Scientists have been saying all along that for them to believe in something it has to be repeatable and verifiable. They themselves have repeated and verified time and time again that there is just no way to turn inorganic matter into organic. Yet, they still believe in the theory of Darwin evolution.
Information in the gene is a code or language. Where did these codes come from that is in the genes which tells other genes what part of a body they would develop?
All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. Codes do not evolve so an intelligent designer must be involved.
All the gene changes with fruit flies always created another fruit fly even though parts of the fruit fly body was missing. There was never a change into another species. Evolution is not the answer.
This does not prove Darwinism. Radiation mutates genes. Species don't gradually turn into new species in a struggle to survive. New species always appear abruptly as during the Cambrian explosion.
Because these scientists are not looking for the cause of any form of "positive" gene expression they cannot say where these very few positive expressions come from. They pull out the "magic" card out of their ass and say they are "random mutations". It is highly unlikely that any positive results come from any accidental gene change that would fit with the completed genetic structure of any human.
70% of the thing this "science" calls "mutation" results in damage to the genome. Considering that this is happing all the time. Then just by this statistic alone negates the possibility of any general NET increase in fitness of any creature.
@muzicluva0 You have the questions. Now do some study, on the topic. You have the internet, so you have the power to seek truth. All of your questions have been answered by great luminaries, of the human race. Do a little reading, if your interested in these questions. You don't have to be a genius, you just have to have the ability to READ.
The loss of gene function is de-evolutoin or anti-evolutoin. Any "positive" gene improvement was most likely already in the human population. In order to say without any doubts where these come from, they would have to do the work to check the DNA of many generations backwards from the specimen sample DNA thought to have "improved" DNA.
GSFY - Give it up Jimmy, it's apparent you know nothing about genetics - until recently YOU claimed that humans mated with Gorillas to produce chimps and with the chimps to produce Neanderthals, and all less than 4000 years ago, and you repeatedly claimed that ALL the evidence, incl DNA and ERVs, supported your idiocy. Face it Jimmy, we ALL know you're a dishonest uneducated cowardly creationist with mental problems, get some professional help and take the medications offfered.
It is absolutely clear in evidence that there is no "correcting" or "fixing" enfluence in any creature. They are all losing gene fucntions and are less complex because of this.
70% of the thing this "science" calls "mutation" results in damage to the genome. Considering that this is happing all the time. Then just by this statistic alone negates the possibility of any general NET increase in fitness of any creature.
Because these scientists are not looking for the cause of any form of "positive" gene expression they cannot say where these very few positive expressions come from. They pull out the "magic" card out of their ass and say they are "random mutations". It is highly unlikely that any positive results come from any accidental gene change that would fit with the completed genetic structure of any human.
The next argument for "evolution" is the idea that degradation and loss of gene function is evolution. They changed the definition to continue with this con game.
Evolution: "that theory which sees inn the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
70% of the thing this "science" calls "mutation" results in damage to the genome. Considering that this is happing all the time. Then just by this statistic alone negates the possibility of any general NET increase in fitness of any creature.
Because these scientists are not looking for the cause of any form of "positive" gene expression they cannot say where these very few positive expressions come from. They pull out the "magic" card out of their ass and say they are "random mutations". It is highly unlikely that any positive results come from any accidental gene change that would fit with the completed genetic structure of any human.
The loss of gene function is de-evolutoin or anti-evolutoin. Any "positive" gene improvement was most likely already in the human population. In order to say without any doubts where these come from, they would have to do the work to check the DNA of many generations backwards from the specimen sample DNA thought to have "improved" DNA.
There is no magical process that "fixes" or "improves" gene functions. The only thing that will fix it is "intelligence" that steps in to fix these imperfections. It took genetic engineering to produce all the life on earth, and it takes genetic engineering to fix it.
Only a brainwashed person who is using archaic, Evodelusional, ideas of evolution could not see this.
When you read articles realizing that there are no new gene expressions bringing any improvements by magical "evolution" process that have never been documented, we can start to get free from delusional archaic concepts that retard science.
GSFY - Jimmy, quit spamming your nonsense and get on with those videos you promised - you recently said 'I am working on a whole series of videos to wipe out the religion of Evodelusionism from science' - you're not chickening out are you? We could all do with the laughs, so stop being a cowardly creationist and crack on with the videos, a Golden Crocoduck awaits! I'm particularly keen to see the one on your new hypothesis(idiocy) that apes are 'degraded' humans, that should be a classic!!
There are only a very finite amount of building blocks to make tissue and organic features from. These people work so hard to show that the earth is finite, tiny with very limited resources that are constantly reused in all creatures with totally different programming that uses these gene expressions to proteans and etc. There is no tie between creatures because they share DNA similarity. It has to be shown in much more detail to create any genealogical connection.
GSFY - there you go again with your transparent lies Jimmy - you've been provided with a huge variety of evidence that supports evolution by a lot of different people - what we can't decide is if you're too blind to see it, too dumb to recognise it, too ignorant to understand it, or too dishonest to admit it! Which is it Jimmy? Or is it all of them?
Why don't you get on with that series of videos you promised, we could all do with the laughs!!
"And you deduce, it must have had these genes." A great oversimplification to drive home a theory, though in actual study, it isn't true. Homological forms do not all come from the same genes, nor develop from the same segment of the body, nor in the same order. Yet, they are homological. Hmm.
Consummate? It is no more than the univerality of the genetic code shared between organisms. And that is not consummate proof. Darwinism never predicted universals, notwithstanding contemporary cliams to the contrary. There is no reason different genes could not be used. The surprise among these scientist is consummate proof that it was not a prediction.
(1) Chromosome numbers (discovered 1905-1910) prove that the origin of every species is the first mating pair with the species' chromosomes.
(2) Definition nectar: "a sweet liquid secretion that is attractive to pollinators " proves that flowering plants came into existence with the animals that cross-pollinate them.
(3) Huge deposits of sedimentary rocks (sediment = stuff at bottom of water) plus fossils, fossil fuels prove Flood of Genesis 6.
very nice clip,but i still dont see how this movie explains adding new genetic information..such as a fish to human..hmmm im looking for tht vidoe and the ones ive found are no good -.-'
What do hox genes have to do with proving evolution? This has more to do with post Mendelian genetics than Darwinism. Mendel the Christian monk who was ignored for 60 years. Mendel was right and Darwin's Pangenesis theory was wrong and it is cited in every encyclopedia as wrong.
where did all that information came from? Besides, the eviromental microgenetic field influences the gene. But where did that information came from. Again, the results came from people who did not added information to the gene, but let the other cells promted a specific task.
Wow thanks PBS and mundo77...everything makes so much sense now! That totally proves Darwinian evolution 100%. There aren't any holes in this evidence at all. With information like this, how could anyone assume that there is a design to life? Clearly scientists have proven, now, that God doesn't exist..all because of the simple-ness of DNA! Gee Golly..how did I ever think that an intelligent mind created all of life. Man..Im so silly!
DNA code is empirical proof that biological life forms are a creative product of information and language. i.e.: Nous / Logos (Einstein called this: "The MIND of GOD").
(A) Information is: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
(B) Information exist independent of its medium. (the same information can be stored in one's mind, expressed verbally, written on paper, typed on a computer etc.)
(C) Code = Language. Language originates in a MIND.
There ore only two types of language known to man: (1) That of human mind origin (2) DNA code.
animals have a language of sorts. Birds have calls that attract mates, signal of predators, tell of a food source. Bees have dances to pass on location of food sources, prarie dogs have sentinals, and calls to warn the others.
DNA is not really a language , more like a code pattern that is replicated during cell division.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Genetic similarity is not evidence of evolution. It's evidence of a common designer. The very erxistance of DNA is empirical proof of design because DNA is information, and information is immaterial and cannot be produced by nature. Modern science has discredited the 200+ yr old evolution concept.
Did your bible study teacher tell you that the old men who wrote it thought that the Earth was flat & the center of the universe? Cause they were dead on about that! Simple folk like you need simple answers to everything.
well ur bible study teacher is retarded and should look more into this stuff before he makes himself look even more stupid (haha i almost said stupider XD)
I had the opposite, I though god was real and jesus was his son. But when you really look into religion, you really do discover that god was created by pagans and tweaked by the romans. I was a catholic to I was 18, once science took over my life I realised that there is no god.
My muslim friend had the same experience as you, allah & mohammed spoke to him now he is a muslim, I guess you will find this is the same for all religions, so there are many gods or there are no god/s.
'What is the difference between flies and hippos?' Er..they're different species. Nobody in the history of evolution has ever suggested that one species gives rise to another IN ONE GENERATION!!! Is that what you are REALLY suggesting?
