-cont- The world we were meant to be in would be different to the one now. So although the world we are in now is real and natural and scientifically explainable in every way because Its a world with its own laws of natural function. It may have not been the world we original came from or from where we were meant to come from. The world we may have meant to come from may have been the world Adam and Eve were in before the fall. May be that's why evolution stands up to scientific investigations.
@ZeusHelios I'm afraid that doesn't work, as the scientific evidence points to a long line of unbroken ancestry from earlier apes (such as Australeopithicus Afarensis) to modern humans. Your hypothesis negates the evidence of millions of years of animals evolving to the same laws as animals do today, and not in some magic world. Also, at what point did Yahweh step in and tell these proto-Humans that they were the first man & woman? Perhaps more likely is that A&E is allegorical myth.
@matthewktube My point is all things in this world including evolution is correct Evolution has taken place in this world but would not have in the world before the fall But since the fall Evolution kicked in But your point is a good point in that had evolution taken place after Man then perhaps there would be some evidence of this But only if there were enough humans on earth to leave evidence behind. But Adams fall may have occurred before there were enough humans on earth to leave evidence
@matthewktube I take your point in that there is a long line of evolution of species. Assuming this is true as there are many arguments against this. But remember Adam and Eve was driven out of the garden from which they were created and into a different world. And in this world evolution was or began to take place. I am not against evolution I'm still looking into it. My comment was just a thought nothing more and to see what answers come back and see where things fit in Thanks for your answer
@ZeusHelios Of course, and I appreciate that you're asking questions about things - it's important that people question things - and the way you framed your question was quite poetic. It would still be problematic for God to change the world in that way after the fall, as he would have to backdate a billion years worth of faked fossils to distribute around the globe. Of course, being omniscient he clearly could, but you would have to wonder why he would do such a thing? To trick us?
@ZeusHelios (CONT) This is why stories like Adam and Eve are useful for their poetic and allegorical nature, but useless if read literally. Spiritual, religious & mythical beliefs can be quite beautiful but only when taken in context of what we are. Does this mean a God/s can't exist? No, not necessarily, but we have to work with what we know - the natural world. In this natural world, we are dealing with biological lifeforms that reproduce with variation (evolve) and a God that, if
@ZeusHelios (CONT) he/she/it exists, is definitely does not directly intervene with proceedings. These are the facts and the facts are always primary.. Whatever stories, legends, myths, hypotheses and ideas you want to surround the unknowns with is up to you, but (whether you like it or not) if tested they will all have to live up to the standards set by the physical world to be considered as true.
Anyway, appreciate the exchange of ideas. Peace, K.
@matthewktube Thank you. You have answered well. Thanks for your answers. I would have to agree that reasoning and logic and science are probably our best tools to find the truth of things. As I have said in another comment on another video that if God exist then surely he would have seen to it that we can find him through reason or in some way. Any I would be interested on your thoughts on YouTube videos of peoples Near Death Experiences of heaven and hell. Thanks again
@ZeusHelios I've read some accounts and some critiques of those phenomena but don't think I've seen any of the videos. I might have a look, if I get a chance I'll drop a line to let you know what I thought. Cheers.
What if we live in a world which stands up to scientific investigations. But is all false. For example Our world could be the deceptive world or universe that we are in.The false world we were not meant to be in. But we are in it only because of the fall of Adam which changed everything from what it was meant to be to the false or deceptive world as we know it. the false world stands up to all scientific investigation but its not the world we originally were in.....-cont-
I cannot stress this enough. Sorry I've been on all of your videos but do your research and stop generalizing all Christians and all Creationists. Catholicism is a belief that i think fits with what you're saying (I can support all the truths I've learned through reason).
Is this video about evolution or if wolves ate a deer? At the rate the moon is receding from the earth, it would be a part of earth 4.5 billion years ago. Does he speak about actual arguments or just a blather of philosophies?
Evidence of biological evolution? Like in 1888 when life was seen to spring from unlife... or when a banana turned into a bee.. right I suppose it is implausible to demand observations of what is called observational science. There are no formal proofs for empiricism, I agree, like gravity or conservation of energy. What has science become in the 21st century? This video is sophistry.
The theory of evolution can be seen as a pretty good guess. Don't you agree? Do you have to offer a better alternative to it? How else could it have happened?
@corioa I'm a 2nd year biology student, but I would have known at the age of five if life was synthesized from inorganic matter. Bananas? Bees? Please, people here are actually capable of rationality, do not demean us with such brash nonsense. Gravity and conservation of energy are evident to toddlers and can be tested and measured easily.
And finally, science has always been the drive to answer all the questions the observable world offers by humbly rational means. please do not insult us.
@1tabligh Absolutely not. Disproving god is not of direct interest to science. In fact proving a negative is a logical impossibility. A Scientist *can* say that no evidence has been affirmed, but that's it. What scientific evidence *can* prove is that evolution has occurred, and *is occurring* in this world. If you think that disproves god, so be it.
@7thEraMan If you think that disproves god, so be it.
____
What you mean IF?
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
It is very simple, it is just that the things that arise from these simple rules become very complicated and they are incredulous as to how exactly it could be so. They basically lack logical capacity. Their minds only follow so many steps before becoming overloaded. It's the same principle i use when doing magic tricks, by the end of the trick they have forgotten the first couple of steps and of course, that's where the trick happened!
@seansalvador1 It's funny u should mention "tricks". Sean most people are open to factual evidence. It's not that most people lack logic capacity, rather, they lack understanding due to ignorance. Is evolution a reason not to believe in God? No but the 2 compliment each other in a way that gives atheists/agnostics a reason for argument. I myself did not come here to shove religion down ur throat. I came to be a voice of reason in hopes of helping those who deny God for their lack of evidence.
@OldUgly "Is evolution a reason not to believe in God? No but the 2 compliment each other"
I never said it was, it IS however a reason not to believe in religions. religions make claims as to the origins of humans beings that are simply not true. Other sciences disprove other religious claims.
You may be a deist, but a creationist is defined thus -
1. a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis
Merriam Webster (creationist fave)
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
@seansalvador1 1. To me, God did CREATE everything out of nothing, yet I am not ignorant enough to completly ignore the evidence of evolution. Now, you are probably thinking how is it possible for a person to believe in two completly differents things, erg, I am never good at explaining things well to me God did create the whole thing blahblahblah therefore he must have created evolution as well, therefore it only serves of how incredible God is. Does that make sense? Do I need 2 explain better?
@seansalvador1 that's why I said 'to me', religion is basically believing in something with no or very little proof. And I knew I explained it differently..*shrugs* I really suck at explaining things. And as to the creationism and deism..the way you are explaining it makes it seem that the creationists are the hardcore religious people who does the whole 'you can not do this or you will be punished dearly' thing. I will get back to you when I can clearly state my reasoning without sounding crazy
"still leaves my bio and relig. teachers who are obviously completly different to me"
Your biology teacher actually believes that the earth was created by god, as it is, 6000years ago? I suggest you move schools! Your teacher is a moron.
Oh, and as i pointed out, if they believe in evolution, they are NOT creationists.
Darwin was presented with the theory and then was ordered to find proof, not the other way around. He didn't find any proof of evolution but of ADAPTABILITY. Big difference ...
@Uberlaser "Or they were all created from nothing in six days or less by an invisible man in the sky using magic."
Don't forget, he must also have created the geological strata, with an ordered hierarchy of fossils, light from distant stars that is billions of years old, radioactive decay etc... presumably to trick us!
Now I'm not trying 2 say anyone here is dumb. I find math equally as important as science concerning this issue. Folks, I am not a smart guy ( I know I can say that again right!) But if a simpleton like me can figure this out, why is it taking the "thinking" minds of our time so long 2 embrace "common" sense? I'm not looking down my nose @ anyone here! I'm just saying, why is every1 trying to "figure it out" instead of "figuring God in"? If evolution's true, doesn't He deserve the credit?
@seansalvador1 Ok u argue it. Exactly what did they get right? And what exactly did I get wrong? U know as well as I do there is a lot of science that cannot yet be known and will require constant revision. U also know there is a lot about ancient cultures that we have discovered that prove they weren't as primative as we were previously led to believe. Why do u put so much stock in peer-reviewed material when u know it will more than likely change? How would you "know" they got it right?
The scientists such as Darwin got the theory that explains evolution right after refining it, they also discovered the fact that animals evolve. You on the other hand think that the worlds population is too large to fit on the Earth!!
Science is altogether like a jelly pudding until evidence hardens it. There is so much proof that points to an evolutionary process of life that it is practically proven before it can actually be observed. It's the same with gravity. We still don't know exactly what causes it, but the evidence is obvious. Hardened science hardly ever changes. It is very unlikely that someone will discover one day that the earth is actually flat and we were victims of an optical illusion.
Using the entire circumference of the earth, including all bodies of water, of which we don't occupy because we arent fish, the calculations of the formula will prove there isn't enough space to contain us all! Even if we could survive in the water, we would all be standing shoulder 2 shoulder, several stacked layers of people on each other's shoulders! Given the amount of dry land we were "intended" 2 inhabit, it's absolutely impossible! This proves the bible is more accurate.
@OldUgly "Using the entire circumference of the earth, including all bodies of water, of which we don't occupy because we arent fish, the calculations of the formula will prove there isn't enough space to contain us all!"
Nonsense, if you calculate this for the 90+ billion people who have EVER lived then they would all fit neatly into the British isles! I don't know where you got the above crazy idea from..
