Re: Fossils Prove the Flood of Noah (1 of 2)

[TheEqualizer2U]

This guy is hilarious!

First he declares the other guy is not educated enough, yet look at him! Just another know-it-all found on youtube...LOL!

What is your education Mr Phoenix? High school diploma doesnt make you an expert.

[GodsArePeopleToo]

umm... there is one point you forgot to bring up here... if fossils are from the flood, where are the fossilized bunnies, puppies, koalas, and people?

and did you ever notice how often creationists think lamarckian evolution?

[lovesack]

l do not believe in evelution because if you look in the backcround of darwin

you will see he did not believe in him, GOD, plus his father was part of the freemasons that tell me their gull is to prove that god does not exist.

as freemasons is a satanic cult

[phoenixshade3]

@lovesack "as freemasons is a satanic cult"

When you can show that you understand basic concepts of language, such as subject-verb agreement, I might consider looking at what you are trying to say. Until such time, I will stick with my standard anti-creatard response: GET AN EDUCATION, THEN COME BACK TO ME.

[monching1120]

@phoenixshade3 the hell with you and your language! internet is not exclusive to your language only! go back to school and educate yourself with good manners and right conduct! you useless, egoistic multi-celled organism

[hothaggis1]

@lovesack He was training to be a vicar, then he grew up & made deductions, bloody good ones! He had a rational brain (He could spell too, are you a) drunk? b) seven? c) remedial? It has to be at least one of them!)

[CrikeyTomatoes]

@lovesack Darwin struggled with faith everyday of his life. How fucking stupid do you feel a year later?

[caseybaby612]

He said that there are Animals today in South America with those types of toes..not horses...and all you have is drawings of what people think the whales looked like durring evolution...you don't show any source or where you get those pictures..they're just drawings not proof..

[Venefican]

your a cool dude, man, i agree with you totally

[hellasweet4twizzle]

Pulsar205---youtube is acting up again, and it won't post my responses, so I'll just PM you..but for anyone reading this, I know; he's a complete moron..but those are the best, they make me laugh.

[Pulsar205]

I go with the creationist side, but I like to listen to guys like phoenix because I really want to know the truth, whatever it is. I'm not a Christian and have nothing to fear either way :)

The evolutionist merely sounds like my scientific questioning mind on the outside, as I try to find what's wrong with a theory.

As for fossil rarity, could it be most of them were not buried and crumbled to dust on the surface?

[HelplessVictim]

Excellent response.

[Pemex5555]

exactly..

[intelligentfalling]

I think youre getting votebotted. Your ratings have dropped.

[Rib64]

dude, there are so many problems with the bible's flood its just ridiculous. thnx for the video though.

[hellasweet4twizzle]

You can't kill ducks with a flood

I've always thought that alone was enough to disprove the flood drama.

Not to mention the fact that the animals would starve after, or wipe out entire species.

I hate bible story crap.

I knew that shit was rubbish when i was a child in sunday school.

[Pulsar205]

You can in a storm scenario. Ducks die in floods because the water's all muddied and there's nothing to eat.

A raging torrent full of rocks and trees will do the trick too.

[hellasweet4twizzle]

"Ducks die in floods because the water's all muddied and there's nothing to eat."

ALL of them??..

and since you brought it up...

what did these remaining animals eat after they got off the boat?

Creationism is mythology....you don't want to defend such a rediculous story..

Why kill animals in the first place? What did they do? Why can god create people from incantation(i suppose), but he needs to drown them in order to be rid of them? why not snap his omnipotent fingers?

[Pulsar205]

I don't think it was God's fault the Flood happened. It was something Man did that upset the natural balance of things. I know it says he was angry but how can you be angry at an innocent animal? Saying this, they usually die horribly anyway (eating).

Yes what did they eat when they got off the Ark? Plants may have started to grow perhaps..?

Yes, all the ducks, in a worldwide catastrophe.

[hellasweet4twizzle]

And if "god" drowned the whole bleeding world to get rid of "wicked people", why are there "wicked men" in the very next chapter, every following chapter in the bible? God failed at his goal?

Listen; we have the fossils. We win.

There should be no more debate. It's over.

There are no magical, causeless beings who love you but will burn you forever if you don't believe he's there. -To which he makes sure there's NO evidence as well, just to be tricky...

[Pulsar205]

I think Genesis was one man's viewpoint on what really happened; not the actual 'word of God'. God didn't fail; it's just he has limited power and could only save 8 people.

