Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops.
I don't believe that in the second decade of the 21st century there are still this discussions on wether evolution happened or not. Who educated You, people who doubt?
@jankerle58 religious freaks and in general, all byproduct of not perfect evolution are a reality. Proof that the genome requires still lots of corrections. There is a huge glitch that makes most people to believe in imaginary friends
Guys, a theory is an explanation on a scientific FACT, evolution DID happen, and this is a theory, explaining how it happened. religious people need to get the fuck over the fact that this did happen. you cant "believe" evolution, it did happen, it is fact not belief.
@ThexSkORpiO wow good on you for making a claim without backing it up. come on, can you provide a single peer reviewed scientific article backing up your point or are you going to reference websites put up by any idiot? come on what lie are you going to use? I dare you to say there are no transitional fossils or that information cannot be added to the genome. I'm looking forward to this.
There is more evidence proving accounts of the Bible in all fields of science than evidence supporting evolution. There is substantial scientific evidence disproving evolution.
Its okay to be angry. I felt the same way too, but after studying the archeological, biological, historical, and even astronomical evidence it would take more faith to believe in evolution than God. Don't let your pride and the devil's veil over science keep you from the truth. God bless.
There is more evidence proving accounts of the Bible in all fields of science than evidence supporting evolution. There is substantial scientific evidence disproving evolution.
Its okay to be angry. I felt the same way too, but after studying the archeological, biological, historical, and even astronomical evidence it would take more faith to believe in evolution than God. Don't let your pride and the devil's veil over science keep you from the truth. God bless.
There is more evidence proving accounts of the Bible in all fields of science than evidence supporting evolution. There is substantial scientific evidence disproving evolution.
Its okay to be angry. I felt the same way too, but after studying the archeological, biological, historical, and even astronomical evidence it would take more faith to believe in evolution than God. Don't let your pride and the devil's veil over science keep you from the truth. God bless.
Scientific theories aren't hunches, they're bodies of tested knowledge based on all the data. They are far more highly valued than mere facts, which are 2 a penny. Best learn the terminology before playing.
WOOWW. OUR COUSIN IS STAR-FISH, EVEN A 5 YEAR OLD KID,WOULDNT TALK LIKE THAT BUT MORON ATHEIST CARL TALK. INFACT EVERYTHING IS THE DESIGN OF GOD=ALLAH IS THE RULER OF THIS UNIVERSE.MORON CARL WAS SAYING ABOUT THE WORLD IS ORDINARY. REALLY MORON CARL. INFACT EVERYTHING IS EXTRA-ORDINARY. PLANET LIKE EARTH REQUIRES 1 IN A TRILLION PROBABILITY TO EMERGE IN THIS UNIVERSE.GO TO HELL MORON
@ClaylandStudios ,FUCK YOU MORON CARL TOO. WHOEVER DENY AND INSULT ALLAH IS MY ENEMY. YOU ARE BUNCH OF STUPID PEOPLE DESTINED TO HELL. YOU NEED EVOLUTION TO BE MEN LIKE US WE MUSLIMS
@martinbondesson ,EXTREMELY RELIGIOUS, ?? IF YOU DONT CARE ABOUT RELIGION, WHAT YOU GONNA DO AFTER YOU DIE? RELIGION IS THE FIRST OBJECTIVE IN THIS LIFE. SCIENCE OF WHO? HOW SCIENCE AND PYHSIC,ATOMIC RULES CAME ABOUT? EVERYTHING RUNS ON CERTAIN NUMBERS RULES AND MAKES UNIVERSE.
@AlphaLinkX ,I ACLNOWLEDGE EVOLUTION IS THE PUSH OF GOD ON SPECIES. DARWIN WAS A MOTHERFUCKER WHO STOLE THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION FROM A MUSLIM SCIENTIST IBN-MISKEVEYH. PROPOSED THIS IDEA 900 YEARS AGO.
@sabuncuhoca The idea was proposed multiple times. Darwin A) was the first one to go in depth about it, and B) proposed it at the right time for people to accept it.
As for evolution being a "push", well for a Deistic deity, possible, but the holy books don't agree with your idea.
@sabuncuhoca What sea monsters? The Loch Ness? Seriously? I hope you are kidding about this sea monster nonsense.
As for life beginning in water, that doesn't support evolution, that supports the obvious fact that life began where molecules could most easily connect with one another. That has nothing to do with evolution.
@sabuncuhoca I remember hearing about that. If you really believe in magic, and you tap your heals together three times, and recite the words "The Bible is real" three times, there will be dinosaurs in the Bible.
As for evolution, you do not need water for evolution. If you think it does, you do not understand evolution.
(And considering you are using the word "evolution" as though you think it means "how life began", I can only assume that you have no understanding of evolution.)
@sabuncuhoca There is a one in a hundred trillion chance that when you wake up tommorrow, a photon of light will cross the distance from the Sun to the Earth and hit your eyeball.
Additionally, a Supernova happens about twice every hundred years in our galaxy alone. Thats 2 per 50 years. And if you were to take a dime and hold it out at arm's length, there is about one Supernova happening once every few seconds. -Continue-
@sabuncuhoca -Continued- Now, if you were to take a straight shot from that dime, you would hit enough galaxies that one Supernova happens every few seconds.
Yes, planets like ours are rare, very rare. And life is very rare indeed.
But our Universe is so absolutely gigantic that it is beyond our comprehension how large it is. And because of that, rare and extremely uncommon things happen every day.
Now, I understand you are religious, so you don't have to believe this. But facts are facts.
@AlphaLinkX the probability of emergence of a planet like earth requires 1 in a trilion chance . this number means when you go to casino, hitting the jackpot of 11 digit, same sign 11 times. do u think this is possible. ?for you possible.i see just great desing of god.other lifes are possible but they are not likely beings of matter.ALLAH is the god of many beings visible and invisible.nothing is coincidence in this universe is praying for god. every vision,motion,rotation for him
@sabuncuhoca I see it not only as possible, but as probable and, considering the vastness of the Universe, I would say that it's nearly impossible that a planet like Earth doesn't exist.
In fact, there is a planet very similar to our own in the Alpha Centauri planetary system.
One in a trillion chances must not be what it used to be. :P
@evoTARDSareINSANE Uggg... So Michio Kaku is smart, therefore Carl Sagan is an idiot? Is that your logic? Is this some sort of intellectual boxing match? Carl Sagan is by no stretch an idiot.
@MrDucelee Well yes. I used to be an evolutionist. We have lots of exceptional stories, like Carl Sagan's, that explain the overall sequence of evolution, and these stories are very believable. However, the obstacles to evolution keep emerging as we learn more about the fossil record and molecular biochemistry, to name only two problems with the 'fact' of evolution. Since science hasn't explained our origins, I'll stick with the seemingly obvious notion that we are designed.
@Naytardo You are NOT on topic. The origin of life has NOTHING to do with evolution!!! However I think is amusing to see creationist explain how it is rational to believe we came from some dirt that a magic sky daddy blew on. So PLEASE do explain it to us.
@NEGATIONofP Since this video deals with the origin of life, I thought it appropriate to bring up. To me, God is the only solution to all of the problems facing naturalists. Evolution is one part of the attempt at an explanation for existence that excludes God, but the evidence from the fossil record does not support evolution. God is all-powerful, so it's easy for him to make us out of dirt, he invented dirt in the first place, he can do anything. I don't see how that's hard to believe.
@Naytardo 1 of 3 Again 3 topics 3 replies. Regarding abiogenesis. If you had stated you wished to discuss the origins of life your statement of “science hasn't explained our origins” would have been fine. However you included it with statements regarding the validity of evolutionary theory. Leading one to believe you had no understanding the two are unrelated. I apologize if this is not the case but caution you to be more comprehensible in the future.
@Naytardo 2 of 3 Your statement “the evidence from the fossil record does not support evolution” is just flat out WRONG and a FAIL on so many levels that it would be laughable if it were not so SAD. With almost 170 years of scientific testing & refinement evolution is arguably the most well supported theory in history of man. We LITERALLY understand evolution better than we do GRAVITY (also "just a theory"). Please provide us with your "fossil evidence" that is NOT supporting evolution.
@NEGATIONofP Let me put it this way, the fossil evidence does not support gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium is supposed to solve this problem. But punctuated equilibrium basically goes against everything that natural selection and random mutation can explain. Therefore the fossils do not support evolution, neither the gradualistic or punctuated version. I didn't realize you had three answers but hopefully I responded to most of it.
@Naytardo Where are you getting this crap please site your references. Punctuated equilibrium has not only been theorized but is has now been observed on multiple occasions. Antibiotic resistant bacteria, Nylon eating bacterium, even the many varieties of dogs could be used to argue its validity, So again wheres the EVIDENCE? I will not allow you to just make claims without backing them up.
@NEGATIONofP Punctuated equilibrium is a theory about rapid speciation, rapid changes occur to speed up the process of evolution. None of the examples you gave show speciation, only micro-evolution. Bacteria is still bacteria, dogs are still dogs. Punctuated equilibrium is only postulated based on the lack of fossil evidence for gradualism. The Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by gradualism, so they say it must have happened real fast. You haven't sited any references so neither will I.
"1 life comes from life" - except for the first life or replicating cell. (or from magic)
"2 a human comes from humans" - except for the primate different enough to not be called human.
"3 there is design in life" - Nope, there is the 'look' of design in some things and much randomness and symmetry too. No proof of any creation from sentient beings.
"I call this , The Greatest Snow Job on Earth." Enjoy your ignorance of the evidence that supports all of science.
@MrDunsapy "The scientists have no idea how a cell could just happen" Actually they have quite a few ideas and are working on the problem - thats what science does.
"are you saying a monkey gave birth to a human" Nope, Monkeys are another primate for which we share a common ancestor. This is shown through DNA and common morphology, among other things.
"randomly throw stuff in a pile" Nope and that is irrelevant as it is not how Evolution works.
@mtbee9 When you say they have quite few ideas, does that mean they, say, have 10 ideas. What's the problem , can they not pick one and say this the truth? The reason they can't is because of their 10 ideas none of them fit. There is no evidence.
