First there are millions of Christians that believe the Bible says evolution is the way God created life. Gen 1 says that God ordered the Earth to bring forth plants and then animals. Also the word day can mean and is the same word as era, as in, “in the day ye shall eat the fruit, ye shall die.” So I am not adverse to Evolution. However what the maker of this video is unaware of is the amount of extrapolation, mistakes and outright fraud that Evolutionist use. Their theory is far from proven.
I cannot tell if you are taking the creation story literally or metaphorically. In your first point it's literal, in your second you say it could be symbolic or metaphor. How do you know how to decide which is literal or otherwise? If we go by the creation account, how could plants possibly survive without sunlight first being created, especially if it were an "era" not an actual 24hr period?
@phroz3n You could read it like that, If you look at the first line, Gen1: 1 In the beginning (before time) God created the heavens (space) and they Earth (matter). Therefore God sits outside of time and space, and is not 3 dimensional. From Gods point of view the plants could have been made first , he then could have gone back in time and created the Sun placing it forward in time. That does not have to be the case anyway. Verse three says he created light right after separating the void.
@transtlantic If you were as "scientifically inclined" as you presume, you would know that they have not been able to describe reality mathematically with out adding aditional dimensions. While different systems do it differently (M theory, "The Brane" etc.) and we do not have a full understanding of it, there is a lot more evidence for it than for evolution. See you are basing your assumptions on science from the 1800's. That is why what I say does not make sense to you.
@phroz3n I think it must have been someone else that said it was a metaphor. I do not beleive that at all. I am saying the translation for "day'" in the Bible could be very much like one of the variations for "day" in our DAY. It does not have to be a 24 hour day. This is a post script to the last comment.
"God may have used evolution to create"? dumbfuck...evolution DOES NOT explain creation of life, it explains DIVERSITY in life. we KNOW rabits didn't exist at the time of a t-rex. you are not going to say God come up to create rabits after t-rex were gone, are you? dumbfuck.
"mostly fabricated"?
WE SEE VASCULAR PLANT SPECIATION. try explain it without using evolution theory. you uneducated tard.
@transtlantic The Vascular Plant speciation is theoretical, it offers some possible evidence. Come back when you have some provable facts. One possible answer to your question is if you look in the Bible it actually says God created animals twice. The first time according to Young's Literal Translation God created great monsters, King James translates it whales. How do you explain the creation of the first cell, which had to be fully functional and reproducing?
The effects of above- and belowground mutualisms on orchid speciation and coexistence.
i can provide you with hundreds of field experiments, lab experiments, long-term experiments, etc providing support to the claim that plants obviously have speciation. this applies to ANY given species you want to name.
come back? moron...i have more than 500,000 peer-reviewed papers at the distance of a web search at PUBMED... retard.
piltdown, peking, nebraska, java, etc etc... altered. alteration discovered by SCIENTISTS. meaning it was science the very thing that put the record straight. and in the end they STILL looked ape like, because the bones ARE from apes.
Neanderthal remains? there are tens of thousands of those. and they ARE the closest "cousin" to our species. Some humans are even "part" neanderthal.
@transtlantic Well as you know then, this is just a partial list of the frauds in evolution and does not begin to list the mistakes. So you know, a dentist wanted to try out a new portable exray machines and got permission to do so on Neanderthal remains. He discovered that the young Neanderthals had their bones filed down and were reshaped with plaster to make them look more ape like. That is why we did not hear much about Neanderthals for a long while.
@transtlantic Yes all these frauds were accepted for many years, and offered up as proof anyone with a different view must be retarded. Things have not changed much.
In regards to the validity of evolution, you are clearly not educated on the subjected. Please refer to the 250,000+ peer-reviewed published papers explaining millions of facts tested and retested many times over through billions upon billions of man hours of research. Personal opinions, conjecture, and fraud have no place in science and it immediately dismissed without evidence to back up claims. You are trying to shine an inaccurate light onto science that is untrue.
Scientific method requires that you test the hypothesis. The results of the hypothesis must be provable. Evolution has never been recreated in the laboratory, never been observed in nature (variations within species with no new information in the genes or so called macro evolution does not count.) nor according to Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge in their paper “Punctuated Equilibrium” is it observable in the fossil record. So far Evolution then is a theory and a string of exaggerations.
