Evoking and personifying evolution is the greatest mistake by the religious. They are so hung up in the notion - or the desire - of consciousness they believe the natural process is forging ahead with conviction and meaning. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Life from non-life violates a known scientific law.
The law of biogenesis states that life comes from life.
Some people don't believe in science. Life comes from life. There is no evidence that life comes from non-life. But some people believe that life comes from non-life by blind faith.
@InternetDisciple One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve.
@InternetDisciple Disregard that last comment, sometimes the utter retardation of creationism comes back up on me. Usually I understand that Pasteurs work regarding the law of biogenesis only involved modern life not spontaneously arising out of non-living matter and nothing to do with the chemical origin of life.
@Barachem No, it's just that I actually now realize the retardation of thinking that science could somehow apply to the metaphysical and that thinking the fact that energy is not able to be created somehow means it was created.
Within the first two minutes of this video, there is so much falsehood and easily disproven statements, that I just couldn't force myself to listen to the remaining twenty-five minutes.
Calling it "creation science" makes it no more science than calling a pig a dog would make it an actual dog.
Just a little curious. what are the falsehoods and easily disproven statements, in your intelligent opinion? Perhaps you should have listened to the remaining 25 mins, or is it a case of fingers in ears and going lalalala, as Dawkins would say?
@gillettsibert1 The claim that the earth is only six to ten thousand years old. The bible creation story says that there was the earth before the sun and the other stars in the universe, that there was plants and other vegetation on the earth before the sun was created as well. Plus the claim of a global flood for which there is zero evidence for. Those are some of the falsehoods within the first two minutes of the video, since the entire creation story is demonstrably false.
The reason YOU THINK there is no evidence for a global flood, is simply because you don't want to believe that, because if you had any inkling as to the evidence for a global flood you would not be stating such rubbish. Evolution is "also" FULL of holes, if you care to take a non biased study, evolution is a religion requiring more faith than the Creation story of the Bible. The entirety of evolution is the biggest hoax since Creation, open your eyes!! Do some real research!
@gillettsibert1 I have done the research, and read your supposed holy book. And that is why I went from being a christian to an atheist. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and zero evidence for creation. And parroting soundbites about needing more faith to believe presented evidence that has withstood rigorous peer-review and testing than it does something written in a book of bronze-age fables and myths simply shows that you are content to remain one of the sheep. Goodbye.
Oh dear o dear, not that old chestnut again.. You never were a Christian mate. There is zero evidence for evolution and you have not done your research otherwise you would have seen that evolution is the biggest lie ever perpetrated by "man". I would prefer to believe my brain was the result of intelligent design than by random mutation which may account for your thinking. I am content to remain "one of the sheep", its a shame you have betrayed your creator.. goodbye.
@gillettsibert1 Open your eyes, do some real research ??? .........and the world is 6000y. old. LOL. Maybe if you do some more real research - you will find the earth is flat & the sun revolves around the earth
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Facts in line with the Bible?! Do these people even know how the Bible came into being and how the books where canonized? Wow, I am in awe at such ignorance.
The first geologist went looking for the great flood but found a fossil record which has simple life in lower levels and more advanced life in upper levels.
There are two methods of dating fossils: relative dating where fossils are dated according to their relative positions in the strata, and absolute dating where radiometric dating such as uranium-238 dating which determines the age of the rocks in which the fossils are found.
Assumptions are made about the daughter isotopes, but these are not merely guesses. With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples.
How do you know that those other minerals formed at the same time? Because your pulling metamorphic and igneous samples from a sedimentary rock which is basically a bunch of minerals mashed together that came from who knows where/when.
And they typically form with water (leaching) or wind movement.
Helium Diffusion Rates. Study this. Please. I've looked at your side of the mirror for years.
Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount.
So would you agree that these rocks dated are coming from below the Earth's crust initially? (you should because they are metamorphic and igneous rocks).
Follow up questions for you to ask yourself. (I'm not looking for answers. I'm hoping you ask them yourself).
How much do we KNOW about heat's, pressures and water under the Earth's crust?
Have we ever drilled through the Earth's crust? (hint: No)
Why do creationist think that you have to have been somewhere to know anything about it. Hint: We know a great deal about the pressures and temperatures at the centre of the sun, but weve never been there.
Incidently, I was already well aware of Humprey et al.s paper (not published in any respected scientific journal and thus hasnt been subjected to scrutiny by any experts in the field), and it is flawed in so many ways. Ask yourself about Humpreys assumptions of constant temperature.
We know? or we have a hypothesis about things we cannot observe, test and repeat.
Is Humprey not an expert in the field? Sir Charles Lyell was less of an expert in geology than even Ian Juby. Lyell was a crafty attorney. He had almost no training in geology but concocted this old Earth idea from a visit to Niagara falls. Many of the so called facts he tried to establish have been disproved but once again. We share the same facts. Not assumptions. The facts are in line with the Bible.
Yes, we know. We know the mass of the sun, we know the temperature and pressure at the core of the sun. This is basic physics that a high school student could work out. We dont need to stick a fucking thermometer there to know it.
Humphrey may be an expert but experts still need to subject themselves to the peer review, something which creationists avoid like the plague because they know their science is a bag of shite.
there is no scientific evidence for a world wide flood.
Evolution deals with species not the origin of life.
"Evolution is an attempt to get away from a need for god." what a loaded bunch of bull shit. It's called Science and it doesn 't believe in the supernatural.
I like how people comment on things they don't agree with. [/sarcasm]
It's like saying, "Oh, I hate something" and then clicking on that very something that you hate, just because you hate it, and then comment on it, badmouthing it and saying it isn't true just because you think it isn't.
the prize is to be granted to those that make the greatest benefit to mankind. If they would award someone the Nobel prize for proving something Biblical such as the flood or ark it would condemn mankind as we are all separated from God without Jesus. Pretty unlikely anyone will award a prize to one that proves the World has someone to answer to.
Do you know if any one has been denied a Nobel prize because of religious belief? If there truly were overwhelming evidence of a global flood, then religion wouldnt enter into it. The evidence would either show that happened, or it didnt.
It's just so funny. The speaker provides captions for the hearing impaired, while we provide commentary for the reality impaired. The irony of this is just amazing. It really needs Monty Python captions...."See the majestic moose......moose bites can be serious...."
Fun-fact-time, bible-huggers: # The earth is 4.5+ billion years old # Evolution is a fact. # We share a common ancestor with apes. # Creationism isn't science. # The bible has been falsified. # Jesus never existed # Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are heroes. # Jerry "Worm-Food" Fallwell and Kent "Jail-Bird" Hovind are dead and/or lying. # Ted "Crystal-Meth" Haggard is gay. # Sarah "Wasilla-Assembly" Palin is a freakshow And my favourite: # There is no evidence of god.
The oldest such minerals analysed to date (small crystals of zircon from Western Australia) are at least 4.40 billion years old.Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium and aluminium (the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system) are 4.57 billion years old,giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.
You think I havent researched this? The reason I didnt answer you fully is because Im sick of providing information for lazy creationists who arent willing to do proper research. And proper research isnt looking in Answers in Genesis. Do you seriously think that estimates for the age of the earth are out by a factor of 750000? Thats the error that would be required for the biblical age of the earth to be correct. If you think that, you truly are in cloud cuckoo land.
