Smart girl, misguided perhaps, but certainly not stupid. I would just like to add there are better arguements for ID then....the way a banana is shaped >.<.....
It really does make it hard for people who accept ID to make an arguement for it when we have to put up with morons like these.
@TylerOmega This universe coming about by no means is magical. The advanced complex organic structures and machinery are obvious proof of design. I would like to move on, but theres a myth blocking my path. Evolution.
Has anyone taken one of these books and printed up a preface to the Creation science preface, pointing out that, clearly, in order to embrace religion you must reject reality?
Wouldnt need more than one page to add to the existing book, just glue it in on page one.
The worse thing religions can do is make what that believe PERFECTLY clear to everyone else, I mean, the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible cover to cover and goto church every sunday!
@whitesquirrel7 really?! Page one, 1st sentance "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth...." is there another definition of god besides creator of the univese and creator of all life?!
Bereshsis bara elohim et shumayim et ve et aretz ....
and elohim is plural - and means the 'shining ones/ the things that shine'
this is a known fact and once you figure out what the verse is actually talking, about you realise that the elohistic segment [which is known to have a single author] is NOT referring to 'god' but something else far more interesting
@whitesquirrel7 whatever name or attibute is given to the ancient jewish name translated as 'god' in english, the being that created the universe and all life is the commonly understood defintion of what 'god' is.
You are lost in the sematics - the god described in the bible does not exist, because the actions and event attributed to it never happened as described.
the bible is the musings of ancient jewish goat farmes who set THEMSELVES up as a priesthood for their own benefit. Nothing more.
@whitesquirrel7 whats the matter? Bored and no one will talk to you, digging through last months posts?!
The bible claims to speak on behalf of a creator/god that talked to moses in PERSON, dictated the history of its interaction with humanity, and moses and his successive prophets wrote down what this being told them.
Its not a concept of a god, they claimed to speak on its behalf exclusively, and to be in charge of executing its commands to the jewish people.
Problem is, not everyone who is at a top university, or at college is that not all people are intelligent, or well versed in anything outside their field. Otherwise intelligent people bending their minds to accommodate religion is not exactly uncommon. What I think they are hoping is to catch those who aren't well versed in biology and get them to read the first 50 pages then go off and parrot the bullshit they read. Preying upon the weak. Like duckhunt + magnifying glass.
You know about bananas up the ass, how? Why would people secure in their ideas not want open debate?Its been more than a year, what did happen to the books? About the time this was happening a group of professors sued Ohio foe the right to teach alternate theories,back to the open debate point.
@daddyg321 Alternative theories? Like Intelligent design. A theory that isn`t a theory. In order for something to be considered a theory it must be tested, it must show consistent evidentiary support after constant skeptical outlook and questioning by the scientific community, and then shown through it`s evidence that the original hypothesis holds truth.
Intelligent Design is taken on faith because people say it`s true. If it was tested, it would fail. It`s a hypothesis, and a bad one at that.
I wasn't paying attention during this drama, but primate hands evolved to grasp other things better, they have it backwards. I'm sure this simple retort was stated over and over, I hope!
Dear FactVsReligion you are way too pretty to be this smart. Please, read the Bible to get your aspirations down to their proper levels.
PS. Baby Jesus is mad about about the "banana" reference. No really, you crossed the line and now there is a nice and comfy space reserved for you in a place where conflagration is just part of your day. Every day. Read all about it in the only book that matters.
yes the banana fits PERFECTLY into the ass and yes it was cultivated by humans so it could do that also if we made the banana the way it is then that means god didn't and therefore he still doesn't like homosexuality so your 1st point fails
Well... regarding homosexuality bananas in the ass are not everything (if anything oô). This is quite an unpolite argument. Jsut for the records... Next time you talk about bananas try thinking of a masturbation joke...
Oh and by the way, speaking of "things being designed to fit a purpose", gay anal sex is amazing, I mean, the penetration feels good, stimulation of the prostate feels good....the anal walls feel great for the penis....one might almost think that it was....designed that way... O_o But that's not possible, is it creationists? =P
I just love watching your videos, I love watching the pure, unadulterated, genuine disgust you display when discussing the feeble attempts of the religious to legitimize their cult. I emphasize with that. :)
And by the way, I'd like it if atheists didn't call "Intelligent design" IE creationism a "theory", because technically, a theory is a hypothesis backed up with evidence...sooo, accordingly, creationism is just a hypothesis. :P
You people put this shit on yourselfs,callin names,with law sues and pet names to anybody who disagree with you,acting like post humans and insulting people like they are worst than crap just because you don'y like the fuckin bible,scientists are getting tired of the arrogance of atheism that schools are thinkin to stop teaching the evolution theory once and for all.this is just the beginning,in about 20 years from now Darwin's book is gonna be to teachers what the constitution is to politicians
while watching kirk cameron, i felt as if i were watching a terrorist saying they were going to hide anthrax in candy and hand it out to children. not that i am equating religion to poison, although i could. i'm saying the way in which he was speaking and the music while in the video actually frightened me.
I wish more people would point out that the "appearance of design" argument is just a logical fallacy. Multiple actually. Argument from ignorance, circular reasoning(I know there is a god because of the complexity of design, and I know God designed it because of it's complexity), and a false dichotomy. You have to admire the perfectly circular logic though. Can you imagine if engineers used that logic? Wow. Smart and gorgeous. The world needs more girls like that.
I guess the problem is by placeing them side by side you are saying each has equal evidence behind it. I think that is what the up roar was about, never that students in top Uni's would take them seriously.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"They are getting humbler and humbler", Thats a good thing, that is what God wants of us Christians. :o) As far as "pulling back" goes, none of us pull back. Gods work is happening all around you weither you realize it or not.
Actually, the 'pulling back' of christianity is the result of losing its masses. Why? Because each progressive generation sees the 'faith' for what it is - a pack of lies designed to terrorize people into submission and blind obedience; of which, religions number one enemy is Education. Thats why you see religion place the educational groups under constant pressure - they recognize that education and intelligence easily obliterates the fear that keeps people in faith. We atheists will win this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are decieved as well. There is no pulling back in Christianity. God has already won the battle and you cannot see this because your decision has left you blind to the truth. In the end the results will be displayed for everyone to see.
considering xtianity along with the other faiths have weakened a lot in the last hundred years, seems to me we atheists are gaining ground, especially considering the simple fact that no faith can prove itself, at all - and if your god doesnt like it, he/she/it/they can tell me so directly - whichll NEVER happen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You have excluded yourself from the spiritual realm by choosing atheism, so you have no idea about faith and its strength. Faith does not have to be proven or it would not be faith would it?
I realize that i just called myself an atheist, so thisll seem contradictory - But don't for a second think that just because i consider yours to be a false god, that Ive cut myself off from the spiritual realm as it were; rather, the opposite is true in such regard because of my contact, as it were, with the spiritual that reaffirms for me the non existence of your god, to say nothing at all regarding the total proven BS of the various bibles.
I think _you're_ missing a contraction there vulgargit. You sound like stupid, and missed the point. If I managed to sound like a small child, it was to point out that God is childish, and theist arguments are often just as childish. Also, Sarcasm is not deception fucktard.
"Thats why you see religion place the educational groups under constant pressure..."
That's also why they loaded the Texas board of education with a bunch of fundy losers - so they could manipulate which text books are used throughout the entire country. They'll still lose in the long run, but they're turning the U.S. into a third world country in the meantime...
Actually if you read the bit they added it really looks like they don't know what they are talking about at all. They said that bad people believe in evolution, well bad people believe in gravity too and that the earth is round. XD It was the biggest load of read hearing garbage. (I read it online so I wouldn't add to the paper wast.)
You bring out many good points. I admit to being pissed abt this, but you're right abt the schools targeted. I wonder how many people upset over that ultimately pointless publicity stunt have actually read Darwin, tho...?
LOL! The banana fits so well up the ass! That made me spew cola out my nose--ouch, that hurt.