What is YOUR definition of a species? It can't be morpology. Many widely diverse species LOOK similar. Is it the inability to interbreed? If so, you will know that we have created non-interbreeding species in fruit flies from the same 'ancestor'.. Also, please be the FIRST in the world to define 'KIND'.
if I have a complex drawing of a, for example, a house, that comprises 1 000 individual lines, and I, in a series of steps, keep changing the direction/angle etc of different individual lines, there will come a time when the drawing is no longer a house, but something quite different. It's always difficult to say at what EXACT point. Similar with speciation through an accumulation of small changes in an isolated population leading to different morphology, traceable through genetics, fossils, etc
"they still get fruit flies". What the hell did you (or scientists) expcect; hippos? You need, at least, a BASIC idea of the Theory of Evolution, and related experiments, BEFORE you can engage in meaningful discourse. Please watch the videos of DonExodus, AronRa etc FIRST, then you will find the answers to your possible objections. If you can think of one that has not already been answered a thousand times over, please post it for all to see.
What is the difference between flies and the hippos? Just because it's smaller doesn't mean it's less complex. In fact they are both on the same level of complexity. The difference is only in size.
Yet with all the experiments that they've done on fruit flies they still get fruit flys.If they trurned a fruit fly into a fish,now that would be something.Evolution fails again.
you idiots argue too much, you can believe in god and understand that evolution is real, quit wasting your breath, the bible is NOT a scientific book, according to it the earth is the center of the universe people!!! there is also parts in the bible saying you should kill anyone who doesnt believe in the same religion as you! and you dont do that now do you? so believe what you want, but evolution is simply REAL.
God is as powerful as he was 2000 years ago.. The healings in the bible are nothing compared to some that take place TODAY. Come to Chennai, India on March 10th next year during convention time and I can show you a veritable host of Healed people and not one or two.. What about a Blind man WITHOUT any eyes or eyelids being healed?, the skin covering the shallow eyesockets tore into two slits and two whole eyes bloomed into being on the spot.. Such is the power of Jesus to Heal today
dawnmathew, I just ass-raped both Jesus and God and they really seemed to love it! I think I turned both Jesus and God gay, man! Haha, I'm awesome!: )
I used to talk like this - about 15 years ago or so. Complete 180 change I never thought would happen in a billion years. Hated God intensely for so many reasons and for such a long time. When God manifested himself - physically - to me in a scientific way through observation I couldn't deny the existence of "something" any longer. So after about 5 years or so I had a complete conversion to Christ believer and follower. So I hope you don't ultimately roast in Hell but that's your choice.
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, letter to Mr bentham admits, When we decend into details we can prove that no one species has changed ( i.e. We cannot prove that a single species has changed); nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the ground work of the theory.
Sounds like similiar design to me. I don't see how this proves that we came from a rock. Frankly, it just shows that there's a language of life in everything.
It's just like we can all hear music, no matter what place we come from. Interchanging the DNA does not explain how the mouse and fly got there. They didn't turn on the switch for a tail in the fly. They turned on a switch for an eye in the fly. What is this proving?! There's so many holes in this, PM me if you wanna know them all.
Intelligent design is the same as magic. Its a cop out explanation without any secular or scientific components. Don't try to label conjecture as science.
Monkeys didn't give birth to humans. But ERVs showing up in primates prove we have a common ancestor.
Well it is a good job that evolution makes no claims about where life came from then! This video provides evidence for common ancestry, which is evidence for evolution.
@VeggieTrunks....Modern science is a gulag archipelligo...dissenters are expunged...DNA is the biggest most complex software program...written by an intelligent mind.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@VeggieTrunks There are only a very finite amount of building blocks to make tissue and organic features from. These people work so hard to show that the earth is finite, tiny with very limited resources that are constantly reused in all creatures with totally different programming that uses these gene expressions to proteans and etc. There is no tie between creatures because they share DNA similarity. It has to be shown in much more detail to create any genealogical connection.
uhh no, it doesn't "answer my questions". I have yet to see anything that shows *less* complex evolving into *more* complex.(other than wishful assertions and speculation) If that can't be demonstrated and empirically tested , it's philosophy not science. Darwin's observations were nothing more than Mendelian gentics. The same genetics that make a poodle or a great dane. Imagine the evolutionary speculation that would arise today if poodles and great danes were only known from fossils!
Human beings are evidence of simple to complex evolution. ERVs showing up in exactly the same places in the genome in primates is impossible to refute.
That sounds like similiar design to me. It's circumstantial evidence at best, certainly does not prove that a monkey ever gave birth to a man.
The simple fact still remains that Macro Evolution has never been proven to occur. As they say, where's there's smoke, there's fire. Circumstantial evidence for evolution is a puff compared to the FACTS that go in favor of ID such as Macro Ev. and Abiogenesis having never been proven.
That is beautiful. Most creationists argue that there is some nebulous evidence (that they can never produce) that show macroevolution (a process made up by creationists) and abiogenesis to be impossible, setting up a false dichotomy and fallaciously claiming it as evidence for ID. But you've gone one step further and claimed that macroevolution and abiogenesis being unproven is evidence for ID.
You would win gold in the mental gymnastics at the creationist olympics.
@mundo77 Oh! Really? Maybe you should look at all the evidence.
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@mundo77 If you really want to get free from human beliefs that are not based in evidence then go to the Neutral Evolution Forum. If you want to remain as you are, deeply believing in things that are not real with magical processes and mystical causes, so be it. It is your choice.
@mundo77 - asking GoodScienceForYou to 'Start making some sense' would not only require him to break the habit of a lifetime, but, given his limited mental abilities, may even be actually impossible for him!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@mundo77 I always make pure and logical sense. It is you who are not able to recognize it. Your religious belief in Evodelusionism interferes with your ability to be even slightly objective. All the information shows no possible evolution, but only a gradual loss of gene functions in all creatures.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@mundo77 If you really want to get free from human beliefs that are not based in evidence then go to the Neutral Evolution Forum. If you want to remain as you are, deeply believing in things that are not real with magical processes and mystical causes, so be it. It is your choice. This video reiterates what I have been saying for a long time. Their conclusions are based on belief and not on all the evidence.
GSFY - stop spamming your idiot forum and band on old videos and get on with that series of videos you told us about - you said 'I am working on a whole series of videos to wipe out the religion of Evodelusionism from science' - what's the matter Jimmy, not chickening out are you? The one that talks about your new 'hypothesis' that apes are 'degraded' humans should win you a Golden Crocoduck.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@mundo77 Chimps are evidence of human genome degradation. This is in all the evidence. It is obvious.
Take a look and tell me it could be otherwise. All of the physical evidence, fossils, DNA, ERV's all say that some split off, speciation, from human degraded from environmental toxins.
@mundo77 - ever since GoodScienceForYou learned how to spell DNA and ERV he thinks he's a genetics expert! He used to claim that Gorillas mated with humans to produce chimps and with the chimps to produce Neanderthals, and all less than 4000 yrs ago! He repeatedly claimed it was supported by ALL the evidence(incl. DNA and ERVs), a claim he now makes for his new apes are 'degraded' humans nonsense.
@mundo77 You have not looked at the evidence. Ken Miller in his own words says he is a believer in Evolution.
He said that at some point he had to decide, and so he decided the pay check was worth it so he wrote books on biology and now is so deep in this delusional nonsense he will leave fully delusional. You don't have to do that. I use his videos as evidence. Goto Neutral Evolution Forum and learn.
GSFY - funny how you call others 'delusional' when you claim to 'have been a scientist for over 45 years' when the closest you've been is a failed hot-tub salesman, and you claim an 'IQ over 180' when you can't make a coherent argument and logic is a complete stranger to you. It's only your inherited mental problems that cause you to believe your laughably transparent lies. Face it Jimmy, you're a dishonest cowardly creationist, but you are SO funny!!
@GSFY This is what you previously said: "Chromosome fusion is not any evidence of evolution. It is the opposite. It shows that after the breeding withi humans and apes and chimps came to being, is when I conjecture the fusion took place. This also means that very few humans were on the planet at that time. Otherwise there would be humans without the fused chromsome. The fusion took place so that no more cross breeding is possible".
So you said humans mating with apes was OBVIOUS! hahaha!!
So.. How exactly is this "Consummate proof of Darwinian evolution" ? In particular, where is the evidence of simple to complex evolution? This suggests that all animals are equally complex from the beginning. And why is common design out of the question?
Also, I hope you realize that this presents a highly simplified picture; not all animals have exactly the same HOX genes; some are visibly mutated (mostly neutral mutations), some have been copied and modified, etc. Also, afaik, HOX genes only apply to multicelled life. In mice, we see mostly the same basic HOX genes as in fruit flies, but there are roughly 4 times as many (the extra genes are modified copies). Common design would have a hard time explaining the genetic paralogy and homology.
"Genes are nothing more than Replication machines, whos purpose is to create more copies of itself."
It's funny how evolutionists can't get away from using the language of design, such as the phrase "it's purpose is to create..."
That aside, self replication is an astoundingly complicated process that even the most sophisticated biologists do not fully understand. Are we to believe that the first self-replicating thing was simple? But without self-replication, there is no natural selection.
Compared to structures that cant replicate themselves. Compared to modern cells. Compared to viruses. They are made of monomers that consist of a sugar, a nitrogenous base and phosphate groups. They are nearly structurally identical to molecules like cholesterol and ATP, which cannot replicate themselves. And there are many molecules which are more complex which cannot replicate.