This is where you misunderstand science. Whats the scientists interest in me got to do with anything? Its not the scientist I trust; its science itself. And the reason you can trust science because the scientific method, the peer review and repeatable observations or experiments means that ensures that science is done correctly. If you have a problem with the science of evolution, then you have a problem with all science.
Darwin tells me nothing. The theory of evolution is stands by itself because of the evidence supporting it (we have far more evidence for evolution today than Darwin had). It is you that needs faith as you believe in the supernatural, not I.
The earth is 6,000 years old. Another religious maniac presents half-baked ideas as fact.
I can't understand how any thinking person is taken in with this nonsense. Yet, such is the crises in social,economics and morals that some are ready to fall for the next slick talker.
I would love to believe in a creator, a life after death. But I can't. It is crazy. Even more, I would feel pity for a God who - we're told - loves, but wants to burn bad people in an eternal fire.
God doesn't put "bad people" in an "eternal fire".
1) People who don't believe in God go to Hell. Therefore, someone can believe in God and still could have killed someone (before or even after coming to Christ).
2) Hell, though people assume, is not a pit of fire, it's an eternal seperation from God. I believe that it's eternal darkness.
God loves even you; I hope you can believe that some time in your life.
The only thing he does prove is, that IQ test don't mean smack...just that you're able to score high in an IQ test.
I would like to see a response from Mensa, though.
Not kicking him out or anything, but maybe showing how many others from Mensa also believe in creationism or how many hold the theory of evolution for fact.
BTW the nukes where made by atheist's Feynam, openheimer ex... But whats scary is who uses nukes or in controll. President...Bush...A creationist. So I ask myself so who is stupid the creationist or the atheist's
what do you mean. The people inventing them are not or have not been the ones to use them. Who wants to use them those with somesort of strange ideology aka... Religion such as The guy from Iran, you got the guy from korea Kim jun Ill and look at America. Who was it Truman A christian ordered the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Bush a Christian?!?! If I told you I was Peter Pan would you believe me????? Does it help him control people - yes? Who can refute a man who claims to serve the most high- especially if someone was an Christian who doesn't follow the news.
What is scary is that people who might even otherwise be smart people can be fooled into believing such a stupid thing as to think Bush is a creationist! What a bunch of hooey! He's not even a Christian IMO! He does his Skull & Bones coffin rituals and his Masonic rites and probably does the Bohemian Grove Greek gods/crossdressing camp thing just like Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and elder Bush before...
I could barely stand to sit through this but I did catch the analogy of comparing the existence of England and her king to the existence of hell (and its king?) Nice try but a person would have to be a total idiot to disbelieve in the existence of England. Where is the evidence for the existence of hell? Seriously, what kind of logic is this?
The intro states that this video has captions for the hearing impaired.I just have to wonder ,is impaired hearing god's design or a deviation that would be predicted by the theory of evolution?
Is this a joke? Why is he pointing out his Mensa membership? If being a member of MENSA in any way validates your opinion then it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of MENSA members worldwide are ATHIEISTS!
Try googling "the BRITES", The Biological Research Institute of the Theory of Evolution, it has very convincing evidence for evolution. I walked away a "believer".
Listen, ozredneck, you Creationists can make all the websites you want making fun of evolution. We aren't going to stoop to your level; we don't have to. All we have to do is show a bit of the movie 'Jesus Camp' or one of venomfangX's videos or maybe a clip of Hovind's lectures. It has the same effect, only the difference is that those things AREN'T parody.
I must, however, thank you for directing me to that website. I learn more about the dishonesty, immorality and downright LIES of Creationists every day.
They make a big deal out of Nebraska man, which was never taken seriously by ANY scientist. It was made by an ARTIST, and NO scientist ever thought of it as a real transitional fossil. Creationists lie about it to make it seem like it was once a big part of what we know about human evolution. And Darwin WAS racist. EVERYONE was racist in the 1800's.
They say that survival of the fittest means you can go around killing people weaker than you, they say evolution is random, they say that evolution makes you immoral and means you can do whatever you want, and they make it look like evolution says you evolve in your lifetime.
It says the the evidence points away from common ancestry with apes, and it says that evolution makes you a materialist. Your lies have been shown to you. You're welcome. I'm probably missing a lot. I just skimmed through the site. But the point stands, Creationists are lying, dishonest assholes. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off on vacation and won't be back for a week.
I checked out the site. Utterly shameless crap. Do they think they're making an argument? They're just making fun of Darwin. There are so many lies in it I can't begin to describe them. When will people just check out the science for themselves? Then they'll see evolution is correct.
That is simply not true. The evidence is quite one-sided. And while interpretation is important, evolution fits much better with all the evidence while creationism needs to make numerous assumptions just to fit some of the evidence. Evolution is hands down the best fit for all the evidence available.
Obviously Evolution fits everything since its definition is so plastic (any change) it can mean what ever you want it to mean. It has no beginning, since you need something alive to mutate and be selected for.
That is not true. Looking at evolutionary predictions it all fits perfectly. There is good genetic evidence that life stems from a common ancestor. The evidence can't simply mean whatever you want it to mean.
Evolution does have a beginning. That is the beginning of life. However, evolution doesn't care how life got started.
"How did like the "Paley Watch Company" they sell loose watch parts with a shaker tube and you keep shaking till a watch is formed."
Evolution is quite simply not blind chance. A watch isn't alive so it can't evolve. cdk007 has a video demonstrating how, with evolutionary principles, a fully functional, accurate watch can be formed.
When a person accepts evil-utionism, they cease practicing science, since origins is not science. Origins is history. ALL living and physical (bar none) sciences can be taught without origins. Origins is down the hall. And Evil-utionism was never invented ot explain where we came from (which it can't), it was invented to explain where we came from WITHOUT GOD. Of paramount importance. It is pure religion, backed up by millions. Just like Islam and Hinduism.
"Origins is history. ALL living and physical (bar none) sciences can be taught without origins."
That is simply BS. How species came about is easily science. History is documented. And evolution isn't the origin. The origin of life is abiogenesis.
And since they claim no information is added, they would have to have every allel for their kind (impossible). And the inbreeding of the animals and Noah's family (and Adam and Eve) are impossible barrier to get around.
Hmm... Well, I never really thought of what it would take to convince me. First, geological and radiometric dates confirming a young earth. Fossil sorting consistent with a global flood. Human and dinosaur fossils found within the same layer of strata within the same rock. A lack of genetic markers, like chromosome fusions and ERVs, indicating these did not spawn from the same source.
"What evidence would you accept that would convince you of evolution?" assemble a very very very simple cell and demonstrate that it didn't take intelligence to do it.
"assemble a very very very simple cell and demonstrate that it didn't take intelligence to do it."
Ah. The origin of life, eh? That isn't evolution. Evolution doesn't care how life got here. Just that it was there and that it evolved. The origin of life is abiogenesis. There is a lot of research going into it, but we haven't produced life as of yet.
my understanding was that evolutionist were abandoning the fossil record since it was so patchy. Ceolocanths producing Ceolocanths, no matter how old it is believed they are in the fossils(370 Ma), supports the biblical account (reproduce after their kind).
