You can make the most peaceful sounding and intelligent looking video that you want, but it can't make EVILution the truth. Evolution is the 2nd most BIGGEST LIE known to man, and anybody who believes it's even believable is insane!!
@ironman197268 *sigh*...... so "god" just made dinosaurs and millions of other extinct creatures then wipes the slate clean with a flood and started over? the fossil record proves evolution, if you didn't get all your education from other Christians you'd know this. And shocker! my father is a Christian minister who i love dearly, so I'm not ignorant to religion, but you are ignorant to basic science that they teach you in infant school!
@malango255 Here we go!! God Yahweh can do anything he wants, and he most certainly did cause a flood to wipe the slate clean and start over. Proof only exists in math, and certainly not in your fossil record. Evolution is as far from the truth as you can get. Tell me how your fossil record survived 100s of Millions of years worth of Erosion. And you can skip the uplift crap talk because if that's true you wouldn't have a fossil record, or a geologic column.
@Helge129 Why am I ignorant? Can you tell me how the geologic column survived millions of years of erosion? And please do not tell me to read a geology book.
@ironman197268 Vegetation for one, stops errosion almost completely in some cases. Also it takes hundreds of millions of years for stuff to completely errode away, and the crust is constantly being "replenished" so to say, from sediments, etc.
@ironman197268 No, I did not. Also the age of the earth is not solely based on the oldest rock on Earth - which is 3.7 billion years old - but also on stuff in the solar system. All of that stuff is 4.6 billion years old.
@Helge129 oh man you need to give it up!! You did not What? Erosion is a fact that you cannot Deny. How does Slow burial of organisms make such a detailed fossil?
@ironman197268 slow burial? Not at all. It's fast burial, such as mud avalanches, or burial in oxygen-poor environments, such as swamps, that gives fossils. The millions of fossils we do have, are the few that were buried under such conditions. Most animals that die never or only partially fossilize.
@ironman197268 No, they are proof that a global flood never happened. If a global flood happened, strata would not have appeared, but all the materials layered into strata would be mixed together uniformly.
@Helge129 How is that possible with all that erosion going on at the same time? Current erosion rates would level the continents in less than 25 million years, why does Mt Everest still have petrified marine life on it's top?
@ironman197268 That is incorrect. The errosion rates are different everywhere and at different altitudes. In high mountains, such as the himalaya, errosion occurs almost exclusively through glaciers. It never rains, if at all snows. And Mr. Everest is a relatively young mountain. I'm no geologist, mind you. I suggest you watch the "Earth Story" series of documentaries on the channel "EvolutionDocumentary", explains it better than I ever could.
@Helge129 Then maybe you should watch it. Hey man... Wind causes erosion too, along with whatever critters are roaming the land, and water, and oxidation, etc... Mt. Everest's peak has supposedly been uplifting for 55 million years, how can you say it's relatively young?
@ironman197268 55 million years, compared to 4600 million years is relatively young. Wind causes errosion, but it's neglible if the mountain rises faster than it errodes.
@Helge129 I wasn't comparing 55 million years to 4.6 billion years. You're forgetting about the existence of the geologic column still existing when erosion would have destroyed it 3 times over in the past 65 million years regardless of whether or not uplift happens faster of slower.
@ironman197268 For one, look at the Dover vs Kitzmiller case, where they spewed one lie after the other to promote their case. Three words: "Intelligent Design Promponentists", which is a typo where they didn't properly replace "Creationists". ID is creationism rebranded, and fails to provide evidence...while there are I think over 300,000 articles confirming evolution...and none for creationism.
@Helge129 I could care less about dover and kitzmiller, and I don't care if there's a trillion articles that confirm evolution, there is no evidence for it at all. 300,000 articles where all written by 300,000 lying bias atheist evilutionists, so all those articles are as useful as toilet paper to me. And the most certainly is articles on creationism, my favorite one is The Holy Bible. So did you even read that so called fraudulent article I sent you?
@ironman197268 Yeah, The very first sentence is already incorrect. Evolution makes no prediction or claim on the Age of the Earth. It simply explains how life diversifies, period. Not more, not less.
Every single of those over 300000 "atheist evolutionist lying biased" articles provides evidence.
@Helge129 I might add here that due to the current topography of the continents, errosion rates are exorbitantly high, which is not usually the case.
And that most christians and muslims accept evolution, hell, any christian who denies evolution is commiting blasphemy, since the last pope said evolution is true, and he is infallible...according to christianity ;)
@Helge129 Well if the pope excepts evilution then God Yahweh help his soul, because not one page of scripture supports a theory that is getting more and more Embarrassing to it's community, from the lack of evidence to support it. And please skip that denial talk about evolution has nothing to do with anything, big bang, abiogenesis, and so on, cause...Yeah, it does. Evilution didn't happen in another multiverse and then teleported to our universe, and just got thrown into whatever was here.
@ironman197268 It doesn't matter if scripture supports it. The good thing about science is that it's true regardless of wether or not you believe it, unless you can falsify *insert random theory here*
Also using scripture as evidence is...weak-minded at best.
@Helge129 Even without the fossil record, even if the Earth was less than 10.000 years old, evolution would still work. It's been directly observed. One good example being nylonase. A mutation added I think 275 new genes, which alllowed a protein to be synthesized that allows the bacteria to digest nylon. This Is new information.
@Helge129 Evolution is not science, it's a fairy tale, and it's as far from the truth as you can get. I wasn't using The Bible as evidence, and even if I was it's not weak minded at all, that's just something on your wish list. You might want to delete your comment about evilution being possible in under 10,000 years, cause if your cronies see that they're going to flip out on you. Nylonase is a Joke!! I want to see baby snakes born with wings, monkeys born with human feet, etc...
@ironman197268 And at any time in this debate, please do not try and educate me on evolution by saying something like, "Humans didn't evolve from monkeys" cause I totally know how the fairy tale of evilution works.
@ironman197268 If it wasn't science, it wouldn't be accepted by the entirety of the scientific community. "I want to see baby snakes born with wings, monkeys born with human feet, etc..."
So you don't want to see evolution in action then? Because that would be evidence against evolution.
We didn't actually evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and Apes (that includes us, btw.) share a common ancestor.
The only reason the religion of evolution is alive is time, because YOU can't show it's happening today YOU claim it takes millions of years well FFS you must be pretty damn old to know that!
@909Kunfused909 We have observed it happening several times both in nature and in labratories.
And evolution aint a religion, its a scientific theorie developed to explain the variation of todays creatures and explaining how life changes over time.
@909Kunfused909 You must be an idiot to not understand what he's saying. And evolution is not a "Religion" if you don't want to understand the concept, then instead of hurting your little brain, go pray to your "God". And stay away from things you don't understand or don't care to understand.
The fact of the matter is, we don't need a fossil record to prove evolution happens. There is already mountains of evidence that supports Evolutionary theory without use of the fossil record. That we have a fossil record that ALSO confirms it is just icing on the cake.
It's reasonably proven that there have been evolution/change/ but how it have happened is a theory. Billions of living things are born every day, but no one have ever observed a new species been born. Evolution as the scammers precent it, is a hoax.
@johnsenkenn Thats because new species dont just get born from existing species. The process, called speciation, is slow and requires specific conditions, such as environmental change or isolation of a group from its parent group. There are many examples of speciation occurring in nature right now. Look into the Ensatina salamanders, Darwins finches of the Galapagos Islands, or African cichlids, just to name a few, and see for yourself.
Translation of your comment: "Lalalalala! I'm ignoring everything you said and am just repeating myself. Don't care how species are defined. I'm right and you're wrong."
