2 days ago
@rooio3 In the evolution paradigm, nature and space time is sentient. Because it causes planets to form, stars, it forms DNA from chemicals, The force is all around us, it lives in us, be one with the force Luke. Evolutionists live in a starwars make believe land. Thats why people attempt to connect with the force through meditation,
etc. Nature is not alive. Why can't people see that. It has no will. DNA is the source code for life. Nature is incapable of making DNA. The idea is absurd
marigolds44 5 days ago
@marigolds44
"In the evolution paradigm, nature and space time is sentient"
- no, evolution relates only to biology it's no more related to cosmology than it is to automobile-evolution
- also sentience refers to awareness and consciousness of organisms and not nature/space/time
"Evolutionists live in a starwars make believe land"
- no, it appears you do however as you clearly have no idea of what evolution is.
types10000 4 days ago
@marigolds44
"DNA is the source code for life. Nature is incapable of making DNA..."
- no, DNA is chains of nucleotides that do particular things in response to eachother and their environment. We sometimes refer to it as a code for the sake of analogy but in reality it is not compliant with the definition of code.
- The evidence indicates that nature did produce DNA and has already been demonstrated to produce RNA (the same as DNA except single-stranded instead of double)
types10000 4 days ago
@marigolds44-First of all, Evolution is not...abiogenesis, a separate theory. Evolution states nothing about how life first began. All it says is that biological life change in gene pool over time...since life began. Regardless of what people think of abiogenesis, it won't affect the evidence for evolution. You have proven you don't understand the theory. The evidence is clear, and genetics prove it, whether you like it or not.
rooio3 4 days ago
Strange when people generally consider others who believe in invisible beings to be.....delusional or mentally ill. Evolution has evidence. That evidence is genetic, because evolution is change in gene pool. That's not a made up story, like creation myths not dependent on evidence. One can't doubt this process occurs. We know it happened. The theory is meant to explain how it happens. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Simply how biological life change over time. That's all.
rooio3 1 week ago
The laws of nature say life only rises from other living life, paradox here. So evolutionist make up a story and call it science. completetely unreasonable. Evolution could not happen. Logically there is a God who is sprit utside the laws of nature. Nature itself is not a creative force. if you believe it is then you are delusional, and can't be reasoned with
marigolds44 1 week ago
@marigolds44 Religious folk cannot grasp the concept of Evolution, and cannot be reasoned with either.
RivardMatthew 6 days ago
@RivardMatthew There is no such thing as religion; only truth and lies. Evolution is just a made up story. Think objectively. I'm glad we both are able to express your view. But I am 100 percent right, no doubt in my mind. Evolution does not happen in any form
marigolds44 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marigolds44
There is no such thing as religion; only truth and lies. GRAVITY is just a made up story. Think objectively. I'm glad we both are able to express your view. But I am 100 percent right, no doubt in my mind. GRAVITY does not happen in any form.
Now you know how you sound to everyone else :) Evolution a scientific theory of the same level of evidentiary support as gravity and your assertions that you 'really really know its false' arnt worth jack without evidence.
types10000 6 days ago
@marigolds44 only someone who is incredibly ignorant believes they know what happens after they die
TrailerParkUnicorn 5 days ago
@marigolds44 "But I am 100 percent right" Assertion of certainty without being able to prove your claims is always an indicator of indoctrination, brainwashing and dogmatic thinking. Such mentality makes any kind of progress impossible.
"Evolution does not happen in any form" Then why does my mother need a new flu shot every year? Does the jewish zombie come down from the clouds to create a new flu virus every year?
ScientificBob 2 days ago
@ScientificBob "Then why does my mother need a new flu shot every year?"
Speaking of indoctrination, brainwashing, and dogmatic thinking. Strong indication right here, as this was your response to "evolution not happening in any form". No coincidence evolutionary theory borrows from intellectual dishonesty. The sad truth.
"...jewish zombie..."
Can't even get the basics of Christianity down right? Why bother even mentioning it
RaizeMusic 1 day ago
@RaizeMusic "Speaking of indoctrination"
Answer the question please. If no evolution happens, then why do people need new flu shots every year? Does your god come down from the clouds on a regular basis to create new flu strains?
ScientificBob 1 day ago
@ScientificBob "If no evolution happens, then why do people need new flu shots every year?"
If a tree falls in the middle of an uninhabited forest, how many bees are in the back seat of my car? There is no relation, as evolution is not responsible for the need of a new flu shot. Your confusion stems from the inherently ambiguous definition of "evolution", and how any and all change is being equivocated as the same.