"my understanding was that evolutionist were abandoning the fossil record since it was so patchy."
Yes, it is heavily fragmented, but is still strong support of evolution.
"Ceolocanths producing Ceolocanths, no matter how old it is believed they are in the fossils(370 Ma), supports the biblical account (reproduce after their kind)."
Do some research on modern and ancient Ceolocanths. They have changed quite a bit. They aren't even in the same family.
Looking at sheep and enJSRV's, they can't get pregnant without it,there are plenty of viruses and bacteria animals need to survive. When these microbes lose parts of their genome they become pathogenic,but thats loss not evolution.
First, a loss can still be evolution if it's advantageous, but that's irrelevant.
Yes, I am fully aware some animals need some of the ERVs to perform certain tasks. But almost every ERV we have studied has shown to be utterly useless. We can remove it and shuffle it around and we see no change whatsoever in the organism.
"First, a loss can still be evolution if it's advantageous, but that's irrelevant." Evolution is supposed to explain how man arrived here (after abiogenesis) from a single self reproducing cell to man.
Well, it doesn't say we got here by naturalistic abiogenesis. And it does explain that. There are things that we have yet to explain, of course. I don't think there's a single theory that explains everything relevant to it. Research is being done on many different subjects to fill in these gaps. However, we have demonstrated in the past that evolution is capable of producing many complex systems.
"The reason I mention this is that the constant evidence I get shown for biological evolution is loss"
Really? Are you aware that frameshift mutations in many animals, including humans, have been shown to create a resistance to cancer? These add information.
Part 2 A mycoplasma (simple living cell)has 580,000 base pairs of information, human cells have 3,000,000,000 base pairs how do you explain an increase of 2,420,000,000 with loss. You don't get rich by losing money.
I never said evolution was only loss, did I? I merely said that a beneficial loss can also be considered evolution. Gaining is quite obviously a big part in evolution.
I understand how flys that live on windy islands can have mutations that lose their wings and that stops them being blown off. Then they are called walks not flys, but that doesn't explain how they got wings.
"I understand how flys that live on windy islands can have mutations that lose their wings and that stops them being blown off. Then they are called walks not flys, but that doesn't explain how they got wings."
Have you ever heard of the fruit fly experiments with hox genes? One tiny mutation produced flight wings from tiny stabilizer wings. The evolution of wings is one of the things being studied. I'm not sure of the progress. Perhaps you can look such things up yourself?
"Have you ever heard of the fruit fly experiments with hox genes?" Drosophila that has the information for wings, gets the information resuffled to a different part of its body due to loss of control of homeotic genes. I would love to have eyes at the back of my head but without the optic nerve and brain reception they would be useless.
But a patch of photo9sensitive cell connected to a nromal nerve on your arm would at least give you the ability to tell day apart from night, and tell when you're in the shade or not. The eye can come from that.
You'll probably say that the experiments used intelligence if they do ever succeed, but that is a clutch of straws. The experiments simulate what what nature can produce, and odds of probability are calculated on it being made using an un-guided process.
It is rather difficult to think of what I am supposed to be looking for in evidence for creation, never having seen evidence for it (even after checking AiG). My answer must seem severely lacking to you, but it's hard to think of evidence for everything magically coming into existence within the course of 7 days as is.
"It is rather difficult to think of what I am supposed to be looking for in evidence for creation, never having seen evidence for it".Looking at mount Rushmore how would you "know" the wind, rain and erosion did not cause the faces to appear?
"Looking at mount Rushmore how would you "know" the wind, rain and erosion did not cause the faces to appear?"
Because we have documented history of it's production, and that the odds of that happening in such a precise way with a non-living entity is almost impossible. However, if you want to use that as an argument for design, I'm afraid it doesn't work. Because it isn't alive, it doesn't reproduce, mutate, and isn't subject to natural selection.
"And Evil-utionism was never invented ot explain where we came from (which it can't), it was invented to explain where we came from WITHOUT GOD."
Yes. That's what science does. the supernatural isn't an explanation in science. Gravity teaches how things fall without god. Combustion teaches how things burn without God. Electricity teaches how your computer works without God. Why aren't you angry at those theories? Evolution doesn't teach where life came from because taht is not evolution.
Really, AiG has something much more difficult to swallow than the peppered moths. They promote super-evolution. 1 or 2 species of each family from the ark, over just a few hundred years, produce all the species we have today. Mutation rates would have to be hundreds of thousands of times faster (would kill any animal), they would have to reprodce impossible fast (they take time to reach sexual maturity and develop an offspring).
To Alienspy07 -- This is a hand-waving non-testable description, not a scientific (cause-and-effect) theory. Theory is defined as "an hypothesis that has withstood many tests."
Can you supply any first empirical (or mathematical) test showing mutation and N.S. (+other factors) are "able" to add beneficial features (DNA) faster than they destroy required pre-existing protein-forming DNA code?
Beneficial mutations will build up within the population. If the organism loses information in a deleterious way it will be weeded out by natural selection. If it happens too much within the population they die off and their evolution ends. With genetic drift the population is smaller and the selective pressure if greater, weeding out the harmful losses at a greater rate.
As the water drained many canyons larger than the Grand Canyon were carved as the water flowed off the continents. These cut 2 to 3 miles down through the continental shelf to the bottom of the ocean. Eventually the ocean filled up, but the canyons are still there documenting the time when the ocean basin was new.
Why do you believe there were numerous ice ages? Why do you believe that climatic fluctuations can cause an ice age at all? The cooling of the ice age comes from the expansive cooling of the subterranean water that escaped when the fountains of the great deep were broken. In a sense the ice age is still not over...there is still plenty of ice yet un-melted.
dating paleo-ice ages from formaninifera in ice cores...LOL sometimes you just have to laugh. I guess I should be outraged that my tax dollars are spent on this kind of joke, but what can I really do about it? People like to believe in mythologies: always have, always will. The funny thing is modern people think their mythologies are somehow more enlightened than ancient mythologies. Millions believe driving their car affects the climate, but what can I say. People have to have a religion.
My opinion is that the fountains of the deep were a global, supercritical water cooled, fission powered, heat exchanger. But most YEC just take it to be the source of the flood water without elaboration.
So you think that the oceans collapsed, and that's where the flood waters went, correct? Well, you know those shifting magnetic strengths along the oceans that mark the Earth's shifts in polarity? How did they get there if the ocean was made catastrophically? And I trust you know about undersea earthquakes. Imagine the size of teh tidal wave that would be created from such a catastrophic collapse. Nothing would survive.
Actually it's nearly a scientific consensus that the earth is in the process of reversing. And even if they weren't reversals, how did the different strengths get there if the ocean was formed all at once?
You are correct that the magnetic field did change quickly (though it did not reverse) Because the surface of the lava solidifies very rapidly we can tell that the direction of the earths magnetic field changed as much as 6 degrees per day. I do not know why the field changed so quickly, merely that it did.
"If you are traveling down a highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour."
Interesting. The statement is accurate, but I wonder if it is an accurate quote or if Hovind actually believes it. Regardless, the Galilean frame transformation is correct.