Anyways, I am a student at one of those 50 universities targetted, and the natural science departments organized a counterstrike and we basically owned them. And all got free copies of the book. With the intro ripped out--we all win!
Same here! The highlight was a 2 hour "discussion/debate" between 20 creationists and one of our department's physics prodigies. He pretty much crushed them (even with biology), and a lot of onlookers were pretty amused by him. And he distracted the creationists from their original job.
The best part--while he was distracting the creationists, a bunch of bio (including me), biochem, and chem students made off with the entire box of books.
We were a bit more civil later on in the day, though. We held a 2 hour forum discussing the introduction of the book, all of its flaws, inconsistencies, and such.
A lot of non-scientists and theists showed up. We had a panel of 5 biology students and 4 biology professors explain evolution, evidence, and misconceptions. We even explained the impossibility of a literal Hell.
Knowing that we probably enlightened a few people out there makes me feel pretty good in the end :D
I wish there were more ppl like you :s But somehow i have the feeling that this battle can't be won. I mean ppl are just too easly get attatched to the wrong things such as religion because it take much more to actually open your eyes and THINK. :( It is sad.
I've been arguing with theists for about a year now...lately...I was thinking....damn...we need stupid people!
If I want to play Pharoah, someones' got to carry the rocks for my pyramid. They are sheep and they even preach it so!
I am on the verge of giving up ! If I get baptized tomorrow, I wonder whether it would burn their little sheep brains? How would they rationalize now that I am going to heaven WITH THEM !?
The banana was funny ..gotta give them a point for that...I laughed
The problem is that a lot of well educated people fall for religious bullshit or have been brought into the many cults ruining the world. Look at the 911 hijackers....many of those scumbags had Phd's.
I agree with this vid on principle but there is more to it than what is outlined in the statements.
Nope, My wife grew up in Puapa New Guinea. They had wild banana trees in the backyard and they look exactly like the ones you buy in the store. They were not genetically grown.
I handed out some more of these books the other day to my Creation Science Class.
Yes and those were the result of selective breeding. You are arguing a strawman...many of the modern species you see in places like new guinea ARE in fact modified species that have moved into the wild.
Although Creationists would then like to bring up the idea that people choose to be homosexual by free will. You know cuz most gays like the idea of being shunned, told they`re evil, treated like dirt most of their lives and told they`ll burn forever if they don`t change back. The ignorance of Theists astounds more and more everyday.
If a homosexual wasn`t born gay, they wouldn`t be gay. Some people come out hetero, some bi, some gay. It`s been shown in other animals.
I'd like to know what really happened in the couple of months since they pulled this stunt, and what they'll try to do this year. The hilarious thing about this is how these two jokers are so obtuse they think they're scoring a point with things like crocoduck and the now infamous banana illustration, and they only make themselves look like idiots! Oh, and did you notice the eternal damnation threat below me? These people pull out Hell and threaten you with it like it was a gun!
Your destination is hell and you should be worried about it, be worried alot about it you should because there are only two destinies for humans Heaven or hell. I am going to heaven not because I deserve to but because I have accepted that God is real and more importantly i have accepted his son Jesus Christ as my person lord and savior. Until you die it is not too late. May God bless you. Randall M. Rueff
And yours is Tartaros. Zeus really doesn't like non-believers like you. And he particularly hates adherents to the lore of the ancient Hebrew wargod Yahweh.
I do'nt think it's arrogance,it's passion.He really believes in what he's doing.I think it would be a good idea for all of us to question everything.Take nothing for granted.Keep an open mind.God bless you and your fam.
You're right he absolutely believes in what he says and he thinks very much that everyone who opposes him is completely wrong. He even says that. I mean to inject ones own rhetoric that violates and offends the author of another text, is it's self an act of arrogance.
He doesn't want anyone to keep an open mind, that's the last thing he wants.
It's not well known the author actually did have a faith in God.Darwin got angry when people said they were atheists because of him.Why schools do'nt teach that is strange.The places of higher learning only want one side taught.
It's irrelevant what Darwin wanted and felt. It's also irrelevant what Darwin believed in. It's irrelevant how Darwin viewed God.
What is relevant is the fact that Darwin came up with a theory that summarizes an actual happening in nature. And no matter how convoluted Kirk Cameron and his buddies want to make it sound, it's a solid observation.
And that's all evolution is, it's not God, it doesn't prove or disprove God, it doesn't support Atheism, it's simply an observation of nature.
That's fantastic and I congratulate you; really, I do. But that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with you supporting his il-legitimization and complete slander of a perfect solid and workable theory of science. He has passed the point of having an opinion and crossed over the lines of slander and lies.
I hope your belief in God does not cause you to do the things Kirk does.
There are quite a number of theories as I'm sure you are aware. The most plausible concerns the spontaneous formation of micelles (or circular aggregates of lipid molecules forming the outer bilayers of our cells) as well as the facilitated (facilitated by various conditions present on earth) creation of proteins as shown by Miller-Urey and others.
These conditions, spontaneous formation of a container (micelles) and genetic precursors (Proteins: RNA was the first form of DNA) have provided
the floor for many evolutionary biologists to conduct more recent research to prove that the conditions for the spontaneous formation of life on earth to occur.
Note: Spontaneous means energy from the outer environment was sufficient enough to allow for the ordering of the system. Also note: evidence of spontaneous micelle formation is irrefutable, see: soap bubbles. The same principles govern most lipids.
A simple virus, composed of nothing more than protein molecules could have infiltrated a spontaneously formed micelle, and found a suitable means by which to thrive. This is theoretically plausible of course because viruses composed of nothing more than proteins that exist today infect host tissues and cells and use lipids from their host to envelop themselves.
Viruses are quite effective in replication but very often mutate (ex.HIV... and every other virus really)
these mutations lead to new forms of the first "cell". These cells thrive better than their viral brethren without lipid envelops, and thus propagate in large numbers. Envelopment of other independently formed viruses could (and in modern times often can) lead to the original virus taking on more functionality derived from the consumed virus.
After successive generations of viral replication, you have the development of a single celled organism, who thrives on (most probably) RNA based function
I suggest that for viruses to exist, there first needs to be an evolved reproductive mechanism for them to hijack. I propose that viruses did not come into existence until well after life had differentiated into prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Perhaps the word virus should be replaced with proto-virus, because the simple nature of the theoretical "organism" to which I am referring, is not as highly specialized as modern day virus tend to be.
My use of the word "virus" was to emphasize the composition of the "organism" on a molecular level, as well as some basic principles by which viruses function and that are relevant in this argument.
Still, the term virus refers to an infectious agent that hijacks cellular organisms to reproduce. Strictly speaking, viruses cannot exist without cellular organisms with their own reproductive mechanism and means of transmitting genetic information existing. But perhaps you're simply referring to non-cellular autonomic replicators?
My use of the term "virus" again was to reference behaviors and structures understandable and exhibited by some modern viruses. So molecular makeup (RNA and lake of a membrane or traditional cell) and behavior, replication and use of lipid membranes.
Is virus the appropriate term? Perhaps another would be more applicable, but quite honestly it would be foolish to say any one term would be perfect in this case. We simply just do not know. That's why much of this is theoretical.
This proto-virus would have very little in common with the viruses we see today other than the fact that it could replicate its genetic code; thus leading to the development of all complex life forms. This would be the same as modern viruses that, although they lack any form of a nerual or coordinated "thought" system as animals generally do, they are able to replicate and do so as the "purpose" of their existence.
You are correct to propose the later development of speacilized viruses which exploit more complex organisms. It is much more reasonable however to propose these viruses developed from a common ancestor as the complex organisms they infect, thus sharing a root in the original proto-virus I have proposed.
Their emergence as a bi-product of more complex organisims makes little sense, rather thier adaptation to exploit more complex life is far more reasonable; and in fact follows observations.
« It is much more reasonable however to propose these viruses developed from a common ancestor »
Actually, the origin of viruses is a controversial subject still. It might well be that viruses developed independently on several occasions, originating as bacterial plasmids or cellular organelles. The main problem in determining the origin of viruses is that their turnover-rate is so incredibly high that it's impossible to establish a long-term phylogeny.
