Evidence against Evolution and for Creation

[whythegoatcries]

Evolution aside, Show me proof that god created the univers?

[whythegoatcries]

Lol.... I see no evidence against evolution that isnt flawd by a lack of understanding... And absolutly none that supports creation...

[dsrtdawg1]

Simple question.  Where are YOU published?

[madmiguelh2o]

Evolution didn't happen once. Next time you get a vaccine go ahead and tell the doctor to give you one from 1952 because it only happened once. HELLO MCKFLY! It's happening right now. you are a transitional form.

[madmiguelh2o]

WOW the big question is very illogical let alone unsound. Evolution in no way discredits the belief in an afterlife or God existing. It is the simple observation of life gradually changing overtime due to mutations and environmental pressure. On the other side, just because a God created us does not logically imply that there is an afterlife or a "final showdown." It's one thing to have the content of your argument incorrect. It's another thing to have the logic invalid. FAIL!

[Leucorrhinia]

What a load of complete and utter rubbish!

The "evidences" given in the video may sound as if they are being given by a well educated man to those who want to believe - but anyone who genuinely does have an education would know that "specie" is NOT a singular form of "species".

[Tippitapitus]

It's a lie that layers before Cambrian don't have fossils. For example in Ediacara layers there are multicellular organisms.

[MalcolmBowden]

@Tippitapitus I assume that they ARE below the Cambrian, but it only requires part of the Great Flood of Noah to trap some local sea creatures prior to the later mass engulfment of many more. You must NOT ignore the fact that they are ALL fully developed complex CREATURES, SUDDENLY appearing as they do in the Cambrian. There are NO part developed creatures before them. Dont talk of "billions of years" because SOME part developed fossils should be there - and they are NOT. M. Bowden

[Tippitapitus]

@MalcolmBowden Ediacara is below Cambrian and it's dated older but multicellular organisms can be found in Mesoproterozoic Era which is much older than Ediacara or Cambrian. There are precambrian fossils but due to their lack of hard body parts they rarely fossilize. Where are all the Cambrian tetrapods if all fully developed creatures suddenly appear?

Valentine et al. 1999. Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion. Development 126:851-859.

[MalcolmBowden]

@Tippitapitus You say "There are precambrian fossils but due to their lack of hard body parts they rarely fossilize". Just like Punctuated Equilibrium; "Evolution happened so fast in small areas that it left no fossils of the changes." i.e. "We have a theory but the evidence is missing" If creationists used arguments like this we would rightly be ridiculed. The most preposterous arguments are used to defend the indefensible theory of evolution to avoid God. Shame on you all.

[Tippitapitus]

@MalcolmBowden They RARELY fossilize. We have precambrian fossils! We also have fossils that show speciation and formation of new structures.

Benton et al. (2001). Speciation in the fossil record. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16:405-411

Takechi, M. ja Kuratani, S. (2010). History of Studies on Mammalian

Middle Ear Evolution: A Comparative Morphological and Developmental Biology Perspective. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 314B:417–433.

[MalcolmBowden]

@Tippitapitus I will not be obtaining your refs. EVERY paper by an evolutionist I have ever read has flaws in the arguments. For a classic case go to the link trueorigin(dot)org/moonmb(dot)­asp

They had to make the ridiculous claim all land was either around the poles or the equator for many years in order to get enough time for the present position of the moon. Evolutionists have slammed my article but my main thesis still stands.

[Tippitapitus]

@MalcolmBowden Now you are just ignoring the fossil evidence, trying to focus the point on something else and dodging my question. I will repeat: We have precambrian fossils! We have fossils that show for example speciation and formation of the mammalian middle ear! And finally where are Cambrian Tetrapods?

[Tippitapitus]

@MalcolmBowden Thompson is talking about Kirk Hansen's MODEL of the Earth Moon-system which assumed one big continent which made the problem easier to solve but it was incomplete. It didn't include plate tectonics for example. And after that Thompson talks about better models which include plate tectonics and describe the system much better.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@CaffeinatedThinking

Are you joking?

There are NUMEROUS Peer-Reviewed Journals supporting Intelligent Design. Link 10 around the bottom of my page will take you to all of them, with reference sources to the journals and publications the ID articles 1st appeared in.

Dr. Gordon C. Mills, Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. Jonathan Wells, and Dr. Stephen Meyer are just a few that have published science articles supporting ID. There is no conspiracy, the scientific community knows evo-theory is garbage.

[dsrtdawg1]

@evoTARDSareINSANE LOL, ID is a joke, just get over it. You're an animal, nothing special. The entire universe wasn't created to test you and if pass, you get to praise god for eternity.

[3gdosrsfs]

@CaffeinatedThinking LOL! Conspiracy theories? That's the best you have to offer? That and go look it up? If ever I saw a cop out.....Perhaps you should lay off the caffine and maybe you might be able to think straight to see that you have nothing to offer but ad hom attacks and personal insults. I have yet to see any one of you evo's or bbangers offer up an intellegent argument.....oh yeah I forgot, you do not believe in intellegence, yet make claim to exclusivity on it. Laughable. Go Malcom!

[3gdosrsfs]

@CaffeinatedThinking No conspiracy. Just the fact that anything that does not fall into lock step with the idea of evolution or the big bang is rejected. That is because you clowns fear what we have to say. It's a good thing they don't allow stake burning today. If some one did say the moon was made out of cheese, what harm could it do to the facts of the truth by letting someone publish it?