I can't believe how ignorant some people are. A horse, donkey, zebra, etc are known as a sub-species; just like dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyotes. And there is a difference between donkeys, mules, and certain asses. Many of them can breed. Besides, the ability or inability to interbreed is not the sole deciding factor of what is a species. This really isn't up for debate. Get a biology textbook and educate yourself or quit disagreeing with people about something you don't know.
@Texoki Please explain what you think the Cambrian explosion means. Does the explosion mean that all living things appeared at once? What creatures appeared? Do you know that every species in the Cambrian was aquatic? And that not a single species is still in existance- all are now extinct. Do you think that indicates that man, and plants, and zebras were all spoken into existence in 6 days? The Cambrian era was about 60 million years long...not exactly an explosion, but fast geologically
@Texoki The Pre-Cambrian period was very long, with numerous soft-bodied creatures (some of which left fossils), but soft bodies would not be expected to fossilize often. This search may never yeild the quantity of ancestors that you seek. Your use of the concept of the Cambrian era indicates that you agree with geologists understanding of rocks, strata, and geological time. Are you selecting just the scientific findings that support the religious stories you've been taught since childhood?
Evolution for me is a false science. I say this for many reasons, 1. Evolutionists react emotionally when evolution is questioned. 2. Evolution always challenges creationist but never other scientists who question evolution. 3. Dawkins reacts unscientifically to others who question evoultion. 4. Scientists who have questioned evolution have been threathened, bullied and blackmailed who oppose evolution. Publishers have also been treated to the same treatment. If evolution is so true, why???
@AgApE010 - Why dont you google it, read it, and try to actually understand it. The facts are out there, yet when presented with them you will simply shut your eyes, plug your ears, and say "LA LA LA LA LA nope, god did it" just like every other person who has asked your question. I would put money on it that you have asked that question previously, and been conclusively answered, yet chose not to listen.
*whistles X-Files theme* Care to present some of these "facts"?
"...asked that question previously, and been conclusively answered"
Yes I have asked similar questions before, and no it has never, I repeat, NEVER been conclusively answered. It cannot be answered because there isn't any facts or even any sound evidence for common descent. That is why I ask that question, to gt people thinking about the theory before they just blindly accept it.
@AgApE010 It has never been conclusively answered? Aren't fossils, morphological similarities, genetic evidence and simply tests under laboratory environments enough proof for evolution and a common descent?
I assume you're going against evolution in general here, and evolution HAS been proven, countless times. Just go to the Natural History Museum, ask one of the people who work there, they'll be glad to tell you numerous examples.
Otherwise, please clarify your objection to common descent.
There aren't any transitional fossils, so there is no help for you there, and homologous structures (morphological similarities) are hardly evidence of common descent. On the contrary, I would use homology as support for a same designer who created all these lifeforms.
@AgApE010 What do you mean there aren't any transitional fossils? What about things like Lucy, homo erectus.... fossils of man-like apes which are now extinct. You could just google transitional fossils, or visit a museum, they can show you countless examples.
And how is the fact that a whale's flipper looks exactly like a monkey's hand proof of a creator? It points toward the fact that they both have a common ancestor. A God could've made a whale's flipper more effective easily by chaning bones
What man-like ape fossils? There are none. Lucy was a chimp. It is really not used as evidence any longer. I mean, my goodness, it's the same thing from Darwinists. Do you ever really study biology at all? By the way, when's the last time you saw a whale flipper with a thumb? I'm aware that certain skeletal structures are similar in different animals. I explained how homology equally points to a creator; don't make me repeat myself please.
@AgApE010 Lucy was not a chimp, Lucy was an Australopithecus afarensis, a humanoid. This species was the ancestor of both the Australopithecus and Homo genus. Humans belong to the Homo genus. Oh, and whale flippers with thumbs? Just look up the bone structure, you'll clearly see a thumb there.
And finally, no you did not explain how homology points to a creator, you simply claimed it to be so. If you can explain/ prove why it proves a creator, please do so.
I didn't say homology "proves" a Creator. I said that homology is equally as much evidence of a common designer; for if the same designer did indeed create the different species, we would expect to see a similar design from this same designer.
@AgApE010 Well, that's assuming that creator has a limited imagination, which would be true for any human creator, but I don't see how that would fit into a divine designer.
Apart from that, the homological similarities do not just exist in living species, but also in already extinct ones, and species like donkeys and horses can be traced back to get more and more similar, until they are one species, which means donkeys and horses had a common ancestor.
I agree that donkeys and horses (and also zebras) had a common ancestor; a horse-like animal. Just like how dogs, foxes, wolves, coyotes all have a common ancestor; a dog-like animal (I think it is said to be the grey timberwolf if I'm not mistaken). We need to distinguish if we are speaking of evolution on the micro level, as in the examples given above, or evolution on the macro level, as Darwin taught it and as you believe.
@AgApE010 What would you consider the difference between macro and micro evolution?In my view, there's no such thing, there's just evolution on a large or a small timescale.
Evolution on the micro level is the examples I gave: wolves, coyotes, dogs, all having a common, dog-like ancestor; horses, zebras, and donkeys all having a common, horse-like ancestor; etc. What you believe is that through these changes on the micro level, a change on the macro level will happen given enough time (and chance). For this there is no evidence. The mutations and variations are always within the framework of the particular species, never crossing that boundary.
@AgApE010 Sorry, I wouldn't know about that. But zebras, horses and donkeys are, since they cannot create fertile offspring, which is the definition of a species.
A species, by definition, is "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." Your definition doesn't seem to fit exactly. A subspecies is a subdivision, including the horse family and dog family we're speaking of, including others as well.
@AgApE010 Well, first off, horses, donkey and zebras do indeed belong to the same genus, the equus genus, but they are defined as different species.
Apart from that, regardless of which definition you use, the one about any offspirng or the one about fertile offspring, the evidence for interspeciary evolution is abundant.
My friend, I'm telling you, they are known as a sub-species. Look up my information and please put it to the test. But don't simply respond to me with a "no it's not" sort of comment; I've told you about those before.
I never said horses weren't a species; so I agree with your Wikipedia and Collier's Encyclopedia info. I said that horses, zebras, and donkeys are not each a different, separate species; they are what is known as a sub-species, as I previously stated.
@AgApE010 I know this may sound childish, but it's true: they're not. Donkey belong to the species of Equus africanus, , horses belong to the species of Equus ferus caballus and there are even three separate species of zebra. Each of these species are also divided into subspecies. If you do not believe me, please do look it up.
I disagree; there is a need for fossils. For if all living animals gradually evolved on the macro level from a common ancestor, we should expect to find at least a small handful of clear transitionals (that is, of course, unless you believe in Gould's pseudo-scientific punctuated equilibrium theory).
That is not a very convincing response. Secondly, there isn't any real transitional fossils. The ones that are argued to be transitionals (the most well known of which are archaeopteryx and tiktaalik) are read into by biased Darwinists who want to make them out to be transitional, a crime that is seen all too often thanks to the rise of Darwinian pseudo-science. No objective observer would consider these creatures to be transitionals; the very evidence is against such a conclusion.
I didn't say homology isn't evidence of common descent; I said homology can be equally understood as evidence of the same designer creating all the species. I went into a little more detail about this in my comment to jursle if you you care to look.
-
Think the same designer using the same design on different species.
"no it has never, I repeat, NEVER been conclusively answered." Lets start with the Human/Ape link in Chromosome 2 and throw in ERV's as a bonus. We'll see where we get form there.
There is a 93-95% similarity between us and chimpanzees, I understand. However, have you looked into the vast differences in that 5-7% that makes us different? It sounds like a small number;don't let that throw you off. There is genetic similarity between all types of odd lifeforms, like carp and ferns, if I remember correctly.ERVs are no support for Darwinism. The reason why the ERV is on the same place on our genome as in the apes is because they are only functional in that area.