Light is made of photons, so it has volume but no mass. Light can not be sped up like that. Compare it with sound, which also travels in waves. Look at a blackbird jet. It can travel 4 times the speed of sound. By his logic, the sound should be going at 5 times the speed of sound (speed of sound+speed of plane) But it doesn't. It says at the speed of sound. The speed of light is at a constant. All the car does is make the wavelengths shorter.
I am an aerospace engineer. Sound signal from the jet will travel at more than four times the "speed of sound" though the definition of sonic velocity is rather in this situation is rather complex to explain correctly in this format. Let me just say this. If the jet is going 800 m/s relative to the ground the sound of the jet will move faster even though its speed in the air may be only 340 m/s.
Even so, assuming that what you said were true, sound itself isn't made of any particular particles. It is nothing more than vibrations. Light has it's own particles: photons. They do not behave the same way. My comparison may not have been accurate, but the fact still remains that light's speed is very constant.
"Coral reefs are dated by the assumption of ridiculously slow growth rates for the coral and correlation to evolutionary assumed time."
Yes, coral does grow very slowly. They also test the coral to see evidence of any particularly unusual growth rates to line-up the ages. I don't see how the dating is evolutionary assumed. Care you back up this claim?
For instance let's examine the Eniwetok atoll. The reef is built on top of a table mount that was planed off by wave action. This flat top is 0.8 miles below the Pacific. The reef grew as the ocean rose since the flood keeping near the surface and the light. Uniformitatrianists will assume the date the "most recent" ice age and assume that some arbitrary shell on the reef represents the sea level at that hypothetical time. Then they will extrapolate this assumed growth rate to the bottom.
This is how the rate depends on the assumed evolutionary history. There was only one "ice age" caused by the flood. There are tens of thousands of known drowned reefs that did not grow fast enough to keep up with the rising water. But a few did grow fast enough such as Eniwetok.
This is crazy ! Intellectual ? MENSA ?? 6000y. old world ? That's anti-intellectual & totaly crazy.
Aleksamson 1 week ago
Evoking and personifying evolution is the greatest mistake by the religious. They are so hung up in the notion - or the desire - of consciousness they believe the natural process is forging ahead with conviction and meaning. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Atheeizm 1 month ago
55 people didnt watch the video. Probably go to all creationist videos, and thumb them down.
DrHonestruth1959 10 months ago
@DrHonestruth1959 You have that backwards, 55 people *did* watch this video, it's garbage.
lnternetDiscipIe 7 months ago
How stupid this man is?Evolution is big bang?~you retard!
groundzerobuild 1 year ago
Life from non-life violates a known scientific law.
The law of biogenesis states that life comes from life.
Some people don't believe in science. Life comes from life. There is no evidence that life comes from non-life. But some people believe that life comes from non-life by blind faith.
InternetDisciple 1 year ago
@InternetDisciple One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve.
groundzerobuild 1 year ago
@groundzerobuild
That is a beautiful story.
In the meantime, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from life. But some people don't believe in science.
There is no evidence that life comes from non-life. But some people have blind faith that life comes from non-life.
InternetDisciple 1 year ago
@InternetDisciple Disregard that last comment, sometimes the utter retardation of creationism comes back up on me. Usually I understand that Pasteurs work regarding the law of biogenesis only involved modern life not spontaneously arising out of non-living matter and nothing to do with the chemical origin of life.
InternetDiscipIe 1 year ago
@InternetDiscipIe: Atheist troll account detected!
Yep, using a capital i [I] as a lowercase l [L].
Pathetic.
Repent now!
Barachem 3 months ago
@Barachem No, it's just that I actually now realize the retardation of thinking that science could somehow apply to the metaphysical and that thinking the fact that energy is not able to be created somehow means it was created.
InternetDiscipIe 3 months ago
@InternetDisciple Not all people who are involved with SETI are evolutionist!
groundzerobuild 1 year ago
''Througout long periods of time, life arose spontanously from non-life''
A bit misleading to say the least.
What you are describing here sounds more like creation.
MoveOrder 1 year ago
''Some 20 billion years ago, that number depends on who you ask''
You make it sound like something bad that science has changed (getting better) when they can not define and stick to one number.
When did you last hear an atheist complain that creationism can not be correct for their age on the Earth varies between 6,000 and 30,000 years?
MoveOrder 1 year ago
''Evolutionists would claim that the universe and planets arose from a giant explosion''
Do not confuse cosmic evolution and biological evolution.
The Big Bang was not an explosion.
MoveOrder 1 year ago
''Evolution is basically an attempt to get
away from the need for a Creator God''
Wrong, evolution and God has nothing to do with each other.
Biological evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life.
MoveOrder 1 year ago
@MoveOrder The guy don't understand how "Half Life" works?
groundzerobuild 1 year ago
Within the first two minutes of this video, there is so much falsehood and easily disproven statements, that I just couldn't force myself to listen to the remaining twenty-five minutes.
Calling it "creation science" makes it no more science than calling a pig a dog would make it an actual dog.
Cannonfodder69 1 year ago
@Cannonfodder69
Just a little curious. what are the falsehoods and easily disproven statements, in your intelligent opinion? Perhaps you should have listened to the remaining 25 mins, or is it a case of fingers in ears and going lalalala, as Dawkins would say?
gillettsibert1 1 year ago
@gillettsibert1 The claim that the earth is only six to ten thousand years old. The bible creation story says that there was the earth before the sun and the other stars in the universe, that there was plants and other vegetation on the earth before the sun was created as well. Plus the claim of a global flood for which there is zero evidence for. Those are some of the falsehoods within the first two minutes of the video, since the entire creation story is demonstrably false.
Cannonfodder69 1 year ago
@Cannonfodder69
The reason YOU THINK there is no evidence for a global flood, is simply because you don't want to believe that, because if you had any inkling as to the evidence for a global flood you would not be stating such rubbish. Evolution is "also" FULL of holes, if you care to take a non biased study, evolution is a religion requiring more faith than the Creation story of the Bible. The entirety of evolution is the biggest hoax since Creation, open your eyes!! Do some real research!
gillettsibert1 1 year ago
@gillettsibert1 I have done the research, and read your supposed holy book. And that is why I went from being a christian to an atheist. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and zero evidence for creation. And parroting soundbites about needing more faith to believe presented evidence that has withstood rigorous peer-review and testing than it does something written in a book of bronze-age fables and myths simply shows that you are content to remain one of the sheep. Goodbye.
Cannonfodder69 1 year ago
@Cannonfodder69
Oh dear o dear, not that old chestnut again.. You never were a Christian mate. There is zero evidence for evolution and you have not done your research otherwise you would have seen that evolution is the biggest lie ever perpetrated by "man". I would prefer to believe my brain was the result of intelligent design than by random mutation which may account for your thinking. I am content to remain "one of the sheep", its a shame you have betrayed your creator.. goodbye.
gillettsibert1 1 year ago
@gillettsibert1 Open your eyes, do some real research ??? .........and the world is 6000y. old. LOL. Maybe if you do some more real research - you will find the earth is flat & the sun revolves around the earth
Aleksamson 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:1-5 (King James Version)
coolvideo28 1 year ago
Facts in line with the Bible?! Do these people even know how the Bible came into being and how the books where canonized? Wow, I am in awe at such ignorance.