You may say that RNA is a simple molecule because it is made up of a small number of parts... but it is the precise building and arrangement of those parts in the proper order that allows the molecule to replicate itself, and the PROCESS of self-replication is not a simple process, no matter what you think. If you expect me to believe that it is... it's going to take a lot more to prove it than what you've said so far.
As far as chol. and ATP, structural similarity and complexity are different.
No, when we are talking about molecules that are made of a handful of atoms structure is everything. It is all chemistry and physics. Thermodynamic, electromagnetic and other interactions between atoms and molecules based solely on their physical state and arrangement. If you put molecules next to each other they will interact based on their physical characteristics.
Self replication is not a simple or complex process a priori because it is not a uniform process. DNA replication is complicated because it is facilitated by a number of secondary agents but free RNA replication is simple. Nucleotides polymerise themselves and recruit free nucleotides as a result of predictable chemical interactions. Crystalline self replication is also simple, it is all just templates for the same template.
Self replication isn't a magical property unique to life.
If you think self-replication is such a simple process, go and build something tangable that is able to create another of itself (by itself), which can create another of itself, ad infinitum. When you have done this... get back to me. I'd love to see it.
I don't think self replication is as simple process or a complicated process, because it is not a single process. It is a quality that an object can have which can be attained by any number of processes (which can be anywhere on a spectrum of simple to complicated).
I'm not a trained chemist so I'll have to give it a pass. But there are many man-made self replicating molecules. Look up the work of Julius Rebek and Reza Ghadiri, or into instances where pharmaceutical companies are unable to produce a product because one of their other products that is self replicating has contaminated their facilities and converts everything to itself, like ritonavir.
"...it is not a single process. It is a quality that an object can have which can be attained by any number of processes (which can be anywhere on a spectrum of simple to complicated)."
The bit where it zooms into the chromosome is rather misleading. It suggests that chromosomes are merely two strings of DNA whereas in reality the DNA is coiled up tightly around histones and the double helix structure wouldn't be visible... >_>
No one creature has the same amount of information as others so no creature is related to other creatures that have other information. DNA proves that evolution is not true. DNA also proves that we have the same Designer/Creator/God because of everything having the same basic structures. Your incredulity is astounding!
Either you didn't pay attention to the video or you are incapable of understanding the process in which species evolve is absolutely confirmed with DNA.
Nobody who has ever studied DNA would support your ridiculous claim that "DNA disproves evolution".
You can't just state the opposite and pretend like its true. What specifically are you referring to?
One set of DNA has rendered all the life in existence on earth. The variation of the environment trigger a multitude of combinations of the mechanisms inside our genes.
This is not theory its fact. Provable empirically. The process in which life evolves is not up for debate for the literate.
The source of the initial set of DNA is still a theory though and you can call this God or whatever until science eclipses that idea like its done with all branches of mythology since the beginning.
The variation of species is a part of the existing design. Everything can only reproduce after their kind. This is a fact. No object or circumstance is able to add any information. That is nothing more than imagination, speculation and dreaming on your part. We only lose species. We do not gain any. You cannot explain where so much life suddenly appeared from nowhere. Stop spreading bad information. Your cretaceous period is nothing more than the ocean floor that was covered with layers.
You cannot properly explain "a sudden departure from the parent type" nor can you even give an example of that. OK, too much nonsense here! Movin' on.
The variation of species is a part of the existing design which comes from both male and female chromosomes. Regardless, it is still always a part of the original preexisting design that no one can claim the rights to.
* "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research, The Advocate, 8 March 1984. * "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future."
-Malcolm Muggeridge (British philosopher), The Advocate, March 8 1984.
to anyone doubting evolution, or wanting to impose their religious beliefs, all i will say is: just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't true
This is interesting info, thanks for posting but:
1. How could gene transferability ever possibly prove naturalistic evolution over a common designer hypothesis? Its so blatantly not-possible that any talk of 'proof' is consummate vanity and stupidity.
2. Disparate genes in disparate species have also been shown to produce similar structures eg the abdomen in fruit flies and bees, i.e. the as so often in life, the OPPOSITE is ALSO TRUE.
3. Darwin, perhaps because he only had a degree in Theology, mentioned no concept such as Random Mutation, he presumed it somehow, talking only of 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest'.
a. Survival of the fittest has become 'survival of the non-harmful'. b. Darwinian evolution is entirely inadequate without the addition of random mutation so it clings only as a sentimental souvenir in Natural Evolution Theory.
But when you come close to death, and that warmth Light of Lights isn't there to greet you, you will wimper and cry at your own ignorance. You keep looking for Heaven when the one place you should be thankful for is right under your feet! If I were God, I'd be ashamed that my followers never use the one faculty I gave them (and ironically discourage the use of)--you brain! How can you base your entire life on something so unprovable and archaic? Enough excuses--use your mind while you can!
Alrite...AnAppleADei, lets say i agree with you....ok..Just say i do....then give a logical answer to my post (3 comments above) about the Fly and Rat paradox, Please????...Could you...
I think believing in God is a form of madness, though many people pass it on as normal because so many are afflicted by it. There are people with genuine belief in invisible things, who don't know any better because they were indoctrinated as children. You heckle me and make fun of me because I know that the world doesn't need God, well then, let me return the favor. You are the fool. A fool afraid of death and who needs his own sense of value to come from an ancient book! Think for yourself!!!
Oh, and i think you 'know' soooo little about Christianity...'Christians' had nothin to do with the crusades, for instance...You need to research about the Knights Templars and the Illuminati...they are the ones who dragged the face of 'Christianity' thru the mud, and, as if by coincidence, they're the ones who made the theories YOU now believe in...do the math man! You need to understand the complexity of life man...watch?v=gYiCMWd3cQo
If darwinian evolution was 'proven' by these results....then that fruit fly would essentially have a rat's eyes....aint that so...??!!! Gosh i hate backward reasoning...!!!
The fact shown in these results is that...
a FLY can only be a FLY; having FLY-like things no matter wat is inputed in its genes....aint that what happened now...??!!!
In essence, it is like polymorphic programming in C++; the same command (gene) invoked by different base classes (organisms) do ONLY exactly that which is specific to that base class (organism)
You are just deducing from the discovery that which supports your theoretic ideals...
Inspite all, "darwinian evolution" still remains nothing more than a THEORY....& u all talk of it as fact.... In a game of chess, darwinian evolution would be merely a 'delay tactic'; being that, if we had a common ancestor based on this postulate, where did that 'common ancestor' come from?!!
The "theory" is of how it happens. Not that it does happen. Gravity happens. Evolution does not happen. Variation of species does happen but it is a part of a preexisting design that evolution had no part in the makings of it because no information is ever added. Existing information is merely adapted to existing environments for the sake of survival. There are no new species. There are only lost species. Face the facts.
I suggest you look up the word mutation in a biology 101 book.
Mutation:
Genetics. 3. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
Life happens, evolution is the theory that has the most evidence that explains how life has proliferated. Human beings are the latest permutation of an extremely large amount of mutations to 1 set of DNA.
The "change of the DNA sequence" is nothing more than the shuffling of information between male and female. That's why you can have two deformed people that have a perfect baby. That's a trait that neither the father or the mother had. Evolution isn't able to explain any of the millions of existing life forms. It doesn't explain anything. It is a belief without basis. At least what Creationists believe matches what we see and it also matches actual historical records that evolution doesn't have.
You mean to tell me that no secular scientists can see intelligent design? Ask them, if design is not intelligent, how they suppose that they have intelligence. If there is no design, that means that we do not have a design and we also do not exist. If our design is not intelligent, then we do not have intelligence.
Intelligent design is an observable fact written in nanoscale digital information that is six feet long. It is intelligent because we are intelligent and it is design because it made us what we are. End of story.
seekmosttoprophesy- are you serious? you realize that gravity is also a part of a theory. Did you know that atomic theory is a theory? does that mean you dont believe in atoms?
The problem here is you do not understand science.
Do you realize the overwhelming number of scientists support evolution?
watch my videos which use endosymbiosis, nested hierarchy, and biogeography to prove evolution as well as mathematical equations such as bayesian inference.
Look at my video favorites and check out the DNA replication. That is intelligent design in digital form on the nanoscale that is six feet in length. Whatever the body needs, the cell copies the information to make it from the DNA by unraveling it, copying it, and sewing it back together.
there is no indication that this is intelligent design, there is no mathematical pattern found in the DNA structure- no unique mathematical sequence that we can associate to intelligence.
That does not mean God does not exist, but there is no direct evidence of God.
However we do have evidence of evolution- nested hieararchy... do you knwo what this is?
if you dont watch my video on it, if you do, then tell me how this does not prove evolution.
So a platypuses just happened to acquire venom, teats, hair and the ability to lay eggs. ...and what creature did that come from (considering that mutations are strictly prohibited by the genome)???
the ability of DNA to store information is determined by the natural forces such as ionic, van der waal's, hydrophobic, and hydrogen bonding, that createa structure capable of catalytic activity.
