Kingheathen, what can you say to someone that thinks that there is a conspiracy by scientists about subjects such as Evolution, the Big Bang, and even the age of the earth?
@MingBaiLiaoJie Well, let's just start with the obvious...Which is more likely: Atheists, who make up a tiny minority of our population, have somehow infiltrated and managed to convince 99% of all other scientists in biology, geology, cosmology, anthropology, etc. of a theory and convinced all of them to believe in "evidence" which isn't real to accept the theory as true as part of a conspiracy to turn people against god...OR...a 2000 year old book didn't know as much as we do now?
I think you're underestimating atheists KingHeathen, don't they make a higher percentage of scientists?. But yes, I get your point, how could they do this indeed, but they would still consider this 2000 year old book as their holy book and would stick with it, so what else can I tell them? Is there some book or website you recommend me to look at for people who don't know much about evolution(Big Bang and the age f the earth would also be good)
Yes, we make up a larger percentage of scientists, but it doesn't change the issue and when evolution became the accepted origin of species theory, it wasn't nearly as high as it is today. Another thing to point out to them is that the Big Bang was first proposed by a CATHOLIC PRIEST! It's quite ironic that the Big Bang was originally seen as proof of Biblical creation when most atheists accepted Steady State. Atheists accept BB and suddenly it's wrong.
Really? Just because atheists accepted Big Bang it became wrong? Odd, I never knew it was like this, but I don't think it's proof of Biblical creation, we just don't know what happened before the Big Bang
btw I heared the pope said that evolution is an acceptable theory and that even religious countries in europe like Italy and Ireland mostly accept evolution, can you give me more details like this to convince Christians that it's not some satanic theory?
@MingBaiLiaoJie Ehhh...perhaps that's over simplifying it a bit. It's not like the Christians that accepted Big Bang suddenly denounced it...I mean that the general population turned on Big Bang when atheists used it to prove the Earth wasn't just 6000 years old claiming it was an atheist plot to turn people away from God.
And yes, Catholics as well as Anglicans and several other denominations accept evolution. Go to talkorigins. They cover that topic in depth.
@KingHeathen btw they dont teach the whole kingdom, phyla, class thing anymore. it is still around because its how they always did it but it is not a good representation of how life is related. i guess this video is 3 years old so you might be off the hook. i like it a lot better when you talk about scripture. no offense but there are a lot of people that make better videos when it comes to biology. no one can match you when it comes to you vids about the bible.
Actually King you are incorrect about domain. Domain is basically cells with and without a nucleus. The cells without a nucleus are further divided into two domains. The extremeophiles and the ones that live in normal conditions.
What is wrong with putting my thoughts out there and letting people think about them. I am not here to hurt anyone. I would rather stop conflict. I dont like seeing one religion lording it over another saying they have the truth and no one else does.
When you have the spirit of Christ you should be able to see truth wherever it is.
IT is totally up to the individual to think of what I said and make up there own mind.
just make sure you know that creationist who say that there is no evolution were being stupid. not all creationist are stupid enough to think that evolution does not happen. i believe in god but i know that evolution happens[just not a big bang]
They know what a species is. He's saying that if you accept that there are species, then you accept that taxonomy is right, then you accept evolution since it is taxonomy's base. Bit of a stretch. Using a term doesn't mean you agree with its roots.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the evolution side, but this guy's argument is strained and his science is flawed. If you're gonna argue for either side of the debate, you gotta know your stuff.
I'm afraid you are going FAR TOO TECHNICAL with the verbiage used here. Also, understand that the classifications are the way they are because we chose for them to be that way. NO, I'm not saying Orders can interbreed...I'm saying some orders aren't so different in some cases. This is to illustrate that a small change a long time ago could lead to the vast differences we see today. I'm sure your friend is intelligent, but sometimes you have to use lay man's terms to teach people.
Hybridization is not evolution in the traditional sense, so it's not really a good way to try to prove evolution. And the argument about ligers being a species is just wrong.
Also, at the end, it sounds very much like he is saying that two Orders can breed to form a new Order, two Classes into a new Class, etc., which also, would be wrong.
In addition to this, his main argument is kind of biased anyway. Most people don't understand the basis of taxonomy or even know what taxonomy is.
Labradors and poodles are not species, but breeds, though he does admit they may be "subspecies or whatever."
He also argues that the presence of ligers - hybrids - proves evolution. First of all: Liger males are sterile. Ligers cannot mate with ligers, and thus are not a separate species by definition. Secondly, traditionally, evolution in vertebrates is due to small changes in DNA, not to direct mixing of different special DNA.
ligers can't mate with other ligers, but they can mate with other lions. You go from a half breed to a quarter-breed and those offspring CAN breed. I have a 10 minute limit...I had to summarize a few things.
I have a friend (supporter of evolution) who studies this stuff, and he saw your video and said the following:
"I can't tell if the guy in the video is bad at explaining science, or just doesn't know his stuff. The way he describes the hierarchy is misleading in some cases (like when he mentions how close different groups are, like classes and orders, which vary) and just plain wrong in others: Domains are Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya, and hardly close to Kingdoms.
I am not a scientist but it is said that Evolution theory is in crisis.I have no problem with that.I know that a better theory may come up.This is how science works.
But this will not disprove God.Nothing can
disprove God and nothing can actually prove God.God cannot be discovered,He can only be
revealed to those who seek Him.But even then,
you can't be sure either...It is a matter of faith.
Evolution is NOT in any kind of crisis that involves the scientific community. The only crisis is a bunch of lunatics that don't know what they are talking about trying to interfere with science...and sadly (in America) they are gaining power (not supporters). Meanwhile, the Catholic and Anglican Churches have accepted evolution as fact.
very good example...I stuck with animals since creationists would most likely use the "but it's still a plant" response ignoring that we are "still animals".
King Heathen one thing you forgot about the liger. It is an infertile hybred. The males can not breed, but the females can. Hence it wont survivre natral selection cause there is no fertile males to populate the next generation.
However yes two species can mate and evoultion is real.
No I didn't "forget" that and in fact, I went into it deeper here in the comments section. What you end up with is the ability to make, not half tiger/lions, but 3/4 tiger/lions and 3/4 lion/tigers...just like evolution shows us...small changes, not big ones.