Killjeser 1 year ago
"To get away from the NEED of a creator god" (opinion)
0 for 1, next
4mAALIKcHIN4 2 years ago
"The facts are in line with the Bible. "
Now youre just being stupid
dominickearney 2 years ago
If Ian"Creation-Corky"Juby is a scientist then i'm the king of Egypt.
sonykroket 2 years ago
Evolution is about change in species, it has nothing to do with the big bang or the origin of life. This idiot does not know what he is talking about.
Human fossils have NEVER been found with dinosaurs. Not even one bunny fossil has ever been found in old rock.
gregrutz 2 years ago
The first geologist went looking for the great flood but found a fossil record which has simple life in lower levels and more advanced life in upper levels.
evolution wins.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
How did they know the age of the fossils?
RepairBucket 2 years ago
They didn't know the exact age, they knew the earth was old by looking a geology.
The important part is the lower levels only have simple life forms.
gregrutz 2 years ago
There are two methods of dating fossils: relative dating where fossils are dated according to their relative positions in the strata, and absolute dating where radiometric dating such as uranium-238 dating which determines the age of the rocks in which the fossils are found.
dominickearney 2 years ago
Two questions:
1. what if radiometric dating was flawed?
There are four hopes or assumption that we make every time we stand on radiometric dating, right?
*assume/hope we know the amount of parent and daughter isotopes at the begining
*assume/hope no daughter or parent was introduced during the decay process
*assume/hope no leaching ever occurred throughout the decay process
*assume/hope nothing else changed the rate of decay throughout the process.
Should we build on facts or assumptions?
RepairBucket 2 years ago
"1. what if radiometric dating was flawed?"
It isn't, uneducated bible-clown.
"Should we build on facts or assumptions?""
Assume this, dorkie.
sonykroket 2 years ago
Assumptions are made about the daughter isotopes, but these are not merely guesses. With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples.
dominickearney 2 years ago
How do you know that those other minerals formed at the same time? Because your pulling metamorphic and igneous samples from a sedimentary rock which is basically a bunch of minerals mashed together that came from who knows where/when.
And they typically form with water (leaching) or wind movement.
Helium Diffusion Rates. Study this. Please. I've looked at your side of the mirror for years.
It's not so cut and dry.
RepairBucket 2 years ago
'There are four hopes or assumption that we make every time we stand on radiometric dating, right?.
WRONG.
dominickearney 2 years ago
Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount.
dominickearney 2 years ago
So would you agree that these rocks dated are coming from below the Earth's crust initially? (you should because they are metamorphic and igneous rocks).
Follow up questions for you to ask yourself. (I'm not looking for answers. I'm hoping you ask them yourself).
How much do we KNOW about heat's, pressures and water under the Earth's crust?
Have we ever drilled through the Earth's crust? (hint: No)
RepairBucket 2 years ago
Why do creationist think that you have to have been somewhere to know anything about it. Hint: We know a great deal about the pressures and temperatures at the centre of the sun, but weve never been there.
Incidently, I was already well aware of Humprey et al.s paper (not published in any respected scientific journal and thus hasnt been subjected to scrutiny by any experts in the field), and it is flawed in so many ways. Ask yourself about Humpreys assumptions of constant temperature.
dominickearney 2 years ago
We know? or we have a hypothesis about things we cannot observe, test and repeat.
Is Humprey not an expert in the field? Sir Charles Lyell was less of an expert in geology than even Ian Juby. Lyell was a crafty attorney. He had almost no training in geology but concocted this old Earth idea from a visit to Niagara falls. Many of the so called facts he tried to establish have been disproved but once again. We share the same facts. Not assumptions. The facts are in line with the Bible.
RepairBucket 2 years ago
Yes, we know. We know the mass of the sun, we know the temperature and pressure at the core of the sun. This is basic physics that a high school student could work out. We dont need to stick a fucking thermometer there to know it.
Humphrey may be an expert but experts still need to subject themselves to the peer review, something which creationists avoid like the plague because they know their science is a bag of shite.
dominickearney 2 years ago
there is no scientific evidence for a world wide flood.
Evolution deals with species not the origin of life.
"Evolution is an attempt to get away from a need for god." what a loaded bunch of bull shit. It's called Science and it doesn 't believe in the supernatural.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I like how people comment on things they don't agree with. [/sarcasm]
It's like saying, "Oh, I hate something" and then clicking on that very something that you hate, just because you hate it, and then comment on it, badmouthing it and saying it isn't true just because you think it isn't.
It's a bit pathetic to me.
ChokuTsutanai100 2 years ago
How is SETI a tool of intelligent design? Explain this please. It seems totally spurious to me.
dominickearney 3 years ago
Overwhelming and profound evidence of a flood? Hmm, where has this been published? Surely that would be a Nobel prize winning discovery.
dominickearney 3 years ago
What if those granting the Nobel prizes made a conscious decision to steer clear of anything that may lay claim to any particular religious belief?
RepairBucket 2 years ago
the prize is to be granted to those that make the greatest benefit to mankind. If they would award someone the Nobel prize for proving something Biblical such as the flood or ark it would condemn mankind as we are all separated from God without Jesus. Pretty unlikely anyone will award a prize to one that proves the World has someone to answer to.
RepairBucket 2 years ago
Do you know if any one has been denied a Nobel prize because of religious belief? If there truly were overwhelming evidence of a global flood, then religion wouldnt enter into it. The evidence would either show that happened, or it didnt.
dominickearney 2 years ago
Quite frankly I've never heard of anyone even being nominated for the Nobel prize if the work had anything to do with a Biblical connotation.
RepairBucket 2 years ago
It's just so funny. The speaker provides captions for the hearing impaired, while we provide commentary for the reality impaired. The irony of this is just amazing. It really needs Monty Python captions...."See the majestic moose......moose bites can be serious...."
magick205 3 years ago
sonykroket 3 years ago
But we have evidence of Evil towards men (note your derogatory, hatfule fau fact-list towards fellow humans).
You can't have Evil without Good. You can't explain either with out a supernatural.
Who told you the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Why do you choose to believe him/her?
RepairBucket 2 years ago
All the scientist in the world say the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
gregrutz 2 years ago
There is no evidence for a Global flood, none.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Repairbucket, maybe you should start repairing your brain, bible-kisser.
sonykroket 2 years ago
So do you actually want to discuss thing or just point at each other and laugh and say "huh huh huh, you're stupid"
Because if you'd like to to talk let's do that.
But if you want to be childish stop wasting your time.
Can you tell me how it is a "fact" that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
If you choose to be a dick again just don't answer.
RepairBucket 2 years ago
No matter what evidence we come up with, you bible-jockeys will always ignore it to keep believing in bronze-age fairytales.
I'm not even gonna bother telling you where to look, it's a waste of time and besides, you can look it up yourself.
I'm just here to make fun of reli-muppets like you.
Hehehe, you moron.
sonykroket 2 years ago
The oldest such minerals analysed to date (small crystals of zircon from Western Australia) are at least 4.40 billion years old.Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium and aluminium (the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system) are 4.57 billion years old,giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.
dominickearney 2 years ago
How did we get the age for this zircon crystal?
RepairBucket 2 years ago
Why not research this yourself?
dominickearney 2 years ago
I have. I'm asking questions that you should have asked yourself during your own studies.