RaizeMusic 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RaizeMusic
"inherently ambiguous definition"
There's nothing ambiguous about it. Evolution is the changing of allele frequencies in population gene pools between generations. That's it. It encompasses everything that can be defined in terms of differences in allele frequencies, from the differences between a father and his son to the differences between a dinosaur and a bird.
XGralgrathor 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RaizeMusic "as evolution is not responsible for the need of a new flu shot" So virus strains never mutate? Would you put money on that?
"the inherently ambiguous definition of "evolution", " What is ambiguous about 'mutate, reproduce, repeat'?
"how any and all change is being equivocated as the same." It IS always the same. Mutation followed by selection.
ScientificBob 15 hours ago
@RaizeMusic
"No coincidence evolutionary theory borrows from intellectual dishonesty. "
LOL no evolution is science.
Unlike religion eg the jew zombie jesus did it a baseless claim and no reason tobelieve it.
gorilla199uncensored 1 day ago
@gorilla199uncensored To call evolution science is a joke. Mass assumptions, ambiguous and elastic definitions, inferences equated to fact, theories built on no evidence, theories built on other theories, evidence and information misrepresentation, plenty of equivocation, just to name a few. People believe in evolution no more dogmatically than others believe in religion. No real, critical understanding, blind acceptance and mindless propagation
RaizeMusic 1 day ago
@RaizeMusic
"To call evolution science is a joke"
LOL funny how you must deny facts to pretend your story book is correct. But you must because you know its wrong.
"People believe in evolution no more dogmatically than others believe in religion."
Funny how you insult science by calling it a rleigiuon the stupid thing you believe in for no reason, this shows you knwo how low and silly religion is.
Sorry why did god create humans with inactive tail DNA? LOL
gorilla199uncensored 1 day ago
@gorilla199uncensored "...deny facts..."
Believe whatever nonsense you will, you don't even know anything about these "facts" you ignorantly accuse of me denying. You are completely lost, yet for some reason you believe what you say is somehow meaningful.
"Funny how you insult science by calling it a rleigiuon "
For one, I doubt you really know anything about science. Secondly, I didn't say science, I said evolution, and thirdly, I didn't call it a religion.
RaizeMusic 18 hours ago
“the stupid thing you believe in for no reason”
For which there is more reason to believe in than an atheistic world view, which is the real "stupidity". Just because you want to remain in denial does not mean there is “no reason”.
“ this shows you knwo how low and silly religion is.” I don't use the word “religion”, nor do I believe in it. But even at that, you know nothing of religion to begin with, so stop wasting your time parading your unintelligence.
RaizeMusic 18 hours ago
“Sorry why did god create humans with inactive tail DNA? LOL”
Vestigiality is a poor argument for evolution, not that you would know much about that. Even at that however, this argument is irrelevant. Scientists “perceiving” a vestigial trait in humans equates to God not existing? Sure, continue to enjoy your reality denying, that is until the day comes when that reality will hit you square in the face, with you not being able to do a thing about it.
RaizeMusic 18 hours ago
@RaizeMusic
Hmmm the creatard didnt mention why its imaginary god gavce humans inactive DNA for tails!
Provide evidence
YOUR GOD EXISTS
IT DID IT!
LOL You wont as even you knows theres none, thats why youhave a baseless belief and no evidence.
There sa reason you rleigion is dying rapidly in the first world, theres a reason churches went to the less educated people in 3rd world countires to brain wash them into religion.
Smarter people wont believe such shit!
gorilla199uncensored 10 hours ago
@RivardMatthew Reason and logic disproves evolution. Evolution is a religion
.
marigolds44 5 days ago
@kevinisaac70- This is a much more realistic assessment of the biblical text
watch?v=Rmah-qoa_R4
watch?v=JlVyWzqu45w
watch?v=VjqJ6oJJnZk
watch?v=orEFbIlmulM
rooio3 1 week ago
Comment removed
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@XGralgrathor """Are you daft?""" - mind ur words...
now i understand why u get every comment being flagged as Spam... If u dont know to give respect to others, atleast try to maintain DECENCY....
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« mind ur words »
I did. The question was to the point and quite apt.