@seansalvador1 I will make it easier. Use science 2 calculate the circumference. Google "The evolution of man scientifically disproved in 50 arguments"
It's the surface area you need to calculate, not the circumference, and if we calculate not only the humans alive today (6 billion or so) but ever to have existed (90 billion) they would only fill the British Isles!!
Again, please show your calculations that lead you to believe this nonsense, the site you pointed me to does not do as you claim.
It makes idiotic inferences about the growth of the human population.
@seansalvador1 Yes I stand corrected it is the surface area, not circumference of a circle. My apologies. His research indicates these figures are correct by many claims. I'm not a mathemetician so I cant even begin 2 fathom it. He covers factoring in reasonable numbers for plagues, natural disasters, etc. Is it exact? Nobody can say. How could we? It's based on principles neither the evolutionist or creationist can argue regarding science or math, what we regard as acceptable & indisputable.
The argument regarding human population makes the idiotic claim that population growth is always the same when clearly it is not... in some times (plagues etc) the population actually declines! So his basic premise is completely incorrect.
@seansalvador1 I was referring 2 the size of the surface area as u pointed out 2 me. Thanks. That's why I said don't take my word for it. We can find those measurements by what we know already. I don't recall it being mentioned in the bible either, so yes you would be correct sir, as far as I know. Hey sean might I add that I have admired ur enthusiasm concerning science. U know if u could see past everything u have learned & learned how 2 embrace the Holy Spirit, u could be a powerful witness!
2. The claim he did make is demonstrably false and the mathematics is simple to understand, it does not take a mathematician to disprove his claim, in fact using logic alone it is simple as I have shown, the main being that he attempts to extrapolate backward in time using inference!
He makes many mathematical mistakes and logical errors.
Now compare the numbers with the chronology of the bible starting with Adam, to Noah, to Jesus, until today. Look @ each number. Why are they so different? This experiment hopefully SHOW that this debate should be calculated, not speculated. Science requires a hypothesis to devise a theory. Math is much more verifiable due to the power of an absolute. I ask every1 here, isn't math as deserving as science to rest our "theories" on facts? Let me know when u get it figured out, but be honest!
Ok seems we have a non-believing so called scientists in here. Do we have any mathemeticians? Don't take my word for this, do the math or find someone who can. What is the amount of years it has taken for man to evolve? Factor the birthrate based on lowest #. Most parents give birth to 2-3 offspring. Assume it's only 1! Use also the circumference of the earth to create a formula. Factor in the dimensions of above avg. size of man & death rate etc. How many people should exist today? Try it!
So I implore atheists and evolutionists to explain why, if we have evolved into the intelligent, scientific, observant & highly advanced creatures that u guys claim we are, why can't we produce silk? We can mix it, fashion it to suit our hearts content, but we can't reproduce it? If we have improved, or evolved, where is that trait? If I share common ancestry with apes, why am I not acrobatic? I'm so clumsy if I threw myself in the floor I'd miss! I like bananas ok but theyre not my favorite.
@OldUgly the fact that you are clumsy and others are natural acrobats is the heart of evolution. lets say long with you being clumsy you are also strong, stronger then the natural acrobat. If our environment changes and you need to be more acrobatic i'm sorry but your not going to live long enough to have kids, but the natural acrobat probably will. given enough time all the acrobatic people will live on while the clumsy people are all dead. now there is a new race of humans that are all more...
... acrobatic and not really clumsy at all. There might be another environmental change that means your strength will keep you alive and the acrobatic people will die off. Its mutations that cause small changes like being natually storng or acrobatic that natural selection plays on. this is the heart of evolution. at the moment because of our intellegence our acrobatic skills or our strenth is not that importent because we can build and make things that over come these short falls.
@OldUgly The reason we can not produce silk is because evolutionary we would have no need to produce silk naturally. if your asking why we can not reproduce silk in a lab, that is a bad question because it has nothing to do with our evolution. While we have not been able to recreate silk like in nature, we can create even stronger fibers then that, which nature would never be able to create. Carbon fiber is much stronger and more versicle then silk. your question dose not make since.
@Fireflygamer "While we have not been able to recreate silk like in nature, we can create even stronger fibers then that, which nature would never be able to create"
U just refuted ur own theory! Every fiber created comes from nature in the 1st place! Because it was already created! Nature itself can't create anything, nor can man, because God created nature! Even the very "nature" of things shows that the only "natural selection" that's taken place is the nature in which God chose 2 create it!
@OldUgly your not just an idiot your a fucking idiot and this is not an ad hominem attack i plan on proving that you are a fucking idiot. First right off the bat Nature did not create carbon fiber, it dose not exist in nature, so you are wrong man can create things nature can not. your god has not been show to have created anything, you just claim he dose as if it is fact. to claim man can not create anything makes you an idiot to claim a magic man done it all makes you a fucking idiot.
@Fireflygamer Organic or inorganic, carbon comes from nature. U know, dolomites, diamonds, oils, peat, limestones, graphite shall I go on? Ur trying 2 attack me just admit it. See what I mean! Some here wont accept the truth if u slapped them in the face with a waft of methane! Hey firefly, evolution called, it wants it's agenda back!
@OldUgly "Every fiber created comes from nature in the 1st place!"
No it doesn't, carbon fibre is not found in nature, nor is nylon or Cellulose fibres, Fiberglass, Stainless steel fibres.. the list is quite long! I could go on?
@seansalvador1 Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, & oxygen. Looks like nature 2 me. But what would I know? Where do u suppose steel comes from? Thin air? Last time I checked, fiberglass is glass reinforced plastic. Where does glass come from? It doesn't matter how long ur list is, the raw materials required 2 produce these things, have their origins in nature, created already, we just follow God's lead.
You were discussing man made things compared to natural things, artifacts compared to nature, so you are talking nonsense.
Of course the raw materials come from nature, but if you are now backtracking to claim you meant NOTHING is man made then 1. You have to define what you meant by material (atoms? In which case there exist man made elements that do not exist in nature).
2. Explain what point it is you are attempting to make.
@seansalvador1 I was attempting to make a point about trait inheritance. It was just a statement. Sry I was a little vague on that. I was thinking about how silly it would look if we were all dragging our knuckles like apes. I really do apologize!
Nylon eating bacteria does NOT prove evolution exists, except in the sense that still yet, man has evolved from a creature that did not possess the knowledge of the creation of nylon, into a creature that did & like everything else man attempts 2 create, can b destroyed by something God creates, nylon eating bacteria! The reason man sought 2 create nylon in the 1st place was 2 replace silk, which is created by insects. It can b cultivated, synthesized, but man cant reproduce the real thing!
It would help if you actually understood chemistry which you clearly do not. Nylon is a chemical the likes of which were never previously seen in nature. Nothing in nature could digest it and as I have shown the bacteria that can now do so have been shown to have evolved to do so from another type of bacteria that cannot.
The bible says that God uses the foolish things of the world 2 confound the wise! Consider the sun, moon, their phases, earth, it's seasons, the human brain, dna etc. 2 far away from the sun we freeze, 2 close we blaze! Earth spins & with the help of the moon, keeps us all from flying into oblivion! Plants and humans exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide in harmony! Brains were given 2 make choices as well as functioning & building blocks of dna r n the shape of a cross! We r clearly designed!
@shegb79 Praise God! Ur comment is refreshing and very welcomed! Thank u for ur words of encouragement and blessings. Lately all I have been is under attack from non-believers, of which their weapons won't prosper of course, but it certainly has been intense! I've been called an "overzealous religious nutjob, mythical Jesus cult following coward, retard, dunce, 2 name a few, all because of my relationship with Christ! They hate me because they 1st hated Him, truth in the bible, they cant deny!
@Old I might have and idea why you face so much hate from my fellow non believers. First we really hate when people make dishonest arguments, now you might think they are not dishonest, but when you try to fit the facts to what you already think and ignore the evidence when shown to you, then you are making a dishonest argument. We don't hate you and we sure as hell don't hate Jesus or god, it would be silly to hate something we don't think exists, we hate the ignorance your religion promotes.
With regard to "fitting the facts to what you already think and ignore the evidence when shown to you," anyone who believes in evolution is doing this all the time. A theory propped up by hypothesis upon hypothesis. No matter what you believe, I don't hate you. Not fully understanding something only makes you ignorant by the dictionary definition. Even while you don't think God exists, He has made every provision for your existence.
@shegb79 "anyone who believes in evolution is doing this all the time." this is the dishonest argument you are making. You have decided that the bible is true and evolution dose not fit with the bible so you ignore all the scientific evidence that supports it, in favor of religious propaganda. you ignore the fossil record, you ignore the DNA evidence and the radiometric dating evidence, all in favor of what you have already decided is true no matter what. Continued.
... "Even while you don't think God exists, He has made every provision for your existence." if this is true please provide evidence for your god hypothesis, please provide any evidence that your god exists and that he created anything let alone everything. You claim I do not understand and that i am ignorant, while I am open to evidence for god and you are completely closed to the mountains of evidence that supports evolution. This is why you are dishonest, but i don't hate you ether.
Do you understand? I have not said that you don't. Are you ignorant? I have not said that you are.
I can't provide any more evidence for you than God already has. EVERYTHING around you was created by God. Of course evolutionists claim otherwise. I didn't have to be an evolutionist to seek alternative explanations for our existence. The fact is, we don't like the idea that someone else knows better than we do.
"Evidence" for evolution is way overstated. There's NO solid evidence.