This is determined by the NATURE of the atoms themselves, and is not direct evidence of a creator.
DNA does not know to do anything. It just do as directed. DNA is objects, remember? It is the order of the design that is ordered (but not by the objects themselves). It is digital information not unlike windows XP for crying out loud (COL)!
This is where you're wrong. Look into epigenetics. There have been discoveries of RNAs that help an organism pass on the correct genes for it's survival.
You're also ignoring the idea of sexual selection and environmental pressure. You mention digital information. There exist programs that rewrite their code. They're called polymorphic virii.
Regardless, it is all from the preexisting design. I already know that the DNA somehow knows how to feel its environment. Even so, every thing that is done is from the preexisting design.
in order to say that DNA is evidence of God, you need to prove that the forces that allow DNA to function are created by God. If you have any experiment which shows that hydrogen bonding is created by God Ill be glad to hear it.
Until then you can see the experiments the prove that nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution.
Intelligent design is not even about whether God made us. It is about whether our design is of an intelligent origin. Who or what God is, (that) is for a theological discussion. ID is not about that. ID is the fact that the information that makes us what we are is from an intelligent origin. Then again, the fact is that the basic elements were made to work as interchangeable parts on the nanoscale. Since the universe is made of these same elements, it means that the whole universe is designed.
intelligent design is unable to explain nested hierarchy, only evolution explains it. This is why EVEN michael Behe admits that humans and chimps have a common ancestor.
Humans and chimps don't even have the same number of chromosomes. The chimps (along with the rest of Creation) were contaminated by humans when humans got good and bad information when they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (good and bad information). I dont claim to fully understand all of it but there is no such thing as the monkey of sin. There is a man of sin and that is when the horns, thorns, (long) teeth and venom came on the scene.
And the reason that despite the different number of genes the layout in the entire human and chimp genome is almost identical is what? How do you explain that human chromosome 2 looks exactly like 2 chimp chromosomes stuck end to end with only a few working genes between the now disabled centromeres?
How on earth does this PROVE darwinian macro-evolution???!! Does any of you even know what that is?! 'Same set of genes huh?!!' - that may be so, but where is the proof that this means common ancestry?!! Huh, Scientists?!! Huh?!!
You BARELY grasp the understand of it and yet you claim it's false and other things. It's YOU who are the one who should read up on this. The scientist who made the test and theories have so much more knownledge about this that it would you look like an infant compared to them.
baahahhahha the fruit fly created four wings, but the back wings didn't even work because the muscles were not strong enough. they actually burdened the fly by weighing it down. HA!
You cannot disprove God, no matter how hard you try, because he is intangible. And always, it seems, it is the burden of the non-believer to disprove God instead of the believer to prove. And what proof do the believers rely on? The very science they wish they could eliminate, used to continue this delusion. The old Christian hymn "God Is In Control" speaks miles--only it is not God himself who is in control, but the rampant idea of God which has made slaves of men for far too long.
Wrong, God took away the punishment of our sins Himself. He came in the flesh as one of us and took the punishment of the sin that we deserve on Himself. He is not "intangible". He is is an historical figure and you are baring false witness of Him. That is slander.
That is slander!? Against a magical being? Oh come now! Would you prefer I take out my aggression on Zeus or Shiva or Santa Claus? Come now! Where are his attorneys to sue me? This conversation is an intellectual wasteland. I thought I could expect a little more rapport than that. You continue to dream of your magical god--I gave up imaginary friends at the peak of childhood. God is a great idea, don't get me wrong, but wanting something to exist isn't the same as something existing.
Let me just ask man; what kind of lifestyle would be good in 'your Godless' world? Are you saying that it doesn't make sense for a man to live righteous? Ok so i can just blow up a building filled with peolple...Or, I could rape, steal...rebel...until whenever...i die? thats what a world without God (and thus purpose) would be like OK Genius..! So Be careful wat u darwinians wish for...Mans law would not be enough to curb man!!! learn dat!
And what sort of lifestyle is the alternative? One where women are considered a lesser form? Where people crash planes into buildings in the name of the Lord? Where Jews become the most hated people on the planet, tag-teamed by two of the world's most powerful religions? Imagine all the wealth wasted on the Church--what it could be used for! How dare you call me a fool! Or even make fun of me when I've been nothing but polite to you! You want the truth?
A Godless world would only mean, no billions amount of money to Church. They could go to school, science, rocket science, health study and generall community.
Without a God no one would try to eradicate an entire religion because they think they did something wrong. We would not be INSANE as in hearing voices. We would strive to learn more and try to get out into space. We would have had RULES as every nation needs them. These rules would protect people to.
Scientists have been saying all along that for them to believe in something it has to be repeatable and verifiable. They themselves have repeated and verified time and time again that there is just no way to turn inorganic matter into organic. Yet, they still believe in the theory of Darwin evolution.
daogdaog 7 months ago
Information in the gene is a code or language. Where did these codes come from that is in the genes which tells other genes what part of a body they would develop?
All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. Codes do not evolve so an intelligent designer must be involved.
All the gene changes with fruit flies always created another fruit fly even though parts of the fruit fly body was missing. There was never a change into another species. Evolution is not the answer.
rambo33176 8 months ago
This does not prove Darwinism. Radiation mutates genes. Species don't gradually turn into new species in a struggle to survive. New species always appear abruptly as during the Cambrian explosion.
Atheists need Darwin.
onefodderunit 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because these scientists are not looking for the cause of any form of "positive" gene expression they cannot say where these very few positive expressions come from. They pull out the "magic" card out of their ass and say they are "random mutations". It is highly unlikely that any positive results come from any accidental gene change that would fit with the completed genetic structure of any human.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
70% of the thing this "science" calls "mutation" results in damage to the genome. Considering that this is happing all the time. Then just by this statistic alone negates the possibility of any general NET increase in fitness of any creature.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
if it is the same gene, what makes it produce different types of eyes? why do different types of eyes grow in different animals?
muzicluva0 11 months ago
@muzicluva0 You have the questions. Now do some study, on the topic. You have the internet, so you have the power to seek truth. All of your questions have been answered by great luminaries, of the human race. Do a little reading, if your interested in these questions. You don't have to be a genius, you just have to have the ability to READ.
evidenceonlythanx 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The loss of gene function is de-evolutoin or anti-evolutoin. Any "positive" gene improvement was most likely already in the human population. In order to say without any doubts where these come from, they would have to do the work to check the DNA of many generations backwards from the specimen sample DNA thought to have "improved" DNA.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
GSFY - Give it up Jimmy, it's apparent you know nothing about genetics - until recently YOU claimed that humans mated with Gorillas to produce chimps and with the chimps to produce Neanderthals, and all less than 4000 years ago, and you repeatedly claimed that ALL the evidence, incl DNA and ERVs, supported your idiocy. Face it Jimmy, we ALL know you're a dishonest uneducated cowardly creationist with mental problems, get some professional help and take the medications offfered.
KrokrX 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is absolutely clear in evidence that there is no "correcting" or "fixing" enfluence in any creature. They are all losing gene fucntions and are less complex because of this.
70% of the thing this "science" calls "mutation" results in damage to the genome. Considering that this is happing all the time. Then just by this statistic alone negates the possibility of any general NET increase in fitness of any creature.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because these scientists are not looking for the cause of any form of "positive" gene expression they cannot say where these very few positive expressions come from. They pull out the "magic" card out of their ass and say they are "random mutations". It is highly unlikely that any positive results come from any accidental gene change that would fit with the completed genetic structure of any human.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The next argument for "evolution" is the idea that degradation and loss of gene function is evolution. They changed the definition to continue with this con game.
Evolution: "that theory which sees inn the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
70% of the thing this "science" calls "mutation" results in damage to the genome. Considering that this is happing all the time. Then just by this statistic alone negates the possibility of any general NET increase in fitness of any creature.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
Because these scientists are not looking for the cause of any form of "positive" gene expression they cannot say where these very few positive expressions come from. They pull out the "magic" card out of their ass and say they are "random mutations". It is highly unlikely that any positive results come from any accidental gene change that would fit with the completed genetic structure of any human.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
The loss of gene function is de-evolutoin or anti-evolutoin. Any "positive" gene improvement was most likely already in the human population. In order to say without any doubts where these come from, they would have to do the work to check the DNA of many generations backwards from the specimen sample DNA thought to have "improved" DNA.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
There is no magical process that "fixes" or "improves" gene functions. The only thing that will fix it is "intelligence" that steps in to fix these imperfections. It took genetic engineering to produce all the life on earth, and it takes genetic engineering to fix it.
Only a brainwashed person who is using archaic, Evodelusional, ideas of evolution could not see this.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
When you read articles realizing that there are no new gene expressions bringing any improvements by magical "evolution" process that have never been documented, we can start to get free from delusional archaic concepts that retard science.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
GSFY - Jimmy, quit spamming your nonsense and get on with those videos you promised - you recently said 'I am working on a whole series of videos to wipe out the religion of Evodelusionism from science' - you're not chickening out are you? We could all do with the laughs, so stop being a cowardly creationist and crack on with the videos, a Golden Crocoduck awaits! I'm particularly keen to see the one on your new hypothesis(idiocy) that apes are 'degraded' humans, that should be a classic!!
