Creationism does not disprove the existence of god or religion, the early creation is still debateable. However: Whilst science and ‘creationism’ find facts and then draw conclusions, religion has the supposed conclusions already, and draws its own fact to support them. why cant we be friends?
@JungleJargon one quick question why didn't Noah take dinos or any other extinct animal and don't tell me they were to big their are some small dinos as-well i see no reason why he would take a animal like a rat and not take a Purgatorius or two why do we share 98% of our genes with chimps why is 99.9% of all life that has ever existed is extinct and the last question why don't we find all extinct organisms in the same geological layers?
@mimarp478 How big is a dinosaur egg or a baby dinosaur?
It is more like 95% and that accounts for a lot of difference and it is the controlling DNA that makes all of the difference in the world.
We find that life forms have not changed since they were fossils.
Why are geologists unable to account for over 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments that could only have been deposited by a global flood. It doesn't matter where the fossils are found when you can't even explain that.
@JungleJargon "How big is a dinosaur egg or a baby dinosaur?" could you elaborate on what you mean "It is more like 95% and that accounts for a lot of difference and it is the controlling DNA that makes all of the difference in the world" wrong again jargon we share 98% percent of our genes with chimps and most if not all are the "controlling" genes
@JungleJargon (con) "We find that life forms have not changed since they were fossils" if a organism is adapted well into their environment their is no need for them to change "100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments that could only have been deposited by a global flood" these deposits could have been deposited over a long period of time have been caused by normal floods and glaciation events(ice ages).
@JungleJargon "it doesn't matter where the fossils are found" It does matter where fossils are found you also failed to answer my other questions you have to be completely ignorant to say something like that. You have also failed to answer my other questions why Noah toke a rat but not a Purgatorius or any other extinct animal also why all fossils are found in different layers and not in one big layer.
@JungleJargon I have a question: Who is this "Maker" you speak of? Is it Allah? Is it Ptha? Is it Marduk? Is it Vishnu? Is it Shangdi? Is it Cagn? Is it Unkulunkulu? Is it Damballa? Is it Muluku? Is it Tengri? Is it Yahweh?
Look both of you need to calm down. Nether disproves the other. I am religious and yet I believe that evolution takes place. It may very well be the way that God created us. But those that truly know biology know that It was no mistake and don't try and tell me I'm not educated in the subject. I have take chemistry, biology, micro biology, anatomy, physiology, bio chemistry, histology, immuno biology, genetics and more. I have also read the bible and have gone to church my whole life. Calm down.
@devmanl this isn't about god, it's about defending real science. iv refuted every argument he's presented plain and simple. and waving what you know in my face says nothing to me, i acknowledge theist scientist's, in fact I used examples of them earlier to disprove his bullshit notion that evolution is some atheist philosophy. but theist or not this doesn't change that the burden of prove still lies on the faithful. but that's not what this was about, this was about defending science.
@devmanl if you've read anything you'd know he's done nothing but spend his time attacking evolution, yet he has no basis to so. he lacks even a basic understanding of the theory or biology for that matter. all he's done the entire argument is dance around this and try to link evolution with atheism and by his flawed logic this somehow refutes the mountians of evidence or the discoveries and applications we have gained from it. stop trying to make this a god debate.
@devmanl "But those that But those that truly know biology know that It was no mistake" and im sorry but what is this statement based off of. the majority of the scientific community is atheist or agnostic. and i hate to use his name but no matter how you feel about the man richard dawkin's is a world renowned evolutionary biologist, to say that he " truly knows biology" is and understatement. he's one of the best in science and like everyone knows he's big time atheist. your statement is flase
"our grandfather was an ape, your great grandfather a dog and your great great grandfather a beetle?" this was funny as hell btw. if there was ever a doubt in my mind that you haven't done a shred of research on evolution this takes the cake. it's like a retarded trying to read Shakespeare. this isn't even remotely what evolution states. so stop acting like you know anything about it. you just demonstrated right there with that ignorant statement that you know nothing. this is to easy
and evolution isn't needed to kill god, cosmology and physics are more than enough to cast doubt on fairytales like yours. if you wish to be ignorant that's your choice, I can't force you to grow up and educate yourself. but you have no right to push your religious based pseudoscientific bullshit in schools and try to undermine real progress. I notice you can't even try to combat the applications I listed of evolution. you haven't refuted a single argument iv presented. is this all you got?
applied evolution in medicine, bacterial antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics place a selective pressure on a bacterial population, often resulting in the emergence of resistant strains. Understanding this “evolutionary arms race” between bacteria and antibiotics allows us to develop strategies for minimizing resistance. The same applies to viral evolution and vaccines......im not finished yet dumbass
here is a small list of missing link transitional fossils. Tiktaalik: The "Fishapod", Archaeopteryx: The First Bird, Amphistium: The Halfway Flatfish, MY FAVORITE Ambulocetus: The Walking Whale, Homo Ergaster: The "Turkana Boy", Hyracotherium/Eohippus: The Dawn Horse, Thrinaxodon: The Emerging Mammal. would you like me to go on. you must refute all of this.
@roxas12590 Yea, you'll have to name at least 100 million "transitional fossils". Don't you realize that for each and every life form, there has to be transitions between them? There simply aren't enough being found. Also, are you aware that your "scientists" completed the "Lucy" skeleton by finding a fragment of bone 200 feet lower in the strata and a quarter mile away? Evolutionary scientists WANT to prove evolution so as to kill god and glorify themselves, but science will have none of it!
Most supporters of Intelligent Design are fundamentalist Christians who are afraid that learning about a theory will poison their children against Jesus. First problem with that idea: your kids aren't that stupid. Just learning about an idea doesn't mean accepting it as true. Second problem: Intelligent Design doesn't mean teaching about God, just that "an intelligent being" (maybe Zeus, or aliens, or whatever) might have made life on Earth.
Here's a HYPOTHETICAL, woman. Let's say that the intelligent design movement WASN'T Christian. Let's say that it was merely what it claims to be: intelligent design. THEN would it be OK to teach it? Because on one hand you say that evolution is neutral in spite of the fact that a VAST majority of those that accept it are atheist. Yet on the other hand you say that intelligent design is NOT neutral, when there are actually many different faiths that accept it.
@tpstrat14 it's not about who accepts what. it's about what's right, regardless of how you view evolution it is validated testable science witch has withstood scrutiny for over 150 years and is accepted by the scientific community witch is comprised of scientist's of all different faiths and ethnic backgrounds. ID is psuedoscientific bullshit plain and simple. you don't teach garbage religious based psuedoscience in public schools...period!
@roxas12590 It's not religion-based. It is fact based. What don't you understand about that? It's unfortunate that evolutionists like yourself really, truly don't see where the evidence is pointing. It's pointing in all directions right now. But let's figure it out! Let's not just throw our hands up in the air and say "evolution dun it. No thought required"
@tpstrat14 ID has no evidence, the fossil record, genetics, vestigiality. all of these things easily refute ID, evolution has withstood over 150 years of scrutiny, testing and trails by the scientific community. it had to claw it's way tooth and nail to establish itself in science. it's saved lives by furthering modern medicine and advances in agriculture so like all science it can be applied. it's real science with real results and has earned it's place as the backbone of modern biology.
@tpstrat14 name one respected ID proponent who holds weight in the scientific community. name one discovery or application of his or hers ID based research that saves lives or helps to further scientific understanding, you know like how evolutionary biology allows us to explain and predict viral strain evolution and create vaccines that save lives when new vaccine resistant strains mutate and evolve, or allow us to map the human genome and explain biodiversity. ID is bullshit plain and simple
@tpstrat14 in the end you attempt to defend and adhere to such trash because despite it's lack of evidence this psuedoscience complements your own biased and RELIGIOUS BASED world view. and yet you have the arrogance to say that it's not when you yourself argue bullshit links between evolution and "satanism". your a joke and an ignorant little sheep who forsakes knowledge for ignorance to try and validate your religious beliefs. it's just gotten sad, I feel sorry for people like you
@tpstrat14 and your "hypothetical" point proves your just a moron, ID has christian based themes.even ignoring the links between it and creationism found in the dover trial. intelligent "DESIGN" is the smoking gun. the biased assumption of design implies a "designer" who has direct effect upon life. but we can't test this designer and the concept reeks of religious themes. and since this failed movement is championed by christians it's obvious as to who's biased view it leans towards. give up
@roxas12590 This is the grandest double standard ever held. YOUR concept reeks of atheistic themes and you complain about creationism having religious themes. And no, the science DOESN'T point to evolution. The science points nowhere right now. It's just a bunch of inconclusive facts that atheistic, pride-sodden scientists have manipulated. Let's keep searching and be sure not to let our imaginations get the better of us! We can figure this out!
@tpstrat14 bullshit it doesn't, the fossil record, biology, genetics. all of these point to evolution. if you knew anything about science you could see that. and evolution isnt atheistic, science is neutral. anyone can see and test evolution. darwin himself was christian you moron,many leading scientist's like kent miller are theist. we can apply evolution and get results, we can use it. hell we can even force it in controlled tests. the evidence is there, your just to ignorant to see it
@tpstrat14 how do you explain away the genetic links between us and our common ancestors, the links between other species as well. how do explain away thousands of transitional fossils that allow us to track the evolution of species and solve the mystery's of biodiversity. evolution is the only viable explanation for the origins of life. this is a consensus in science agreed upon by scientists of many faiths and backgrounds. you have no evidence that says otherwise, prove me wrong!
@roxas12590 You say evolution is not atheistically themed. OK, so how could any reasonable person THROUGHOUT HISTORY reject evolution unless they believed in a creator whose methods of creation are unknown? (i.e. what other naturalistic, explainable possibility of origins is there besides evolution/ a biogenesis?!?!) You don't need to know ANYTHING about biology and fossils to be able to accept evolution and a biogenesis. You just need to be a faithful, believing, practicing atheist.
@tpstrat14 there is no such thing as a practicing atheist, when it comes to evolution it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of evidence. anyone be it theist or atheist can be smart enough to see the evidence for it. it has nothing to do with religion in any sense, faithful or not anyone can do the research. your trying to drive a wedge between the faithful and science, as if a person cannot have both. just because your an ignorant moron doesn't mean other theist's are.
@roxas12590 There is no proof that life can form from non-life and then evolve into millions of COMPLETELY different creatures. Yea I know you atheists have theories as to how it could happen without God, but when it gets right down to it life is a mystery and there's nothing you can do to explain it. We can only observe it.. THIS (observation) is science... any explanation is only hubris and if taken seriously is detrimental to society and science. Hence, evolution has poisoned your mind...
@tpstrat14 "There is no proof that life can form from non-life" this is not what evolution states, again you prove your ignorance. a theory in science is an explanation supported by facts, testing, and observation. evolution has met all of these. how is evolution detrimental? last i checked if you've been vaccinated you have benefited from an application evolution. the evidence is there and it's not going away. in the end you prove how ignorant of biology and science in general you really are.
