So you think that the odds of evolution occurring is 1/1 because it happened? That's called circular reasoning (the odds are 1/1 because I believe is has happened, and the "fact" that it has happened means that the odds are 1/1).
Wow, hopefully you don't ever become a teacher of any kind.
@quagmire444: to continue: Evolution is such a process, that the ones with the good mutations are more likely to survive, the survivors reproduce and by reproducing, the beneficial genes get passed on to the next generation. As for the universe: it's 13.7 billion years old, while Earth is 4.545 billion years old. Life arose about 3 billion years ago (on Earth). Obviously, you can't have life on Earth before Earth exists, and it needed to cool down as well.
@PJDesseyn whose to say the ones that the species who survived are more evolved? i know the typical examples of the faster animals were the ones that get a way, such and such. for some examples i think your point is valid but not all. with mutations, that doesnt always apply. if a good mutation occurs, it doesnt necessarily benefit the specimen to a chance at survival. the probability of evolution is also determined by the amount of variables included in the steps of evolution. natural disaster
@quagmire444: species living today are more evolved than species who are already extinct, for the very simple reason that they're still living today. We're all part of the same evolutionary tree. That doesn't mean we're BETTER though, we simply exist. And yes, beneficial mutations DO benefit the specimen at survival, that's why we call it a beneficial mutation (duh). Having a higher chance of survival, however, doesn't mean you'll actually survive. Probability still doesn't apply though.
@PJDesseyn probability does apply though lol. you cant just say it blindly doesnt. i see the point your making, but for the odds to be 1 to 1 you need an extraordinary amount of time. that depends on what you define as beneficial honestly. i dont disagree with natural selection. it makes sense. but my consensus is that its still incredibly unlikely that with mutations randomly occuring over the time period giving for life and the variables included in evolution occured by chance.
@quagmire444: *sigh* take a deck of cards, and lay them out 1 by 1. The odds of them being laid that way are 52 to the 51st power, however you did it randomly and very easily. This principle also applies to evolution. While maths say it's highly improbable, the improbability has no effect on the mutations. Probability only applies with natural selection. (e.g. zebras won't survive in the arctic) As said, "beneficial" depends on numerous variables. And really, study Evolution. It'll do you good.
@PJDesseyn predators, etc. it seems like a miracle to me if evolution occured this far without a guiding hand. part of the controversy in evolution also occurs in the beginning of the first proteins assembled by amino acids. i dont know much about that subject, but google probability of evolution and look at the statistics and commentaries provided by mathematicians who have calculated this. they know a lot more about probability then i do.
@quagmire444: no miracles, no guiding hands, no gods or other imaginary creatures. Just the laws of nature. You might want to study basic Evolution if you really don't know anything about it. (certainly don't learn it from creationists) "part of the controversy in evolution" there is no controversy. There's the fact of Evolution, and there's the creationists who refuse to accept that fact for religious reasons. No controversy. Also, proteins into amino acids, that's abiogenesis, not Evolution.
@quagmire444: and I've already checked the probability argument from mathematicians, used by creationists. That's why I made this video to refute that argument. Again with the analogy: if you pick up any random grain of sand from the beach, maths will prove it was impossible for you to pick that grain of sand, eventhough you just randomly did it. Every random grain of sand you'd pick, would be a mathematical impossibility, but to nature, it's very casual. Maths don't always apply.
@PJDesseyn ok well im not talking about mathematical arguments made by creationists. im not a creationist, i dont advocate creationism. i believe most of evolution, i dont think its possible for it to have randomly occured though. go look up mathematical probabilities calculated by mathematicians who arent creationists. math always applies. you cant escape math. its governed by logic which governs the universe. now, in an instance, if nature picks up a grain of sand from the beach....
@quagmire444: you may not advocate creationism, but you ARE using their arguments. The mathematican argument is a creationist argument and I assume mathematicians realise their probability calculations don't really apply. "maths always applies" no, it doesn't. Psychology, neurology, uncertainty principle, evolution, etc. don't use maths.
@PJDesseyn well im not using my argument based on common sense lol. well actually yes, you can apply mathematics to psychology, neurology, etc. depending on the way you use it. the specific mathematics of probability may not be used in those field but another field of math is.
drops it, then the probability of it picking it up again with one chance is literally 1 and some astronomically big number. with an incredibly large amount of time i could see nature picking up that same grain of sand. but thats an incredibly large amount of time. i couldnt give you a number, but i dont know if its in favor of that suggest by the age of lifes existence.