Helium Diffusion Rates. What do you know about this and what is does to the assumptions of radiometeric dating. Crushes them.
This is a pretty big stumbling block for old Earth geology.
If you don't ask questions they your scientific beliefs are built on trust and blind faith.
RepairBucket 2 years ago
You think I havent researched this? The reason I didnt answer you fully is because Im sick of providing information for lazy creationists who arent willing to do proper research. And proper research isnt looking in Answers in Genesis. Do you seriously think that estimates for the age of the earth are out by a factor of 750000? Thats the error that would be required for the biblical age of the earth to be correct. If you think that, you truly are in cloud cuckoo land.
dominickearney 2 years ago
You choose to trust scientist that have no interest in you. You haven't done anymore real research or experiments than I have now have you? Be honest.
So you trust Lyell, Darwin and the likes. aka faith in what they tell you.
RepairBucket 2 years ago
This is where you misunderstand science. Whats the scientists interest in me got to do with anything? Its not the scientist I trust; its science itself. And the reason you can trust science because the scientific method, the peer review and repeatable observations or experiments means that ensures that science is done correctly. If you have a problem with the science of evolution, then you have a problem with all science.
dominickearney 2 years ago
@dominickearney
Well said.
hairyreasoner 1 year ago
Darwin tells me nothing. The theory of evolution is stands by itself because of the evidence supporting it (we have far more evidence for evolution today than Darwin had). It is you that needs faith as you believe in the supernatural, not I.
dominickearney 2 years ago
And what about the amount of leftover helium in this zircon? Wouldn't this helium have leaked out over 4.5 billions years?
Current experiments say "yes". This helium byproduct is a major issue for for radiometeric dating.
RepairBucket 2 years ago
A poor presentation.
The earth is 6,000 years old. Another religious maniac presents half-baked ideas as fact.
I can't understand how any thinking person is taken in with this nonsense. Yet, such is the crises in social,economics and morals that some are ready to fall for the next slick talker.
I would love to believe in a creator, a life after death. But I can't. It is crazy. Even more, I would feel pity for a God who - we're told - loves, but wants to burn bad people in an eternal fire.
174JK50 3 years ago
God doesn't put "bad people" in an "eternal fire".
1) People who don't believe in God go to Hell. Therefore, someone can believe in God and still could have killed someone (before or even after coming to Christ).
2) Hell, though people assume, is not a pit of fire, it's an eternal seperation from God. I believe that it's eternal darkness.
God loves even you; I hope you can believe that some time in your life.
ChokuTsutanai100 2 years ago
The only thing he does prove is, that IQ test don't mean smack...just that you're able to score high in an IQ test.
I would like to see a response from Mensa, though.
Not kicking him out or anything, but maybe showing how many others from Mensa also believe in creationism or how many hold the theory of evolution for fact.
Meisterdieb 4 years ago
BTW the nukes where made by atheist's Feynam, openheimer ex... But whats scary is who uses nukes or in controll. President...Bush...A creationist. So I ask myself so who is stupid the creationist or the atheist's
dragoonthief 4 years ago
well that's a solid case.
GBart 4 years ago
what a strange argument......
Elcristoph 3 years ago
what do you mean. The people inventing them are not or have not been the ones to use them. Who wants to use them those with somesort of strange ideology aka... Religion such as The guy from Iran, you got the guy from korea Kim jun Ill and look at America. Who was it Truman A christian ordered the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
dragoonthief 3 years ago
Bush a Christian?!?! If I told you I was Peter Pan would you believe me????? Does it help him control people - yes? Who can refute a man who claims to serve the most high- especially if someone was an Christian who doesn't follow the news.
Strange argument for sure
XXXL311311 3 years ago
What is scary is that people who might even otherwise be smart people can be fooled into believing such a stupid thing as to think Bush is a creationist! What a bunch of hooey! He's not even a Christian IMO! He does his Skull & Bones coffin rituals and his Masonic rites and probably does the Bohemian Grove Greek gods/crossdressing camp thing just like Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and elder Bush before...
axerator 3 years ago
Crazy talk - and america has most of the nukes , time to be afraid..very afraid, lol
kalsolarUK 4 years ago
Debate? what debate, do they not have school in the US or something?
MaxSafeheaD 4 years ago
what a prick!
MURDERWITHARADIO 4 years ago 2
stupid video but as You say: who cares...
paliver 4 years ago
I could barely stand to sit through this but I did catch the analogy of comparing the existence of England and her king to the existence of hell (and its king?) Nice try but a person would have to be a total idiot to disbelieve in the existence of England. Where is the evidence for the existence of hell? Seriously, what kind of logic is this?
pbp720 4 years ago
Also, I would like to add who the hell are you to condemn or not condemn anyone anyway? Oh wow, I'm so comforted that you don't condemn me!
Patronizing jackass.
pbp720 4 years ago
The intro states that this video has captions for the hearing impaired.I just have to wonder ,is impaired hearing god's design or a deviation that would be predicted by the theory of evolution?
sesamesnap71 4 years ago
What a dumbass!
sarcasticatheist 4 years ago
Is this a joke? Why is he pointing out his Mensa membership? If being a member of MENSA in any way validates your opinion then it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of MENSA members worldwide are ATHIEISTS!
sleepcrime 4 years ago
"You should take the MENSA test as well. You might be surprised, as I was." - This is pure gold.
The "Actually..." episode based on this is hilarious. Anyone who disagrees with this guy should watch it (it's the response by akg41470).
soulhunger1 4 years ago
Hurray for Evolution!
KiliStickyG 4 years ago
Try googling "the BRITES", The Biological Research Institute of the Theory of Evolution, it has very convincing evidence for evolution. I walked away a "believer".
ozredneck22 4 years ago
yay?
KiliStickyG 4 years ago
No, not yay. It's a joke site making fun of evolution.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Listen, ozredneck, you Creationists can make all the websites you want making fun of evolution. We aren't going to stoop to your level; we don't have to. All we have to do is show a bit of the movie 'Jesus Camp' or one of venomfangX's videos or maybe a clip of Hovind's lectures. It has the same effect, only the difference is that those things AREN'T parody.
alienspy07 4 years ago
I must, however, thank you for directing me to that website. I learn more about the dishonesty, immorality and downright LIES of Creationists every day.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Tell me one from that site
ozredneck22 4 years ago
They make a big deal out of Nebraska man, which was never taken seriously by ANY scientist. It was made by an ARTIST, and NO scientist ever thought of it as a real transitional fossil. Creationists lie about it to make it seem like it was once a big part of what we know about human evolution. And Darwin WAS racist. EVERYONE was racist in the 1800's.
alienspy07 4 years ago 2
They say that survival of the fittest means you can go around killing people weaker than you, they say evolution is random, they say that evolution makes you immoral and means you can do whatever you want, and they make it look like evolution says you evolve in your lifetime.
alienspy07 4 years ago 2
It says the the evidence points away from common ancestry with apes, and it says that evolution makes you a materialist. Your lies have been shown to you. You're welcome. I'm probably missing a lot. I just skimmed through the site. But the point stands, Creationists are lying, dishonest assholes. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off on vacation and won't be back for a week.
alienspy07 4 years ago
I checked out the site. Utterly shameless crap. Do they think they're making an argument? They're just making fun of Darwin. There are so many lies in it I can't begin to describe them. When will people just check out the science for themselves? Then they'll see evolution is correct.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
The science and the evidence is the same, the interpretations and assumptions are sometimes diametrically opposed. Truth cannot contradict truth.
ozredneck22 4 years ago
That is simply not true. The evidence is quite one-sided. And while interpretation is important, evolution fits much better with all the evidence while creationism needs to make numerous assumptions just to fit some of the evidence. Evolution is hands down the best fit for all the evidence available.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
Obviously Evolution fits everything since its definition is so plastic (any change) it can mean what ever you want it to mean. It has no beginning, since you need something alive to mutate and be selected for.
ozredneck22 4 years ago
That is not true. Looking at evolutionary predictions it all fits perfectly. There is good genetic evidence that life stems from a common ancestor. The evidence can't simply mean whatever you want it to mean.