KrokrX 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are only a very finite amount of building blocks to make tissue and organic features from. These people work so hard to show that the earth is finite, tiny with very limited resources that are constantly reused in all creatures with totally different programming that uses these gene expressions to proteans and etc. There is no tie between creatures because they share DNA similarity. It has to be shown in much more detail to create any genealogical connection.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
GSFY - there you go again with your transparent lies Jimmy - you've been provided with a huge variety of evidence that supports evolution by a lot of different people - what we can't decide is if you're too blind to see it, too dumb to recognise it, too ignorant to understand it, or too dishonest to admit it! Which is it Jimmy? Or is it all of them?
Why don't you get on with that series of videos you promised, we could all do with the laughs!!
KrokrX 11 months ago
i have a question for evolutionists...which came first, the Protein or the DNA? cant have one without the other.
Elmarias777 1 year ago
"And you deduce, it must have had these genes." A great oversimplification to drive home a theory, though in actual study, it isn't true. Homological forms do not all come from the same genes, nor develop from the same segment of the body, nor in the same order. Yet, they are homological. Hmm.
Back to the drawing board.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Consummate? It is no more than the univerality of the genetic code shared between organisms. And that is not consummate proof. Darwinism never predicted universals, notwithstanding contemporary cliams to the contrary. There is no reason different genes could not be used. The surprise among these scientist is consummate proof that it was not a prediction.
jameskguy 1 year ago
I want to grow a eye in the back of my head BITCH! XD
Airsoftattack123 1 year ago
nephlim nephlim no answer
gbrlmrqz 1 year ago
Three proofs of literal Genesis are:
(1) Chromosome numbers (discovered 1905-1910) prove that the origin of every species is the first mating pair with the species' chromosomes.
(2) Definition nectar: "a sweet liquid secretion that is attractive to pollinators " proves that flowering plants came into existence with the animals that cross-pollinate them.
(3) Huge deposits of sedimentary rocks (sediment = stuff at bottom of water) plus fossils, fossil fuels prove Flood of Genesis 6.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
very nice clip,but i still dont see how this movie explains adding new genetic information..such as a fish to human..hmmm im looking for tht vidoe and the ones ive found are no good -.-'
RICHARDBENAVENTE 1 year ago
You know what else was mysterious and said to be caused my God? Lightning.
Killjeser 1 year ago
@Killjeser lol that's Zeus
virulenttrend 1 year ago
@virulenttrend LOL, my point exactly :)
Killjeser 1 year ago
What do hox genes have to do with proving evolution? This has more to do with post Mendelian genetics than Darwinism. Mendel the Christian monk who was ignored for 60 years. Mendel was right and Darwin's Pangenesis theory was wrong and it is cited in every encyclopedia as wrong.
benthemiester 1 year ago
where did all that information came from? Besides, the eviromental microgenetic field influences the gene. But where did that information came from. Again, the results came from people who did not added information to the gene, but let the other cells promted a specific task.
fria321agua 1 year ago
Wow thanks PBS and mundo77...everything makes so much sense now! That totally proves Darwinian evolution 100%. There aren't any holes in this evidence at all. With information like this, how could anyone assume that there is a design to life? Clearly scientists have proven, now, that God doesn't exist..all because of the simple-ness of DNA! Gee Golly..how did I ever think that an intelligent mind created all of life. Man..Im so silly!
surgicalbassist 1 year ago
@sololamer you're so stupid, wtf is a darwinist anyway?
FockerTheLopper 1 year ago
Animals utilize low level COMMUNICATION skills but NOT language. Language is a uniquely HUMAN trait.
Linguistics 101: For something to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements:
(1) an alphabet or coding system
(2) correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words)
(3) meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.
Code originates in a mind (thought, language i.e, Logos).
The only language known to man is:
(1) of human mind origin (2) DNA code.
No other.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
DNA code is empirical proof that biological life forms are a creative product of information and language. i.e.: Nous / Logos (Einstein called this: "The MIND of GOD").
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(A) Information is: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
(B) Information exist independent of its medium. (the same information can be stored in one's mind, expressed verbally, written on paper, typed on a computer etc.)
(C) Code = Language. Language originates in a MIND.
There ore only two types of language known to man: (1) That of human mind origin (2) DNA code.
Information is not matter or energy.
Language is not matter or energy.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
@Mr88playmaker
information need not be communcated
animals have a language of sorts. Birds have calls that attract mates, signal of predators, tell of a food source. Bees have dances to pass on location of food sources, prarie dogs have sentinals, and calls to warn the others.
DNA is not really a language , more like a code pattern that is replicated during cell division.
SqueakerAlpha 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Genetic similarity is not evidence of evolution. It's evidence of a common designer. The very erxistance of DNA is empirical proof of design because DNA is information, and information is immaterial and cannot be produced by nature. Modern science has discredited the 200+ yr old evolution concept.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
NF, you yourself are a walking, talking argument against evolution.
infinity730 2 years ago
So does genetic dissimilarity prove that there's a different designer?
You're a fucking retard
LaingGod 2 years ago
Now, it means the organism is of a very different kinf of creation.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Comment removed
Andy205ro 2 years ago
Neph,you are a fucking retard
Andy205ro 2 years ago
I forgive you.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Did your bible study teacher tell you that the old men who wrote it thought that the Earth was flat & the center of the universe? Cause they were dead on about that! Simple folk like you need simple answers to everything.
lonebison 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheGloryofMusic 2 years ago
well I'm sure your teacher is smarter than the world's entire scientific community.
VANWEINGER 2 years ago
well ur bible study teacher is retarded and should look more into this stuff before he makes himself look even more stupid (haha i almost said stupider XD)
XavierDrake 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheGloryofMusic 2 years ago
a degree in what?
i dont care i hate my dad he could beat him up 7 times if he wants
XavierDrake 2 years ago
obviously ur teacher has no idea what evolution is and if he did he wouldnt be making these idiotic assumptions
XavierDrake 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheGloryofMusic 2 years ago
Obviously u are a four year old
XavierDrake 2 years ago
Awesome video.
upallhours9 2 years ago
paulsworkshop
Was it really necessary to add the "roast in hell" part in there?
aMUSEmesnt 2 years ago
paulsworkshop
I had the opposite, I though god was real and jesus was his son. But when you really look into religion, you really do discover that god was created by pagans and tweaked by the romans. I was a catholic to I was 18, once science took over my life I realised that there is no god.
My muslim friend had the same experience as you, allah & mohammed spoke to him now he is a muslim, I guess you will find this is the same for all religions, so there are many gods or there are no god/s.
LozTheAtheist 2 years ago
all religions are based on astrology and most are copied from previous religions
XavierDrake 2 years ago 2
'What is the difference between flies and hippos?' Er..they're different species. Nobody in the history of evolution has ever suggested that one species gives rise to another IN ONE GENERATION!!! Is that what you are REALLY suggesting?
derek24hudson 2 years ago
Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people that have ZERO understanding of evolution. I know where you are coming from. It's frustrating.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
What is YOUR definition of a species? It can't be morpology. Many widely diverse species LOOK similar. Is it the inability to interbreed? If so, you will know that we have created non-interbreeding species in fruit flies from the same 'ancestor'.. Also, please be the FIRST in the world to define 'KIND'.
derek24hudson 2 years ago
if I have a complex drawing of a, for example, a house, that comprises 1 000 individual lines, and I, in a series of steps, keep changing the direction/angle etc of different individual lines, there will come a time when the drawing is no longer a house, but something quite different. It's always difficult to say at what EXACT point. Similar with speciation through an accumulation of small changes in an isolated population leading to different morphology, traceable through genetics, fossils, etc
derek24hudson 2 years ago
"they still get fruit flies". What the hell did you (or scientists) expcect; hippos? You need, at least, a BASIC idea of the Theory of Evolution, and related experiments, BEFORE you can engage in meaningful discourse. Please watch the videos of DonExodus, AronRa etc FIRST, then you will find the answers to your possible objections. If you can think of one that has not already been answered a thousand times over, please post it for all to see.
derek24hudson 2 years ago
What is the difference between flies and the hippos? Just because it's smaller doesn't mean it's less complex. In fact they are both on the same level of complexity. The difference is only in size.
darijo203 2 years ago
Yet with all the experiments that they've done on fruit flies they still get fruit flys.If they trurned a fruit fly into a fish,now that would be something.Evolution fails again.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
lol this doesn't prove evolution it proves genes
okeeno27 2 years ago
you idiots argue too much, you can believe in god and understand that evolution is real, quit wasting your breath, the bible is NOT a scientific book, according to it the earth is the center of the universe people!!! there is also parts in the bible saying you should kill anyone who doesnt believe in the same religion as you! and you dont do that now do you? so believe what you want, but evolution is simply REAL.
vondistler 2 years ago
God is as powerful as he was 2000 years ago.. The healings in the bible are nothing compared to some that take place TODAY. Come to Chennai, India on March 10th next year during convention time and I can show you a veritable host of Healed people and not one or two.. What about a Blind man WITHOUT any eyes or eyelids being healed?, the skin covering the shallow eyesockets tore into two slits and two whole eyes bloomed into being on the spot.. Such is the power of Jesus to Heal today
Jesus lovs u
dawnmathew56 2 years ago
You're a moron, that never happend i want to see evidence for your claims.