« composed of nothing more than protein molecules »
Proteins also require a certain level of development. I propose that true proteins came into existence long after the origin of life, but likely well before the differentiation between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Incorrect in so far as spontaneous development of amino acids and simple protiens has been proven and validated through extreme variation in temperatures, comprable to those on early earth. The simplicity of the "protien" molecules I refer is perhaps confusing you. The ones I am theorizing would be extremely simple in their composition, and are comparable to those replicated in a number of experiments to verify their spontaneous formation under acceptable conditions.
As previously posted in the beginning of my comments, the Miller-Urey originally showed that organic compounds could be formed on earth without a living organism being present. They carried out their experiment and found that amino acids could be formed without the presecnce of an already formed organism. Google Miller-Urey and research based off theirs. There's a pleathora of it.
Of course we would distinguish between these. The rapid pace necessary for lifes development would require such a
Yes, but amino-acids and proteins are of an entirely different order of complexity. I would not expect proteins to come about through simple chemical processes. We know that evolution *can* produce such complex molecules. Therefore I would expect that the first lifeforms did not use proteins, but rather more simple catalysts, perhaps RNA or polypeptide templates. Only later did proteins evolve.
an attention to these details. RNA has been proven to have the capabilities to perform "protein" like behaviors, which evolves catalytic, and enzymatic behavior. So the original question was to explain the origins of the first single celled organism on the planet. This I attempted to do. The composition and function of the resulting RNA as well as basic cellular functionality of such a proto-life single celled organism is beyond my capabilities. But I can say that the catalytic components and
enzymatic components that would later compose most of the original single celled organism, would be the result of the original proto-viruses (as I'll call it) adaptation to increase its effectiveness in replicating its genetic material. But to explain the exact mechanisms by which this happened catalytically would again be beyond my knowledge.
You are correct that the complexity of such proteins developed more fully into what we consider "proteins" currently, and this event happened long before the differentiation of prokaryotes, eukaryotes and archea.
@Vantado Thank you for your thoughtful answer,you seem to know your stuff.
I studied most of the theories for 2 or 3 years.The theories do not match the fossil record,it shows simple and more complex organisms from the very beginning.The fossil record should show 10's of million's of year's of just simple life,but it do'esnt.Thanks again for your courteous response.
I'd thank you too but, that would be a fantastic debunk of those theories if it wasn't rubbish. So how do you expect to have a fossil record of viruses and lipid membranes. It's theorized you can't. And indeed in the recent years there has been a tremendous amount of research and discoveries of lower life form fossils from the early stages of our planet. Google Scholar is a fantastic resource that I suggest you re-do your research with; I hope it serves you well.
It's a good point. In Universities nobody takes that foreword serious anyway.
(Nobody READS them anyway)
It's still a good book. And to my astonishment, suprisingly easy to read.
(Just rip out that foreword.)
(Oh, and concerning the linked video.... What the Bog is a "full color copy"? There is NOTHING in color in that book? It is TEXT that is important... ;-)
Did I say grade-school level science literacy? I take it back. More like complete illiteracy. Someone should post the intro with full refutations in the margins.
How is disparaging Darwin and the Origin 'the way of the Master'?
Thanks for the vid. I think this vain attempt to undermine evolution, the Origin and Darwin is going to backfire. Especially if they think they're going to turn around the tide of 'atheism' entrenched at the universities. But they're so zealously blinded by the light that they don't realize this. It will just get more people to laugh at their grade-school level science literacy and get undergrads to go out and buy any of the several good books pounding creationism or intelligent design.
I don't think it was a serious attempt to get the Origin (or the Gospel) into the hand of college kids. I think it was a publicity stunt and it gave them footage of students confused as to whether they should deface the book (again), thus raising questions of censorship in science. Asking kids if its ok to rip up a book? (no) and then wowza here's a book with a gross defacement in front of the text, should that be ripped out? (I dunno, maybe, uh I just said no, so err..)
Thanks for this video - I'd heard about this rude and crass defacement of one of the great works in scientific literature from ZOMGitsCriss in her Origin of Stupidity video, but she didn't mention Ray Comforts funding source. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
What kind of a stupid question is that? Of course she has why else would she oppose it being taught in school. What the FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU???? Are you a drooling dipshit who needs a carer to turn their computer on? Or are you just some kid with their knickers on fire to save souls for jesus before they turn 14 and realize their genitals can be uses for more than pissing? Or are you just a pathetic broken middle aged creatures trying desperately to pretend there is meaning in their life?
First of all, I was asking the poster, not you. So please don't speak for other people, it makes you look really rude.
What also makes you look rude is insulting other people for NO REASON. I did not insult anyone whatsoever, and you still felt the need to jump down my throat for absolutely no reason. I said nothing about saving souls or the meaning of life. So that's two people whose mouths you have put words in. Think before you type.
NO REASON? Well you sad little fuck why dont you have a quick check of peoples channels before you start pumping out the have you heard of intelligent design? bullshit. Check her channel then go back to your corner and jerk off to jesus in private. Oh and dont pretend your ultimate goal was anything other than to preach about saving souls and whatever else it is that shit-for-brains like you believe.
It's really unfortunate that you feel the need to exploit your anonymity to bash other people rudely over the Internet. Regardless of what you seem to think, I had (and still have) no intention of trying to 'save souls.' None whatsoever. My original comment was intended to ask a simple question to the original poster, which, need I remind you, WASN'T EVEN YOU. So stop putting words in my mouth and stop insulting me for no reason. Whatever your goal is here, you're obviously not achieving it.
The unfortunate thing is that you have managed to actually convince yourself that you sound believable when you claim not to be in the business of saving souls.. You must be either stupid or do not believe in god.
You don't know me, so don't claim to know what I think. That's the bottom line. Now go take your ridiculous nonsense somewhere else. Run along, the adults are talking now.
So you still claim your initial comment was in no way related to your belief in a book that claims snakes can talk??? What a dumbass you turned out to be.
I say again, I asked one simple question to the OP, which ALSO WASN'T YOU.
The simple question was whether or not she had studied the ID theory at all, because I was GENUINELY CURIOUS as to whether or not she had. If she said yes, the conversation would have ended there. If she said no, the conversation would have ended there. And I'M the pretentious dick? For asking a simple question?
I swoop down with a rope and grappling hook and answer disingenuous Christian apologist questions almost as soon as they leave the smarmy mouths of those who ask them
I am in one of the US's Top 50 universities (a LOT higher for my major). Unfortunately, MOST students here believe in Christianity, or have some other view of a God. I don't doubt that most of my professors are atheists, but even so being an atheist is looked down upon. For example, when my friends are introducing me to their friends and someone asks me what religion I'm a part of and I reply that I am an atheist, my friends have to jump in and explain that I am not a "normal" i.e. evil atheist.
Darwinian evolution is not real science, it's a fairy-tale for grown-ups. It's about time someone exposed this fish-to- philosopher ridiculous story being taught to our kids as scientific fact.
First of all, the book of Genesis is not a theory, the Biblical narrative is a record of the beginning of creation. It's called human history. THE REAL HUMAN HISTORY. Not some particles-to-people fable like some are duped into believing.
Secondly, God by his very defenition is supernatural, thus it's totally consistent when the Bible records supernatural events in the book God claims authorship. Why do you secular types believe that God should be bound by the laws that he created? duh?
You know what else is supernatural? The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Many folks think it created the universe, so IT clearly isn't bound by the laws that IT created!
See the problem? You can't just make up whatever horseshit you want and label it "Science!"
Whether you like it or not, Evolution is a scientific fact, backed up by evidence! Try reading some books that weren't written by a bunch of superstitious Bronze Age Sheep Herders!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Your analogy proves your ignorance. The fact of the matter is that the life of the most influential person to ever live in Jesus Christ, proves the God of scripture. Actually, the whole book is based on him. No book in history has faced as much opposition. Yet the Bible is being translated into more languages, has sold more copies, and has changed more lives, than any other book in the world.
