This is a case where simply stating the facts openly mocks creationism. Academically it is impossible to discuss the facts as to why creationism cannot be real and not come off as mocking it. "Believe"? I don't "believe" in evolution. I agree with the facts the theory is built upon. Without the facts it would be a hypothesis. Creationism is a failed hypothesis only the uneducated could still think is correct since. When creationism is tested it fails to become a theory.
Cenk, making fun of a creation myth in a college level world history class is not only acceptable, it should be expected. Agnosticism and Atheism don't make ridiculous claims that are, academically speaking, complete bullshit and worthy of being mocked. The shoe doesn't fit the feet in your example bro so quit talking about the other foot.
I strongly suggest that you visit the "Neutral Evolution Forum". This is where real science is discussed with people. There have been at least 40 PhD's on there who have had discussions with me. I put all the data from peer review on there.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
I don`t agree that creationism or any religion shouldn't be mocked. It`s normal behavior to make fun of those who are proud of their stupidity. If a 40 year old man believed in Santa, everyone would be making fun of him and with good reason. People who believe Elvis is still alive are being laughed at because they are ridiculous.
this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
Cenk always makes sense no matter what the subject. He even sticks up for the other side as necessary. If wonder if he was president and had a house and senate behind him what we could achieve or would Washington corrupt him as it does everybody else?
@AllahuRabbi I always speak as I wish. If you want a more expanded form of parts of my view, click the link to my blog on my channel and look at my posts tagged with 'atheism', in reverse order. (That is, most recently written first.)
i agree with ana. classrooms are not the right place to mock peoples beliefs, as its not the teachers job or right to mock the beliefs of the children in his class, but to teach them the truth so that they wont believe the bullshit.
Creationism is a concept that's trying to be seen to have legitimate scientific relevance. When people go around,claiming it's an attack on their religion for someone to say it's magic, they discredit their peers attempts to further that attempt of separating Creationism from religion as a scientific principle. Can't get mad at people, even teachers, for discrediting a theory that still has little to no evidential standing in the scientific community,even if the theory's root is from a religion.
I argued with teachers (and sometimes I won) but other than one that marked me down for disagreeing and proving her wrong, I had no problem with them teaching. Creationism is worthy of ridicule, but he probably shouldn't mock it. Just prove that it is a joke and let the students see it for themselves.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Creationism is obvious nonsense. Christianity is also obvious nonsense. The only difference is that people didn't start pointing out the idiocies of Christianity until recently and so it's been able to illegally steal some degree of "respectability". Both deserve to be mocked and kicked out of existence.
i say creastion sould be on the table of a possiblity but not be taken to very serious because while the chances are low tht something may have influenced us be it aliens or god u never know
Teachers should be able to make fun of ANYTHING that is grounded in fanciful thinking contrary to the facts. The characterization of making fun of religion is off the mark. The teacher was teaching evolution, he made little of creationism ; but it is creationism itself that attempts to set itself up as a scientific alternative to what he was teaching. Besides, creationism DOES propose a magical explanation for biological diversity, how is that even making fun of it?
Making fun of agnostics/atheists isn't a good analogy. The teacher was mocking creationism, not Christianity or theism. Both Christians and atheists can accept evolution. It would be like a history teacher mocking people who deny the Holocaust.
@Atriviality Mentally ill folk like creationist, terrorist and sexist can indeed be put in mental hospitals. I just used the wrong word creationism instead of creationist. Grammar errors happen
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 How does that work? Science can't prove the supernatural, therefore, the obvious of evidence ACTUALLY means that the supernatural is playing poltergeis hide-and-seekt? Where are you from? The Logic Lego Factory? How do you piece science--the investigation of evidence--with supernatural events--the definitive ABSENCE of scientific explanation or investigation. It's such a sky-meets-ground policy. But, sense you're under THAT dumb umbrella, prove dragons and unicorns. Love to hear it.
Were you dropped on your head as a child? When scientists say that the laws of physics break down at the time of the big-bang, it doesn't mean that it was a supernatural event, it means that we humans are at a nascent stage in scientific advancement and we need to keep working at it instead of chalking it up to some supreme intelligence - lets not forget that just 60 years ago we had no idea about star-cycles, genetics, particle zoos, human evolution, galactic evolution etc.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
The war among evolutionists is regarding the interpretation of evidences for evolution alone and not about it's veracity. It's still scientific fact. As animals continue to evolve they occupy new ecological niches (more often than evolving to suit new conditions) - this why we humans are around as are other apes - we occupied new niches and they stayed where they were. P.S. Humans and worms share a lot of genes - it's only the decisive Hox genes that separate us (look it up)
@Mogley52 "How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving?"
What in the holy fuck-wittery of shit makes you think a species would evolve before it's own vital organs?
Have you ever opened a biology book and read the line "fish were swimming about with half a heart thinking 'bugger me I feel abit light headed' " or "millions of monkeys died from starvation as they were trying to ingest fruit through osmosis"
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes there are animals with partial hearts and there are animals with no heart, there is gradual slop of increasing complexity.
Keep repeating what I say, there is no argument in your false argument. Fact that your brain can't comprehend it, doesn't mean that it is not true. There is evidence so it is true.
@slr150 I really can't understand where you're going wrong here..
the part of my comment in quotes was what someone else said.
he thought evolution taught that a species would evolve before evolving the organs needed for it to survive.
a "partial heart" when said in the context of complexity means something completely different to "half a heart" in the context of survival... I have no idea why you think what you said is even relevant.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed?
The "peer review" is the most retarding thing in "pseudo sciences" like evolution. I don't know how someone who is supposed to be intelligent has not figured that out. It is a form of peer pressure to conform and anyone who presents the radical reality to them is looked upon as a threat to their jobs. Understand?
In functional sciences that are not based on religious bullshit, it is OK. Peer review in evolution not a good thing because the PAID foxes are in charge of the chicken house.
@GoodScienceForYou I actually wrote a reinterpretation of information theory as it pertains to both classical entropy and Bose-Einstein statistics. In the shark tank of peer review every expert in the field tried to fault my math, but couldn't. Now it's regarded as "groundbreaking." This isn't because it conformed to accepted theory; it's in spite of it. It provided a theoretical framework that more accurately modeled known data. Even if there is fault with it, none of the experts could find
@Snakepliskinist 33% of humans in the US ages 15 to 64 will die from cancer. The rate of invasive cancer in CHILDREN HAS RISEN OVER 129% IN less than 20 Years in a 1975 to 1995 study. It is now higher than that. Genetic diseases is all we see in DNA.