@MrDunsapy "can they not pick one and say this the truth?" nope that's not how science works. they will consider all of the possibilities and work out which is correct. They don't just guess like creationists do.
"There is no evidence" That is true if we had evidence of the first life there wouldn't be a problem.
@MrDunsapy This is similar to saying "Can't the scientists in NASA just pick an idea on how to go to the Moon and use it? This is what's wrong with NASA, they will never go to the moon."
The problem is there is a way to go to the moon, and there is a certain velocity to escape earth's gravity, and there is a time you have to leave at.
Where religion makes shit up, science does not rest until it has the answer.
There nothing wrong with scientific research. Actually the scientists have opened up a lot of very interesting things. I am certainly not against, exploration, and learning.
What I am saying is their theories are wrong and could never happen and do not happen. But just the same they have learned a lot of science, trying to break creation,but have not been able to.
@MrDunsapy As I have said, if you think you have a better hypothesis then do your research, perform your experiments, test your hypothesis, and publish your findings for peer review.
If your findings turn out to be true, then I can assure you that you would win a nobel prize.
If you cannot do this, then you do not know whether or not the accepted theories (which, in scientific terms, would roughly equate to "fact" in layman's terms) are correct.
@AlphaLinkX "As I have said, if you think you have a better hypothesis"
I sent this out to many scientists, I have 2 that are looking into it. Both are high profile. I have gotten email back from them.
As for winning a Nobel Prize, who is going to get the prize for creation? The system is not set up for that. Though I do think what I have proposed is worthy of some ramification on the way all scientists, looks that the evidence they find.
@AlphaLinkX Actually Gravity is a fact. It even works for the Russians. Because the scientists do not know everything on how it works doesn't change that.No matter what the scientists find about Gravity in the future, it is still Gravity.
There is no such thing as "evolution' it is only an idea. Though the science is still science. So the 'evolutionary ' scientists have also made a contribution, to our understand of life.
@MrDunsapy I really do see this as a bringing both groups together.Even though 'evolution' is not real,some of the lines of descent could very well be real.With efficiency of creation,they may in fact uncovered the order or at least a connection, of one life coming from another.I think that is an important contribution.
But do the 'evolution' scientists have too much to lose, to save 'face'?
I think most will continue, as they are.Though the tide is changing.
Really? You're one of those people who say that the establishment is coming around to intelligent design?
I'd love to see through which wormhole you people accidentally fell into our universe ;)
Seriously, kid. This is the *real* world we live in, and in the real world the handful of people who bother with pretending that intelligent design is science are laughed at.
@MrDunsapy Again, saying Evolution is not real is akin to saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth. There is no evidence to support your claim.
And no, if evidence was to come forth disproving evolution, the evolutionary biologists would be the first to celebrate, because we have learned something and we have moved forward on the path to greater and greater knowledge.
@AlphaLinkX "evolutionary biologists would be the first to celebrate..."
This is the problem, their theories are more important than the evidence.Their theories, can not detect ID. Which is a major flaw. Which means before going in to investigate, the conclusion is already determined because to the method they use. Not scientific.
By the way I did get 2 emails back so far. My idea will be going to the next step. I'm not sure what that means yet.
It is not the job of their theories to detect ID. If ID exists, then it will either be irrelevant, or it will be science that detects it, and explains it through a theory.
Your problem is that you are confusing concepts. Science produces theories to explain facts. One such theories *could* be that some fact can be explained in terms of ID. But if such a theory cannot be distinguished from fantasy, then it is of no use; it cannot teach us anything.
@MrDunsapy First, if it's a theory, then it's a fact. A theory is basically the scientific term for fact.
Second, if they are holding onto a -hypothesis- as if it was a theory, then they are probably not actually scientists and you can discard what they say. No true scientist would put a personal hypothesis above evidence, especially considering that can ruin one's career very quickly.
Third, glad to hear you got a reply. Keep me informed, as I'd love to know what happens with your research
First, no, the family of a scientist has not gone through the same schooling. For example, back when I was in highschool, I was taking a couple construction classes. My family still know nothing of construction, but I do. Because I took the classes, not them.
And on that matter, -your- family is not a scientific journal either.
@MrDunsapy Second, the reason why you have to present it to a scientific journal is so that other scientists can take your evidence and attempt to recreate your experiment. That is the entire point of a scientific journal, and exactly what peer review means.
@AlphaLinkX "Second, the reason why you have to present "
Yes I know what you are saying.
But if you put it too the ones that have been trained to look for the same things, and results, that's what you will get. Then some one comes along years later and debunks it.
That means for that time everyone is believing the wrong things.
So for the scientists, today's science is tomorrows science fiction.Its hard to know what is accurate or not.
@AlphaLinkX "Third, glad to hear you got a reply. Keep me informed, as I'd love to know what happens with your research"
Ok what I was advised to do, was to write up , this idea, as though it was an experiment. And go through the whole process. Then submit it like that. That mean's quite a lot of work. I'm not a very good writer, I'm much better at illustration and animation.
I am waiting for 1 more scientists to get back to me, to see what he says.He said it would be in the new year.
Technically speaking, a theory is the correlation between facts. But for communication in Youtube, I simply say "Theory is Fact". It simplifies things.
@GenerationSam Theory is the highest status any scientific finding could reach, a theory explains the observed reality. Like, how the germ theory explains how microbes cause disease. In science theories are not assumptions, they are collection of explanation for facts. theory of gravity, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory, theory of relativity and thousands of theories are there to explain phenomenons that occur in nature.
@DoubterApe Yes that is true, but it is STILL just a theory. Theories can be made by anyone, not just scientists. They are not facts. You people amaze me.
@GenerationSam Yeah, a theory can be formed by anyone, but it should require evidence and study by lot of other scientist in the discipline. Keeping aside Evolution other scientific theories, if you dont believe in evolution, what do you believe in anyways? Talking snake? Man made from a handful of dirt? Women made from a rib? Talking snake? and magic. Evolution is a proven fact and is as good as any other scientific fact period!
Scientific theory is an explanation for a phenomena. Atomic theory, theory of planetary motion, plate tectonic theory, germ theory, Einstein's theory of general relativity, quantum theory, theory of evolution. Facts, observation and laws are unified to form a theory. Thats how it works in science.
@GenerationSam The term 'Theory' in scientific nomenclature is the highest form of recognition you can get. Everyday theory and scientific theory are too very different things.
@MrDunsapy Similarly, the physicists were the first to speak with joy when it was found that there may be a possibility that the Theory of Relativity might be wrong.
Science is not about "face" or about popularity, but about facts, knowledge, and truth.
@AlphaLinkX "Science is not about "face" or about popularity, but about facts, knowledge, and truth."
I wish that were true. There are 2 major groups. ID and 'evolutionary' scientists. Both use the same science. But you have 2 interpretations. Where is the truth?
« There are 2 major groups. ID and 'evolutionary' scientists. »
In fact, there's *one* major group in science: the 'evolutionary' scientists. By which I think you mean those scientists that accept that evolutionary theory is a fundamentally accurate explanation of evolution.
There is another - small - group, a fringe group, that rejects evolutionary theory based on religious grounds.
« There is no such thing as "evolution' it is only an idea »
It's also an observed phenomenon, weird kid, just like gravity. But perhaps we should continue talking after you've had your first high school biology courses.
@MrDunsapy Gravity is a Theory. Gravity is a Fact. These two sentences say exactly the same thing.
Likewise, Evolution is a Theory, and a Fact.
That being said, there is more evidence for Evolution then there is for Gravity. Our understanding of Evolution is so vastly greater then our understanding of Gravity that it is more plausible for you to say that you do not believe in Gravity then for you to say you do not believe in Evolution.
@mtbee9 Actually I'm not ignorant of 'evolution' , its that scientists do not know what they are really saying. Or if they do then it is The Greatest Snow Job on Earth.
@MrDunsapy "Actually I'm not ignorant of 'evolution' ". Your statements indicate that you are. So you are either ignorant of the facts of evolution or simply lying on purpose. Neither of which would surprise me. Par for the course with creationists.
@MrDunsapy nah, scientists know what they're saying, you are just unable to comprehend what they say because you have enchanted glasses of ignorance on your nose
@wHisperis001 "nah, scientists know what they're saying,"
Do they?? They do not know how a cell could just happen, or is there any evidence for 'evolution'
What they have is a theory ('evolution') that demands another theory ('abiogenesis') that has to support the 1st theory. That is circular thinking, and not scientific and with no evidence for either.
@MrDunsapy nop evolution doesn't demand abiogenesis. God might have farted and created the first cell and still evolution would be right. There is no denying to evolutions validity, you've been spoonfed creationist nonsense and made to believe that they know anything about the subjects they're talking about. There's a reason wikipedia lists evolution as a fact, because it's so well established to the point it's almost impossible to be wrong. How abiogenesis happened if it did is another question
@wHisperis001 "nop evolution doesn't demand abiogenesis" The'evolution' that the scientists are promoting, does.They would have to find out who the creator was? Just like religions do. Also how do they know life was not programmed from the start to explode to the variety of life we see? That is not 'evolution' that is creation.
The scientists say no intelligence was used in any part of this. That is why they theory of 'abiogenesis', and not creation.So it is circular thinking.
@MrDunsapy evolution needs abiogenesis as much as I need to know exactly who put a pen on my table. The fact that I don't know who put it there or how it got on my table doesn't deny the fact that the pen is on my table, just like the fact that evolution happens. We're tracing history not from the point where it starts but backwards and figuring out what must have happened. I know it might not be appealing but it's the best we can do on such a difficult topic as abiogenesis.
@wHisperis001" The fact that I don't know who put it there or how it got on my table doesn't deny the fact that the pen is on my table, just like the fact that evolution happens"
Yet you know that your pen was created. You may not know who made it, doesn't mean it wasn't created.
There is no fact about 'evolution'. The fossil record and biology, both support creation.
Tell me what is your most compelling reason that proves 'evolution'? other than just the scientists telling you that?