@quagmire444: you're completely missing the ball here...first of all, the mutation rate is something like 20 mutations per million base pairs or something, for humans. (may be off) Second, there is no "correct" mutation. You have beneficial ones, neutral ones and detrimental ones, which all depend on numerous variables, like species, environment, climate, etc. If a very detrimental one happens, then the individual won't survive, or might die before birth. If it's good, it survives and reproduces
the argument behind the probability of evolution is used to suggest that these mutations couldnt have taken place without a guiding force/hand/etc.(god). and since they did happen, then that is support for a guiding hand.
@quagmire444: but their argument fails, because as I've shown in this video, the probability does NOT suggest any guiding force. (other than nature itself, of course) That is to say: probability measurements are completely pointless, as the process isn't subject to probabilities. It's a random process and every time, you get 1 possible outcome. If it's good, it stays and becomes the "improbable" one and if it's bad, it gets removed naturally and the creationists forget about it. No God involved.
@PJDesseyn i think what your trying to say is that the probability of evolution leading to human beings is 1 to 1. am i right? in other words, evolution inevitably leads to human beings
@quagmire444: nope, not even close. What I'm trying to make clear is (as the video says): at every point, you have a great variety of potential mutations. A mutation is random, so it doesn't care about probabilities. Once you have a mutation, it then goes through natural selection. If it's a good mutation, the organism survives. If it's a bad mutation, the organism dies. What we see every day, are evolutionary successes, because all the bad ones are removed. Probability has no effect to this.
@PJDesseyn the problem is that there arnt 5 mutations. i know you were using that as an example but its not sufficient because their are probably millions of mutations. id need to know how frequnt mutations are and the variables included in natural selection. if one correct mutation occurs with a specimen of a certain species, what are the chances they could survive. if they dont survive what are the chances that the mutation could occur again. time is also a factor here, one that i dont know
@quagmire444: let me give an analogy: you walk on a random beach. There are innumerable grains of sand on the entire world. Suddenly, you stoop down and pick any random grain of sand. If we use creationist probability, then the odds of you picking that exact grain of sand is as good as impossible. HOWEVER, it's a random process. You simply picked any random grain of sand, so while the odds were astronomically small to creationists, in reality, the odds are irrelevant as it's random. Get it?
There is one criticism I have of your final probability: theistic creationists will say that all the lifeforms being here are 1/1 because "God did it". In the case of your hypothetical phylogenetic-tree, I would say that the probability of the form we have now is the (1/5)^6 that happened.
@MustDimTheSun: the problem is that creationists take the odds and then say "since it's nigh-impossible, this couldn't have happened", ignoring the fact that it already happened. Example: I deal out a set of cards, then calculate the probability of dealing the cards in that exact way. Since the odds would be very small, creationists would say I didn't deal the cards that way, due to the very low odds, eventhough I just dealt them.
What the theistic creationists need to realize is that improbability =/= impossibility. After all, if you look at abiogenesis alone, the odds of life occuring in the 1 trillion+ galaxies, each galaxy containing 1 trillion+ stars, etc. is improbable. Us homo sapiens coming about was improbable, but obviously, it was not impossible. Such low odds came to fruition!
haha you're an idiot. the probability is 1/1 because it already happened???? hahaha if i win the lottery does that mean the odds of my winning were predestined to be 1/1? NOPE lol your really dumb. waste of my time watching this video. go read Dr. Carl Sagan. the odds of evolution according to AN EVOLUTIONIST are along the lines of 1/10^2,000,000,000 thats over 13 million times less likely than the accepted figure of practical impossibility. sorry nub, you dum
@tonymac091270: The odds BEFORE the event are really small. The odds AFTER the event are either 0/1 or 1/1, depending on the outcome. BEFORE you win the lottery, your odds are pretty low. AFTER you've won it, the odds are 1/1, because you've already won it. So the odds of a specific mutation happening, before it happens, is very small, but after it happened, is 1/1.
And no, the odds of evolution occuring is 1 in 1, because it's occurring. I base my statements on FACTS, not on opinions or lies.