We know these are caused by genetics because we can see the PRIOR FIT CONDITION BEFORE THE MUTATION IN PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE A PARTICULAR DISEASE.
ONLY A FUCKING MORON CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE!
@Snakepliskinist 1 IN 12 People in the US have diabetes, also caused by genetics. The rate of diabetes in other countries is just as high or higher. Finland has a pandemic of type 1 in children
Only a fucking moron does not understand what this means.
We know these are caused by DNA because we can see the correct original FIT CONDITION in people who do not have diseases.
ONLY genetic degradation shown in DNA evidence on humans. There is no evolution. Therefor it is a fantasy religion of morons.
@Snakepliskinist 1 in 10 people have "rare" genetic diseases. Each of the rare diseases has an average of 1 in 200,000 but when you add them all up humans are heading for extinction.
There is no possible mechanism for any form of evolution.
When I talk with people who have cancer or other deadly diseases, for some reason when I show them all the data, they no longer believe in that fucking Evodelusionism religion.
Only a moron cannot understand absolutely clear obvious physical evidence.
@Snakepliskinist Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
@Snakepliskinist 1 in 15 people have heart disease. The doctors in India are setting up hospitals the size of small cities in order to attract all the sick people from the US. They have an assembly line procedure with people who are not doctors but are trained to do only one part of the heart surgery procedure.
The up and coming industry in this world is the medical industry. It will eclipse all other industries in gross sales.
@Snakepliskinist I proposed that Chimps were from the mating of a previous ape and humans, and not one single PhD of genetics could falsify it. This is because you cannot falsify something that cannot be tested. I proposed this because it is the same as most of the religion of evolution NOT TESTABLE BY ANY SCIENTIFIC METHODS. They just worship the evolution fairy that magically caused fish to evolve into humans.
@Snakepliskinist Here is your test; I want you to find any mutation found in human DNA that is positive and only has positive effects of making for more health or more intelligence?
This is the first question that not one scientist has been able to answer.
@Snakepliskinist 2 of 2 When morons cannot understand the cause of something like the differences between parents and children, they pull the "magical random mutation" card out of their asses and pronounce with great authority: "In my expert opinion it is the random mutation that does this. This will be on the test tomorrow and you better understand it."
This is how students are brainwashed. They believe these dumb fuckers.
Creationism is junk science and deserves ridicule. it should be taught as an example of why it is bad science. i.e science is not cherry picking facts to argue your case.
I rememeber arguing with everyone in my physics class in high school over the validity of religion. Not only was every single person in the class a Christian, the teacher was the most vociferous arguer of Christianity. He would often digress from the topic of physics to say some ridiculous Christian crap. Just an example of me not knowing when to quit. If the science teacher is spouting superstitious nonsense, the battle for rationality is as good as lost.
@Snakepliskinist The recent absolutely irrefutable evidence in DNA completely destroys this idea of evolution. It is a myth who's time has come. It took about 150 years to get rid of the flat earth faith and we had to wait for the last one to die in the late 1890's. There will be people who believe in the most ridiculous shit on this planet for as long as there are humans.
@GoodScienceForYou I suppose it would be irrefutable if it weren't flat-out wrong about so many things. Not enough room for all. 1. Most mutations are harmless 2. single additional bases don't occur 3. That harmonica music makes me wish you were dead
4. You claim 51% of mutations would have to be positive for evolution to occur. Show your math on that one. It sounds good to a moron, but I'd like some hard numbers. 5. "fittest" does not mean "strongest looking" or "smartest"
@Snakepliskinist Go fuck yourself! That is the best answer for someone as retarded as you. If MOST mutations are bad, then there is no evolution. The video is very conservative towards your religion. You cannot have a majority of the mutations cause diseases and expect to see any advancement.
@Snakepliskinist The evidence is that humans are sick and they have lost mental abilities along the way. You may be too genetically degraded to make it into a level of awareness required to be a free human. When people believe in cultural bullshit they are normally very weak willed.
@GoodScienceForYou Also even if everything you say is true, it only supports evolution and calls it de-evolution. And every species that ever existed is doomed to extinction..that's the natural outcome of evolution. And BTW what exactly are you proposing as an alternative origin of species?
@Snakepliskinist There are at the present time over 47,000 species on the "endangered list" for ready for extinction. Humans will be on that list in a few years. It is estimated that 1 trillion species are extinct. I think that is overwhelming evidence against evolution.
@GoodScienceForYou No it isn't. I'm trying to understand exactly what you think evolution is...Here's what I think you think: Evolution states that all species are somehow approaching a state of perfection. Evolution states that each generation is better than the one preceding it. Evolution states that random mutations are the mechanism of this continuous improvement. Am I close here? Because none of that is evolution, and you are correct in saying that it isn't true.
@Snakepliskinist Evolution states that all life came from simple one celled creatures. That these one celled creatures became marine life and then fish. Then fish walked on land and learned to breathe air and eat from the plants and animals on land. Then these walking fish became reptiles. The reptiles became mammals and birds. Eventually some primitive humans that look like apes evolved and we are magically here today because of this shit. This is the myth religion of evolution.
@GoodScienceForYou Let's not nitpick your minor errors there. Instead tell me how all of the extinct species disproves that. Where in that is the guarantee of survival? You say we only see degradation in DNA. Reality check: we don't look for improvements, and even if we did most traits are polygenic, and most genes are pleiotropic. Finding degradation is a lot easier by backtracking through previous generations. Also "degradation" is meaningless unless you have an absolute standard
@Snakepliskinist The absolute standard is health. 33% of humans in the US ages 15 to 64 will die from cancer. Source CDC. 129% increase in childhood invasive cancer in less than 20 years is not a good sign. 1 in 12 in US have diabetes, more prevelent in other countries. 1 in 10 have rare genetic diseases. 1 in 15 have heart disease. 29% will die from heart disease. That is not evolution. There are 7000 known genetic diseases and more found all the time.
@GoodScienceForYou Again, absolutely none of that in any way contradicts evolution. Evolutionary theory quite easily explains all of them, in fact. BTW...1 in 10 is not rare, unless you also consider southpaws rare. You say the absolute standard for degradation is health, but if that's the case, as I mentioned, neutral or beneficial mutations go unnoticed. In this case only "degradation" is observed. And evolutionary theory doesn't claim everyone has perfect health...that's ludicrous.