« atleast try to maintain DECENCY »
Creationists are the kind of people who, without knowing anything or wanting to learn anything about a subject, start ranting about how impossible things claimed in that field of science are. They don't deserve decency. They deserve derision.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70- of the region starting with the 5th millennium BCE. Their religious beliefs would be the inspiration for all the much later inhabitants of the region, to include the Israelites, from mythology to religion to astrology.
rooio3 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-We know, from archeological evidence, the first civilization in the region were the Sumerians. Curious the bible never mention these earlier people. We know the Sumerians were the first civilization to form writing with cuneiform, the first to form city states, invented the wheel, the first to develop a complex system of metrology- mathematics, astronomical records. Strange the bible seem to have omitted this entire history
rooio3 1 week ago
@rooio3 "......Strange the bible seem to have omitted this entire history"
Who said that? Sumerians are referred in the bible as the people of the "land of Shinar" in Genesis 10 : 10
nd again, bible is **not a History text book** that needs to include all the events of history which may need millions of pages.. how many times would u expect the same answer from me?
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-The human body is controlled by a thinking brain, composed of chemical reactions. That's what drive a person's thought process. Nothing magical there. As for samson, no, I'm not wrong. Says clearly in scripture his hair began to grow after it had been cut. Such verse would not be written if only "the spirit" worked magic. All the focus on his hair would not be significant to begin with. You lack knowledge of the ancient world. The Sumerians predate the Israelites.
rooio3 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 "Says clearly in scripture his hair began to grow after it had been cut. Such verse would not be written if only "the spirit" worked magic......."
1) And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them..... Judges 14 : 19
2) And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid.... Judges 14 : 6
Bible says that about his hair coz he was a nazarene, and so it was highlighted....
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-The old testament are ADAPTATIONS of older polytheistic stories. The significance isn't the similarities, but the differences that expose the plagiarism.The flood story of noah copy the exact same structure of the Sumerian flood myth. The difference is the Israelite version altered the capricious gods into one moral god. Never bothered to change the same narrative elements. The hero in that flood myth gained immortality, yet he and noah seem
rooio3 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-to have the exact same experience of being chosen to build a boat, loading it with animals to escape a flood, sending out a sequence of birds to look for land, resting the boat on a mountain top, offering a sacrifice, and a promise with a rainbow. The latter Israelite version simply used the same motif for a different purpose. They saw the stories as useful stories and altered them to insert their own god. Because these stories traveled on tablets, naturally, they
rooio3 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-were aware of them. They took stories that were familiar and changed them. It what Israel does-with its creation, eden, flood stories. It's called Patternism- one culture influences the next. You cannot sit there and make the statement that the bible is not a history book when it goes on to tell history from creation. Shinar is in reference to Babylon, not the far earlier Sumerian civilization. The first civilization is not a minor event.
rooio3 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-You are correct, the bible is not historically or archeologically accurate. There was no invasion of Canaan by Israel described in the bible, instead a steady culture continuum. Ancient Israel essentially were indistinguishable from the Canaanites and worshiped the same deities. There was no exodus out of egypt- instead we find egypt conquered Israel in canaan, establishing military posts, at a time when the bible supposedly describe Israel occupying canaan. Also confirmed
rooio3 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70- in the biblical text itself with names that were not in existence until a latter period showing the author composing the exodus story behind the backdrop of 6-5th century BCE egypt. So no, we know elements of the biblical text are not true. Same applies to its plagiarism of religious motifs of earlier times. Since later biblical stories rely on these modified adaptions, it causes a domino effect of false accounts based on mythology.
rooio3 1 week ago
nice drawings and imaginations.. very creative... i like to watch fairy-tales, maybe i will also make my own version.
ikawpipa 1 week ago
its easy to say that all things are evolved just by a simple logic and animation..... but is there any genius out there who can explain how something came from nothing or how a nucleus or a cell came from a non living thing???
When are u going to stop thinking like fools and start believing in God????
kevinisaac70 2 weeks ago 2
@kevinisaac70
"but is there any genius out there who can explain how something came from nothing or how a nucleus or a cell came from a non living thing???"
Nice plead from ignorance, but do you know why a plead from ignornace is a logical fallacy? First you will have to learn what logically fallacy is tho!
But science does say either of those 2 ignorant things you claim, but your story book does.
gorilla199uncensored 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-"is there any genius out there who can explain how something came from nothing or how a nucleus or a cell came from a non living thing"- but isn't that what believers in god think? That god produced something out of nothing...the difference being magic...and that's not foolish thinking? Again, evolution does not focus on the origin of the universe. It explains what happens now, since life appeared. You are talking about cosmogony, not evolution.
rooio3 1 week ago
@rooio3 i hope u noted tat in the above video, it says that nucleus (which is a living thing) was evolved from a group of non-living molecules....