@shegb79 "I can't provide any more evidence for you than God already has. EVERYTHING around you was created by God." how do you know this, how do you know that everything was created by god, you must have good reasons to believe it, so what are the reasons you believe it?
"There's NO solid evidence [for evolution]" there you go being dishonest again, the DNA evidence alone is the equivalent to legal proof in a court of law. if you honestly looked you would find all the evidence you would need.
And if you read the Bible, you will find more evidence of who God is, what He has done, and why He has done it. You'll see how God loves you and you'll learn that His love is something greater than any "love" that you've known.
Do you believe in evolution? That there is no God? Do you believe that once you are dead, that's it, it's all over? That beyond life in this world, there is nothing?
I believe that there is a light which speaks of a brighter hope than that for you. :-)
You're right to say evolution doesn't fit with the Bible. That is simply a truth I can now acknowledge having read the Bible. The Bible contains an historical account of creation. Genesis 1:1 reads "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." If I theorise that the universe "evolved", then I compromise the fundamental truth that God created it as in Genesis. I would have to deny God's authority even from the beginning.
Its a dishonest argument because you have already made up your mind and no matter what evidence is show to you, it will not change your mind. I am willing to believe in god if you provide the evidence. The problem is you think the bible is an accurate account of history, but there is no evidence that backs up a single supernatural claim in the bible so how do we know its true. so I will ask you AGAIN, what good reason do you have to believe that the bible is true and god exists, evidence please.
The answer you need you will find in the Bible. I read it and misunderstood it for a long time. We all do. I still don't know it or understand it well. God's wisdom is foolishness to those who do not obey His commandments. In my case, it was because I didn't know His commandments. I thought I did. There are heaps of them. But there are only two you really need to know.
@shegb79 I am sorry this is foolishness, basically you are saying i need to read the bible and believe it before I will have the evidence, that is moronic. Before I can give the bible any creditability beyond a book of stories meant to control the masses you are going to have to show me some sort of evidence it is true or that this god you speak of exists. There has never been any evidence, you believe the bible for no good reason, and claim it as fact, that is dishonest of you I'm sorry.
Hebrews 10: 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.
Ephesians 2: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
"No bearing at all on morality". I suggest, no basis or even reason for morality. No responsibility. Judges 21:25 Everyone did what was right in His own eyes. That sentence is repeated many times throughout the Bible.
Actually i told you what the evolutionary benefit of morality was already. You love repetition, i believe it is because you think that if you repeat yourself enough times then you r opposition will give up. leaving you with your sacred last word.
There is a God. The author and finisher of our faith. Jesus Christ.
It matters to God. It seems at this point to matter little to you.
While you can't see God and therefore He matters little to you; If your friends are not standing where you can see them do they also matter so little? I imagine that this attitude spills over into every relationship that you have with anyone.
@shegb79 There is a God? Prove it. How can something matter to a perfect being? Perfection doesn't require anything; it's already perfect. If my friends are standing somewhere, where I can't see them, then how do I know my friends exist, in the first place? Because I've already seen them somewhere else, unlike this "god" you speak of. This attitude only spills into things in the world that actually exist, not untested, nonsense claims.
Do you have any relatives you haven't met? [that was rhetorical] Of course. We all do. I know OF some of mine who I haven't met. Should I doubt their existence just because I haven't met them face to face? When you're not with your friends, do they still love you? You have evidence of it.
Why are you asking me to prove God exists? You doubt His existence. Your doubt isn't causing God to cease to exist. Have you not heard about Jesus? Who is Jesus to you?
And the only way I am likely to meet God is to seek him out, or if He should introduce himself to me. It is not a question of existence, it's only a question of whether I know God or not. If no one tells me about God, and I don't seek God, none of that affects his existence. I don't know about "Fred", but God knows me better than I know myself. The fact is it's possible to doubt God even if you have met Him.
And the only way I am likely to meet pixies is to seek them out, or if they should introduce themselves to me. It is not a question of existence, it's only a question of whether I know pixies or not. If no one tells me about pixies, and I don't seek pixies, none of that affects their existence. I don't know about "Fred", but pixies know me better than I know myself. The fact is it's possible to doubt pixies even if you have met them.
I agree, "the only way I am likely to meet pixies is to seek them out." At least there might be a likelihood that you might meet one. Have you met one?
Do you have any relatives you haven't met? [that was rhetorical] Of course. We all do. I know OF some of mine who I haven't met. Should I doubt their existence just because I haven't met them face to face? When you're not with your friends, do they still love you? You have evidence of it.
Why are you asking me to prove God exists? You doubt His existence. Your doubt isn't causing God to cease to exist. Have you not heard about Jesus? Who is Jesus to you?
@shegb79 We have evidence for these friends or relatives, that we can verify by observation. I;m asking for evidence for something that YOU claim exists, otherwise, it's just nonsense. Therefore, who cares? Jesus was a mythical character. No secular historian accepts he even existed. No thanks, I like reality, not fictional characters to confide in.
God exists. Look around. Read the Bible. What more evidence do you need? If you read the Bible, you will find that Jesus is the Son of God. You will learn that Jesus was born in Bethlehem as a baby just like you and I. You will read that Jesus was sent into the world so that you and I should know God's forgiveness. You will see that Jesus died on a cross to show you His forgiveness. You will read of Jesus' resurrection so you should know hope for a future with Him, without end.
It's great that you're quoting and questioning my comments. I think it's wonderful that you want to engage in sharing your thoughts and ideas with me. Is there a reason why you're not posting them directly to me? And why are you "spamming" them?
I am not. My own comments seem to be similarly "spammed", by the way. As are a lot of other comments, from both creationists and non-theists. My guess is that Youtube's algorithms for detecting spam have become a bit paranoid of late.
@shegb79 saying "god exists" doesn't mean he does, otherwise, I can say "leprechauns exist," and they would. Looking around, we see only what's around, not "god." The Bible is a book, written by men. Again, this only proves there's a book, and nothing else. Just because something says "Jesus existed, he was the son of god." etc. doesn't mean it happened. You might want to read the definition of the word "evidence," because, so far, you have provided none.
It's not I who presides over God's existence. I know He lives. If you want to know God, look to Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us He walked with Adam and Eve in Eden. We have been living with God's presence and influence with us since the beginning of time. In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth and everything in them. I think that answers a lot of your questions right there. God has always existed. He made the universe as we know it. He has given each one of us life.
@shegb79 You don't KNOW god exists, you only believe it, otherwise, you'd provide evidence, for which you have STILL lacked, so far. The bible also says that a snaked talked, a donkey talked, and a man lived in a fish for three days, that doesn't make it real. There's no evidence that god exists, let alone that he "created" the universe. You didn't answer ANYthing, really, except for baseless preaching.
For creationists, only scientific claims must be proven. Myths and fairy tales get a total, "no-questions-asked" pass. And that's insanity by ANY measure.
Ok BANG!!!! a explosion of planets came into form.(EOD I wish_) trillions of planets 1 with life.(knowed) On this planet amino acids form to make life. Genetic alleles and genomes mixing with benificial and bad mutations and weeding out bad species and poor mutations and developing species healthier and gentically varied species. IM SORRY if I need more prove. Than fossils and carbon dating and germ mutation to jump on the bus. ABSURD CLAIMS NEEDED ABSURD AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE. STUPIDITY.
Ehr, no. If you're trying to represent Big Bang cosmology, you're way off the mark. Try reading the wikipedia article on the Big Bang first, then come back.
"Bad species"? "Healthier species"? Where are you getting all that nonsense from? Evolutionary theory has no such thing in it.
All in all, it sounds as if you're using some creationist propaganda site as an informational resource on the state of science. Bad mistake. Try the wikipedia pages on evolution and cosmology first, then come back.
Yeah, I get that a lot these days. Wonder why or who or what... I think it's some Youtube bug, to be frank. The alternative is that there's some dude following me around on one thread after another, marking down my comments on all of them...
Your comment contradicts evolutionary theory. One of he most fundamental principles used to support the theory of evolution is "survival of the fittest". It's a principal used to explain away the lack of living transitional forms or "missing links". Evolutionary adherents claim they were weaker on some level, therefore unable to compete with stronger species'. Maybe you should read some of Darwin's material. Is the theory somehow different now to what he first conceived?
It does not. Evolutionary theory proposes that species adapt through reproductive variation and differential reproductive success. This means that the traits of *any* variant that is better able to produce fertile offspring is more likely to propagate throughout the population genepool than the others. "Health" is not a requirement: reproductive fitness is.
« It's a principal used to explain away the lack of living transitional forms »
Again, no. The principle used to "explain away" the lack of transitional forms ON THE SMALLEST SCALES (because such forms ARE very much available in larger scopes) is: punctuated equilibrium.
So where is ONE living transitional form between ape and man? There are none, and that makes no sense at all. Unless I use your reasoning from your previous comment, "Health" is not a requirement:" Sounds like the self same excuse that I was referring to in my comment to you. They were unhealthy and died out? Is that what happened to the dinosaurs?
A genetic mutation creates a new species with health problems that threaten it's existence? Sounds like de-evolution.
« So where is ONE living transitional form between ape and man? »
1. "Between ape and man" is nonsensical. You wouldn't ask for a transitional form between bird and sparrow either.
2. You never specified it had to be an extant form. Besides the existing great apes, of which gorillas, chimpanzees and humans are member species, none from that lineage have survived to present day. We do find remnants we've attributed to H. habilis and H. erectus though.
I asked for a transitional form between ape and man because according to the theory of evolution, man "evolved" from apes. So where is ONE living transitional form between ape and man?