Yes you have the fossils, but creationists seems to have a better idea of how they're formed..and how dinosaurs are said to be sometimes mixed up with animals of other eras including man!

Explain that one!

[Hisson82]

quit being so dumb..the evidence is clear..created things have a creator..that is a law...Man created the car..but i guess if the car doesnt belive we made it then we don't exist..amazingly you think your opinion matters for something..you say there is no god and that is supposed to prove something..your anger and your ignorance maybe...but your lack of common sense is alarming.

[crb1031]

Cars and living organisms aren't comparable in this sense. One we know is a man made object and living organisms we know evolved from previous living organisms. There is no scientific law stating creations have "a creator", this is just something people like ray comfort assume and spread around. If anything, natural selection and genetic mutations are the "creators", it doesn't even have to be a single being.

[planetkestrel]

WOW. What an incredible idiot you are, Hisson. Your argument fails on so many levels I don't know where to begin. But when cars start to reproduce themselves, give me a call.

[justmee2007]

Sir it is obvious you have no credentials whatsoever, when attacking someone who has credentials, it is not a smart thing to do when you yourself have none, why should anyone listen to what you are trying to teach? I'm just trying ask you to act logically. for example; you can't tell someone he's dirty if you yourself don't bath. I hope you understand what i mean.

[phoenixshade3]

It is obvious that this buffoon doesn't have any credentials THAT APPLY TO BIOLOGY. Whatever type of "chemist" he is, he certainly isn't a biochemist, and he knows nothing of evolution. Even if I didn't hold a degree in molecular biology (which I do), I could criticize his views on the subject, because his credentials don't apply here.

To put it another way: Who would you ask to fix your car? A mechanic who learned his trade by working on cars, or a nobel prize winning theoretical physicist?

[matt7kiwi]

Good work mate. Some xtians just aren't worth the effort - justhim2007. There's a geat quote from their bible tho. "He that loveth and believith a lie, shall be sent great delusion". How ironic!

[justmee2007]

I can see on your dorky looking glasses, that you are reading of a screen, just repeating like a parrot, why don't you go out and get an education, PAY FOR IT, bring your diploma, show it off on youtube and then, Then MAYBE I'll listen to you, I stopped your video exactly at 37 seconds

[phoenixshade3]

That explains your idiotic comments here. Your "argument" stems entirely from personal attacks based on appearances after only 37 seconds. Can you say, "prejudiced bigot??" I knew you could!

And no, I'm not "repeating like a parrot." It's called an OUTLINE. Some people like to ORGANIZE their thoughts before making a video. But then again, you haven't made any of your own, so you wouldn't understand anything about that, now would you?

[justmee2007]

What are your credentials? why should we listen to you? I'm sorry but you look like a hi pee who is in love with Mary Jane (marijuana)

[phoenixshade3]

You shouldn't listen to me blindly. Everything I said is backed by evidence, some of which I have linked to in these comments, and the rest of which is easily accessible over the internet to anyone with the least amount of intellectual curiosity and scientific literacy.

If you are lacking in both of these, then sorry, I can't help you. That would certainly go a long way toward explaining why a bronze age book of fairy tales is sufficient explanation of the world for you.

[justmee2007]

My friend, I'm questioning your credentials, not youtube's or the Internets, you are basing your arguments on the credentials of someone who is an on hands experience, so you are just repeating what some other moron wrote on the internet, you attack someones credentials, SHOW YOURS, obviously your a internet freak whom i would bet spends a lot of your time in porno, I am so sure of that.

[phoenixshade3]

"obviously your a internet freak whom i would bet spends a lot of your time in porno, I am so sure of that."

Project much? Yeah, you probably don't even know what that means...

If you have nothing substantive to say and continue to post personal attacks, I will subject you to the "fucktard" filter without remorse.

[winterstellar]

The creationists only manage to fool mentally challenged people. Most intelligent people are aware of the fact that evolution is both proven, observed and that nobody in science denies evolution. (By the way, I thought the cambrian explosion lasted some 12 million years? Am I misinformed there?

[justmee2007]

I want to inform you that evolution is still a THEORY. It's still called that you know.

[phoenixshade3]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

In science, a theory is at the PINNACLE of importance of ideas, because it is a FRAMEWORK that explains a large body of facts and can be used to make useful predictions.

Evolution has made numerous predictions that have been confirmed. So yes, evolution is a theory. And that makes it more scientifically useful than a fact, a hypothesis, or a law.