"There are at the present time over 47,000 species on the "endangered list" for ready for extinction."
- According to the IUCN Red List, there are 47,400 species that are being MONITORED. Only 10,405 of those species are listed as "threatened" (which includes Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable species). 24,432 species are catagorized as "Least Concern".
"It is estimated that 1 trillion species are extinct"
@Snakepliskinist Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
Basically, there is not possible form of evolution in any physical evidence that we can test. When we test for it in DNA, there is ONLY genetic degradation shown. That is irrefutable physical evidence against any form of evolution.
@GoodScienceForYou My PhDs are admittedly both in physics. I'll also admit physicists like to make fun of biologists, like saying they are the scientists who suck at math. That said, they are no dummies. Watching your videos, I get the impression you are an engineer of sorts. Engineers are useful people to have around, but they generally suck at scientific theories because they tend to nail down the digits on each little thing instead of seeing the complex networks of relationships.
@Snakepliskinist No. I see the complex networks of energy moving according to the laws of science. Evotards think there is magical bullshit that violates science. People believe in magical bullshit because they cannot comprehend the complexity of the numbers of events taking place at any one time. They believe in shit like determinism and random, both of which are not real nor are they science.
@Snakepliskinist Evotards are in science because of political bullshit. Just like humans have always used academia to promote that which is lucrative for the people in power at any one time. When there is no evidence, humans create it. Humans as a rule are stupid. I have never allowed myself to believe in anything. Rather I wait for the evidence to tell the real story. In the last 12 years of the Human genome project it is clear that there is no mechanism for advancement.
@GoodScienceForYou Funny that you trust the human genome project, given that it's carried out by the very scientists whose views you repudiate. Sounds like someone got his feelings hurt because the big boy scientists wouldn't listen to him. Sad but true: If science was a porno, engineers would be the fluffers. And you keep talking about advancement. Nowhere at all does the theory of evolution contain "advancement" as a requisite product of evolution. Unless you're a fifth-grader.
@Snakepliskinist Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
I own this book. This is an authority on words. Genetic degradation does not fit this definition.
@GoodScienceForYou That definition that you just typed does not require that living things must "advance." As mentioned, "degradation" is in the eye of the beholder. We have psuedogenes for many types of proteins related to the constituent proteins of hemoglobin. If the modern constitution of hemoglobin was less efficient than the aboriginal forms, it would be "degradation." But it's more efficient, so it's not degradation. You are talking out the ass with your degradation talk.
@Snakepliskinist Evolution states that all life came from simple one celled creatures. That these one celled creatures became marine life and then fish. Then fish walked on land and learned to breathe air and eat from the plants and animals on land. Then these walking fish became reptiles. The reptiles became mammals and birds. Eventually some primitive humans that look like apes evolved and we are magically here today because of this shit. This is the myth religion of evolution.
@Snakepliskinist The HGP has shown that the effect of "evolutoin" is to destroy already existing genetic structures that produce (or did produce) healthy cells. There are no positive mutations ever found in the human genome. All of the mutations have diseases associated with them.
There is no evolution. Humans were designed organic mechanisms with consciousness, made and then set free to fuck up their own species (or to learn to not destroy the existing code). We are heading for extinction.
@GoodScienceForYou You can't quote the effects of evolution while disproving evolution....Also I know for a fact that you don't know dick about the human genome project. If ou did, you would know that the genetic variety available for every trait of logical necessity requires that some (by some standard) are better than others. From this you could draw a conclusion of degradation or improvement. The reality is of course described by a complex mathematical equilibrium. also, evolution=/=mutation
@Snakepliskinist Pay attention. Every mutation found has a disease associated with it. This is from all of the scientists trying to show evolution to me. They cannot come up with a single positive mutation that would improve fitness. Instead they all have genetic diseases associated with them.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
We know these 7000 diseases are from genetics because we can see the prior fit condition in the humans without this fucked up cell replication.
@GoodScienceForYou How exactly can we see this prior fit condition? On account of all the cutting edge analysis we had going for us through history? What about redheadedness? That's a mutation with no disease. What about alanine/glutamine replacement in liver enzyme CYPD6? That's going on all the time...yet the enzyme variants usually work anyway. What about mutation of surface proteins that gave rise to blood types? What about the mutation of the gene causing palmaris longus atrophy?
@Snakepliskinist I told you already. We know these 7000 and more genetic diseases are from mutations because we have samples of the PRIOR FIT CONDITION IN LIVING HUMAN BEINGS. It is how we know it is a fucking mutation and how it causes sickness.
WTF is wrong with your mind. Could it be that the "bitch" denial is in there working overtime?
@Snakepliskinist We know these 7000 diseases are from genetics because we can see the prior fit condition in the humans without this fucked up cell replication.
There are ZERO positive mutations ever found. There are ONLY negative mutations the reduce fitness, and is the cause of the fact that the medical industry is the fastest growing industry on the planet. The industry is planning to make hospitals the size of small cities.
@GoodScienceForYou What about the mutation that allowed staphylococcus aureus to denature beta-lactam antibiotics? What about the mutation that confers immunity to HIV? What about that mutation you never heard about because its single amino acid substitution didn't alter the protein function? Oh yeah...that's most of them.
@Snakepliskinist What about the mutation that confers immunity to HIV? Do you ever research anything? All of those mutations are part of genetic disease in humans.
The most common mutation is not a mutation? WTF is wrong with your mind?
I have the HIV immunity, fucking retard! It is a primary mutation for type 1 diabetes in men. Fuck you!
Bacteria has never evolved it remains a single cell or it dies. Not much to work with there...Retard!
@GoodScienceForYou So what disease is being redheaded? Gingers are all patients? Try to follow: Bacteria has a specific genetic composition that will not make it resistant to beta-lactam...Then it has a genetic composition that confers such a resistance. Clearly a mutation occurred in between these states, and clearly this mutation was not fatal. What part of that is unclear. And BTW the HIV immunity won't cause diabetes without certain MHC subtypes. In all other cases: no disease.
@GoodScienceForYou And when did I say the most common mutation is not a mutation? I said most mutations don't have any observable difference in phenotypic expression. The Human Genome project you claim to know so much about could tell you as much. Incidentally, this very fact is the basis for mapping evolutionary history via amino acid substitution in proteins of the respirative chain.