See the thing is KingHeathan I'd rather die and find out there is no God then die and find out there is God. I will not try to change you. there is no real point. I still will not believe Evolution, or to a certain extent. But that is not your problem. It is mine. I will think what I think and vice versa.
fair enough Airsofter, but would you feel the same way about thinking 2+2=34239? I'm not asking anyone to change their mind about their favorite sports team or what color they want to paint their kitchen. Evolution is part of science. It's not much open to "opinion".
Just curious: are "evolution" and "creation" always mutually exclusive? What about "God" (not necessarily the one in the Bible) "Creates" cells and through evolution we become Human Beings?
good point Kats...I have a few other viewers that I wish would come to this video and hear you say that...they don't seem to think their God can survive if evolution is true and THAT is why they reject it. It's sad really.
Are you suggesting a re-labelling of the quarrel to read INTELLIGENT DESIGN VERSUS PROVABLE INTELLIGENT DESIGN? You think the creationist would agree to that?
A side question: If evolution should be supplanted in the future by another theory (or "fact"), such as "...we came from outer space", would that have to discredit evolution as "fact"? What is an aethist definition of "fact", as based on "science (knowledge)"
a FACT is something that has been proven as a positive to remove all reasonable doubt and hasn't been proven as a negative. HOWEVER, if a fact is proven to be false we then discard it. But even if the origins of life were different from what science tells us now...WE KNOW that evolution exists. The only argument is how far back you are willing to take it.
If we place ourselves, for a time, on a "fact", until disproved, how trustworthy can science be? why not call it all "bullshit"? Even scientists have reasonable doubts (most admit it) as to whether through science they will ever answer the question: "Where does conciousness come from?" Will we ever have to look elsewhere? Is the truth (if there is any) hid somewhere?
I agree...evolution is more logical. What is baffling (to me) is how, or why, did only one species managed to take off and evolve into such intelligence as is evidenced in humans. May Evolution postulate the possibility of lizzards also achieving such intelligence? Is there "wisdom" in nature?
Will the "Thundercats" and the "Ninja Turtles" become a reality? If this should happen, I assure you Creationism, God, and all religions will disappear forever.
most studies agree that other animals like dolphins and whales are capable of our level of intelligence (as a whole). They lack opposable thumbs, though. Spend anytime with a well trained animal though, and you'll find plenty of other examples of intelligence. Example: A finch in the Galapagos uses specially modified twigs as a tool to get food.
Granted, KH. But going beyond animal behavior and the food urge, there´s something in the human psyche that sets him apart: The need for self-expression. Take art, literature, music. Why would a cave man pick up a stick, not to get food, but suddenly to paint his own image on the wall?
Keep in mind that small tastes of these things are found in nature. Music? There are plenty of "song birds" out there. Self-expression? Watch any mating ritual or dominance posturing activity and you see plenty of that. Literature first requires language and we see communication in several species too. Telling stories can be equated to bees telling the others where food is through their "dance". As communication developed, so did "expression".
I knew I had that coming. True, however small, they are "expressions". But they are basically instinctive and deal with survival and reproduction. That certain primate of the past went beyond instinct and found himself with "free choice". I can´t imagine a flamingo flying upside-down just to get original, but may develop such ability to defend itself from a diving hawk.
No? How about a dolphin that leaps out of the ocean or swims upside down in a playful expression? Also, many other primates have learned to make artistic expressions...how much is "trained response" and how much is them being "creative" can be questioned, but it only takes the one guy to come up with the idea for it to take off.
Fair enough, I accept that. I was wondering if "adapatability", which is at the core of Evolution, bears on "creativity". Now, "trained response" is very interesting because it opens a possibility of a "visiting civilization" having trained an earthly primate.
Can you elaborate a bit on your last line? Do you mean that an individual alone, rather than a group or colony, would be able to effect such an outcome. That is, at such low level of intelligence, an individual may suddenly part from the group?
let's say in a group of early man, one guy draws a line in the sand to show where food is. The others in the group then start doing the same thing. Then, in the cave, he has to be more elaborate to get the message across and learns to make a stick figure and a animal shape. The others learn it as well and carry that to new groups that they may join or start. It grows from there.
Sound fine, but...the act only shows a practical value, to get food. Next question: Do all cave paintings deal with "practical values"? A modern analogy: I drew a map to show my son how to get to Wal-Mart. When he returned, the map was no longer a map. He had transformed it into a beautiful painting with his coloring set. What made him do that? What did he see in that simple line sketch?
I see it as a crossing of sexuality and practicality. (Sounds wierd, I know, hear me out) Humans are one of only a few creatures that have sex for pleasure. Most animals have sex as a purely reproductive matter. In other words, they aren't looking for the prettiest hippo! Man's appeal for beauty may have led him to "beautify" the cave drawings. This was an idea I had long ago, but some articles have recently come out supporting it.
I don´t see it as wierd, it does make sense. But I doubt that a 5-year-old, fully capable of art expressions however naive, is responding to sex urges of any kind when he picks up the paint brush. Man also responds to beauty in a landscape and tries to imitate it, and sometimes to abstract it.
Cavemen weren't all 5 years old, so I don't get what you mean. But you misunderstand me...I'm not saying the painting was due to sexual urges, I said it was part of the same function that allows us to see beauty and attempt to express that. The result in the opposite sex is SEX...the result in his world around him is to recreate it.
I meant that a 5 year-old, not being yet "sexually aware", was, nevertheless, able to see beauty as well as a sexually aware adult, and to express it. But I do get your point now, and I must commend you on such an excellent observation. And you may be right.
However, I may add that beauty is not always the goal of an artist, nor was art necesarily to beautify cave walls. Any art form lets man penetrate into the abstract world, beyond the physical world, beyond sense perception. My question is: Is this a form of delusion?
lol...well at least you were sharp enough to figure that out. Sadly many others would have just assumed God was making him sweat to show the tears or some other bullshit explanation.