A sparrow is a bird. It's a class [or type] of bird. There's no transitional form between a bird and a sparrow because a sparrow is a bird. It always been. When God said, "let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” It was then on the fifth day of creation, that God made sparrows.
« I asked for a transitional form between ape and man because according to the theory of evolution, man "evolved" from apes »
Well, yes. Man also *is* an ape. When we say that "man evolved from apes", we're not talking about any extant species of ape. We're talking about the common ancestor between modern apes and modern man. Such an organism would, by definition, be an ape, but one without the derived characteristics of modern apes and man that separates them.
Why this requirement that the transitional form be extant? There is certainly no pattern in biology that necessitates that any transitional form survive to present day. We do find such forms in the fossil record, however. Which is sufficient to confirm the hypothesis of common ancestry between man, and non-human apes.
« A sparrow is a bird. It's a class [or type] of bird. There's no transitional form between a bird and a sparrow because a sparrow is a bird »
A man is an ape. It's a class [or type] of ape.
That having been said, the basal definition of the clade of apes does allow for transitional forms between the basal definition and the derived clades of modern man and modern non-human apes.
No: healthy or not, they had a prolific reproductive rate, compared to other variants, and they survived. We are the descendants of those who managed to reproduce better, more, on average, than counterparts with other genetic combinations. Health, strength, speed, intelligence, none of these are in themselves requirements. Reproductive rate is.
In which case, all the,"No: healthy or not, they had a prolific reproductive rate, compared to other variants, and they survived." [These are LIVING transitional forms we're discussing]. Where are they?
What do you mean, "what do you mean"? Biological divergence is a function of the amount of genetic difference between to generations or populations. You pick two generations, or two populations, and you can calculate the amount of genetic divergence between them. If that amount is large enough, or sufficient to prevent the populations or generations from hybridising, then that fact warrants a separate designation for both generations or populations.
What do you mean, "what do you mean"? Biological divergence is a function of the amount of genetic difference between to generations or populations. You pick two generations, or two populations, and you can calculate the amount of genetic divergence between them. If that amount is large enough, or sufficient to prevent the populations or generations from hybridising, then that fact warrants a separate designation for both generations or populations.
What do you mean, "what do you mean"? Biological divergence is a function of the amount of genetic difference between to generations or populations. You pick two generations, or two populations, and you can calculate the amount of genetic divergence between them. If that amount is large enough, or sufficient to prevent the populations or generations from hybridising, then that fact warrants a separate designation for both generations or populations.
« What reproductive boundary are you referring to? »
Any reproductive boundary that prevents two populations from hybridising even when they are not physically separated from one another. Such a boundary might be purely genetic. It might be behavioural. It might be a matter of anatomical divergence. It might be smell or colour, or any combination of the above.
I have more knowledge of Darwin's material relating to his theory of evolution than I care to have. At least it's given me an opportunity to see what a man can dream up when he doesn't want to acknowledge God.
Much of the world once believed that non-European people had not evolved as highly as Europeans. It was Darwin among others who propagated this idea. Hitler and Nazi Germany seized on the idea as justification for ethnic cleansing.
An ideal impressed upon society by biblical teaching or evolutionary teaching?
I'm sure that you could find another alternative. It doesn't seem to me to be an idea even considered by biblical teaching. All men have come from the same source. God. My life and yours. A gift from God. We're all one people. One family. Evolution simply doesn't enter the equation. "All the confounding variables," simply point to the wonderful intricacy of God's creation. No less confounding. :-)
I meant confounding variables that "Much of the world once believed that non-European people had not evolved as highly as Europeans" failed to take into account... obviously.
You really struggle with this basic logic thing don;t you? You seemingly struggle to follow a conversation in WRITING!
@shegb79 "Hitler and Nazi Germany seized on the idea as justification for ethnic cleansing."
Actually he didn't, he did the exact opposite. He also used religion as a justification, i mean, how exactly does one tell a Jew from a non Jew? Religion!
Hitler didn't even understand Darwinian evolution by his very own words.
Very well done ,i'm gonna thumb the video ,post to facebook? NO Ive posted enough and they see me coming but its not cause its not good enough : )
FrankaDith 2 weeks ago
They didn't observe that God made Earth or animals and humans
danygripe 3 weeks ago
Thanks.
ZeusHelios 3 weeks ago
-cont- The world we were meant to be in would be different to the one now. So although the world we are in now is real and natural and scientifically explainable in every way because Its a world with its own laws of natural function. It may have not been the world we original came from or from where we were meant to come from. The world we may have meant to come from may have been the world Adam and Eve were in before the fall. May be that's why evolution stands up to scientific investigations.
ZeusHelios 1 month ago in playlist More videos from FightingAtheist
@ZeusHelios I'm afraid that doesn't work, as the scientific evidence points to a long line of unbroken ancestry from earlier apes (such as Australeopithicus Afarensis) to modern humans. Your hypothesis negates the evidence of millions of years of animals evolving to the same laws as animals do today, and not in some magic world. Also, at what point did Yahweh step in and tell these proto-Humans that they were the first man & woman? Perhaps more likely is that A&E is allegorical myth.
matthewktube 3 weeks ago in playlist Atheist vs Creationist
Comment removed
ZeusHelios 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthewktube My point is all things in this world including evolution is correct Evolution has taken place in this world but would not have in the world before the fall But since the fall Evolution kicked in But your point is a good point in that had evolution taken place after Man then perhaps there would be some evidence of this But only if there were enough humans on earth to leave evidence behind. But Adams fall may have occurred before there were enough humans on earth to leave evidence
ZeusHelios 3 weeks ago
@matthewktube I take your point in that there is a long line of evolution of species. Assuming this is true as there are many arguments against this. But remember Adam and Eve was driven out of the garden from which they were created and into a different world. And in this world evolution was or began to take place. I am not against evolution I'm still looking into it. My comment was just a thought nothing more and to see what answers come back and see where things fit in Thanks for your answer
ZeusHelios 3 weeks ago
@ZeusHelios Of course, and I appreciate that you're asking questions about things - it's important that people question things - and the way you framed your question was quite poetic. It would still be problematic for God to change the world in that way after the fall, as he would have to backdate a billion years worth of faked fossils to distribute around the globe. Of course, being omniscient he clearly could, but you would have to wonder why he would do such a thing? To trick us?
matthewktube 3 weeks ago
@ZeusHelios (CONT) This is why stories like Adam and Eve are useful for their poetic and allegorical nature, but useless if read literally. Spiritual, religious & mythical beliefs can be quite beautiful but only when taken in context of what we are. Does this mean a God/s can't exist? No, not necessarily, but we have to work with what we know - the natural world. In this natural world, we are dealing with biological lifeforms that reproduce with variation (evolve) and a God that, if
matthewktube 3 weeks ago
@ZeusHelios (CONT) he/she/it exists, is definitely does not directly intervene with proceedings. These are the facts and the facts are always primary.. Whatever stories, legends, myths, hypotheses and ideas you want to surround the unknowns with is up to you, but (whether you like it or not) if tested they will all have to live up to the standards set by the physical world to be considered as true.
Anyway, appreciate the exchange of ideas. Peace, K.
matthewktube 3 weeks ago
@matthewktube Thank you. You have answered well. Thanks for your answers. I would have to agree that reasoning and logic and science are probably our best tools to find the truth of things. As I have said in another comment on another video that if God exist then surely he would have seen to it that we can find him through reason or in some way. Any I would be interested on your thoughts on YouTube videos of peoples Near Death Experiences of heaven and hell. Thanks again
ZeusHelios 3 weeks ago
@ZeusHelios I've read some accounts and some critiques of those phenomena but don't think I've seen any of the videos. I might have a look, if I get a chance I'll drop a line to let you know what I thought. Cheers.
matthewktube 3 weeks ago
What if we live in a world which stands up to scientific investigations. But is all false. For example Our world could be the deceptive world or universe that we are in.The false world we were not meant to be in. But we are in it only because of the fall of Adam which changed everything from what it was meant to be to the false or deceptive world as we know it. the false world stands up to all scientific investigation but its not the world we originally were in.....-cont-
ZeusHelios 1 month ago in playlist More videos from FightingAtheist
I cannot stress this enough. Sorry I've been on all of your videos but do your research and stop generalizing all Christians and all Creationists. Catholicism is a belief that i think fits with what you're saying (I can support all the truths I've learned through reason).
VeritatemQuaerens 1 month ago
Is this video about evolution or if wolves ate a deer? At the rate the moon is receding from the earth, it would be a part of earth 4.5 billion years ago. Does he speak about actual arguments or just a blather of philosophies?
corioa 3 months ago
@corioa
>> At the rate the moon is receding from the earth, it would be a part of earth 4.5 billion years ago.
May I ask if you received this information from the website of a Mr. Kent Hovind?
The moon is moving away from earth at the speed of 3,8 cm per year.
The current distance earth-moon is 385,000 km.
That gives us an original distance of about 214,000 km between earth and moon.
I strongly recommend to compare the data presented on creationist websites with scientific websites.
flamifer1 3 months ago
Evidence of biological evolution? Like in 1888 when life was seen to spring from unlife... or when a banana turned into a bee.. right I suppose it is implausible to demand observations of what is called observational science. There are no formal proofs for empiricism, I agree, like gravity or conservation of energy. What has science become in the 21st century? This video is sophistry.
corioa 3 months ago
@corioa
The theory of evolution can be seen as a pretty good guess. Don't you agree? Do you have to offer a better alternative to it? How else could it have happened?
flamifer1 3 months ago
@corioa I'm a 2nd year biology student, but I would have known at the age of five if life was synthesized from inorganic matter. Bananas? Bees? Please, people here are actually capable of rationality, do not demean us with such brash nonsense. Gravity and conservation of energy are evident to toddlers and can be tested and measured easily.