@Snakepliskinist Pay attention. The definition of a mutation is a change to the DNA structure. If there is no change to the protein building then it is not a mutation. We have plenty of real mutations that are destroying humanity from the inside.
Every mutation found in humans has been attributed to a disease, this includes bad eye site, cataracts, heart disease, stroke, eczema, one leg shorter than the next, weak backs in humans, poor hearing, bow legs, knocked knees, flat feet, on and on.
@GoodScienceForYou Yes, a mutation IS a change to the DNA structure. This is why a single replacement that doesn't change anything is still a mutation. The DNA is different.
Just because it doesn't have a phenotypical change doesn't mean it's not a mutation.
You literally just said it yourself.
Oh, and one common mutation among most of humanity? Lactose tolerance.
@gimmethegepgun What is the exact location of the genes you refer to. The normal description used for location.
I have asked this before, but not gotten the answer.
If this is a true ONLY positive mutation with no negative attributes; is new, never seen in all of humanity prior to this, then that would be the only one. There are at minimum 5000 negative mutations and best estimate is over 10,000 but that is because there are 7000 genetic diseases and many are caused by several mutations.
@Snakepliskinist I had a discussion with an MD and asked him to produce any positive mutations. That was funny. These people don't know much of anything outside the cult that limits them. Then I asked him to come up with any disease that is not caused by infection or by accidents. That was really funny. I showed him the articles on DNA studies on each of those diseases he thought were "normal". Fuck this shit makes people stupid fuckers.
@Snakepliskinist Here is your problem. You have no idea the extent of my knowledge on this topic. You should be starting to get some idea. I have actually studied this for over 44 years and have read at least 28,000 papers on it. I read about 5 a day now. I figured if I was going to help people I would need to know more than they do and point out the real evidence.
@GoodScienceForYou I do understand the peer-review process of scientific literature. I know that any kind of assertion is relentlessly pick apart by critic of every kind. I know that modern evolutionary theory has undergone this process, and has therefore been subjected to every kind of valid logical criticism from the experts in the field. I know that despite this crucible for forging the strongest theory, you disagree. I also know you present patently spurious arguments. But you read...
@Snakepliskinist You need to listen to my video on falsification and how it perpetuates religious bullshit in science. There are not many people with intelligence enough to even understand this video.
@Snakepliskinist Exceptionally intelligent people simply use more of their brain than most humans, because they do not let emotional "reasons" control thoughts. They also don't fear anyone and they certainly do not find any need to conform to human beliefs, not founded on absolutely irrefutable evidence.
@Snakepliskinist I had a fucking medical doctor bring up that HIV mutation thing with me. After I told him what a fucking moron he was, and that his example was my disease, I never heard from him again. This is because moron believers never check out what these "positive" mutations are actually doing in people. I also survived polio as a child according to medical doctors who had worked with polio patients. I have an extremely powerful immune system that is out of control.
@Snakepliskinist Evolution is a fucking religion that has no foundational evidence. All the evidence only shows genetic degradation. There is no pathway mechanism for single celled creatures to evolve into billions of celled creatures. There is simply no evidence for this. Get real. In order to show evolution you must have a net of MORE than 50% positive mutations that lead to new features and more health.
Do you understand anything about natural selection/mutation? Evolution is existing all around us, had you ever use the the brain that GOD gave you to think why does the flu vaccine last year does not work for the flu this year?
This is a case where simply stating the facts openly mocks creationism. Academically it is impossible to discuss the facts as to why creationism cannot be real and not come off as mocking it. "Believe"? I don't "believe" in evolution. I agree with the facts the theory is built upon. Without the facts it would be a hypothesis. Creationism is a failed hypothesis only the uneducated could still think is correct since. When creationism is tested it fails to become a theory.
1010011010is29a 1 hour ago
Cenk, making fun of a creation myth in a college level world history class is not only acceptable, it should be expected. Agnosticism and Atheism don't make ridiculous claims that are, academically speaking, complete bullshit and worthy of being mocked. The shoe doesn't fit the feet in your example bro so quit talking about the other foot.
1010011010is29a 1 hour ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I strongly suggest that you visit the "Neutral Evolution Forum". This is where real science is discussed with people. There have been at least 40 PhD's on there who have had discussions with me. I put all the data from peer review on there.
GoodScienceForYou 4 hours ago
Why do you hate God so much?
Iceland1944 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 day ago
@Mogley52 - Nice try wannabe scientist; now go out and actually get some formal training in biology before making more of a fool of yourself.
All that you have just proven is that you have absolutely no understanding of ERVs, protein evolution, nor evolutionary theory in general.
You have given us a good laugh, though. I guess we have different definitions of what "studying" a subject entails.
CamW30 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 1 day ago
I don`t agree that creationism or any religion shouldn't be mocked. It`s normal behavior to make fun of those who are proud of their stupidity. If a 40 year old man believed in Santa, everyone would be making fun of him and with good reason. People who believe Elvis is still alive are being laughed at because they are ridiculous.
s4m10sug1 1 day ago
In other words, cretinists can dish it out but they can't take it - FUCK 'EM!
hznfrst 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this movie looks pretty fun, based on evolution vs. creation, I like the fact that just 2 brothers made the entire thing, called EVOLUTION CREEK, look it up!
chauncyhead 3 days ago
Cenk always makes sense no matter what the subject. He even sticks up for the other side as necessary. If wonder if he was president and had a house and senate behind him what we could achieve or would Washington corrupt him as it does everybody else?
baxtar2012 3 days ago
@DeJach You're welcome to speak as you wish. I would want to understand your point of view.
AllahuRabbi 4 days ago
@AllahuRabbi I always speak as I wish. If you want a more expanded form of parts of my view, click the link to my blog on my channel and look at my posts tagged with 'atheism', in reverse order. (That is, most recently written first.)
DeJach 4 days ago
i agree with ana. classrooms are not the right place to mock peoples beliefs, as its not the teachers job or right to mock the beliefs of the children in his class, but to teach them the truth so that they wont believe the bullshit.
mintyvision 5 days ago
Creationism is a concept that's trying to be seen to have legitimate scientific relevance. When people go around,claiming it's an attack on their religion for someone to say it's magic, they discredit their peers attempts to further that attempt of separating Creationism from religion as a scientific principle. Can't get mad at people, even teachers, for discrediting a theory that still has little to no evidential standing in the scientific community,even if the theory's root is from a religion.
NairuOnLife 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is there a way NOT to mock creationnism?
MrG0TH1ER 6 days ago
Comment removed
MrG0TH1ER 6 days ago
I argued with teachers (and sometimes I won) but other than one that marked me down for disagreeing and proving her wrong, I had no problem with them teaching. Creationism is worthy of ridicule, but he probably shouldn't mock it. Just prove that it is a joke and let the students see it for themselves.
Heathen57 1 week ago
I'm not religious but I don't think religion should be mocked in front of children who believe in it. Have a heart or something.
razarsenal180 1 week ago
"Magic"? But it is magic. That's not making fun of it, it's a fact. What God does is JRR. Tolkien-Lord of the Rings-style magic.
Until you can show evidence that shows it isn't, that's all it is.
TheTruePooka 1 week ago
Actually, you SHOULD mock creationism as a *SCIENCE* as a religion, sure not, but the so called science of creationism is BS.
Just like you can mock antigravity as a science. (it is just like gravity but in the other direction)
CViFi 1 week ago
College is not adults, University is adults.
Vids4Dinner 1 week ago
@Vids4Dinner Only technically.
FlourescentPotato 5 days ago
@FlourescentPotato well, you can possibly find exceptions.
Generally, I have experienced only childish people in College.
Vids4Dinner 5 days ago
@Vids4Dinner That's a shame.
FlourescentPotato 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 1 week ago
Creationism is obvious nonsense. Christianity is also obvious nonsense. The only difference is that people didn't start pointing out the idiocies of Christianity until recently and so it's been able to illegally steal some degree of "respectability". Both deserve to be mocked and kicked out of existence.
farvision 1 week ago
Extremely stupid things should be mocked. Also, I want to put my dick in Ana's mouth.
cfc19900 1 week ago
Christianity/Islam: What's not to mock? LOL
xephyr1000 1 week ago
not mocked but objectively critiqued
kimberleyseetoes 2 weeks ago
Of course it WOULD be someone called Chad who started the whole thing...
SirDanOfHell 2 weeks ago
i say creastion sould be on the table of a possiblity but not be taken to very serious because while the chances are low tht something may have influenced us be it aliens or god u never know
nawstra578 2 weeks ago
Teachers should be able to make fun of ANYTHING that is grounded in fanciful thinking contrary to the facts. The characterization of making fun of religion is off the mark. The teacher was teaching evolution, he made little of creationism ; but it is creationism itself that attempts to set itself up as a scientific alternative to what he was teaching. Besides, creationism DOES propose a magical explanation for biological diversity, how is that even making fun of it?
Blackmark52 2 weeks ago
†.. I poop on you.
(ºڸº)
AdamHimself69 2 weeks ago
Ridiculous thing (religion) is being ridiculous...
Unicron4ever 2 weeks ago
Religion deserves to be ridiculed
Fenrirsdoom 2 weeks ago
Shooting down magic in a science classroom is similar to shooting down a denial of the holocaust in a history classroom.
drche420 2 weeks ago
@drche420
Take it you read Dawkins book
AdamHimself69 2 weeks ago
@AdamHimself69
I have. Does that make my statement any less true?
drche420 2 weeks ago
@drche420
Nope! I was just trying to say you said something similar to him in the first chapter of The Greatest Show on Earth.
AdamHimself69 2 weeks ago
@AdamHimself69
Haven't read that one. I've only read the God Delusion.
drche420 2 weeks ago
Making fun of agnostics/atheists isn't a good analogy. The teacher was mocking creationism, not Christianity or theism. Both Christians and atheists can accept evolution. It would be like a history teacher mocking people who deny the Holocaust.
urantivirus 2 weeks ago
Creationism should always be mocked, removed from the community and put in mental hospitals
Xatasha6611 2 weeks ago
@Xatasha6611
Um... creationism is a concept. You can't put it in a mental hospital any more than you can put terrorism or sexism in one.
Atriviality 2 weeks ago
@Atriviality Mentally ill folk like creationist, terrorist and sexist can indeed be put in mental hospitals. I just used the wrong word creationism instead of creationist. Grammar errors happen
Xatasha6611 2 weeks ago
@Atriviality
Duh. Anyone criticizing creationism is intelligent enough to know that.
drche420 2 weeks ago
If one of my teachers mocked atheism, my opinion of them may change a bit but they have the right to their own opinion.
ImyurZero 2 weeks ago
they should mock it because......its stupid
thehoodlum1919 2 weeks ago 2
can and should be mocked openly
skippydeenice 2 weeks ago 67
@skippydeenice yes, the *science* should be mocked.
CViFi 1 week ago
Mock Creationism to the full extent would be my motto. As you would if someone claimed the Earth was flat or Santa was real. Enough of the bullshit.
TheALGAYDA 2 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52
I remember you. You post the same message on every video. Nobody wants to read your nonsense, you do know that right?
Atriviality 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52 : Or time could work in a loop, and the end of this universe loops back around in time. So no 'magic' is needed.
nosuchthing8 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52 How does that work? Science can't prove the supernatural, therefore, the obvious of evidence ACTUALLY means that the supernatural is playing poltergeis hide-and-seekt? Where are you from? The Logic Lego Factory? How do you piece science--the investigation of evidence--with supernatural events--the definitive ABSENCE of scientific explanation or investigation. It's such a sky-meets-ground policy. But, sense you're under THAT dumb umbrella, prove dragons and unicorns. Love to hear it.
TheOkami1113 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52
Were you dropped on your head as a child? When scientists say that the laws of physics break down at the time of the big-bang, it doesn't mean that it was a supernatural event, it means that we humans are at a nascent stage in scientific advancement and we need to keep working at it instead of chalking it up to some supreme intelligence - lets not forget that just 60 years ago we had no idea about star-cycles, genetics, particle zoos, human evolution, galactic evolution etc.
RAGHUVARVASUDEV 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52
The war among evolutionists is regarding the interpretation of evidences for evolution alone and not about it's veracity. It's still scientific fact. As animals continue to evolve they occupy new ecological niches (more often than evolving to suit new conditions) - this why we humans are around as are other apes - we occupied new niches and they stayed where they were. P.S. Humans and worms share a lot of genes - it's only the decisive Hox genes that separate us (look it up)
RAGHUVARVASUDEV 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52 "How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving?"