Your argument is completely circular logic. You say the possibility is 1/1 because it happened. But you are assuming that evolution DID happen to prove that evolution's probability is 100%. The creationist argument is what are the possibilities that the evolution mutations would progress to such a higher state. We look back and say the probability of evolution producing the modern human would be 1 / 9.9*10^99.
Nevertheless there is no proof evolution carries over to new species. Evolution has shown to change attributes over seasonal change but only to average out at the next seasonal change. Darwin's finch beak sizes were shown to increase but what is often not mentioned is that they are often showed to decrease.
@fighterace0: actually, there is LOTS of proof...over 300 cases of directly observed macro-evolution recorded and innumerable examples of micro-evolution.
As for Darwin's finches' beaks, the beaks evolved to be fit for different food sources. The beak size decreasing is beneficial, if you use it for, say, prying into wood after insects, while bigger beaks are beneficial to crack nuts.
My advice: go to an Evolution-site and learn what Evolution actually is, before commenting on it.
@fighterace0: it's not circular reasoning at all. All the scientific facts PROVE Evolution happened (and is happening), hence the chances of it having happened are 1 in 1. Just like the chances of WWI having happened are 1 in 1.
The creationist argument is as flawed as flaws can get, because you deny the plethora of scientific facts. Not to mention the actual meaning of Evolution...Evolution isn't goal-directed, it's RANDOM. We just happened to be one result of it.
@denn034: it has nothing to do with one's right, choice, opinion and beliefs. It's a scientific fact that all humans are monkeys, apes, mammals, primates, eukaryotes, etcetera. Unlike you, I don't deny what I am. I'm also not ashamed of myself. There's nothing which makes us no longer monkeys.
Seriously, get a fucking education, child. You commented on 3 videos and have shown the intellectual expertise of a corpse.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: since you're completely unwilling to even listen to the truth and are constantly spreading your filth, I'll block you for being a slave bent on destroying modern civilisation. I don't want your filth here. Get a fucking education for a change. You're 50 years old and you don't even know one iota of reality. You're truly sad, man.
In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.
Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis," New Scientist (Volume 106. May 2, 1985), p. 30.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: notice how all your quote mines are from articles over 20 years ago and still don't have any argument at all against Evolution, because you're too ignorant to realise how fucking stupid your quote mines are.
Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The "fundamental" forces of gravity, electro-magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established and how much remains hopeful speculation?
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. . Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life. " *Theodosius Dobzansky, "Changing Man," Science, Vol. 155, January 27, 1987, p. 409.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: again, this isn't about the Theory of Evolution, but the general concept of evolution, aka CHANGE. Evolution has more than one meaning. You have the Theory of Evolution, which is first life evolving to become the diversity in life we see today and you have the broad meaning of evolution which means "change". For example: "the evolution of cars". Cars change (evolve) through time and new technology, but this has NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution. Again: you're deceiving
"It is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life, and the stars with earth, and matter with mind, and animals with man. " *Julian Huxley, "At Random, " in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 42.
"Evolution. The process by which all organisms have arisen by the descent from a common ancestor." *S. Luria, *S. Gould and *S. Singer, A View of Life (1981), p. 767.
@PJDesseyn the anti-intellectual and uneducated evil lying atheist:
1 of ? about your fairytale:
"All living forms in the world have arisen from a single source that came from an inorganic beginning. So, according to the model of evolution, the first living cell 'evolved' into complex multicellular forms of life; these 'evolved' into animals with backbones. Fish evolved into amphibia, amphibia into primates, and primates into man." *A. Thompson, Biology. Zoology, and Genetics (1983), p.1
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: you're projecting your own wickedness on me. You're the anti-intellectual, uneducated, evil, lying theist. I'm pro-intelligence, have an education, I'm good and don't lie.