With respect to your point (sorry to have messed up), I see there´s quite a bit on the web on this subject (fascinating, indeed). Darwin himself had to deal with it. Quite amusing are some of the feminist viewpoints. I wonder what a gay viewpoint would be. More amazing is the diversity of opinions as what art is or is for, among artists. Just check!
oh I know...if you REALLY want to get DEEP into the "what is art?" debate...look up "Ready mades" by Duchamp. "Prelude to a Broken Arm" is one of the most discussed pieces and it really challenges the idea of "What is art?"
Your observation is pretty keen. I just learned that humans and dolphins are the only animals who can have sex just for pleasure. If this is true, "trained response" would be out of the question. This is certainly an eye opener.
I get what you're saying, but it took you a long time to get to the point. (no offense)
This is similar to a qualm that I have with the scientific community. If you're christian and a scientist, then how can you deny the existence of evolution? To be a scientist you must accept evolution to a certain extent, so what causes you to hold on to your religious beliefs when the truth is right there in front of you, and you accept it?
"Our religious ancestors were wrong about creationism, but I'm going to not take the hint and blindly assume that they were right about everything else."
You have convinced yourself that there is a magical creature watching over us? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence.
Trust me, if there is a god, he'll let us know. Until that happens, it's safe to assume there isn't one.
"Truth" is not necesarily the same to everyone. We live with two ID´s: 1) the one on your driver´s license and birth certificate 2) the one only you know. Which one is more real, or by which one would you like to be known? That "certain extent" may be crucial to that man.
The license is TRUE...the other is merely perception. And perception of yourself isn't always accurate. However, I agree that self perception is a driving force for what we think and do in our lives...accurate or not.
The license is partially true. It depends somewhat on "eye perception" and thus not fully accurate. Color is in the mind, not on the object. Animals cannot see color. Your brown hair may be mistaken for red hair by the police officer. I agree with your 2nd point.
If it´s not WHOLLY reliable I may choose to seek my identity within myself. Am I deceiving myself? Perhaps. But if we agree that man is more than meets the eye, and the license truth is only half truth, I´ll take the chance. I think this is what the scientist mentioned above is thinking.
Macro evolution is simply micro evolution drawn out on a long scale. There is NO reason to assume that micro evolution over a long period of time cannot result in new species. I haven't watched this video yet, so excuse me if you already stated this.
If non-cellular reproduction is allowed then certain proteins such as the prion that causes CJD could possibly be described as alive. You can go further still and say a growing crystal is alive. At the most fundamental level life is a "loop" in entropy; a quirk in the laws of physics that uses up what little energy it has to gain more energy from its surroundings.
ok. if life is a loop in entropy, like you said, crystals, the earth, glaxies many celestial bodys are techinically alive. explain why it has to be within cells to exist or that definition doesn't work.
Hehe, we restrict life to cellular reproduction because we wouldn't feel comfortable calling those other things life :)
Did you ever see 3rd rock from the sun, where they were unsure what was the dominant form of life on earth; humans or cars? There is some truth to that. If we were to meet an alien life form, unless it was sufficiently similar to life on earth (i.e. cellular) it would be extremely difficult for us to recognise it as life.
crystals don't reproduce...they form from elements around them...not the same thing. Same with Earth, Galaxies, Stars, etc. Cells reproduce...hence what we call "alive". A robot would be the better question. If a robot was designed to absorb things around it and make a new robot inside of it...would you call that alive? But, that's a whole other debate.
the organelles are PART of the living thing...from a scientific explanation, reproduction is the key. A rock doesn't reproduce cells...it's not alive. Water doesn't "reproduce" but it can "form"...not alive...a virus reproduces...it's alive.
baking soda and vinegar reproduce. why does the thing reproduced have to be a copy of the original thing for it to count. this all started at some point to. thats not accounted for. in theory life started when certain molecules started to reproduce. were those alive? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't fit your definition if one turned up.
baking soda and vinegar react with each other...this is a chemical thing...they don't make new baking sodas and vinegars. Molecules don't "reproduce" either. You need a cell first, then that cell must split and become a new one...but none of this matters. You can define it however you want. You accept evolution, that's the point of this video...nothing else, we aren't arguing "god" here.
ok. but discussing evolution. there has to be a first cell. and the lab exp, they've done don't create cells. they cause molecules to become more complex. this is not life by your definition. actually what I'm trying to show is science accounts for everything except life. it would be perfect if weren't sentient. there is no scientific reason my thoughts are not jsut chemical reactions.
Crystals have a particular lattice structure so that when base parts fall onto it they attach and continue the same structure. That's not too dissimilar from how DNA replicates. Nothing can literally create a copy of itself, it can only distort objects around it to become the same. Water, for instance, does not cause surrounding hydrogen and oxygen atoms to form into more water, but a prion (which is just an oddly shaped protein) will bend other proteins into the same shape.
correct, very similar to how DNA replicates, however, we don't call DNA alive, do we? This is an excellent way to see how there are components to replication and each must be present in one organism which then reproduces into a second organism...therefore defined as alive.
I'd say dna is alive, but a cell that replicates is really justa bunch of molecules that don't replicate. there is a spark at some point that switches it. evolution accoutns for everything but the very begining.
in other words you don't know and/or can't figure out a dfinition that fits for us. lets put it this way, science accounts for everything but the begining or life or consciousness or what we are (outside a chmical reaction)
by the way, just because evolution doesn't account for the existance of life, that doesn't mean that nothing does...look into abiogenesis if you want to know more. I'm not going into it here, because this video is about evolution, not abiogenesis.
your not going into it here because there is no scientific answer. I'm not asking how it happens I'm asking what it is. I'd say there is no abiogenisis because living and nonliving is a completely inaccurately defined spectrum.
That's true, a crystal will not seek out more base parts when those around it are used up, whereas we will search for the proteins and sugars required for the replication process in the form of food. It's theoretically possible for a life form to have a crystaline basis though.
Plants burrow their roots deeper in search of water and bend their leaves towards the sunlight. Even single cells are capable of movement to some degree.
A virus, however, is completely motionless; I'm never quite sure whether I consider them alive or not o_O
Humanist: An interesting question. The most important aspect of a virus is that it is composed of protein and RNA (or) DNA, which were originally made by living organisms. A virus cannot exist without living cells. Perhaps it is really just a non-living extension of life. It still contains the essence of life--DNA
King: This question of whether DNA is alive is really the ultimate question we can ask about the nature of life. It needs the cellular enzyme machinery to replicate. But as Dawkins believes, our ultimate purpose is to propagate and spread DNA. Memes for thought.
