A testable hypothesis is predictable & refutable. Darwinism predicts biology will find organisms adding new & beneficial genetic data & geology will find the fossil record filled with links But science knows NO WAY for nature to such data to gene pools & never has a link held up to scrutiny. Darwinism fails its own criteria Humanists own the schools & scientific establishments & force all other views to prove a negative, which is impossible making Darwinism a non-refutable religious dogma
Some chickens have dormant genes which could produce teeth but they have LOST the ability to express this data
They were created with the ability to have chicken teeth (not T-Rex teeth) but through the sorting or LOSS of genetic data (mutations/adaptations) chickens LOST the data to produce teeth. This is a LOSS not a gain of data - the opposite of Darwinian needs
No evidence of Darwinism that I know of
Flightless birds LOST the ability to fly which they originally could do
YT preachers are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the facts, methodology, or philosophy of science to explain it. Nor are they sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to discern the good science from the bad.
Religionists have no shame about distributing "knowledge" that consists of no original research, but just recapitulating what they read in non-science, creationist books.
Darwinism is not a theory that is maintained by modern scientists. If you were presented with evidence, you would deny it out of hand without actually trying to understand it.
Yes, I stated there is no proof Darwinism ever occurred. This leaves me no way out if there is viable evidence Of course you do not present any evidence because, as I keep saying, you don't have any - Darwinism never happened My videos make it clear to open minded people that believers in Darwinism provide no evidence because they don't have any - except the frauds I expose in the videos - and open minded people are the ones I wish to reach with the facts
You admit, having no other viable option, to the millions of observable examples that kinds will bring forth after their kind, as the Bible tells us will happen (10 DIFFERENT TIMES!). However, these are caused by the sorting or loss of genetic data (Gene Depletion) so extrapolating that a bacteria cell could magically change into a DoDO Bird or a Darwinist is anti-science, anti-observation. Show an observable example or stop promoting your religious fairy-tale
@CreationMinistries 'to the millions of observable examples that kinds will bring forth after their kind' That is irrelevant since kind is not a classification and can't even meaningfully be defined by the people who DO use the term.
@PunchDubDays Definition of Kind: A group of organisms which have brought forth (descended) from the genetic information created, by God, in their original ancestor. NOTE: Variations within such a group occur due to the sorting (recombination) or loss (Gene Depletion/Genetic Entropy) of the originally created genetic data.
@gregrutz Keep thinking, you're getting there. Your erroneous starting presumpition that goo-to-you evolution occurred is blocking you from seeing the scientific issues in play. You're right that Gene Depletion makes no sense IF Darwinism were true. However, Darwinism NEVER took place because adaptations & mutaions are caused by the sorting or loss of genetic data (Gene Depletion). Keep thinking.
@CreationMinistries So what would you consider an increase in information? Unless and until you can give an example of that, your claim of 'gene depletion' is unfalsifiable and can barely be considered an idea, much less scientific.
@PunchDubDays Well, since you BELIEVE a bacteria spontaneously generated itself from non-living matter and them added genetic data to form a liver, a heart, an eye, a brain, arms, legs....please show ten examples of something adding such massive data where it did not firswt exist. You claim the millions of species today came about this way so showing ten shouldn't be a problem,,,if your fairy tale were true. Better yet, admit what you have to be thinking...It never happened!!
@CreationMinistries Really, when did I ever claim any of that? Is it just possible you're strawmanning my position to dodge an entirely legitimate question with a ridiculous claim?
Yet you constantly refer to "the theory of evolution" as "Darwinism".
Why do you do this? It amounts to expressing your disrespect through name calling.
Now when someone like FF makes a claim about "YT preachers ..." YOU cry that this is name calling and using cheap insults.
Ok here's some "name calling" for ya. You and your ilk are viewed with justified suspicion. You are ultimately self destructive and self refuting. A propagandist and entertainer.
Darwinism and creationism are "isms" - beliefs on how we came about. No disrespect
You must hope that I am "self-refuting" as you have consistently failed to provide any evidence to support your religious belief
Why don't you show some integrity and insist on removing the frauds from textbooks that mislead kids into thinking Darwinism is "science." Then you can replace the frauds with the real evidence?
Of course we both know there is no real evidence to show, is there?
stupid man.
cursetogod 8 months ago
Yes we can, this man is an idiot, and stop saying Darwinism, its the theory of evoloution, we dont worship Darwin
Alexc3217 1 year ago
He already has disproved it, what he's doing now is trying to tell you it is a religion, thats why they won't let go of it.
cathy356 2 years ago
A testable hypothesis is predictable & refutable. Darwinism predicts biology will find organisms adding new & beneficial genetic data & geology will find the fossil record filled with links But science knows NO WAY for nature to such data to gene pools & never has a link held up to scrutiny. Darwinism fails its own criteria Humanists own the schools & scientific establishments & force all other views to prove a negative, which is impossible making Darwinism a non-refutable religious dogma
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Do chickens have genes for teeth?
Are there other examples of this type of thing? (dormant genes)
answer : yes
Question : Why is this not evidence for evolution? AND how does "intelligent creationism" account for this?
Next question.
Is there any evidence AT ALL that supports evolution theory ... ANY AT ALL?