@AgApE010 Still waiting for Chromosome 2 ... And no, there is, at the moment, no scientific data on limitations on possible ERV locations. And even IF the location were limited, it still wouldn't explain the exact same locations, the same marks scattered widely across the full life spectrum, fully supporting the evolutionary tree.
I replied to your Chromosome 2 argument. You were referring to the genetic similarity argument, were you not?
-
Scientific data shows that the ERVs we share with the great apes are similar in that one location on our genome for aiding in the production of placenta. It would be non-functional in other places on the genome. This is really common knowledge on this topic. I will not respond to any more "no, it's not" responses.
"replied to your Chromosome 2 argument" No, it's the clear merging markers within Chromosome 2. The missing chromosome creationists used to mock evolution. To point out a missing chromosome would mean we could never have evolved from apes. And we find a merging point. Clear markers. Hey, where did those Goal Posts go?
Possible. I´d rank it more unlikely than an honest politician though. And to be quite frank, if he´s anything like the bible and preachers says, i want nothing to do with him.
@TheInternational1 I have an item, a fun sparkly item that is in fact invisible. This item, when held int he palm of your hand, will make a person invisible as well. Is the burden on me to prove the item exists or on you? I can guarantee you cannot prove it does not. Prove first to me your magical creature exists. Then, we can talk about it's magical abilities.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
common ancestry is no fact!!!!! the video talks of hyphotesis' and test, yet there is not test in wich evolution is seen. there must be intelligent design, otherwise the earth would be filled with fossils of creatures who died becuase the were not lucky enough to evolve say, a digestive system, eyes or anything else that almost all creatures have. how can everything have a digestive system that works much alike, just by sheer chance
You do know how hard it is to form a fossil that will last millions of years? And how much of the earth do you think has been scoured for fossils? less than 0.1% I would think. Also even there was a lack of fossils, it doesn't mean "There must be intelligent design." You should watch the video on youtube about fallacies, and perhaps learn stuff :)
sorry chum, the vast majority of the world's organisms (numerically and by weight) have no eyes or digestive systems (or brains or legs or the ability to have sex) and they are doing great, thanks. The fact that you use the phrase "sheer chance" shows that you have been listening to people with an agenda against evolution & not learning about what it actually is. good luck!
because they all descended from a common ancestor who had all those things, duh. this is just like those creationist loons who think every species would have had to independently evolve as both male and female. how can you not see the inanity of this idea?
@Niekdvries248, there are many tests. There is the predicted discovery of Tiktaalik, there's the fusion of chromosome #2, the presence of endogenous retroviruses all of which support evolution AND the latter two prove common-descent (there are a great number more).
So nylon eating bacteria have always existed? Because Nylon was invented in 1935 and did not exist prior. Then what did the nylon eating bacteria eat before nylon was invented?
That alone is proof of evolution. Or will you demand more? Maybe you need cellphone eating bacteria before you can accept the evidence as fact?
"at least Jehovah's witnesses want you to join them aka an obnoxious form of acceptance, vs the Atheists that snub you and treat you like an imbecile with an IQ of 40 if you think there might be a god"
This one made me laugh.
You are accusing atheists of being discriminatory, condescending and demeaning? Wow. I think my dramatic irony meter just red-lined and shorted out.
Religions snub ANYWAY who doesn't see things their way. Or worse, they stone you to death. Nice tolerance there.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ronaldosronaldos no they're worse. at least Jehovah's witnesses want you to join them aka an obnoxious form of acceptance, vs the Atheists that snub you and treat you like an imbecile with an IQ of 40 if you think there might be a god. That and they can't seem to be quiet....i'm waiting for some slob to flame my response...wait for it...
well if you think about what religous people believe they may just have an iq of forty, have you ever met a christian genius and also jws dont accept anything except their own beliefs, I used to be one
What ScottMana is saying is true, though maybe misunderstood.
Evolution to the limits it is meant to explain, is well supported by evidence, but is sometimes described as the basis for more than it's meant to explain, such as the origin of life or the universe. It's only meant to explain the diversity of life.
I will say, though, that I see that kind of stretching of the meaning of evolution more often from the Intelligent designers trying to argue against it.
Thank you for helping me with this. I didn't realize how few people would understand my post.
Just because evolution is grounded in fact does not mean it is free of people that wish to attach sweeping explanations. All to often people lose sight of the facts and get stuck in a game with creationists over the origins of life. That they label themselves in the evolution camp serves to confuse people as to were the facts end and the faith begins.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ScottMana no, we "ignorant masses" simply don't know why we should learn a story that serves no meaning at all, explains nothing, and contradicts itself way too often: aka the disturbing lack of transition species found. and before you say "tissue rots" we've found fossilized bacteria, and feathers on velociraptors.
i will grant you its clever to leave out how to explain how cells were created, since scientists have been saying they'd figure it out 50 years ago and eventually said meteors...
"no, we "ignorant masses" simply don't know why we should learn a story that serves no meaning at all, explains nothing, and contradicts itself way too often"
"a story that serves no meaning at all, explains nothing"
Except make any meaning out of paleontology, give basics for any and all biological-related disciplines, give anthropologist great ideas and "instruments" to figure out where our species comes from, etc...
If you genuinely think that the prevailing theory of cell origins is "meteors", you're vastly misinformed. I'd recommend glancing at the wikipedia entry for abiogenesis, and watching the excellent video watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg by cdk007.
I wouldn't call it prevailing but 'Panspermia' is a viable theory with growing support. Marcus Chowns' book The Universe Next Door, outlines some of the evidence for the theory(more has been gathered since publication) and I'd heartily recommend it(as well as anything else written by Chown).
Gelyar, I find this sentence to be extremely full of meaning:
"no, we ignorant masses simply don't know why we should learn a story that serves no meaning at all, explains nothing, and contraddicts itself way too often"
Ironically enough, if you were a TINY bit honest you'd find out that that sentence PERFECTLY fits the bible you're so desperately trying to defend.
Stupid humans are a subset of humans so the original is not incorrect on those grounds.
Just as 'I made this picture with crayons' and 'I made this picture with red crayons' are both correct. (Assuming I'm presenting a red crayon picture.)
As it goes, I tend to think gods were created by quite clever humans...
yes that must be true because there were no atheists be fore the internets were invented!! Thank the one true living god you were here to point it out toe godless masses!
P.S. most atheists know the bible far better than the average church goer. Because they have actually read it cover to cover with an open mind and not been spoon fed by a trained brain washer....oh sorry...preacher,that can only make his point with contrived emotion and tears on que. Nice try but I was raised in church.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DINDRAGON let them say they've created gods, its just that much more funny, and sad when they can't solve world hunger, war or even their own theories. creators of gods indeed; the god of delusions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Both Creationists and Evolutionists are all too often stuffed with ilogical garbadge. They make the same ligic errors. You would almost think they both grew up on the same planet and in the same culture.
Neither is correct. However evolution is founded is facts if you will take the time to note what they are.
All too often an evolutionist will try to over reach the facts and say that evolution has enough facts to explain the origins of life. It does not.
@ScottMana -wow, kid, first, learn to spell 'logical.' Second, don't you dare compare creationism to evolution. Creationism tries to force religion and evil on others. Evolution, is just a fact. You're the kind of moron who would sit on the fence like a coward and call black rights just as bad as racism. Third, an Evolutionist isn't even a real thing, you moron. Its a made up word. Fourth, Evolution has Nothing to Do with the Origin of Life! Thats Abiogenesis you tard. Educate yourself, Biotch!!
Now realize that you starting reading my post as if you already knew what I was going to say. That must be why you misunderstood it so badly.
Your right, "Evolutionist" is not a real thing. The facts of evolution are exact, so what would you call people that stretch these facts?
Well I already created a name for them, I call then "Evolutionists". It a little joke. My post was in fact a warning to those that have yet to perceive the limitations of the facts.
However I have to thank you for leaving out the profanity and insults.
To use your own words i will now restate my post: " The origin of life is not part of what Evolution even attempts to explain." and now some words of my own - But sometimes there people who feel they must correct creationists and over reach the facts explain the origins of life. To these overreaching types, I call them 'Evolutionists'". Is my post a little clearer now?
@ScottMana said "To these overreaching types, I call them 'Evolutionists.'"
When you decide to post a comment you need to decide what your post is aiming to accomplish. If you intend it to be form of communication then you need to use words in common usage rather than make them up, especially when the word isn't new. Just Google "evolutionist or evolutionists" and you'll find you didn't exactly invent it. So if you use it; it's highly unlikely that anyone will know what you mean.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ScottMana yes clearly it doesn't matter where life came from since we can't explain it. Question: science uses formulas and theory's to tell where something came from and is going. if evolution can't predict or explain why life is the way it is, of what use is it?
honestly evelution is trash not worth teaching. at the bear minimum the bible tells not to shag monkeys, which by the way is how we got the HIV virus. however everything in the bible is bunk because thats what the media tells us...
"evolution has enough facts to explain the origins of life"
Well, duuh! Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life because the evolutionary process started AFTER the first life form appeared on earth. The branch of science that tries to find out the origins of life is called abiogenesis.
I was with this until it refered to religion and intelligent design as "worthy topics." It did say they weren't science, but they are not "worthy topics" either.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When a woman finds a man who gives good head, (cunnilingus) she's found a treasure she's not going to let go of too quickly. There is nothing that makes a woman more unique than her pussy. They come in all different sizes, colors and shapes; some are tucked inside and some have thick luscious lips.
a smart woman gives very precise direction, and a decent man can follow it. pussies are unique, just like what feels good to them. men are not mindreaders. most do follow instructions reasonably well however.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Life forms are clearly discrete, appearing either in one form or another, but never in an in-between form. This definition fails to distinguish between the observable variations within a kind (see below), and the unobserved morphing between kinds required by Darwinian theory. In some cases, it would be more accurate biologically and biblically to refer to organisms as being in "discrete groups" and showing "variation within a kind," rather than using the term "macroevolution."
Good Video.. Thanks.. Right...
Spasatcom 2 weeks ago
Right
DRMcG33 1 month ago
Too stupid for science? Try religion.
kriss299 1 month ago 2
You can make the most peaceful sounding and intelligent looking video that you want, but it can't make EVILution the truth. Evolution is the 2nd most BIGGEST LIE known to man, and anybody who believes it's even believable is insane!!
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 *sigh*...... so "god" just made dinosaurs and millions of other extinct creatures then wipes the slate clean with a flood and started over? the fossil record proves evolution, if you didn't get all your education from other Christians you'd know this. And shocker! my father is a Christian minister who i love dearly, so I'm not ignorant to religion, but you are ignorant to basic science that they teach you in infant school!
malango255 1 month ago
@malango255 Here we go!! God Yahweh can do anything he wants, and he most certainly did cause a flood to wipe the slate clean and start over. Proof only exists in math, and certainly not in your fossil record. Evolution is as far from the truth as you can get. Tell me how your fossil record survived 100s of Millions of years worth of Erosion. And you can skip the uplift crap talk because if that's true you wouldn't have a fossil record, or a geologic column.
ironman197268 1 month ago
@ironman197268 I facepalm at your ignorance and arrogance.
Helge129 5 days ago in playlist Weitere Videos von FFreeThinker
@Helge129 Why am I ignorant? Can you tell me how the geologic column survived millions of years of erosion? And please do not tell me to read a geology book.
ironman197268 5 days ago
@ironman197268 Vegetation for one, stops errosion almost completely in some cases. Also it takes hundreds of millions of years for stuff to completely errode away, and the crust is constantly being "replenished" so to say, from sediments, etc.
Helge129 5 days ago
@Helge129 Vegetation, are you serious?
"Also it takes hundreds of millions of years for stuff to completely eroded away, and the crust is constantly being "replenished"
That's great but, you just destroyed the geological column's existence.
ironman197268 5 days ago
@ironman197268 No, I did not. Also the age of the earth is not solely based on the oldest rock on Earth - which is 3.7 billion years old - but also on stuff in the solar system. All of that stuff is 4.6 billion years old.
Helge129 5 days ago
@Helge129 oh man you need to give it up!! You did not What? Erosion is a fact that you cannot Deny. How does Slow burial of organisms make such a detailed fossil?
ironman197268 5 days ago
@ironman197268 slow burial? Not at all. It's fast burial, such as mud avalanches, or burial in oxygen-poor environments, such as swamps, that gives fossils. The millions of fossils we do have, are the few that were buried under such conditions. Most animals that die never or only partially fossilize.
Helge129 5 days ago
@Helge129 Or how bout a world wide flood?
ironman197268 4 days ago
@ironman197268 Strata disprove that.
Helge129 4 days ago
@Helge129 How does strata disprove that? The strata layers are excellent evidence for a world wide flood.
ironman197268 3 days ago
@ironman197268 No, they are proof that a global flood never happened. If a global flood happened, strata would not have appeared, but all the materials layered into strata would be mixed together uniformly.
Helge129 3 days ago
@Helge129 So all those layers were layed down over millions of years?
ironman197268 3 days ago
@ironman197268 billions in fact, yes.
Helge129 3 days ago
@Helge129 How is that possible with all that erosion going on at the same time? Current erosion rates would level the continents in less than 25 million years, why does Mt Everest still have petrified marine life on it's top?
ironman197268 3 days ago
@ironman197268 That is incorrect. The errosion rates are different everywhere and at different altitudes. In high mountains, such as the himalaya, errosion occurs almost exclusively through glaciers. It never rains, if at all snows. And Mr. Everest is a relatively young mountain. I'm no geologist, mind you. I suggest you watch the "Earth Story" series of documentaries on the channel "EvolutionDocumentary", explains it better than I ever could.
Helge129 3 days ago
@Helge129 Then maybe you should watch it. Hey man... Wind causes erosion too, along with whatever critters are roaming the land, and water, and oxidation, etc... Mt. Everest's peak has supposedly been uplifting for 55 million years, how can you say it's relatively young?
ironman197268 3 days ago
@ironman197268 55 million years, compared to 4600 million years is relatively young. Wind causes errosion, but it's neglible if the mountain rises faster than it errodes.
Helge129 3 days ago
@Helge129 I wasn't comparing 55 million years to 4.6 billion years. You're forgetting about the existence of the geologic column still existing when erosion would have destroyed it 3 times over in the past 65 million years regardless of whether or not uplift happens faster of slower.
ironman197268 2 days ago
@ironman197268 That's the thing tho, it would not. Erosion is different everywhere, and depends on what kind of rock you have.
Helge129 2 days ago
@Helge129 If ICR has been proven to be a fraud, then you should be able to give me some really good evidence for that.
ironman197268 2 days ago
@ironman197268 For one, look at the Dover vs Kitzmiller case, where they spewed one lie after the other to promote their case. Three words: "Intelligent Design Promponentists", which is a typo where they didn't properly replace "Creationists". ID is creationism rebranded, and fails to provide evidence...while there are I think over 300,000 articles confirming evolution...and none for creationism.