What in the holy fuck-wittery of shit makes you think a species would evolve before it's own vital organs?
Have you ever opened a biology book and read the line "fish were swimming about with half a heart thinking 'bugger me I feel abit light headed' " or "millions of monkeys died from starvation as they were trying to ingest fruit through osmosis"
Fuck sake, you people.
ColostomyCake 2 weeks ago 44
Comment removed
IWEEW 2 weeks ago
@ColostomyCake
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes there are animals with partial hearts and there are animals with no heart, there is gradual slop of increasing complexity.
slr150 1 week ago
@slr150 You clearly didn't understand what I said.
ColostomyCake 1 week ago
@ColostomyCake
Keep repeating what I say, there is no argument in your false argument. Fact that your brain can't comprehend it, doesn't mean that it is not true. There is evidence so it is true.
slr150 6 days ago
@slr150 I really can't understand where you're going wrong here..
the part of my comment in quotes was what someone else said.
he thought evolution taught that a species would evolve before evolving the organs needed for it to survive.
a "partial heart" when said in the context of complexity means something completely different to "half a heart" in the context of survival... I have no idea why you think what you said is even relevant.
ColostomyCake 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed?
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site. The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation).
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
yea, and genesis is a mystical, magical book full of falsehoods
SoCalAries 2 weeks ago
Logic FTW!!!
deanosumo 2 weeks ago
The "peer review" is the most retarding thing in "pseudo sciences" like evolution. I don't know how someone who is supposed to be intelligent has not figured that out. It is a form of peer pressure to conform and anyone who presents the radical reality to them is looked upon as a threat to their jobs. Understand?
In functional sciences that are not based on religious bullshit, it is OK. Peer review in evolution not a good thing because the PAID foxes are in charge of the chicken house.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou I actually wrote a reinterpretation of information theory as it pertains to both classical entropy and Bose-Einstein statistics. In the shark tank of peer review every expert in the field tried to fault my math, but couldn't. Now it's regarded as "groundbreaking." This isn't because it conformed to accepted theory; it's in spite of it. It provided a theoretical framework that more accurately modeled known data. Even if there is fault with it, none of the experts could find
Snakepliskinist 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist 33% of humans in the US ages 15 to 64 will die from cancer. The rate of invasive cancer in CHILDREN HAS RISEN OVER 129% IN less than 20 Years in a 1975 to 1995 study. It is now higher than that. Genetic diseases is all we see in DNA.
We know these are caused by genetics because we can see the PRIOR FIT CONDITION BEFORE THE MUTATION IN PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE A PARTICULAR DISEASE.
ONLY A FUCKING MORON CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE!
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist 1 IN 12 People in the US have diabetes, also caused by genetics. The rate of diabetes in other countries is just as high or higher. Finland has a pandemic of type 1 in children
Only a fucking moron does not understand what this means.
We know these are caused by DNA because we can see the correct original FIT CONDITION in people who do not have diseases.
ONLY genetic degradation shown in DNA evidence on humans. There is no evolution. Therefor it is a fantasy religion of morons.
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist 1 in 10 people have "rare" genetic diseases. Each of the rare diseases has an average of 1 in 200,000 but when you add them all up humans are heading for extinction.
There is no possible mechanism for any form of evolution.
When I talk with people who have cancer or other deadly diseases, for some reason when I show them all the data, they no longer believe in that fucking Evodelusionism religion.
Only a moron cannot understand absolutely clear obvious physical evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
This is the original definition.
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist 1 in 15 people have heart disease. The doctors in India are setting up hospitals the size of small cities in order to attract all the sick people from the US. They have an assembly line procedure with people who are not doctors but are trained to do only one part of the heart surgery procedure.
The up and coming industry in this world is the medical industry. It will eclipse all other industries in gross sales.
Only a moron believes in evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist I proposed that Chimps were from the mating of a previous ape and humans, and not one single PhD of genetics could falsify it. This is because you cannot falsify something that cannot be tested. I proposed this because it is the same as most of the religion of evolution NOT TESTABLE BY ANY SCIENTIFIC METHODS. They just worship the evolution fairy that magically caused fish to evolve into humans.
How can a sane person believe that shit?
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist Here is your test; I want you to find any mutation found in human DNA that is positive and only has positive effects of making for more health or more intelligence?
This is the first question that not one scientist has been able to answer.
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist 1 of 2 Statistics is based on cause and result. You have to have data to introduce from the real world.
Evolution uses magical ideas of random. There is no random in physics. Even a "random number" in a computer has to be faked.
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist 2 of 2 When morons cannot understand the cause of something like the differences between parents and children, they pull the "magical random mutation" card out of their asses and pronounce with great authority: "In my expert opinion it is the random mutation that does this. This will be on the test tomorrow and you better understand it."
This is how students are brainwashed. They believe these dumb fuckers.
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
based on the battle between evolution and creation, check out our new sci fi movie EVOLUTION CREEK decide for yourself!
chauncyhead 3 weeks ago
Creationism is junk science and deserves ridicule. it should be taught as an example of why it is bad science. i.e science is not cherry picking facts to argue your case.
contacter 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Balencian 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We know these 7000 diseases are from genetics because we can see the prior fit condition in the humans without this fucked up cell replication.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
I rememeber arguing with everyone in my physics class in high school over the validity of religion. Not only was every single person in the class a Christian, the teacher was the most vociferous arguer of Christianity. He would often digress from the topic of physics to say some ridiculous Christian crap. Just an example of me not knowing when to quit. If the science teacher is spouting superstitious nonsense, the battle for rationality is as good as lost.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist The recent absolutely irrefutable evidence in DNA completely destroys this idea of evolution. It is a myth who's time has come. It took about 150 years to get rid of the flat earth faith and we had to wait for the last one to die in the late 1890's. There will be people who believe in the most ridiculous shit on this planet for as long as there are humans.