And finally, science has always been the drive to answer all the questions the observable world offers by humbly rational means. please do not insult us.
7thEraMan 2 months ago
@7thEraMan ..science has always been the drive to answer all the questions the observable world offers...
____
What do you mean?
Do you mean science has put out the notion of God?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Absolutely not. Disproving god is not of direct interest to science. In fact proving a negative is a logical impossibility. A Scientist *can* say that no evidence has been affirmed, but that's it. What scientific evidence *can* prove is that evolution has occurred, and *is occurring* in this world. If you think that disproves god, so be it.
7thEraMan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7thEraMan If you think that disproves god, so be it.
____
What you mean IF?
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@7thEraMan science doesnt disprove God, research this thing called Catholicism and you will find that not all Christians contradict themselves.
VeritatemQuaerens 1 month ago
@VeritatemQuaerens (facepalm) yes, veritatem, that's what I said. as for christian contradictions, that's on a totally personal basis
7thEraMan 1 month ago
I wish evolution was more simple. That way creationists'd look even more stupid rejecting it.
d007ization 3 months ago
@d007ization
It is very simple, it is just that the things that arise from these simple rules become very complicated and they are incredulous as to how exactly it could be so. They basically lack logical capacity. Their minds only follow so many steps before becoming overloaded. It's the same principle i use when doing magic tricks, by the end of the trick they have forgotten the first couple of steps and of course, that's where the trick happened!
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 It's funny u should mention "tricks". Sean most people are open to factual evidence. It's not that most people lack logic capacity, rather, they lack understanding due to ignorance. Is evolution a reason not to believe in God? No but the 2 compliment each other in a way that gives atheists/agnostics a reason for argument. I myself did not come here to shove religion down ur throat. I came to be a voice of reason in hopes of helping those who deny God for their lack of evidence.
OldUgly 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OldUgly "Is evolution a reason not to believe in God? No but the 2 compliment each other"
I never said it was, it IS however a reason not to believe in religions. religions make claims as to the origins of humans beings that are simply not true. Other sciences disprove other religious claims.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@d007ization not all creationists reject evolution
Remmyrulez 3 months ago
@Remmyrulez
Yes they do. Find me one who doesn't!
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 I'm one, so is my Biology teacher, my religion teacher. That's three.
Remmyrulez 3 months ago
@Remmyrulez
tell me, exactly how, then are you a creationist?
You may be a deist, but a creationist is defined thus -
1. a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis
Merriam Webster (creationist fave)
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
Dic (cot) com
I could go on?
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 1. To me, God did CREATE everything out of nothing, yet I am not ignorant enough to completly ignore the evidence of evolution. Now, you are probably thinking how is it possible for a person to believe in two completly differents things, erg, I am never good at explaining things well to me God did create the whole thing blahblahblah therefore he must have created evolution as well, therefore it only serves of how incredible God is. Does that make sense? Do I need 2 explain better?
Remmyrulez 3 months ago
@Remmyrulez "To me, God did CREATE everything out of nothing"
Yet you cannot know this. Anyway, that is Deism, not creationism.
"how is it possible for a person to believe in two completely different things"
Again, they are NOT mutually exclusive beliefs (deism and evolution), evolution is a fact, and deism is NOT creationism.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 that's why I said 'to me', religion is basically believing in something with no or very little proof. And I knew I explained it differently..*shrugs* I really suck at explaining things. And as to the creationism and deism..the way you are explaining it makes it seem that the creationists are the hardcore religious people who does the whole 'you can not do this or you will be punished dearly' thing. I will get back to you when I can clearly state my reasoning without sounding crazy
Remmyrulez 3 months ago
@Remmyrulez "the way you are explaining it makes it seem that the creationists are the hardcore religious people"
They are, and it's sad that you would equate your deist beliefs with creationism!
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 Ok, so that may rule out me, but it still leaves my bio and relig. teachers who are obviously completly different to me.
Remmyrulez 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Remmyrulez
"still leaves my bio and relig. teachers who are obviously completly different to me"
Your biology teacher actually believes that the earth was created by god, as it is, 6000years ago? I suggest you move schools! Your teacher is a moron.
Oh, and as i pointed out, if they believe in evolution, they are NOT creationists.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Remmyrulez You mean people who believe that God created the Universe in the state of the Big Bang?
d007ization 3 months ago
Darwin was presented with the theory and then was ordered to find proof, not the other way around. He didn't find any proof of evolution but of ADAPTABILITY. Big difference ...
unomnacajit111 3 months ago
So . . .
Either all the animals that we see evolved over many millions of years . . .
Or they were all created from nothing in six days or less by an invisible man in the sky using magic.
Gonna have to think on that one for a while . . .
Uberlaser 3 months ago
@Uberlaser "Or they were all created from nothing in six days or less by an invisible man in the sky using magic."
Don't forget, he must also have created the geological strata, with an ordered hierarchy of fossils, light from distant stars that is billions of years old, radioactive decay etc... presumably to trick us!
seansalvador1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are fucking stupid.
shtef994igor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion!
Creation without Creator presumes a single pattern, why should there occur two different movements on a definite pattern and quantum?
1tabligh 4 months ago
Now I'm not trying 2 say anyone here is dumb. I find math equally as important as science concerning this issue. Folks, I am not a smart guy ( I know I can say that again right!) But if a simpleton like me can figure this out, why is it taking the "thinking" minds of our time so long 2 embrace "common" sense? I'm not looking down my nose @ anyone here! I'm just saying, why is every1 trying to "figure it out" instead of "figuring God in"? If evolution's true, doesn't He deserve the credit?
OldUgly 4 months ago
@OldUgly "I am not a smart guy ( I know I can say that again right!) But if a simpleton like me can figure this out"
But, as i showed, you can't! You got it wrong!
So that neatly answers your net question "why is it taking the "thinking" minds of our time so long 2 embrace"
That's because they got it right, and you got it wrong!
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@seansalvador1 Ok u argue it. Exactly what did they get right? And what exactly did I get wrong? U know as well as I do there is a lot of science that cannot yet be known and will require constant revision. U also know there is a lot about ancient cultures that we have discovered that prove they weren't as primative as we were previously led to believe. Why do u put so much stock in peer-reviewed material when u know it will more than likely change? How would you "know" they got it right?
OldUgly 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OldUgly
"Exactly what did they get right?"
The scientists such as Darwin got the theory that explains evolution right after refining it, they also discovered the fact that animals evolve. You on the other hand think that the worlds population is too large to fit on the Earth!!
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@OldUgly
Science is altogether like a jelly pudding until evidence hardens it. There is so much proof that points to an evolutionary process of life that it is practically proven before it can actually be observed. It's the same with gravity. We still don't know exactly what causes it, but the evidence is obvious. Hardened science hardly ever changes. It is very unlikely that someone will discover one day that the earth is actually flat and we were victims of an optical illusion.
flamifer1 3 months ago
Using the entire circumference of the earth, including all bodies of water, of which we don't occupy because we arent fish, the calculations of the formula will prove there isn't enough space to contain us all! Even if we could survive in the water, we would all be standing shoulder 2 shoulder, several stacked layers of people on each other's shoulders! Given the amount of dry land we were "intended" 2 inhabit, it's absolutely impossible! This proves the bible is more accurate.
OldUgly 4 months ago
@OldUgly "Using the entire circumference of the earth, including all bodies of water, of which we don't occupy because we arent fish, the calculations of the formula will prove there isn't enough space to contain us all!"
Nonsense, if you calculate this for the 90+ billion people who have EVER lived then they would all fit neatly into the British isles! I don't know where you got the above crazy idea from..
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@OldUgly it doesn't even make sense unless you are claiming the Earth is actually much larger than science tell us or that people are much smaller..?
Which is it?
Either way you are literally stupid.
Show your mathematics please.
"This proves the bible is more accurate. "
How? No where in the bible does it mention the size of the Earth.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@seansalvador1 I will make it easier. Use science 2 calculate the circumference. Google "The evolution of man scientifically disproved in 50 arguments"
OldUgly 4 months ago
@OldUgly
It's the surface area you need to calculate, not the circumference, and if we calculate not only the humans alive today (6 billion or so) but ever to have existed (90 billion) they would only fill the British Isles!!
Again, please show your calculations that lead you to believe this nonsense, the site you pointed me to does not do as you claim.
It makes idiotic inferences about the growth of the human population.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seansalvador1 Yes I stand corrected it is the surface area, not circumference of a circle. My apologies. His research indicates these figures are correct by many claims. I'm not a mathemetician so I cant even begin 2 fathom it. He covers factoring in reasonable numbers for plagues, natural disasters, etc. Is it exact? Nobody can say. How could we? It's based on principles neither the evolutionist or creationist can argue regarding science or math, what we regard as acceptable & indisputable.
OldUgly 4 months ago
@OldUgly "His research indicates these figures are correct by many claims."
Yet i proved it complete nonsense in a single comment box! What an idiot.
seansalvador1 3 months ago
Recent correction, the population is soon to be officially closer to 7 billion*
seansalvador1 3 months ago
@OldUgly
PS
The argument regarding human population makes the idiotic claim that population growth is always the same when clearly it is not... in some times (plagues etc) the population actually declines! So his basic premise is completely incorrect.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seansalvador1 I'm not sure u understood the premise. He's not dissing science. I think the research covered all that.