Helge129 2 days ago
@Helge129 I could care less about dover and kitzmiller, and I don't care if there's a trillion articles that confirm evolution, there is no evidence for it at all. 300,000 articles where all written by 300,000 lying bias atheist evilutionists, so all those articles are as useful as toilet paper to me. And the most certainly is articles on creationism, my favorite one is The Holy Bible. So did you even read that so called fraudulent article I sent you?
ironman197268 1 day ago
@ironman197268 Yeah, The very first sentence is already incorrect. Evolution makes no prediction or claim on the Age of the Earth. It simply explains how life diversifies, period. Not more, not less.
Every single of those over 300000 "atheist evolutionist lying biased" articles provides evidence.
Helge129 1 day ago
@Helge129 I might add here that due to the current topography of the continents, errosion rates are exorbitantly high, which is not usually the case.
And that most christians and muslims accept evolution, hell, any christian who denies evolution is commiting blasphemy, since the last pope said evolution is true, and he is infallible...according to christianity ;)
Helge129 1 day ago
@Helge129 Well if the pope excepts evilution then God Yahweh help his soul, because not one page of scripture supports a theory that is getting more and more Embarrassing to it's community, from the lack of evidence to support it. And please skip that denial talk about evolution has nothing to do with anything, big bang, abiogenesis, and so on, cause...Yeah, it does. Evilution didn't happen in another multiverse and then teleported to our universe, and just got thrown into whatever was here.
ironman197268 1 day ago
@ironman197268 It doesn't matter if scripture supports it. The good thing about science is that it's true regardless of wether or not you believe it, unless you can falsify *insert random theory here*
Also using scripture as evidence is...weak-minded at best.
Helge129 1 day ago
@Helge129 Even without the fossil record, even if the Earth was less than 10.000 years old, evolution would still work. It's been directly observed. One good example being nylonase. A mutation added I think 275 new genes, which alllowed a protein to be synthesized that allows the bacteria to digest nylon. This Is new information.
Helge129 1 day ago in playlist Weitere Videos von FFreeThinker
@Helge129 Evolution is not science, it's a fairy tale, and it's as far from the truth as you can get. I wasn't using The Bible as evidence, and even if I was it's not weak minded at all, that's just something on your wish list. You might want to delete your comment about evilution being possible in under 10,000 years, cause if your cronies see that they're going to flip out on you. Nylonase is a Joke!! I want to see baby snakes born with wings, monkeys born with human feet, etc...
ironman197268 15 hours ago
@ironman197268 And at any time in this debate, please do not try and educate me on evolution by saying something like, "Humans didn't evolve from monkeys" cause I totally know how the fairy tale of evilution works.
ironman197268 15 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ironman197268 If it wasn't science, it wouldn't be accepted by the entirety of the scientific community. "I want to see baby snakes born with wings, monkeys born with human feet, etc..."
So you don't want to see evolution in action then? Because that would be evidence against evolution.
We didn't actually evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and Apes (that includes us, btw.) share a common ancestor.
Helge129 14 hours ago
@Helge129 You will be excomulgated by your peers! You need the billions of years!
raponte1955 6 hours ago
The only reason the religion of evolution is alive is time, because YOU can't show it's happening today YOU claim it takes millions of years well FFS you must be pretty damn old to know that!
909Kunfused909 9 months ago
@909Kunfused909 We have observed it happening several times both in nature and in labratories.
And evolution aint a religion, its a scientific theorie developed to explain the variation of todays creatures and explaining how life changes over time.
Sweddude 9 months ago
@909Kunfused909 You must be an idiot to not understand what he's saying. And evolution is not a "Religion" if you don't want to understand the concept, then instead of hurting your little brain, go pray to your "God". And stay away from things you don't understand or don't care to understand.
geniusjas87 8 months ago
@909Kunfused909 lololoololololololololololololol
adamsturgeon99 7 months ago
@909Kunfused909 Actually evolution has been observed in labs and reproduced decades ago.
Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution
IRFAN D. PRIJAMBADA, SEIJI NEGORO,* TETSUYA YOMO, AND ITARU URABE
Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka 565, Japan
Received 7 November 1994/Accepted 8 February 1995
gregrutz 5 months ago
I really love this series.
redrobbietv 9 months ago
The fact of the matter is, we don't need a fossil record to prove evolution happens. There is already mountains of evidence that supports Evolutionary theory without use of the fossil record. That we have a fossil record that ALSO confirms it is just icing on the cake.
BiggestOfDaddies 10 months ago
It's reasonably proven that there have been evolution/change/ but how it have happened is a theory. Billions of living things are born every day, but no one have ever observed a new species been born. Evolution as the scammers precent it, is a hoax.
johnsenkenn 11 months ago
@johnsenkenn Thats because new species dont just get born from existing species. The process, called speciation, is slow and requires specific conditions, such as environmental change or isolation of a group from its parent group. There are many examples of speciation occurring in nature right now. Look into the Ensatina salamanders, Darwins finches of the Galapagos Islands, or African cichlids, just to name a few, and see for yourself.
AgeOfScience 11 months ago
There are multiple experiments done to prove the origin of life and how it evolved. Do your research. Read a biology book. There are fossils.
A.I. Oparin and J.S. Haldane:the oceans were a solution of organic molecules with an electron adding atmosphere.
In 1953, Miller and Urey tested the theory: stimulated an early atmosphere and gained animo acids and organic compounds instantly.
Also, drip amino acid solutions onto hot sand, clay or rock and immediately, amino acid polymers are formed.
GreenSaddle 1 year ago
eehhh the series was alright but still needs work.
Franco20055 1 year ago
Well said.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
Great!!!
missuniversemusic 1 year ago
The topic is to VAST! What a pile of crap.This video like all evolution video's tell us noting.
Goldie450 1 year ago
Imagination Are not Facts
drshamast 1 year ago
does ET beings have a role in the evolution of life on earth that in fact life might have been introduced by alien visitors?
paulkawsek 1 year ago
@Berniebays
-
Translation of your comment: "Lalalalala! I'm ignoring everything you said and am just repeating myself. Don't care how species are defined. I'm right and you're wrong."
-
Just go away.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@Berniebays
-
I can't believe how ignorant some people are. A horse, donkey, zebra, etc are known as a sub-species; just like dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyotes. And there is a difference between donkeys, mules, and certain asses. Many of them can breed. Besides, the ability or inability to interbreed is not the sole deciding factor of what is a species. This really isn't up for debate. Get a biology textbook and educate yourself or quit disagreeing with people about something you don't know.
AgApE010 1 year ago
Evolution is Gods method of creation.
samdon815 1 year ago
@samdon815 LOL!
finchfrance 1 year ago
@finchfrance ?
samdon815 1 year ago
.
Can you name the transitional fossils ancestors
.
of the 100 Phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki Please explain what you think the Cambrian explosion means. Does the explosion mean that all living things appeared at once? What creatures appeared? Do you know that every species in the Cambrian was aquatic? And that not a single species is still in existance- all are now extinct. Do you think that indicates that man, and plants, and zebras were all spoken into existence in 6 days? The Cambrian era was about 60 million years long...not exactly an explosion, but fast geologically
pardh1961 3 months ago
@Texoki The Pre-Cambrian period was very long, with numerous soft-bodied creatures (some of which left fossils), but soft bodies would not be expected to fossilize often. This search may never yeild the quantity of ancestors that you seek. Your use of the concept of the Cambrian era indicates that you agree with geologists understanding of rocks, strata, and geological time. Are you selecting just the scientific findings that support the religious stories you've been taught since childhood?
pardh1961 3 months ago
Evolution for me is a false science. I say this for many reasons, 1. Evolutionists react emotionally when evolution is questioned. 2. Evolution always challenges creationist but never other scientists who question evolution. 3. Dawkins reacts unscientifically to others who question evoultion. 4. Scientists who have questioned evolution have been threathened, bullied and blackmailed who oppose evolution. Publishers have also been treated to the same treatment. If evolution is so true, why???