[lizazoon]

@phoenixshade3-- that evolution is still a THEORY. It's still called that you know.--

Did you really learn how to use a conputer ?

[lizazoon]

@lizazoon Sorry, adressed to the wrong person, I Was intended for "Justmee"

[vengencefrom1979]

@lizazoon moses was a plagirist, what makes him better than darwin?

[gregrutz]

@lizazoon The theory of evolution will always be a theory, it shows how the process of evolution works.

[fetrug]

-"I want to inform you that evolution is still a THEORY. It's still called that you know."-

Gravity, the existence of the atom and germs are still kown as, "theories."  Away with you, loser.

[justmee2007]

Creo que debes ir a seguir viendo tus muñequitos de fantasia de Dragon ball z

[phoenixshade3]

I believe that you'd better take your personal insults and projected cartoon character fetishes somewhere else, and I don't care if they're in English, Spanish, or frickin' Mongolian.

[justmee2007]

OH I'm done with you guy.

[thelimit69]

what if they are in alienese?

[fetrug]

-"Creo que debes ir a seguir viendo tus muñequitos de fantasia de Dragon ball z"-

Creo que deberias leer un libro antes de decir huevadas, no tenes ni la mas remota idea de lo que es la evolucion. Te estoy pidiendo demasiado?

[fetrug]

-"Creo que debes ir a seguir viendo tus muñequitos de fantasia de Dragon ball z"-

O, y otra cosa, no me importa si me insultas, no soy el bobo que ni siquiera sabe lo que es una teoria.

[justmee2007]

NO TE IMPORTA si te insulto? si eso es verdad que causo esa rabia tan destrapada? solamente te respodi cuando me llamaste "a loser" If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen otherwise don't take things personally bro.

[fetrug]

-"NO TE IMPORTA si te insulto? si eso es verdad que causo esa rabia tan destrapada?"-

Que rabia? Simplemente te dije que no sabes lo que es la evolucion. No siento ninguna rabia, no estoy tomando nada personalmente. Get the picture?

[GendPzTrSchmidt]

Nice vid, very good argumentation.

[bdf2718]

John Pendleton is a coprolite - a fossilized turd.

[flyingscience]

Watch my video - fossil bryozoan reefs (70') .They prove an old earth and disprove catastrophism made fosils.

[wolfwing1]

If you don't already in later videos, you should mention the Italian wall lizard, one of the best examples of new features through evolution.

[lowcomedy]

Pendleton is actually a pharmacist.

[lassieronen]

great respond =)

[gideonjamesabbott]

good work pointing out the fallacies of that other video

[ludachris475]

It is the kookiest explanation of how the universe came to be.

[ludachris475]

Creationism is Cartoonism.

[ludachris475]

Man, religious people are tragically gullible.

[mejc2]

More recent evidence shows the cambrian explosion to have taken place in only 5-10 million years. is that still enough time for the billions of random beneficial mutations to have occured?

[TheHatefulDead]

"More recent evidence shows the cambrian explosion to have taken place in only 5-10 million years".

Evidence also suggests a major extinction event prior to the Cambrian. Thus the "Cambrian Explosion" is in some ways just the first of several post-extinction radiations during the history of life. And, coincidentally enough, 5-10 my seems to be the usual time frame for such recoveries.

[flyingscience]

Check my fossil videos ,the links will show fossil reefs that disprove zNoahs flood.

[flyingscience]

Check my fossil videos ,the links will show fossil reefs that disprove zNoahs flood.

[flyingscience]

Thanks for your time to make and refute the video .Look up my fossil videos click the descriptions 4 links .I explain fossil reefs disprove Noah's flood

[bammbamm12]

You? A "piano player", are challenging the credentials of a chemist? WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

[thabooger]

so wat if he plays piano?

[bammbamm12]

You missed the point pingo.

[ooglebydoogleby]

utterly enjoyable it was realy pleasing to see a very lucid argument provided with reference to reputable sources. unlike the usual id "here's an article from playboy magazine" stuff. and anyway what new information does id offer what insights. none. lets use the same critical criteria for id so if thier is just one example of evolution which is irefutable by thier terms this would be irefutable evidence that there is no designer.

[SSEDummyPlug]

"AS AIG says, The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations DID NOT come about by chance mutations, but by some DESIGNED mechanism." Also... Considering every single piece of information from that article is true, you can't conclude there's a designed mechanism. What you can conclude is that THERE IS NO EXPLANATION YET.

[SSEDummyPlug]

"AS AIG says, The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations DID NOT come about by chance mutations, but by some DESIGNED mechanism." What a convenient quote. I'm not a native speaker but I try to explain things with my OWN words. I never used bacteria mutation to explain evolution, I used it to show you that MUTATION CAN BE BENEFICIAL and bacteria resistance to antibiotics is a very good example. Then again... Why is mutation only DANGEROUS?

[SSEDummyPlug]

"You sound as if mutations are some hot new trend, when they are DANGEROUS." O_O You still don't get it, do you? Lemme ask you something: What's a MUTATION?

[SSEDummyPlug]

"Where does the new information come from to 'gradually transition' to new creatures?" I bet you don't understand what a mutation is. O_O

"At least ONE transitional ape to human" O_O (go to phoenixshade3 link some posts below) If you can't find a transitional specie there, then tell me wtf is a transitional specie to you? Anyway... It's already known that transitional species don't exist for creationists and they will never exist.

[Redflyer67]

Phoenixshade3, before you go deleting my comments, can you give me some time to investigate/reasearch some of your claims? Let's be fair to all sides..

[phoenixshade3]

"Let's be fair to all sides."

I agree, let's. Let's require YOUR side to go through the same vigorous peer-review process as MY side does, and only THEN can it get into our science textbooks.

"before you go deleting my comments..."

I explained CLEARLY why I am deleting your comments. You keep repeating claims that I have refuted (such as the information argument.) Therefore, I am forcing you to acknowledge the refutation before proceeding.

[phoenixshade3]

For example, in your latest comments, you did not acknowledge the simple, observed mutations that lead to an increase in information. You did not acknowledge the beneficial mutation that allowed bacteria to eat nylon. You did not acknowledge the fact that the average human has 76 mutations yet life expectancy is not reduced.

So, like the parent of a three-year-old, I'm sitting you in time-out until you take your fingers out of your ears and stop shouting "lalalalala!"

[phoenixshade3]

Not only that, but I gave you THREE warnings before acting on this policy, and in all three cases you ignored me, and rather than simply acknowledging your proven errors, you just moved on to another subject and pretended it never happened, thus illustrating a key difference between science and religion:

When science is shown to be wrong, NEW HYPOTHESES are developed and tested.

When religion is shown to be wrong, the evidence is GLOSSED OVER, IGNORED or COVERED UP.

[SSEDummyPlug]

Some final words:

If you think God made you and the whole humankind, then you must think he gave us all a very nice brain. SO USE IT.

Also... Very nice work, phoenixshade3. ^_^ Nice replies too. =P

[SSEDummyPlug]

Many christians accept that evolution occurred and occurs. Why? For a simple reason: Evolution is a THEOLOGICAL NON-ISSUE. Maybe your understanding of the Bible is too literal to accept any new idea. But hey... If you accept evolution, you won't negate God and you won't be sinning. Denying evolution is as stupid as it was denying Galileo's discovery during the 17th century.

[SSEDummyPlug]

"Welcome to a life given to you by a loving Creator. Accept His love and free gift of eternal life by His son, Jesus. He created all things and rules and reigns over His creation. That is how we got here, we were created. Nothing creates itself." Why do ppl say this when they can't refute your arguments? And more important. What's wrong with evolution? It doesn't deny the existance of God. What should be different?

[SSEDummyPlug]

I agree in this: "Vast, new information banks in the DNA would be required for a NEW species to be produced." HOWEVER, no one ever said a specie immediately becomes another. Slight and continuous mutations during hundreds of millions of years can produce new species or new organs (or maybe more precisely, modify the function of an existent one).

[Redflyer67]

Then where is your transitional evidence? Please show me ONE.

[phoenixshade3]

"Then where is your transitional evidence? Please show me ONE."

Ask and ye shall receive:

w ww. talkorigins. org/faqs/comdesc/images/homini­ds2_big. jpg

If you want to claim these are all either human or ape but not transitional, you must also tell me:

1) Where do you draw the dividing line, and

2) Why evolution from A up to that line is possible, and evolution from that line to N is possible, but evolution across the tiny difference at the line itself is not.

[smgharsha2110]

great danes and chihuahuas cannot breed naturally. Differing size is a step to transition between species. Horses and donkeys can breed but produce sterile offspring. This is a major step of seperation of species. We have lots of transitional evidence

[wolfwing1]

Italian wall lizards, they were deposited on a island for 40 years, when scientists went back it had a few feature that none of the species related to it had and is a extremly rare feature in some lizards, a valve within their stomach/digestive tract that allowed them to digest plants more readily.

[justmee2007]

Well in that case, why don't you go and stay there for forty years and let see how you evolve. lol

[SSEDummyPlug]

"Mutations do not strengthen; they only weaken. They do not produce new, stronger species; they only injure the ones which already exist."

Sry but that's not true at all. Bacteria mutate all the time and thx to many of those mutations they become resistant to certain antibiotics. That's a phenomenon doctors see in patients EVERYDAY. If you want a better explanation of it, you can always ask. =P

[Redflyer67]

Then where does the new information come from to 'gradually transition' to new creatures? Heard of stasis? You sound as if mutations are some hot new trend, when they are dangerous. Do the math: billions of years should = at least ONE transitional ape to human. THERE ARE NONE. Facts, not feelings.

[wolfwing1]

Yeah....ignore the hundreds of fossils moron. Neanderthal *though not transitional it's sister still explain it* australapithicus, homo habilis and quiet a few others I can't remember their names.

[phoenixshade3]

REDFLYER:

Because you have shown the typical creationist pattern of IGNORING INCONVENIENT FACTS, I am now moderating your comments to FORCE you to deal with them. Let's get this ball rolling.

Regarding Ambulocetus, you said: "Even the pelvic girdle is missing!"

I responded by providing a link to a photograph of the fossil, WITH pelvis:

members. cox. net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie­030. html

In your next comment, you will admit you were wrong, or it will be deleted.

[Redflyer67]

Welcome to a life given to you by a loving Creator. Accept His love and free gift of eternal life by His son, Jesus. He created all things and rules and reigns over His creation. That is how we got here, we were created. Nothing creates itself.

[phoenixshade3]

False dichotomy.

Even if evolution by variation and natural selection was an insufficient mechanism to explain the diversity of life, this would not prove the existence of some god, and most certainly not YOUR specific God nor that your man got up and started preaching again three days after dying by crucifixion.

Complex molecules create themselves all the time, for example in the vicinity of black smokers on the sea floor. You've been shot down again.

[intelligentfalling]

Dude I just gotta say. Reading this discussion, you are the most brainwashed individual since VFX. He refutes every single one of your points which you consider irrefutable with ease everytime and yet you still think you have some sort of absolute truth on your side? Why isn't your god helping you win this conv if youve got "the truth" hmmm? maybe he's sick of you making shit up.

[Redflyer67]

And where do evolutionists believe the cell and other raw matieral came from from which we 'evolved'? Did your watch slowly evolve over time? Doesn't a standing building require a designer and builder? Or do those just some how erect themselves?

[phoenixshade3]

That is a poor analogy. Watches and buildings are not LIVING SYSTEMS. They do not reproduce. They do not mutate. They do not compete.

ANY system that:

- REPRODUCES with inheritance,

- VARIES by mutation, and

- COMPETES for limited resources

will evolve. So your analogy fails copletely.

Furthermore, your initial question of "where the raw materials came from" is not a question about evolution, but about abiogenesis, a completely different science.

[smgharsha2110]

basically what phoenix shade is saying is watches dont make babies so it cant evolve. I will tell you: show me a building that makes babies and I will show you that the building evolved. Until then dont use that analogy

[Redflyer67]

Tiktaalik: another smokescreen. This fish posesses mosaic forms (features belonging to different groups of life forms) just like the present day austrailian platypus, at one and the same time. You evolutionists distort these mosaic properties according to your own preconceptions and state that the animal is a 'transitional form' between fish and terrestrial life forms, but mosaic life forms are VERY FAR from being the intermediate forms required by the theory of evolution.

[Redflyer67]

You still must prove that mutations are beneficial! You know they aren't. Slight or any changes in the genetic makeup are DEADLY. You have more to prove then just listing these false forms. You''ve got to have beneficial changes in genes that gradually show changes in species. You know you don't yet you continue to believe the lies. Once again, these are YOUR people denying these 'facts' you present. Not one is from AIG! Your beliefs take more faith than mine in the Bible!

[phoenixshade3]

"Slight or any changes in the genetic makeup are deadly."

EVERY LIVING HUMAN has an average of 76 mutations in their DNA, not inherited from either parent. So by your logic, that all mutations are deadly, we should be seeing shorter and shorter life expectancies with each passing generation.