The Bible has withstood 20 centuries of criticism, critics come and go, but the Bible remains!
I think that Isis' successful piecing together of her husband-brother Osiris into the first mummy after he got chopped up and scattered throughout the world by their evil brother Set proves the truth of their existence and sovereignty over us. I mean, only a true goddess could achieve that. And don't start saying that it didn't happen, because there is eyewitness testimony right there on the papyri that record this historical event. It also mentions places that actually exist, like Egypt.
The fact of the matter is that the life of the most influential person to ever live in Jesus Christ proves the God scripture.
Huh?
Do you mean JC is the most influential person to ever live? How does it prove God's scripture?
And. What exactly did JC do? He didn't remove the Romans from Israel, didn't write any books, wasn't involved in government, wasn't a general of armies. He died as a common criminal.
So what did JC do? Historically. Like besides whats the bible
Oh, and by morons I didn't mean the girl I mean the banana guy. Its almost funny in a sad sort of way.
MagnusCattus 5 months ago
Smart girl, misguided perhaps, but certainly not stupid. I would just like to add there are better arguements for ID then....the way a banana is shaped >.<.....
It really does make it hard for people who accept ID to make an arguement for it when we have to put up with morons like these.
MagnusCattus 5 months ago
@MagnusCattus Isn't ID essentially just...magic? A god speaking things into existence is for cavemen. We know better now. Let's move forward.
TylerOmega 3 weeks ago
@TylerOmega This universe coming about by no means is magical. The advanced complex organic structures and machinery are obvious proof of design. I would like to move on, but theres a myth blocking my path. Evolution.
MagnusCattus 3 weeks ago
“Honor is like an island, rugged and without a beach; once we have left it we can never return.” — Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux
IconsOfTeleplay 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can anyone on Earth accept the challenge which is in Quran
فَلَوْلَا إِذَا بَلَغَتِ الْحُلْقُومَ
Then why do you not (intervene) when (the soul of a dying person) reaches the throat?
تَرْجِعُونَهَا إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
87: Bring back the soul (to its body), if you are truthful?
Quran, 056.83,87.
ktwothegreat 5 months ago
She is a lesbian and she takes drugs...speaks for itself....
dannywizz 6 months ago
whatever the modern commonly understood definition of 'god' might be
it does not follow that the original authors of the bible used it in that way
or even that they had that concept of what 'god' is supposed to be
we know that the modern concept of 'god' is false
but the ancient peoples did not have that concept of 'god'
whitesquirrel7 6 months ago
AAAhhhhhhhh THE ARROGANCEEEE, it hurts my head!! UUUUGH. Sickens me.
TalmageMacGoulagher 8 months ago
get over it. move on.
cunnidvd 9 months ago
Has anyone taken one of these books and printed up a preface to the Creation science preface, pointing out that, clearly, in order to embrace religion you must reject reality?
Wouldnt need more than one page to add to the existing book, just glue it in on page one.
The worse thing religions can do is make what that believe PERFECTLY clear to everyone else, I mean, the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible cover to cover and goto church every sunday!
MrHobiecat 10 months ago
@MrHobiecat
apsolutely
I have read the bible from cover to cover [ well the OT -cant see any use or need to read the New one
except for the astrology visions in 'revelations' ]
and see no god anywhere in it - oh there are verses which use words modernly translated as 'god'
but that is not the same at all, or even reffering to a 'deity'
whitesquirrel7 6 months ago
@whitesquirrel7 really?! Page one, 1st sentance "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth...." is there another definition of god besides creator of the univese and creator of all life?!
MrHobiecat 6 months ago
@MrHobiecat
shows the limit of your knowledge
as what it actually says is
Bereshsis bara elohim et shumayim et ve et aretz ....
and elohim is plural - and means the 'shining ones/ the things that shine'
this is a known fact and once you figure out what the verse is actually talking, about you realise that the elohistic segment [which is known to have a single author] is NOT referring to 'god' but something else far more interesting
whitesquirrel7 6 months ago
@whitesquirrel7 whatever name or attibute is given to the ancient jewish name translated as 'god' in english, the being that created the universe and all life is the commonly understood defintion of what 'god' is.
You are lost in the sematics - the god described in the bible does not exist, because the actions and event attributed to it never happened as described.
the bible is the musings of ancient jewish goat farmes who set THEMSELVES up as a priesthood for their own benefit. Nothing more.
MrHobiecat 6 months ago
@MrHobiecat
the god described in the bible does not exist
which one tho ?
one 'god' is not described anywhere in the book it is just assumed to exist
but if you read it carefully the god is seen as very different to the modern concept of a multi omni deity
the other concept of 'god' is fully describe - however the thing they are talking about is not 'god' but something else entriwely different
and then there all the foreign gods that YHVH is so jealous of
whitesquirrel7 5 months ago
@whitesquirrel7 whats the matter? Bored and no one will talk to you, digging through last months posts?!
The bible claims to speak on behalf of a creator/god that talked to moses in PERSON, dictated the history of its interaction with humanity, and moses and his successive prophets wrote down what this being told them.
Its not a concept of a god, they claimed to speak on its behalf exclusively, and to be in charge of executing its commands to the jewish people.
MrHobiecat 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrHobiecat
well yes given that I received a reply to a comment I made a month ago, it was neccesary to go back and see what I had actually written
talked to moses in PERSON,
to which moses [assuming he even existed] was the only witness
making that 'god ' as real as Joe Smiths gold plates
Its not a concept of a god ???
no matter how the 'god' is envisaged it is still a concept of the diety
whitesquirrel7 5 months ago
Damn you atheists with your pesky logical ways damn you
hakaboy6924 10 months ago
the banana fits so well in the ass
thumbs up if u like the statement
chucky0027 10 months ago 2
I find her anger... sexy.
SpazzyMcGee1337 11 months ago
Problem is, not everyone who is at a top university, or at college is that not all people are intelligent, or well versed in anything outside their field. Otherwise intelligent people bending their minds to accommodate religion is not exactly uncommon. What I think they are hoping is to catch those who aren't well versed in biology and get them to read the first 50 pages then go off and parrot the bullshit they read. Preying upon the weak. Like duckhunt + magnifying glass.
mistereveready 11 months ago
You know about bananas up the ass, how? Why would people secure in their ideas not want open debate?Its been more than a year, what did happen to the books? About the time this was happening a group of professors sued Ohio foe the right to teach alternate theories,back to the open debate point.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Alternative theories? Like Intelligent design. A theory that isn`t a theory. In order for something to be considered a theory it must be tested, it must show consistent evidentiary support after constant skeptical outlook and questioning by the scientific community, and then shown through it`s evidence that the original hypothesis holds truth.
Intelligent Design is taken on faith because people say it`s true. If it was tested, it would fail. It`s a hypothesis, and a bad one at that.
IsolationInstigation 6 months ago
I like this chick
latnyid 1 year ago
Ooohhhh, I caught a F..king idiot there!!!!! LOL!!!!
But I feel the same way (^_^)
sebsunda 1 year ago
I wasn't paying attention during this drama, but primate hands evolved to grasp other things better, they have it backwards. I'm sure this simple retort was stated over and over, I hope!
HEIBAOSHEN 1 year ago
hahaha, you are sweet and funny and intelligent, Respect to you :)
but i agree with the homosexuality theory, because a dick fits well into human been hand, and mouth, so that must be a proof that there is a god :D
Darwintremor757 1 year ago
Anyone ever tell you that you resemble and sound like Agent Scully? =P
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
what i'm curious about is just how does she know how well a banana fits up the ass?
JackofOneTrade567 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where can I get one of those kickass mohamed t-shirt, wrong video I know, still want that shirt.
RicoZedLand 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where can I get one of those kickass mohamed t-shirt, wrong video I know, still want that shirt.
RicoZedLand 1 year ago
Where can I get one of those kickass mohamed t-shirt, wrong video I know, still want that shirt.
RicoZedLand 1 year ago
I just got back from the store with watermelon, gourds, pumpkin, coconuts, and a head of lettuce. None fit in my hand properly.