@MrDunsapy yes I know my pen was created because from general knowledge i know pens can and are created by people. However I have never witnessed a god creating a universe for that matter, have you? My most compelling reason that proves evolution is DNA + comparing it with physiology of organisms. Everything fits. Also of course the soundness of natural selection and basic observation of how life is dispersed across the globe
@wHisperis001" I know my pen was created because from general knowledge"
I never saw a pen being made,but I know that people can create, things like a pen. But because you don't know a God, doesn't mean he does not exist. It just means you don't know him.
Now DNA is the death of 'evolution' The reason is that DNA has to be written, coded. and very precisely. That is impossible by natural means.
Everything fits because it was planned to fit. (design) "evolution' is random and can be destructive.
@MrDunsapy "But because you don't know a God, doesn't mean he does not exist. It just means you don't know him" Uhm no, it doesn't mean I don't know him (you're already implying by default that he does?), it just means I don't know if he exists, and I never said that god doesn't exist, I don't deal with absolute certainties. DNA doesn't to be written and coded and it doesn't have to be very precise because mutations would not exist if it was somehow such a precise phenomena.
@wHisperis001 Those 3000 thousand papers are wrong. With the scientists, today's science is tomorrows science fiction. If I said there are millions of people that worship Allah. Does that make them correct?
The fossil record shows one animal and then another similar animal, but without the weird transitions, that 'evolution' would produce. Biology , shows DNA ( programmed) similar to another. That shows a creator making one animal and then making another, but changing the DNA slightly.
@MrDunsapy "Those 3000 thousand papers are wrong" Now that's a sweeping statement. Well then if all it takes to prove something is wrong is to simply declare it wrong then Ill take a shot at it - creation is wrong. Hmm now who should I believe, you, probably uneducated in biology, chemistry or any of that neat stuff, or a scientist who devoted his life studying it?
The scientists will show illustrations, of say,.. a whale that has fins near the center of it's body, then the next one the fins are closer to it head, and so on.
But the transitional ones would be where the fin didn't move forward but went up on the back, and then behind the head or even went backwards , toward the tail. These would be mutations, that failed and are a result of random mistakes, but none are found in the fossil records.
@MrDunsapy " the fin didn't move forward but went up on the back, and then behind the head or even went backwards" Mutations that do not provide an advantage are typically not going to be passed on. Animals like whales have a gradual change over time where the next generation has slight improvements over the previous ones. So a fin in a strange place would probably not help an animal live or mate so it would not be passed on.
All fossils are from fully functional forms that lived at one time.
« Mutations that do not provide an advantage are typically not going to be passed on »
A lot of exceptions to that rule, though. A detrimental mutation could "hitch a ride", if it were somehow linked to a mutation that did spread. This could happen in various ways. Some genes promoting male homosexuality, for instance, are detrimental for the chances of reproduction of the male. But those same genes promote fertility in females, meaning the gene will be passed on regardless.
@mtbee9 "Mutations that do not provide .... typically not going to be passed on"
The problem with that is the animal would have to test that. In other words would have to live with it. Until it caused the animals death, before it could pass it on. But then you should find should be millions of these 'mistakes' even if they were all just born. But none are found.
"Animals like whales have a gradual change over time"
This is a planned change. Without the 'mistakes'. That supports creation
@MrDunsapy "The problem with that is the animal would have to test that. In other words would have to live with it."
No because evolutionary changes are small. You do not get big changes in one jump that would fulfill your prediction. Evolution doesn't do that!
"This is a planned change" As the changes that have been observed are small and occur due to mutations within an organism. What evidence is there that this was in any way directed? No evidence for any intervention has ever been found.
@mtbee9 "No because evolutionary changes are small." If 'evolutionary changes are small. Where are the almost humans, that are not quite humans yet. You know, the very small change. The same goes for ex-humans, that aren't human any longer.
What we see though is that humans are a huge step from anything else.
@MrDunsapy "Where are the almost humans, that are not quite humans yet." Take a look at the hominid fossil record. plenty of examples. Ever heard of Neanderthals - DNA is close to human yet slightly different!
What is an ex-human?
"humans are a huge step from anything else." Define huge? How much DNA change do you consider to be still human v non human?
The evidence supports Evolution - There is no sign of any creator interference!
@mtbee9 "Ever heard of Neanderthals - DNA is close to human yet slightly different!"
They are consider human. And not consider 'evolutionary in any way. Their mDNA had a variance of 21, but we have humans today that have a variance of 23.
" There is no sign of any creator interference!"
I guess you would have to say they are blinded by the light.
@wHisperis001 " you've been spoonfed creationist nonsense and made to believe that they know anything about the subjects they're talking about."
What about the brainwashing people go through to become scientists. That all your taught in the schools, you have write exams on this , By the time you are in university, you have to write more exams, and then there is peer pressure. If you want work , don't mention the creation word if you say the creation word now, you are instantly a bad scientists.
@MrDunsapy Well you view it as brainwashing I view it as collecting past knowledge of other people who probably new better than me. Maybe I'm putting some faith into scientists that they are right but my faith is reasonable to an extent because they, for the last few hundred years improved the world millions of times more than religions did. They invented vaccines, developed technologies to make our lives easier. More than tripled our life expectancy. If anyone, ill listen to them, not a priest
@wHisperis001 That is the best part of a con. Is to do something , that makes people put confidence in them. Then it is easier, to past off the rest of the stuff. Actually the scientists have given man the ability to destroy himself and the earth. That's the bottom line. But you are correct we have learned lots from them also. The scientists are no savior, they part of the problem.
I would not listen to a priest either. For the most part religions have been a very poor representative of God.
@wHisperis001 You have to go by the evidence we have. And many creationist are no better than the scientists with this question.
Creation to be real, has to be supported by the science. It can not be a blind faith, it has to be scientifically accurate, as well .Everything has to fit. That does not mean everything is known. But there certainty enough known so that there can be no excuse. it also has to be logical, and reasonable.
@MrDunsapy "are you saying a monkey gave birth to a human" A question for you.
What is your explanation of the evidence of the amazing variety of fossils that exist of plants and animals that all show a gradual progression in forms over the last 500 MY with not a single form out of sequence? Your answer needs to explain how all these forms came to be and how they relate through DNA and Morphology.
A simple 'god did it' is not an answer - it just says you do not have a clue.
@mtbee9 "What is your explanation of the evidence of the amazing variety of fossils that exist of plants and animals that all show a gradual progression in forms over the last 500 MY with not a single form out of sequence?"
That shows planning, not the randomness, and chance that 'evolution' would do. This is a major evidence of creation.
@MrDunsapy "That shows planning, not the randomness, and chance that 'evolution' would do. This is a major evidence of creation."
So are you saying that 'something' gradually modified the life on this planet after first creating it 3.5 BY ago and then modified it slightly over time to create variations of DNA and gradually change the forms that existed while along the way destroying some of these creations, sometimes catastrophically (like the dinosaurs), to end up with the life we see today?
@mtbee9 "So are you saying that 'something' gradually modified the life on this planet after first creating it"
Very observant. Yes that is correct. The earth would have to be prepared for life. The earth would have just been rock dust. No organic soils. The atmosphere would also have to changed.
So small life first, that could live in those conditions.Even the spreading of this life would take a long time.
More an more , until larger life could be supported.
@mtbee9 ...continue. Then there was a explosion of life. The animal life ( dinosaurs) were huge, with fast growing plants. Large plants and animals means more material for replenishing soils and the atmosphere. This is what the fossil record shows. a long slow climb of life then an explosion of life and large life. ( Cambrian )Then these animals died off. The scientist do not know why.
@MrDunsapy "The evidence we have supports creation." Not really. It supports evolution. To support creation you first have to show the mechanism that is used to make these changes. Evolution explains how this mechanism works.
Secondly you have to show that there is some force controlling the mechanism. All life is tangible. The supernatural is not. How is the intangible able to control or interact with tangible life forms.
This is why evolution is accepted - it all makes sense.
@mtbee9 "To support creation you first have to show the mechanism that is used to make these changes"
There is no excuse in this. Humans understand what creation is.
A simple example is
A loaf of bread. We know that the materials for bread are on the earth. You can speculate on how bread could just happen . We can take the materials in to a lab and make it. So we know what creation is
.
At some point the scientists might create life. Do you then know what the 'mechanism' of creation is?
@MrDunsapy "There is no excuse in this." I must disagree. We know what the ingredients are in a loaf of bread we also know what to do to create it.
How is life created and how is it done when no outside agency can be detected? There is a big difference between the two. One is known, the other mere guesswork, unless of course you can explain HOW any outside agency has created the universe and all life as we know it.
"scientists might create life." When they do, it will be just one way.
@mtbee9 " I must disagree. We know what the ingredients are in a loaf of bread we also know what to do to create it."
That is because we were given the ability to create and understand what creation is.
Would it be reasonable for me to say a loaf of bread was not created because I don't know the creator of it?
Just like that loaf shows the ability of man as a creator, the life and universe we see, shows that ability and thinking of a creator. There is no excuse.
@MrDunsapy Sorry but your argument is simply 'we know that some things are created therefore everything must be'. An argument from incredulity!
Just because we know how things are made by man does not mean everything else was made by some intelligence.
Snowflakes are a good example. They are supposedly all different and have the appearance of design but they are made when water freezes in the atmosphere and are not created by any intelligence.
@MrDunsapy "and also the evidence." Er .. what evidence?
" a snow flake has design" No I said apparent design - BIG difference. Each snowflake is NOT designed, but it can look to some like it is!
"Scientists do not go by the evidence. " Er sorry - wrong again. Scientists only go by the evidence - or it is not science! Snowflakes may look designed but we know they are not!
Your problem is that you start off with the assumption that there is a creator and then try and make the evidence fit.
@mtbee9 "a snow flake has design" No I said apparent design - BIG difference"
You recognize the design, but not the designer.
Actually on the origins of life and 'evolution' they do not go by the evidence. They go by their own theories,and try to make the evidence prove that. That is why they they still have to admit , that God could have done it!
@MrDunsapy "You recognize the design, but not the designer." Nope, unless you can explain how each and every snowflake is being designed and how it is done!