And i want to say to u that those who believe in God are not fools to just believe in something with no logic.... Its just easy to believe in evolution but do some research keeping away your adamant blind belief apart for a while, you will come to know the truth!
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70- The video can say whatever it wants. The THEORY of evolution, however, says nothing about how life began. Simply how it evolves SINCE appearing. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution because it is a separate theory, not part of the same theory. The study of how biological life arises does not effect the evidence of how biological life evolves now.
rooio3 1 week ago
@rooio3 OK.... I know that already but, science can never explain how matter came into existence neither can you........
If you are a person with good logical thinking, then you would never hold on to the THEORY OF EVOLUTION "alone"..... It looks like you are just trying to escape yourself by just giving an irrelevant answer....
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70
« but, science can never explain how matter came into existence neither can you »
In fact, there are some rather convincing theoretical models for that as well; models that have so far been shown consistent with the available observational data.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
Comment removed
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@MrGralgrathor if that's the case, can u say what theory can explain that??? Its like u r just trying to give a full stop to my statement...
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« can u say what theory can explain that? »
The Standard Model of particle physics, combined with the ΛCDM model of cosmology explain how particulate matter coalesced from a quark-gluon plasma some time after the onset of the Big Bang.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
@MrGralgrathor "The Standard Model of particle physics......after the onset of the Big Bang."
Note the second point.... My question was something and ur answer is some other thing.. I asked whether there is any theory that explains how matter came into existence....
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
Comment removed
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« If you are a person with good logical thinking, then you would never hold on to the THEORY OF EVOLUTION "alone" »
1. How is this a response to @rooio3's comment?
2. A reasonable, logically thinking person would at least tentatively accept an explanation that seems to be consistent with the available observational data. Regarding biological diversity, evolutionary theory is such a model.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-"I am debating with u only with the Holy Bible"- studying different religions, particularly ancient religions, will enlighten you on the sources of the material that influenced biblical religion. That is the mistake, particularly christians make, because they know no better of factors outside their religion that actually influenced their religion. Nothing about the bible is "holy". It is simply a book of ancient literature.
rooio3 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 "That is the mistake, particularly christians...religion that actually influenced their religion. Nothing about the bible is holy.."
*All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,.... - 2 Timothy 3:16*
You don't know about what is given in the bible and hence, how can u claim that bible is just a book of ancient literature??
So, I say that Bible was not influenced by any ancient religion... Now, u can go on...
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-"OK.... I know that already but, science can never explain how matter came into existence neither can you."- science can compose theories based on existing data...which it has. That is about as much anyone can do. I find it funny you would say one can't explain such a thing, yet religion falsely claim to do just that, with no supporting evidence and you think it logical. The current theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis) provide the best explanation
rooio3 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 "yet religion falsely claim to do just that, with no supporting evidence and you think it logical..."
The Bible was not written as a book that can help for researches..So, u cant expect science in there.. Its a Book of truth and also, many parts in the Bible are missing and hence,continuity is lost. Only for that reason, we need to do further research.
"modern evolutionary synthesis provide the best explanation" - It does not explain the inner biology.
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
Comment removed
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« It does not explain the inner biology »
Yes it does. It explains how the facts in biology fit together. Why we find nested hierarchies in biology, at all levels ranging from the molecular to gross anatomy. Why we find atavisms and matching ERV-distributions. Why we find diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology. And so on.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 A biologist cannot explain the theory of evolution.... In that case, how can just a anthropologist or a palaeontologist can explain evolution.... That's why I say, its easy for a anthropologist to explain such theories but its impossible for any one (including a biologist) to prove such theories with an inner logic...
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« how can just a anthropologist or a palaeontologist can explain evolution »
Well, they can, if they have a working knowledge of genetics and population dynamics. The principles involved are not that difficult to understand. (In fact, I find it impossible to understand why creationists have such a hard time grasping them - certainly they must exert great mental effort to keep themselves from understanding...)
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "....The principles involved are not that difficult to understand....."
This again proves that ur r not matured.. EVOLUTION IS NOT THAT SIMPLE TO BE EXPLAINED...... It has many inner complexities..