OldUgly 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seansalvador1 I was referring 2 the size of the surface area as u pointed out 2 me. Thanks. That's why I said don't take my word for it. We can find those measurements by what we know already. I don't recall it being mentioned in the bible either, so yes you would be correct sir, as far as I know. Hey sean might I add that I have admired ur enthusiasm concerning science. U know if u could see past everything u have learned & learned how 2 embrace the Holy Spirit, u could be a powerful witness!
OldUgly 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OldUgly
You have completely misunderstood in two ways,
1. That was not the claim he made.
2. The claim he did make is demonstrably false and the mathematics is simple to understand, it does not take a mathematician to disprove his claim, in fact using logic alone it is simple as I have shown, the main being that he attempts to extrapolate backward in time using inference!
He makes many mathematical mistakes and logical errors.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
Hope that they apply the same level of skepticism to religion one day? I'm afraid that's hope for way too much...
DocStrange0123 4 months ago
Now compare the numbers with the chronology of the bible starting with Adam, to Noah, to Jesus, until today. Look @ each number. Why are they so different? This experiment hopefully SHOW that this debate should be calculated, not speculated. Science requires a hypothesis to devise a theory. Math is much more verifiable due to the power of an absolute. I ask every1 here, isn't math as deserving as science to rest our "theories" on facts? Let me know when u get it figured out, but be honest!
OldUgly 4 months ago
Ok seems we have a non-believing so called scientists in here. Do we have any mathemeticians? Don't take my word for this, do the math or find someone who can. What is the amount of years it has taken for man to evolve? Factor the birthrate based on lowest #. Most parents give birth to 2-3 offspring. Assume it's only 1! Use also the circumference of the earth to create a formula. Factor in the dimensions of above avg. size of man & death rate etc. How many people should exist today? Try it!
OldUgly 4 months ago
So I implore atheists and evolutionists to explain why, if we have evolved into the intelligent, scientific, observant & highly advanced creatures that u guys claim we are, why can't we produce silk? We can mix it, fashion it to suit our hearts content, but we can't reproduce it? If we have improved, or evolved, where is that trait? If I share common ancestry with apes, why am I not acrobatic? I'm so clumsy if I threw myself in the floor I'd miss! I like bananas ok but theyre not my favorite.
OldUgly 4 months ago
@OldUgly the fact that you are clumsy and others are natural acrobats is the heart of evolution. lets say long with you being clumsy you are also strong, stronger then the natural acrobat. If our environment changes and you need to be more acrobatic i'm sorry but your not going to live long enough to have kids, but the natural acrobat probably will. given enough time all the acrobatic people will live on while the clumsy people are all dead. now there is a new race of humans that are all more...
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
... acrobatic and not really clumsy at all. There might be another environmental change that means your strength will keep you alive and the acrobatic people will die off. Its mutations that cause small changes like being natually storng or acrobatic that natural selection plays on. this is the heart of evolution. at the moment because of our intellegence our acrobatic skills or our strenth is not that importent because we can build and make things that over come these short falls.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
@OldUgly The reason we can not produce silk is because evolutionary we would have no need to produce silk naturally. if your asking why we can not reproduce silk in a lab, that is a bad question because it has nothing to do with our evolution. While we have not been able to recreate silk like in nature, we can create even stronger fibers then that, which nature would never be able to create. Carbon fiber is much stronger and more versicle then silk. your question dose not make since.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
@Fireflygamer "While we have not been able to recreate silk like in nature, we can create even stronger fibers then that, which nature would never be able to create"
U just refuted ur own theory! Every fiber created comes from nature in the 1st place! Because it was already created! Nature itself can't create anything, nor can man, because God created nature! Even the very "nature" of things shows that the only "natural selection" that's taken place is the nature in which God chose 2 create it!
OldUgly 4 months ago
@OldUgly your not just an idiot your a fucking idiot and this is not an ad hominem attack i plan on proving that you are a fucking idiot. First right off the bat Nature did not create carbon fiber, it dose not exist in nature, so you are wrong man can create things nature can not. your god has not been show to have created anything, you just claim he dose as if it is fact. to claim man can not create anything makes you an idiot to claim a magic man done it all makes you a fucking idiot.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fireflygamer Organic or inorganic, carbon comes from nature. U know, dolomites, diamonds, oils, peat, limestones, graphite shall I go on? Ur trying 2 attack me just admit it. See what I mean! Some here wont accept the truth if u slapped them in the face with a waft of methane! Hey firefly, evolution called, it wants it's agenda back!
OldUgly 4 months ago
@OldUgly "Every fiber created comes from nature in the 1st place!"
No it doesn't, carbon fibre is not found in nature, nor is nylon or Cellulose fibres, Fiberglass, Stainless steel fibres.. the list is quite long! I could go on?
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@seansalvador1 Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, & oxygen. Looks like nature 2 me. But what would I know? Where do u suppose steel comes from? Thin air? Last time I checked, fiberglass is glass reinforced plastic. Where does glass come from? It doesn't matter how long ur list is, the raw materials required 2 produce these things, have their origins in nature, created already, we just follow God's lead.
OldUgly 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OldUgly
You were discussing man made things compared to natural things, artifacts compared to nature, so you are talking nonsense.
Of course the raw materials come from nature, but if you are now backtracking to claim you meant NOTHING is man made then 1. You have to define what you meant by material (atoms? In which case there exist man made elements that do not exist in nature).
2. Explain what point it is you are attempting to make.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@OldUgly "why can't we produce silk?"
But we can!
treehugger (DOT) com (/) files (/) 2010 (/) 05 (/) researchers (-) create (-) artificial (-) spider (-) silk (-) spinner (DOT) php
"If we have improved, or evolved, where is that trait?"
Of course we did not evolve to produce it naturally as there is no selection pressure for us to do that!
This is all based upon your ignorance of the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seansalvador1 I was attempting to make a point about trait inheritance. It was just a statement. Sry I was a little vague on that. I was thinking about how silly it would look if we were all dragging our knuckles like apes. I really do apologize!
OldUgly 4 months ago
Nylon eating bacteria does NOT prove evolution exists, except in the sense that still yet, man has evolved from a creature that did not possess the knowledge of the creation of nylon, into a creature that did & like everything else man attempts 2 create, can b destroyed by something God creates, nylon eating bacteria! The reason man sought 2 create nylon in the 1st place was 2 replace silk, which is created by insects. It can b cultivated, synthesized, but man cant reproduce the real thing!
OldUgly 4 months ago
@OldUgly "Nylon eating bacteria does NOT prove evolution exists"
Nylon is man made and does not exist in nature at all, therefore nylon eating bacteria had to evolve to eat it.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@seansalvador1 Manmade granted. Derived from nature. Vague yet again I apologize.
OldUgly 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OldUgly
It would help if you actually understood chemistry which you clearly do not. Nylon is a chemical the likes of which were never previously seen in nature. Nothing in nature could digest it and as I have shown the bacteria that can now do so have been shown to have evolved to do so from another type of bacteria that cannot.
QED.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
Comment removed
OldUgly 4 months ago
The bible says that God uses the foolish things of the world 2 confound the wise! Consider the sun, moon, their phases, earth, it's seasons, the human brain, dna etc. 2 far away from the sun we freeze, 2 close we blaze! Earth spins & with the help of the moon, keeps us all from flying into oblivion! Plants and humans exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide in harmony! Brains were given 2 make choices as well as functioning & building blocks of dna r n the shape of a cross! We r clearly designed!
OldUgly 4 months ago
@OldUgly Amen. Very encouraging words. Thank you and God bless you.
Psalm 19
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 Praise God! Ur comment is refreshing and very welcomed! Thank u for ur words of encouragement and blessings. Lately all I have been is under attack from non-believers, of which their weapons won't prosper of course, but it certainly has been intense! I've been called an "overzealous religious nutjob, mythical Jesus cult following coward, retard, dunce, 2 name a few, all because of my relationship with Christ! They hate me because they 1st hated Him, truth in the bible, they cant deny!
OldUgly 4 months ago
@Old I might have and idea why you face so much hate from my fellow non believers. First we really hate when people make dishonest arguments, now you might think they are not dishonest, but when you try to fit the facts to what you already think and ignore the evidence when shown to you, then you are making a dishonest argument. We don't hate you and we sure as hell don't hate Jesus or god, it would be silly to hate something we don't think exists, we hate the ignorance your religion promotes.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
@Fireflygamer
What dishonest "arguments" are you referring to?
With regard to "fitting the facts to what you already think and ignore the evidence when shown to you," anyone who believes in evolution is doing this all the time. A theory propped up by hypothesis upon hypothesis. No matter what you believe, I don't hate you. Not fully understanding something only makes you ignorant by the dictionary definition. Even while you don't think God exists, He has made every provision for your existence.
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 "anyone who believes in evolution is doing this all the time." this is the dishonest argument you are making. You have decided that the bible is true and evolution dose not fit with the bible so you ignore all the scientific evidence that supports it, in favor of religious propaganda. you ignore the fossil record, you ignore the DNA evidence and the radiometric dating evidence, all in favor of what you have already decided is true no matter what. Continued.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
... "Even while you don't think God exists, He has made every provision for your existence." if this is true please provide evidence for your god hypothesis, please provide any evidence that your god exists and that he created anything let alone everything. You claim I do not understand and that i am ignorant, while I am open to evidence for god and you are completely closed to the mountains of evidence that supports evolution. This is why you are dishonest, but i don't hate you ether.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
@Fireflygamer
Do you understand? I have not said that you don't. Are you ignorant? I have not said that you are.