Evolution does have a beginning. That is the beginning of life. However, evolution doesn't care how life got started.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
How did like the "Paley Watch Company" they sell loose watch parts with a shaker tube and you keep shaking till a watch is formed.
ozredneck22 4 years ago
"How did like the "Paley Watch Company" they sell loose watch parts with a shaker tube and you keep shaking till a watch is formed."
Evolution is quite simply not blind chance. A watch isn't alive so it can't evolve. cdk007 has a video demonstrating how, with evolutionary principles, a fully functional, accurate watch can be formed.
/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
When a person accepts evil-utionism, they cease practicing science, since origins is not science. Origins is history. ALL living and physical (bar none) sciences can be taught without origins. Origins is down the hall. And Evil-utionism was never invented ot explain where we came from (which it can't), it was invented to explain where we came from WITHOUT GOD. Of paramount importance. It is pure religion, backed up by millions. Just like Islam and Hinduism.
zukester100 4 years ago
"Origins is history. ALL living and physical (bar none) sciences can be taught without origins."
That is simply BS. How species came about is easily science. History is documented. And evolution isn't the origin. The origin of life is abiogenesis.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
part 2.
And since they claim no information is added, they would have to have every allel for their kind (impossible). And the inbreeding of the animals and Noah's family (and Adam and Eve) are impossible barrier to get around.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
BalmungSama0,can I ask you a scientific and personal question?
ozredneck22 4 years ago
A scientific question; certainly.
A personal question; depends on the question.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
What scientific evidence would you accept that would convince you of creation?
ozredneck22 4 years ago
Hmm... Well, I never really thought of what it would take to convince me. First, geological and radiometric dates confirming a young earth. Fossil sorting consistent with a global flood. Human and dinosaur fossils found within the same layer of strata within the same rock. A lack of genetic markers, like chromosome fusions and ERVs, indicating these did not spawn from the same source.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
What evidence would you accept that would convince you of evolution?
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
"What evidence would you accept that would convince you of evolution?" assemble a very very very simple cell and demonstrate that it didn't take intelligence to do it.
ozredneck22 4 years ago
"assemble a very very very simple cell and demonstrate that it didn't take intelligence to do it."
Ah. The origin of life, eh? That isn't evolution. Evolution doesn't care how life got here. Just that it was there and that it evolved. The origin of life is abiogenesis. There is a lot of research going into it, but we haven't produced life as of yet.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
Maybe thats to close to abiogenesis, whats your best single evidence that should convince me?
ozredneck22 4 years ago
The best physical evidence would be the fossil record, but some of the strongest genetic evidence that I am aware of would be ERVs.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
my understanding was that evolutionist were abandoning the fossil record since it was so patchy. Ceolocanths producing Ceolocanths, no matter how old it is believed they are in the fossils(370 Ma), supports the biblical account (reproduce after their kind).
ozredneck22 4 years ago
"my understanding was that evolutionist were abandoning the fossil record since it was so patchy."
Yes, it is heavily fragmented, but is still strong support of evolution.
"Ceolocanths producing Ceolocanths, no matter how old it is believed they are in the fossils(370 Ma), supports the biblical account (reproduce after their kind)."
Do some research on modern and ancient Ceolocanths. They have changed quite a bit. They aren't even in the same family.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
Looking at sheep and enJSRV's, they can't get pregnant without it,there are plenty of viruses and bacteria animals need to survive. When these microbes lose parts of their genome they become pathogenic,but thats loss not evolution.
ozredneck22 4 years ago
First, a loss can still be evolution if it's advantageous, but that's irrelevant.
Yes, I am fully aware some animals need some of the ERVs to perform certain tasks. But almost every ERV we have studied has shown to be utterly useless. We can remove it and shuffle it around and we see no change whatsoever in the organism.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
"First, a loss can still be evolution if it's advantageous, but that's irrelevant." Evolution is supposed to explain how man arrived here (after abiogenesis) from a single self reproducing cell to man.
ozredneck22 4 years ago
Well, it doesn't say we got here by naturalistic abiogenesis. And it does explain that. There are things that we have yet to explain, of course. I don't think there's a single theory that explains everything relevant to it. Research is being done on many different subjects to fill in these gaps. However, we have demonstrated in the past that evolution is capable of producing many complex systems.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
The reason I mention this is that the constant evidence I get shown for biological evolution is loss
ozredneck22 4 years ago
"The reason I mention this is that the constant evidence I get shown for biological evolution is loss"
Really? Are you aware that frameshift mutations in many animals, including humans, have been shown to create a resistance to cancer? These add information.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
Part 2 A mycoplasma (simple living cell)has 580,000 base pairs of information, human cells have 3,000,000,000 base pairs how do you explain an increase of 2,420,000,000 with loss. You don't get rich by losing money.
ozredneck22 4 years ago
I never said evolution was only loss, did I? I merely said that a beneficial loss can also be considered evolution. Gaining is quite obviously a big part in evolution.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
I understand how flys that live on windy islands can have mutations that lose their wings and that stops them being blown off. Then they are called walks not flys, but that doesn't explain how they got wings.
ozredneck22 4 years ago
"I understand how flys that live on windy islands can have mutations that lose their wings and that stops them being blown off. Then they are called walks not flys, but that doesn't explain how they got wings."
Have you ever heard of the fruit fly experiments with hox genes? One tiny mutation produced flight wings from tiny stabilizer wings. The evolution of wings is one of the things being studied. I'm not sure of the progress. Perhaps you can look such things up yourself?
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
"Have you ever heard of the fruit fly experiments with hox genes?" Drosophila that has the information for wings, gets the information resuffled to a different part of its body due to loss of control of homeotic genes. I would love to have eyes at the back of my head but without the optic nerve and brain reception they would be useless.
ozredneck22 4 years ago
But a patch of photo9sensitive cell connected to a nromal nerve on your arm would at least give you the ability to tell day apart from night, and tell when you're in the shade or not. The eye can come from that.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
You'll probably say that the experiments used intelligence if they do ever succeed, but that is a clutch of straws. The experiments simulate what what nature can produce, and odds of probability are calculated on it being made using an un-guided process.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
It is rather difficult to think of what I am supposed to be looking for in evidence for creation, never having seen evidence for it (even after checking AiG). My answer must seem severely lacking to you, but it's hard to think of evidence for everything magically coming into existence within the course of 7 days as is.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
"It is rather difficult to think of what I am supposed to be looking for in evidence for creation, never having seen evidence for it".Looking at mount Rushmore how would you "know" the wind, rain and erosion did not cause the faces to appear?
ozredneck22 4 years ago
"Looking at mount Rushmore how would you "know" the wind, rain and erosion did not cause the faces to appear?"