/watch?v=emPINOUlfnE
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou I suppose it would be irrefutable if it weren't flat-out wrong about so many things. Not enough room for all. 1. Most mutations are harmless 2. single additional bases don't occur 3. That harmonica music makes me wish you were dead
4. You claim 51% of mutations would have to be positive for evolution to occur. Show your math on that one. It sounds good to a moron, but I'd like some hard numbers. 5. "fittest" does not mean "strongest looking" or "smartest"
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Go fuck yourself! That is the best answer for someone as retarded as you. If MOST mutations are bad, then there is no evolution. The video is very conservative towards your religion. You cannot have a majority of the mutations cause diseases and expect to see any advancement.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist The evidence is that humans are sick and they have lost mental abilities along the way. You may be too genetically degraded to make it into a level of awareness required to be a free human. When people believe in cultural bullshit they are normally very weak willed.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou Also even if everything you say is true, it only supports evolution and calls it de-evolution. And every species that ever existed is doomed to extinction..that's the natural outcome of evolution. And BTW what exactly are you proposing as an alternative origin of species?
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist There are at the present time over 47,000 species on the "endangered list" for ready for extinction. Humans will be on that list in a few years. It is estimated that 1 trillion species are extinct. I think that is overwhelming evidence against evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou No it isn't. I'm trying to understand exactly what you think evolution is...Here's what I think you think: Evolution states that all species are somehow approaching a state of perfection. Evolution states that each generation is better than the one preceding it. Evolution states that random mutations are the mechanism of this continuous improvement. Am I close here? Because none of that is evolution, and you are correct in saying that it isn't true.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Evolution states that all life came from simple one celled creatures. That these one celled creatures became marine life and then fish. Then fish walked on land and learned to breathe air and eat from the plants and animals on land. Then these walking fish became reptiles. The reptiles became mammals and birds. Eventually some primitive humans that look like apes evolved and we are magically here today because of this shit. This is the myth religion of evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou Let's not nitpick your minor errors there. Instead tell me how all of the extinct species disproves that. Where in that is the guarantee of survival? You say we only see degradation in DNA. Reality check: we don't look for improvements, and even if we did most traits are polygenic, and most genes are pleiotropic. Finding degradation is a lot easier by backtracking through previous generations. Also "degradation" is meaningless unless you have an absolute standard
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist The absolute standard is health. 33% of humans in the US ages 15 to 64 will die from cancer. Source CDC. 129% increase in childhood invasive cancer in less than 20 years is not a good sign. 1 in 12 in US have diabetes, more prevelent in other countries. 1 in 10 have rare genetic diseases. 1 in 15 have heart disease. 29% will die from heart disease. That is not evolution. There are 7000 known genetic diseases and more found all the time.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou Again, absolutely none of that in any way contradicts evolution. Evolutionary theory quite easily explains all of them, in fact. BTW...1 in 10 is not rare, unless you also consider southpaws rare. You say the absolute standard for degradation is health, but if that's the case, as I mentioned, neutral or beneficial mutations go unnoticed. In this case only "degradation" is observed. And evolutionary theory doesn't claim everyone has perfect health...that's ludicrous.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou
"There are at the present time over 47,000 species on the "endangered list" for ready for extinction."
- According to the IUCN Red List, there are 47,400 species that are being MONITORED. Only 10,405 of those species are listed as "threatened" (which includes Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable species). 24,432 species are catagorized as "Least Concern".
"It is estimated that 1 trillion species are extinct"
- Where did you get that number?
Atriviality 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
Basically, there is not possible form of evolution in any physical evidence that we can test. When we test for it in DNA, there is ONLY genetic degradation shown. That is irrefutable physical evidence against any form of evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou My PhDs are admittedly both in physics. I'll also admit physicists like to make fun of biologists, like saying they are the scientists who suck at math. That said, they are no dummies. Watching your videos, I get the impression you are an engineer of sorts. Engineers are useful people to have around, but they generally suck at scientific theories because they tend to nail down the digits on each little thing instead of seeing the complex networks of relationships.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist No. I see the complex networks of energy moving according to the laws of science. Evotards think there is magical bullshit that violates science. People believe in magical bullshit because they cannot comprehend the complexity of the numbers of events taking place at any one time. They believe in shit like determinism and random, both of which are not real nor are they science.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Evotards are in science because of political bullshit. Just like humans have always used academia to promote that which is lucrative for the people in power at any one time. When there is no evidence, humans create it. Humans as a rule are stupid. I have never allowed myself to believe in anything. Rather I wait for the evidence to tell the real story. In the last 12 years of the Human genome project it is clear that there is no mechanism for advancement.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou Funny that you trust the human genome project, given that it's carried out by the very scientists whose views you repudiate. Sounds like someone got his feelings hurt because the big boy scientists wouldn't listen to him. Sad but true: If science was a porno, engineers would be the fluffers. And you keep talking about advancement. Nowhere at all does the theory of evolution contain "advancement" as a requisite product of evolution. Unless you're a fifth-grader.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
I own this book. This is an authority on words. Genetic degradation does not fit this definition.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou That definition that you just typed does not require that living things must "advance." As mentioned, "degradation" is in the eye of the beholder. We have psuedogenes for many types of proteins related to the constituent proteins of hemoglobin. If the modern constitution of hemoglobin was less efficient than the aboriginal forms, it would be "degradation." But it's more efficient, so it's not degradation. You are talking out the ass with your degradation talk.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist Evolution states that all life came from simple one celled creatures. That these one celled creatures became marine life and then fish. Then fish walked on land and learned to breathe air and eat from the plants and animals on land. Then these walking fish became reptiles. The reptiles became mammals and birds. Eventually some primitive humans that look like apes evolved and we are magically here today because of this shit. This is the myth religion of evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist I don't like having to repeat my posting.
Are you reading anything I type?
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist The HGP has shown that the effect of "evolutoin" is to destroy already existing genetic structures that produce (or did produce) healthy cells. There are no positive mutations ever found in the human genome. All of the mutations have diseases associated with them.
There is no evolution. Humans were designed organic mechanisms with consciousness, made and then set free to fuck up their own species (or to learn to not destroy the existing code). We are heading for extinction.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou You can't quote the effects of evolution while disproving evolution....Also I know for a fact that you don't know dick about the human genome project. If ou did, you would know that the genetic variety available for every trait of logical necessity requires that some (by some standard) are better than others. From this you could draw a conclusion of degradation or improvement. The reality is of course described by a complex mathematical equilibrium. also, evolution=/=mutation
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Pay attention. Every mutation found has a disease associated with it. This is from all of the scientists trying to show evolution to me. They cannot come up with a single positive mutation that would improve fitness. Instead they all have genetic diseases associated with them.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
We know these 7000 diseases are from genetics because we can see the prior fit condition in the humans without this fucked up cell replication.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou How exactly can we see this prior fit condition? On account of all the cutting edge analysis we had going for us through history? What about redheadedness? That's a mutation with no disease. What about alanine/glutamine replacement in liver enzyme CYPD6? That's going on all the time...yet the enzyme variants usually work anyway. What about mutation of surface proteins that gave rise to blood types? What about the mutation of the gene causing palmaris longus atrophy?