I can't provide any more evidence for you than God already has. EVERYTHING around you was created by God. Of course evolutionists claim otherwise. I didn't have to be an evolutionist to seek alternative explanations for our existence. The fact is, we don't like the idea that someone else knows better than we do.
"Evidence" for evolution is way overstated. There's NO solid evidence.
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 "I can't provide any more evidence for you than God already has. EVERYTHING around you was created by God." how do you know this, how do you know that everything was created by god, you must have good reasons to believe it, so what are the reasons you believe it?
"There's NO solid evidence [for evolution]" there you go being dishonest again, the DNA evidence alone is the equivalent to legal proof in a court of law. if you honestly looked you would find all the evidence you would need.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
@Fireflygamer
And if you read the Bible, you will find more evidence of who God is, what He has done, and why He has done it. You'll see how God loves you and you'll learn that His love is something greater than any "love" that you've known.
Do you believe in evolution? That there is no God? Do you believe that once you are dead, that's it, it's all over? That beyond life in this world, there is nothing?
I believe that there is a light which speaks of a brighter hope than that for you. :-)
shegb79 4 months ago
@Fireflygamer
Why is this a "dishonest argument"?
You're right to say evolution doesn't fit with the Bible. That is simply a truth I can now acknowledge having read the Bible. The Bible contains an historical account of creation. Genesis 1:1 reads "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." If I theorise that the universe "evolved", then I compromise the fundamental truth that God created it as in Genesis. I would have to deny God's authority even from the beginning.
shegb79 4 months ago
Its a dishonest argument because you have already made up your mind and no matter what evidence is show to you, it will not change your mind. I am willing to believe in god if you provide the evidence. The problem is you think the bible is an accurate account of history, but there is no evidence that backs up a single supernatural claim in the bible so how do we know its true. so I will ask you AGAIN, what good reason do you have to believe that the bible is true and god exists, evidence please.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
@Fireflygamer
The answer you need you will find in the Bible. I read it and misunderstood it for a long time. We all do. I still don't know it or understand it well. God's wisdom is foolishness to those who do not obey His commandments. In my case, it was because I didn't know His commandments. I thought I did. There are heaps of them. But there are only two you really need to know.
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 I am sorry this is foolishness, basically you are saying i need to read the bible and believe it before I will have the evidence, that is moronic. Before I can give the bible any creditability beyond a book of stories meant to control the masses you are going to have to show me some sort of evidence it is true or that this god you speak of exists. There has never been any evidence, you believe the bible for no good reason, and claim it as fact, that is dishonest of you I'm sorry.
Fireflygamer 4 months ago
@shegb79 I read it too and its a terribly written book. If I ever write a crappy book I'll be sure to state in it that only a fool wouldn't like it.
Rozmic 3 weeks ago
@OldUgly
Hebrews 10: 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.
Ephesians 2: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Keep up the good work!
shegb79 4 months ago
@OldUgly
We evolved on this planet, not the planet to us.
Also, for well over 90% of the Earths existence it was too hot or cold for life like us to exist.
"Plants and humans exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide in harmony!"
They have evolved to do so and there is plenty of evidence to prove it.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
Theist: How can you prove evolution when no one was there to observe it.
Atheist: How can you prove that God created the Earth when no one was there to observe it.
shinokiba 4 months ago
@shinokiba
Because direct observation is not the only form of evidence, of course.
There is overwhelming evidence that animals evolve.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@seansalvador1 Duh
shinokiba 4 months ago
@shinokiba
Than why'd you ask?
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@shinokiba
Adam and Eve were there to witness the final product. God walked with them in the very beginning. :-)
shegb79 4 months ago
@seansalvador1
Sounds like a convenience.
"No bearing at all on morality". I suggest, no basis or even reason for morality. No responsibility. Judges 21:25 Everyone did what was right in His own eyes. That sentence is repeated many times throughout the Bible.
Sound familiar?
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79
Actually i told you what the evolutionary benefit of morality was already. You love repetition, i believe it is because you think that if you repeat yourself enough times then you r opposition will give up. leaving you with your sacred last word.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@seansalvador1
God will have the last word. I'm the least of anyone's worries. Especially yours.
Morality is absolute. You haven't explained to me "what the evolutionary benefit of morality was already".
shegb79 4 months ago
@evelsteev
There is a God. The author and finisher of our faith. Jesus Christ.
It matters to God. It seems at this point to matter little to you.
While you can't see God and therefore He matters little to you; If your friends are not standing where you can see them do they also matter so little? I imagine that this attitude spills over into every relationship that you have with anyone.
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 There is a God? Prove it. How can something matter to a perfect being? Perfection doesn't require anything; it's already perfect. If my friends are standing somewhere, where I can't see them, then how do I know my friends exist, in the first place? Because I've already seen them somewhere else, unlike this "god" you speak of. This attitude only spills into things in the world that actually exist, not untested, nonsense claims.
evelsteev 4 months ago
@evelsteev
Do you have any relatives you haven't met? [that was rhetorical] Of course. We all do. I know OF some of mine who I haven't met. Should I doubt their existence just because I haven't met them face to face? When you're not with your friends, do they still love you? You have evidence of it.
Why are you asking me to prove God exists? You doubt His existence. Your doubt isn't causing God to cease to exist. Have you not heard about Jesus? Who is Jesus to you?
shegb79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Should I doubt their existence just because I haven't met them face to face? »
Do you have a relative called Fred, who has one eye and always wears a pink tutu?
Why should you doubt the existence of Fred, even though you've never met him yet? You have relatives you have never met, so surely Fred must exist.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@XGralgrathor
And the only way I am likely to meet God is to seek him out, or if He should introduce himself to me. It is not a question of existence, it's only a question of whether I know God or not. If no one tells me about God, and I don't seek God, none of that affects his existence. I don't know about "Fred", but God knows me better than I know myself. The fact is it's possible to doubt God even if you have met Him.
shegb79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shegb79
And the only way I am likely to meet pixies is to seek them out, or if they should introduce themselves to me. It is not a question of existence, it's only a question of whether I know pixies or not. If no one tells me about pixies, and I don't seek pixies, none of that affects their existence. I don't know about "Fred", but pixies know me better than I know myself. The fact is it's possible to doubt pixies even if you have met them.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@XGralgrathor
I agree, "the only way I am likely to meet pixies is to seek them out." At least there might be a likelihood that you might meet one. Have you met one?
shegb79 4 months ago
« At least there might be a likelihood that you might meet one »
More likely than of anyone meeting this god of yours?
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
@shegb79
No, because you have evidence of their existence, but there is none for yours or any other gods existence.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@evelsteev
Do you have any relatives you haven't met? [that was rhetorical] Of course. We all do. I know OF some of mine who I haven't met. Should I doubt their existence just because I haven't met them face to face? When you're not with your friends, do they still love you? You have evidence of it.
Why are you asking me to prove God exists? You doubt His existence. Your doubt isn't causing God to cease to exist. Have you not heard about Jesus? Who is Jesus to you?
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 We have evidence for these friends or relatives, that we can verify by observation. I;m asking for evidence for something that YOU claim exists, otherwise, it's just nonsense. Therefore, who cares? Jesus was a mythical character. No secular historian accepts he even existed. No thanks, I like reality, not fictional characters to confide in.
evelsteev 4 months ago
@evelsteev
God exists. Look around. Read the Bible. What more evidence do you need? If you read the Bible, you will find that Jesus is the Son of God. You will learn that Jesus was born in Bethlehem as a baby just like you and I. You will read that Jesus was sent into the world so that you and I should know God's forgiveness. You will see that Jesus died on a cross to show you His forgiveness. You will read of Jesus' resurrection so you should know hope for a future with Him, without end.
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 Reading the bible convinced my the god I had worshiped was not a god I would worship. It's like some kind of omnipotent retard or something.
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2
Is that your conclusion after reading about Jesus Christ? After having read the Bible, who do you think Jesus Christ is?
shegb79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExtantFrodo2
Is that your conclusion after reading about Jesus Christ? After having read the Bible, who is Jesus Christ to you?
shegb79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« God exists. Look around. Read the Bible. What more evidence do you need? »
Evidence that a god exists for one thing. The world around us isn't, in itself, evince. And the bible certainly is not.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@XGralgrathor
It's great that you're quoting and questioning my comments. I think it's wonderful that you want to engage in sharing your thoughts and ideas with me. Is there a reason why you're not posting them directly to me? And why are you "spamming" them?
shegb79 4 months ago
« Is there a reason why you're not posting them directly to me? »
I am. If you have notifications enabled, and an e-mail address coupled to your Youtube account, you should notice the notifications coming in.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
« And why are you "spamming" them? »
I am not. My own comments seem to be similarly "spammed", by the way. As are a lot of other comments, from both creationists and non-theists. My guess is that Youtube's algorithms for detecting spam have become a bit paranoid of late.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
Comment removed
evelsteev 4 months ago
Comment removed
evelsteev 4 months ago
@shegb79 saying "god exists" doesn't mean he does, otherwise, I can say "leprechauns exist," and they would. Looking around, we see only what's around, not "god." The Bible is a book, written by men. Again, this only proves there's a book, and nothing else. Just because something says "Jesus existed, he was the son of god." etc. doesn't mean it happened. You might want to read the definition of the word "evidence," because, so far, you have provided none.
evelsteev 4 months ago
@evelsteev
It's not I who presides over God's existence. I know He lives. If you want to know God, look to Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us He walked with Adam and Eve in Eden. We have been living with God's presence and influence with us since the beginning of time. In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth and everything in them. I think that answers a lot of your questions right there. God has always existed. He made the universe as we know it. He has given each one of us life.