PtH888999 2 years ago
dawnmathew, I just ass-raped both Jesus and God and they really seemed to love it! I think I turned both Jesus and God gay, man! Haha, I'm awesome!: )
winterstellar 2 years ago
I used to talk like this - about 15 years ago or so. Complete 180 change I never thought would happen in a billion years. Hated God intensely for so many reasons and for such a long time. When God manifested himself - physically - to me in a scientific way through observation I couldn't deny the existence of "something" any longer. So after about 5 years or so I had a complete conversion to Christ believer and follower. So I hope you don't ultimately roast in Hell but that's your choice.
paulsworkshop 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, letter to Mr bentham admits, When we decend into details we can prove that no one species has changed ( i.e. We cannot prove that a single species has changed); nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the ground work of the theory.
valu777 2 years ago
Sounds like similiar design to me. I don't see how this proves that we came from a rock. Frankly, it just shows that there's a language of life in everything.
It's just like we can all hear music, no matter what place we come from. Interchanging the DNA does not explain how the mouse and fly got there. They didn't turn on the switch for a tail in the fly. They turned on a switch for an eye in the fly. What is this proving?! There's so many holes in this, PM me if you wanna know them all.
VeggieTrunks 2 years ago
Intelligent design is the same as magic. Its a cop out explanation without any secular or scientific components. Don't try to label conjecture as science.
Monkeys didn't give birth to humans. But ERVs showing up in primates prove we have a common ancestor.
mundo77 2 years ago
@mundo77 And chimps and gorillas share common ERVs not shared with humans. Hmm.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Well it is a good job that evolution makes no claims about where life came from then! This video provides evidence for common ancestry, which is evidence for evolution.
badonkadunkleosteus 2 years ago
@VeggieTrunks....Modern science is a gulag archipelligo...dissenters are expunged...DNA is the biggest most complex software program...written by an intelligent mind.
Antipropaganda100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@VeggieTrunks There are only a very finite amount of building blocks to make tissue and organic features from. These people work so hard to show that the earth is finite, tiny with very limited resources that are constantly reused in all creatures with totally different programming that uses these gene expressions to proteans and etc. There is no tie between creatures because they share DNA similarity. It has to be shown in much more detail to create any genealogical connection.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
uhh no, it doesn't "answer my questions". I have yet to see anything that shows *less* complex evolving into *more* complex.(other than wishful assertions and speculation) If that can't be demonstrated and empirically tested , it's philosophy not science. Darwin's observations were nothing more than Mendelian gentics. The same genetics that make a poodle or a great dane. Imagine the evolutionary speculation that would arise today if poodles and great danes were only known from fossils!
RTyp06 2 years ago
Human beings are evidence of simple to complex evolution. ERVs showing up in exactly the same places in the genome in primates is impossible to refute.
mundo77 2 years ago
That sounds like similiar design to me. It's circumstantial evidence at best, certainly does not prove that a monkey ever gave birth to a man.
The simple fact still remains that Macro Evolution has never been proven to occur. As they say, where's there's smoke, there's fire. Circumstantial evidence for evolution is a puff compared to the FACTS that go in favor of ID such as Macro Ev. and Abiogenesis having never been proven.
FAIL.
VeggieTrunks 2 years ago
That is beautiful. Most creationists argue that there is some nebulous evidence (that they can never produce) that show macroevolution (a process made up by creationists) and abiogenesis to be impossible, setting up a false dichotomy and fallaciously claiming it as evidence for ID. But you've gone one step further and claimed that macroevolution and abiogenesis being unproven is evidence for ID.
You would win gold in the mental gymnastics at the creationist olympics.
badonkadunkleosteus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mundo77 Oh! Really? Maybe you should look at all the evidence.
Goto (Google It) GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum and learn how to learn, without beliefs forced on you. Also listen to some good Blues from my band HavenHead.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou What evidence are you referring to? And Oh really to what?
Based on the plethora of conjecture on your channel, its not worth the electrons to look further.
Be specific if you actually do desire discourse here.
mundo77 11 months ago
GoodScienceForYou keeps touting his forum on science supporting channels, here are some of his 'science' quotes, try not to laugh -
-Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.
-Photosynthesis is a carbon digesting process.
-The cause of sickle cell anemia is unknown, dumb ass.
-Carbon is the only thing that makes us "carbon" based creatures
-There is no answer for the diversity of life. It just is.
-There are only two species of bacteria.
Could anyone learn anything from this clown?
KrokrX 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@mundo77 If you really want to get free from human beliefs that are not based in evidence then go to the Neutral Evolution Forum. If you want to remain as you are, deeply believing in things that are not real with magical processes and mystical causes, so be it. It is your choice.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Start making some sense here before you try to change the venue.
mundo77 11 months ago
Comment removed
KrokrX 11 months ago
@mundo77 - asking GoodScienceForYou to 'Start making some sense' would not only require him to break the habit of a lifetime, but, given his limited mental abilities, may even be actually impossible for him!
KrokrX 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@mundo77 I always make pure and logical sense. It is you who are not able to recognize it. Your religious belief in Evodelusionism interferes with your ability to be even slightly objective. All the information shows no possible evolution, but only a gradual loss of gene functions in all creatures.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@mundo77 If you really want to get free from human beliefs that are not based in evidence then go to the Neutral Evolution Forum. If you want to remain as you are, deeply believing in things that are not real with magical processes and mystical causes, so be it. It is your choice. This video reiterates what I have been saying for a long time. Their conclusions are based on belief and not on all the evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
GSFY - stop spamming your idiot forum and band on old videos and get on with that series of videos you told us about - you said 'I am working on a whole series of videos to wipe out the religion of Evodelusionism from science' - what's the matter Jimmy, not chickening out are you? The one that talks about your new 'hypothesis' that apes are 'degraded' humans should win you a Golden Crocoduck.
KrokrX 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@mundo77 Chimps are evidence of human genome degradation. This is in all the evidence. It is obvious.
Take a look and tell me it could be otherwise. All of the physical evidence, fossils, DNA, ERV's all say that some split off, speciation, from human degraded from environmental toxins.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
@GoodScienceForYou Stop spouting off nonsense and educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further.
Ken Miller is a good starting point. Do your homework to prove your own nonsense wrong.
mundo77 11 months ago
@mundo77 - ever since GoodScienceForYou learned how to spell DNA and ERV he thinks he's a genetics expert! He used to claim that Gorillas mated with humans to produce chimps and with the chimps to produce Neanderthals, and all less than 4000 yrs ago! He repeatedly claimed it was supported by ALL the evidence(incl. DNA and ERVs), a claim he now makes for his new apes are 'degraded' humans nonsense.
KrokrX 11 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@mundo77 You have not looked at the evidence. Ken Miller in his own words says he is a believer in Evolution.
He said that at some point he had to decide, and so he decided the pay check was worth it so he wrote books on biology and now is so deep in this delusional nonsense he will leave fully delusional. You don't have to do that. I use his videos as evidence. Goto Neutral Evolution Forum and learn.
GoodScienceForYou 11 months ago
GSFY - funny how you call others 'delusional' when you claim to 'have been a scientist for over 45 years' when the closest you've been is a failed hot-tub salesman, and you claim an 'IQ over 180' when you can't make a coherent argument and logic is a complete stranger to you. It's only your inherited mental problems that cause you to believe your laughably transparent lies. Face it Jimmy, you're a dishonest cowardly creationist, but you are SO funny!!
KrokrX 11 months ago
@GSFY This is what you previously said: "Chromosome fusion is not any evidence of evolution. It is the opposite. It shows that after the breeding withi humans and apes and chimps came to being, is when I conjecture the fusion took place. This also means that very few humans were on the planet at that time. Otherwise there would be humans without the fused chromsome. The fusion took place so that no more cross breeding is possible".
So you said humans mating with apes was OBVIOUS! hahaha!!
AlanCFA 11 months ago 9
So.. How exactly is this "Consummate proof of Darwinian evolution" ? In particular, where is the evidence of simple to complex evolution? This suggests that all animals are equally complex from the beginning. And why is common design out of the question?
RTyp06 2 years ago
Common design is unfalsifiable, so there is nothing that would ever make it "out of the question". That also means, however, that it is unscientific.