On part one: this quote which you clearly don't understand, shows that Evolution only starts from FIRST LIFE and not before. So life having arisen from non-life, is NOT EVOLUTION!!!! (that's what Thompson says, but you don't understand)
2 of 2 If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: go to a random beach, pick up a random grain of sand, then calculate the odds of you taking that exact grain of sand randomly. In other words, count all the grains of sand in the world and you'll have the odds of you taking that exact one. Lets say the odds were 1 in 15 trillion (I'm being very generous). You just picked a grain of sand of which the odds were 1 in 15 trillion to pick it. The odds are so low and yet so easily attained. That's because you suck at maths, idiot.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: congratulations, you completely fucked up in understanding a simple analogy concerning odds. I DID show it to a professor and he agreed with it, so take that retard.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: the meaning of my odds analogy, is that the creationist argument for the origin of life is invalid, as they look at it the wrong way. They look at everything in and around the topic and don't focus on what's really needed to make the calculations. To put it in my sand analogy again: creationists first pick up the grain of sand at random (meaning the odds were 1 in 1) and then count all the other grains of sand to get their odds. The chance calculation of creationists is wrong.
The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2,000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: Since we don't need 2000 enzymes for life to arise and since the primordial soup is no longer used by the scientific community as to the origin of life, add to the fact that you just make bullshit up, proves you wrong yet again.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: you are even less an authority on anything. Even worse: your opinion is contra-reality, while mine is pro-reality AND supported by loads of scientific facts.
Can one make a flea using the elements of the periodic table? YES!!! There's absolutely nothing in a flea that isn't part of nature, so yes, a flea can be made using the elements of the periodic table.
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. Ibid., p. 141.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: ever heard of the laws of nature? Well, randomness guided by the laws of nature, can make life. We have made the building blocks of life and they can form naturally and all that needs to happen (and it did) is to combine these into a self-replicating cell and voila: life. This happened, as proven by science and no argument has ever been presented against it which disproved this fact.
@PJDesseyn THE EVIL LYING ATHEIST WITH A REPROBATE MIND.
THE FEW AMINO ACIDS MADE WHERE REVERSE ENGINEERED BY THE INTELLIGENCE GOD GAVE HUMANS. THERE WAS NOTHING NATURALISTIC ABOUT AN EXPERIMENT THAT ISOLATES OXYGEN WHEN IT ALWAYS EXISTED. AND, A RACEMIX OF AMINO ACIDS WHERE MADE WHICH IS USELESS/HARMFUL FOR LIFE.
STORY TELLING/LYING IS NOT SCIENTIFIC OR TRUTHFUL MORON.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: note: THERE IS NO GOD!! GOD IS MADE UP BY MAN!!! YOU BELIEVE A LIE!
before you comment on science, first make sure you went to and passed pre-school, primary school and high school. Then you'll have a very, very, very basic understanding of science, considering you're an American.
Oxygen didn't always exist and still doesn't exist in some places, like the vacuum of space, which is why we need space suits. Amino acids are the building blocks of life...useless???
@PJDesseyn the total retard and evil lying atheist. Grains of sand are used to make bricks, but bricks are not a 50 story 4 wing hospital with energy and waste management systems, maintenance and engineering departments etc. which a living cell has. Left hand amino acids and 20 specific ones are used in cells but they are not life. The reverse engineering of the Urey-Miller experiment was not naturalistic and did not make these 20 left-handed amino acids MORON.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: hey zombie, YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE FUCKING POINT, YOU FUCKING RETARD!!!! GO BACK TO PRE-SCHOOL AND LEARN SOMETHING REAL FOR A CHANGE!!!
No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material. Ibid., p. 148.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: OF COURSE IT CAN HAVE A RANDOM BEGINNING!!!! RANDOM THINGS HAPPEN EVERY PICOSECOND! On your bullshit monkey analogies: all humans are monkeys, which includes Shakespeare, so monkeys randomly typing away CAN produce the work of Shakespeare, especially when done by the monkey called Shakespeare.
Before you quote any more bullshit, know that every single argument ever made by creationists, has already been destroyed entirely by the scientific community. Hence Evolution stays.
Humans are made in the image of God, not monkeys/primates because EVIL LYING ATHEISTS/EVIL-utionists concoct a evolutionary definition. How stupid are you. Pond scum to you evolution does not happen nor happened. This was not and is not observed and is thereby unscientific and a COSMIC LIE.
You cannot refute my comment. Pond scum to you evolution is/was not observed and does not occur.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: nope, God is made in the image of humans, just like all other gods (which you are atheistic towards). We're all atheists, I simply take it one false god further: yours. Also, it was Linnaeus, A CREATIONIST, who proved we're monkeys/primates. He was a strong believer in God and the bible and he was the one who proved without regret that we were in fact still monkeys and primates and humans at the same time. Evolution is observed on a daily basis. That's a scientific fact.