Oops, the evidence thrwarts you again.

By the way, when you get a job in a genetics lab, you can start to teach me. Until then, get lost.

[Redflyer67]

Do you know what you are talking about? Evolution requires 'NEW' information. Vast, new information banks in the DNA would be required for a NEW species to be produced. Mutations could never accomplish that, any more than swinging a bat in a china closet would improve the glassware stored there.

[Redflyer67]

Evolution also requires new organs and different structures. But mutations would not and cannot provide the new physical equipment and capability. It's also mathematically impossible; not enough mutations could naturally occur to accomplish any trans-species changes. Where's your proof for it?

[phoenixshade3]

Tiktaalik is one of many proofs. Your bald assertion that it is a "mosaic" is insufficient to overturn 100s of peer-reviewed published articles that contradict said assertion.

[phoenixshade3]

You've just made another baseless assertion.

Do you know ANYTHING at all about information theory? Of course not; you're just parroting talking points given to you by YEC websites.

A duplication mutation is in itself new information, and provides raw material for mutation. Example:

Gene: ATCGGCTAGTCCTAA

Duplication: atcggctaGCTAgtcctaa

Mutation: atcggctagcAagtcctaa

These are OBSERVED mutations. By every objective definition of information, the final gene has more than the first.

[Redflyer67]

Where are the human transitions? I'll get lost when you show them to me. Again, prove beneficial mutations. Prove that they have enough information to grow me a wing or a longer neck for example. They cannot and will not. Mutations do not strengthen; they only weaken. They do not produce new, stronger species; they only injure the ones which already exist.

[phoenixshade3]

You'll get lost when I WANT you to get lost.

Beneficial mutation:

NYLON-EATING BACTERIA. Just because you ignored it the first time I mentioned it doesn't mean it will go away.

You're strong on talking-points, but when it comes to backing them up, your science is completely lacking. Really, it's laughable.

- you know nothing of information theory,

- you can't differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution,

- you don't know the difference between a mosaic and an intermediate.

[phoenixshade3]

Nylon-eating bacteria.

That mutation is neither slight nor deadly. In fact, it has been beneficial to the bacteria in question, allowing them to make use of a MAN-MADE POLYMER as a food source.

There's your proof. Try to refute it.

[Redflyer67]

NO. There are still more questions than answers still out on this bacteria. Don't be so quick to pull the trigger yet. AS AIG says, "The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations DID NOT come about by chance mutations, but by some DESIGNED mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution."

[phoenixshade3]

ANOTHER easily refuted assertion from the ID camp!

FYI, it most certainly WAS a random mutation of ONE base-pair. The resulting frame-shift created a novel, functional protein.

This is CONTRARY to ID's definition of a designed system. Among other things, nylonase disproves Dembski's argument of specified complexity, a key property of such systems. If specified complexity existed, a frame-shift could NEVER create a new function.

Looks like it's time for IDiots to move the goalpost again.

[smgharsha2110]

Buddy I have a background in genetics and let me tell you that chance mutations come up all the time.

While it is true that vertebrates generate novel effective antibodies this is only a small drop of the millions of INEFFECTIVE antibodies that are also produced by chance. Only the effective antibodies are kept by the Bcells and the rest of the abs are scrapped. This seems oddly like evolution to me.

[smgharsha2110]

buddy I work in a genetics lab and I read hundreds of papers on the subject. Let me tell you that it is not pure belief. A grad student and I (at columbia university) are working together to publish a paper, and we have been rebuffed four times because the peer review process keeps finding assumptions we made in the paper. They are always asking us to do experiments. Even though it is aggravating, this is the beauty of science. Let me tell you these are NOT beliefs and lies.

[intelligentfalling]

hahaha All creationists have are arguments that have been long debunked:

watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs

Many beneficial mutations. But these just scratch the surface.

[phoenixshade3]

The platypus's similarities to other forms are SUPERFICIAL ONLY. Their bone structure, for example, is ENTIRELY mammilian.

Find one living fish with a functional elbow, and I'll grant your point. Any comment that does not directly address your search for such an extant fish or for a living bird as described above will be removed.

[Redflyer67]

It is easy enough to MAKE UP stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are NOT A PART OF SCIENCE, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

[phoenixshade3]

Created systems do not exhibit a COMPLETELY NESTED HIERARCHY. Living forms do. The ONLY explanation for the nested hierarchy is common ancestry.