Because we have documented history of it's production, and that the odds of that happening in such a precise way with a non-living entity is almost impossible. However, if you want to use that as an argument for design, I'm afraid it doesn't work. Because it isn't alive, it doesn't reproduce, mutate, and isn't subject to natural selection.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
What that is called is, assumption, and you know what happens when you assume, it makes an ass out of you and me.
KiliStickyG 4 years ago
...mainly you...
KiliStickyG 4 years ago
Now, since what you gave me isn't evolution, I shall ask you again. What evidence would you accept that would convince you of evolution?
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
"And Evil-utionism was never invented ot explain where we came from (which it can't), it was invented to explain where we came from WITHOUT GOD."
Yes. That's what science does. the supernatural isn't an explanation in science. Gravity teaches how things fall without god. Combustion teaches how things burn without God. Electricity teaches how your computer works without God. Why aren't you angry at those theories? Evolution doesn't teach where life came from because taht is not evolution.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
Really, AiG has something much more difficult to swallow than the peppered moths. They promote super-evolution. 1 or 2 species of each family from the ark, over just a few hundred years, produce all the species we have today. Mutation rates would have to be hundreds of thousands of times faster (would kill any animal), they would have to reprodce impossible fast (they take time to reach sexual maturity and develop an offspring).
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
wow, this guy is worse than Teno. But i think that my favorite creationist is either wordsmith or galilean
KiliStickyG 4 years ago
To Alienspy07 -- This is a hand-waving non-testable description, not a scientific (cause-and-effect) theory. Theory is defined as "an hypothesis that has withstood many tests."
Can you supply any first empirical (or mathematical) test showing mutation and N.S. (+other factors) are "able" to add beneficial features (DNA) faster than they destroy required pre-existing protein-forming DNA code?
Wordsmith21 4 years ago
Beneficial mutations will build up within the population. If the organism loses information in a deleterious way it will be weeded out by natural selection. If it happens too much within the population they die off and their evolution ends. With genetic drift the population is smaller and the selective pressure if greater, weeding out the harmful losses at a greater rate.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
This has probably been pointed out already, but England doesn't have a king.
BryanAJParry 4 years ago
When this guy talks about mensa and sets himself up as an intellectual; made me laff out loud!
BryanAJParry 4 years ago
As the water drained many canyons larger than the Grand Canyon were carved as the water flowed off the continents. These cut 2 to 3 miles down through the continental shelf to the bottom of the ocean. Eventually the ocean filled up, but the canyons are still there documenting the time when the ocean basin was new.
galileanED 4 years ago
Why do you believe there were numerous ice ages? Why do you believe that climatic fluctuations can cause an ice age at all? The cooling of the ice age comes from the expansive cooling of the subterranean water that escaped when the fountains of the great deep were broken. In a sense the ice age is still not over...there is still plenty of ice yet un-melted.
galileanED 4 years ago
"Fountains of the deep"? What are these fountains?
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Ice_age#Evidence_for_ice_ages
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
dating paleo-ice ages from formaninifera in ice cores...LOL sometimes you just have to laugh. I guess I should be outraged that my tax dollars are spent on this kind of joke, but what can I really do about it? People like to believe in mythologies: always have, always will. The funny thing is modern people think their mythologies are somehow more enlightened than ancient mythologies. Millions believe driving their car affects the climate, but what can I say. People have to have a religion.
galileanED 4 years ago
Explain how they are myths and we'll talk.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
My opinion is that the fountains of the deep were a global, supercritical water cooled, fission powered, heat exchanger. But most YEC just take it to be the source of the flood water without elaboration.
galileanED 4 years ago
So you think that the oceans collapsed, and that's where the flood waters went, correct? Well, you know those shifting magnetic strengths along the oceans that mark the Earth's shifts in polarity? How did they get there if the ocean was made catastrophically? And I trust you know about undersea earthquakes. Imagine the size of teh tidal wave that would be created from such a catastrophic collapse. Nothing would survive.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
There are no reversals of polarity. This is a widely propagated methodological error. The compass never reverses, field strength merely decreases.
galileanED 4 years ago
Actually it's nearly a scientific consensus that the earth is in the process of reversing. And even if they weren't reversals, how did the different strengths get there if the ocean was formed all at once?
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
You are correct that the magnetic field did change quickly (though it did not reverse) Because the surface of the lava solidifies very rapidly we can tell that the direction of the earths magnetic field changed as much as 6 degrees per day. I do not know why the field changed so quickly, merely that it did.
galileanED 4 years ago
Any evidence suggesting this is even possible?
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
Here's a great quote from Hovind.
"If you are traveling down a highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour."
Can anyone explain how this statement is faulty?
KiliStickyG 4 years ago
Interesting. The statement is accurate, but I wonder if it is an accurate quote or if Hovind actually believes it. Regardless, the Galilean frame transformation is correct.
galileanED 4 years ago
Light is made of photons, so it has volume but no mass. Light can not be sped up like that. Compare it with sound, which also travels in waves. Look at a blackbird jet. It can travel 4 times the speed of sound. By his logic, the sound should be going at 5 times the speed of sound (speed of sound+speed of plane) But it doesn't. It says at the speed of sound. The speed of light is at a constant. All the car does is make the wavelengths shorter.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
I am an aerospace engineer. Sound signal from the jet will travel at more than four times the "speed of sound" though the definition of sonic velocity is rather in this situation is rather complex to explain correctly in this format. Let me just say this. If the jet is going 800 m/s relative to the ground the sound of the jet will move faster even though its speed in the air may be only 340 m/s.
galileanED 4 years ago
Even so, assuming that what you said were true, sound itself isn't made of any particular particles. It is nothing more than vibrations. Light has it's own particles: photons. They do not behave the same way. My comparison may not have been accurate, but the fact still remains that light's speed is very constant.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
"Coral reefs are dated by the assumption of ridiculously slow growth rates for the coral and correlation to evolutionary assumed time."
Yes, coral does grow very slowly. They also test the coral to see evidence of any particularly unusual growth rates to line-up the ages. I don't see how the dating is evolutionary assumed. Care you back up this claim?
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
For instance let's examine the Eniwetok atoll. The reef is built on top of a table mount that was planed off by wave action. This flat top is 0.8 miles below the Pacific. The reef grew as the ocean rose since the flood keeping near the surface and the light. Uniformitatrianists will assume the date the "most recent" ice age and assume that some arbitrary shell on the reef represents the sea level at that hypothetical time. Then they will extrapolate this assumed growth rate to the bottom.
galileanED 4 years ago
I see nothing in your statement relating the the biological theory of evolution.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
This is how the rate depends on the assumed evolutionary history. There was only one "ice age" caused by the flood. There are tens of thousands of known drowned reefs that did not grow fast enough to keep up with the rising water. But a few did grow fast enough such as Eniwetok.
galileanED 4 years ago
THere were numerous Ice Ages throughout the earth's history.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago