If you have a full understanding of evolution, you must admit that there is no evidence what ever to support it. It is obvious to every one that is thinking rationally and not indoctrinated that the fossil record in no way supports gradualism. Also, radiometric dating methods have been so erratic that evolutionists just pick the dates that bolster their story and ignore those that refute it. You obviously have no knowledge of real science but have been indoctrinated by secularists. Read it helps
@mejc2 1. You are wrong, there is mountains of evidence, he points out some in the video, to name very few other pieces of evidence, things like chromosomal fusion and mitochondrial DNA only point to Evolution. No, radiometric dating is EXTREMELY accurate on a geological timescale, if you are going to make a claim against one of the most tested methods of evidence, you will need to go into a lab, and produce erratic results based on dating.
You are way wrong. there is no evidence for evolution. Chromosomal fusion is a misnomer.The differences are mounting so high that chromosomal comparison is becoming the enemy of gradualism. Others have already gone in the lab and produced anomalous results. there is no consistency except in the minds of fully indoctrinated evolutionists. Science is against evolutionism.
@mejc2 There is evidence, you are simply to ignorant to view the evidence on the other side. "The differences are mounting so high that chromosomal comparison is becoming the enemy of gradualism." What the hell are you talking about? We share more than 98% of our genome with apes... Chromosomal fusion shows perfectly how we evolved 46 chromosomes, while other apes have 48, thats why there are 2 centromere locations on chromosome 2.
Hi.! I am a Christian and with all your respect I do have 2 questions for you if i may. which came first the Protein or DNA?? and can you explain "Irreducible Complexity??
see this are 2 of the biggest issues I had when I was an evolutionist myself.
There is none. I can think of one example you're probably thinking of, that's the "motor" some bacteria have in them which allows their flagellum to function like a propeller. It is reducible, just when it's reduced it functions as a needle to secrete venom, which does exist in other bacteria. Most cases of "irreducible complexity" are simply people who are not MacGuyver, and cannot imagine a thing doing something totally different from what tehy expect.
@JIMMYMIRY As for DNA, DNA came first, it's a molecule, and it produces proteins through a complex process. There are videos of how it works on Youtube, you have to look hard though.
Hi i am a Christian and with all your respect I do have tow questions for you if i may. which came first the Protein or DNA?? and can you explain "Irreducible Complexity??
see this are one of the biggest issues I had when I was an evolutionist myself.
I have a true understanding of evolution and it has never ever been confirmed, only speculated. Vestigial structures show no evidence of simple organisms gaining features. There are no transitional fossils and the "predictions" made by evolutionists are assumed when they cannot be confirmed and the fossil record in no way supports gradualism. Evolution is not confirmed only speculated.
@mejc2 I think evolutionary theory is more like 'overwhelming circumstancial evidence' than speculation!
Humans have only been studying it in detail for a few hundred years. Yet several different branches of enquiry lead to the same conclusion. As a hypothesis, it works!
It only works because mutations causing new organs, tissue, body plans, and systems, is never challenged. You could just as easily say that God manipulated DNA to create life on earth, or Aliens did it, or magic fairies. All we know for sure is that there is a pattern. We have no idea how it arose and have no answer for the anomalies that contradict the mutation hypothesis.
@mejc2 Not sure what you mean by "never challenged"? DNA was not already there at the start of life. You are right about how little we know about the origin of life. Evolution describes the process of an existing phenomenon, not it's origin.
Evolution doesn't describe the process of acquiring new body parts, plans, or systems. Evolutionists always say things like then this arose or then this animal acquired the ability, or this appeared. Evolutionists never Explain how anything actually happens. They just observe the present state and then make up stories about how it came to be. As soon as the old story is falsified, they make up a new story. EG Coelacanths ARE the extinct ancestor of tetra pods. OOPS
@mejc2 Coelocanths are not the only animal to have hardly changed over millions of years, nautilus, ginko trees and woodlice are also very similar to their ancient ancestors. If an organism is well adapted to a stable ecosystem there is little selection pressure for them to change, then they won't change.
You make it sound as if evolutionary scientists (not evolutionists) are wilfully ignorant. If that were so they would be pseudoscientists, and they would not be taken seriously.
By never challenged I mean that no one ever observed mutations creating any new organs body plans or systems. There is no explanation as to how mutations can cause any new functioning anything. It is just assumed that mutations create all the variation we see today even though our empirical evidence is that mutations deteriorate DNA, not make it better. Why would you assume something that contradicts our observations?
@mejc2 I'm not an expert on evolutionary theory, but I have an understanding of the basic principles. Most mutations do not improve the DNA or the organism, you are right about that. But the crucial point is that every now and again a mutation causes a change to an organism which is beneficial and increases the chance of that particular one to survive and reproduce. It is a wasteful process, takes a lot of time and the changes through the generations are gradual. continued...
@mejc2 continuation... You will not be able to observe the formation of a new organ or body part within the short time scale we have been studying the subject. Evolutionary theory is what best explains what we have observed. Some of it is inferred and may be shown in the future to be partially innacurate. By the sound of it you think it's wrong. Do you have an alternative theory which explains all the observations better?
You are not able to observe the formation of a new organ or body plan? We can't even begin to imagine how the immense code needed to create one organ could have possibly been created. Mutations certainly do not provide a mechanism for that. Time? Slow process? If evolution moves at the snails pace that you claim, the universe isn't old enough for the symphony of Incalculably immense symbiotic systems to have formed. Math works you should try it sometime.
@mejc2 Although I take on board everything you say, I disagree. The estimated 3 billion years since life first appeared on this planet is an IMMENSE amount of time... why do you think this is not long enough? Which maths are you using?
You still haven't addressed my previous question: Do you have an alternative theory which explains all the observations better?
2.5 billion years of single celled organisms. .5 billion for everything else. That Maths! Explains Better? Saying mutations did it long ago and far away, is not an explanation at all. There is no evidence what ever that mutations can accidentally write the immense new genetic code required to support the diversity of life. Aliens did it, Fairies did it, God did it, It happened because this is part of a multiverse.....Take your pick if you are choosing unsupported "eplanations" .
@mejc2 So you think evolutionary theory is wrong... that's up to you. I did not say "mutations did it long ago and far away", the process is ongoing, but on a human timescale we don't notice much change. Similar to how we don't see the stars moving, but we know the solar system orbits the centre of the galaxy once every 230 million years.
You still haven't addressed my previous question: Do you have an alternative theory which explains all the observations better?
The process? The unobserved, illogical, impossible, time constrained, empirically and mathematically disproved process is ongoing? You have to explain something before I can explain it better. Saying "mutations did it" is not an explanation. It's a story.
@mejc2 It's not a story, it's a theory! If you look back at my previous comment you will see that I was quoting you. "mutations did it" is a vast oversimplification. Natural selection and the survival of the fittest corroberate more recent genetic discoveries.
You still haven't addressed my previous question: Do you have an alternative theory which explains all the observations better?
@mejc2 I have been asking this buffoons for a long time to give me an example of a mutation that generated a useful or intelligent structure and they can only dodge the question.
Remember, if god works in mysterious ways, they it is just as likely that the bible is wrong and god planted it here to test our faith of god's creation, i.e. how many people would be gullible enough to believe a book over the reality around them. God wouldn't do that??? Why not, god works in mysterious ways.
Minor changes don't actually change DNA code, change of DNA code is REQUIRED for chimp-like ancestors to eventually evolve into humans; so how can you prove that chimp-like ancestors & humans had the same ancestors without using fossils for your argument IF there were no fossils as you put it?
Why deny a global flood if it takes flooding to fossilize dead animals SO MUCH SO that even the soft creatures (like jellyfish) can fossilize?
@TheAbeyance Minor changes in species is one thing, but the origin of species is another thing ENTIRELYin terms of DNA code:
DNA code is the only biological thing that controls form & biological machinery (very complex); beneficial DNA code is REQUIRED for chimps & humans to have the same ancestor; Minor changes within the same kind of animal DO NOT change the beneficial DNA code at all; minor changes in features, without changing DNA code, is a bad way to show the origin of species
@TheAbeyance Why does God allow debris? Because God ALREADY said that sin (immorality) brought death into the world (A.K.A. the destruction of biological machinery); why else has NO scientist ever discovered the origin of the very first virus, & why people's health become worse when they are constantly bitter & vengfull at heart?
If you have a full understanding of evolution, you must admit that there is no evidence what ever to support it. It is obvious to every one that is thinking rationally and not indoctrinated that the fossil record in no way supports gradualism. Also, radiometric dating methods have been so erratic that evolutionists just pick the dates that bolster their story and ignore those that refute it. You obviously have no knowledge of real science but have been indoctrinated by secularists. Read it helps
mejc2 2 months ago
@mejc2 1. You are wrong, there is mountains of evidence, he points out some in the video, to name very few other pieces of evidence, things like chromosomal fusion and mitochondrial DNA only point to Evolution. No, radiometric dating is EXTREMELY accurate on a geological timescale, if you are going to make a claim against one of the most tested methods of evidence, you will need to go into a lab, and produce erratic results based on dating.
MisterRedstone 2 months ago
@MisterRedstone
You are way wrong. there is no evidence for evolution. Chromosomal fusion is a misnomer.The differences are mounting so high that chromosomal comparison is becoming the enemy of gradualism. Others have already gone in the lab and produced anomalous results. there is no consistency except in the minds of fully indoctrinated evolutionists. Science is against evolutionism.
mejc2 2 months ago
@mejc2 There is evidence, you are simply to ignorant to view the evidence on the other side. "The differences are mounting so high that chromosomal comparison is becoming the enemy of gradualism." What the hell are you talking about? We share more than 98% of our genome with apes... Chromosomal fusion shows perfectly how we evolved 46 chromosomes, while other apes have 48, thats why there are 2 centromere locations on chromosome 2.
MisterRedstone 2 months ago
science disproves evolution, we don´t need the bible to disprove evolution, science itself disproves evolution
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
Hi.! I am a Christian and with all your respect I do have 2 questions for you if i may. which came first the Protein or DNA?? and can you explain "Irreducible Complexity??
see this are 2 of the biggest issues I had when I was an evolutionist myself.
thank you for your time.
God bless.
(Genesis 1:24)
JIMMYMIRY 1 year ago
@JIMMYMIRY Irreducible complexity?
There is none. I can think of one example you're probably thinking of, that's the "motor" some bacteria have in them which allows their flagellum to function like a propeller. It is reducible, just when it's reduced it functions as a needle to secrete venom, which does exist in other bacteria. Most cases of "irreducible complexity" are simply people who are not MacGuyver, and cannot imagine a thing doing something totally different from what tehy expect.
DarksideNeverAgain 1 year ago
@JIMMYMIRY As for DNA, DNA came first, it's a molecule, and it produces proteins through a complex process. There are videos of how it works on Youtube, you have to look hard though.
DarksideNeverAgain 1 year ago
Hi i am a Christian and with all your respect I do have tow questions for you if i may. which came first the Protein or DNA?? and can you explain "Irreducible Complexity??
see this are one of the biggest issues I had when I was an evolutionist myself.
thank you for your time.
God bless.
JIMMYMIRY 1 year ago
Get a better microphone and stop whispering into it. The noise in our audio is damn annoying.
JohnBonoSmith 1 year ago
Its all Satan! The Devil did it! (Making fun of Creationists.)
TheAlaricPetz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a true understanding of evolution and it has never ever been confirmed, only speculated. Vestigial structures show no evidence of simple organisms gaining features. There are no transitional fossils and the "predictions" made by evolutionists are assumed when they cannot be confirmed and the fossil record in no way supports gradualism. Evolution is not confirmed only speculated.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I think evolutionary theory is more like 'overwhelming circumstancial evidence' than speculation!
Humans have only been studying it in detail for a few hundred years. Yet several different branches of enquiry lead to the same conclusion. As a hypothesis, it works!
finlarg 1 year ago
@finlarg
It only works because mutations causing new organs, tissue, body plans, and systems, is never challenged. You could just as easily say that God manipulated DNA to create life on earth, or Aliens did it, or magic fairies. All we know for sure is that there is a pattern. We have no idea how it arose and have no answer for the anomalies that contradict the mutation hypothesis.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Not sure what you mean by "never challenged"? DNA was not already there at the start of life. You are right about how little we know about the origin of life. Evolution describes the process of an existing phenomenon, not it's origin.
finlarg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@finlarg
Evolution doesn't describe the process of acquiring new body parts, plans, or systems. Evolutionists always say things like then this arose or then this animal acquired the ability, or this appeared. Evolutionists never Explain how anything actually happens. They just observe the present state and then make up stories about how it came to be. As soon as the old story is falsified, they make up a new story. EG Coelacanths ARE the extinct ancestor of tetra pods. OOPS
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Coelocanths are not the only animal to have hardly changed over millions of years, nautilus, ginko trees and woodlice are also very similar to their ancient ancestors. If an organism is well adapted to a stable ecosystem there is little selection pressure for them to change, then they won't change.
You make it sound as if evolutionary scientists (not evolutionists) are wilfully ignorant. If that were so they would be pseudoscientists, and they would not be taken seriously.
finlarg 1 year ago
@finlarg My own oops: Ginko trees are not animals! Swamp cypres trees and many ferns have also hardly changed over millions of years.
finlarg 1 year ago
@finlarg
By never challenged I mean that no one ever observed mutations creating any new organs body plans or systems. There is no explanation as to how mutations can cause any new functioning anything. It is just assumed that mutations create all the variation we see today even though our empirical evidence is that mutations deteriorate DNA, not make it better. Why would you assume something that contradicts our observations?
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 I'm not an expert on evolutionary theory, but I have an understanding of the basic principles. Most mutations do not improve the DNA or the organism, you are right about that. But the crucial point is that every now and again a mutation causes a change to an organism which is beneficial and increases the chance of that particular one to survive and reproduce. It is a wasteful process, takes a lot of time and the changes through the generations are gradual. continued...
finlarg 1 year ago
@mejc2 continuation... You will not be able to observe the formation of a new organ or body part within the short time scale we have been studying the subject. Evolutionary theory is what best explains what we have observed. Some of it is inferred and may be shown in the future to be partially innacurate. By the sound of it you think it's wrong. Do you have an alternative theory which explains all the observations better?
finlarg 1 year ago
@finlarg
You are not able to observe the formation of a new organ or body plan? We can't even begin to imagine how the immense code needed to create one organ could have possibly been created. Mutations certainly do not provide a mechanism for that. Time? Slow process? If evolution moves at the snails pace that you claim, the universe isn't old enough for the symphony of Incalculably immense symbiotic systems to have formed. Math works you should try it sometime.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Although I take on board everything you say, I disagree. The estimated 3 billion years since life first appeared on this planet is an IMMENSE amount of time... why do you think this is not long enough? Which maths are you using?
You still haven't addressed my previous question: Do you have an alternative theory which explains all the observations better?
finlarg 1 year ago
@finlarg
2.5 billion years of single celled organisms. .5 billion for everything else. That Maths! Explains Better? Saying mutations did it long ago and far away, is not an explanation at all. There is no evidence what ever that mutations can accidentally write the immense new genetic code required to support the diversity of life. Aliens did it, Fairies did it, God did it, It happened because this is part of a multiverse.....Take your pick if you are choosing unsupported "eplanations" .
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 So you think evolutionary theory is wrong... that's up to you. I did not say "mutations did it long ago and far away", the process is ongoing, but on a human timescale we don't notice much change. Similar to how we don't see the stars moving, but we know the solar system orbits the centre of the galaxy once every 230 million years.
You still haven't addressed my previous question: Do you have an alternative theory which explains all the observations better?
finlarg 1 year ago
@finlarg
The process? The unobserved, illogical, impossible, time constrained, empirically and mathematically disproved process is ongoing? You have to explain something before I can explain it better. Saying "mutations did it" is not an explanation. It's a story.
mejc2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2 It's not a story, it's a theory! If you look back at my previous comment you will see that I was quoting you. "mutations did it" is a vast oversimplification. Natural selection and the survival of the fittest corroberate more recent genetic discoveries.
You still haven't addressed my previous question: Do you have an alternative theory which explains all the observations better?
finlarg 1 year ago
@mejc2 I have been asking this buffoons for a long time to give me an example of a mutation that generated a useful or intelligent structure and they can only dodge the question.
jouc12 6 months ago
I have a site named "evillusion dot net". Is this vid aimed at my site? If not, interesting that you use that title.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
Remember, if god works in mysterious ways, they it is just as likely that the bible is wrong and god planted it here to test our faith of god's creation, i.e. how many people would be gullible enough to believe a book over the reality around them. God wouldn't do that??? Why not, god works in mysterious ways.
Thanks for the link. 5 stars.
cdk007 2 years ago 7
I like that twist. :)
Your videos are unrivaled; it would be criminal not to link you.
TheAbeyance 2 years ago
I just wanna know why an "intelligent designer" would design a universe so full of debris.
Never seen ANY intelligent design which included debris.
PraiseShemp 2 years ago 4
Even with a highschool understanding of the universe, it's clear to see how imperfect or random it really is.
cdk007 has a video in which he talks just how tuned for life this place really is. It's funny to hear some of the analogies he has.
TheAbeyance 2 years ago
Ain't it amazing how my nose & ears are so perfectly formed as to accommodate my glasses?
PraiseShemp 2 years ago
I think that's the best evidence we have for a divine creator :P
TheAbeyance 2 years ago
@TheAbeyance I have questions for you too:
Minor changes don't actually change DNA code, change of DNA code is REQUIRED for chimp-like ancestors to eventually evolve into humans; so how can you prove that chimp-like ancestors & humans had the same ancestors without using fossils for your argument IF there were no fossils as you put it?
Why deny a global flood if it takes flooding to fossilize dead animals SO MUCH SO that even the soft creatures (like jellyfish) can fossilize?
starsheild7 1 month ago
@TheAbeyance Minor changes in species is one thing, but the origin of species is another thing ENTIRELYin terms of DNA code:
DNA code is the only biological thing that controls form & biological machinery (very complex); beneficial DNA code is REQUIRED for chimps & humans to have the same ancestor; Minor changes within the same kind of animal DO NOT change the beneficial DNA code at all; minor changes in features, without changing DNA code, is a bad way to show the origin of species
starsheild7 1 month ago
@TheAbeyance Why does God allow debris? Because God ALREADY said that sin (immorality) brought death into the world (A.K.A. the destruction of biological machinery); why else has NO scientist ever discovered the origin of the very first virus, & why people's health become worse when they are constantly bitter & vengfull at heart?
starsheild7 1 month ago