Welcome to the animal kingdom, my fellow primate.

[Redflyer67]

No my friend, until you show me gradual changes over time with fossil evidence with whole transitions, not sketches or fragments you interpret falsely, noone should believe your religion, because it ain't science. It's not falsifiable or testable.

[phoenixshade3]

Yet another proof that you don't understand science.

"not falsifiable"

COMPLETELY wrong. All you need to find is ONE example of life on earth that falls outside of the MATCHING nested hierarchies of morphology, molecular biology, and genetics. Just ONE would falsify common descent.

[smgharsha2110]

lets forget about fossil evidence I will show you living transitions. chihuahuas, great danes. donkeys horses. Lions tigers. They can all reproduce, but their offspring cannot.

[Redflyer67]

Remember Piltdown man? This was an attempt to show a transition, which was man made (a fraud). Billions of years should give you at least ONE transitional form. There is NO continuum in the fossil record. And, look at the cambrian 'explosion'. See how all the animals suddenly appeared fully formed without predecessors. Why? Because they were created.

[phoenixshade3]

OK then, show me a primate fossil from the Cambrian period.

What's that you say? You can't find any? Didn't think so.

If you want to keep your nose in nothing but the bible, that's fine with me. Don't try to pretend that science supports you, though, because it clearly does not.

200,000 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals supporting evolution, vs. ZERO for creationism.

[phoenixshade3]

Piltdown man. Is that the best you ID-iots can come up with? It was EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS who discovered the hoax, not creationists. The same techniques that proved Piltdown was a hoax CONFIRM the transitional forms I've listed for you above.

[Craighill9]

Explain to me trees fossilized upright protruding through many stratafied layers of Earth. There are no progressive evolution fossils. Time is a publication that spews the evolution mantra it is a mouthpiece for evolution psuedo science. Evolution occurs, but it is not an explanation of life on Earth, nor does it support the bullcrap billions of years theory.

[phoenixshade3]

"Billions of years" is supported by multiple independent evidences. You really should learn something about nuclear decay before criticizing something you don't understand. K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating are particularly immune to your criticisms, unless you can PROVE that radioactive decay rates vary (which means you must disprove everything known about the strong nuclear force.)

The trees you speak of are fossilized in a bed of RAPIDLY DEPOSITED HOT VOLCANIC ASH. Pretty simple explanation.

[Craighill9]

No, there are many formations showing trees fossilized through differing strata. There are trees fossilized through shale strata. There some that go through shale, coal, and rock strata. There are more than one instance of this; these formations are found on a global scale.

[phoenixshade3]

500 chars is not enough to expound completely.

ALL polystrate fossil trees exist rooted in recognizable paleosols, which indicates a rapid period of sedimentation followed by slow deposition. ALL polystrate trees combined account for less than 0.1% of the total record of fossilized trees. They are found in varying locations around the globe, true, but in DIFFERENT strata, and MOST places on earth do not yield such fossils.

[phoenixshade3]

So I've addressed yours. Now you address mine.

How does a flood deposit a single layer, only a few inches thick, with high concentrations of iridium, all at the same geological age of 65 Ma, all over the earth? Unlike your polystrate trees, it is EVERYWHERE where rocks of this age are preserved (i.e. not eroded by later action).

[Craighill9]

you are a sophist

[Redflyer67]

I agree. Evolutionists tout gradual change over time. Where are the transitional forms? Genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial. A dog is dog and stays a dog. So does every animal and human. They replicate themselves. They don't transition into apes or fish. There is variation within species, but NO transitional forms on display for the world to see. NONE.

[phoenixshade3]

Good job repeating the bullshit Answers in Genesis talking points.

Archeopterix: a toothed, clawed bird with a long, bony tail and dinosaurian fenestra in the skull.

Tiktaalik: a fish with articulated forelimbs including an elbow and amphibian-like spiracles.

Ambulocetus: a semi-aquatic mammal with a whale-like jaw and a blowhole.

Australopithecus: a bipedal ape with many human characteristics.

That's just barely scratching the surface of the most well-known transitionals.

[Redflyer67]

Take Australopithecus off your list. Years ago, extensive research was done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned evolutionary anatomists from England and the USA; Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard. They showed that these creatures did not walk upright in a human manner. They studied the bones of these fossils for 15 years and reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ORDINARY ape genus and were definitely not bipedal.