@tpstrat14 and just what do you hope to accomplish by trying to link evolution and by consequence all science in with atheism. evidence is evidence and there are people be it faithful or not who can see that. and sure you could say that some people accept evolution without knowing anything about it. what does that have to do with evolutions validity. your dancing around the fact that you have no logical basis to try and dispute evolution. what is your goal? why do you seek to destroy science?
@roxas12590 Science is totally BASED on doubt and the search for truth to eliminate that doubt... it's called a burden of proof. Evolution has no burden of proof. Our "best scientists" have believed in it since it first popped into their heads. No thinking was ever necessary. In fact, evolutionary theory, unlike any other theory in science, has been around since ANCIENT TIMES. It's an atheistic PHILOSOPHY, not science...
@tpstrat14 wrong! darwin was not supported by his peers or academia, evolution has not been around since ancient times. "our "best scientists" have believed in it since it first popped into their heads". this is again false you moron. we have the evidence, genetics, fossils, biology. evolution has gone through the scientific process, it is has and is still being tested, and researched, it is still science. you have no evidence to refute it, none based on real data. and that's why you
@roxas12590 attack it by trying to lump it and all science in with atheism as if that somehow refutes the evidence. if evolution isn't science then do the one thing that you dogmatic morons haven't been able to do for over 150 years. PROVE IT WRONG, provide evidence, testing and data that can refute biology, paleontology, genetics.of course all science is based on doubt. so when you bring up real data and evidence that can cast doubt on evolution then science will discard it.
@roxas12590 Evolution is a faith concept. Trying to disprove it is like trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian. We find soft tissue in dinosaur bones and we rethink EVERYTHING we know about bone decay. Then we find massive sheets of older rock on top of younger rock and we rethink EVERYTHING we know about plate tectonics. We fail to find transitional fossils and we rethink EVERYTHING we know about how evolution itself happens (punctuated equilibrium) See? Blind faith cannot be destroyed...
@tpstrat14 it's not blind, it can be applied, iv studied it myself. I want to be a science teacher and I WANT TO SHARE REAL KNOWLEDGE. we have transitional fossils, we have genetic drift and genetic links between species. we can observe and force it, there is no faith because I SEE THE EVIDENCE and it is there. you can disprove things in science, it's always been that way. but it's simply not the case with evolution. jesus and his miracles have no evidence, that's not the case with science
@roxas12590 "Jesus and his miracles have no evidence" By trying to discredit a religion in defense of evolution, you have shown that evolution is just another vicious religion out to destroy other religions and has nothing to do with science. Hopefully the students you teach can see through your lies. Or better yet, just don't become a teacher if you really think Jesus' miracles have anything at all to do with whether evolution is true or not.
@tpstrat14 once again you dodge the science, the evidence, and there results. you fail to bring up one shred of evidence that refutes evolution. are you really this ignorant. can you apply religion? can It advance medical science and save lives. or create advances in agriculture that feed a growing population. you reap the benefits then attack the table you eat from like the hypocrite you are. I guess religious nuts like you simply arnt capable of understanding anything outside of fairy tales.
@tpstrat14 lets start with the genetics! refute the fact that our DNA is a 98.4 percent match with our common ancestor the chimp or the matches between all other tested species. furthermore refute the predicted fusion of chromosomes explaining the differing number of chromosomes from great ape to human. the fusion is found in human chromosome number 2. genetics was a new science that could have refuted evolution. instead it only confirmed it, would like me to go on
@roxas12590 The chimp is 98.4 similar in DNA? OK let's refute that one. I don't disagree with the number. I disagree with the significance of the number. Did you know that ALL life has DNA and we are very similar in DNA to every single living organism? Why do you narrow in on chimps? Is it because you're scared of making the bigger claim? Why not just say we have whatever, 10% similarity with e.coli and spout that as proof of evolution? DNA is similar because ORGANISMS NEED TO EAT EACH OTHER!!!
@tpstrat14 DNA IS EVERYTHING YOU FUCKING MORON, it's the blueprint for life, it's genetic drift and mutation is what allows speciation. it has nothing to do with who feeds on who, are you dumb?. and i narrow in on chimps because there our common ancestor. and the fossils I mentioned are by no means all of them, there just the best documented transitional forms I know of. you really are an idiot when it comes to biology. you can't understand what it means.
@roxas12590 Everything your evolution religion explains can be explained just as well by intelligent design. If life WASN'T made of DNA, there wouldn't be any life. Holy shit. What don't you understand about that? It has nothing to do with understanding microevolution and adaptation. (duh)... it's just a different theory for how life got here...
@tpstrat14 "can be explained just as well by intelligent design" im sorry but i smell bullshit. A. you know nothing about mutation or genetic drift so your statement's on DNA can be ignored since your undereducated on that subject. B. ID is easily destroyed, in fact the info I presented on vestigiality refutes I.D's claims on irreducible complexity. you see moron iv done this before and your just getting sad. I can go on and on but your running out of steam going back to bullshit like I.D
@tpstrat14 im done arguing with you, this is getting old. you lack even basic knowledge or biology. even when presented with evidence you don't even know enough about genetics to understand the info im giving you. it's like trying to teach a mute to talk, I.D has been refuted by science. it's not hard to do, it's junk and has no place in classrooms. and most see this, it's never going to gain momentum. garbage is garbage and I.D will never get into science, because it's not science!!
@tpstrat14 also you didn't address the fusion site in chromosome number 2 linking our genome and chimps, thus explaining the chromosome number discrepancy and proving the evolutionary fusion site that took place during our evolution. but then again you don't even know the basics of DNA and genetics so this is kind of pointless. but yeah you've got alot of bases to cover. alot of research and testing to refute, good luck proving you faith based pseudoscience in place of evidence. your pathetic
@tpstrat14 I can back up every point I make. yet you can't refute or present one. and you keep dodging the bigger ones like the advancement's and discoveries that we have gained, the ones you benefit from i might add. are you seeing a trend yet, your no closer to showing any proof for I.D or refuting evolution then when we started. just shut up already, because the evidence massive and I can keep on going!
@roxas12590 You really think you have some kind of knowledge that your grandfather was an ape, your great grandfather a dog and your great great grandfather a beetle? Nope, your claims are still just as ridiculous as when you began spouting off this nonsense... open your mind, read a book, and maybe you'll find some real truth, huh?
@tpstrat14 simply because you don't like the fact that your own genes show your lowly origin doesn't change the evidence. I have opening my mind where religion had closed it off, and iv read more books than you can count, and im in college so iv many more to read. the truth is in the evidence and you have failed to poke a single hole in that truth. your a moron who knows nothing about science, grow up and educate yourself and then mabye your words might carry some weight.
@tpstrat14 it's kinda funny how you call me an imbecile yet your the one who needs to brush up on his basic biology and genetics before you can go around making false statements about things you don't understand! because that's what this comes down to, you don't understand it, it's contradicts your faith therefore you think that gives you the authority to attack it without evidence to back up your claims....do yourself a favor and grow up. and while your at it drop the delusions.
@roxas12590 Would an atheist need to be a full fledged scriptorian to battle a Christian? That's the same question as whether or not I would need to know about your evolution religion in order to battle it. Yes, maybe it could help a little, but knowledge of a religion doesn't necessarily make it make sense in your head. Granted, I probably know more about evolutionary theory than you do!
@tpstrat14 "probably know more about evolutionary theory than you do" really, so far you haven't proven you even know basic biology let alone evolution, you haven't refuted one single point. from what iv read "our grandfather was an ape, your great grandfather a dog and your great great grandfather a beetle?" this is the extent of your knowledge of evolution. and no I don't need to know shit about scripture to know your god is a bullshit superstition with no evidence. try again!
@roxas12590 There's massive amounts of knowledge to be had about biology. Then evolution comes in shoves that knowledge into it's own devices and ignores the entire scientific method. You still have refuted NOTHING that I have said about Mary Schweitzer's dinosaur bone discovery. Once you refute why we would change our entire perspective on bone decay to suit evoltuion then we can keep talking. Up until now, you've just been talking out your ass. Do you worship Richard Dawkins?
@tpstrat14 not really, richard dawkins brilliant a biologist as he is loves to hear himself talk..and read a bit on the dinosaur bone and she herself is a proponent of evolution and said that when creationists misrepresent her data, she takes it personally. all other known bones from that era are still 65 million years old.she herself said it simply means we still have more to learn about fossilization. this does nothing to disprove evolution or refute any of my previous arguments.
@tpstrat14 and you still refuted NOTHING I said about anything! id love to hear your take once again on the discoveries and applications we have gained from evolution. it's the only argument i think you understand. the others went right over your head i think.
@tpstrat14 scratch last comment.did some more research and turns out her discovery is not accepted by the scientific community., molecular biologist's did not find true remains of blood cells. what they found was that what previously had been identified as remnants of blood cells, because of the presence of iron, were actually framboids. mineral spheres bearing iron are found in a variety of other fossils. what was found was not true soft tissue but a slimy biofilm created by bacteria.
@tpstrat14 Mary Schweitzer's discovery went up for peer review and was destroyed by the scientific community almost 20 years ago. and if there was true soft tissue we could have extracted DNA and mapped the tyrannosaurus's genome. your single reference was to a discovery that shattered when examined. once again genome mapping and advances genetic research has only taken it's new leaps in 2005 when we mapped the human and chimp genome. is this the best you can do?
@tpstrat14 and mary's discovery ignited creationist's not because it poked any holes in evolution but because they thought it could somehow prove that science is wrong about the age of the earth. but radioactive dating more shuts this bullshit argument up years ago. now if your a young earth nut who thinks the earth is 6000 years old then im done talking to you because if so you just went from ignorant to fucking retard! I really hope your not that stupid.
@tpstrat14 in fact just to shut you up im I dig further on mary and it turns out her current research is "More recently, Schweitzer's work has shown molecular similarities in Tyrannosaurus remains and chickens, providing further evidence of the bird-dinosaur connection". she is an evolution proponent so stop twisting her work and reputation by trying to lump her in with creation and I.D nuts. YOU ARE PATHETIC
@tpstrat14 one of my favorite proofs of evolution is vestigiality. if don't already know these are structures and organs that have no use. vestigial structures are often homologous to structures that function normally in other species. thus, vestigiality can be considered evidence for evolution, the process by which beneficial heritable traits arise in populations over an extended period of time. would you like a list of vestigial structures in humans and animals or just humans
@tpstrat14 to continue with vestigial structures, these organs and functions(like your appendix or wisdom teeth). can be removed(in fact they can also be harmful) but the organism can still function. this refutes the bullshit claims from I.D about irreducible complexity. once again provide evidence to refute this, this is why bullshit arguments claiming design can be refuted so easily. people like you reek of ignorance. im seriously done with you unless you can come up with a real argument.
@tpstrat14 evolution is where the evidence points, until you can refute all the data and testing, we have nothing to talk about. if the evidence points in a different direction then I will look. but ridiculous notions of god and design and creator garbage is not an answer. my stance on evolution is not based on faith, it's based on facts than I can see, research, and test for myself. you cannot refute a single point I present. at least answer for the applications iv mentioned.