@songwriterdad All I can say from your comment is that you demonstrate a lack of scientific education. Pfft, you don't even seem to understand the significance of punctuated equilibrium if you think it is 'evidence against evolution'.
@TheJascal So what is it that is unscientific about requiring people who claim to be scientists to adhere to accepted scientific standards? Go ahead explain that.
Secondly ,the point I was making is that Gould and Eldridge admitted that there is a lack of transitional fossils. I understand that the two were committed evolutionists, that is what makes their admission so powerful.
@TheJascal Thanks for commenting. I know why you may be thinking that, they often try to pass of variation within species as evolution. You may have seen some great artist renditions that may have convinced you that transitional fossils exits. If this is such nonsense, go ahead and show some examples of some actual evolution. Variation with in species does not count.
@transtlantic Thanks for taking the time to come up with so many references. Your first point, "The rate of specialization in the fossil record" was the explanation give by Stephen Gould for there not being any evidence of transitional species it is true, but that only goes to prove my point not yours.
The rest are theoretical in nature and lacking any hard evidence. I do not care if evolution created life or not, I am just saying the evidence of such is greatly exaggerated..
See you are still on 18th century science which believed that cells were "simple." Now with our powerful microscope we know the simplest cell is to complex to have happened by mistake. The simple cell would need to take in food, expel waste, reproduce, be able to make organelles ectoplasm, endoplasm all in the first try. So it is actually more ludicrous to believe in evolution than God
@transtlantic I wonder, do you think that your vocabulary makes me look stupid while making you look smart; or would you consider the possibility that it may have the opposite effect?
@transtlantic While I would give you fact that Evidence for parallel ecological speciation in scincid lizards of the Eumeces skiltonianus species group (Squamata: Scincidae is the best evidence that evolution may have happened you have given; there are many similar species (Finches etc.) I would think that if the evidence for Evolution is as hard and fast as you say, you should easily offer up something a little more substantial. Like an actual transitional species.
moron... how is a lizard similar to a Finches (a bird)?
little more substantial? LOLOL moron...the previous species are transitional species. you have a species of lizard that speciates into another, making the parent species, transitional.
fuck... it's impossible for you to sound dumber...
@transtlantic .The limited space here makes it hard to point out things like for example Zebras are a species of the Horse family. Donkeys are probably another example of this. While we can note that there are changes, t is only fair to ask, has any actual evolution happened? I would say not. Given the rate of evolutionary change that is observed ( which is next to nil), statistically you have real problem showing that evolutionary change at the rate needed is possible.
@transtlantic Well these variations in the horse have been around for thousands of years. Yet they are still basically horses. Ok so I get the thing that says it happens so slowly that we do not see it. Still all you are able to prove is micro evolution if you wish to call it that, It would take a million years for a slight change in Macro evolution to occure. Does the fossil record bare this time line out?
@transtlantic Did you understand that I do not care one way or the other if evolution happened? My position on this until recently was, Evolution was how God made life. Until I was 27 it was, there is no God it all came from evolution. The more closely I examine the evidence, given the amount of mistakes, fraud and over the top unscientific extrapolation in evolution combined with the complexity of life it has to call the whole theory into question.
why wouldn't you care if evolution happened? understanding evolution is quite important. it's a matter of life or death!
"made life"? but fact is...evolution has NOTHING to do how life appeared. only how life is so diverse.
"closely i examine the evidence"? what evidence for creationism?
theory into question? not at all. as ALL species changes are solely and only explained by using evolution theory. as i proved to you with AB resistance and plant speciation.
@TheJascal Great show the tansitional fossils going from any animal to any other animal. I would say just one, but the ones they have had in the past (Lucy etc.) have proven to be mistakes or more often fraud. My guess is that you can not name one. Keep in mind I am not saying like Evolutionists usually do, you know this cow looks like a whale so whales came from cows.I am saying show us step by step this transition. There should be more of that in the fossil record than any thing else.
@TheJascal Great, show me one example in the fossil record or one created in a lab.
Again I am not adverse to evolution. I do not care either way as it would be impossible for life to occure by accident it is too complicated. God may have used evolution to create life. All I am saying is that the evidence for evolution is mostly fabricated.
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter though and respect your views.
moron...first of all, yes we can recreate processes of fossilization in a lab. second. want examples of fossil record? VISIT A FUCKING NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM! THEY ARE FILLED WITH FOSSILS! you dumbfuck.
you are adverse to science, all of it. for life to occur? dumbfuck...why the fuck do you keep mixing abiogenesis with evolution? you stupid fuck.