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« EVOLUTION IS NOT THAT SIMPLE TO BE EXPLAINED »
Yes it is. I could explain it to you in just two pages of text and a few drawings. Of course such explanations are already available online. Try Berkely's website, for instance. It has a pretty decent Evolution 101 section.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« It has many inner complexities »
Wouldn't do to go into too much details. Just understanding the basic principles is sufficient to give you the general idea. Mechanisms of variation, mechanisms of selection, mechanisms of speciation, and so on.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« its impossible for any one (including a biologist) to prove such theories »
And this is where we go back to square one, and explain to you that theories in science are NEVER proven. This goes for evolutionary theory, for relativity theory, for atomic theory, for EVERY theory. Theories are *substantiated*, *confirmed*, *verified* (and sometimes rejected) based on *evidence* (NOT proof!), but they're NEVER "proven".
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor ".....Your cells, their DNA, their organelles, the tissues they form, all of your body is *entirely* made of "non-living matter"."
then what's the difference between a living and a non living body?? Both the bodies have the same components that u have mentioned above...
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« then what's the difference between a living and a non living body? »
The way the particles of the body interact: chemistry and mechanics. A living body has chemical processes which maintain the tissues against decay. A living body has chemical processes that form the neural signaling patterns that constitute the mind.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-of how evolution occurs because of the collected data. There is nothing irrelevant about that, only to those who have no firm understanding of the current theory. "If you are a person with good logical thinking"..how in the world can you make such a statement when the bible is full of illogical nonsense usually found in fables, myths, legends. A talking animal is logical? Magical hair? A full adult body grown from a rib? Water walking..flying people..etc.
rooio3 1 week ago
@rooio3 "how in the world.. A talking animal is logical?.."
Do u think its more stupid to believe in those things than believing in the following concepts that u claim to be true?
1.multi-lobed hearts came form a single lobed hearts
2.Man originated from a small micro organism
3.And sixth sense(human) came from single sense(plants)
What stupid logic do u find in those things?But the things that are given in the bible were done by a Super Power..Hope u know the meaning of "Super Power"
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« multi-lobed hearts came form a single lobed hearts »
What is incredible about that? Explain how a continuous process of variation and selection could not result in the development of a different heart structure - ESPECIALLY since we can observe similar developments TODAY.
But never mind about what we observe today; that's for later. First explain why you think the development of a new morphology of the heart should be impossible by natural processes.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@XGralgrathor "First explain why you think the development of a new morphology of the heart should be impossible by natural processes."
u dont understand anything... u r a beginner, sorry abt that....
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« u dont understand anything »
You're still not giving me any arguments, boy. Explain to me how many slight changes in morphology cannot occur consecutively.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« Man originated from a small micro organism »
In other words, you're attacking common descent. Explain what you find so difficult to believe about common descent, and why exactly.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« And sixth sense(human) »
... Sorry, that third point did not make any sense to me. Humans are not descended from plants, for one thing. And what should I read into your reference to six or one senses?
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« What stupid logic »
A logic that says that if evolution and speciation leading to different morphologies can be observed today, then over a longer time such morphological and behavioural divergences must certainly be more pronounced. A logic that says that if that is indeed the case, then we should find evidence of that in the fossil record. A logic that says that since we do indeed find that supporting evidence in the fossil record, there must be something to this idea.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@rooio3 "Magical hair?..." Again, u have proved urself that u have not done enough research to prove that the Biblical concepts are wrong....
Even Samson was given power after he lost his hair before his death... In that case, how can u argue?
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-Quoting scripture does not make it true. Sorry. quoting ancient literature is no more important than quoting hamlet. The bible has many influences from Hellenism, to the Ancient Near East civilizations. This is old news to anyone who studies ancient religions. The bible is not an accurate portrayal of ancient Israel, shown from historical and archeological data. Old news.
rooio3 1 week ago
@rooio3 So, you have no more proof that ur concept is right... This is the best way for u to end this, by just saying the same old story once again..... Oh dear!!!!!
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-Things in the bible done with "super power"? Like harry potter? hmmm. There's no reason not to believe in the possibility of the many other myths of the ancient world if that's the case. Again, refresh and update yourself on the current theory of evolution. That would clear up your misunderstanding of the theory. All evolution is- simply change in gene pool over time. It...does NOT...deal...with..the origin..of...life. Read and understand. It will do you some good.
rooio3 1 week ago
Comment removed
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 "Things in the bible done with "super power"? Like harry potter?....."
ok.. did the concepts of "electric current", "magnetic field", "electric charge" made any sense wen u first heard abt them? but how did u start believing in them? apply the same logic here...
Answer this question.. Human body is not just made of bones and flesh but is driven a spirit. So, FROM UR POINT OF VIEW, ISN'T IT A MAGIC? so, is nature a magician?? lol....