@tpstrat14 until you can provide some real evidence to refute evolution there is really no point in talking with you anymore. attacking it based on the religious or nonreligious views of those who accept it does not change what the data and evidence show, or applications and knowledge we have gained from it.in the end i think you attack evolution because like many others you dislike how evolution points out your lowly origins from the great apes. so you attack it without reason. grow up
@tpstrat14 and there is no such thing as an atheistic theme. atheism is simply lack of belief in religion. if your going to try and twist it that way then technically ALL SCIENCE is atheistic because religion is absent from science. science only deals with the natural world not religion. religion has no evidence and thus no place in science. your logic is flawed beyond all reasoning, it's just sad.
@boc1953 You talkin about evolution? If so, I agree. (same with creationism). Teaching evolution in school is like teaching Satanism. Seriously, look up Satanism on wikipedia. Evolution is such goddam hogwash. No proof. Just assumptions of godlessness.
@tpstrat14 Evolution does not assume or suggest godlessness. It is the most challenged and tested scientific theory in history! Thousands of scientists and theologians have tried to poke holes in it and disprove it for over 150 years but still, it stands! Dogmatic religious belief, on the other hand, cannot stand up to the least scrutiny by any real world standard. It falls at the first fence! To suggest evolution is satanism shows your not a worthy debater. See you 'round...
@MorganMarvinson So I guess all those religious people that believe in evolution are secretly atheists? I think intelligent people who truly understand science and evolution would be atheists, but it isn't a requirement or an implication. It is simply insight, and people can do with it what they will.
@alexcowart "So I guess all those religious people that believe in evolution are secretly atheists?" Apparently that is what you think by your next statement.
@alexcowart Right. "I think intelligent people [this would include scientists like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala] who truly understand science and evolution would be atheists ..." You aren't being satirical here.
@MorganMarvinson Ken Miller certainly is intelligent. But he is by far a HUGE minority. He was raised religiously therefore he sees things through the filter of religion. Young minds are impressionable, and if you get to someone young enough you can really shape how they view the world. You can't dispute that. Ken also acknowledges that Evolution is unarguably true, and that creationism has no place in schools. So if you agree with that last statement then lets end this discussion.
@alexcowart "Ken also acknowledges that Evolution is unarguably true, and that creationism has no place in schools. So if you agree with that last statement then lets end this discussion." I agree that he acknowledges--yea, promotes--Evolution as true and believes Creationism has no place in schools. I would assert that neither does Evolution. One is religion; the other is philosophical naturalism. If you think that the inference of evolution should be taught, so should the inference of design.
@alexcowart There is no evidence to support the "inference of design" whereas there are books full of evidence supporting evolution. That is the difference. That is what it boils down to. To teach a theory supported by evidence, or to teach a pseudo scientific theory supported by nothing other than an old religious text.
Don't even bother telling me evidence for creationism, and if you do I wont respond as it isnt worth my time. I will leave the arguement at this.
@ItssBrian The problem is that what most creationists deem evidence, is in fact not true evidence. Please present me with some evidence and I will point out the flaws. If it is truly convincing evidence I am fully 100% able and willing to adopt the religion backed by said evidence.
@alexcowart Geologists in Alaska have found duckbill dinosaur bones. Fresh bones, not fossils. This is consistent with the creation timeline, and inconsistent with the evolutionary timeline. These bones obviously cannot last 65 million years without fossilizing or decaying, and they weren't preserved by the cold as geologists agree that that area used to have a much warmer climate.
@alexcowart@alexcowart Ever hear of google? Here's a url anyway (I believe it's against youtube rules to post links in the comments so you'll have to add the dot yourself.) T-rex with soft tissue: smithsonianmag(dot)com /science-nature/dinosaur.html As for the duckbill dino's in Alaska, I can't find a link for the article, but the discovery is recorded in the Journal of Paleontology, Vol.61 No.1, pp.198-200
@ItssBrian This is a direct quote from your source
"Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief.... But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
When a Christian scientist disagrees with you, you know you must be REALLY wrong.
@alexcowart She's not a "complete and total Christian" because she doesn't believe the bible if she thinks the Earth is millions of years old, thus making God a liar in her eyes. And my source wasn't to show you her beliefs, it was to show the fact that dinosaur bones were found with soft tissue. If you think soft tissue can be preserved for tens of millions of years you have truly remarkable faith. Genetic material breaks down much, much, much faster than that, and that is a fact.
@ItssBrian I was already aware of the fact that soft tissue and DNA reamain in long dead organisms. I am a biology student and have taken numerous classes that are relevant to this discussion. The paleontologist that discovered the soft tissue and the scientific community are all in consensus about its age. So I must ask you, what are your credentials that make your opinion more valid than well educated people in their fields of expertise? I have a feeling you have no expertise.
@alexcowart If you were already aware of it why did you ask for a source? You already knew what I said was true, you were just hoping I didn't. My credentials are irrelevant. Argue against the information and conclusions I'm presenting, not me as a person. No one (not the Smithsonian article, and not you) have offered any evidence or explanation of how soft tissue can last for millions of years if a place of former tropical heat.
@alexcowart And there are many instances where the scientific consensus was way off. The scientific consensus used to be that the Earth was flat. Scientific consensus can and should be contested when better data is found.
@ItssBrian Scientific consensus can and should be contested when better data is found. I agree. So since you hold the obviously apparent evidence backed stance then go and prove it through the proper scientific channels and get your nobel prize. Im serious. But you are too ignorant to debate its a waste of time just realize you have no evidence. All you have is a hunch...an unbacked opnion. According to you soft tissue can last 6000 years give or so, why then cant it last millions of years
@alexcowart You're getting away from the data. The best argument you could come up with is this. "If soft tissue can last 6,000 years, It can last 65,000,000 years, which is about 10,833 times longer." Most soft tissue doesn't even last 200 years. It's incredible that we can even find it to last over 1,000 years and you think it can last 65,000,000 years? That's preposterous. My opinion can't be more backed. We know how fast soft tissue breaks down by observing the breakdown of soft tissue.
@ItssBrian First of all that isn't my "best" argument, its my shortest. Its hard to go into enough detail when there is a character cap. So let me quote you real fast.
"Most soft tissue doesn't even last 200 years. It's incredible that we can even find it to last over 1,000 years"
So how come it doesn't defy science and reason that 6000 year old soft tissue is found. You said yourself it would be a huge miracle. So your argument disproves itself.
@alexcowart I never said it was 6,000 years old. That's a number you came up with. And if soft tissue could last 65,000,000 years the whole planet would be covered in corpses.
@alexcowart I never said it was 6,000 years old. That's a number you came up with. And if soft tissue could last 65,000,000 years the whole planet would be covered in corpses. Consider that proposition thoroughly refuted.
@alexcowart soft tissue can be preserve for a very long time in different environment, under very rare certain conditions. it is like how u can preserve meat in the freezer, or dry it out in the sun with salt. But most the time, the older the soft tissue, there will be damage to its structure, like freezing will cause ice crystals to form which pierces and dmg the cells.
@alexcowart If I said "I am an Atheist and I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old" that wouldn't really make sense, just like her statement doesn't make sense.
@ItssBrian Your source doesn't support your stance, in fact your source goes out of its way to present your stance as incorrect. The paleontologist that discovered it is a christian, if anyone should be on your side it is her. However she is intelligent, she understands geology and science. She is a christian and blatantly calls you out on your ignorant misinformed argument.
"The creationist movement [meaning Intelligent Design] is actually a threat to freedom of religion ..." That's a rather silly claim to make. Perhaps, with your philosophical underpinnings, Dr. Forrest, you mean [italics]The Intelligent Design movement is actually a threat to freedom FROM religion.[italics] And that would be so. Because Intelligent Design PERSUADES open-minded people that design in nature is real. How can one have no religion if he or she is convinced there is a Designer?
@MorganMarvinson Hahaha open minded people? By definition religious people are closed minded. Open minded and faith do not belong in the same sentence. Open mindedness is being open to new ideas/arguements, but when your whole view is based on "faith" no argument can trump it.
@alexcowart Open mindedness or close mindedness isn't limited to believers. When I try to share a new idea with a stalwart non-believer, his closeminded non-belief usually jumps in the way.
How open are you to a new idea that INCLUDES faith?
Being closed-minded is a condition of faith. When you accept, on faith, a given thing, you suspend reality and close your mind to it. There is some evidence that with some people this is a manifestation of mental disorder, with others it seems it reflects uncertainty in life (something that both education and an elimination of conservative politics which creates poverty can remedy).
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
People listen, if your stand that you do not believe in God because you haven't seen Him is very weak reasoning why? for example, how about that love we feel to our parents, brothers, sisters etc...Don't tell me it is not real? Do we see that love we felt? Do not tell me that because that love is not seen and it's not real? Investigate first before you conclude things, Listen to Bro Eli Soriano to this site theoldpath .tv experience teachings not being taught by priests and born again pastors
"Freedom of Religion" means just that, FREEDOM OF RELIGION! Our founding fathers were afraid that one religion would become supreme in the government to the exclusion of all others to the detriment and persecution of all others just like it was in England. They were right, it has happened here! Atheism has become the supreme religion of the land in our government to the exclusion of all others! The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Atheism is a religion!
Ever notice how we still have the first ammendment?
Ever notice how the majority of the population is still Christian?
Ever notice how the minority is still non-religious? Atheists and the like struggle through everyday life just trying to makae it through without somebody degrading their lack of "faith". People are fired from jobs, kicked out of schools, even assaulted and murdered simply for refusing to believe in bronze age desert rantings.
Evolutionists are not agreed on how life began (the actual origin of life) from inanimate to animate life everything is assumed.
Abiogenesis means life coming from non life.
It is a speculative hypothesis
There is no evidence for it
It violates the law of biogenesis
There is no credible mechanism for it
it would take a miracle, ...and each one of you out there is a miracle! peace and love Theories are things that are beat up by a bunch of brutal facts! - Dr. Walter Martin
@Sygnius Yes but religion never gave any scientific knowladge in it's existance, it didn't create medications , it didn't create modern world that we live in today, it didn't even gave freedom for people to do so in it's early stage of existance. Evoliution is not suposed to explain origins of life it exlains diversity of life and evoliution in it. And before you start talking about religion and morals, it's not scientific knowladge, and most likely it didn't come from religion.
@Sygnius Science is well aware of the the many possible mechanisms of Abiogenesis.
They are now engaged in performing tests and experiments in oreder to find exactly which is the most likely reason.
From knowledge already proven, they know that a miracle is not required for life to emerge.
Dr. Waqlter Martin was a prominent Christian apologetic. His doctorate was not in science, therefore his views on scientific theories are no more valid than those of any other non-scientist.
@Sygnius -That doesn't discredit the concept of Abiogenesis
-Yes
-There are several experiments and sizable amounts of evidence to back up the assertion that life camem from non-life.