"too complicated"? so is an airplane and nanotech, and yet we do it. plus we already created life in a lab. it's called: Cynthia.
@transtlantic So the artists renditions at the natural history museums have you sold? I like the exhibits where the find a tooth or a small bone fragment and create a whole animal out of it, tell us how lives what it eats. It is just amazing how they do that, don’t you think?
You mentioned the nano-robots from Cynthia. What if I showed up with a nano-robot and told you it formed accidentally in the mud?
artist renditions? DUMBFUCK you go to the museum and you SEE the fucking bones all put together. how the fuck is that an artist rendition? are you fucking stupid?
with just the posterior part of a skull i can tell: how the individual walked, if it had any bone disease, where it lived, muscle configuration to support the head, ...
MANY things because with SCIENCE you can know many things, dumbfuck.
YES; you DO ignore a lot of stuff, because you are an uneducated MORON!
"had to have all the complexity in one shot"? dumbfuck... cells are not ALL equal. there are BILLIONS of different cells. some are more simple than others.
"seeing castings of the bones"? nope. you are seeing FOSSILIZED bones, which is different.
the whole creature is created out of a tooth? no it isn't.
rarely? moron... have you ever been to a natural history museum? let's say NY Natural history museum? do you know the T-Rex they have there? do you think it's a fake?
@transtlantic OK I found what you were talking about. They put a synthetic genome in an existing organism. But that is not evolution anymore than gene splicing is. Does not answer the question of how a cell (any cell Einstein) could have popped out of sludge. If you know about this you know that the cell and the genome are very complex. The first cell had to have all of the complexity in one shot. How did that happen by accident?
nope. they put a synthetic genome, inside a cell without a nucleous. an organism has both genome and nucleous.
That's abiogenesis. life from non-life. evolution IS the change in the genotype and phenotype.
how a cell popped out of a sludge is answered by abiogenesis. this vid is about evolution, different from abiogenesis. if you want to talk about abiogenesis, you should go to OTHER vids.
"are very complex"? no they aren't. as complex as your capacity to grasp it.
@transtlantic I was not asking if they could recreate fossilization in the lab that is easy to do. I was saying they have not been able to reproduce evolution in the lab. If life happened by accident it should be an easy task.
AB resistance can be made in a lab, so ANYONE can reproduce evolution in their kitchen.
"life happened": WHO THE FUCK IS SO FUCKING DUMB AS YOU ARE?
ABIOGENESIS IS NOT THE SAME AS EVOLUTION! YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
"happened by accident"?sure! it did. it just took MILLIONS of years! How do you know mountains are formed by the colision of tectonic plates? it happens by accident and yet you keep not doing a 8,000 m high mountain inside a lab! do you deny mountain formation too?
Excellent work, very articulate. You do something very interesting, which is show the distinct limitations of science and religion, and how they can coexist and play different roles.
One thing I find incredibly frustrating about pro-science videos is the inherent atheist presumption: it's assumed that any person that supports the use of human rationality MUST therefore automatically be an atheist as well and lack belief in a personal God.
First there are millions of Christians that believe the Bible says evolution is the way God created life. Gen 1 says that God ordered the Earth to bring forth plants and then animals. Also the word day can mean and is the same word as era, as in, “in the day ye shall eat the fruit, ye shall die.” So I am not adverse to Evolution. However what the maker of this video is unaware of is the amount of extrapolation, mistakes and outright fraud that Evolutionist use. Their theory is far from proven.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
I cannot tell if you are taking the creation story literally or metaphorically. In your first point it's literal, in your second you say it could be symbolic or metaphor. How do you know how to decide which is literal or otherwise? If we go by the creation account, how could plants possibly survive without sunlight first being created, especially if it were an "era" not an actual 24hr period?
phroz3n 10 months ago
@phroz3n You could read it like that, If you look at the first line, Gen1: 1 In the beginning (before time) God created the heavens (space) and they Earth (matter). Therefore God sits outside of time and space, and is not 3 dimensional. From Gods point of view the plants could have been made first , he then could have gone back in time and created the Sun placing it forward in time. That does not have to be the case anyway. Verse three says he created light right after separating the void.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
God created? that's just begging the question. why not gods? why not Odin? where is the evidence for god?