"they still have to admit, that God could have done it!" Again Nope!. Until you can explain what god is and how it did anything I'll go with the explanation that DOES explain things even though to you it is not conclusive, to me it's 100% better than your guesswork.
@mtbee9 " Nope, unless you can explain how each and every snowflake is being designed and how it is done!"
The process for snow flakes were put in place just as gravity was put in place.Both of these follow the laws of nature. Before any material was put in space what were the laws?
@MrDunsapy It is true, a deity of some sort could have made all of this.
That being said, science shows us that a personal deity akin to the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths cannot exist if it is to be correctly described by the Bible, Quran, and Tankah respectively.
And with that being said, once a deity of any sort had set into motion the universe, there is no evidence that he, she, or it had any hand afterwards, meaning your snowflake hypothesis is bullshit. Pardon the language.
@AlphaLinkX "That being said, science shows us that a personal deity akin to the Christian,..... "
Why is that?
"there is no evidence that he, she, or it had any hand afterwards,"
That is a failure of the methods the scientists use to understand things, it is set up not to detect, ID.
That means that the design of a loaf of bread , would be undetectable by the scientists.They would spend forever, trying to find out figure out how a loaf of bread could just happen on its own.
@MrDunsapy Because the way the universe is set up is as if there was no deity. Prayer does not work. The age of the universe is longer then any religion. And there is no supernatural happenings. These and more point to either a deistic god/goddess or no deity at all.
It is set up to find any evidence. If you have evidence then submit your hypothesis for peer review and make it available to be tested by other scientists.
@AlphaLinkX " If you have evidence then submit... peer review and make it available to be tested by other scientists."
I have tested this with scientists for a few years. None have been able to break it. So I did decide to submit it.I only sent it last week. I don't know how long that will take.
Actually I am in that process right now.I haven't told you all the evidence I have.
I just set site up this up over this week end so it is bare bones
@MrDunsapy Usually once it's been submitted to for peer review in a scientific journal, it may take months or years for other scientists to take the gauntlet and test the hypothesis, after all, they are not forced to test it. But there are always some scientists somewhere that will test a hypothesis.
That being said, I have my doubts that you will accept it if they come back finding your hypothesis to be flawed. (Not saying it is, just speculating.)
@AlphaLinkX "Usually once it's been submitted to for peer review"
Yes that could be the case. But this not like I added any science to this,it is just another way to look at the science.It really is if creation in this way could also explain, 'evolution' .I don't think that should take very long. It is really just about, if there is anything that says it could not happen this way.
I have already tested it with with 'evolutionary' scientists, in science forums. They could not break it.
@MrDunsapy If you didn't submit any of your own findings for other scientists to test, then they have probably thrown it out, because you did not submit any findings and simply gave them your opinion.
Again, if you wish to change anything, you yourself have to do research and find evidence. Nobody else is going to do it for you.
@AlphaLinkX "If you didn't submit any of your own findings for other scientists to test,"
That's not the problem.They already have the science. With the evidence they have now, they can get the answer to this question. It is how they look at the evidence. New scientific evidence will not change that.Really both the 'evolutionary' scientists and the ID are correct, but for both not totally correct. Now with this idea, it really is a combination of both there findings.
@MrDunsapy The problem is that they don't look at the evidence trying to find any specific idea. They do not take the evidence and try to find evolution or jesus (Let's be honest with each other, ID is religion, and more specifically, christianity), they simply follow the evidence to where the evidence takes them.
This is why you need to bring new evidence if you think that your hypothesis is correct.
@AlphaLinkX "The problem is that they don't look at the evidence trying to find any specific idea."
Well they sure seem to be looking for a God gene.They might better off looking for God.
The thing is I don't think anyone has noticed that if you use the creations of the bible,God said he created by taking material from one life and creating another life from that. That actually supports 'lines of descent' .. That's a big step, in creation science.
I did get a message today, that said they are at least looking into it!
For the creator to actually say how he created. This is a new idea, I think this also supports the known science. It shows that the mainstream scientists are partially correct, but also the ID scientists. I also explains why the history of some animals is also included in life.
It remains to be seen, if the theories of some are more important, than the evidence or the answers.
@MrDunsapy Yes, we know genes exsist, and some scientists are looking for evidence that a gene that increases chances of spirituality may exist.
You have to understand, scientists are not assigned to look for this or for that. They either do research in whatever they want, applying for grants in that field, or they do what their university deans tell them.
Again, if you have evidence pointing towards a personal deity, please do the research, write a hypothesis, and submit it for peer review.
@AlphaLinkX "Yes, we know genes exsist,..........."
Yes what you said here is correct. They are really told what to look for.And for getting grants, , how many grants are given for looking for creation? The system is designed to keep things the way they are. The prizes go to the ones that follow the main line of thinking. It is away of patting each other on the back and saying how great we are.
I already have submitted it. They are looking into it.
@MrDunsapy As for the idea that god may of been the cause of evolution, that wouldn't be correct. The biblical deity spoke everything into existence as per the Tanakh and the Old Testament. Everything fully formed as it is today.
@AlphaLinkX "As for the idea that god may of been the cause of evolution,"
You are correct, God has nothing to do with 'evolution'
But there are some changes, and some animals have gone extinct. All through creation new a different animals were created. Variation of these animals were also created. There were domestic and wild animals created. Bats came suddenly and have been the same for millions of years.
"How one looks at evidence", or in other words "interpretation of evidence" is also called "hypothesis".
If the people you mention have an alternative hypothesis about the evidence, then they should publish it, provide it and its supporting data, in an independently verifiable format.
@MrDunsapy Addititionally, there're scientists that are actively trying to search for evidence to prove your religion to be true. Obviously they have not found any, but they're looking for it. And if they find said evidence, and it's found to be accurate by their peers, then it would be ground breaking. However, that evidence has not been found. And approximately 85-90% of the Scientists in America do not think the evidence is there. But hey, if they want to try, I say let them try. Science ftw.
@AlphaLinkX " Addititionally, there're scientists that are actively trying to search for evidence to prove your religion to be true."
The science doesn't depend on popularity.I was talking to a lecturer on 'evolution' the other day and he said, that the method of science they use, is not designed to detect design. What that means is, they could not detect design in a loaf of bread.Don't you think that is a big flaw?
He's right: it isn't. It's not a major flaw though. Usually design is pretty obvious: we know what to look for, we know how to recognise it. And as long as science *does* produce naturalistic models that parsimoniously explain phenomena, there's no reason to suspect design anyway.
@MrDunsapy Science is not set up to detect anything other then evidence. If the evidence points to design, then yes, science is set up to detect it. If the evidence does not point to design then no, science is not set up to detect it.
Science only detects what the evidence points to.
This has been flagged as spam show
Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops.
PainSurgeon 5 days ago
I don't believe that in the second decade of the 21st century there are still this discussions on wether evolution happened or not. Who educated You, people who doubt?
jankerle58 2 weeks ago 2
@jankerle58 religious freaks and in general, all byproduct of not perfect evolution are a reality. Proof that the genome requires still lots of corrections. There is a huge glitch that makes most people to believe in imaginary friends
GerardoOchoa 5 days ago
Guys, a theory is an explanation on a scientific FACT, evolution DID happen, and this is a theory, explaining how it happened. religious people need to get the fuck over the fact that this did happen. you cant "believe" evolution, it did happen, it is fact not belief.
ClaylandStudios 3 weeks ago
@ClaylandStudios wrong there are arguments that say ta evolution din't happen
ThexSkORpiO 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@ThexSkORpiO Surrrrre. can you provide those arguments?
ClaylandStudios 1 week ago
@ThexSkORpiO wow good on you for making a claim without backing it up. come on, can you provide a single peer reviewed scientific article backing up your point or are you going to reference websites put up by any idiot? come on what lie are you going to use? I dare you to say there are no transitional fossils or that information cannot be added to the genome. I'm looking forward to this.
endosymbiotictheory 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is more evidence proving accounts of the Bible in all fields of science than evidence supporting evolution. There is substantial scientific evidence disproving evolution.
Its okay to be angry. I felt the same way too, but after studying the archeological, biological, historical, and even astronomical evidence it would take more faith to believe in evolution than God. Don't let your pride and the devil's veil over science keep you from the truth. God bless.
Maindrian5 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is more evidence proving accounts of the Bible in all fields of science than evidence supporting evolution. There is substantial scientific evidence disproving evolution.
Its okay to be angry. I felt the same way too, but after studying the archeological, biological, historical, and even astronomical evidence it would take more faith to believe in evolution than God. Don't let your pride and the devil's veil over science keep you from the truth. God bless.
Maindrian5 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is more evidence proving accounts of the Bible in all fields of science than evidence supporting evolution. There is substantial scientific evidence disproving evolution.
Its okay to be angry. I felt the same way too, but after studying the archeological, biological, historical, and even astronomical evidence it would take more faith to believe in evolution than God. Don't let your pride and the devil's veil over science keep you from the truth. God bless.
Maindrian5 1 month ago
Gravity... just a theory. Cell theory.... just a theory. Atomic theory.... just a theory.
It's easy to be amazed when you are faced with things you don't understand.
TheSpearthrower 1 month ago 2
Scientific theories aren't hunches, they're bodies of tested knowledge based on all the data. They are far more highly valued than mere facts, which are 2 a penny. Best learn the terminology before playing.
TheSpearthrower 1 month ago
54 people voted for george bush
08selinakyle 1 month ago
fukin A
k5669 2 months ago
Happy Birthday, Carl, a hero.
SaM3BMW 2 months ago
WOOWW. OUR COUSIN IS STAR-FISH, EVEN A 5 YEAR OLD KID,WOULDNT TALK LIKE THAT BUT MORON ATHEIST CARL TALK. INFACT EVERYTHING IS THE DESIGN OF GOD=ALLAH IS THE RULER OF THIS UNIVERSE.MORON CARL WAS SAYING ABOUT THE WORLD IS ORDINARY. REALLY MORON CARL. INFACT EVERYTHING IS EXTRA-ORDINARY. PLANET LIKE EARTH REQUIRES 1 IN A TRILLION PROBABILITY TO EMERGE IN THIS UNIVERSE.GO TO HELL MORON
sabuncuhoca 2 months ago
@sabuncuhoca You are a waste of space. utter moron. idiotic with no reason. simply a nincompoop. way to go.