-There is no law of biogenesis
-Urey-Miller Experiments.
-It would be fairly improbable, yes, but odds have nothing to do with it. Take 100 dice and roll them. The chances that they would come up how they did when you rolled them are astronomical. But it still happened.
FAITH. A massive 100-yr.-old oak tree is cleaved by lightning. Although the tree remains standing it no longer attracts picnickers who had once sought shade beneath her canopy. Why? The faith that people once had in this tree's structural integrity has been challenged. PARANOIA. Long before the 100-yr.-old oak was compromised by a lightning-strike one man would not venture within a thousand feet of the tree as he was in mortal fear that it would topple. The MORAL: A lack of faith = paranoia.
Several religions coexist with Evolution as exampoles Wicca, Deism, and many types of Paganism, and also evolution does not disprove anything like magick telepathy, afterlife, ghosts etc and witchcraft, to me the supernatural does not exist anything even ghosts and the afterlife must be natural and explicable.
Atheism is a disease. It is a typo cancer. It kills the soul rapidly and makes you hate everything—everybody, especially religious people. Your soul becomes bitter full of hatred and your mouth full of poison/venom. It contaminates the world; it rejects reasoning it causes harm in the heart of little ones. Most of the time in the heart of ignorant/ irrational people. Atheists become irrational by it. LETS SAY NO to that cancer—toxic monkeys/apes.
This woman is mistaken. ID is not the opposite of evolution. Evolution is what happens after you have life. ID is how you get the life. If life came from non-life, we would call that the beginning of life, not the evolution of non-life.
I used to think this, but you can watch the PBS special here about the Dover schoolboards controvercy about that whole thing. Of pandas and people made the asssertion that there were no transitional forms, and argued for irreducible complexity, which was dissproven in court by Ken Miller. ID is creationism in duisquise and opend the door for even astrology to be taught in the science classroom, or that Noah's flood carved out the Grand Canyon. ID is the oppisite of evolution.
@Allen78x I've seen the special. The Dover approach was wrong. It's why they lost. That doesn't change what I said. Something has been misunderstood here, you are saying that you used to think that evolution is what happens after you get life and now you think it happens before you have life?
@gcnengineer No. The theories regarding the origions of life are Abiogenisis. Wich does not imply an inteligent progeniter. ID presuposes that an inteligent force ( IE: God ) created life.
@Andrewcranky Agreed, not sure why you think I didn't understand that, but hey it's all good. Abiogenisis is, as you infer, the theory that something unintelligent is responcible for life. (Sometimes it would seem as if that were true! lol)
She claims that the Creationist Movement is a threat to religious freedom. In actuality, teaching a scientific theory that contradicts most religions as an absolute truth is a threat to religious freedom. It's like taking all these children of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. faiths and telling them, "Btw, all you've ever been taught is a lie and your scriptures are all bologna."
@MessianicTsalagi Are you saying that it's unlawful to show a picture of the earth from space to a child brought up on a religious doctrine that says that the earth is flat?
@BirdValiant No, I'm saying a hypothesis should be taught as a hypothesis, nothing more. Darwinism/Evolution lacks the requirements needed to be considered a scientific theory, much less law.
@BirdValiant Step 1 in the process of developing a scientific law is to form a hypothesis. This is an idea or educated guess on a certain phenomena. The hypothesis is then tested with an experiment. In the case of proving evolution, you would need to find the "link" between the two species. The reason for not finding the "missing link" between man and ape is because it does not exist.
New species aren't created by interbreeding by hybrids. New species result from NOT interbreeding. Separation can be a physical barrier, such as an island separated by water. It can also be something else: if a group of birds starts to sing a different mating song from the rest, then they will only mate within themselves, and not without.
@BirdValiant@BirdValiant Yes, theories DO graduate to become laws in the field of science. You should have learned about this in 3rd grade or so. Where is your proof that man is ape? I haven't heard of hundreds of missing links being found. Every case is presented as a "possible" link. The most well-known being Ida. The scientists beat around the bush when asked if it was the missing link. They would say "perhaps". Scientists then moved from "perhaps" to "doubt" as recorded on LiveScience.
@BirdValiant Though, there are many MISSING links, none have been established as a direct ancestral link. To this day, scientists claim t be searching for the "missing link". They claim to have found many "possible links" but end up with what they call "branching nodes". This is anouther way of saying a gap tat cannot be connected in the ancestral tree. Evolutionists love to spout theoretical speculation, but have NOT been able to establish evolution as indisputable truth.
@MessianicTsalagi "Though, there are many MISSING links, none have been established as a direct ancestral link. "
Nothing changes overnight, MT. The changes took tens of thousands of years and even now, we won't be like what follows in another million years. The interim forms are called transitional stages and if you can't find it on the internet, I'lll be glad to supply a site.
@MessianicTsalagi -Evolutionists love to spout theoretical speculation, but have NOT been able to establish evolution as indisputable truth.
If you understood evolution, you'd know that yes, evolution IS indisputable truth. How do you think we get antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms if not by adaptation and survival? Evolution is NOT the opposite of creation, in spite of your thinking it is. But consider the evidence of creationists' TRUTH - Bible says God blew into dirt and made a man.
@Matthew1944 Well, scientists say that we are 30% dirt and 70% water, so how is it hard to imagine the concept of being molded by the Creator? His breath was what made man a "living soul". How is that any more obsurd than the idea that two rocks collided resulting in the creation of a perfect solar system and one planet on which conditions were perfect for living beings to appear out of water that appeared out of nowhere?
@MessianicTsalagi - You are attacking the wrong department (out of ignorance). Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not "two rocks collided resulting in a perfect solar system.......".
It is absolutely "so hard" to imagine a giant supernatural being, breathing into dirt, and making a man - in either of the two contradicting versions in Genesis.
@Matthew1944 Mainstream science is what I am attacking. The same scientists that advocate and push evolution also push the big bang theory. This is what Charles Darwin himself taught as truth.
@MessianicTsalagi I doubt that you're attacking anything except in the direction someone sicked you. You didn't even have a clue that evolution and abiogenesis are two different sciences and these very common (now) attacks are precipitated by ignorance.
@LoraSinger I know they are two different sciences, however both are part of Darwinism. I do find it strange, however, that scientists would advocate abiogenisis ( life from nonlife) when scientific law states that it is impossible.They really don't know what to go with.
@Matthew1944 You are right for correcting me as far as Darwin supporting the big bang theory. That was after Charles Darwin but he did state his opinions on the issue of abiogenesis in many of his personal writings. One of his comments:
"the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable"
He states that life from nothing may be possible, though this contradicts scientific law.
@MessianicTsalagi - I think that we can never know the truth about the origin of things. The two sides can argue until the cows come home but no one knows for sure. Religious people look at it in terms of the bible and scientists from a scientific viewpoint. Very likely, the truth is somewhere in between, kind of like the blind men and the elephant.
@Matthew1944 I agree that we can never know by scientific discovery the specifics on the origin of life. I believe in the Bible's creation story. That being said, it is impossible to prove it's authenticity or correctness (obviously). So, I understand how it would be hard for a "non-believer" to accept such a thing as truth. The reason I believe in the scriptures is because I have had a personal encounter with God through them, which also can't be proven. As a believer, all I can do is pray.
@Matthew1944 In a letter sent to an English botanist in 1871, Darwin "imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy."
Another thing tothink about is that in his book "The Origin of Species" he mentions the "Creator".
@MessianicTsalagi - Mainstream science is what I am attacking. The same scientists that advocate and push evolution "
Why are you attacking something you don't even understand? Your church tells you it's bad and you attack, right? "The same scientists" amount to 99% of scientists, MT, and evolution has been proven both by transitional fossils and in the short term by the formation of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms.
@MessianicTsalagi 2) Secondly, MT, yours is not the only creation story in the world. Every other culture had one two and there are literally hundreds out there, everyone different, some even more fantastic than yours. Your creation story is just another one of the legends. You lot are the only ones who think its literal truth.
@Matthew1944 I never claimed that the Bible contains the only creation story in th world. I simply claimed that the fact that man is made of dirt and water goes along with the Biblical creation story that we were created from dirt.Though dirt is not biological and not an organism, it was given form and life by the Creator.
@Matthew1944 The Bible has much more validity to it than any of Darwin's writings. The book of Daniel foretold the future of the "four great kingdoms", the fall of the MedoPersian Empire, the scattering and enslavement of the Israelites, the Edomite (Khazar) occupation of Israel, Israel being split into two parts (Khazar and Arab), and much more.
@Matthew1944 The fossil record is full of gaps and the diagrams/photos iused in textbooks to represent transitional species have been exposed as being imaginative hoaxes. One very important subject being Coelacanth. The evolutionists claimed this "pre-historic" fish evolved into a land-dwelling creature. That was until a living Coelacanth was discovered. There are countless accounts of evolutionists making false claims.
If they EVER start teaching religion in Schools I will never send my kids there.
Lyphowut 2 months ago
Creationism does not disprove the existence of god or religion, the early creation is still debateable. However: Whilst science and ‘creationism’ find facts and then draw conclusions, religion has the supposed conclusions already, and draws its own fact to support them. why cant we be friends?
bluemationmaster 2 months ago
JungleJargon is a creationist troll. Ignore him.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
Hi five Mrs. lady person.
MoronGamer 4 months ago
Evoltuion is against science.
The ordered functions of the elements is by design.
Yes,you have to teach the truth that ordered functions all have a maker.
No, Islam does not teach evolution. They believe in Creation too because it is so obvious.
You must teach the truth that only our Maker is able to be our Savior because there is no one else who can be. Anything else is a lie.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon are you retarted? im trying to be nice(:
puff420x 5 months ago
@puff420x You are the one who failed to address an issue or prove anything.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon one quick question why didn't Noah take dinos or any other extinct animal and don't tell me they were to big their are some small dinos as-well i see no reason why he would take a animal like a rat and not take a Purgatorius or two why do we share 98% of our genes with chimps why is 99.9% of all life that has ever existed is extinct and the last question why don't we find all extinct organisms in the same geological layers?
mimarp478 4 months ago in playlist More videos from hoffmanallison
@mimarp478 How big is a dinosaur egg or a baby dinosaur?
It is more like 95% and that accounts for a lot of difference and it is the controlling DNA that makes all of the difference in the world.
We find that life forms have not changed since they were fossils.