"sits outside time and space"? that means god doesn't even exist, fucktard.
not 3 dimensional? lol...it's made out of fairy dust! LOLOLOL
come back in time? LOLOL
separating the void? if it's void there's nothing to separate.
you fucktard are stuck in pre-12th century nonsense.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic If you were as "scientifically inclined" as you presume, you would know that they have not been able to describe reality mathematically with out adding aditional dimensions. While different systems do it differently (M theory, "The Brane" etc.) and we do not have a full understanding of it, there is a lot more evidence for it than for evolution. See you are basing your assumptions on science from the 1800's. That is why what I say does not make sense to you.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
"god created animals twice"? sheer bullshit. fairies did it! LOLOL look at the fiction book! LOLOL
"whales"? lolol that doesn't explain anything at all.
"creation of the first cell"? nothing to do with evolution, PLUS cells aren't created in nature!
Ofc you can describe reality mathematically. Here: 1 apple plus 1 apple it's two apples.
"without adding aditional dimensions"? what the fuck are you talking about?
"more evidence for M theory"? HA HA HA HA
transtlantic 10 months ago
@phroz3n I think it must have been someone else that said it was a metaphor. I do not beleive that at all. I am saying the translation for "day'" in the Bible could be very much like one of the variations for "day" in our DAY. It does not have to be a 24 hour day. This is a post script to the last comment.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
"God may have used evolution to create"? dumbfuck...evolution DOES NOT explain creation of life, it explains DIVERSITY in life. we KNOW rabits didn't exist at the time of a t-rex. you are not going to say God come up to create rabits after t-rex were gone, are you? dumbfuck.
"mostly fabricated"?
WE SEE VASCULAR PLANT SPECIATION. try explain it without using evolution theory. you uneducated tard.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic The Vascular Plant speciation is theoretical, it offers some possible evidence. Come back when you have some provable facts. One possible answer to your question is if you look in the Bible it actually says God created animals twice. The first time according to Young's Literal Translation God created great monsters, King James translates it whales. How do you explain the creation of the first cell, which had to be fully functional and reproducing?
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
"Theoretical"?
Am Nat. 2011 Feb;177(2):E54-68.
The effects of above- and belowground mutualisms on orchid speciation and coexistence.
i can provide you with hundreds of field experiments, lab experiments, long-term experiments, etc providing support to the claim that plants obviously have speciation. this applies to ANY given species you want to name.
come back? moron...i have more than 500,000 peer-reviewed papers at the distance of a web search at PUBMED... retard.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
want an example of something fabricated? the bible. copy paste of a copy paste of old ancient religious books.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic Piltdown man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Archeoraptor, Paluxy man-dino tracts, Orce man, Yale hybridization scandal, and Neanderthal remains were altered to look more ape like.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
piltdown, peking, nebraska, java, etc etc... altered. alteration discovered by SCIENTISTS. meaning it was science the very thing that put the record straight. and in the end they STILL looked ape like, because the bones ARE from apes.
Neanderthal remains? there are tens of thousands of those. and they ARE the closest "cousin" to our species. Some humans are even "part" neanderthal.
we have the Genetic evidence supporting that.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic Well as you know then, this is just a partial list of the frauds in evolution and does not begin to list the mistakes. So you know, a dentist wanted to try out a new portable exray machines and got permission to do so on Neanderthal remains. He discovered that the young Neanderthals had their bones filed down and were reshaped with plaster to make them look more ape like. That is why we did not hear much about Neanderthals for a long while.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
list what mistakes? Moron..."long while"? moron that happened DECADES ago, fuck... you really are an ignorant uneducated old tard...
transtlantic0 10 months ago
@transtlantic Yes all these frauds were accepted for many years, and offered up as proof anyone with a different view must be retarded. Things have not changed much.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
"many years"? not many. science did catch them.
things have not changed much?
in the last 50 years we increased more 20 years our life expectancy, we put people into space, we are now capable of curing many cancers,...
and a lot of it thanks to the understanding of evolution theory.
your religion or God belief provided ZERO to human progress.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
In regards to the validity of evolution, you are clearly not educated on the subjected. Please refer to the 250,000+ peer-reviewed published papers explaining millions of facts tested and retested many times over through billions upon billions of man hours of research. Personal opinions, conjecture, and fraud have no place in science and it immediately dismissed without evidence to back up claims. You are trying to shine an inaccurate light onto science that is untrue.