I'm glad God made pizza..... s%#&, that doesn't fit right either. If I fold it does that count. LOL
pumpstations 1 year ago
Dear FactVsReligion you are way too pretty to be this smart. Please, read the Bible to get your aspirations down to their proper levels.
PS. Baby Jesus is mad about about the "banana" reference. No really, you crossed the line and now there is a nice and comfy space reserved for you in a place where conflagration is just part of your day. Every day. Read all about it in the only book that matters.
immortalis1001 1 year ago
Your stuff is dangerous to watch while smoking weed. I totally choked up!
ChurchOfKali66619 1 year ago
yes the banana fits PERFECTLY into the ass and yes it was cultivated by humans so it could do that also if we made the banana the way it is then that means god didn't and therefore he still doesn't like homosexuality so your 1st point fails
neoarcadezr 1 year ago
Well... regarding homosexuality bananas in the ass are not everything (if anything oô). This is quite an unpolite argument. Jsut for the records... Next time you talk about bananas try thinking of a masturbation joke...
BlonderHalbgott 1 year ago
Oh and by the way, speaking of "things being designed to fit a purpose", gay anal sex is amazing, I mean, the penetration feels good, stimulation of the prostate feels good....the anal walls feel great for the penis....one might almost think that it was....designed that way... O_o But that's not possible, is it creationists? =P
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
I just love watching your videos, I love watching the pure, unadulterated, genuine disgust you display when discussing the feeble attempts of the religious to legitimize their cult. I emphasize with that. :)
And by the way, I'd like it if atheists didn't call "Intelligent design" IE creationism a "theory", because technically, a theory is a hypothesis backed up with evidence...sooo, accordingly, creationism is just a hypothesis. :P
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
You people put this shit on yourselfs,callin names,with law sues and pet names to anybody who disagree with you,acting like post humans and insulting people like they are worst than crap just because you don'y like the fuckin bible,scientists are getting tired of the arrogance of atheism that schools are thinkin to stop teaching the evolution theory once and for all.this is just the beginning,in about 20 years from now Darwin's book is gonna be to teachers what the constitution is to politicians
breedofthe45 1 year ago
lol I love the facepalm at 1:11
Stupidkibbles3 1 year ago
I couldn't even finish the Kirk Cameron video. Too infuriating.
thirtysilver 1 year ago
while watching kirk cameron, i felt as if i were watching a terrorist saying they were going to hide anthrax in candy and hand it out to children. not that i am equating religion to poison, although i could. i'm saying the way in which he was speaking and the music while in the video actually frightened me.
LeVoixNoire 1 year ago
that chair seems comfortable
brunobliss 1 year ago
I wish more people would point out that the "appearance of design" argument is just a logical fallacy. Multiple actually. Argument from ignorance, circular reasoning(I know there is a god because of the complexity of design, and I know God designed it because of it's complexity), and a false dichotomy. You have to admire the perfectly circular logic though. Can you imagine if engineers used that logic? Wow. Smart and gorgeous. The world needs more girls like that.
el100783 1 year ago
Fell off my chair laughing, this is so great!
haneysbighouse 1 year ago
Scotty, beam Kirk up already.
Well this pretty much offsets my occasional addition of the warning sticker to copies of the bible in libraries and such...
I mean this is like adding a preface to the bible talking about the great spaghetti monster.
Darkfirebrand 1 year ago
I guess the problem is by placeing them side by side you are saying each has equal evidence behind it. I think that is what the up roar was about, never that students in top Uni's would take them seriously.
thepunictrader 1 year ago
dont you mean, buhnahner.
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
Note: this is a work of fiction and is not to be taken seriously.
Must now be printed in the front of every bible.
taliesinknol 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"They are getting humbler and humbler", Thats a good thing, that is what God wants of us Christians. :o) As far as "pulling back" goes, none of us pull back. Gods work is happening all around you weither you realize it or not.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
Actually, the 'pulling back' of christianity is the result of losing its masses. Why? Because each progressive generation sees the 'faith' for what it is - a pack of lies designed to terrorize people into submission and blind obedience; of which, religions number one enemy is Education. Thats why you see religion place the educational groups under constant pressure - they recognize that education and intelligence easily obliterates the fear that keeps people in faith. We atheists will win this.
rkcoon 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are decieved as well. There is no pulling back in Christianity. God has already won the battle and you cannot see this because your decision has left you blind to the truth. In the end the results will be displayed for everyone to see.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
considering xtianity along with the other faiths have weakened a lot in the last hundred years, seems to me we atheists are gaining ground, especially considering the simple fact that no faith can prove itself, at all - and if your god doesnt like it, he/she/it/they can tell me so directly - whichll NEVER happen.
rkcoon 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You have excluded yourself from the spiritual realm by choosing atheism, so you have no idea about faith and its strength. Faith does not have to be proven or it would not be faith would it?
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
I realize that i just called myself an atheist, so thisll seem contradictory - But don't for a second think that just because i consider yours to be a false god, that Ive cut myself off from the spiritual realm as it were; rather, the opposite is true in such regard because of my contact, as it were, with the spiritual that reaffirms for me the non existence of your god, to say nothing at all regarding the total proven BS of the various bibles.
rkcoon 1 year ago 3
You can't try to prove me wrong. IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Faith cannot be proven, b/c it's made up.
taliesinknol 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist
"Faith does not have to be proven or it would not be faith would it?"
You have no evidence for any of the crap you're spewing, or you wouldn't need faith now, would you?
bushputz 1 year ago
@virtualguitarist
Thats what we want. Results. As long you show no actual results, we will take that as "no there is no god".
supergamwich 1 year ago
Neither is;
I WIN, NOW YOU LOSE, NEENER NEENER, END OF DISCUSSION.
taliesinknol 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You sound like about 5 years old. Atheism is always decieving.
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
I think _you're_ missing a contraction there vulgargit. You sound like stupid, and missed the point. If I managed to sound like a small child, it was to point out that God is childish, and theist arguments are often just as childish. Also, Sarcasm is not deception fucktard.
taliesinknol 1 year ago
@rkcoon
"Thats why you see religion place the educational groups under constant pressure..."
That's also why they loaded the Texas board of education with a bunch of fundy losers - so they could manipulate which text books are used throughout the entire country. They'll still lose in the long run, but they're turning the U.S. into a third world country in the meantime...
bushputz 1 year ago
Actually if you read the bit they added it really looks like they don't know what they are talking about at all. They said that bad people believe in evolution, well bad people believe in gravity too and that the earth is round. XD It was the biggest load of read hearing garbage. (I read it online so I wouldn't add to the paper wast.)
MistressArte 1 year ago 3
You bring out many good points. I admit to being pissed abt this, but you're right abt the schools targeted. I wonder how many people upset over that ultimately pointless publicity stunt have actually read Darwin, tho...?
amaxamon 1 year ago
LOL! The banana fits so well up the ass! That made me spew cola out my nose--ouch, that hurt.
Anyways, I am a student at one of those 50 universities targetted, and the natural science departments organized a counterstrike and we basically owned them. And all got free copies of the book. With the intro ripped out--we all win!
ZaraMikazuki 1 year ago 13
LOL I wish you had filmed it and put it on youtube.
FactVsReligion 1 year ago
Same here! The highlight was a 2 hour "discussion/debate" between 20 creationists and one of our department's physics prodigies. He pretty much crushed them (even with biology), and a lot of onlookers were pretty amused by him. And he distracted the creationists from their original job.
The best part--while he was distracting the creationists, a bunch of bio (including me), biochem, and chem students made off with the entire box of books.
ZaraMikazuki 1 year ago
We were a bit more civil later on in the day, though. We held a 2 hour forum discussing the introduction of the book, all of its flaws, inconsistencies, and such.
A lot of non-scientists and theists showed up. We had a panel of 5 biology students and 4 biology professors explain evolution, evidence, and misconceptions. We even explained the impossibility of a literal Hell.