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
evolution cant explain the golden ratio
jtyoung18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
evolution cant explain the golden ratio
jtyoung18 1 year ago
Quick, simple, and to the point. Very well done.
Malk284 1 year ago
Islam destroys atheism by Modern Scientific facts & Google Earth on my tube ❤ ｡◕‿◕
(evolutionists admit: no evidence) is a video on my tube ❤ ｡◕‿◕
anashkhss 1 year ago
@anashkhss Islam destroys atheism by modern scientific facts? that is one of the most stupid things I have ever read.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@anashkhss fail..
Gplex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anashkhss
"Islam destroys atheism by Modern Scientific Facts" The only think I ever saw Islam destroy using modern science, is the WTC.
wimscheers 1 year ago 2
THIS is what I BELIEVE in
lostismyconstent 1 year ago
If Common Descent is fact, what is the proof?
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - Why dont you google it, read it, and try to actually understand it. The facts are out there, yet when presented with them you will simply shut your eyes, plug your ears, and say "LA LA LA LA LA nope, god did it" just like every other person who has asked your question. I would put money on it that you have asked that question previously, and been conclusively answered, yet chose not to listen.
Hardysamnin 1 year ago
@Hardysamnin
"The facts are out there"
*whistles X-Files theme* Care to present some of these "facts"?
"...asked that question previously, and been conclusively answered"
Yes I have asked similar questions before, and no it has never, I repeat, NEVER been conclusively answered. It cannot be answered because there isn't any facts or even any sound evidence for common descent. That is why I ask that question, to gt people thinking about the theory before they just blindly accept it.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - Type it in google, and read..... don't be lazy and make me fucking spoon feed you.
Hardysamnin 1 year ago
@AgApE010 It has never been conclusively answered? Aren't fossils, morphological similarities, genetic evidence and simply tests under laboratory environments enough proof for evolution and a common descent?
I assume you're going against evolution in general here, and evolution HAS been proven, countless times. Just go to the Natural History Museum, ask one of the people who work there, they'll be glad to tell you numerous examples.
Otherwise, please clarify your objection to common descent.
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle
-
There aren't any transitional fossils, so there is no help for you there, and homologous structures (morphological similarities) are hardly evidence of common descent. On the contrary, I would use homology as support for a same designer who created all these lifeforms.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 What do you mean there aren't any transitional fossils? What about things like Lucy, homo erectus.... fossils of man-like apes which are now extinct. You could just google transitional fossils, or visit a museum, they can show you countless examples.
And how is the fact that a whale's flipper looks exactly like a monkey's hand proof of a creator? It points toward the fact that they both have a common ancestor. A God could've made a whale's flipper more effective easily by chaning bones
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle
-
What man-like ape fossils? There are none. Lucy was a chimp. It is really not used as evidence any longer. I mean, my goodness, it's the same thing from Darwinists. Do you ever really study biology at all? By the way, when's the last time you saw a whale flipper with a thumb? I'm aware that certain skeletal structures are similar in different animals. I explained how homology equally points to a creator; don't make me repeat myself please.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Lucy was not a chimp, Lucy was an Australopithecus afarensis, a humanoid. This species was the ancestor of both the Australopithecus and Homo genus. Humans belong to the Homo genus. Oh, and whale flippers with thumbs? Just look up the bone structure, you'll clearly see a thumb there.
And finally, no you did not explain how homology points to a creator, you simply claimed it to be so. If you can explain/ prove why it proves a creator, please do so.
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle
-
I didn't say homology "proves" a Creator. I said that homology is equally as much evidence of a common designer; for if the same designer did indeed create the different species, we would expect to see a similar design from this same designer.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Well, that's assuming that creator has a limited imagination, which would be true for any human creator, but I don't see how that would fit into a divine designer.
Apart from that, the homological similarities do not just exist in living species, but also in already extinct ones, and species like donkeys and horses can be traced back to get more and more similar, until they are one species, which means donkeys and horses had a common ancestor.
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle
-
I agree that donkeys and horses (and also zebras) had a common ancestor; a horse-like animal. Just like how dogs, foxes, wolves, coyotes all have a common ancestor; a dog-like animal (I think it is said to be the grey timberwolf if I'm not mistaken). We need to distinguish if we are speaking of evolution on the micro level, as in the examples given above, or evolution on the macro level, as Darwin taught it and as you believe.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 What would you consider the difference between macro and micro evolution?In my view, there's no such thing, there's just evolution on a large or a small timescale.
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle
-
Evolution on the micro level is the examples I gave: wolves, coyotes, dogs, all having a common, dog-like ancestor; horses, zebras, and donkeys all having a common, horse-like ancestor; etc. What you believe is that through these changes on the micro level, a change on the macro level will happen given enough time (and chance). For this there is no evidence. The mutations and variations are always within the framework of the particular species, never crossing that boundary.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 So basically, Micro-evolution is change within a species, macro-evolution is species changing into other species?
Then do you realize donkeys, zebras, horses, wolves, coyotes and dogs are all different species?
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle
-
Wolves, dogs, and coyotes are not a different species. They are known as a sub-species.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Sorry, I wouldn't know about that. But zebras, horses and donkeys are, since they cannot create fertile offspring, which is the definition of a species.
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle
-
A species, by definition, is "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." Your definition doesn't seem to fit exactly. A subspecies is a subdivision, including the horse family and dog family we're speaking of, including others as well.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Well, first off, horses, donkey and zebras do indeed belong to the same genus, the equus genus, but they are defined as different species.
Apart from that, regardless of which definition you use, the one about any offspirng or the one about fertile offspring, the evidence for interspeciary evolution is abundant.
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle
-
My friend, I'm telling you, they are known as a sub-species. Look up my information and please put it to the test. But don't simply respond to me with a "no it's not" sort of comment; I've told you about those before.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Well, I can hardly look your information up if I don't know your sources ^_^
Personally, I got my info on horses being a species from Wikipedia, and Collier's encyclopedia, since Wiki isn't very reliable.
jursle 1 year ago
@jursle
-
I never said horses weren't a species; so I agree with your Wikipedia and Collier's Encyclopedia info. I said that horses, zebras, and donkeys are not each a different, separate species; they are what is known as a sub-species, as I previously stated.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 I know this may sound childish, but it's true: they're not. Donkey belong to the species of Equus africanus, , horses belong to the species of Equus ferus caballus and there are even three separate species of zebra. Each of these species are also divided into subspecies. If you do not believe me, please do look it up.
jursle 1 year ago
@AgApE010 no, these are diferent species of the same genus.
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@VarykGerai wolf and coyote that is.
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@AgApE010 no need for fossils, look up gobon skull.
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@VarykGerai
-
I disagree; there is a need for fossils. For if all living animals gradually evolved on the macro level from a common ancestor, we should expect to find at least a small handful of clear transitionals (that is, of course, unless you believe in Gould's pseudo-scientific punctuated equilibrium theory).
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 there are loads of transitional fossils.
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@VarykGerai
-
That is not a very convincing response. Secondly, there isn't any real transitional fossils. The ones that are argued to be transitionals (the most well known of which are archaeopteryx and tiktaalik) are read into by biased Darwinists who want to make them out to be transitional, a crime that is seen all too often thanks to the rise of Darwinian pseudo-science. No objective observer would consider these creatures to be transitionals; the very evidence is against such a conclusion.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 nonsence en . wikipedia . org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@AgApE010 how are homologous structures not an evidence for a common descent?
cows with chicken leggs, dogs with horse tail, that would be evidence for a designer.