Why are geologists unable to account for over 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments that could only have been deposited by a global flood. It doesn't matter where the fossils are found when you can't even explain that.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon "How big is a dinosaur egg or a baby dinosaur?" could you elaborate on what you mean "It is more like 95% and that accounts for a lot of difference and it is the controlling DNA that makes all of the difference in the world" wrong again jargon we share 98% percent of our genes with chimps and most if not all are the "controlling" genes
mimarp478 3 months ago in playlist More videos from hoffmanallison
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon (con) "We find that life forms have not changed since they were fossils" if a organism is adapted well into their environment their is no need for them to change "100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments that could only have been deposited by a global flood" these deposits could have been deposited over a long period of time have been caused by normal floods and glaciation events(ice ages).
mimarp478 3 months ago in playlist More videos from hoffmanallison
@JungleJargon "it doesn't matter where the fossils are found" It does matter where fossils are found you also failed to answer my other questions you have to be completely ignorant to say something like that. You have also failed to answer my other questions why Noah toke a rat but not a Purgatorius or any other extinct animal also why all fossils are found in different layers and not in one big layer.
mimarp478 3 months ago in playlist More videos from hoffmanallison
@JungleJargon Sorry it took so long to reply but i have more important things in my life to do then debate with creationist like you
mimarp478 3 months ago in playlist More videos from hoffmanallison
@JungleJargon I have a question: Who is this "Maker" you speak of? Is it Allah? Is it Ptha? Is it Marduk? Is it Vishnu? Is it Shangdi? Is it Cagn? Is it Unkulunkulu? Is it Damballa? Is it Muluku? Is it Tengri? Is it Yahweh?
cause4reason 4 months ago
Look both of you need to calm down. Nether disproves the other. I am religious and yet I believe that evolution takes place. It may very well be the way that God created us. But those that truly know biology know that It was no mistake and don't try and tell me I'm not educated in the subject. I have take chemistry, biology, micro biology, anatomy, physiology, bio chemistry, histology, immuno biology, genetics and more. I have also read the bible and have gone to church my whole life. Calm down.
devmanl 6 months ago
@devmanl this isn't about god, it's about defending real science. iv refuted every argument he's presented plain and simple. and waving what you know in my face says nothing to me, i acknowledge theist scientist's, in fact I used examples of them earlier to disprove his bullshit notion that evolution is some atheist philosophy. but theist or not this doesn't change that the burden of prove still lies on the faithful. but that's not what this was about, this was about defending science.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@devmanl if you've read anything you'd know he's done nothing but spend his time attacking evolution, yet he has no basis to so. he lacks even a basic understanding of the theory or biology for that matter. all he's done the entire argument is dance around this and try to link evolution with atheism and by his flawed logic this somehow refutes the mountians of evidence or the discoveries and applications we have gained from it. stop trying to make this a god debate.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@devmanl "But those that But those that truly know biology know that It was no mistake" and im sorry but what is this statement based off of. the majority of the scientific community is atheist or agnostic. and i hate to use his name but no matter how you feel about the man richard dawkin's is a world renowned evolutionary biologist, to say that he " truly knows biology" is and understatement. he's one of the best in science and like everyone knows he's big time atheist. your statement is flase
roxas12590 6 months ago
"our grandfather was an ape, your great grandfather a dog and your great great grandfather a beetle?" this was funny as hell btw. if there was ever a doubt in my mind that you haven't done a shred of research on evolution this takes the cake. it's like a retarded trying to read Shakespeare. this isn't even remotely what evolution states. so stop acting like you know anything about it. you just demonstrated right there with that ignorant statement that you know nothing. this is to easy
roxas12590 6 months ago
and evolution isn't needed to kill god, cosmology and physics are more than enough to cast doubt on fairytales like yours. if you wish to be ignorant that's your choice, I can't force you to grow up and educate yourself. but you have no right to push your religious based pseudoscientific bullshit in schools and try to undermine real progress. I notice you can't even try to combat the applications I listed of evolution. you haven't refuted a single argument iv presented. is this all you got?
roxas12590 6 months ago
applied evolution in medicine, bacterial antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics place a selective pressure on a bacterial population, often resulting in the emergence of resistant strains. Understanding this “evolutionary arms race” between bacteria and antibiotics allows us to develop strategies for minimizing resistance. The same applies to viral evolution and vaccines......im not finished yet dumbass
roxas12590 6 months ago
here is a small list of missing link transitional fossils. Tiktaalik: The "Fishapod", Archaeopteryx: The First Bird, Amphistium: The Halfway Flatfish, MY FAVORITE Ambulocetus: The Walking Whale, Homo Ergaster: The "Turkana Boy", Hyracotherium/Eohippus: The Dawn Horse, Thrinaxodon: The Emerging Mammal. would you like me to go on. you must refute all of this.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@roxas12590 Yea, you'll have to name at least 100 million "transitional fossils". Don't you realize that for each and every life form, there has to be transitions between them? There simply aren't enough being found. Also, are you aware that your "scientists" completed the "Lucy" skeleton by finding a fragment of bone 200 feet lower in the strata and a quarter mile away? Evolutionary scientists WANT to prove evolution so as to kill god and glorify themselves, but science will have none of it!
tpstrat14 6 months ago
Most supporters of Intelligent Design are fundamentalist Christians who are afraid that learning about a theory will poison their children against Jesus. First problem with that idea: your kids aren't that stupid. Just learning about an idea doesn't mean accepting it as true. Second problem: Intelligent Design doesn't mean teaching about God, just that "an intelligent being" (maybe Zeus, or aliens, or whatever) might have made life on Earth.
HoundofOdin 7 months ago
Here's a HYPOTHETICAL, woman. Let's say that the intelligent design movement WASN'T Christian. Let's say that it was merely what it claims to be: intelligent design. THEN would it be OK to teach it? Because on one hand you say that evolution is neutral in spite of the fact that a VAST majority of those that accept it are atheist. Yet on the other hand you say that intelligent design is NOT neutral, when there are actually many different faiths that accept it.
tpstrat14 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 it's not about who accepts what. it's about what's right, regardless of how you view evolution it is validated testable science witch has withstood scrutiny for over 150 years and is accepted by the scientific community witch is comprised of scientist's of all different faiths and ethnic backgrounds. ID is psuedoscientific bullshit plain and simple. you don't teach garbage religious based psuedoscience in public schools...period!
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 It's not religion-based. It is fact based. What don't you understand about that? It's unfortunate that evolutionists like yourself really, truly don't see where the evidence is pointing. It's pointing in all directions right now. But let's figure it out! Let's not just throw our hands up in the air and say "evolution dun it. No thought required"
tpstrat14 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 Name me a single fact to suggest that evolution is intelligence based.
boc1953 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 ID has no evidence, the fossil record, genetics, vestigiality. all of these things easily refute ID, evolution has withstood over 150 years of scrutiny, testing and trails by the scientific community. it had to claw it's way tooth and nail to establish itself in science. it's saved lives by furthering modern medicine and advances in agriculture so like all science it can be applied. it's real science with real results and has earned it's place as the backbone of modern biology.
roxas12590 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 name one respected ID proponent who holds weight in the scientific community. name one discovery or application of his or hers ID based research that saves lives or helps to further scientific understanding, you know like how evolutionary biology allows us to explain and predict viral strain evolution and create vaccines that save lives when new vaccine resistant strains mutate and evolve, or allow us to map the human genome and explain biodiversity. ID is bullshit plain and simple
roxas12590 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 in the end you attempt to defend and adhere to such trash because despite it's lack of evidence this psuedoscience complements your own biased and RELIGIOUS BASED world view. and yet you have the arrogance to say that it's not when you yourself argue bullshit links between evolution and "satanism". your a joke and an ignorant little sheep who forsakes knowledge for ignorance to try and validate your religious beliefs. it's just gotten sad, I feel sorry for people like you
roxas12590 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 and your "hypothetical" point proves your just a moron, ID has christian based themes.even ignoring the links between it and creationism found in the dover trial. intelligent "DESIGN" is the smoking gun. the biased assumption of design implies a "designer" who has direct effect upon life. but we can't test this designer and the concept reeks of religious themes. and since this failed movement is championed by christians it's obvious as to who's biased view it leans towards. give up
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 This is the grandest double standard ever held. YOUR concept reeks of atheistic themes and you complain about creationism having religious themes. And no, the science DOESN'T point to evolution. The science points nowhere right now. It's just a bunch of inconclusive facts that atheistic, pride-sodden scientists have manipulated. Let's keep searching and be sure not to let our imaginations get the better of us! We can figure this out!
tpstrat14 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 bullshit it doesn't, the fossil record, biology, genetics. all of these point to evolution. if you knew anything about science you could see that. and evolution isnt atheistic, science is neutral. anyone can see and test evolution. darwin himself was christian you moron,many leading scientist's like kent miller are theist. we can apply evolution and get results, we can use it. hell we can even force it in controlled tests. the evidence is there, your just to ignorant to see it
roxas12590 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 how do you explain away the genetic links between us and our common ancestors, the links between other species as well. how do explain away thousands of transitional fossils that allow us to track the evolution of species and solve the mystery's of biodiversity. evolution is the only viable explanation for the origins of life. this is a consensus in science agreed upon by scientists of many faiths and backgrounds. you have no evidence that says otherwise, prove me wrong!
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 You say evolution is not atheistically themed. OK, so how could any reasonable person THROUGHOUT HISTORY reject evolution unless they believed in a creator whose methods of creation are unknown? (i.e. what other naturalistic, explainable possibility of origins is there besides evolution/ a biogenesis?!?!) You don't need to know ANYTHING about biology and fossils to be able to accept evolution and a biogenesis. You just need to be a faithful, believing, practicing atheist.
tpstrat14 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 there is no such thing as a practicing atheist, when it comes to evolution it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of evidence. anyone be it theist or atheist can be smart enough to see the evidence for it. it has nothing to do with religion in any sense, faithful or not anyone can do the research. your trying to drive a wedge between the faithful and science, as if a person cannot have both. just because your an ignorant moron doesn't mean other theist's are.
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 There is no proof that life can form from non-life and then evolve into millions of COMPLETELY different creatures. Yea I know you atheists have theories as to how it could happen without God, but when it gets right down to it life is a mystery and there's nothing you can do to explain it. We can only observe it.. THIS (observation) is science... any explanation is only hubris and if taken seriously is detrimental to society and science. Hence, evolution has poisoned your mind...
tpstrat14 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 "There is no proof that life can form from non-life" this is not what evolution states, again you prove your ignorance. a theory in science is an explanation supported by facts, testing, and observation. evolution has met all of these. how is evolution detrimental? last i checked if you've been vaccinated you have benefited from an application evolution. the evidence is there and it's not going away. in the end you prove how ignorant of biology and science in general you really are.
roxas12590 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 and just what do you hope to accomplish by trying to link evolution and by consequence all science in with atheism. evidence is evidence and there are people be it faithful or not who can see that. and sure you could say that some people accept evolution without knowing anything about it. what does that have to do with evolutions validity. your dancing around the fact that you have no logical basis to try and dispute evolution. what is your goal? why do you seek to destroy science?