Knowing that we probably enlightened a few people out there makes me feel pretty good in the end :D
ZaraMikazuki 1 year ago 3
OK you need to start making youtube videos.
FactVsReligion 1 year ago 4
@ZaraMikazuki
I wish there were more ppl like you :s But somehow i have the feeling that this battle can't be won. I mean ppl are just too easly get attatched to the wrong things such as religion because it take much more to actually open your eyes and THINK. :( It is sad.
Dreadpap 1 year ago
@ZaraMikazuki
hell is also impossible from a biblical / creationsit stance too
as if the creation myth is taken literally then it says rested on the seventh day from all that had been created
and hell is not mentioned anywhere in the preceeeding verses
so if 'god' did not create hell in the preceding days the bible says there is no 'hell'
the 'lake of fire' is only mentioned in ancient egyptian mythology -which creationists would deny any validity to -your call creationists!
whitesquirrel7 6 months ago
@ZaraMikazuki Cucumbers fit better!
teflondon91 1 year ago
@ZaraMikazuki
and there was me thinking that the banana shaped itself in relation to the others in the bunch around them
wonder if its worth in writing a 50 pages intro to the bible explaining why its wrong , and then handing out copies
whitesquirrel7 1 year ago
@ZaraMikazuki
were you drinking cola at the time or can you do this spontaneously?
the banana fitting up the arse-I would imagine it depends on the size of banana
and whether it is peeled or unpeeled
whitesquirrel7 6 months ago
@ZaraMikazuki
can we do a 50 page intro to the bible showing how the bible says that god does not exist
whitesquirrel7 5 months ago
I've been arguing with theists for about a year now...lately...I was thinking....damn...we need stupid people!
If I want to play Pharoah, someones' got to carry the rocks for my pyramid. They are sheep and they even preach it so!
I am on the verge of giving up ! If I get baptized tomorrow, I wonder whether it would burn their little sheep brains? How would they rationalize now that I am going to heaven WITH THEM !?
The banana was funny ..gotta give them a point for that...I laughed
edwardtang1977 1 year ago
The problem is that a lot of well educated people fall for religious bullshit or have been brought into the many cults ruining the world. Look at the 911 hijackers....many of those scumbags had Phd's.
I agree with this vid on principle but there is more to it than what is outlined in the statements.
ThieleM 1 year ago
And a lot of those hijackers are ALIVE
edwardtang1977 1 year ago
Nope, My wife grew up in Puapa New Guinea. They had wild banana trees in the backyard and they look exactly like the ones you buy in the store. They were not genetically grown.
I handed out some more of these books the other day to my Creation Science Class.
Evolution is dead.
thebirdbath 1 year ago
Yes and those were the result of selective breeding. You are arguing a strawman...many of the modern species you see in places like new guinea ARE in fact modified species that have moved into the wild.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor
I'd say that's an excellent hypothesis.
Vantado 2 years ago
"homosexuality must be fine with god.......because the banana fits so well up the ass." And there went my coffee straight out of my nose.
TechnomancerMorhion 2 years ago 20
@TechnomancerMorhion
you have a strange way to drink coffee
if god existed and it did not like gays there would not be any
the creationists claim that humans were made by 'god' as a mirror image of itself
there for god must be both gay and hetero
whitesquirrel7 1 year ago 2
@whitesquirrel7 That's what laughter does :P
TechnomancerMorhion 1 year ago
@whitesquirrel7 I agree.
Although Creationists would then like to bring up the idea that people choose to be homosexual by free will. You know cuz most gays like the idea of being shunned, told they`re evil, treated like dirt most of their lives and told they`ll burn forever if they don`t change back. The ignorance of Theists astounds more and more everyday.
If a homosexual wasn`t born gay, they wouldn`t be gay. Some people come out hetero, some bi, some gay. It`s been shown in other animals.
IsolationInstigation 6 months ago
I hope I'm not the only guy to be pleasantly unsettled by Laura talking into the camera and saying "The banana fits so well into the ass!".
MrSonicAdvance 2 years ago
It's ok. You're not alone MrSonicAdvance!
stratocaster539 1 year ago
unf****nbelievable
bigsteakjoe 2 years ago
I'd like to know what really happened in the couple of months since they pulled this stunt, and what they'll try to do this year. The hilarious thing about this is how these two jokers are so obtuse they think they're scoring a point with things like crocoduck and the now infamous banana illustration, and they only make themselves look like idiots! Oh, and did you notice the eternal damnation threat below me? These people pull out Hell and threaten you with it like it was a gun!
SuperImready 2 years ago
Your destination is hell and you should be worried about it, be worried alot about it you should because there are only two destinies for humans Heaven or hell. I am going to heaven not because I deserve to but because I have accepted that God is real and more importantly i have accepted his son Jesus Christ as my person lord and savior. Until you die it is not too late. May God bless you. Randall M. Rueff
Rueffilicious 2 years ago
« Your destination is hell »
And yours is Tartaros. Zeus really doesn't like non-believers like you. And he particularly hates adherents to the lore of the ancient Hebrew wargod Yahweh.
Party on, dude.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
lol!
Osias1983 2 years ago
hey lady...what can I say, you're young and dumb...learn some real science and research it.
tonymers 2 years ago
The condescension in your voice makes me question your maturity.Everyone should be able to talk about this topic without all the nastiness.God bless.
Daniel1RG 2 years ago
So it's clear you didn't watch Kirk Cameron's video that this is a response to. His arrogance in the video is nauseating.
Vantado 2 years ago
I do'nt think it's arrogance,it's passion.He really believes in what he's doing.I think it would be a good idea for all of us to question everything.Take nothing for granted.Keep an open mind.God bless you and your fam.
Daniel1RG 2 years ago
You're right he absolutely believes in what he says and he thinks very much that everyone who opposes him is completely wrong. He even says that. I mean to inject ones own rhetoric that violates and offends the author of another text, is it's self an act of arrogance.
He doesn't want anyone to keep an open mind, that's the last thing he wants.
God Bless.
Vantado 2 years ago
It's not well known the author actually did have a faith in God.Darwin got angry when people said they were atheists because of him.Why schools do'nt teach that is strange.The places of higher learning only want one side taught.
Thanks .
Daniel1RG 2 years ago
Comment removed
Vantado 2 years ago
It's irrelevant what Darwin wanted and felt. It's also irrelevant what Darwin believed in. It's irrelevant how Darwin viewed God.
What is relevant is the fact that Darwin came up with a theory that summarizes an actual happening in nature. And no matter how convoluted Kirk Cameron and his buddies want to make it sound, it's a solid observation.
And that's all evolution is, it's not God, it doesn't prove or disprove God, it doesn't support Atheism, it's simply an observation of nature.
Vantado 2 years ago
Comment removed
Daniel1RG 2 years ago
That's fantastic and I congratulate you; really, I do. But that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with you supporting his il-legitimization and complete slander of a perfect solid and workable theory of science. He has passed the point of having an opinion and crossed over the lines of slander and lies.
I hope your belief in God does not cause you to do the things Kirk does.
Vantado 2 years ago
@Vantado Could you tell me how the first workable cell came about?
Daniel1RG 2 years ago
There are quite a number of theories as I'm sure you are aware. The most plausible concerns the spontaneous formation of micelles (or circular aggregates of lipid molecules forming the outer bilayers of our cells) as well as the facilitated (facilitated by various conditions present on earth) creation of proteins as shown by Miller-Urey and others.
These conditions, spontaneous formation of a container (micelles) and genetic precursors (Proteins: RNA was the first form of DNA) have provided
Vantado 2 years ago
the floor for many evolutionary biologists to conduct more recent research to prove that the conditions for the spontaneous formation of life on earth to occur.
Note: Spontaneous means energy from the outer environment was sufficient enough to allow for the ordering of the system. Also note: evidence of spontaneous micelle formation is irrefutable, see: soap bubbles. The same principles govern most lipids.