I don't think we are close enough to pull off a gorilla/human breed...chimp/human...maybe...but yes, they would have to wake up at that point "Behold a humanzee!"
Ligers are mostly infertile (much like mules). If lions and tigers could produce majority fertile offspring they would be (by one definition) the same species. All members of the genus panthera (lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars) have been crossbred in captivity, but are never able to produce a self supporting hybrid species. Still, the fact that close species can produce offspring at all is strong evidence that they were once one species.
I spoke about this on part 2 of this video in the comments section...Ligers CAN reproduce...the males are typically sterile but the females are fertile. They just have to mate with another lion or tiger. This would suggest that lions and tigers could successfully breed into li-ligers and ti-ligers while the "transitional species", the liger would die out quickly...gee, do we see evidence of that anywhere in the evolutionary tree?
True, but they become less fertile as the generations go on, so the breeding process would never last long enough in the wild to create a new species. I'm not sure this really demonstrates anything to the fundies in the way you put it, but it does show that some species are more closely related than others.
Heh actually I was looking up liopards...*not sure how you spell them* cross between a lion and a leopard, it was a male, they never had him neutered because well they are suppoesd to be infertile...just imagine their shock when he did father his own litter. :> So males can be fertile, just rare.
When will the fundies realise that even within christianity they are a minority, the majority of the worlds christians are still the catholics.
One thing about the catholics these days is they realise now (as opposed to before) not to bother fighting science and just accept it. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have accepted evolution, age of the earth and the big bang and consider it "compatible".
This is like the first video of yours that I'm confuzed on. Are you saying that to make them understand evolution is real, we have to make them accept the fact that humans could have had sex with monkeys? 0_o
Okay so, two different kinds of primates have sex, and then we pop out? I still honestly can't see how the creationist would accept evolution over this.
The mere idea of us being monkeys or decending from monkeys disgusts them, so in reality they might even reject this MORE than evolution.
LMAO!...ok, the idea is to accept that certain things CAN happen...breeds of dogs, lions and tigers...make them accept the notion that evolution exists at SOME LEVEL...they will go to the "kinds" argument...I cover this more in part 2
yes, breeds are considered a subspecies. That's an easy one for them to accept, then you go to the lyger which shows breeding above subspecies is possible as well...when they go to the half this half that comment...show the lizard/salamander comparisions. Then I refuse to move on unless they choose what level they are calling "kinds"...order? family? genus?
unfortunately many people believe that fairy tale and base their decisions on it. religions cause intolerance, seperation, violence, death, spread of diseases, ignorance towards science, suicide.
Although I can live very well without religion, I wound be happy with reaching a point when most people would rather base their life on facts then on faith.
I agree that evolution doesn't have to negate god...there are other problems, but as a whole...you are right...evolution CAN exist WITH a god...have you finally come to peace with evolution and accepted it? I seem to remember the last time we spoke you were still in question.
Kingheathen, what can you say to someone that thinks that there is a conspiracy by scientists about subjects such as Evolution, the Big Bang, and even the age of the earth?
MingBaiLiaoJie 1 year ago
@MingBaiLiaoJie Well, let's just start with the obvious...Which is more likely: Atheists, who make up a tiny minority of our population, have somehow infiltrated and managed to convince 99% of all other scientists in biology, geology, cosmology, anthropology, etc. of a theory and convinced all of them to believe in "evidence" which isn't real to accept the theory as true as part of a conspiracy to turn people against god...OR...a 2000 year old book didn't know as much as we do now?
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen
I think you're underestimating atheists KingHeathen, don't they make a higher percentage of scientists?. But yes, I get your point, how could they do this indeed, but they would still consider this 2000 year old book as their holy book and would stick with it, so what else can I tell them? Is there some book or website you recommend me to look at for people who don't know much about evolution(Big Bang and the age f the earth would also be good)
MingBaiLiaoJie 1 year ago
@MingBaiLiaoJie try talkorigins()org
Yes, we make up a larger percentage of scientists, but it doesn't change the issue and when evolution became the accepted origin of species theory, it wasn't nearly as high as it is today. Another thing to point out to them is that the Big Bang was first proposed by a CATHOLIC PRIEST! It's quite ironic that the Big Bang was originally seen as proof of Biblical creation when most atheists accepted Steady State. Atheists accept BB and suddenly it's wrong.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen
Really? Just because atheists accepted Big Bang it became wrong? Odd, I never knew it was like this, but I don't think it's proof of Biblical creation, we just don't know what happened before the Big Bang
btw I heared the pope said that evolution is an acceptable theory and that even religious countries in europe like Italy and Ireland mostly accept evolution, can you give me more details like this to convince Christians that it's not some satanic theory?
MingBaiLiaoJie 1 year ago
@MingBaiLiaoJie Ehhh...perhaps that's over simplifying it a bit. It's not like the Christians that accepted Big Bang suddenly denounced it...I mean that the general population turned on Big Bang when atheists used it to prove the Earth wasn't just 6000 years old claiming it was an atheist plot to turn people away from God.
And yes, Catholics as well as Anglicans and several other denominations accept evolution. Go to talkorigins. They cover that topic in depth.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen
Where in talkorigins do they answer this question? In the list of creationist claims?
OK, I'll check Ken Miller
Thanks a bunch
MingBaiLiaoJie 1 year ago
@MingBaiLiaoJie Oh...and look up Ken Miller. An evolutionary biologist AND a Christian.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
domain is not plant animal mineral! plants and animals are in the same domain and minerals are not alive.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Yes, I meant to say Kingdom for that part...I thought I added an annotation for it...guess not.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen btw they dont teach the whole kingdom, phyla, class thing anymore. it is still around because its how they always did it but it is not a good representation of how life is related. i guess this video is 3 years old so you might be off the hook. i like it a lot better when you talk about scripture. no offense but there are a lot of people that make better videos when it comes to biology. no one can match you when it comes to you vids about the bible.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@1aaronaaron1 Oh I agree...that's why I tend to only cover the topic when it's relevant to something I'm covering regarding religion
KingHeathen 1 year ago
Actually King you are incorrect about domain. Domain is basically cells with and without a nucleus. The cells without a nucleus are further divided into two domains. The extremeophiles and the ones that live in normal conditions.