[phoenixshade3]

Oxnard never claimed that Australopithecus was not bipedal. He claimed that their gait was probably not human like, but that they WERE bipedal.

At any rate, his 30-year old findings were a minority view then, and have since become an extreme fringe view.

Argument from Authority + Special Pleading = Colossal Failure.

[Redflyer67]

Oxnard likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecines to that of modern orang-utans. So your own example has been deemed incorrect by your own evolutionary scientists. There is NO link with humans; they are merely an exinct ape species, just like homo habilis.

[phoenixshade3]

Oxnard is frequently misrepresented by creationists. He NEVER states that there is "NO link;" he favors the idea that the branched off of the line leading to us, rather than being on the direct lineage.

You need to do far better than present a lame argument from authority. You are showing you ignorance.

[phoenixshade3]

Furthermore, Oxnard's analysis is VERY out of date. For you to use this do try to prove somethinng about Australopithecus is akin to using Newton to disprove Einstein.

[phoenixshade3]

By the way, Oxnard ALSO claimed that Ramapithecus was on the human line, but that Sivapithecus was ancestral to orangutans.

BOTH are the same species. Your source is outdated.

[Redflyer67]

Take Ambulocetus off too: The skeleton is incomplete, with critical parts missing. It is also highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones (femur and small proximal piece of tibia) belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. Even the pelvic girdle is missing! There are too many crucial parts missing to be sure what Ambulocetus is.

[phoenixshade3]

Here goes the same bullshit claim about a "missing pelvic girdle."

Look here, it's a photograph of the original fossil discovery, WITH a pelvis. The fact that you would mention a missing pelvis PROVES that you are using the KNOWN LIAR Jonathan Sarfati for your information. He's the only one still spreading that LIE.

members. cox. net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie­030. html

The photo is about halfway down the page.

[Redflyer67]

Archeopterix - no can do: Even evolutionists knock that idea down. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who is regarded as a WORLD authority on birds, pointed out the erroneous nature of the evolutionist claims for Archaeopteryx when he said, "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bounded, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."

[phoenixshade3]

A perching bird? OK, name any modern species of perching bird that has ALL of the following features:

- Claws on the wings that are retained throughout life

- Teeth that are retained throughout life

- A long, bony tail

- Reptilian fenestrae in the skull

- An unarticulated sternum

- Only six sacral vertebrae

If you can't find one, you're claim that it's "just another perching bird" is falsified.

[Redflyer67]

And even despite being an evolutionist, the Yale University professor of geology John H. Ostrom agreed that these claims are lacking in proof: "There is no fossil evidence of pro-avis at all." Colin Patterson, another evolutionionary scientist, also said that the claims made for Archaeopteryx are far from being scientific: "Is Archopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.

[phoenixshade3]

Yawn. Is quote mining the best you've got? Let me update you with a find that Ostrom never examined.

Longisquama is a feathered, lizard-like reptile that is most likely pro-avis. Do try to keep up with modern findings, if you're going to try to criticize palaeontology.

[emsing2001]

well, if the guy you said was a chemist and he solve the nonsense theory of evolution, better him than you guys the so called scientist of evolution who only waste tax payers money! his only a chemist but he has lots of proven scientifict theory then his brilliant and intellegent and not as stupid as you guys! Dumb ass!

[phoenixshade3]

He's not even a chemist, I have sence learned. He's a fucking auto mechanic.

Meanwhile, 200,000 peer-reviewed published papers support evolution, verses ZERO that support young-earth creationism.

And the flood is absolutely physically contradicted. The K-T boundary layer alone is enough to completely discredit it.

[saibod]

I watched 5 mins of pendletons vid and it's stupidty baffles.

[whatmatt3rs]

Great Job.

[manotoshi]

People like you or thinking like ou were left outside of the Ark, when the water came...they were no longer laughing....they were knocking at the door of the Ark, but it was too late.....they died.

[Johannes9126]

The ark? Haha! Nice joke.

[ghettofreeze]

I viewed Pendleton's ridiculous video immediately before this one. I laughed; I cried. Nice job of exposing his fraud.

[Brainmold]

That's it... I'm getting a lab coat.

[thequantumflux]

Great job off to part 2.

[hairyreasoner]

I like the cut of your jib!

Damn fine video. I will definitely watch part 2.

[lawilson200]

A great video. Your arguments are well reasoned and clearly stated. Good job!

[Desertphile]

A chemist! ROTFL! This is a damn fine video: thank you.