@PJDesseyn Provide the quote from Linnaeus. Linnaeus as a Creationist and a Christian would not say that. Jesus was a creationist. A real Christians are creationists. Lifeless and brainless raw elements cannot contrive life, a communication code, the DNA code, the 3 billion sequences of base pairs to instruct biological machines to make humans, or any other form of life. Information only comes from a mind. Only the mind of God did and can make life not mindless and lifeless raw elements.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: google Linnaeus, abiogenesis (modern version, not old one) and look around on youtube for rebuttals to your mindless arguments.
We have evolved to see patterns and design everywhere, even in trees or on other planets. Information doesn't need a mind and we know for a fact that your god is invented by man, so we know for a fact that he doesn't exist. He's not even a monotheistic nor highest god, he's the son of El, fucking retard.
Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: completely refuted by the tons of directly observed cases of nature forming said biochemical systems, as Evolution is as real and as true as can be. We are more certain of Evolution than of Gravity! The only problem is that you're mentally disabled and cannot comprehend one iota of the FACT of Evolution.
Also, the odds for God existing are that low. The odds for Evolution are 1 on 1, as it is known to be true, by those who actually accept reality.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: so you're asking me for the proof that non-life evolved into life, right? Well: NOBODY WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION, EVER SAID IT CONCERNS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, YOU FUCKING RETARD! EVOLUTION STARTS WITH FIRST LIFE, NOT BEFORE THAT!
See, how can you possibly win against something you know nothing about? First learn what we claim and what it means and what it is, BEFORE you start commenting on it.
I posted 5 comments of quotes from those before you that lied and made grandiose comments about evolution which I'm not surprised you are IGNORANT OF i.e. you are an anti-intellectual and uneducated. STOP LYING, THAT IS EVIL BUT NORMAL FOR A MORAL ATHEISTS.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: You gave 5 quote mines, which first of all you didn't understand, second of all didn't give any argument against the Theory of Evolution and even CONFIRMED it and third, they're all over 20 years old.
It is not I, but YOU who is anti-intellectual, uneducated, lies all the time, is evil and amoral. I'm the good guy here, as I'm trying to educate you, but you just want to destroy the world.
to the mentally deficient and delusional mind of PJDesseyn: You are using fallacious logic. Because you purely believed that EVIL EVIL-utionism/Darwinism happened and happens you conclude that the probability is one. Science and mathematical probability is not based on imagined events. You are CLUELESS. 99.9% of all mutations are deleterious or neutral. You are a LIAR.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: IT IS A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT that Evolution happens. It happens every day, it is observed every day, we can test it, repeat it, demonstrate it, we can do every test there is to determine it's validity and it is 100% real. Also, you made that bullshit percentage up. First of all, deletions can cause new information to arise and neutral mutations doesn't refer to what kind of mutation actually happened. A deletion can be neutral. Also, it's far from 99.9%. Get educated.
@PJDesseyn: Okay you EVIL LYING ATHEIST: Show me life emerging from raw elements in a pool of water, show me a fishing becoming an amphibian, show me a bear becoming a whale, and a monkey becoming a human so we all can see this evolution you claim happens every day.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: "evil lying atheist": I'm not evil and I'm not lying. It is also a scientific fact that atheists are more moral than Christians. You can't beat the facts, retard. So, Evolution doesn't concern the origin of life, which means I can dismiss your first request as being invalid. Your other requests (a fish becoming an amphibian, a bear becoming a whale, etc.) show you dont understand Evolution one bit, so I can dismiss those too. Do I need to explain the basics of Evolution to you?
@PJDesseyn the anti-intellectual and uneducated evil lying atheist:
1 of ? about your fairytale:
"All living forms in the world have arisen from a single source that came from an inorganic beginning. So, according to the model of evolution, the first living cell 'evolved' into complex multicellular forms of life; these 'evolved' into animals with backbones. Fish evolved into amphibia, amphibia into primates, and primates into man." *A. Thompson, Biology. Zoology, and Genetics (1983), p.1
@PJDesseyn the anti-intellectual and uneducated evil lying atheist:
1 of ? about your fairytale:
"All living forms in the world have arisen from a single source that came from an inorganic beginning. So, according to the model of evolution, the first living cell 'evolved' into complex multicellular forms of life; these 'evolved' into animals with backbones. Fish evolved into amphibia, amphibia into primates, and primates into man." *A. Thompson, Biology. Zoology, and Genetics (1983), p.1
"It is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life, and the stars with earth, and matter with mind, and animals with man. " *Julian Huxley, "At Random, " in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 42.