GodlessYouth 2 years ago
What is wrong with putting my thoughts out there and letting people think about them. I am not here to hurt anyone. I would rather stop conflict. I dont like seeing one religion lording it over another saying they have the truth and no one else does.
When you have the spirit of Christ you should be able to see truth wherever it is.
IT is totally up to the individual to think of what I said and make up there own mind.
kobidobidog 3 years ago
just make sure you know that creationist who say that there is no evolution were being stupid. not all creationist are stupid enough to think that evolution does not happen. i believe in god but i know that evolution happens[just not a big bang]
daviddizo 4 years ago
evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
And for the record: the plural of phylum is phyla, and the plural of genus is genera."
technologysucks 4 years ago
They know what a species is. He's saying that if you accept that there are species, then you accept that taxonomy is right, then you accept evolution since it is taxonomy's base. Bit of a stretch. Using a term doesn't mean you agree with its roots.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the evolution side, but this guy's argument is strained and his science is flawed. If you're gonna argue for either side of the debate, you gotta know your stuff.
technologysucks 4 years ago
I'm afraid you are going FAR TOO TECHNICAL with the verbiage used here. Also, understand that the classifications are the way they are because we chose for them to be that way. NO, I'm not saying Orders can interbreed...I'm saying some orders aren't so different in some cases. This is to illustrate that a small change a long time ago could lead to the vast differences we see today. I'm sure your friend is intelligent, but sometimes you have to use lay man's terms to teach people.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Hybridization is not evolution in the traditional sense, so it's not really a good way to try to prove evolution. And the argument about ligers being a species is just wrong.
Also, at the end, it sounds very much like he is saying that two Orders can breed to form a new Order, two Classes into a new Class, etc., which also, would be wrong.
In addition to this, his main argument is kind of biased anyway. Most people don't understand the basis of taxonomy or even know what taxonomy is.
technologysucks 4 years ago
Labradors and poodles are not species, but breeds, though he does admit they may be "subspecies or whatever."
He also argues that the presence of ligers - hybrids - proves evolution. First of all: Liger males are sterile. Ligers cannot mate with ligers, and thus are not a separate species by definition. Secondly, traditionally, evolution in vertebrates is due to small changes in DNA, not to direct mixing of different special DNA.
technologysucks 4 years ago
ligers can't mate with other ligers, but they can mate with other lions. You go from a half breed to a quarter-breed and those offspring CAN breed. I have a 10 minute limit...I had to summarize a few things.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I have a friend (supporter of evolution) who studies this stuff, and he saw your video and said the following:
"I can't tell if the guy in the video is bad at explaining science, or just doesn't know his stuff. The way he describes the hierarchy is misleading in some cases (like when he mentions how close different groups are, like classes and orders, which vary) and just plain wrong in others: Domains are Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya, and hardly close to Kingdoms.
technologysucks 4 years ago
stop looking at yourself in the monitor. god do you love yourself.
bminternet43 4 years ago
I'm glancing at notes I've taken...and you don't have to call me "god".
KingHeathen 4 years ago
HeathenGod would sound a little wierd wouldn't it.
Mastro71 4 years ago
actually it sounds pretty sweet.
zbambam5 4 years ago
Now that I think of it, it does sound "pretty sweet"
Mastro71 4 years ago
Evolution happens right in front of us.
If you deny evolution, you deny the fact that you were born.
pnoozi 4 years ago
I am not a scientist but it is said that Evolution theory is in crisis.I have no problem with that.I know that a better theory may come up.This is how science works.
But this will not disprove God.Nothing can
disprove God and nothing can actually prove God.God cannot be discovered,He can only be
revealed to those who seek Him.But even then,
you can't be sure either...It is a matter of faith.
boromir2007 4 years ago
Evolution is NOT in any kind of crisis that involves the scientific community. The only crisis is a bunch of lunatics that don't know what they are talking about trying to interfere with science...and sadly (in America) they are gaining power (not supporters). Meanwhile, the Catholic and Anglican Churches have accepted evolution as fact.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
here here!!
lordbyrne 4 years ago
even better:
polyploid speciation of bread wheat (42 chromosomes)
descended ultimately from
goat grass X wild wheat
both with 14 chromosomes
goat grass and wild wheat are in different genera so theyre not close relatives
dancingnature 4 years ago
and bread wheat is fertile and healthy
this is allopolyploidy btw
dancingnature 4 years ago
very good example...I stuck with animals since creationists would most likely use the "but it's still a plant" response ignoring that we are "still animals".
KingHeathen 4 years ago
King Heathen one thing you forgot about the liger. It is an infertile hybred. The males can not breed, but the females can. Hence it wont survivre natral selection cause there is no fertile males to populate the next generation.
However yes two species can mate and evoultion is real.
InternetKing2 4 years ago
No I didn't "forget" that and in fact, I went into it deeper here in the comments section. What you end up with is the ability to make, not half tiger/lions, but 3/4 tiger/lions and 3/4 lion/tigers...just like evolution shows us...small changes, not big ones.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Ok my mistake
InternetKing2 4 years ago
See the thing is KingHeathan I'd rather die and find out there is no God then die and find out there is God. I will not try to change you. there is no real point. I still will not believe Evolution, or to a certain extent. But that is not your problem. It is mine. I will think what I think and vice versa.
Airsofter234 4 years ago
fair enough Airsofter, but would you feel the same way about thinking 2+2=34239? I'm not asking anyone to change their mind about their favorite sports team or what color they want to paint their kitchen. Evolution is part of science. It's not much open to "opinion".
KingHeathen 4 years ago
"I think what I think and vice versa" But I'm not going to get deep into this.
Airsofter234 4 years ago
Just curious: are "evolution" and "creation" always mutually exclusive? What about "God" (not necessarily the one in the Bible) "Creates" cells and through evolution we become Human Beings?