Think animal generator randomly picking diferent body parts.
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@VarykGerai
-
I didn't say homology isn't evidence of common descent; I said homology can be equally understood as evidence of the same designer creating all the species. I went into a little more detail about this in my comment to jursle if you you care to look.
-
Think the same designer using the same design on different species.
AgApE010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgApE010 actualy you did sasy that "and homologous structures (morphological similarities) are hardly evidence of common descent"
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@AgApE010
"no it has never, I repeat, NEVER been conclusively answered." Lets start with the Human/Ape link in Chromosome 2 and throw in ERV's as a bonus. We'll see where we get form there.
wimscheers 1 year ago
@wimscheers
-
There is a 93-95% similarity between us and chimpanzees, I understand. However, have you looked into the vast differences in that 5-7% that makes us different? It sounds like a small number;don't let that throw you off. There is genetic similarity between all types of odd lifeforms, like carp and ferns, if I remember correctly.ERVs are no support for Darwinism. The reason why the ERV is on the same place on our genome as in the apes is because they are only functional in that area.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Still waiting for Chromosome 2 ... And no, there is, at the moment, no scientific data on limitations on possible ERV locations. And even IF the location were limited, it still wouldn't explain the exact same locations, the same marks scattered widely across the full life spectrum, fully supporting the evolutionary tree.
wimscheers 1 year ago
@wimscheers
-
I replied to your Chromosome 2 argument. You were referring to the genetic similarity argument, were you not?
-
Scientific data shows that the ERVs we share with the great apes are similar in that one location on our genome for aiding in the production of placenta. It would be non-functional in other places on the genome. This is really common knowledge on this topic. I will not respond to any more "no, it's not" responses.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010
"replied to your Chromosome 2 argument" No, it's the clear merging markers within Chromosome 2. The missing chromosome creationists used to mock evolution. To point out a missing chromosome would mean we could never have evolved from apes. And we find a merging point. Clear markers. Hey, where did those Goal Posts go?
wimscheers 1 year ago
@AgApE010 which area are you talking about?
VarykGerai 1 year ago
REPENT: For the kingdom of heaven is at hand!! Christ Jesus (Yahshua) is coming back to judge us. You will remember this comment on judgement day.
TheInternational1 1 year ago
Possible. I´d rank it more unlikely than an honest politician though. And to be quite frank, if he´s anything like the bible and preachers says, i want nothing to do with him.
BigSwede7403 1 year ago
@TheInternational1 I have an item, a fun sparkly item that is in fact invisible. This item, when held int he palm of your hand, will make a person invisible as well. Is the burden on me to prove the item exists or on you? I can guarantee you cannot prove it does not. Prove first to me your magical creature exists. Then, we can talk about it's magical abilities.
skywize 1 year ago
that's it?
richmantck 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
common ancestry is no fact!!!!! the video talks of hyphotesis' and test, yet there is not test in wich evolution is seen. there must be intelligent design, otherwise the earth would be filled with fossils of creatures who died becuase the were not lucky enough to evolve say, a digestive system, eyes or anything else that almost all creatures have. how can everything have a digestive system that works much alike, just by sheer chance
Niekdvries248 1 year ago
You do know how hard it is to form a fossil that will last millions of years? And how much of the earth do you think has been scoured for fossils? less than 0.1% I would think. Also even there was a lack of fossils, it doesn't mean "There must be intelligent design." You should watch the video on youtube about fallacies, and perhaps learn stuff :)
quadeyquade 1 year ago 9
@Niekdvries248
Haha, maybe you should go to university and find out your answers. Are you actually going to seek an answer
tsferg 1 year ago
sorry chum, the vast majority of the world's organisms (numerically and by weight) have no eyes or digestive systems (or brains or legs or the ability to have sex) and they are doing great, thanks. The fact that you use the phrase "sheer chance" shows that you have been listening to people with an agenda against evolution & not learning about what it actually is. good luck!
wearealltubes 1 year ago 2
because they all descended from a common ancestor who had all those things, duh. this is just like those creationist loons who think every species would have had to independently evolve as both male and female. how can you not see the inanity of this idea?
wilsaljo 1 year ago
@Niekdvries248, there are many tests. There is the predicted discovery of Tiktaalik, there's the fusion of chromosome #2, the presence of endogenous retroviruses all of which support evolution AND the latter two prove common-descent (there are a great number more).
CodeSculptor 1 year ago
@Niekdvries248
So nylon eating bacteria have always existed? Because Nylon was invented in 1935 and did not exist prior. Then what did the nylon eating bacteria eat before nylon was invented?
That alone is proof of evolution. Or will you demand more? Maybe you need cellphone eating bacteria before you can accept the evidence as fact?
Grospoliner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"at least Jehovah's witnesses want you to join them aka an obnoxious form of acceptance, vs the Atheists that snub you and treat you like an imbecile with an IQ of 40 if you think there might be a god"
This one made me laugh.
You are accusing atheists of being discriminatory, condescending and demeaning? Wow. I think my dramatic irony meter just red-lined and shorted out.
Religions snub ANYWAY who doesn't see things their way. Or worse, they stone you to death. Nice tolerance there.
Diomedes01 1 year ago 4
@Diomedes01 the fact that some religious do-gooder marked your comment as spam nicely supports your point.
wearealltubes 1 year ago
i am not going to bother over unlimited hypothesis,however the length of the movie says it all.let the evidence speak and make statements,thank u!
mytube92369 1 year ago
Atheists who shit themselves over people with any sort of belief system are as obnoxious as the very people they whine about.
ronaldosronaldos 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ronaldosronaldos no they're worse. at least Jehovah's witnesses want you to join them aka an obnoxious form of acceptance, vs the Atheists that snub you and treat you like an imbecile with an IQ of 40 if you think there might be a god. That and they can't seem to be quiet....i'm waiting for some slob to flame my response...wait for it...
Gelyar 1 year ago
well if you think about what religous people believe they may just have an iq of forty, have you ever met a christian genius and also jws dont accept anything except their own beliefs, I used to be one
quote55 1 year ago
@Gelyar
I am afraid that is an easy outcome when the whole basis for your argument seem to be misconceptions, circular reasoning and arguments ad ignorantum.
Azotadeth 1 year ago
that what?
that ur iq is below 40?
pray hard
ptica11 1 year ago
What ScottMana is saying is true, though maybe misunderstood.
Evolution to the limits it is meant to explain, is well supported by evidence, but is sometimes described as the basis for more than it's meant to explain, such as the origin of life or the universe. It's only meant to explain the diversity of life.
I will say, though, that I see that kind of stretching of the meaning of evolution more often from the Intelligent designers trying to argue against it.
sasnsatx 1 year ago 2
Thank you for helping me with this. I didn't realize how few people would understand my post.
Just because evolution is grounded in fact does not mean it is free of people that wish to attach sweeping explanations. All to often people lose sight of the facts and get stuck in a game with creationists over the origins of life. That they label themselves in the evolution camp serves to confuse people as to were the facts end and the faith begins.
Some people find the above hard to read I guess.
ScottMana 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ScottMana no, we "ignorant masses" simply don't know why we should learn a story that serves no meaning at all, explains nothing, and contradicts itself way too often: aka the disturbing lack of transition species found. and before you say "tissue rots" we've found fossilized bacteria, and feathers on velociraptors.
i will grant you its clever to leave out how to explain how cells were created, since scientists have been saying they'd figure it out 50 years ago and eventually said meteors...
Gelyar 1 year ago
"no, we "ignorant masses" simply don't know why we should learn a story that serves no meaning at all, explains nothing, and contradicts itself way too often"
Sounds exactly like the bible!
hoffman164 1 year ago 4
@Gelyar
"a story that serves no meaning at all, explains nothing"
Except make any meaning out of paleontology, give basics for any and all biological-related disciplines, give anthropologist great ideas and "instruments" to figure out where our species comes from, etc...