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 Science is totally BASED on doubt and the search for truth to eliminate that doubt... it's called a burden of proof. Evolution has no burden of proof. Our "best scientists" have believed in it since it first popped into their heads. No thinking was ever necessary. In fact, evolutionary theory, unlike any other theory in science, has been around since ANCIENT TIMES. It's an atheistic PHILOSOPHY, not science...
tpstrat14 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 wrong! darwin was not supported by his peers or academia, evolution has not been around since ancient times. "our "best scientists" have believed in it since it first popped into their heads". this is again false you moron. we have the evidence, genetics, fossils, biology. evolution has gone through the scientific process, it is has and is still being tested, and researched, it is still science. you have no evidence to refute it, none based on real data. and that's why you
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 attack it by trying to lump it and all science in with atheism as if that somehow refutes the evidence. if evolution isn't science then do the one thing that you dogmatic morons haven't been able to do for over 150 years. PROVE IT WRONG, provide evidence, testing and data that can refute biology, paleontology, genetics.of course all science is based on doubt. so when you bring up real data and evidence that can cast doubt on evolution then science will discard it.
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 Evolution is a faith concept. Trying to disprove it is like trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian. We find soft tissue in dinosaur bones and we rethink EVERYTHING we know about bone decay. Then we find massive sheets of older rock on top of younger rock and we rethink EVERYTHING we know about plate tectonics. We fail to find transitional fossils and we rethink EVERYTHING we know about how evolution itself happens (punctuated equilibrium) See? Blind faith cannot be destroyed...
tpstrat14 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 it's not blind, it can be applied, iv studied it myself. I want to be a science teacher and I WANT TO SHARE REAL KNOWLEDGE. we have transitional fossils, we have genetic drift and genetic links between species. we can observe and force it, there is no faith because I SEE THE EVIDENCE and it is there. you can disprove things in science, it's always been that way. but it's simply not the case with evolution. jesus and his miracles have no evidence, that's not the case with science
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 "Jesus and his miracles have no evidence" By trying to discredit a religion in defense of evolution, you have shown that evolution is just another vicious religion out to destroy other religions and has nothing to do with science. Hopefully the students you teach can see through your lies. Or better yet, just don't become a teacher if you really think Jesus' miracles have anything at all to do with whether evolution is true or not.
tpstrat14 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 once again you dodge the science, the evidence, and there results. you fail to bring up one shred of evidence that refutes evolution. are you really this ignorant. can you apply religion? can It advance medical science and save lives. or create advances in agriculture that feed a growing population. you reap the benefits then attack the table you eat from like the hypocrite you are. I guess religious nuts like you simply arnt capable of understanding anything outside of fairy tales.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@roxas12590 What science have I dodged? .... give me evidence of evolution and I'll give you a million dollars.
tpstrat14 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 lets start with the genetics! refute the fact that our DNA is a 98.4 percent match with our common ancestor the chimp or the matches between all other tested species. furthermore refute the predicted fusion of chromosomes explaining the differing number of chromosomes from great ape to human. the fusion is found in human chromosome number 2. genetics was a new science that could have refuted evolution. instead it only confirmed it, would like me to go on
roxas12590 6 months ago
@roxas12590 The chimp is 98.4 similar in DNA? OK let's refute that one. I don't disagree with the number. I disagree with the significance of the number. Did you know that ALL life has DNA and we are very similar in DNA to every single living organism? Why do you narrow in on chimps? Is it because you're scared of making the bigger claim? Why not just say we have whatever, 10% similarity with e.coli and spout that as proof of evolution? DNA is similar because ORGANISMS NEED TO EAT EACH OTHER!!!
tpstrat14 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 DNA IS EVERYTHING YOU FUCKING MORON, it's the blueprint for life, it's genetic drift and mutation is what allows speciation. it has nothing to do with who feeds on who, are you dumb?. and i narrow in on chimps because there our common ancestor. and the fossils I mentioned are by no means all of them, there just the best documented transitional forms I know of. you really are an idiot when it comes to biology. you can't understand what it means.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@roxas12590 Everything your evolution religion explains can be explained just as well by intelligent design. If life WASN'T made of DNA, there wouldn't be any life. Holy shit. What don't you understand about that? It has nothing to do with understanding microevolution and adaptation. (duh)... it's just a different theory for how life got here...
tpstrat14 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 "can be explained just as well by intelligent design" im sorry but i smell bullshit. A. you know nothing about mutation or genetic drift so your statement's on DNA can be ignored since your undereducated on that subject. B. ID is easily destroyed, in fact the info I presented on vestigiality refutes I.D's claims on irreducible complexity. you see moron iv done this before and your just getting sad. I can go on and on but your running out of steam going back to bullshit like I.D
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 im done arguing with you, this is getting old. you lack even basic knowledge or biology. even when presented with evidence you don't even know enough about genetics to understand the info im giving you. it's like trying to teach a mute to talk, I.D has been refuted by science. it's not hard to do, it's junk and has no place in classrooms. and most see this, it's never going to gain momentum. garbage is garbage and I.D will never get into science, because it's not science!!
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 also you didn't address the fusion site in chromosome number 2 linking our genome and chimps, thus explaining the chromosome number discrepancy and proving the evolutionary fusion site that took place during our evolution. but then again you don't even know the basics of DNA and genetics so this is kind of pointless. but yeah you've got alot of bases to cover. alot of research and testing to refute, good luck proving you faith based pseudoscience in place of evidence. your pathetic
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 I can back up every point I make. yet you can't refute or present one. and you keep dodging the bigger ones like the advancement's and discoveries that we have gained, the ones you benefit from i might add. are you seeing a trend yet, your no closer to showing any proof for I.D or refuting evolution then when we started. just shut up already, because the evidence massive and I can keep on going!
roxas12590 6 months ago
@roxas12590 You really think you have some kind of knowledge that your grandfather was an ape, your great grandfather a dog and your great great grandfather a beetle? Nope, your claims are still just as ridiculous as when you began spouting off this nonsense... open your mind, read a book, and maybe you'll find some real truth, huh?
tpstrat14 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 simply because you don't like the fact that your own genes show your lowly origin doesn't change the evidence. I have opening my mind where religion had closed it off, and iv read more books than you can count, and im in college so iv many more to read. the truth is in the evidence and you have failed to poke a single hole in that truth. your a moron who knows nothing about science, grow up and educate yourself and then mabye your words might carry some weight.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@roxas12590 No, not close your mind and read a book. That can be just as bad closing your mind and not reading a book.... imbecile
tpstrat14 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 was that a sentence? giving up so soon?
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 it's kinda funny how you call me an imbecile yet your the one who needs to brush up on his basic biology and genetics before you can go around making false statements about things you don't understand! because that's what this comes down to, you don't understand it, it's contradicts your faith therefore you think that gives you the authority to attack it without evidence to back up your claims....do yourself a favor and grow up. and while your at it drop the delusions.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@roxas12590 Would an atheist need to be a full fledged scriptorian to battle a Christian? That's the same question as whether or not I would need to know about your evolution religion in order to battle it. Yes, maybe it could help a little, but knowledge of a religion doesn't necessarily make it make sense in your head. Granted, I probably know more about evolutionary theory than you do!
tpstrat14 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 "probably know more about evolutionary theory than you do" really, so far you haven't proven you even know basic biology let alone evolution, you haven't refuted one single point. from what iv read "our grandfather was an ape, your great grandfather a dog and your great great grandfather a beetle?" this is the extent of your knowledge of evolution. and no I don't need to know shit about scripture to know your god is a bullshit superstition with no evidence. try again!
roxas12590 6 months ago
@roxas12590 There's massive amounts of knowledge to be had about biology. Then evolution comes in shoves that knowledge into it's own devices and ignores the entire scientific method. You still have refuted NOTHING that I have said about Mary Schweitzer's dinosaur bone discovery. Once you refute why we would change our entire perspective on bone decay to suit evoltuion then we can keep talking. Up until now, you've just been talking out your ass. Do you worship Richard Dawkins?
tpstrat14 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 not really, richard dawkins brilliant a biologist as he is loves to hear himself talk..and read a bit on the dinosaur bone and she herself is a proponent of evolution and said that when creationists misrepresent her data, she takes it personally. all other known bones from that era are still 65 million years old.she herself said it simply means we still have more to learn about fossilization. this does nothing to disprove evolution or refute any of my previous arguments.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 and you still refuted NOTHING I said about anything! id love to hear your take once again on the discoveries and applications we have gained from evolution. it's the only argument i think you understand. the others went right over your head i think.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 scratch last comment.did some more research and turns out her discovery is not accepted by the scientific community., molecular biologist's did not find true remains of blood cells. what they found was that what previously had been identified as remnants of blood cells, because of the presence of iron, were actually framboids. mineral spheres bearing iron are found in a variety of other fossils. what was found was not true soft tissue but a slimy biofilm created by bacteria.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 Mary Schweitzer's discovery went up for peer review and was destroyed by the scientific community almost 20 years ago. and if there was true soft tissue we could have extracted DNA and mapped the tyrannosaurus's genome. your single reference was to a discovery that shattered when examined. once again genome mapping and advances genetic research has only taken it's new leaps in 2005 when we mapped the human and chimp genome. is this the best you can do?
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 and mary's discovery ignited creationist's not because it poked any holes in evolution but because they thought it could somehow prove that science is wrong about the age of the earth. but radioactive dating more shuts this bullshit argument up years ago. now if your a young earth nut who thinks the earth is 6000 years old then im done talking to you because if so you just went from ignorant to fucking retard! I really hope your not that stupid.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 in fact just to shut you up im I dig further on mary and it turns out her current research is "More recently, Schweitzer's work has shown molecular similarities in Tyrannosaurus remains and chickens, providing further evidence of the bird-dinosaur connection". she is an evolution proponent so stop twisting her work and reputation by trying to lump her in with creation and I.D nuts. YOU ARE PATHETIC
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 one of my favorite proofs of evolution is vestigiality. if don't already know these are structures and organs that have no use. vestigial structures are often homologous to structures that function normally in other species. thus, vestigiality can be considered evidence for evolution, the process by which beneficial heritable traits arise in populations over an extended period of time. would you like a list of vestigial structures in humans and animals or just humans
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 to continue with vestigial structures, these organs and functions(like your appendix or wisdom teeth). can be removed(in fact they can also be harmful) but the organism can still function. this refutes the bullshit claims from I.D about irreducible complexity. once again provide evidence to refute this, this is why bullshit arguments claiming design can be refuted so easily. people like you reek of ignorance. im seriously done with you unless you can come up with a real argument.
roxas12590 6 months ago
@tpstrat14 evolution is where the evidence points, until you can refute all the data and testing, we have nothing to talk about. if the evidence points in a different direction then I will look. but ridiculous notions of god and design and creator garbage is not an answer. my stance on evolution is not based on faith, it's based on facts than I can see, research, and test for myself. you cannot refute a single point I present. at least answer for the applications iv mentioned.
roxas12590 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 until you can provide some real evidence to refute evolution there is really no point in talking with you anymore. attacking it based on the religious or nonreligious views of those who accept it does not change what the data and evidence show, or applications and knowledge we have gained from it.in the end i think you attack evolution because like many others you dislike how evolution points out your lowly origins from the great apes. so you attack it without reason. grow up
roxas12590 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 and there is no such thing as an atheistic theme. atheism is simply lack of belief in religion. if your going to try and twist it that way then technically ALL SCIENCE is atheistic because religion is absent from science. science only deals with the natural world not religion. religion has no evidence and thus no place in science. your logic is flawed beyond all reasoning, it's just sad.
roxas12590 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 It would be OK to teach, but in a philosophy class, NOT SCIENCE.
boc1953 7 months ago
@boc1953 You talkin about evolution? If so, I agree. (same with creationism). Teaching evolution in school is like teaching Satanism. Seriously, look up Satanism on wikipedia. Evolution is such goddam hogwash. No proof. Just assumptions of godlessness.
tpstrat14 7 months ago
@tpstrat14 Evolution does not assume or suggest godlessness. It is the most challenged and tested scientific theory in history! Thousands of scientists and theologians have tried to poke holes in it and disprove it for over 150 years but still, it stands! Dogmatic religious belief, on the other hand, cannot stand up to the least scrutiny by any real world standard. It falls at the first fence! To suggest evolution is satanism shows your not a worthy debater. See you 'round...
boc1953 7 months ago
She is 100% correctomundo
cchris000043 8 months ago
Evolution doesn't have atheistic implications? What church do YOU belong to? Who supports you?