Katsnjammer 4 years ago
good point Kats...I have a few other viewers that I wish would come to this video and hear you say that...they don't seem to think their God can survive if evolution is true and THAT is why they reject it. It's sad really.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Are you suggesting a re-labelling of the quarrel to read INTELLIGENT DESIGN VERSUS PROVABLE INTELLIGENT DESIGN? You think the creationist would agree to that?
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
A side question: If evolution should be supplanted in the future by another theory (or "fact"), such as "...we came from outer space", would that have to discredit evolution as "fact"? What is an aethist definition of "fact", as based on "science (knowledge)"
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
a FACT is something that has been proven as a positive to remove all reasonable doubt and hasn't been proven as a negative. HOWEVER, if a fact is proven to be false we then discard it. But even if the origins of life were different from what science tells us now...WE KNOW that evolution exists. The only argument is how far back you are willing to take it.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
If we place ourselves, for a time, on a "fact", until disproved, how trustworthy can science be? why not call it all "bullshit"? Even scientists have reasonable doubts (most admit it) as to whether through science they will ever answer the question: "Where does conciousness come from?" Will we ever have to look elsewhere? Is the truth (if there is any) hid somewhere?
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
but scientists dont have those doubts about evolution or common descent
creationists are just lying when they say that evolution is in crisis or has problems
dancingnature 4 years ago
I agree...evolution is more logical. What is baffling (to me) is how, or why, did only one species managed to take off and evolve into such intelligence as is evidenced in humans. May Evolution postulate the possibility of lizzards also achieving such intelligence? Is there "wisdom" in nature?
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
Will the "Thundercats" and the "Ninja Turtles" become a reality? If this should happen, I assure you Creationism, God, and all religions will disappear forever.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
most studies agree that other animals like dolphins and whales are capable of our level of intelligence (as a whole). They lack opposable thumbs, though. Spend anytime with a well trained animal though, and you'll find plenty of other examples of intelligence. Example: A finch in the Galapagos uses specially modified twigs as a tool to get food.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Granted, KH. But going beyond animal behavior and the food urge, there´s something in the human psyche that sets him apart: The need for self-expression. Take art, literature, music. Why would a cave man pick up a stick, not to get food, but suddenly to paint his own image on the wall?
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
Why did he start questioning his own existence? Was this the beginning of the god delusion?
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
Now THIS is an excellent question and a very likely possiblity.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Keep in mind that small tastes of these things are found in nature. Music? There are plenty of "song birds" out there. Self-expression? Watch any mating ritual or dominance posturing activity and you see plenty of that. Literature first requires language and we see communication in several species too. Telling stories can be equated to bees telling the others where food is through their "dance". As communication developed, so did "expression".
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I knew I had that coming. True, however small, they are "expressions". But they are basically instinctive and deal with survival and reproduction. That certain primate of the past went beyond instinct and found himself with "free choice". I can´t imagine a flamingo flying upside-down just to get original, but may develop such ability to defend itself from a diving hawk.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
No? How about a dolphin that leaps out of the ocean or swims upside down in a playful expression? Also, many other primates have learned to make artistic expressions...how much is "trained response" and how much is them being "creative" can be questioned, but it only takes the one guy to come up with the idea for it to take off.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Fair enough, I accept that. I was wondering if "adapatability", which is at the core of Evolution, bears on "creativity". Now, "trained response" is very interesting because it opens a possibility of a "visiting civilization" having trained an earthly primate.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
Can you elaborate a bit on your last line? Do you mean that an individual alone, rather than a group or colony, would be able to effect such an outcome. That is, at such low level of intelligence, an individual may suddenly part from the group?
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
let's say in a group of early man, one guy draws a line in the sand to show where food is. The others in the group then start doing the same thing. Then, in the cave, he has to be more elaborate to get the message across and learns to make a stick figure and a animal shape. The others learn it as well and carry that to new groups that they may join or start. It grows from there.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Sound fine, but...the act only shows a practical value, to get food. Next question: Do all cave paintings deal with "practical values"? A modern analogy: I drew a map to show my son how to get to Wal-Mart. When he returned, the map was no longer a map. He had transformed it into a beautiful painting with his coloring set. What made him do that? What did he see in that simple line sketch?
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
I see it as a crossing of sexuality and practicality. (Sounds wierd, I know, hear me out) Humans are one of only a few creatures that have sex for pleasure. Most animals have sex as a purely reproductive matter. In other words, they aren't looking for the prettiest hippo! Man's appeal for beauty may have led him to "beautify" the cave drawings. This was an idea I had long ago, but some articles have recently come out supporting it.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I don´t see it as wierd, it does make sense. But I doubt that a 5-year-old, fully capable of art expressions however naive, is responding to sex urges of any kind when he picks up the paint brush. Man also responds to beauty in a landscape and tries to imitate it, and sometimes to abstract it.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
Cavemen weren't all 5 years old, so I don't get what you mean. But you misunderstand me...I'm not saying the painting was due to sexual urges, I said it was part of the same function that allows us to see beauty and attempt to express that. The result in the opposite sex is SEX...the result in his world around him is to recreate it.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I meant that a 5 year-old, not being yet "sexually aware", was, nevertheless, able to see beauty as well as a sexually aware adult, and to express it. But I do get your point now, and I must commend you on such an excellent observation. And you may be right.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
However, I may add that beauty is not always the goal of an artist, nor was art necesarily to beautify cave walls. Any art form lets man penetrate into the abstract world, beyond the physical world, beyond sense perception. My question is: Is this a form of delusion?
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
delusion? No...just expression. Now, if you paint a fruit tree and expect it to grow real fruit...then it's a delusion. LOL
KingHeathen 4 years ago
C´mon KH, let´s face it! Haven´t you ever seen tears dripping from marble statues?
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
lol....no.
I've seen condensation of moisture on cold surfaces though...which is what most of that turns out to be.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Well, I witnessed such phenomenon. But it turned out to be sweat from the sculptor who was finishing up his art work. lol! So much for art delusions.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
lol...well at least you were sharp enough to figure that out. Sadly many others would have just assumed God was making him sweat to show the tears or some other bullshit explanation.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
With respect to your point (sorry to have messed up), I see there´s quite a bit on the web on this subject (fascinating, indeed). Darwin himself had to deal with it. Quite amusing are some of the feminist viewpoints. I wonder what a gay viewpoint would be. More amazing is the diversity of opinions as what art is or is for, among artists. Just check!