Vantado 2 years ago
So in summation:
A simple virus, composed of nothing more than protein molecules could have infiltrated a spontaneously formed micelle, and found a suitable means by which to thrive. This is theoretically plausible of course because viruses composed of nothing more than proteins that exist today infect host tissues and cells and use lipids from their host to envelop themselves.
Viruses are quite effective in replication but very often mutate (ex.HIV... and every other virus really)
Vantado 2 years ago
these mutations lead to new forms of the first "cell". These cells thrive better than their viral brethren without lipid envelops, and thus propagate in large numbers. Envelopment of other independently formed viruses could (and in modern times often can) lead to the original virus taking on more functionality derived from the consumed virus.
After successive generations of viral replication, you have the development of a single celled organism, who thrives on (most probably) RNA based function
Vantado 2 years ago
« A simple virus »
I suggest that for viruses to exist, there first needs to be an evolved reproductive mechanism for them to hijack. I propose that viruses did not come into existence until well after life had differentiated into prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Perhaps the word virus should be replaced with proto-virus, because the simple nature of the theoretical "organism" to which I am referring, is not as highly specialized as modern day virus tend to be.
My use of the word "virus" was to emphasize the composition of the "organism" on a molecular level, as well as some basic principles by which viruses function and that are relevant in this argument.
Vantado 2 years ago
« proto-virus »
Still, the term virus refers to an infectious agent that hijacks cellular organisms to reproduce. Strictly speaking, viruses cannot exist without cellular organisms with their own reproductive mechanism and means of transmitting genetic information existing. But perhaps you're simply referring to non-cellular autonomic replicators?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
My use of the term "virus" again was to reference behaviors and structures understandable and exhibited by some modern viruses. So molecular makeup (RNA and lake of a membrane or traditional cell) and behavior, replication and use of lipid membranes.
Is virus the appropriate term? Perhaps another would be more applicable, but quite honestly it would be foolish to say any one term would be perfect in this case. We simply just do not know. That's why much of this is theoretical.
Vantado 2 years ago
« it would be foolish to say any one term would be perfect in this case »
I'd say that the agent in this case was a non-cellular molecular replicator.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
This proto-virus would have very little in common with the viruses we see today other than the fact that it could replicate its genetic code; thus leading to the development of all complex life forms. This would be the same as modern viruses that, although they lack any form of a nerual or coordinated "thought" system as animals generally do, they are able to replicate and do so as the "purpose" of their existence.
Vantado 2 years ago
You are correct to propose the later development of speacilized viruses which exploit more complex organisms. It is much more reasonable however to propose these viruses developed from a common ancestor as the complex organisms they infect, thus sharing a root in the original proto-virus I have proposed.
Their emergence as a bi-product of more complex organisims makes little sense, rather thier adaptation to exploit more complex life is far more reasonable; and in fact follows observations.
Vantado 2 years ago
« It is much more reasonable however to propose these viruses developed from a common ancestor »
Actually, the origin of viruses is a controversial subject still. It might well be that viruses developed independently on several occasions, originating as bacterial plasmids or cellular organelles. The main problem in determining the origin of viruses is that their turnover-rate is so incredibly high that it's impossible to establish a long-term phylogeny.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Precisely why the argument that the first organisms may have come from viral origins is a good one.
A system that can replicate and is rather mutagenetic lays way to the possibility of accelerated differentiation.
Vantado 2 years ago
« composed of nothing more than protein molecules »
Proteins also require a certain level of development. I propose that true proteins came into existence long after the origin of life, but likely well before the differentiation between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Incorrect in so far as spontaneous development of amino acids and simple protiens has been proven and validated through extreme variation in temperatures, comprable to those on early earth. The simplicity of the "protien" molecules I refer is perhaps confusing you. The ones I am theorizing would be extremely simple in their composition, and are comparable to those replicated in a number of experiments to verify their spontaneous formation under acceptable conditions.
Vantado 2 years ago
« spontaneous development of amino acids and simple protiens has been proven »
Didn't know that. Can you provide a reference?
« The ones I am theorizing would be extremely simple in their composition »
We do distinguish between catalysts, enzymes and true proteins, I hope.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
As previously posted in the beginning of my comments, the Miller-Urey originally showed that organic compounds could be formed on earth without a living organism being present. They carried out their experiment and found that amino acids could be formed without the presecnce of an already formed organism. Google Miller-Urey and research based off theirs. There's a pleathora of it.
Of course we would distinguish between these. The rapid pace necessary for lifes development would require such a
Vantado 2 years ago
« Miller-Urey »
Yes, but amino-acids and proteins are of an entirely different order of complexity. I would not expect proteins to come about through simple chemical processes. We know that evolution *can* produce such complex molecules. Therefore I would expect that the first lifeforms did not use proteins, but rather more simple catalysts, perhaps RNA or polypeptide templates. Only later did proteins evolve.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
This would be my argument. I used terms such as "protein" and "RNA" to simplify the concept.
Vantado 2 years ago
an attention to these details. RNA has been proven to have the capabilities to perform "protein" like behaviors, which evolves catalytic, and enzymatic behavior. So the original question was to explain the origins of the first single celled organism on the planet. This I attempted to do. The composition and function of the resulting RNA as well as basic cellular functionality of such a proto-life single celled organism is beyond my capabilities. But I can say that the catalytic components and
Vantado 2 years ago
enzymatic components that would later compose most of the original single celled organism, would be the result of the original proto-viruses (as I'll call it) adaptation to increase its effectiveness in replicating its genetic material. But to explain the exact mechanisms by which this happened catalytically would again be beyond my knowledge.
Vantado 2 years ago
You are correct that the complexity of such proteins developed more fully into what we consider "proteins" currently, and this event happened long before the differentiation of prokaryotes, eukaryotes and archea.
Vantado 2 years ago
But that's just one theory. And it took more comments then I thought it might. Sorry bout that.
Vantado 2 years ago
@Vantado Thank you for your thoughtful answer,you seem to know your stuff.
I studied most of the theories for 2 or 3 years.The theories do not match the fossil record,it shows simple and more complex organisms from the very beginning.The fossil record should show 10's of million's of year's of just simple life,but it do'esnt.Thanks again for your courteous response.
Daniel1RG 2 years ago
@Daniel1RG
I'd thank you too but, that would be a fantastic debunk of those theories if it wasn't rubbish. So how do you expect to have a fossil record of viruses and lipid membranes. It's theorized you can't. And indeed in the recent years there has been a tremendous amount of research and discoveries of lower life form fossils from the early stages of our planet. Google Scholar is a fantastic resource that I suggest you re-do your research with; I hope it serves you well.
All the best mate.
Vantado 2 years ago
Comment removed
Daniel1RG 2 years ago
"the bananna fits so well into the ass." I lol'd
JakemakesYTP 2 years ago 3
wow
ChristianVault 2 years ago
Communists would be proud of you... seriously.
pamphile 2 years ago
It's a good point. In Universities nobody takes that foreword serious anyway.
(Nobody READS them anyway)
It's still a good book. And to my astonishment, suprisingly easy to read.
(Just rip out that foreword.)
(Oh, and concerning the linked video.... What the Bog is a "full color copy"? There is NOTHING in color in that book? It is TEXT that is important... ;-)
TokayGris 2 years ago
pfft 50 page introduction...
hmmm ray - comfort = Ori
Ori = ...
ahh now i know where SG1 was heading with the series.....
RotarFlow 2 years ago
Somebody should publish bibles with a 50 page intro by Dawkins and Hitchens and give them away in churches. Tit for Tat.
ergonomover 2 years ago 4
What is Kirk going on about? There was a Bible in my High School library, two translations of it in fact Have I been out of school that long?
Justanothershell 2 years ago
God, her hair is vile. Lol look at it.
bobsmellslikewelly 2 years ago
I dont use a banana for that purpose, I prefer a cucumber.
martyaus2905 2 years ago 3
I got my copy! I removed about 50 pages and donated it to a school
cryingsoftly 2 years ago 9
the little fish is dying
newkillerstardust 2 years ago
Did I say grade-school level science literacy? I take it back. More like complete illiteracy. Someone should post the intro with full refutations in the margins.