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70- "Even Samson was given power after he lost his hair before his death"- you left out the part that his hair began to grow again after it had been shaved. Fail. The bible is a book of literature written, censored, & revised by many authors over an extensive period of time. It isn't a book of truth according to archeological evidence. It is a book of modified ancient motifs from other cultures blended together, as seen by evidence from these earlier cultures.
rooio3 1 week ago
@rooio3 "you left out the part that his hair began to grow again after it had been shaved....."
Again you are wrong... Samson's power came as the Holy Spirit came mightily upon him..... not because of his hair...though he was not asked to cut or to shave his hair as he was called to be a Nazarene....
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70-Yes, the creation, eden, flood stories are Israelite adaptations of older motifs. In many cases they copies the exact same story structure nearly word for word. They simply changed them to use the stories for their own purposes- an action that, unfortunately for Israel, exposes their manipulation of these existing motifs. "A biologist cannot explain the theory of evolution."- you need to do better research. CLEARLY.
rooio3 1 week ago
@rooio3 "In many cases they copies the exact same story structure nearly word for word...."
Hey hey kid! What are u talking about... The Bible is NOT A WEB CONTENT that needs to BE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED!! In the olden days Bible was written not in webpages but on structures like clay tablets (invented by the Sumerians)
Truth can/will be everywhere unlike stories that are specific for a particular civilization..So there is no wonder even if some stories are similar to the old testament.
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 {"A biologist cannot explain the theory of evolution."- you need to do better research. CLEARLY}
What research do u want to answer a simple logical question...
ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF POSSIBLE : Can u make a dead man alive (consider a person who died with insufficient oxygen) by giving him oxygen after he is dead? Even that man has the same components in his body including proteins and amino acids?
What makes the difference between a dead body and a living body??
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70- "And i want to say to u that those who believe in God are not fools to just believe in something with no logic"- how does that sentence make any logical sense? Would we not think a person who believes a real leprechaun lives today.. to be.....foolish? It's easy to believe in evolution because of evidence. Scientific theories rise and fall on the basis of data. I study ancient religions. I'm certainly well versed in the world's current major religions, so there isn't
rooio3 1 week ago
@rooio3 " I study ancient religions. I'm certainly well versed in the world's current major religions, so there isn't"
Studying about lots of religions is not going to help you other than just arguing with the persons of those religions....
I am debating with u only with the Holy Bible...
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70- anything any religious believer can tell me that I don't already know. There certainly isn't any truth in them. What I do find is many religious people are unaware of certain elements of their own religion, or the historical and archeological background behind them. So, perhaps one should tell a "believer" to do some adequate research and discover the unfortunate messy truth about their own religion.
rooio3 1 week ago
Comment removed
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooio3 "anything any religious believer can tell me that I don't already know. There certainly isn't any truth in them. What I do find is many religious people are unaware......." May be I don't know every minute thing that is given in the Bible but u know that u don't know everything about science...
Don't talk about other people ... the debate is between you and me or we can say, between science and Religion....
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« its easy to say that all things are evolved »
The claim is made regarding distinct species, not life in general, kid.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« how something came from nothing »
Has anybody made a purportedly definitive claim to that extent? No? Then I have no idea what you're talking about.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« how a nucleus or a cell came from a non living thing? »
That one's easy, at least. Your cells, their DNA, their organelles, the tissues they form, all of your body is *entirely* made of "non-living matter".
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
Comment removed
kevinisaac70 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevinisaac70
« When are u going to [...] start believing in God? »
As soon as it becomes reasonable to do so. In other words, when a testable claim regarding the existence of gods is sufficiently substantiated using independently verifiable evidence.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@kevinisaac70 hey there...some of us have different beliefs... many religions...I guess you must accept that there are people who doesn't think like you...live peacefully.
groundcrazy 1 week ago
Why is someone usually considered "ignorant" if they refuse to believe this happened by chance, considering the odds? Example - Pre-existing "soup" for evolution to take place, rise of consciousness etc...
Lisztman88 2 weeks ago
@Lisztman88
I can't speak for everyone here, but they're not considered ignorant because they refuse to believe it, they're considered ignorant because they refuse to look into even the most basic science behind it, and because they tend to use very fallacious arguments to back up their claims.
Izdigger5 2 weeks ago
@Izdigger5 that is not true! I look at the science behind it and in awe of it. What is so bad about that?
jwforlife2 1 week ago
@jwforlife2
I may have worded it poorly. Most of the more vocal opponents to evolution have no idea what evolution is, thinking it is abiogenesis. Whenever someone says "Came from nothing", "Just a theory" etc., they haven't looked at it for a second.