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
oh I know...if you REALLY want to get DEEP into the "what is art?" debate...look up "Ready mades" by Duchamp. "Prelude to a Broken Arm" is one of the most discussed pieces and it really challenges the idea of "What is art?"
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Your observation is pretty keen. I just learned that humans and dolphins are the only animals who can have sex just for pleasure. If this is true, "trained response" would be out of the question. This is certainly an eye opener.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
I don't know about "only"...but certainly "two of the few"...Seems like I recall kangaroos fitting that category too...but I could be mistaken there.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I get what you're saying, but it took you a long time to get to the point. (no offense)
This is similar to a qualm that I have with the scientific community. If you're christian and a scientist, then how can you deny the existence of evolution? To be a scientist you must accept evolution to a certain extent, so what causes you to hold on to your religious beliefs when the truth is right there in front of you, and you accept it?
Switchbldekitten 4 years ago
lol...I get that alot. Believe it or not, this is the short version.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
because acceptance of evolution doesnt mean that you are an atheist
one really doesnt have anything to do with the other ...creationists just lie about phenomena that disagrees with their beliefs
dancingnature 4 years ago
"Our religious ancestors were wrong about creationism, but I'm going to not take the hint and blindly assume that they were right about everything else."
You have convinced yourself that there is a magical creature watching over us? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence.
Trust me, if there is a god, he'll let us know. Until that happens, it's safe to assume there isn't one.
pnoozi 4 years ago
By the way, "you" was directed at Christians, not you
I don't know if you are religious or not
pnoozi 4 years ago
depends on my mood and if ive been around YECs
if im around YECs- i certainly dont accept their deceiving lying temper tantrum throwing version of a god
im a christian though, just not an ignorant idiot im also a biologist
dancingnature 4 years ago
"Truth" is not necesarily the same to everyone. We live with two ID´s: 1) the one on your driver´s license and birth certificate 2) the one only you know. Which one is more real, or by which one would you like to be known? That "certain extent" may be crucial to that man.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
The license is TRUE...the other is merely perception. And perception of yourself isn't always accurate. However, I agree that self perception is a driving force for what we think and do in our lives...accurate or not.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
The license is partially true. It depends somewhat on "eye perception" and thus not fully accurate. Color is in the mind, not on the object. Animals cannot see color. Your brown hair may be mistaken for red hair by the police officer. I agree with your 2nd point.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
still, the license is MORE reliable than the self-impression.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
If it´s not WHOLLY reliable I may choose to seek my identity within myself. Am I deceiving myself? Perhaps. But if we agree that man is more than meets the eye, and the license truth is only half truth, I´ll take the chance. I think this is what the scientist mentioned above is thinking.
ruffomaldito 4 years ago
Macro evolution is simply micro evolution drawn out on a long scale. There is NO reason to assume that micro evolution over a long period of time cannot result in new species. I haven't watched this video yet, so excuse me if you already stated this.
cda6590 4 years ago
I did.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Well... Then good point!
cda6590 4 years ago
tell me how do you classify living versus nonliving?
p.s. they've also made a hebra (zebra + horse= hebra)
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
reproduction of cells basically.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
so the organelles inside the cell isn't alive? it has to reproduce cells? or just reproduce?
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
If non-cellular reproduction is allowed then certain proteins such as the prion that causes CJD could possibly be described as alive. You can go further still and say a growing crystal is alive. At the most fundamental level life is a "loop" in entropy; a quirk in the laws of physics that uses up what little energy it has to gain more energy from its surroundings.
Humanist4life 4 years ago
ok. if life is a loop in entropy, like you said, crystals, the earth, glaxies many celestial bodys are techinically alive. explain why it has to be within cells to exist or that definition doesn't work.
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
Hehe, we restrict life to cellular reproduction because we wouldn't feel comfortable calling those other things life :)
Did you ever see 3rd rock from the sun, where they were unsure what was the dominant form of life on earth; humans or cars? There is some truth to that. If we were to meet an alien life form, unless it was sufficiently similar to life on earth (i.e. cellular) it would be extremely difficult for us to recognise it as life.
At the end of the day we're all just stardust.
Humanist4life 4 years ago
how do we know the stars aren't sentiet in their own way? :-0
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
crystals don't reproduce...they form from elements around them...not the same thing. Same with Earth, Galaxies, Stars, etc. Cells reproduce...hence what we call "alive". A robot would be the better question. If a robot was designed to absorb things around it and make a new robot inside of it...would you call that alive? But, that's a whole other debate.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
the organelles are PART of the living thing...from a scientific explanation, reproduction is the key. A rock doesn't reproduce cells...it's not alive. Water doesn't "reproduce" but it can "form"...not alive...a virus reproduces...it's alive.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
baking soda and vinegar reproduce. why does the thing reproduced have to be a copy of the original thing for it to count. this all started at some point to. thats not accounted for. in theory life started when certain molecules started to reproduce. were those alive? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't fit your definition if one turned up.
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
baking soda and vinegar react with each other...this is a chemical thing...they don't make new baking sodas and vinegars. Molecules don't "reproduce" either. You need a cell first, then that cell must split and become a new one...but none of this matters. You can define it however you want. You accept evolution, that's the point of this video...nothing else, we aren't arguing "god" here.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
ok. but discussing evolution. there has to be a first cell. and the lab exp, they've done don't create cells. they cause molecules to become more complex. this is not life by your definition. actually what I'm trying to show is science accounts for everything except life. it would be perfect if weren't sentient. there is no scientific reason my thoughts are not jsut chemical reactions.
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
you are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution ONLY requires that life has begun and is changing...which it has and is.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Crystals have a particular lattice structure so that when base parts fall onto it they attach and continue the same structure. That's not too dissimilar from how DNA replicates. Nothing can literally create a copy of itself, it can only distort objects around it to become the same. Water, for instance, does not cause surrounding hydrogen and oxygen atoms to form into more water, but a prion (which is just an oddly shaped protein) will bend other proteins into the same shape.