How is disparaging Darwin and the Origin 'the way of the Master'?
crocaduck 2 years ago
Thanks for the vid. I think this vain attempt to undermine evolution, the Origin and Darwin is going to backfire. Especially if they think they're going to turn around the tide of 'atheism' entrenched at the universities. But they're so zealously blinded by the light that they don't realize this. It will just get more people to laugh at their grade-school level science literacy and get undergrads to go out and buy any of the several good books pounding creationism or intelligent design.
crocaduck 2 years ago
I don't think it was a serious attempt to get the Origin (or the Gospel) into the hand of college kids. I think it was a publicity stunt and it gave them footage of students confused as to whether they should deface the book (again), thus raising questions of censorship in science. Asking kids if its ok to rip up a book? (no) and then wowza here's a book with a gross defacement in front of the text, should that be ripped out? (I dunno, maybe, uh I just said no, so err..)
Publicity. Stunt.
Teloculos 2 years ago
Thanks for this video - I'd heard about this rude and crass defacement of one of the great works in scientific literature from ZOMGitsCriss in her Origin of Stupidity video, but she didn't mention Ray Comforts funding source. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Teloculos 2 years ago
Have you ever researched intelligent design theory?
I'm not making any assumptions either way, I'm just curious as to whether or not you have researched what the theory proposes.
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood Christian
semajws 2 years ago
What kind of a stupid question is that? Of course she has why else would she oppose it being taught in school. What the FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU???? Are you a drooling dipshit who needs a carer to turn their computer on? Or are you just some kid with their knickers on fire to save souls for jesus before they turn 14 and realize their genitals can be uses for more than pissing? Or are you just a pathetic broken middle aged creatures trying desperately to pretend there is meaning in their life?
Fromanttodugong 2 years ago
First of all, I was asking the poster, not you. So please don't speak for other people, it makes you look really rude.
What also makes you look rude is insulting other people for NO REASON. I did not insult anyone whatsoever, and you still felt the need to jump down my throat for absolutely no reason. I said nothing about saving souls or the meaning of life. So that's two people whose mouths you have put words in. Think before you type.
semajws 2 years ago
NO REASON? Well you sad little fuck why dont you have a quick check of peoples channels before you start pumping out the have you heard of intelligent design? bullshit. Check her channel then go back to your corner and jerk off to jesus in private. Oh and dont pretend your ultimate goal was anything other than to preach about saving souls and whatever else it is that shit-for-brains like you believe.
Fromanttodugong 2 years ago
It's really unfortunate that you feel the need to exploit your anonymity to bash other people rudely over the Internet. Regardless of what you seem to think, I had (and still have) no intention of trying to 'save souls.' None whatsoever. My original comment was intended to ask a simple question to the original poster, which, need I remind you, WASN'T EVEN YOU. So stop putting words in my mouth and stop insulting me for no reason. Whatever your goal is here, you're obviously not achieving it.
semajws 2 years ago
The unfortunate thing is that you have managed to actually convince yourself that you sound believable when you claim not to be in the business of saving souls.. You must be either stupid or do not believe in god.
Fromanttodugong 2 years ago
You don't know me, so don't claim to know what I think. That's the bottom line. Now go take your ridiculous nonsense somewhere else. Run along, the adults are talking now.
semajws 2 years ago
So you still claim your initial comment was in no way related to your belief in a book that claims snakes can talk??? What a dumbass you turned out to be.
Fromanttodugong 2 years ago
I have researched it
I didn't have to spend much time though because nothing in the intelligent design corpus shows me how ID is falsifiable
In fact, I PERSONALLY asked the prominent ID proponent John C. Sanford and he didn't have an answer
And how can anyone take ID's pretensions to scientific legitimacy seriously if they aren't even falsifiable?
ps I just jizzed into the pages of a pocket Bible and shouted "praaaayze JAYzus!" as I came
have a happy new year you pretentious dick
odenskrigare 2 years ago
I say again, I asked one simple question to the OP, which ALSO WASN'T YOU.
The simple question was whether or not she had studied the ID theory at all, because I was GENUINELY CURIOUS as to whether or not she had. If she said yes, the conversation would have ended there. If she said no, the conversation would have ended there. And I'M the pretentious dick? For asking a simple question?
semajws 2 years ago
oh but that's what I do
I'm the Atheist Question Usurper
I swoop down with a rope and grappling hook and answer disingenuous Christian apologist questions almost as soon as they leave the smarmy mouths of those who ask them
tirelessly
ruthlessly
MERCY CHILLED TO THE FREEZING POINT
odenskrigare 2 years ago
They should pretext Comforts intro with the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory. Pastafarians Unite!
modelleg 2 years ago
Love your response to the banana theory... I have a one word answer for it too:
Pineapple.
werdnativ 2 years ago
I am in one of the US's Top 50 universities (a LOT higher for my major). Unfortunately, MOST students here believe in Christianity, or have some other view of a God. I don't doubt that most of my professors are atheists, but even so being an atheist is looked down upon. For example, when my friends are introducing me to their friends and someone asks me what religion I'm a part of and I reply that I am an atheist, my friends have to jump in and explain that I am not a "normal" i.e. evil atheist.
AtheisticZealot 2 years ago
Darwinian evolution is not real science, it's a fairy-tale for grown-ups. It's about time someone exposed this fish-to- philosopher ridiculous story being taught to our kids as scientific fact.
HOORAY FOR RAY!!!
fellowservant34 2 years ago
I guess the "Two Naked Teenagers and a Talking Snake Theory" is completely scientific then?
Bowmaj21 2 years ago
First of all, the book of Genesis is not a theory, the Biblical narrative is a record of the beginning of creation. It's called human history. THE REAL HUMAN HISTORY. Not some particles-to-people fable like some are duped into believing.
Secondly, God by his very defenition is supernatural, thus it's totally consistent when the Bible records supernatural events in the book God claims authorship. Why do you secular types believe that God should be bound by the laws that he created? duh?
fellowservant34 2 years ago
You know what else is supernatural? The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Many folks think it created the universe, so IT clearly isn't bound by the laws that IT created!
See the problem? You can't just make up whatever horseshit you want and label it "Science!"
Whether you like it or not, Evolution is a scientific fact, backed up by evidence! Try reading some books that weren't written by a bunch of superstitious Bronze Age Sheep Herders!
Bowmaj21 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your analogy proves your ignorance. The fact of the matter is that the life of the most influential person to ever live in Jesus Christ, proves the God of scripture. Actually, the whole book is based on him. No book in history has faced as much opposition. Yet the Bible is being translated into more languages, has sold more copies, and has changed more lives, than any other book in the world.
The Bible has withstood 20 centuries of criticism, critics come and go, but the Bible remains!
fellowservant34 2 years ago
Yeah, too bad it's full of complete Bullshit!
There is nothing Historical or Scientific about the Bible!
Bowmaj21 2 years ago
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not, is condemned already...
fellowservant34 2 years ago
Hmm, a verse from the Bible!
What a compelling arguement!
Bowmaj21 2 years ago
I think that Isis' successful piecing together of her husband-brother Osiris into the first mummy after he got chopped up and scattered throughout the world by their evil brother Set proves the truth of their existence and sovereignty over us. I mean, only a true goddess could achieve that. And don't start saying that it didn't happen, because there is eyewitness testimony right there on the papyri that record this historical event. It also mentions places that actually exist, like Egypt.
Gnickk 2 years ago
@Fellowservant34
The fact of the matter is that the life of the most influential person to ever live in Jesus Christ proves the God scripture.
Huh?
Do you mean JC is the most influential person to ever live? How does it prove God's scripture?
And. What exactly did JC do? He didn't remove the Romans from Israel, didn't write any books, wasn't involved in government, wasn't a general of armies. He died as a common criminal.
So what did JC do? Historically. Like besides whats the bible
jdquarg 2 years ago
Funny, I always assumed religion was a fairy-tale for grown-ups.
mdgraden 2 years ago
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." Ashley Montagu
arizonaviking 2 years ago