ClaylandStudios 2 months ago
@ClaylandStudios ,FUCK YOU MORON CARL TOO. WHOEVER DENY AND INSULT ALLAH IS MY ENEMY. YOU ARE BUNCH OF STUPID PEOPLE DESTINED TO HELL. YOU NEED EVOLUTION TO BE MEN LIKE US WE MUSLIMS
sabuncuhoca 2 months ago
@sabuncuhoca This right here, is a case of extremely religious, irrational beliefs, ladies and gentlemen. No wonder it's dangerous.
martinbondesson 2 months ago
@martinbondesson ,EXTREMELY RELIGIOUS, ?? IF YOU DONT CARE ABOUT RELIGION, WHAT YOU GONNA DO AFTER YOU DIE? RELIGION IS THE FIRST OBJECTIVE IN THIS LIFE. SCIENCE OF WHO? HOW SCIENCE AND PYHSIC,ATOMIC RULES CAME ABOUT? EVERYTHING RUNS ON CERTAIN NUMBERS RULES AND MAKES UNIVERSE.
sabuncuhoca 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sabuncuhoca
What do you mean? As far as we know, nobody will do anything when they die. They die.
XiaoPow 2 months ago
@sabuncuhoca You can't do anything after you die.
Destroyer4700 2 months ago
@Destroyer4700 ,THEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE PREPARATION FOR THAT UNKNOWN IN THIS LIFE.
sabuncuhoca 2 months ago
@sabuncuhoca If having the same beliefs as carl means eternity in hell then hell it is. :)
ClaylandStudios 2 months ago
@sabuncuhoca There is a moon going around Jupiter that has similarities to Earth.
Moron.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@sabuncuhoca How is acknowledging scientific facts moronic?
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX ,I ACLNOWLEDGE EVOLUTION IS THE PUSH OF GOD ON SPECIES. DARWIN WAS A MOTHERFUCKER WHO STOLE THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION FROM A MUSLIM SCIENTIST IBN-MISKEVEYH. PROPOSED THIS IDEA 900 YEARS AGO.
sabuncuhoca 1 month ago
@sabuncuhoca The idea was proposed multiple times. Darwin A) was the first one to go in depth about it, and B) proposed it at the right time for people to accept it.
As for evolution being a "push", well for a Deistic deity, possible, but the holy books don't agree with your idea.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX ,religions support evolution, read holly bible mentions sea monsters, read koran says life began in water
sabuncuhoca 1 month ago
@sabuncuhoca What sea monsters? The Loch Ness? Seriously? I hope you are kidding about this sea monster nonsense.
As for life beginning in water, that doesn't support evolution, that supports the obvious fact that life began where molecules could most easily connect with one another. That has nothing to do with evolution.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX ,bible talk about dinos, go read it. really? water is the center stage of evolution then you deny science also
sabuncuhoca 1 month ago
@sabuncuhoca I remember hearing about that. If you really believe in magic, and you tap your heals together three times, and recite the words "The Bible is real" three times, there will be dinosaurs in the Bible.
As for evolution, you do not need water for evolution. If you think it does, you do not understand evolution.
(And considering you are using the word "evolution" as though you think it means "how life began", I can only assume that you have no understanding of evolution.)
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@sabuncuhoca There is a one in a hundred trillion chance that when you wake up tommorrow, a photon of light will cross the distance from the Sun to the Earth and hit your eyeball.
Additionally, a Supernova happens about twice every hundred years in our galaxy alone. Thats 2 per 50 years. And if you were to take a dime and hold it out at arm's length, there is about one Supernova happening once every few seconds. -Continue-
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX I had a little typo there. It is twice every hundred years, which would be 1 per 50 years, about once in a lifetime.
My appologies.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@sabuncuhoca -Continued- Now, if you were to take a straight shot from that dime, you would hit enough galaxies that one Supernova happens every few seconds.
Yes, planets like ours are rare, very rare. And life is very rare indeed.
But our Universe is so absolutely gigantic that it is beyond our comprehension how large it is. And because of that, rare and extremely uncommon things happen every day.
Now, I understand you are religious, so you don't have to believe this. But facts are facts.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX the probability of emergence of a planet like earth requires 1 in a trilion chance . this number means when you go to casino, hitting the jackpot of 11 digit, same sign 11 times. do u think this is possible. ?for you possible.i see just great desing of god.other lifes are possible but they are not likely beings of matter.ALLAH is the god of many beings visible and invisible.nothing is coincidence in this universe is praying for god. every vision,motion,rotation for him
sabuncuhoca 1 month ago
@sabuncuhoca I see it not only as possible, but as probable and, considering the vastness of the Universe, I would say that it's nearly impossible that a planet like Earth doesn't exist.
In fact, there is a planet very similar to our own in the Alpha Centauri planetary system.
One in a trillion chances must not be what it used to be. :P
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
Nu uh, God did it. I can prove it with this book I've got.
someonetoogoodforyou 3 months ago
Carl Sagan was an overrated idiot.
Michio Kaku PWNS Sagan.
evoTARDSareINSANE 3 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE Uggg... So Michio Kaku is smart, therefore Carl Sagan is an idiot? Is that your logic? Is this some sort of intellectual boxing match? Carl Sagan is by no stretch an idiot.
magicmike323 2 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE Michio Kaku is great because he stands on the shoulders of giants, just like those giants stand on the shoulders of other giants.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
Nice story... but seriously, this is what we believe?
Naytardo 3 months ago
@Naytardo Do you have a better explanation?
MrDucelee 3 months ago
@MrDucelee Well yes. I used to be an evolutionist. We have lots of exceptional stories, like Carl Sagan's, that explain the overall sequence of evolution, and these stories are very believable. However, the obstacles to evolution keep emerging as we learn more about the fossil record and molecular biochemistry, to name only two problems with the 'fact' of evolution. Since science hasn't explained our origins, I'll stick with the seemingly obvious notion that we are designed.
Naytardo 2 months ago
@Naytardo You are NOT on topic. The origin of life has NOTHING to do with evolution!!! However I think is amusing to see creationist explain how it is rational to believe we came from some dirt that a magic sky daddy blew on. So PLEASE do explain it to us.
NEGATIONofP 2 months ago
@NEGATIONofP Since this video deals with the origin of life, I thought it appropriate to bring up. To me, God is the only solution to all of the problems facing naturalists. Evolution is one part of the attempt at an explanation for existence that excludes God, but the evidence from the fossil record does not support evolution. God is all-powerful, so it's easy for him to make us out of dirt, he invented dirt in the first place, he can do anything. I don't see how that's hard to believe.
Naytardo 2 months ago
Comment removed
NEGATIONofP 2 months ago
@Naytardo 1 of 3 Again 3 topics 3 replies. Regarding abiogenesis. If you had stated you wished to discuss the origins of life your statement of “science hasn't explained our origins” would have been fine. However you included it with statements regarding the validity of evolutionary theory. Leading one to believe you had no understanding the two are unrelated. I apologize if this is not the case but caution you to be more comprehensible in the future.
Cont.
NEGATIONofP 2 months ago
@Naytardo 2 of 3 Your statement “the evidence from the fossil record does not support evolution” is just flat out WRONG and a FAIL on so many levels that it would be laughable if it were not so SAD. With almost 170 years of scientific testing & refinement evolution is arguably the most well supported theory in history of man. We LITERALLY understand evolution better than we do GRAVITY (also "just a theory"). Please provide us with your "fossil evidence" that is NOT supporting evolution.
Cont.
NEGATIONofP 2 months ago
@NEGATIONofP Let me put it this way, the fossil evidence does not support gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium is supposed to solve this problem. But punctuated equilibrium basically goes against everything that natural selection and random mutation can explain. Therefore the fossils do not support evolution, neither the gradualistic or punctuated version. I didn't realize you had three answers but hopefully I responded to most of it.
Naytardo 2 months ago
@Naytardo Where are you getting this crap please site your references. Punctuated equilibrium has not only been theorized but is has now been observed on multiple occasions. Antibiotic resistant bacteria, Nylon eating bacterium, even the many varieties of dogs could be used to argue its validity, So again wheres the EVIDENCE? I will not allow you to just make claims without backing them up.
NEGATIONofP 2 months ago
@NEGATIONofP Punctuated equilibrium is a theory about rapid speciation, rapid changes occur to speed up the process of evolution. None of the examples you gave show speciation, only micro-evolution. Bacteria is still bacteria, dogs are still dogs. Punctuated equilibrium is only postulated based on the lack of fossil evidence for gradualism. The Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by gradualism, so they say it must have happened real fast. You haven't sited any references so neither will I.
Naytardo 2 months ago
@Naytardo The scientists do not want you to know the real facts that we all have
they are
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life
These 3 simple facts that we all know, All support creation.
But interestingly the scientists don't want you to know that. Because they don't support 'evolution'
I call this , The Greatest Snow Job on Earth.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy
"1 life comes from life" - except for the first life or replicating cell. (or from magic)
"2 a human comes from humans" - except for the primate different enough to not be called human.
"3 there is design in life" - Nope, there is the 'look' of design in some things and much randomness and symmetry too. No proof of any creation from sentient beings.
"I call this , The Greatest Snow Job on Earth." Enjoy your ignorance of the evidence that supports all of science.
mtbee9 2 months ago
@mtbee9 The scientists have no idea how a cell could just happen. Is that just based on a myth?
are you saying a monkey gave birth to a human? Only humans come from humans.
If I asked you to build a cat robot. Would you design it? Or would you randomly throw stuff in a pile?
Do you see how the scientists have done a huge con.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy "The scientists have no idea how a cell could just happen" Actually they have quite a few ideas and are working on the problem - thats what science does.
"are you saying a monkey gave birth to a human" Nope, Monkeys are another primate for which we share a common ancestor. This is shown through DNA and common morphology, among other things.
"randomly throw stuff in a pile" Nope and that is irrelevant as it is not how Evolution works.