Look up HOX genes to find out why this is evidence for common descent.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Also, I hope you realize that this presents a highly simplified picture; not all animals have exactly the same HOX genes; some are visibly mutated (mostly neutral mutations), some have been copied and modified, etc. Also, afaik, HOX genes only apply to multicelled life. In mice, we see mostly the same basic HOX genes as in fruit flies, but there are roughly 4 times as many (the extra genes are modified copies). Common design would have a hard time explaining the genetic paralogy and homology.
werecow2003 2 years ago
I suggest you view Potholer54's video series. He answers your questions.
baconeater 2 years ago
"Genes are nothing more than Replication machines, whos purpose is to create more copies of itself."
It's funny how evolutionists can't get away from using the language of design, such as the phrase "it's purpose is to create..."
That aside, self replication is an astoundingly complicated process that even the most sophisticated biologists do not fully understand. Are we to believe that the first self-replicating thing was simple? But without self-replication, there is no natural selection.
NomosCharis 3 years ago
Strands of RNA can self replicate. They are very, very simple.
badonkadunkleosteus 2 years ago
"They are very, very simple."
lol...
Compared to what?
I contend that compared to things which CAN'T replicate themselves... they are NOT simple!
NomosCharis 2 years ago
Compared to structures that cant replicate themselves. Compared to modern cells. Compared to viruses. They are made of monomers that consist of a sugar, a nitrogenous base and phosphate groups. They are nearly structurally identical to molecules like cholesterol and ATP, which cannot replicate themselves. And there are many molecules which are more complex which cannot replicate.
badonkadunkleosteus 2 years ago
You may say that RNA is a simple molecule because it is made up of a small number of parts... but it is the precise building and arrangement of those parts in the proper order that allows the molecule to replicate itself, and the PROCESS of self-replication is not a simple process, no matter what you think. If you expect me to believe that it is... it's going to take a lot more to prove it than what you've said so far.
As far as chol. and ATP, structural similarity and complexity are different.
NomosCharis 2 years ago
No, when we are talking about molecules that are made of a handful of atoms structure is everything. It is all chemistry and physics. Thermodynamic, electromagnetic and other interactions between atoms and molecules based solely on their physical state and arrangement. If you put molecules next to each other they will interact based on their physical characteristics.
badonkadunkleosteus 2 years ago
Self replication is not a simple or complex process a priori because it is not a uniform process. DNA replication is complicated because it is facilitated by a number of secondary agents but free RNA replication is simple. Nucleotides polymerise themselves and recruit free nucleotides as a result of predictable chemical interactions. Crystalline self replication is also simple, it is all just templates for the same template.
Self replication isn't a magical property unique to life.
badonkadunkleosteus 2 years ago
If you think self-replication is such a simple process, go and build something tangable that is able to create another of itself (by itself), which can create another of itself, ad infinitum. When you have done this... get back to me. I'd love to see it.
NomosCharis 2 years ago
I don't think self replication is as simple process or a complicated process, because it is not a single process. It is a quality that an object can have which can be attained by any number of processes (which can be anywhere on a spectrum of simple to complicated).
badonkadunkleosteus 2 years ago
I'm not a trained chemist so I'll have to give it a pass. But there are many man-made self replicating molecules. Look up the work of Julius Rebek and Reza Ghadiri, or into instances where pharmaceutical companies are unable to produce a product because one of their other products that is self replicating has contaminated their facilities and converts everything to itself, like ritonavir.
badonkadunkleosteus 2 years ago
"...it is not a single process. It is a quality that an object can have which can be attained by any number of processes (which can be anywhere on a spectrum of simple to complicated)."
Sounds pretty complicated.
NomosCharis 2 years ago
I'm sure it does.
badonkadunkleosteus 2 years ago
That's cause it is.
NomosCharis 2 years ago
The bit where it zooms into the chromosome is rather misleading. It suggests that chromosomes are merely two strings of DNA whereas in reality the DNA is coiled up tightly around histones and the double helix structure wouldn't be visible... >_>
Pirochiro 3 years ago
any guys have a cam? i have mine in my profile
18-f. i like this vid Mn
MrMcSprinkl3s 3 years ago
Intelligent design is the renamed theory formerly called "Bible magic".
No legitimate scientist takes the intelligent design idea seriously because the root of it is based on plagiarized fiction called the Bible.
mundo77 3 years ago
No one creature has the same amount of information as others so no creature is related to other creatures that have other information. DNA proves that evolution is not true. DNA also proves that we have the same Designer/Creator/God because of everything having the same basic structures. Your incredulity is astounding!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
That's an invalid argument since you end up with a bigger mystery on your hands.
Who designed the designer?
mundo77 3 years ago
So what? The facts are facts (it is not invalid) and they are to be treated as facts if we expect to get to the truth. Who stretched out the heavens?
We can't possibly know everything but we can believe everything that we see.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Either you didn't pay attention to the video or you are incapable of understanding the process in which species evolve is absolutely confirmed with DNA.
Nobody who has ever studied DNA would support your ridiculous claim that "DNA disproves evolution".
You can't just state the opposite and pretend like its true. What specifically are you referring to?
mundo77 3 years ago
Just because someone says something does not mean that it's true.
Every creature has different information.
It was the eye of a fly that grew, not the eye of a mouse.
This is proof that everything was made to be different.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
One set of DNA has rendered all the life in existence on earth. The variation of the environment trigger a multitude of combinations of the mechanisms inside our genes.
This is not theory its fact. Provable empirically. The process in which life evolves is not up for debate for the literate.
The source of the initial set of DNA is still a theory though and you can call this God or whatever until science eclipses that idea like its done with all branches of mythology since the beginning.
mundo77 3 years ago
The variation of species is a part of the existing design. Everything can only reproduce after their kind. This is a fact. No object or circumstance is able to add any information. That is nothing more than imagination, speculation and dreaming on your part. We only lose species. We do not gain any. You cannot explain where so much life suddenly appeared from nowhere. Stop spreading bad information. Your cretaceous period is nothing more than the ocean floor that was covered with layers.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Mutation
noun
1.Biology.
a.a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
Learn some basic biology before you try to refute it.
mundo77 3 years ago
You cannot properly explain "a sudden departure from the parent type" nor can you even give an example of that. OK, too much nonsense here! Movin' on.
The variation of species is a part of the existing design which comes from both male and female chromosomes. Regardless, it is still always a part of the original preexisting design that no one can claim the rights to.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
* "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research, The Advocate, 8 March 1984. * "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future."
-Malcolm Muggeridge (British philosopher), The Advocate, March 8 1984.
AaronPhillips1971 3 years ago
to anyone doubting evolution, or wanting to impose their religious beliefs, all i will say is: just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't true
draperture 3 years ago 3
This is interesting info, thanks for posting but:
1. How could gene transferability ever possibly prove naturalistic evolution over a common designer hypothesis? Its so blatantly not-possible that any talk of 'proof' is consummate vanity and stupidity.
2. Disparate genes in disparate species have also been shown to produce similar structures eg the abdomen in fruit flies and bees, i.e. the as so often in life, the OPPOSITE is ALSO TRUE.
sustaincain 3 years ago
3. Darwin, perhaps because he only had a degree in Theology, mentioned no concept such as Random Mutation, he presumed it somehow, talking only of 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest'.
a. Survival of the fittest has become 'survival of the non-harmful'. b. Darwinian evolution is entirely inadequate without the addition of random mutation so it clings only as a sentimental souvenir in Natural Evolution Theory.
sustaincain 3 years ago
But when you come close to death, and that warmth Light of Lights isn't there to greet you, you will wimper and cry at your own ignorance. You keep looking for Heaven when the one place you should be thankful for is right under your feet! If I were God, I'd be ashamed that my followers never use the one faculty I gave them (and ironically discourage the use of)--you brain! How can you base your entire life on something so unprovable and archaic? Enough excuses--use your mind while you can!
AnAppleADei 3 years ago
Alrite...AnAppleADei, lets say i agree with you....ok..Just say i do....then give a logical answer to my post (3 comments above) about the Fly and Rat paradox, Please????...Could you...
kadjach 3 years ago
I think believing in God is a form of madness, though many people pass it on as normal because so many are afflicted by it. There are people with genuine belief in invisible things, who don't know any better because they were indoctrinated as children. You heckle me and make fun of me because I know that the world doesn't need God, well then, let me return the favor. You are the fool. A fool afraid of death and who needs his own sense of value to come from an ancient book! Think for yourself!!!
AnAppleADei 3 years ago 2
Oh, and i think you 'know' soooo little about Christianity...'Christians' had nothin to do with the crusades, for instance...You need to research about the Knights Templars and the Illuminati...they are the ones who dragged the face of 'Christianity' thru the mud, and, as if by coincidence, they're the ones who made the theories YOU now believe in...do the math man! You need to understand the complexity of life man...watch?v=gYiCMWd3cQo
kadjach 3 years ago
Listen...and learn some logical thought...!!
If darwinian evolution was 'proven' by these results....then that fruit fly would essentially have a rat's eyes....aint that so...??!!! Gosh i hate backward reasoning...!!!