Yeah, shitty uninformed useless crap indeed...
Azotadeth 1 year ago
If you genuinely think that the prevailing theory of cell origins is "meteors", you're vastly misinformed. I'd recommend glancing at the wikipedia entry for abiogenesis, and watching the excellent video watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg by cdk007.
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
@NoAntecessor
I wouldn't call it prevailing but 'Panspermia' is a viable theory with growing support. Marcus Chowns' book The Universe Next Door, outlines some of the evidence for the theory(more has been gathered since publication) and I'd heartily recommend it(as well as anything else written by Chown).
thebrassdubliner 1 year ago
Gelyar, I find this sentence to be extremely full of meaning:
"no, we ignorant masses simply don't know why we should learn a story that serves no meaning at all, explains nothing, and contraddicts itself way too often"
Ironically enough, if you were a TINY bit honest you'd find out that that sentence PERFECTLY fits the bible you're so desperately trying to defend.
kyagh 1 year ago
Humans created gods.
alanoasiss 1 year ago 40
incorrect !!!!
" stupid humans created gods "
fredkhambatta 1 year ago 5
Stupid humans are a subset of humans so the original is not incorrect on those grounds.
Just as 'I made this picture with crayons' and 'I made this picture with red crayons' are both correct. (Assuming I'm presenting a red crayon picture.)
As it goes, I tend to think gods were created by quite clever humans...
transferosome 1 year ago
no need to get all technical !!!!,
was trying to joke on adam and eve believers.
fredkhambatta 1 year ago
LOL!
Just something I do.
transferosome 1 year ago
Atheists get their limited knowledge of the Bible by only searching "Bible contradictions" on Google.
ronaldosronaldos 1 year ago
yes that must be true because there were no atheists be fore the internets were invented!! Thank the one true living god you were here to point it out toe godless masses!
P.S. most atheists know the bible far better than the average church goer. Because they have actually read it cover to cover with an open mind and not been spoon fed by a trained brain washer....oh sorry...preacher,that can only make his point with contrived emotion and tears on que. Nice try but I was raised in church.
NOMADdaf 1 year ago
@fredkhambatta or ingenius ones that knew the exact outcome
AForsakenHero 1 year ago
@alanoasiss
Stop saying that!
Humans did not "create" gods.
Gods are just evolved memes.
DINDRAGON 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DINDRAGON let them say they've created gods, its just that much more funny, and sad when they can't solve world hunger, war or even their own theories. creators of gods indeed; the god of delusions.
Gelyar 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Both Creationists and Evolutionists are all too often stuffed with ilogical garbadge. They make the same ligic errors. You would almost think they both grew up on the same planet and in the same culture.
Neither is correct. However evolution is founded is facts if you will take the time to note what they are.
All too often an evolutionist will try to over reach the facts and say that evolution has enough facts to explain the origins of life. It does not.
ScottMana 1 year ago
@ScottMana -wow, kid, first, learn to spell 'logical.' Second, don't you dare compare creationism to evolution. Creationism tries to force religion and evil on others. Evolution, is just a fact. You're the kind of moron who would sit on the fence like a coward and call black rights just as bad as racism. Third, an Evolutionist isn't even a real thing, you moron. Its a made up word. Fourth, Evolution has Nothing to Do with the Origin of Life! Thats Abiogenesis you tard. Educate yourself, Biotch!!
Sav3TheWorld 1 year ago
Take deep breaths my friend. ....
Now realize that you starting reading my post as if you already knew what I was going to say. That must be why you misunderstood it so badly.
Your right, "Evolutionist" is not a real thing. The facts of evolution are exact, so what would you call people that stretch these facts?
Well I already created a name for them, I call then "Evolutionists". It a little joke. My post was in fact a warning to those that have yet to perceive the limitations of the facts.
ScottMana 1 year ago
@ScottMana
The origin of life is not part of what Evolution even attempts to explain. It's a different field of study. Abiogenesis that's working on that.
And Hydraulic Theory doesn't do squat to explain why dandelions are yellow in case you're wondering.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
The first sentence just repeats what I said.
However I have to thank you for leaving out the profanity and insults.
To use your own words i will now restate my post: " The origin of life is not part of what Evolution even attempts to explain." and now some words of my own - But sometimes there people who feel they must correct creationists and over reach the facts explain the origins of life. To these overreaching types, I call them 'Evolutionists'". Is my post a little clearer now?
ScottMana 1 year ago
@ScottMana said "To these overreaching types, I call them 'Evolutionists.'"
When you decide to post a comment you need to decide what your post is aiming to accomplish. If you intend it to be form of communication then you need to use words in common usage rather than make them up, especially when the word isn't new. Just Google "evolutionist or evolutionists" and you'll find you didn't exactly invent it. So if you use it; it's highly unlikely that anyone will know what you mean.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ScottMana yes clearly it doesn't matter where life came from since we can't explain it. Question: science uses formulas and theory's to tell where something came from and is going. if evolution can't predict or explain why life is the way it is, of what use is it?
honestly evelution is trash not worth teaching. at the bear minimum the bible tells not to shag monkeys, which by the way is how we got the HIV virus. however everything in the bible is bunk because thats what the media tells us...
Gelyar 1 year ago
@Gelyar Anything science should be taught.
NakedCreep 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"evolution has enough facts to explain the origins of life"
Well, duuh! Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life because the evolutionary process started AFTER the first life form appeared on earth. The branch of science that tries to find out the origins of life is called abiogenesis.
RadicalAwesomeness 1 year ago
Nope. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversity of life.
Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. Do some research before you make claims.
garrettducat 1 year ago 41
I was with this until it refered to religion and intelligent design as "worthy topics." It did say they weren't science, but they are not "worthy topics" either.
KemaTheAtheist 1 year ago 2
5 stars for an excellent introduction.
You cover the basics well,
while dismissing the diversions and confusions
the uninformed and hostile so often bring to the table.
Science is not a competitive sport,
it's a way of discovering the truth.
Well done.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
test
385Mercedes 1 year ago
These are the facts, bitches.
LJonesy2 1 year ago 3
how about on this video youtube?
7StoryMagnet 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When a woman finds a man who gives good head, (cunnilingus) she's found a treasure she's not going to let go of too quickly. There is nothing that makes a woman more unique than her pussy. They come in all different sizes, colors and shapes; some are tucked inside and some have thick luscious lips.
MelissaLovesYou44 1 year ago
a smart woman gives very precise direction, and a decent man can follow it. pussies are unique, just like what feels good to them. men are not mindreaders. most do follow instructions reasonably well however.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@MelissaLovesYou44 Love your attitude toward sex but your ignorance of science leaves me cold.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
there are many things that make a woman more unique than her pussy, such as her personality.
there are different shapes, sizes, and colors but theyre all basically a hole with foreskin lips
sorry, just can't buy your idea
7StoryMagnet 1 year ago
Fake profile is fake.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
lol
Adventfred 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Life forms are clearly discrete, appearing either in one form or another, but never in an in-between form. This definition fails to distinguish between the observable variations within a kind (see below), and the unobserved morphing between kinds required by Darwinian theory. In some cases, it would be more accurate biologically and biblically to refer to organisms as being in "discrete groups" and showing "variation within a kind," rather than using the term "macroevolution."
MelissaLovesYou44 1 year ago
What's with the f-cked up channel page, melissalovesyou?
mycatisamoron 1 year ago
Are you against girls kissing and having sex with each other?
I hope you're not against lesbians or homosexuals?
MelissaLovesYou44 1 year ago