You are obviously ignorant of Evolution.
mtbee9 2 months ago
@mtbee9 When you say they have quite few ideas, does that mean they, say, have 10 ideas. What's the problem , can they not pick one and say this the truth? The reason they can't is because of their 10 ideas none of them fit. There is no evidence.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy "can they not pick one and say this the truth?" nope that's not how science works. they will consider all of the possibilities and work out which is correct. They don't just guess like creationists do.
"There is no evidence" That is true if we had evidence of the first life there wouldn't be a problem.
mtbee9 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy This is similar to saying "Can't the scientists in NASA just pick an idea on how to go to the Moon and use it? This is what's wrong with NASA, they will never go to the moon."
The problem is there is a way to go to the moon, and there is a certain velocity to escape earth's gravity, and there is a time you have to leave at.
Where religion makes shit up, science does not rest until it has the answer.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "This is similar to saying........"
There nothing wrong with scientific research. Actually the scientists have opened up a lot of very interesting things. I am certainly not against, exploration, and learning.
What I am saying is their theories are wrong and could never happen and do not happen. But just the same they have learned a lot of science, trying to break creation,but have not been able to.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy As I have said, if you think you have a better hypothesis then do your research, perform your experiments, test your hypothesis, and publish your findings for peer review.
If your findings turn out to be true, then I can assure you that you would win a nobel prize.
If you cannot do this, then you do not know whether or not the accepted theories (which, in scientific terms, would roughly equate to "fact" in layman's terms) are correct.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlphaLinkX "As I have said, if you think you have a better hypothesis"
I sent this out to many scientists, I have 2 that are looking into it. Both are high profile. I have gotten email back from them.
As for winning a Nobel Prize, who is going to get the prize for creation? The system is not set up for that. Though I do think what I have proposed is worthy of some ramification on the way all scientists, looks that the evidence they find.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy
« who is going to get the prize for creation? »
I dunno, but I bet they'll be standing next to the people who discovered Santa Claus is real...
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy And to assist in your understanding, a theory is an analasys of a set of facts in relation to one another.
Examples are: Gravity, Evolution, String, etc.
In fact, we know more about Evolution then we know about Gravity.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX Actually Gravity is a fact. It even works for the Russians. Because the scientists do not know everything on how it works doesn't change that.No matter what the scientists find about Gravity in the future, it is still Gravity.
There is no such thing as "evolution' it is only an idea. Though the science is still science. So the 'evolutionary ' scientists have also made a contribution, to our understand of life.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy I really do see this as a bringing both groups together.Even though 'evolution' is not real,some of the lines of descent could very well be real.With efficiency of creation,they may in fact uncovered the order or at least a connection, of one life coming from another.I think that is an important contribution.
But do the 'evolution' scientists have too much to lose, to save 'face'?
I think most will continue, as they are.Though the tide is changing.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy
« Even though 'evolution' is not real »
... Seriously, boy. What's not real about it?
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy
« But do the 'evolution' scientists have too much to lose, to save 'face'? »
No more than everybody else, I'd wager. Is there some point you're trying to make?
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy
« Though the tide is changing. »
Really? You're one of those people who say that the establishment is coming around to intelligent design?
I'd love to see through which wormhole you people accidentally fell into our universe ;)
Seriously, kid. This is the *real* world we live in, and in the real world the handful of people who bother with pretending that intelligent design is science are laughed at.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Again, saying Evolution is not real is akin to saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth. There is no evidence to support your claim.
And no, if evidence was to come forth disproving evolution, the evolutionary biologists would be the first to celebrate, because we have learned something and we have moved forward on the path to greater and greater knowledge.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "evolutionary biologists would be the first to celebrate..."
This is the problem, their theories are more important than the evidence.Their theories, can not detect ID. Which is a major flaw. Which means before going in to investigate, the conclusion is already determined because to the method they use. Not scientific.
By the way I did get 2 emails back so far. My idea will be going to the next step. I'm not sure what that means yet.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy
« can not detect ID »
It is not the job of their theories to detect ID. If ID exists, then it will either be irrelevant, or it will be science that detects it, and explains it through a theory.
Your problem is that you are confusing concepts. Science produces theories to explain facts. One such theories *could* be that some fact can be explained in terms of ID. But if such a theory cannot be distinguished from fantasy, then it is of no use; it cannot teach us anything.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy First, if it's a theory, then it's a fact. A theory is basically the scientific term for fact.
Second, if they are holding onto a -hypothesis- as if it was a theory, then they are probably not actually scientists and you can discard what they say. No true scientist would put a personal hypothesis above evidence, especially considering that can ruin one's career very quickly.
Third, glad to hear you got a reply. Keep me informed, as I'd love to know what happens with your research
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "A theory is basically the scientific term for fact."
Does that mean if I say I have a theory , it is a fact? If I get all my relatives to support me, is that peer review?
You don't ruin a career, by going along with the flow. You ruin a career, by going against the flow, even if you are correct.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Your Family is not a scientific journal, is it?
And if you have a theory, then you have a fact. You don't make theories up.
Why do people keep confusing hypothesis with theories?
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "Your Family is not a scientific journal,is it?"
The scientists family are ones that have gone through the same schooling, with the same answers.They are going to get the same results.
The scientists method of explaining life, have no method of detecting ,ID. What do you think the out come will be?
A loaf of bread to a scientists , can only be from a natural process. But everyone else knows a baker has to make it.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
First, no, the family of a scientist has not gone through the same schooling. For example, back when I was in highschool, I was taking a couple construction classes. My family still know nothing of construction, but I do. Because I took the classes, not them.
And on that matter, -your- family is not a scientific journal either.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Second, the reason why you have to present it to a scientific journal is so that other scientists can take your evidence and attempt to recreate your experiment. That is the entire point of a scientific journal, and exactly what peer review means.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlphaLinkX "Second, the reason why you have to present "
Yes I know what you are saying.
But if you put it too the ones that have been trained to look for the same things, and results, that's what you will get. Then some one comes along years later and debunks it.
That means for that time everyone is believing the wrong things.
So for the scientists, today's science is tomorrows science fiction.Its hard to know what is accurate or not.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "Third, glad to hear you got a reply. Keep me informed, as I'd love to know what happens with your research"
Ok what I was advised to do, was to write up , this idea, as though it was an experiment. And go through the whole process. Then submit it like that. That mean's quite a lot of work. I'm not a very good writer, I'm much better at illustration and animation.
I am waiting for 1 more scientists to get back to me, to see what he says.He said it would be in the new year.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Well, it looks like you are on your way. Keep finding more evidence.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX A theory is not a fact, it is an idea that seems possible. After testing and proving it's true, it becomes a scientific fact.
For instance, a theory of zero gravitation devices on Earth. It seems possible in the future but as for now it's just a theory.
PizzaNuggetz 1 month ago
@PizzaNuggetz Again, why do people confuse theories with hypothesis?
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX A theory is not a fact you dickhead.
GenerationSam 1 month ago
@GenerationSam "throry" has 2 different meanings , check oxford dictionary .
jamesxoxbond 1 month ago
@GenerationSam In laymans terms, it is.
Technically speaking, a theory is the correlation between facts. But for communication in Youtube, I simply say "Theory is Fact". It simplifies things.
Dickhead.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@GenerationSam Theory is the highest status any scientific finding could reach, a theory explains the observed reality. Like, how the germ theory explains how microbes cause disease. In science theories are not assumptions, they are collection of explanation for facts. theory of gravity, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory, theory of relativity and thousands of theories are there to explain phenomenons that occur in nature.
DoubterApe 1 month ago
@DoubterApe Yes that is true, but it is STILL just a theory. Theories can be made by anyone, not just scientists. They are not facts. You people amaze me.
GenerationSam 1 month ago
@GenerationSam Yeah, a theory can be formed by anyone, but it should require evidence and study by lot of other scientist in the discipline. Keeping aside Evolution other scientific theories, if you dont believe in evolution, what do you believe in anyways? Talking snake? Man made from a handful of dirt? Women made from a rib? Talking snake? and magic. Evolution is a proven fact and is as good as any other scientific fact period!
DoubterApe 1 month ago
@GenerationSam
Scientific theory is an explanation for a phenomena. Atomic theory, theory of planetary motion, plate tectonic theory, germ theory, Einstein's theory of general relativity, quantum theory, theory of evolution. Facts, observation and laws are unified to form a theory. Thats how it works in science.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@GenerationSam you dont understand what your talking about.
alexanderhulse 1 month ago
@GenerationSam The term 'Theory' in scientific nomenclature is the highest form of recognition you can get. Everyday theory and scientific theory are too very different things.
Alphacaliber 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Similarly, the physicists were the first to speak with joy when it was found that there may be a possibility that the Theory of Relativity might be wrong.
Science is not about "face" or about popularity, but about facts, knowledge, and truth.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlphaLinkX "Science is not about "face" or about popularity, but about facts, knowledge, and truth."
I wish that were true. There are 2 major groups. ID and 'evolutionary' scientists. Both use the same science. But you have 2 interpretations. Where is the truth?
Do you see what I mean?
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy
« There are 2 major groups. ID and 'evolutionary' scientists. »
In fact, there's *one* major group in science: the 'evolutionary' scientists. By which I think you mean those scientists that accept that evolutionary theory is a fundamentally accurate explanation of evolution.
There is another - small - group, a fringe group, that rejects evolutionary theory based on religious grounds.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy
« But you have 2 interpretations. Where is the truth? »
In science, an interpretation of evidence is called a 'hypothesis'.
A major requirement of a scientific hypothesis is that it should be both verifiable *and* falsifiable.
We *test* the accuracy of scientific hypotheses by holding them up against further observational data as it becomes available.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy
« There is no such thing as "evolution' it is only an idea »
It's also an observed phenomenon, weird kid, just like gravity. But perhaps we should continue talking after you've had your first high school biology courses.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Gravity is a Theory. Gravity is a Fact. These two sentences say exactly the same thing.
Likewise, Evolution is a Theory, and a Fact.