The fact shown in these results is that...
a FLY can only be a FLY; having FLY-like things no matter wat is inputed in its genes....aint that what happened now...??!!!
kadjach 3 years ago
In essence, it is like polymorphic programming in C++; the same command (gene) invoked by different base classes (organisms) do ONLY exactly that which is specific to that base class (organism)
kadjach 3 years ago
You are just deducing from the discovery that which supports your theoretic ideals...
Inspite all, "darwinian evolution" still remains nothing more than a THEORY....& u all talk of it as fact.... In a game of chess, darwinian evolution would be merely a 'delay tactic'; being that, if we had a common ancestor based on this postulate, where did that 'common ancestor' come from?!!
kadjach 3 years ago
It's a Theory backed up with information and test and put on a peer review so that others can test it and it works for them to.
Theory is actually held higher than facts in science.
Gravity is just a theory to but it's completely true and no religious person is trying to argue againts that.
Btw even the normal stars prove the 6000 year old earth age wrong. It's really laughable that someone thinks the earth is 6000 years old.
Zefar77 3 years ago
The "theory" is of how it happens. Not that it does happen. Gravity happens. Evolution does not happen. Variation of species does happen but it is a part of a preexisting design that evolution had no part in the makings of it because no information is ever added. Existing information is merely adapted to existing environments for the sake of survival. There are no new species. There are only lost species. Face the facts.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I suggest you look up the word mutation in a biology 101 book.
Mutation:
Genetics. 3. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
Life happens, evolution is the theory that has the most evidence that explains how life has proliferated. Human beings are the latest permutation of an extremely large amount of mutations to 1 set of DNA.
No secular arguments for design exist.
mundo77 3 years ago
The "change of the DNA sequence" is nothing more than the shuffling of information between male and female. That's why you can have two deformed people that have a perfect baby. That's a trait that neither the father or the mother had. Evolution isn't able to explain any of the millions of existing life forms. It doesn't explain anything. It is a belief without basis. At least what Creationists believe matches what we see and it also matches actual historical records that evolution doesn't have.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"No secular arguments for design exist."
mundo77 3 years ago
You mean to tell me that no secular scientists can see intelligent design? Ask them, if design is not intelligent, how they suppose that they have intelligence. If there is no design, that means that we do not have a design and we also do not exist. If our design is not intelligent, then we do not have intelligence.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Intelligent design is an observable fact written in nanoscale digital information that is six feet long. It is intelligent because we are intelligent and it is design because it made us what we are. End of story.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
No secular arguments for intelligent design exist, making it impossible to ever be observable or factual.
mundo77 3 years ago
seekmosttoprophesy- are you serious? you realize that gravity is also a part of a theory. Did you know that atomic theory is a theory? does that mean you dont believe in atoms?
The problem here is you do not understand science.
Do you realize the overwhelming number of scientists support evolution?
watch my videos which use endosymbiosis, nested hierarchy, and biogeography to prove evolution as well as mathematical equations such as bayesian inference.
truthofevolution 3 years ago
Look at my video favorites and check out the DNA replication. That is intelligent design in digital form on the nanoscale that is six feet in length. Whatever the body needs, the cell copies the information to make it from the DNA by unraveling it, copying it, and sewing it back together.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
there is no indication that this is intelligent design, there is no mathematical pattern found in the DNA structure- no unique mathematical sequence that we can associate to intelligence.
That does not mean God does not exist, but there is no direct evidence of God.
However we do have evidence of evolution- nested hieararchy... do you knwo what this is?
if you dont watch my video on it, if you do, then tell me how this does not prove evolution.
truthofevolution 3 years ago
So a platypuses just happened to acquire venom, teats, hair and the ability to lay eggs. ...and what creature did that come from (considering that mutations are strictly prohibited by the genome)???
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
the ability of DNA to store information is determined by the natural forces such as ionic, van der waal's, hydrophobic, and hydrogen bonding, that createa structure capable of catalytic activity.
This is determined by the NATURE of the atoms themselves, and is not direct evidence of a creator.
truthofevolution 3 years ago
DNA does not know to do anything. It just do as directed. DNA is objects, remember? It is the order of the design that is ordered (but not by the objects themselves). It is digital information not unlike windows XP for crying out loud (COL)!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
This is where you're wrong. Look into epigenetics. There have been discoveries of RNAs that help an organism pass on the correct genes for it's survival.
You're also ignoring the idea of sexual selection and environmental pressure. You mention digital information. There exist programs that rewrite their code. They're called polymorphic virii.
bplturner 3 years ago
Regardless, it is all from the preexisting design. I already know that the DNA somehow knows how to feel its environment. Even so, every thing that is done is from the preexisting design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
in order to say that DNA is evidence of God, you need to prove that the forces that allow DNA to function are created by God. If you have any experiment which shows that hydrogen bonding is created by God Ill be glad to hear it.
Until then you can see the experiments the prove that nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution.
truthofevolution 3 years ago
Intelligent design is not even about whether God made us. It is about whether our design is of an intelligent origin. Who or what God is, (that) is for a theological discussion. ID is not about that. ID is the fact that the information that makes us what we are is from an intelligent origin. Then again, the fact is that the basic elements were made to work as interchangeable parts on the nanoscale. Since the universe is made of these same elements, it means that the whole universe is designed.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
intelligent design is unable to explain nested hierarchy, only evolution explains it. This is why EVEN michael Behe admits that humans and chimps have a common ancestor.
truthofevolution 3 years ago
Humans and chimps don't even have the same number of chromosomes. The chimps (along with the rest of Creation) were contaminated by humans when humans got good and bad information when they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (good and bad information). I dont claim to fully understand all of it but there is no such thing as the monkey of sin. There is a man of sin and that is when the horns, thorns, (long) teeth and venom came on the scene.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
And the reason that despite the different number of genes the layout in the entire human and chimp genome is almost identical is what? How do you explain that human chromosome 2 looks exactly like 2 chimp chromosomes stuck end to end with only a few working genes between the now disabled centromeres?
Pirochiro 3 years ago
How on earth does this PROVE darwinian macro-evolution???!! Does any of you even know what that is?! 'Same set of genes huh?!!' - that may be so, but where is the proof that this means common ancestry?!! Huh, Scientists?!! Huh?!!
kadjach 3 years ago
You are the one to talk about knowing things.
You BARELY grasp the understand of it and yet you claim it's false and other things. It's YOU who are the one who should read up on this. The scientist who made the test and theories have so much more knownledge about this that it would you look like an infant compared to them.
Zefar77 3 years ago
Beautiful!!! Evolution rules the world!!!
Zecastronomo 3 years ago
baahahhahha the fruit fly created four wings, but the back wings didn't even work because the muscles were not strong enough. they actually burdened the fly by weighing it down. HA!
xplanetoseax 3 years ago
You cannot disprove God, no matter how hard you try, because he is intangible. And always, it seems, it is the burden of the non-believer to disprove God instead of the believer to prove. And what proof do the believers rely on? The very science they wish they could eliminate, used to continue this delusion. The old Christian hymn "God Is In Control" speaks miles--only it is not God himself who is in control, but the rampant idea of God which has made slaves of men for far too long.
AnAppleADei 3 years ago
Wrong, God took away the punishment of our sins Himself. He came in the flesh as one of us and took the punishment of the sin that we deserve on Himself. He is not "intangible". He is is an historical figure and you are baring false witness of Him. That is slander.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
That is slander!? Against a magical being? Oh come now! Would you prefer I take out my aggression on Zeus or Shiva or Santa Claus? Come now! Where are his attorneys to sue me? This conversation is an intellectual wasteland. I thought I could expect a little more rapport than that. You continue to dream of your magical god--I gave up imaginary friends at the peak of childhood. God is a great idea, don't get me wrong, but wanting something to exist isn't the same as something existing.
AnAppleADei 3 years ago
Let me just ask man; what kind of lifestyle would be good in 'your Godless' world? Are you saying that it doesn't make sense for a man to live righteous? Ok so i can just blow up a building filled with peolple...Or, I could rape, steal...rebel...until whenever...i die? thats what a world without God (and thus purpose) would be like OK Genius..! So Be careful wat u darwinians wish for...Mans law would not be enough to curb man!!! learn dat!
kadjach 3 years ago
And what sort of lifestyle is the alternative? One where women are considered a lesser form? Where people crash planes into buildings in the name of the Lord? Where Jews become the most hated people on the planet, tag-teamed by two of the world's most powerful religions? Imagine all the wealth wasted on the Church--what it could be used for! How dare you call me a fool! Or even make fun of me when I've been nothing but polite to you! You want the truth?
AnAppleADei 3 years ago
Grow a brain would ya.
A Godless world would only mean, no billions amount of money to Church. They could go to school, science, rocket science, health study and generall community.
Without a God no one would try to eradicate an entire religion because they think they did something wrong. We would not be INSANE as in hearing voices. We would strive to learn more and try to get out into space. We would have had RULES as every nation needs them. These rules would protect people to.
Zefar77 3 years ago
News report, Odds are the Jesus character of the bible didnt even exist. Watch JohnLArmstrong's videos.
Shalek 3 years ago