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist I told you already. We know these 7000 and more genetic diseases are from mutations because we have samples of the PRIOR FIT CONDITION IN LIVING HUMAN BEINGS. It is how we know it is a fucking mutation and how it causes sickness.
WTF is wrong with your mind. Could it be that the "bitch" denial is in there working overtime?
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snakepliskinist We know these 7000 diseases are from genetics because we can see the prior fit condition in the humans without this fucked up cell replication.
There are ZERO positive mutations ever found. There are ONLY negative mutations the reduce fitness, and is the cause of the fact that the medical industry is the fastest growing industry on the planet. The industry is planning to make hospitals the size of small cities.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou What about the mutation that allowed staphylococcus aureus to denature beta-lactam antibiotics? What about the mutation that confers immunity to HIV? What about that mutation you never heard about because its single amino acid substitution didn't alter the protein function? Oh yeah...that's most of them.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist What about the mutation that confers immunity to HIV? Do you ever research anything? All of those mutations are part of genetic disease in humans.
The most common mutation is not a mutation? WTF is wrong with your mind?
I have the HIV immunity, fucking retard! It is a primary mutation for type 1 diabetes in men. Fuck you!
Bacteria has never evolved it remains a single cell or it dies. Not much to work with there...Retard!
From US medical library:
/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou So what disease is being redheaded? Gingers are all patients? Try to follow: Bacteria has a specific genetic composition that will not make it resistant to beta-lactam...Then it has a genetic composition that confers such a resistance. Clearly a mutation occurred in between these states, and clearly this mutation was not fatal. What part of that is unclear. And BTW the HIV immunity won't cause diabetes without certain MHC subtypes. In all other cases: no disease.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou And when did I say the most common mutation is not a mutation? I said most mutations don't have any observable difference in phenotypic expression. The Human Genome project you claim to know so much about could tell you as much. Incidentally, this very fact is the basis for mapping evolutionary history via amino acid substitution in proteins of the respirative chain.
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Pay attention. The definition of a mutation is a change to the DNA structure. If there is no change to the protein building then it is not a mutation. We have plenty of real mutations that are destroying humanity from the inside.
Every mutation found in humans has been attributed to a disease, this includes bad eye site, cataracts, heart disease, stroke, eczema, one leg shorter than the next, weak backs in humans, poor hearing, bow legs, knocked knees, flat feet, on and on.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou Yes, a mutation IS a change to the DNA structure. This is why a single replacement that doesn't change anything is still a mutation. The DNA is different.
Just because it doesn't have a phenotypical change doesn't mean it's not a mutation.
You literally just said it yourself.
Oh, and one common mutation among most of humanity? Lactose tolerance.
NOT intolerance. Tolerance.
gimmethegepgun 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gimmethegepgun What is the exact location of the genes you refer to. The normal description used for location.
I have asked this before, but not gotten the answer.
If this is a true ONLY positive mutation with no negative attributes; is new, never seen in all of humanity prior to this, then that would be the only one. There are at minimum 5000 negative mutations and best estimate is over 10,000 but that is because there are 7000 genetic diseases and many are caused by several mutations.
GoodScienceForYou 2 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist I had a discussion with an MD and asked him to produce any positive mutations. That was funny. These people don't know much of anything outside the cult that limits them. Then I asked him to come up with any disease that is not caused by infection or by accidents. That was really funny. I showed him the articles on DNA studies on each of those diseases he thought were "normal". Fuck this shit makes people stupid fuckers.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Here is your problem. You have no idea the extent of my knowledge on this topic. You should be starting to get some idea. I have actually studied this for over 44 years and have read at least 28,000 papers on it. I read about 5 a day now. I figured if I was going to help people I would need to know more than they do and point out the real evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@GoodScienceForYou I do understand the peer-review process of scientific literature. I know that any kind of assertion is relentlessly pick apart by critic of every kind. I know that modern evolutionary theory has undergone this process, and has therefore been subjected to every kind of valid logical criticism from the experts in the field. I know that despite this crucible for forging the strongest theory, you disagree. I also know you present patently spurious arguments. But you read...
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist You need to listen to my video on falsification and how it perpetuates religious bullshit in science. There are not many people with intelligence enough to even understand this video.
/watch?v=4--Frypeg00
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist People use the thing they are most afraid of in arguments and it is telling on what controls your mind.
"If you are concerned with other's opinions (being laughed at, like that is some horrible thing.) you will never find the Truth.
You will be owned by others and will be their slave until you stop giving them power over your mind.
How stupid do you have to be to allow others to control you?
"Experts" WTF? Are you that lost? Propped up bullshit artists are never "experts".
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Exceptionally intelligent people simply use more of their brain than most humans, because they do not let emotional "reasons" control thoughts. They also don't fear anyone and they certainly do not find any need to conform to human beliefs, not founded on absolutely irrefutable evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist I had a fucking medical doctor bring up that HIV mutation thing with me. After I told him what a fucking moron he was, and that his example was my disease, I never heard from him again. This is because moron believers never check out what these "positive" mutations are actually doing in people. I also survived polio as a child according to medical doctors who had worked with polio patients. I have an extremely powerful immune system that is out of control.
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
@Snakepliskinist Evolution is a fucking religion that has no foundational evidence. All the evidence only shows genetic degradation. There is no pathway mechanism for single celled creatures to evolve into billions of celled creatures. There is simply no evidence for this. Get real. In order to show evolution you must have a net of MORE than 50% positive mutations that lead to new features and more health.
Here is what we know of mutation:
/watch?v=spuZtAa80qI
GoodScienceForYou 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Balencian 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou
Do you understand anything about natural selection/mutation? Evolution is existing all around us, had you ever use the the brain that GOD gave you to think why does the flu vaccine last year does not work for the flu this year?
Balencian 3 weeks ago