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 You don't KNOW god exists, you only believe it, otherwise, you'd provide evidence, for which you have STILL lacked, so far. The bible also says that a snaked talked, a donkey talked, and a man lived in a fish for three days, that doesn't make it real. There's no evidence that god exists, let alone that he "created" the universe. You didn't answer ANYthing, really, except for baseless preaching.
evelsteev 4 months ago
For creationists, only scientific claims must be proven. Myths and fairy tales get a total, "no-questions-asked" pass. And that's insanity by ANY measure.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
Ok BANG!!!! a explosion of planets came into form.(EOD I wish_) trillions of planets 1 with life.(knowed) On this planet amino acids form to make life. Genetic alleles and genomes mixing with benificial and bad mutations and weeding out bad species and poor mutations and developing species healthier and gentically varied species. IM SORRY if I need more prove. Than fossils and carbon dating and germ mutation to jump on the bus. ABSURD CLAIMS NEEDED ABSURD AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE. STUPIDITY.
pliskin543 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« a explosion of planets came into form »
Ehr, no. If you're trying to represent Big Bang cosmology, you're way off the mark. Try reading the wikipedia article on the Big Bang first, then come back.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« rillions of planets 1 with life.(knowed) »
There might be trillions with life. At least you realise that much.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« healthier »
"Bad species"? "Healthier species"? Where are you getting all that nonsense from? Evolutionary theory has no such thing in it.
All in all, it sounds as if you're using some creationist propaganda site as an informational resource on the state of science. Bad mistake. Try the wikipedia pages on evolution and cosmology first, then come back.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago 3
@XGralgrathor
Haha they marked you as spam... cowards!
seansalvador1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seansalvador1
Yeah, I get that a lot these days. Wonder why or who or what... I think it's some Youtube bug, to be frank. The alternative is that there's some dude following me around on one thread after another, marking down my comments on all of them...
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Your comment contradicts evolutionary theory. One of he most fundamental principles used to support the theory of evolution is "survival of the fittest". It's a principal used to explain away the lack of living transitional forms or "missing links". Evolutionary adherents claim they were weaker on some level, therefore unable to compete with stronger species'. Maybe you should read some of Darwin's material. Is the theory somehow different now to what he first conceived?
shegb79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Your comment contradicts evolutionary theory. »
It does not. Evolutionary theory proposes that species adapt through reproductive variation and differential reproductive success. This means that the traits of *any* variant that is better able to produce fertile offspring is more likely to propagate throughout the population genepool than the others. "Health" is not a requirement: reproductive fitness is.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« It's a principal used to explain away the lack of living transitional forms »
Again, no. The principle used to "explain away" the lack of transitional forms ON THE SMALLEST SCALES (because such forms ARE very much available in larger scopes) is: punctuated equilibrium.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@XGralgrathor
So where is ONE living transitional form between ape and man? There are none, and that makes no sense at all. Unless I use your reasoning from your previous comment, "Health" is not a requirement:" Sounds like the self same excuse that I was referring to in my comment to you. They were unhealthy and died out? Is that what happened to the dinosaurs?
A genetic mutation creates a new species with health problems that threaten it's existence? Sounds like de-evolution.
shegb79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« So where is ONE living transitional form between ape and man? »
1. "Between ape and man" is nonsensical. You wouldn't ask for a transitional form between bird and sparrow either.
2. You never specified it had to be an extant form. Besides the existing great apes, of which gorillas, chimpanzees and humans are member species, none from that lineage have survived to present day. We do find remnants we've attributed to H. habilis and H. erectus though.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@XGralgrathor
I asked for a transitional form between ape and man because according to the theory of evolution, man "evolved" from apes. So where is ONE living transitional form between ape and man?
A sparrow is a bird. It's a class [or type] of bird. There's no transitional form between a bird and a sparrow because a sparrow is a bird. It always been. When God said, "let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” It was then on the fifth day of creation, that God made sparrows.
shegb79 4 months ago
« I asked for a transitional form between ape and man because according to the theory of evolution, man "evolved" from apes »
Well, yes. Man also *is* an ape. When we say that "man evolved from apes", we're not talking about any extant species of ape. We're talking about the common ancestor between modern apes and modern man. Such an organism would, by definition, be an ape, but one without the derived characteristics of modern apes and man that separates them.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
« So where is ONE living transitional form »
Why this requirement that the transitional form be extant? There is certainly no pattern in biology that necessitates that any transitional form survive to present day. We do find such forms in the fossil record, however. Which is sufficient to confirm the hypothesis of common ancestry between man, and non-human apes.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
« A sparrow is a bird. It's a class [or type] of bird. There's no transitional form between a bird and a sparrow because a sparrow is a bird »
A man is an ape. It's a class [or type] of ape.
That having been said, the basal definition of the clade of apes does allow for transitional forms between the basal definition and the derived clades of modern man and modern non-human apes.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« They were unhealthy and died out? »
No: healthy or not, they had a prolific reproductive rate, compared to other variants, and they survived. We are the descendants of those who managed to reproduce better, more, on average, than counterparts with other genetic combinations. Health, strength, speed, intelligence, none of these are in themselves requirements. Reproductive rate is.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@XGralgrathor
In which case, all the,"No: healthy or not, they had a prolific reproductive rate, compared to other variants, and they survived." [These are LIVING transitional forms we're discussing]. Where are they?
shegb79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« A genetic mutation creates a new species »
No. Species is a man-made label. We can speak of new species when
1) the genetic/phenotypic difference between two arbitrarily chosen generations is great enough to warrant separate identification,
2) a reproductive boundary has come to exist such that members of two subpopulations can no longer hybridise resulting in fertile offspring.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@XGralgrathor
"1) the genetic/phenotypic difference between two arbitrarily chosen generations is great enough to warrant separate identification,"
What do you mean "chosen"? Evolution is all just random chance isn't it?
"2)" What reproductive boundary are you referring to?
shegb79 4 months ago
« What do you mean "chosen"? »
What do you mean, "what do you mean"? Biological divergence is a function of the amount of genetic difference between to generations or populations. You pick two generations, or two populations, and you can calculate the amount of genetic divergence between them. If that amount is large enough, or sufficient to prevent the populations or generations from hybridising, then that fact warrants a separate designation for both generations or populations.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« What do you mean "chosen"? »
What do you mean, "what do you mean"? Biological divergence is a function of the amount of genetic difference between to generations or populations. You pick two generations, or two populations, and you can calculate the amount of genetic divergence between them. If that amount is large enough, or sufficient to prevent the populations or generations from hybridising, then that fact warrants a separate designation for both generations or populations.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« What do you mean "chosen"? »
What do you mean, "what do you mean"? Biological divergence is a function of the amount of genetic difference between to generations or populations. You pick two generations, or two populations, and you can calculate the amount of genetic divergence between them. If that amount is large enough, or sufficient to prevent the populations or generations from hybridising, then that fact warrants a separate designation for both generations or populations.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
« What reproductive boundary are you referring to? »
Any reproductive boundary that prevents two populations from hybridising even when they are not physically separated from one another. Such a boundary might be purely genetic. It might be behavioural. It might be a matter of anatomical divergence. It might be smell or colour, or any combination of the above.
XGralgrathor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Maybe you should read some of Darwin's material »
Perhaps you should. It does your credibility no good to comment on something you clearly have little knowledge of.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@XGralgrathor
I have more knowledge of Darwin's material relating to his theory of evolution than I care to have. At least it's given me an opportunity to see what a man can dream up when he doesn't want to acknowledge God.
Much of the world once believed that non-European people had not evolved as highly as Europeans. It was Darwin among others who propagated this idea. Hitler and Nazi Germany seized on the idea as justification for ethnic cleansing.
There are people who still believe it. X-D
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 "I have more knowledge of Darwin's material relating to his theory of evolution than I care to have"
Which is pretty much an admission of your wilful ignorance.
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@seansalvador1
LOL. Wilful ignorance. I like that! Is that what it is when you refuse to believe that God exists?
shegb79 4 months ago
@shegb79 "Much of the world once believed that non-European people had not evolved as highly as Europeans"
Yes, because they were racists and had no idea about genetics.
They did not take into account all the confounding variables.
Cont
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@seansalvador1
An ideal impressed upon society by biblical teaching or evolutionary teaching?
I'm sure that you could find another alternative. It doesn't seem to me to be an idea even considered by biblical teaching. All men have come from the same source. God. My life and yours. A gift from God. We're all one people. One family. Evolution simply doesn't enter the equation. "All the confounding variables," simply point to the wonderful intricacy of God's creation. No less confounding. :-)
shegb79 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shegb79
Third option.
I meant confounding variables that "Much of the world once believed that non-European people had not evolved as highly as Europeans" failed to take into account... obviously.
You really struggle with this basic logic thing don;t you? You seemingly struggle to follow a conversation in WRITING!
seansalvador1 4 months ago
@shegb79 "Hitler and Nazi Germany seized on the idea as justification for ethnic cleansing."
Actually he didn't, he did the exact opposite. He also used religion as a justification, i mean, how exactly does one tell a Jew from a non Jew? Religion!
Hitler didn't even understand Darwinian evolution by his very own words.
seansalvador1 4 months ago