The line that it doesn't have atheistic implications is the TROJAN HORSE of the NCSE.
You might try writing a book about that.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson So I guess all those religious people that believe in evolution are secretly atheists? I think intelligent people who truly understand science and evolution would be atheists, but it isn't a requirement or an implication. It is simply insight, and people can do with it what they will.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart "So I guess all those religious people that believe in evolution are secretly atheists?" Apparently that is what you think by your next statement.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson No I dont think that. Faulty assumption. I was satirically pointing out the flaws in your view.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart Right. "I think intelligent people [this would include scientists like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala] who truly understand science and evolution would be atheists ..." You aren't being satirical here.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Ken Miller certainly is intelligent. But he is by far a HUGE minority. He was raised religiously therefore he sees things through the filter of religion. Young minds are impressionable, and if you get to someone young enough you can really shape how they view the world. You can't dispute that. Ken also acknowledges that Evolution is unarguably true, and that creationism has no place in schools. So if you agree with that last statement then lets end this discussion.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart "Ken also acknowledges that Evolution is unarguably true, and that creationism has no place in schools. So if you agree with that last statement then lets end this discussion." I agree that he acknowledges--yea, promotes--Evolution as true and believes Creationism has no place in schools. I would assert that neither does Evolution. One is religion; the other is philosophical naturalism. If you think that the inference of evolution should be taught, so should the inference of design.
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@alexcowart There is no evidence to support the "inference of design" whereas there are books full of evidence supporting evolution. That is the difference. That is what it boils down to. To teach a theory supported by evidence, or to teach a pseudo scientific theory supported by nothing other than an old religious text.
Don't even bother telling me evidence for creationism, and if you do I wont respond as it isnt worth my time. I will leave the arguement at this.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart How can you reject something without looking at the evidence for it?
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian What have I rejected? And what evidence? Our standards of evidence are much different.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart I can't find the comment now, but you said that if someone presented evidence for creation you would not look at it or reply.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian The problem is that what most creationists deem evidence, is in fact not true evidence. Please present me with some evidence and I will point out the flaws. If it is truly convincing evidence I am fully 100% able and willing to adopt the religion backed by said evidence.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart Geologists in Alaska have found duckbill dinosaur bones. Fresh bones, not fossils. This is consistent with the creation timeline, and inconsistent with the evolutionary timeline. These bones obviously cannot last 65 million years without fossilizing or decaying, and they weren't preserved by the cold as geologists agree that that area used to have a much warmer climate.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian please send me a link to a reputable source, or what you say is just hearsay.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart @alexcowart Ever hear of google? Here's a url anyway (I believe it's against youtube rules to post links in the comments so you'll have to add the dot yourself.) T-rex with soft tissue: smithsonianmag(dot)com /science-nature/dinosaur.html As for the duckbill dino's in Alaska, I can't find a link for the article, but the discovery is recorded in the Journal of Paleontology, Vol.61 No.1, pp.198-200
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian This is a direct quote from your source
"Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief.... But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
When a Christian scientist disagrees with you, you know you must be REALLY wrong.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart She's not a "complete and total Christian" because she doesn't believe the bible if she thinks the Earth is millions of years old, thus making God a liar in her eyes. And my source wasn't to show you her beliefs, it was to show the fact that dinosaur bones were found with soft tissue. If you think soft tissue can be preserved for tens of millions of years you have truly remarkable faith. Genetic material breaks down much, much, much faster than that, and that is a fact.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian I was already aware of the fact that soft tissue and DNA reamain in long dead organisms. I am a biology student and have taken numerous classes that are relevant to this discussion. The paleontologist that discovered the soft tissue and the scientific community are all in consensus about its age. So I must ask you, what are your credentials that make your opinion more valid than well educated people in their fields of expertise? I have a feeling you have no expertise.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart If you were already aware of it why did you ask for a source? You already knew what I said was true, you were just hoping I didn't. My credentials are irrelevant. Argue against the information and conclusions I'm presenting, not me as a person. No one (not the Smithsonian article, and not you) have offered any evidence or explanation of how soft tissue can last for millions of years if a place of former tropical heat.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@alexcowart And there are many instances where the scientific consensus was way off. The scientific consensus used to be that the Earth was flat. Scientific consensus can and should be contested when better data is found.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian Scientific consensus can and should be contested when better data is found. I agree. So since you hold the obviously apparent evidence backed stance then go and prove it through the proper scientific channels and get your nobel prize. Im serious. But you are too ignorant to debate its a waste of time just realize you have no evidence. All you have is a hunch...an unbacked opnion. According to you soft tissue can last 6000 years give or so, why then cant it last millions of years
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart You're getting away from the data. The best argument you could come up with is this. "If soft tissue can last 6,000 years, It can last 65,000,000 years, which is about 10,833 times longer." Most soft tissue doesn't even last 200 years. It's incredible that we can even find it to last over 1,000 years and you think it can last 65,000,000 years? That's preposterous. My opinion can't be more backed. We know how fast soft tissue breaks down by observing the breakdown of soft tissue.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian First of all that isn't my "best" argument, its my shortest. Its hard to go into enough detail when there is a character cap. So let me quote you real fast.
"Most soft tissue doesn't even last 200 years. It's incredible that we can even find it to last over 1,000 years"
So how come it doesn't defy science and reason that 6000 year old soft tissue is found. You said yourself it would be a huge miracle. So your argument disproves itself.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart I never said it was 6,000 years old. That's a number you came up with. And if soft tissue could last 65,000,000 years the whole planet would be covered in corpses.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@alexcowart I never said it was 6,000 years old. That's a number you came up with. And if soft tissue could last 65,000,000 years the whole planet would be covered in corpses. Consider that proposition thoroughly refuted.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@alexcowart soft tissue can be preserve for a very long time in different environment, under very rare certain conditions. it is like how u can preserve meat in the freezer, or dry it out in the sun with salt. But most the time, the older the soft tissue, there will be damage to its structure, like freezing will cause ice crystals to form which pierces and dmg the cells.
operatorlink 7 months ago
@alexcowart If I said "I am an Atheist and I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old" that wouldn't really make sense, just like her statement doesn't make sense.
ItssBrian 8 months ago
@ItssBrian Your source doesn't support your stance, in fact your source goes out of its way to present your stance as incorrect. The paleontologist that discovered it is a christian, if anyone should be on your side it is her. However she is intelligent, she understands geology and science. She is a christian and blatantly calls you out on your ignorant misinformed argument.
alexcowart 8 months ago
"The creationist movement [meaning Intelligent Design] is actually a threat to freedom of religion ..." That's a rather silly claim to make. Perhaps, with your philosophical underpinnings, Dr. Forrest, you mean [italics]The Intelligent Design movement is actually a threat to freedom FROM religion.[italics] And that would be so. Because Intelligent Design PERSUADES open-minded people that design in nature is real. How can one have no religion if he or she is convinced there is a Designer?
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Hahaha open minded people? By definition religious people are closed minded. Open minded and faith do not belong in the same sentence. Open mindedness is being open to new ideas/arguements, but when your whole view is based on "faith" no argument can trump it.
alexcowart 8 months ago
@alexcowart Open mindedness or close mindedness isn't limited to believers. When I try to share a new idea with a stalwart non-believer, his closeminded non-belief usually jumps in the way.
How open are you to a new idea that INCLUDES faith?
MorganMarvinson 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
Being closed-minded is a condition of faith. When you accept, on faith, a given thing, you suspend reality and close your mind to it. There is some evidence that with some people this is a manifestation of mental disorder, with others it seems it reflects uncertainty in life (something that both education and an elimination of conservative politics which creates poverty can remedy).
CayleyBeiseker 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
I can't believe US is still struglin whit this issue
Muhku2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People listen, if your stand that you do not believe in God because you haven't seen Him is very weak reasoning why? for example, how about that love we feel to our parents, brothers, sisters etc...Don't tell me it is not real? Do we see that love we felt? Do not tell me that because that love is not seen and it's not real? Investigate first before you conclude things, Listen to Bro Eli Soriano to this site theoldpath .tv experience teachings not being taught by priests and born again pastors
ilovetruth777 1 year ago
"Freedom of Religion" means just that, FREEDOM OF RELIGION! Our founding fathers were afraid that one religion would become supreme in the government to the exclusion of all others to the detriment and persecution of all others just like it was in England. They were right, it has happened here! Atheism has become the supreme religion of the land in our government to the exclusion of all others! The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Atheism is a religion!
theosdoren 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theosdoren Quote: " The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Atheism is a religion!"
When and where was this ruling made?
HonestMan395 10 months ago
@theosdoren Wow, you're delusional.
Ever notice how we still have the first ammendment?
Ever notice how the majority of the population is still Christian?
Ever notice how the minority is still non-religious? Atheists and the like struggle through everyday life just trying to makae it through without somebody degrading their lack of "faith". People are fired from jobs, kicked out of schools, even assaulted and murdered simply for refusing to believe in bronze age desert rantings.
LucasI3434 10 months ago
Evolutionists are not agreed on how life began (the actual origin of life) from inanimate to animate life everything is assumed.
Abiogenesis means life coming from non life.
It is a speculative hypothesis
There is no evidence for it
It violates the law of biogenesis
There is no credible mechanism for it
it would take a miracle, ...and each one of you out there is a miracle! peace and love Theories are things that are beat up by a bunch of brutal facts! - Dr. Walter Martin
Sygnius 1 year ago
@Sygnius Yes but religion never gave any scientific knowladge in it's existance, it didn't create medications , it didn't create modern world that we live in today, it didn't even gave freedom for people to do so in it's early stage of existance. Evoliution is not suposed to explain origins of life it exlains diversity of life and evoliution in it. And before you start talking about religion and morals, it's not scientific knowladge, and most likely it didn't come from religion.