phroz3n 10 months ago
Scientific method requires that you test the hypothesis. The results of the hypothesis must be provable. Evolution has never been recreated in the laboratory, never been observed in nature (variations within species with no new information in the genes or so called macro evolution does not count.) nor according to Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge in their paper “Punctuated Equilibrium” is it observable in the fossil record. So far Evolution then is a theory and a string of exaggerations.
songwriterdad 11 months ago
@songwriterdad All I can say from your comment is that you demonstrate a lack of scientific education. Pfft, you don't even seem to understand the significance of punctuated equilibrium if you think it is 'evidence against evolution'.
TheJascal 10 months ago
@TheJascal So what is it that is unscientific about requiring people who claim to be scientists to adhere to accepted scientific standards? Go ahead explain that.
Secondly ,the point I was making is that Gould and Eldridge admitted that there is a lack of transitional fossils. I understand that the two were committed evolutionists, that is what makes their admission so powerful.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
Never created in the lab?
Never observed in nature?
Lack of transition fossils?
Where did you read that kind of nonsense?
TheJascal 10 months ago
@TheJascal Thanks for commenting. I know why you may be thinking that, they often try to pass of variation within species as evolution. You may have seen some great artist renditions that may have convinced you that transitional fossils exits. If this is such nonsense, go ahead and show some examples of some actual evolution. Variation with in species does not count.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
Rates of speciation in the fossil record.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998
Ecol Lett. 2007 Apr;10(4):315-31.
Evolution and the latitudinal diversity gradient: speciation, extinction and biogeography.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees
Nature 441, 1103-1108 (29 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature0478
Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Sep 22;265(1407):1707-12.
Speciation durations and Pleistocene effects on vertebrate phylogeography.
variation within a species does count. as there can only be variation if there is random mutations and natural selection.
try at least get some basic knowledge before talking about you don't know a fuck about.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic Thanks for taking the time to come up with so many references. Your first point, "The rate of specialization in the fossil record" was the explanation give by Stephen Gould for there not being any evidence of transitional species it is true, but that only goes to prove my point not yours.
The rest are theoretical in nature and lacking any hard evidence. I do not care if evolution created life or not, I am just saying the evidence of such is greatly exaggerated..
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
you must be fucking crazy...
The papers i am showing is evidence for transitional species. dumbfuck... if there is speciation the parent species is transitional! you dumbfuck.
theoretical? lolol...moron do you even notice the title of the papers?
"GENETIC EVIDENCE FOR COMPLEX SPECIATION"
how much obvious can it be?
"created life"? dumbfuck....evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, you complete uneducated fuck. that's abiogenesis. we did it at Venter's lab.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic
See you are still on 18th century science which believed that cells were "simple." Now with our powerful microscope we know the simplest cell is to complex to have happened by mistake. The simple cell would need to take in food, expel waste, reproduce, be able to make organelles ectoplasm, endoplasm all in the first try. So it is actually more ludicrous to believe in evolution than God
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
during the 18th century they didn't have a clue to what was DNA, dumbfuck or how to "see" molecular structures.
Cell are simple. you just call them complex because you are so fucking ignorant you don't even know what is DNA! just like an 18th century person.
"happened by mistake"? nothing to do with evolution how the first cell appeared.
there are cells without organelles, fucktard. organelles don't have ectoplasm, dumbfuck.
You are doing a Hoyle's falacy, dumbfuck.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic I wonder, do you think that your vocabulary makes me look stupid while making you look smart; or would you consider the possibility that it may have the opposite effect?
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
I think your vocabulary DOES make you look stupid. come on...saying God did it is smart? LOLOL
you do more mistakes than a dumb kid spewing messed up crap about science.
you want more examples to speciation? SURE, dumbfuck:
Evolution. 2002 Jul;56(7):1498-513.
Evidence for parallel ecological speciation in scincid lizards of the Eumeces skiltonianus species group (Squamata: Scincidae).
let's do it this way. you say a number. and i'll cover it. how many examples do you need? 10?
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic While I would give you fact that Evidence for parallel ecological speciation in scincid lizards of the Eumeces skiltonianus species group (Squamata: Scincidae is the best evidence that evolution may have happened you have given; there are many similar species (Finches etc.) I would think that if the evidence for Evolution is as hard and fast as you say, you should easily offer up something a little more substantial. Like an actual transitional species.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
wait... "there are many similar species"....
moron... how is a lizard similar to a Finches (a bird)?
little more substantial? LOLOL moron...the previous species are transitional species. you have a species of lizard that speciates into another, making the parent species, transitional.
fuck... it's impossible for you to sound dumber...
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic You you misunderstood. For example there are many finches that are simular just as there are many lizards that are similar.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
many lizards? that explains jack shit. life is classified by a taxonomy system.
not all lizards are from the same species, even if they look similar. ergo...species is a very important notion for you to learn.
usually kids learn this during elementary school. but i am assuming you dropped out of school and you were homeschooled.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic .The limited space here makes it hard to point out things like for example Zebras are a species of the Horse family. Donkeys are probably another example of this. While we can note that there are changes, t is only fair to ask, has any actual evolution happened? I would say not. Given the rate of evolutionary change that is observed ( which is next to nil), statistically you have real problem showing that evolutionary change at the rate needed is possible.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
"has any actual evolution happened"? ofc it has.
Genomics. 2006 Jun;87(6):777-82. Epub 2006 Jan 18.
Evolutionary movement of centromeres in horse, donkey, and zebra.
"i would say not", glad your unqualified uneducated opinion is as valuable as Horse shit... maybe cheaper.
"next to nil"; but not nil. as we do see it.
"statistically" you have no problem, because you see random mutations happening per generation and the environment changes.
possible? it already happened.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic Well these variations in the horse have been around for thousands of years. Yet they are still basically horses. Ok so I get the thing that says it happens so slowly that we do not see it. Still all you are able to prove is micro evolution if you wish to call it that, It would take a million years for a slight change in Macro evolution to occure. Does the fossil record bare this time line out?
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
"variations"?
for thousands of years, millions of years.... basically horses? not at all.
A zebra is not a horse and a donkey is not a zebra or a horse. there are many species. and many become extinct.
i am proving macroevolution. and microevolution (they are both the same).
plus...the plant andlizard examples took months to years. not thousands of years.
the fossil record ofc presents the same.
you do realize that you are dumber than a 8 year old kid, right?
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic Did you understand that I do not care one way or the other if evolution happened? My position on this until recently was, Evolution was how God made life. Until I was 27 it was, there is no God it all came from evolution. The more closely I examine the evidence, given the amount of mistakes, fraud and over the top unscientific extrapolation in evolution combined with the complexity of life it has to call the whole theory into question.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
why wouldn't you care if evolution happened? understanding evolution is quite important. it's a matter of life or death!
"made life"? but fact is...evolution has NOTHING to do how life appeared. only how life is so diverse.
"closely i examine the evidence"? what evidence for creationism?
theory into question? not at all. as ALL species changes are solely and only explained by using evolution theory. as i proved to you with AB resistance and plant speciation.
moron.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
1) Variation within a species IS evolution step one
2) Transitional fossils are documented in abundance
3) Phylogenetic relationships are documented at all levels, from molecular to morphological... including the fossil record
According to the largest and most broadly respected scientific organization in the US;
485,000 scientists accept evolution as fact
770 scientists are creationists
Have you read a modern genetics text?
Who is dreaming here?
TheJascal 10 months ago
@TheJascal Great show the tansitional fossils going from any animal to any other animal. I would say just one, but the ones they have had in the past (Lucy etc.) have proven to be mistakes or more often fraud. My guess is that you can not name one. Keep in mind I am not saying like Evolutionists usually do, you know this cow looks like a whale so whales came from cows.I am saying show us step by step this transition. There should be more of that in the fossil record than any thing else.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad The evidence you claim is missing is very much there in front of your eyes.
YOU choose to remain blind. You will die unconvinced, clinging to your paradigm that has clearly been shown to be false.
What ever floats your boat.
TheJascal 10 months ago
@TheJascal Great, show me one example in the fossil record or one created in a lab.
Again I am not adverse to evolution. I do not care either way as it would be impossible for life to occure by accident it is too complicated. God may have used evolution to create life. All I am saying is that the evidence for evolution is mostly fabricated.
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter though and respect your views.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
moron...first of all, yes we can recreate processes of fossilization in a lab. second. want examples of fossil record? VISIT A FUCKING NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM! THEY ARE FILLED WITH FOSSILS! you dumbfuck.
you are adverse to science, all of it. for life to occur? dumbfuck...why the fuck do you keep mixing abiogenesis with evolution? you stupid fuck.
"too complicated"? so is an airplane and nanotech, and yet we do it. plus we already created life in a lab. it's called: Cynthia.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic So the artists renditions at the natural history museums have you sold? I like the exhibits where the find a tooth or a small bone fragment and create a whole animal out of it, tell us how lives what it eats. It is just amazing how they do that, don’t you think?
You mentioned the nano-robots from Cynthia. What if I showed up with a nano-robot and told you it formed accidentally in the mud?
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
artist renditions? DUMBFUCK you go to the museum and you SEE the fucking bones all put together. how the fuck is that an artist rendition? are you fucking stupid?
with just the posterior part of a skull i can tell: how the individual walked, if it had any bone disease, where it lived, muscle configuration to support the head, ...
MANY things because with SCIENCE you can know many things, dumbfuck.
YES; you DO ignore a lot of stuff, because you are an uneducated MORON!
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic Actually you are seeing castings of the bones and many times the whole creature is created out a tooth or a bone fragment.
Rarely are you seeing the actual bones, which are kept seperately to preserve them.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
"had to have all the complexity in one shot"? dumbfuck... cells are not ALL equal. there are BILLIONS of different cells. some are more simple than others.
"seeing castings of the bones"? nope. you are seeing FOSSILIZED bones, which is different.
the whole creature is created out of a tooth? no it isn't.
rarely? moron... have you ever been to a natural history museum? let's say NY Natural history museum? do you know the T-Rex they have there? do you think it's a fake?
transtlantic0 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
"nano robots from cynthia"? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????
i am talking about Venter's lab CREATING from non-ife the FIRST life form made in a lab! it's called: CYNTHIA.
and GUESS WHAT? after JUST a few generations, it EVOLVED!
btw, DUMBFUCK; you can induce RANDOM formation of nano-robot structures!
see? you REALLY are a MORON by definition.
and STILL no explanation to VASCULAR PLANT speciation. that even though i already proved it's A FACT, you don't answer.
transtlantic 10 months ago
@transtlantic OK I found what you were talking about. They put a synthetic genome in an existing organism. But that is not evolution anymore than gene splicing is. Does not answer the question of how a cell (any cell Einstein) could have popped out of sludge. If you know about this you know that the cell and the genome are very complex. The first cell had to have all of the complexity in one shot. How did that happen by accident?
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
nope. they put a synthetic genome, inside a cell without a nucleous. an organism has both genome and nucleous.
That's abiogenesis. life from non-life. evolution IS the change in the genotype and phenotype.
how a cell popped out of a sludge is answered by abiogenesis. this vid is about evolution, different from abiogenesis. if you want to talk about abiogenesis, you should go to OTHER vids.
"are very complex"? no they aren't. as complex as your capacity to grasp it.
transtlantic0 10 months ago
@transtlantic I was not asking if they could recreate fossilization in the lab that is easy to do. I was saying they have not been able to reproduce evolution in the lab. If life happened by accident it should be an easy task.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
@songwriterdad
AB resistance can be made in a lab, so ANYONE can reproduce evolution in their kitchen.
"life happened": WHO THE FUCK IS SO FUCKING DUMB AS YOU ARE?
ABIOGENESIS IS NOT THE SAME AS EVOLUTION! YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
"happened by accident"?sure! it did. it just took MILLIONS of years! How do you know mountains are formed by the colision of tectonic plates? it happens by accident and yet you keep not doing a 8,000 m high mountain inside a lab! do you deny mountain formation too?
MORON
transtlantic 10 months ago
Excellent work, very articulate. You do something very interesting, which is show the distinct limitations of science and religion, and how they can coexist and play different roles.
One thing I find incredibly frustrating about pro-science videos is the inherent atheist presumption: it's assumed that any person that supports the use of human rationality MUST therefore automatically be an atheist as well and lack belief in a personal God.
CristinaFernandez 1 year ago
Thank you, I am currently working on Part 2. I hope to have it finished by next weekend.
phroz3n 2 years ago
Very nice first!!
OctaviaW 2 years ago