That being said, there is more evidence for Evolution then there is for Gravity. Our understanding of Evolution is so vastly greater then our understanding of Gravity that it is more plausible for you to say that you do not believe in Gravity then for you to say you do not believe in Evolution.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@mtbee9 Actually I'm not ignorant of 'evolution' , its that scientists do not know what they are really saying. Or if they do then it is The Greatest Snow Job on Earth.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy "Actually I'm not ignorant of 'evolution' ". Your statements indicate that you are. So you are either ignorant of the facts of evolution or simply lying on purpose. Neither of which would surprise me. Par for the course with creationists.
mtbee9 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy nah, scientists know what they're saying, you are just unable to comprehend what they say because you have enchanted glasses of ignorance on your nose
wHisperis001 2 months ago
@wHisperis001 "nah, scientists know what they're saying,"
Do they?? They do not know how a cell could just happen, or is there any evidence for 'evolution'
What they have is a theory ('evolution') that demands another theory ('abiogenesis') that has to support the 1st theory. That is circular thinking, and not scientific and with no evidence for either.
So what do they know?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy nop evolution doesn't demand abiogenesis. God might have farted and created the first cell and still evolution would be right. There is no denying to evolutions validity, you've been spoonfed creationist nonsense and made to believe that they know anything about the subjects they're talking about. There's a reason wikipedia lists evolution as a fact, because it's so well established to the point it's almost impossible to be wrong. How abiogenesis happened if it did is another question
wHisperis001 2 months ago
@wHisperis001 "nop evolution doesn't demand abiogenesis" The'evolution' that the scientists are promoting, does.They would have to find out who the creator was? Just like religions do. Also how do they know life was not programmed from the start to explode to the variety of life we see? That is not 'evolution' that is creation.
The scientists say no intelligence was used in any part of this. That is why they theory of 'abiogenesis', and not creation.So it is circular thinking.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy evolution needs abiogenesis as much as I need to know exactly who put a pen on my table. The fact that I don't know who put it there or how it got on my table doesn't deny the fact that the pen is on my table, just like the fact that evolution happens. We're tracing history not from the point where it starts but backwards and figuring out what must have happened. I know it might not be appealing but it's the best we can do on such a difficult topic as abiogenesis.
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@wHisperis001" The fact that I don't know who put it there or how it got on my table doesn't deny the fact that the pen is on my table, just like the fact that evolution happens"
Yet you know that your pen was created. You may not know who made it, doesn't mean it wasn't created.
There is no fact about 'evolution'. The fossil record and biology, both support creation.
Tell me what is your most compelling reason that proves 'evolution'? other than just the scientists telling you that?
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy yes I know my pen was created because from general knowledge i know pens can and are created by people. However I have never witnessed a god creating a universe for that matter, have you? My most compelling reason that proves evolution is DNA + comparing it with physiology of organisms. Everything fits. Also of course the soundness of natural selection and basic observation of how life is dispersed across the globe
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@wHisperis001" I know my pen was created because from general knowledge"
I never saw a pen being made,but I know that people can create, things like a pen. But because you don't know a God, doesn't mean he does not exist. It just means you don't know him.
Now DNA is the death of 'evolution' The reason is that DNA has to be written, coded. and very precisely. That is impossible by natural means.
Everything fits because it was planned to fit. (design) "evolution' is random and can be destructive.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "But because you don't know a God, doesn't mean he does not exist. It just means you don't know him" Uhm no, it doesn't mean I don't know him (you're already implying by default that he does?), it just means I don't know if he exists, and I never said that god doesn't exist, I don't deal with absolute certainties. DNA doesn't to be written and coded and it doesn't have to be very precise because mutations would not exist if it was somehow such a precise phenomena.
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy sorry evolution has over 300 THOUSAND peer reviewed papers about it. Biology and fossil record do not support creation at the slightest
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@wHisperis001 Those 3000 thousand papers are wrong. With the scientists, today's science is tomorrows science fiction. If I said there are millions of people that worship Allah. Does that make them correct?
The fossil record shows one animal and then another similar animal, but without the weird transitions, that 'evolution' would produce. Biology , shows DNA ( programmed) similar to another. That shows a creator making one animal and then making another, but changing the DNA slightly.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "Those 3000 thousand papers are wrong" Now that's a sweeping statement. Well then if all it takes to prove something is wrong is to simply declare it wrong then Ill take a shot at it - creation is wrong. Hmm now who should I believe, you, probably uneducated in biology, chemistry or any of that neat stuff, or a scientist who devoted his life studying it?
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "but without the weird transitions, that 'evolution' would produce".
What weird transitions?
mtbee9 1 month ago
@mtbee9 "but without the weird transitions, "
The scientists will show illustrations, of say,.. a whale that has fins near the center of it's body, then the next one the fins are closer to it head, and so on.
But the transitional ones would be where the fin didn't move forward but went up on the back, and then behind the head or even went backwards , toward the tail. These would be mutations, that failed and are a result of random mistakes, but none are found in the fossil records.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy " the fin didn't move forward but went up on the back, and then behind the head or even went backwards" Mutations that do not provide an advantage are typically not going to be passed on. Animals like whales have a gradual change over time where the next generation has slight improvements over the previous ones. So a fin in a strange place would probably not help an animal live or mate so it would not be passed on.
All fossils are from fully functional forms that lived at one time.
mtbee9 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Mutations that do not provide an advantage are typically not going to be passed on »
A lot of exceptions to that rule, though. A detrimental mutation could "hitch a ride", if it were somehow linked to a mutation that did spread. This could happen in various ways. Some genes promoting male homosexuality, for instance, are detrimental for the chances of reproduction of the male. But those same genes promote fertility in females, meaning the gene will be passed on regardless.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@mtbee9 "Mutations that do not provide .... typically not going to be passed on"
The problem with that is the animal would have to test that. In other words would have to live with it. Until it caused the animals death, before it could pass it on. But then you should find should be millions of these 'mistakes' even if they were all just born. But none are found.
"Animals like whales have a gradual change over time"
This is a planned change. Without the 'mistakes'. That supports creation
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "The problem with that is the animal would have to test that. In other words would have to live with it."
No because evolutionary changes are small. You do not get big changes in one jump that would fulfill your prediction. Evolution doesn't do that!
"This is a planned change" As the changes that have been observed are small and occur due to mutations within an organism. What evidence is there that this was in any way directed? No evidence for any intervention has ever been found.
mtbee9 1 month ago
@mtbee9 "No because evolutionary changes are small." If 'evolutionary changes are small. Where are the almost humans, that are not quite humans yet. You know, the very small change. The same goes for ex-humans, that aren't human any longer.
What we see though is that humans are a huge step from anything else.
So the evidence we have supports creation.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "Where are the almost humans, that are not quite humans yet." Take a look at the hominid fossil record. plenty of examples. Ever heard of Neanderthals - DNA is close to human yet slightly different!
What is an ex-human?
"humans are a huge step from anything else." Define huge? How much DNA change do you consider to be still human v non human?
The evidence supports Evolution - There is no sign of any creator interference!
mtbee9 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mtbee9 "Ever heard of Neanderthals - DNA is close to human yet slightly different!"
They are consider human. And not consider 'evolutionary in any way. Their mDNA had a variance of 21, but we have humans today that have a variance of 23.
" There is no sign of any creator interference!"
I guess you would have to say they are blinded by the light.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@wHisperis001 " you've been spoonfed creationist nonsense and made to believe that they know anything about the subjects they're talking about."
What about the brainwashing people go through to become scientists. That all your taught in the schools, you have write exams on this , By the time you are in university, you have to write more exams, and then there is peer pressure. If you want work , don't mention the creation word if you say the creation word now, you are instantly a bad scientists.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Well you view it as brainwashing I view it as collecting past knowledge of other people who probably new better than me. Maybe I'm putting some faith into scientists that they are right but my faith is reasonable to an extent because they, for the last few hundred years improved the world millions of times more than religions did. They invented vaccines, developed technologies to make our lives easier. More than tripled our life expectancy. If anyone, ill listen to them, not a priest
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@wHisperis001 That is the best part of a con. Is to do something , that makes people put confidence in them. Then it is easier, to past off the rest of the stuff. Actually the scientists have given man the ability to destroy himself and the earth. That's the bottom line. But you are correct we have learned lots from them also. The scientists are no savior, they part of the problem.
I would not listen to a priest either. For the most part religions have been a very poor representative of God.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy What makes you think creationists didn't put a con on you?
wHisperis001 1 month ago
@wHisperis001 You have to go by the evidence we have. And many creationist are no better than the scientists with this question.
Creation to be real, has to be supported by the science. It can not be a blind faith, it has to be scientifically accurate, as well .Everything has to fit. That does not mean everything is known. But there certainty enough known so that there can be no excuse. it also has to be logical, and reasonable.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "are you saying a monkey gave birth to a human" A question for you.
What is your explanation of the evidence of the amazing variety of fossils that exist of plants and animals that all show a gradual progression in forms over the last 500 MY with not a single form out of sequence? Your answer needs to explain how all these forms came to be and how they relate through DNA and Morphology.
A simple 'god did it' is not an answer - it just says you do not have a clue.
mtbee9 2 months ago
@mtbee9 "What is your explanation of the evidence of the amazing variety of fossils that exist of plants and animals that all show a gradual progression in forms over the last 500 MY with not a single form out of sequence?"
That shows planning, not the randomness, and chance that 'evolution' would do. This is a major evidence of creation.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "That shows planning, not the randomness, and chance that 'evolution' would do. This is a major evidence of creation."
So are you saying that 'something' gradually modified the life on this planet after first creating it 3.5 BY ago and then modified it slightly over time to create variations of DNA and gradually change the forms that existed while along the way destroying some of these creations, sometimes catastrophically (like the dinosaurs), to end up with the life we see today?
mtbee9 1 month ago
@mtbee9 "So are you saying that 'something' gradually modified the life on this planet after first creating it"
Very observant. Yes that is correct. The earth would have to be prepared for life. The earth would have just been rock dust. No organic soils. The atmosphere would also have to changed.
So small life first, that could live in those conditions.Even the spreading of this life would take a long time.
More an more , until larger life could be supported.
continue...