However if it hadn't happened we wouldn't have this conversation.
Please note that I said clearly that I can't speak for everyone, meaning both the deniers and the accepters. (You can't "believe" in a scientific theory, you accept it)
Izdigger5 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lisztman88
"Why is someone usually considered "ignorant" if they refuse to believe this happened by chance, considering the odds? "
Well because you are.
1) Chance isnt the driving force its a very small part. Chance is a far bigger part of what happens outside evolution.
2) Pleading from odds is an ignornat thing to do, its a logicl fallacy also anyone who has basic understand of probability knows its not an argument.
EVEN MORE IMPROBABLE THINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME!
gorilla199uncensored 1 week ago
He talks like agent Smith from The Martix.
blakeesmith84 2 weeks ago
5:57 for those who don't want to wait 6 minutes
sniperRobert 2 weeks ago
this is carl sagan. thumbs up
Devantium 3 weeks ago 7
let me guess, 99% of comments bellow are arguments between rational thinking humans and brain-dead religious people...
arminask 3 weeks ago
@arminask I'm religious but I do find this stuff very interesting.
DanielMedcalf 2 weeks ago
These simplistic evolution animations are alright but I always want to see more.
TiteProducts 3 weeks ago
@TiteProducts i agree, also didn't explain how cold blooded reptiles ended up being warm blooded birds (with dinosaurs in between)
arminask 3 weeks ago
@arminask I think it's just a mutation changing the chemical in the blood of cold-blooded animals, can't think of the name, into hemoglobin.
TiteProducts 3 weeks ago
On a final note, it is my belief that evolutionists and in fact many scientist are very similar to our ancient ancestors. They are afraid that there may be something bigger than themselves in the universe and this scares the hell out of them, This would mean they are not in control. So they make these theories to explain things they don't understand and and they cling to things that they can fathom, yet just look around you and you will see a different picture than they one they paint for you.
gwildgoose 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gwildgoose
So you don't believe geese and eagles are related?
Why doesn't science agree with you?
odinata 4 weeks ago
@gwildgoose It is my belief that people who have a hard time accepting evolution, and even reject it, are similar to those who believed the world was the center of everything. They are afraid that their origin may be more complex than a spell over dirt and this scares the hell out of 'em. That would mean their life rule book is suddenly more questionable. They'd lose control. So, they reject all things that conflict with their own conclusions & cling to the past. Just look around, things change.
abcdefwoo1234 4 weeks ago 6
@abcdefwoo1234 think of plato's cave concept...but yeah, i know what you are saying.
SoleCitizen33 1 week ago
@abcdefwoo1234 I believe that the theory is great if it fits your belief. The truth is what we make it. If one person wants to believe it, he has that right. If another wants to believe in a skydaddy controling us puppets that he has that right to believe it. If someone else had a different belief then who are we go tell him he is wrong. It would just as wrong for us to say he was wrong as it would be for them to say we are wrong. Belief is true as long as you believe it.
jwforlife2 1 week ago
@jwforlife2 I don't know about you, but if I was believing something that wasn't the reality because I lacked knowledge or experience in one way or another, I would definitely want someone to tell me I was wrong or show me evidence for something else being the actuality. At least then I'd have my own self to blame if I just turned right back to my previous belief when I had the chance the think about it and consider any new evidence. Arguments don't have to always be bad things.
abcdefwoo1234 1 week ago
@TheFailTrollingAss- I am not the one who thinks we are monkeys- you may think we are, but I am not the one saying we came from monkeys. Although I am not sure about you. You are an evolutionists, therefore in your mind you are a monkey, that is not my opinion but your opinion sir. The mere fact of your existence proves my point, the smartest animals are not always the ones to survive.
gwildgoose 4 weeks ago
@gwildgoose We are not monkeys, we are humanoids. More specifically humans. You are entirely wrong in assuming evolutionists feel we are monkeys. We are similar, but not the same thing.
MikeMrtno 4 weeks ago
@TheFailTrollingAss - I respond the same way at every Zoo when I see the crap throwing monkeys - "Oh My"
gwildgoose 4 weeks ago
@gwildgoose Hey look he responded to a monkey! OH AH OH AHH!!! LMAO people like you make my day mate. ;D told you don't reply to a monkey since you tihnk we dont know anything but SCREAAAM!!! lmao!!