Evo's and bangers simply fear us and know they can't win in an honest debate. They wont even do that!

[3gdosrsfs]

Peer Reveiw = believe what we do and we will let you publish your paper.

It's a complete and utter disgrace and that is all it is. Any scientist with a pair woudl gladly allow someone to publish an opposing veiw becaue they'd have no fear of backing it up. Too bad no so called big banger or evolutionist has such a pair.

OF course all you have done caffinated, is the only thing ever done by ev's and bangers...ridicule and ad hom and dismiss but never offer any facts to butress your side...ever.

[Casshyr]

One thing creationists fail to understand is the importance of peer-review. They think just because some creationists post something in the creationists journal or on a blog, that's good enough to be quoted as evidence against evolution. It's not! Show me an article that's against evolution and published in articles like Nature or Science. Or at least in PLoS.

[gr8vibes2]

@CaffeinatedThinking Projection, projection, projection? Anything else? Where have we lied?

[gr8vibes2]

@CaffeinatedThinking I doubt Malcolm will respond to someone with such an attitude. He's into science, something new to you I know, and he's been studying science, especially geocentrism - for likely longer than you've been alive. Think over your position - clearly and certainly more cleverly that you've illustrated for us here. ;)

[gr8vibes2]

@CaffeinatedThinking Again, I have already supplied one example. I see one of your faults, you are obviously emotionally driven so rather than follow the evidence you lash out. Reverse this and you should be fine. ;)

[gr8vibes2]

@CaffeinatedThinking I gave one. Want more? Now answer all the question I asked you.

[gr8vibes2]

@CaffeinatedThinking "show me one creationist.."

That's not what you asked. Nice shift. But there are likely thousands - so this shows the kind of research you've done. Ever hear of "Google?" Here's one: Math professor Grandville Seawell's paper: Now answer all the questions I've asked you.

No, what we have here is a denialist who doesn't research, makes projections, uses caps, shifts, dodges, lies, never answers questions - a fine example of a debator.

[gr8vibes2]

@CaffeinatedThinking "show me one creationist.."

That's not what you asked. Nice shift. But there are likely thousands so this shows the kind of research you've done. Ever heard of "Google?" Here's one off the top of my head: Math professor Grandville Seawell's paper: Now answer all the questions I've asked you.

No, what we have here is a denialist who has doesn't research, makes projections, uses caps, shifts, dodges, lies,

and never answers question, fine example of a debator.

[gr8vibes2]

@CaffeinatedThinking "if you think the vast majority of evidence supports creationism, cite scientific papers" that do this. Put up or shut up kid.

Why go back and forth on this? I already covered this Sherlocke, the bully pullpit is biased. So going to this biased group for answers is like going to Hitler if the Aryan race is the best race. This will be my last response on this. Next.

[MalcolmBowden]

@CaffeinatedThinking I NOTE THAT YOU HAVE CAREFULLY AVOIDED THE FACT THAT 37 SECULAR SCIENTISTS (NOT CREATIONISTS!!) COMPLAINED BITTERLY THAT THEIR CRITICISMS OF THE BBANG WERE IGNORED.

WHO DID YOU SAY IS AVOIDING THE TRUTH?????

[gr8vibes2]

@CaffeinatedThinking LOL! Another unbacked blanket statement. Where's your proof for such lack from creationists? Certainly the vast majority of the evidence of origin and life favors creationism and very little to none favors evolutionism. Many creationist papers are instantly rejected. Read what Malcolm said here. Also the peer viewers you think so fondly of work from the bully pulpit. They're from the same side that runs the education system. Try and learn some truth before projecting.

[MalcolmBowden]

@CaffeinatedThinking ...their head fo education simply becasue he suggested the RS tried to reason with creationists!

You have no idea how "science" is really manipulated.

[MalcolmBowden]

@CaffeinatedThinking Peer reviewing is now working NOT to eliminate ridiculous papers but to defend the present "orthodox" views. There was a letter in the New Scientist a few years ago signed by 37 secular scientist complaining that any paper submitted critical of the Big Bang were frequently blocked. So much for the "honest search for truth by Science".

ANY editor publishing a paper supporting creation knows he is likely to lose his job by his board.

Royal Society - sacked

[gr8vibes2]

Great video here. Those complex blood chemical charts starting around 18:10 are astonishing. How such chemicals came into existence just scratches the surface attesting for the insurmountable odds evolutionists face, but that's nothing. They also have to grapple with the immense symbiotic relationships at play at quantum levels - that right there is proof that there's no way imaginable they could have just simply evolved. Flat out impossible. To argue against this is simply insane and futile.

[MalcolmBowden]

@gr8vibes2 Many thanks for your encouraging comments. They are a blessing - which contrasts with the ridiculous (and quite laughable) comments that my videos generate in my critics on the wide range of subjects that I deal with.

[gr8vibes2]

@MalcolmBowden Evolutionists rarely discuss anything in depth for two reasons, they have little to back their blanket statements up with and when/if they eventually find something, they end up shooting themselves in the foot with it.

Many thanks for all your work on the subject. You've spent a lot of time and effort not only with this video, but will all your yt videos. The world needs more critical thinking individuals these days. Thanks again.