Humanist4life 4 years ago
correct, very similar to how DNA replicates, however, we don't call DNA alive, do we? This is an excellent way to see how there are components to replication and each must be present in one organism which then reproduces into a second organism...therefore defined as alive.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I'd say dna is alive, but a cell that replicates is really justa bunch of molecules that don't replicate. there is a spark at some point that switches it. evolution accoutns for everything but the very begining.
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
again, evolution isn't meant to account for the beginning....only speciation.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
in other words you don't know and/or can't figure out a dfinition that fits for us. lets put it this way, science accounts for everything but the begining or life or consciousness or what we are (outside a chmical reaction)
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
no, I gave you a definition...you are just refusing to accept it...that's your choice.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
by the way, just because evolution doesn't account for the existance of life, that doesn't mean that nothing does...look into abiogenesis if you want to know more. I'm not going into it here, because this video is about evolution, not abiogenesis.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
your not going into it here because there is no scientific answer. I'm not asking how it happens I'm asking what it is. I'd say there is no abiogenisis because living and nonliving is a completely inaccurately defined spectrum.
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
ya becasue it is an incorrect definition.
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
That's true, a crystal will not seek out more base parts when those around it are used up, whereas we will search for the proteins and sugars required for the replication process in the form of food. It's theoretically possible for a life form to have a crystaline basis though.
Humanist4life 4 years ago
ehhh...theoretically, I suppose.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
neither will a plant. (most plants)
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
Plants burrow their roots deeper in search of water and bend their leaves towards the sunlight. Even single cells are capable of movement to some degree.
A virus, however, is completely motionless; I'm never quite sure whether I consider them alive or not o_O
Humanist4life 4 years ago
there isn't really a definite answer is there.
urbanclimber777 4 years ago
Humanist: An interesting question. The most important aspect of a virus is that it is composed of protein and RNA (or) DNA, which were originally made by living organisms. A virus cannot exist without living cells. Perhaps it is really just a non-living extension of life. It still contains the essence of life--DNA
howaaj03 4 years ago
King: This question of whether DNA is alive is really the ultimate question we can ask about the nature of life. It needs the cellular enzyme machinery to replicate. But as Dawkins believes, our ultimate purpose is to propagate and spread DNA. Memes for thought.
howaaj03 4 years ago
What would happen if we bread a human and a gorilla? The existance of a "humilla" would probably make quite a few people scratch there heads.
squitmaa 4 years ago
I don't think we are close enough to pull off a gorilla/human breed...chimp/human...maybe...but yes, they would have to wake up at that point "Behold a humanzee!"
KingHeathen 4 years ago
That would be way better.
squitmaa 4 years ago
Ligers are mostly infertile (much like mules). If lions and tigers could produce majority fertile offspring they would be (by one definition) the same species. All members of the genus panthera (lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars) have been crossbred in captivity, but are never able to produce a self supporting hybrid species. Still, the fact that close species can produce offspring at all is strong evidence that they were once one species.
Humanist4life 4 years ago
I spoke about this on part 2 of this video in the comments section...Ligers CAN reproduce...the males are typically sterile but the females are fertile. They just have to mate with another lion or tiger. This would suggest that lions and tigers could successfully breed into li-ligers and ti-ligers while the "transitional species", the liger would die out quickly...gee, do we see evidence of that anywhere in the evolutionary tree?
KingHeathen 4 years ago
True, but they become less fertile as the generations go on, so the breeding process would never last long enough in the wild to create a new species. I'm not sure this really demonstrates anything to the fundies in the way you put it, but it does show that some species are more closely related than others.
Humanist4life 4 years ago
Heh actually I was looking up liopards...*not sure how you spell them* cross between a lion and a leopard, it was a male, they never had him neutered because well they are suppoesd to be infertile...just imagine their shock when he did father his own litter. :> So males can be fertile, just rare.
wolfwing1 3 years ago
When will the fundies realise that even within christianity they are a minority, the majority of the worlds christians are still the catholics.
One thing about the catholics these days is they realise now (as opposed to before) not to bother fighting science and just accept it. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have accepted evolution, age of the earth and the big bang and consider it "compatible".
ozatheist 4 years ago
the hilarious typical response that I get from that when I point it out is "They aren't REAL Christians." It makes me giggle.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Yeah, funny they get all defensive when you say "by your logic the pope is not a faithful follower of christ"
ozatheist 4 years ago
This is like the first video of yours that I'm confuzed on. Are you saying that to make them understand evolution is real, we have to make them accept the fact that humans could have had sex with monkeys? 0_o
Crawler101010101 4 years ago
Okay so, two different kinds of primates have sex, and then we pop out? I still honestly can't see how the creationist would accept evolution over this.
The mere idea of us being monkeys or decending from monkeys disgusts them, so in reality they might even reject this MORE than evolution.
Crawler101010101 4 years ago
LMAO!...ok, the idea is to accept that certain things CAN happen...breeds of dogs, lions and tigers...make them accept the notion that evolution exists at SOME LEVEL...they will go to the "kinds" argument...I cover this more in part 2
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Actually I'm pretty sure that all breeds of dogs are the same species still, but what do I know :)
Brianj1234 4 years ago 3
yes, breeds are considered a subspecies. That's an easy one for them to accept, then you go to the lyger which shows breeding above subspecies is possible as well...when they go to the half this half that comment...show the lizard/salamander comparisions. Then I refuse to move on unless they choose what level they are calling "kinds"...order? family? genus?
KingHeathen 4 years ago
And I find the 'god' debate a waste of time since its just a fairy tale like many others.......
matereymate 4 years ago
unfortunately many people believe that fairy tale and base their decisions on it. religions cause intolerance, seperation, violence, death, spread of diseases, ignorance towards science, suicide.
so i think we should get rid of religion.
kurtilein3 4 years ago
Although I can live very well without religion, I wound be happy with reaching a point when most people would rather base their life on facts then on faith.
DeletedDelusion 4 years ago
I agree that evolution doesn't have to negate god...there are other problems, but as a whole...you are right...evolution CAN exist WITH a god...have you finally come to peace with evolution and accepted it? I seem to remember the last time we spoke you were still in question.
KingHeathen 4 years ago