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@mtbee9 ...continue. Then there was a explosion of life. The animal life ( dinosaurs) were huge, with fast growing plants. Large plants and animals means more material for replenishing soils and the atmosphere. This is what the fossil record shows. a long slow climb of life then an explosion of life and large life. ( Cambrian )Then these animals died off. The scientist do not know why.
Its good thing for man, that they did.
The evidence we have supports creation.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "The evidence we have supports creation." Not really. It supports evolution. To support creation you first have to show the mechanism that is used to make these changes. Evolution explains how this mechanism works.
Secondly you have to show that there is some force controlling the mechanism. All life is tangible. The supernatural is not. How is the intangible able to control or interact with tangible life forms.
This is why evolution is accepted - it all makes sense.
mtbee9 1 month ago
@mtbee9 "To support creation you first have to show the mechanism that is used to make these changes"
There is no excuse in this. Humans understand what creation is.
A simple example is
A loaf of bread. We know that the materials for bread are on the earth. You can speculate on how bread could just happen . We can take the materials in to a lab and make it. So we know what creation is
.
At some point the scientists might create life. Do you then know what the 'mechanism' of creation is?
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "There is no excuse in this." I must disagree. We know what the ingredients are in a loaf of bread we also know what to do to create it.
How is life created and how is it done when no outside agency can be detected? There is a big difference between the two. One is known, the other mere guesswork, unless of course you can explain HOW any outside agency has created the universe and all life as we know it.
"scientists might create life." When they do, it will be just one way.
mtbee9 1 month ago
@mtbee9 " I must disagree. We know what the ingredients are in a loaf of bread we also know what to do to create it."
That is because we were given the ability to create and understand what creation is.
Would it be reasonable for me to say a loaf of bread was not created because I don't know the creator of it?
Just like that loaf shows the ability of man as a creator, the life and universe we see, shows that ability and thinking of a creator. There is no excuse.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Sorry but your argument is simply 'we know that some things are created therefore everything must be'. An argument from incredulity!
Just because we know how things are made by man does not mean everything else was made by some intelligence.
Snowflakes are a good example. They are supposedly all different and have the appearance of design but they are made when water freezes in the atmosphere and are not created by any intelligence.
Sorry there is no excuse to believe in a creator.
mtbee9 1 month ago
@mtbee9 "Sorry but your argument is simply 'we know that some things are created therefore everything must be'. An argument from incredulity!"
and also the evidence.
"Snowflakes are a good example. They are supposedly all different and have the appearance of design"
So.. even though they can see that a snow flake has design they ignore it. That is just what I have been saying all along.
Scientists do not go by the evidence. They even see it, but then deny it.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "and also the evidence." Er .. what evidence?
" a snow flake has design" No I said apparent design - BIG difference. Each snowflake is NOT designed, but it can look to some like it is!
"Scientists do not go by the evidence. " Er sorry - wrong again. Scientists only go by the evidence - or it is not science! Snowflakes may look designed but we know they are not!
Your problem is that you start off with the assumption that there is a creator and then try and make the evidence fit.
mtbee9 1 month ago
@mtbee9 "a snow flake has design" No I said apparent design - BIG difference"
You recognize the design, but not the designer.
Actually on the origins of life and 'evolution' they do not go by the evidence. They go by their own theories,and try to make the evidence prove that. That is why they they still have to admit , that God could have done it!
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "You recognize the design, but not the designer." Nope, unless you can explain how each and every snowflake is being designed and how it is done!
"they still have to admit, that God could have done it!" Again Nope!. Until you can explain what god is and how it did anything I'll go with the explanation that DOES explain things even though to you it is not conclusive, to me it's 100% better than your guesswork.
mtbee9 1 month ago
@mtbee9 " Nope, unless you can explain how each and every snowflake is being designed and how it is done!"
The process for snow flakes were put in place just as gravity was put in place.Both of these follow the laws of nature. Before any material was put in space what were the laws?
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy "The process for snow flakes were put in place just as gravity was put in place" and just as Evolution and abiogenesis were put in place!
"before any material was put in space what were the laws?"
Laws are laws, they have always been there - otherwise it wouldn't be a law!
Where did the material in space come from? It cannot come from nothing!
mtbee9 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy It is true, a deity of some sort could have made all of this.
That being said, science shows us that a personal deity akin to the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths cannot exist if it is to be correctly described by the Bible, Quran, and Tankah respectively.
And with that being said, once a deity of any sort had set into motion the universe, there is no evidence that he, she, or it had any hand afterwards, meaning your snowflake hypothesis is bullshit. Pardon the language.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "That being said, science shows us that a personal deity akin to the Christian,..... "
Why is that?
"there is no evidence that he, she, or it had any hand afterwards,"
That is a failure of the methods the scientists use to understand things, it is set up not to detect, ID.
That means that the design of a loaf of bread , would be undetectable by the scientists.They would spend forever, trying to find out figure out how a loaf of bread could just happen on its own.
.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Because the way the universe is set up is as if there was no deity. Prayer does not work. The age of the universe is longer then any religion. And there is no supernatural happenings. These and more point to either a deistic god/goddess or no deity at all.
It is set up to find any evidence. If you have evidence then submit your hypothesis for peer review and make it available to be tested by other scientists.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX " If you have evidence then submit... peer review and make it available to be tested by other scientists."
I have tested this with scientists for a few years. None have been able to break it. So I did decide to submit it.I only sent it last week. I don't know how long that will take.
Actually I am in that process right now.I haven't told you all the evidence I have.
I just set site up this up over this week end so it is bare bones
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Usually once it's been submitted to for peer review in a scientific journal, it may take months or years for other scientists to take the gauntlet and test the hypothesis, after all, they are not forced to test it. But there are always some scientists somewhere that will test a hypothesis.
That being said, I have my doubts that you will accept it if they come back finding your hypothesis to be flawed. (Not saying it is, just speculating.)
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "Usually once it's been submitted to for peer review"
Yes that could be the case. But this not like I added any science to this,it is just another way to look at the science.It really is if creation in this way could also explain, 'evolution' .I don't think that should take very long. It is really just about, if there is anything that says it could not happen this way.
I have already tested it with with 'evolutionary' scientists, in science forums. They could not break it.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy If you didn't submit any of your own findings for other scientists to test, then they have probably thrown it out, because you did not submit any findings and simply gave them your opinion.
Again, if you wish to change anything, you yourself have to do research and find evidence. Nobody else is going to do it for you.
And internet forums do not count.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "If you didn't submit any of your own findings for other scientists to test,"
That's not the problem.They already have the science. With the evidence they have now, they can get the answer to this question. It is how they look at the evidence. New scientific evidence will not change that.Really both the 'evolutionary' scientists and the ID are correct, but for both not totally correct. Now with this idea, it really is a combination of both there findings.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy The problem is that they don't look at the evidence trying to find any specific idea. They do not take the evidence and try to find evolution or jesus (Let's be honest with each other, ID is religion, and more specifically, christianity), they simply follow the evidence to where the evidence takes them.
This is why you need to bring new evidence if you think that your hypothesis is correct.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "The problem is that they don't look at the evidence trying to find any specific idea."
Well they sure seem to be looking for a God gene.They might better off looking for God.
The thing is I don't think anyone has noticed that if you use the creations of the bible,God said he created by taking material from one life and creating another life from that. That actually supports 'lines of descent' .. That's a big step, in creation science.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
I did get a message today, that said they are at least looking into it!
For the creator to actually say how he created. This is a new idea, I think this also supports the known science. It shows that the mainstream scientists are partially correct, but also the ID scientists. I also explains why the history of some animals is also included in life.
It remains to be seen, if the theories of some are more important, than the evidence or the answers.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Yes, we know genes exsist, and some scientists are looking for evidence that a gene that increases chances of spirituality may exist.
You have to understand, scientists are not assigned to look for this or for that. They either do research in whatever they want, applying for grants in that field, or they do what their university deans tell them.
Again, if you have evidence pointing towards a personal deity, please do the research, write a hypothesis, and submit it for peer review.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "Yes, we know genes exsist,..........."
Yes what you said here is correct. They are really told what to look for.And for getting grants, , how many grants are given for looking for creation? The system is designed to keep things the way they are. The prizes go to the ones that follow the main line of thinking. It is away of patting each other on the back and saying how great we are.
I already have submitted it. They are looking into it.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy As for the idea that god may of been the cause of evolution, that wouldn't be correct. The biblical deity spoke everything into existence as per the Tanakh and the Old Testament. Everything fully formed as it is today.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX "As for the idea that god may of been the cause of evolution,"
You are correct, God has nothing to do with 'evolution'
But there are some changes, and some animals have gone extinct. All through creation new a different animals were created. Variation of these animals were also created. There were domestic and wild animals created. Bats came suddenly and have been the same for millions of years.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« It is how they look at the evidence. »
"How one looks at evidence", or in other words "interpretation of evidence" is also called "hypothesis".
If the people you mention have an alternative hypothesis about the evidence, then they should publish it, provide it and its supporting data, in an independently verifiable format.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« They could not break it. »
Is it falsifiable then?
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Addititionally, there're scientists that are actively trying to search for evidence to prove your religion to be true. Obviously they have not found any, but they're looking for it. And if they find said evidence, and it's found to be accurate by their peers, then it would be ground breaking. However, that evidence has not been found. And approximately 85-90% of the Scientists in America do not think the evidence is there. But hey, if they want to try, I say let them try. Science ftw.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago
@AlphaLinkX " Addititionally, there're scientists that are actively trying to search for evidence to prove your religion to be true."
The science doesn't depend on popularity.I was talking to a lecturer on 'evolution' the other day and he said, that the method of science they use, is not designed to detect design. What that means is, they could not detect design in a loaf of bread.Don't you think that is a big flaw?
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« not designed to detect design »
He's right: it isn't. It's not a major flaw though. Usually design is pretty obvious: we know what to look for, we know how to recognise it. And as long as science *does* produce naturalistic models that parsimoniously explain phenomena, there's no reason to suspect design anyway.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Science is not set up to detect anything other then evidence. If the evidence points to design, then yes, science is set up to detect it. If the evidence does not point to design then no, science is not set up to detect it.
Science only detects what the evidence points to.
AlphaLinkX 1 month ago