K3val 11 months ago
@Sygnius Yeah man the theory of gravity just takes a huge beating from all those facts right
fudrick43 11 months ago
@Sygnius Science is well aware of the the many possible mechanisms of Abiogenesis.
They are now engaged in performing tests and experiments in oreder to find exactly which is the most likely reason.
From knowledge already proven, they know that a miracle is not required for life to emerge.
Dr. Waqlter Martin was a prominent Christian apologetic. His doctorate was not in science, therefore his views on scientific theories are no more valid than those of any other non-scientist.
HonestMan395 10 months ago
@Sygnius -That doesn't discredit the concept of Abiogenesis
-Yes
-There are several experiments and sizable amounts of evidence to back up the assertion that life camem from non-life.
-There is no law of biogenesis
-Urey-Miller Experiments.
-It would be fairly improbable, yes, but odds have nothing to do with it. Take 100 dice and roll them. The chances that they would come up how they did when you rolled them are astronomical. But it still happened.
LucasI3434 10 months ago
FAITH. A massive 100-yr.-old oak tree is cleaved by lightning. Although the tree remains standing it no longer attracts picnickers who had once sought shade beneath her canopy. Why? The faith that people once had in this tree's structural integrity has been challenged. PARANOIA. Long before the 100-yr.-old oak was compromised by a lightning-strike one man would not venture within a thousand feet of the tree as he was in mortal fear that it would topple. The MORAL: A lack of faith = paranoia.
UTubeOfficialSite 1 year ago
I am a middle aged gentleman, and I think Barbara Forrest is smoking hot. A pity about her views, though...
GlorifiedTruth 1 year ago
@GlorifiedTruth Not sure about smoking hot but if she has nice hands I might let her touch it!...lol
Linkacious1 1 year ago
Religions teaching people hate
underthegodful 1 year ago
thru the whole thing i couldn't stop thinking... DAYUM SHES UGGGGLY
TheWorldofAsians 1 year ago
For someone with a PHD, she sure is stupid.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
Several religions coexist with Evolution as exampoles Wicca, Deism, and many types of Paganism, and also evolution does not disprove anything like magick telepathy, afterlife, ghosts etc and witchcraft, to me the supernatural does not exist anything even ghosts and the afterlife must be natural and explicable.
wingsovertheworld3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism is a disease. It is a typo cancer. It kills the soul rapidly and makes you hate everything—everybody, especially religious people. Your soul becomes bitter full of hatred and your mouth full of poison/venom. It contaminates the world; it rejects reasoning it causes harm in the heart of little ones. Most of the time in the heart of ignorant/ irrational people. Atheists become irrational by it. LETS SAY NO to that cancer—toxic monkeys/apes.
Windlightesh 1 year ago
This woman is mistaken. ID is not the opposite of evolution. Evolution is what happens after you have life. ID is how you get the life. If life came from non-life, we would call that the beginning of life, not the evolution of non-life.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
I used to think this, but you can watch the PBS special here about the Dover schoolboards controvercy about that whole thing. Of pandas and people made the asssertion that there were no transitional forms, and argued for irreducible complexity, which was dissproven in court by Ken Miller. ID is creationism in duisquise and opend the door for even astrology to be taught in the science classroom, or that Noah's flood carved out the Grand Canyon. ID is the oppisite of evolution.
Allen78x 1 year ago
@Allen78x I've seen the special. The Dover approach was wrong. It's why they lost. That doesn't change what I said. Something has been misunderstood here, you are saying that you used to think that evolution is what happens after you get life and now you think it happens before you have life?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer No. The theories regarding the origions of life are Abiogenisis. Wich does not imply an inteligent progeniter. ID presuposes that an inteligent force ( IE: God ) created life.
Andrewcranky 1 year ago
@Andrewcranky Agreed, not sure why you think I didn't understand that, but hey it's all good. Abiogenisis is, as you infer, the theory that something unintelligent is responcible for life. (Sometimes it would seem as if that were true! lol)
gcnengineer 1 year ago
She claims that the Creationist Movement is a threat to religious freedom. In actuality, teaching a scientific theory that contradicts most religions as an absolute truth is a threat to religious freedom. It's like taking all these children of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. faiths and telling them, "Btw, all you've ever been taught is a lie and your scriptures are all bologna."
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi Are you saying that it's unlawful to show a picture of the earth from space to a child brought up on a religious doctrine that says that the earth is flat?
BirdValiant 1 year ago
@BirdValiant No, I'm saying a hypothesis should be taught as a hypothesis, nothing more. Darwinism/Evolution lacks the requirements needed to be considered a scientific theory, much less law.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi How is the Theory of Evolution not a theory? What requirements does it not satisfy?
BirdValiant 1 year ago
@BirdValiant Step 1 in the process of developing a scientific law is to form a hypothesis. This is an idea or educated guess on a certain phenomena. The hypothesis is then tested with an experiment. In the case of proving evolution, you would need to find the "link" between the two species. The reason for not finding the "missing link" between man and ape is because it does not exist.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi Theories don't somehow "graduate" to become laws.
There are hundreds of found "missing links."
Man IS an ape.
New species aren't created by interbreeding by hybrids. New species result from NOT interbreeding. Separation can be a physical barrier, such as an island separated by water. It can also be something else: if a group of birds starts to sing a different mating song from the rest, then they will only mate within themselves, and not without.
BirdValiant 1 year ago
@BirdValiant @BirdValiant Yes, theories DO graduate to become laws in the field of science. You should have learned about this in 3rd grade or so. Where is your proof that man is ape? I haven't heard of hundreds of missing links being found. Every case is presented as a "possible" link. The most well-known being Ida. The scientists beat around the bush when asked if it was the missing link. They would say "perhaps". Scientists then moved from "perhaps" to "doubt" as recorded on LiveScience.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@BirdValiant Though, there are many MISSING links, none have been established as a direct ancestral link. To this day, scientists claim t be searching for the "missing link". They claim to have found many "possible links" but end up with what they call "branching nodes". This is anouther way of saying a gap tat cannot be connected in the ancestral tree. Evolutionists love to spout theoretical speculation, but have NOT been able to establish evolution as indisputable truth.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi "Though, there are many MISSING links, none have been established as a direct ancestral link. "
Nothing changes overnight, MT. The changes took tens of thousands of years and even now, we won't be like what follows in another million years. The interim forms are called transitional stages and if you can't find it on the internet, I'lll be glad to supply a site.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi -Evolutionists love to spout theoretical speculation, but have NOT been able to establish evolution as indisputable truth.
If you understood evolution, you'd know that yes, evolution IS indisputable truth. How do you think we get antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms if not by adaptation and survival? Evolution is NOT the opposite of creation, in spite of your thinking it is. But consider the evidence of creationists' TRUTH - Bible says God blew into dirt and made a man.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 Well, scientists say that we are 30% dirt and 70% water, so how is it hard to imagine the concept of being molded by the Creator? His breath was what made man a "living soul". How is that any more obsurd than the idea that two rocks collided resulting in the creation of a perfect solar system and one planet on which conditions were perfect for living beings to appear out of water that appeared out of nowhere?
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi - You are attacking the wrong department (out of ignorance). Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not "two rocks collided resulting in a perfect solar system.......".
It is absolutely "so hard" to imagine a giant supernatural being, breathing into dirt, and making a man - in either of the two contradicting versions in Genesis.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 Mainstream science is what I am attacking. The same scientists that advocate and push evolution also push the big bang theory. This is what Charles Darwin himself taught as truth.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi I doubt that you're attacking anything except in the direction someone sicked you. You didn't even have a clue that evolution and abiogenesis are two different sciences and these very common (now) attacks are precipitated by ignorance.
LoraSinger 1 year ago
@LoraSinger I know they are two different sciences, however both are part of Darwinism. I do find it strange, however, that scientists would advocate abiogenisis ( life from nonlife) when scientific law states that it is impossible.They really don't know what to go with.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi "both are part of Darwinism. "
I doubt that very much. Charles Darwin said: "It is mere rubbish to talk about the origin of life; one might as well talk about the origin of matter."
Doesn't sound to me like he was into the origin of life.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 You are right for correcting me as far as Darwin supporting the big bang theory. That was after Charles Darwin but he did state his opinions on the issue of abiogenesis in many of his personal writings. One of his comments:
"the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable"
He states that life from nothing may be possible, though this contradicts scientific law.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi - I think that we can never know the truth about the origin of things. The two sides can argue until the cows come home but no one knows for sure. Religious people look at it in terms of the bible and scientists from a scientific viewpoint. Very likely, the truth is somewhere in between, kind of like the blind men and the elephant.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 I agree that we can never know by scientific discovery the specifics on the origin of life. I believe in the Bible's creation story. That being said, it is impossible to prove it's authenticity or correctness (obviously). So, I understand how it would be hard for a "non-believer" to accept such a thing as truth. The reason I believe in the scriptures is because I have had a personal encounter with God through them, which also can't be proven. As a believer, all I can do is pray.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi No problem, MT. Whatever works for you.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 In a letter sent to an English botanist in 1871, Darwin "imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy."
Another thing tothink about is that in his book "The Origin of Species" he mentions the "Creator".
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi He also said: Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws."
That and reference to a creator makes me think that he may have thought of the creator in the same terms as Einstein.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MessianicTsalagi - Mainstream science is what I am attacking. The same scientists that advocate and push evolution "
Why are you attacking something you don't even understand? Your church tells you it's bad and you attack, right? "The same scientists" amount to 99% of scientists, MT, and evolution has been proven both by transitional fossils and in the short term by the formation of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi 2) Secondly, MT, yours is not the only creation story in the world. Every other culture had one two and there are literally hundreds out there, everyone different, some even more fantastic than yours. Your creation story is just another one of the legends. You lot are the only ones who think its literal truth.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 I never claimed that the Bible contains the only creation story in th world. I simply claimed that the fact that man is made of dirt and water goes along with the Biblical creation story that we were created from dirt.Though dirt is not biological and not an organism, it was given form and life by the Creator.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi Though dirt is not biological and not an organism, it was given form and life by the Creator.
Yeah - God did it by breathing into dirt. Very convincing.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 The Bible has much more validity to it than any of Darwin's writings. The book of Daniel foretold the future of the "four great kingdoms", the fall of the MedoPersian Empire, the scattering and enslavement of the Israelites, the Edomite (Khazar) occupation of Israel, Israel being split into two parts (Khazar and Arab), and much more.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago
@MessianicTsalagi "The Bible has much more validity to it than any of Darwin's writings"
"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a
fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time.
Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the
explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice
of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!"
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 The fossil record is full of gaps and the diagrams/photos iused in textbooks to represent transitional species have been exposed as being imaginative hoaxes. One very important subject being Coelacanth. The evolutionists claimed this "pre-historic" fish evolved into a land-dwelling creature. That was until a living Coelacanth was discovered. There are countless accounts of evolutionists making false claims.
MessianicTsalagi 1 year ago