TheFailTrollingAss 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL, what makes all these video about evolution so funny is that the people (or should I say evolved monkeys) act like they are smart enough to know what they are talking about. So what we have are a bunch of monkeys defending the fact they are monkeys. How ironic. And they jump up and down and scream at you because you don't buy into their "theory" - ask yourself, would you listen to a monkey? careful how you answer that. LMAO!!!!!
gwildgoose 4 weeks ago
@gwildgoose what makes all these people like you about not realizing that we are monkeys is that yall act like a bunch of smart ass thinking evolotion dose not exsist with no prove it diddintt happend. ask yourself - would you listen and reply back to this comment to a monkey? Since monkeys just scream at you LOL. careful how you answer that boy. LMFAO XD
TheFailTrollingAss 4 weeks ago
please read Atlas of Creation.
TheAnimacoder 4 weeks ago
So how emotions evolved?
Erkekerkege 1 month ago
@Erkekerkege Do you mean 'How did we acquire emotions due to evolution?' Because I don't think that emotions are organisms that can evolve. If that's the case the answer is simple. Only the reltatively intelligent organisms that could feel emotions would survive and the organisms that wouldn't would die. For example, why do we feel fear? It is because all of the humanoids that couldn't feel fear died because they would be eaten by other animals like tigers since they
MikeMrtno 4 weeks ago
@Erkekerkege wouldn't feel fear and run.
MikeMrtno 4 weeks ago
@MikeMrtno
mımm . okeeyy .
Well how evolved eye?
and ... the evolution of man ... 1 - as to how the human mind evolved? 2 - human. conditions that cause nature wanted to shed its feathers? 3 - human. While the 4 foot. was more difficult than the 2-legged? 4 - human. Why felt the need of speech? 5 - Darwin, as you are, even when not ambitious. What is your love for this evolution? The evolution of science refuted, but those who think ideologically. Never give up.
Erkekerkege 4 weeks ago
@Erkekerkege Well, the eye evolved because we needed a way to see. Why do you think eyes are different for each species? Because each species has a different environement which they have to cope with. We have our eyes due to our specific environement faactors we have to cope with while a bat has its eyes due to the environement factors it has to cope with. The human mind became so efficient due to the competition between the early humans and neanderthals. The neanderthals
MikeMrtno 4 weeks ago
@MikeMrtno
Please make cocky. All they know you do not have to be true. Already. All atheists are arrogant.
Erkekerkege 3 weeks ago
@Erkekerkege Oh and your not arrogant at all. Be a little introspective and notice how I made arguments to support my claim while all you did was attempt to insult me. Grow up.
MikeMrtno 3 weeks ago
@Erkekerkege are believed to have been smarter and much stronger than early humans. Because of this they did not have to use there mind as much and relied on strength. However, because early humans were much weaker only the more intelligent humans who could think would survive and due to this the humans became more and more intelligent until we surpased the neanderthal's intelligence. After a while natural selection killed off the neanderthals and only early humans lived.
MikeMrtno 4 weeks ago
@MikeMrtno Please make cocky. All they know you do not have to be true. Already. All atheists are arrogant. because they assume that if a shit.
Erkekerkege 3 weeks ago
@Erkekerkege The reason we walk on 2 legs is so that we could use tools in our hands and walk around with them. Because we were weaker than most other predators we had to use our mind to create tools to hunt and eat. If we walked on all fours, how can we carry tools efficiently. We needed speach because we hunted in packs. If we didn't have some sort of speach we wouldn't have been able to hunt as efficiently and due to this natural selection killed off many human "tribes"
MikeMrtno 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeMrtno Please make cocky. All they know you do not have to be true. Already. All atheists are arrogant. because they assume that if a shit.
Erkekerkege 3 weeks ago
@Erkekerkege that did not communicate. Nearly all social animals have some form of communication due to this, we just have our own. I can't really understand the rest of what you said after that although I think it is suppossed to be an insult. If you want to have a civilized debate don't make this personal unless of course you feel it is not possible to actually debate against what I am saying. In which case, show all the readers how even you know you are wrong.
MikeMrtno 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeMrtno Please make cocky. All they know you do not have to be true. Already. All atheists are arrogant. because they assume that if a shit.
Erkekerkege 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
l'evoluzione è così stupido e ridicolo ... Io non credo nell'evoluzione mai
Erkekerkege 1 month ago
big lie
TheAnimacoder 1 month ago
@TheAnimacoder big idiot
Buemmo 1 month ago
@Buemmo thanks. when we die we will learn the truth
Th