Next question.
How does "intelligent design explain the chicken"? (ie flightless winged birds)
Danmill23 2 years ago
Some chickens have dormant genes which could produce teeth but they have LOST the ability to express this data
They were created with the ability to have chicken teeth (not T-Rex teeth) but through the sorting or LOSS of genetic data (mutations/adaptations) chickens LOST the data to produce teeth. This is a LOSS not a gain of data - the opposite of Darwinian needs
No evidence of Darwinism that I know of
Flightless birds LOST the ability to fly which they originally could do
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
YT preachers are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the facts, methodology, or philosophy of science to explain it. Nor are they sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to discern the good science from the bad.
Religionists have no shame about distributing "knowledge" that consists of no original research, but just recapitulating what they read in non-science, creationist books.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 4
Ah yes, name calling and cheap insults...the last bastion for those who have no viable evidence to support their religious belief in Darwinism
If Darwinism had occurred you should have millions of clear cut examples - I say you have none
Prove me wrong by supplying one viable proof that Darwinism ever occurred
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Darwinism is not a theory that is maintained by modern scientists. If you were presented with evidence, you would deny it out of hand without actually trying to understand it.
On the remote chance I'm wrong:
p=0FB1F085BD950D0F
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 2
Yeah, there's a "clear cut example" for everyone
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
"Proof that Darwinism ever occured"
Darwinism only exist in the minds of creationists, who can't even define what it is.
Evolution is a fact, and this guy just doesn't understand the theory or science what so ever.
paranoidnpanicking 2 years ago
Yes, I stated there is no proof Darwinism ever occurred. This leaves me no way out if there is viable evidence Of course you do not present any evidence because, as I keep saying, you don't have any - Darwinism never happened My videos make it clear to open minded people that believers in Darwinism provide no evidence because they don't have any - except the frauds I expose in the videos - and open minded people are the ones I wish to reach with the facts
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Evolution is a fact, but you are confused where micro ends and the darwinism begins..
cathy356 2 years ago
@cathy356
No, you are confused if you think micro and macro are not the same evolution
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
You admit, having no other viable option, to the millions of observable examples that kinds will bring forth after their kind, as the Bible tells us will happen (10 DIFFERENT TIMES!). However, these are caused by the sorting or loss of genetic data (Gene Depletion) so extrapolating that a bacteria cell could magically change into a DoDO Bird or a Darwinist is anti-science, anti-observation. Show an observable example or stop promoting your religious fairy-tale
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries 'to the millions of observable examples that kinds will bring forth after their kind' That is irrelevant since kind is not a classification and can't even meaningfully be defined by the people who DO use the term.
PunchDubDays 1 year ago
@PunchDubDays Definition of Kind: A group of organisms which have brought forth (descended) from the genetic information created, by God, in their original ancestor. NOTE: Variations within such a group occur due to the sorting (recombination) or loss (Gene Depletion/Genetic Entropy) of the originally created genetic data.
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Gene Depletion ??? Who made that up. Do Genes just go away.
A trilobite must have more genes than a dinosuar.
And a dinosaur must have more genes than a bird.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Keep thinking, you're getting there. Your erroneous starting presumpition that goo-to-you evolution occurred is blocking you from seeing the scientific issues in play. You're right that Gene Depletion makes no sense IF Darwinism were true. However, Darwinism NEVER took place because adaptations & mutaions are caused by the sorting or loss of genetic data (Gene Depletion). Keep thinking.
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries So what would you consider an increase in information? Unless and until you can give an example of that, your claim of 'gene depletion' is unfalsifiable and can barely be considered an idea, much less scientific.
PunchDubDays 1 year ago
@PunchDubDays Well, since you BELIEVE a bacteria spontaneously generated itself from non-living matter and them added genetic data to form a liver, a heart, an eye, a brain, arms, legs....please show ten examples of something adding such massive data where it did not firswt exist. You claim the millions of species today came about this way so showing ten shouldn't be a problem,,,if your fairy tale were true. Better yet, admit what you have to be thinking...It never happened!!
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Really, when did I ever claim any of that? Is it just possible you're strawmanning my position to dodge an entirely legitimate question with a ridiculous claim?
PunchDubDays 1 year ago
@PunchDubDays OH, so that is not what you BELIEVE??? I can't blame you for not wanting to own up to it. LOL
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
You cry "Name calling"!
Yet you constantly refer to "the theory of evolution" as "Darwinism".
Why do you do this? It amounts to expressing your disrespect through name calling.
Now when someone like FF makes a claim about "YT preachers ..." YOU cry that this is name calling and using cheap insults.
Ok here's some "name calling" for ya. You and your ilk are viewed with justified suspicion. You are ultimately self destructive and self refuting. A propagandist and entertainer.
Danmill23 2 years ago
Darwinism and creationism are "isms" - beliefs on how we came about. No disrespect
You must hope that I am "self-refuting" as you have consistently failed to provide any evidence to support your religious belief
Why don't you show some integrity and insist on removing the frauds from textbooks that mislead kids into thinking Darwinism is "science." Then you can replace the frauds with the real evidence?
Of course we both know there is no real evidence to show, is there?
CreationMinistries 2 years ago