"Evolution. The process by which all organisms have arisen by the descent from a common ancestor." *S. Luria, *S. Gould and *S. Singer, A View of Life (1981), p. 767.
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: on the Huxley quote: "IN THE BROAD SENSE"!!!! you're quote mining stuff you know shit about. You're lying and deceiving, but I won't fall for your trickery. The "View of Life" quote: this says nothing about the origin of life, so that's a correct statement. All organisms are descended from a common ancestor.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
my theory evolution is also in the brain, say when the 1st fish was born with a tail fin not legs, for example, the fish wud have found it alot easier to get about, so therefor when it mated it already had in its brain that having the tail was mroe eficient, so therefor subconciously decides to pass it on in its sperm or egg or w/e, so then theres another 20 fish with tails as its eggs hatch with the same "mutated" gene the original fish had.
Sorry, but research shows that we've only been able to understand that certain traits are beneficial, AFTER we (humans) got our large brains. So by the time we realised we have an advantage, we had already evolved that far. Now, however, we can artificially select traits and fulfil your theory.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
95% of evolutionist proofs are artist's drawings. Touche' IF you want to know the REAL "probability of evolution taking place (not your worthless drawings) see the LAST (14 of 14) of my latest upload on the creation vs. evolution video. Get your head out of the sand, wake up and learn something or in others words get an EDUCATION!!!!! Punk!
KJB, apart from the fact that you completely missed the point of the video, can you give me any evidence for creationism? Or evidence against Evolution? or at the very least a picture of a nice spaceship?
Oh yes, if you do post something, you'll have to check back over here as well, if you want to see my replies, seeing that you've blocked me and all...
But do tell me, KJB, is there some sort of social club where they train you to be asses and completely miss the point being made and subsequently deny all the evidence thrown in your face?
yep, that "club" is almost any "higher" education system in the world ... all promoting the NWO religion of evolution. They will surely teach you to be an "ass"
Even the smartest person ever was wrong from time to time. Being smarter than me won't keep me from telling you you're wrong, when you're wrong. And so far, all creationists are wrong and have nothing to prove them right. I didn't make the facts, BD, I merely share them.
@PJDesseyn Yeah, I was replying to KingJamesBible's comment where he said "that 'club' is almost any 'higher' education system" and was essentially mocking higher education. When someone has to resort to claiming that anyone with more education than them is wrong, there's nothing you can really do to change their mind.
@BenkaiDebussy I think it reasonable to assume that comments made on a board like this are NOT really to "convince" anyone but rather give some food for thought.
That's a red herring, KJB. Starting a university only means you have the money to do so, not that you're any good or right or smart or whatever. This is a quote from his chapel hour: "It's never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right." He violated his own rules, making him a hypocrite.
KJB, if you want to discuss ANYTHING AT ALL, first learn the truth and learn how to discuss things properly. Don't throw in red herrings, straw man arguments or things like that.
@TruthfulChristian: The question is a red herring. Starting a university doesn't make you good, especially if the university teaches lies and falsehoods. So no, I haven't started a university, but this is absolutely no argument at all.
P.J maybe you should create a video for general debate like Neverdieagain79 did, then it would create a place for all types of debate. then if anyone wants to debate another subject just point them to that video, it would help to keep comments on other videos on topic.
the probability is very small however the fact the universe has existed for billions of years and is so vast creates the chances for anything to happen....
Micah, that's the whole point. I try to explain it as simple as possible, because you people don't understand the normal terms, let alone the scientific terms. (which I hardly understand myself)
I figure, if I explain it really really simple, you guys might actually understand it.
I think there needs to be some clarification here. The 1-in-5-per-generation compounding does accurately describe the probability of a SPECIFIC outcome out of all the possibilities. However, it does not represent the probability that ANY outcome will occur. There is a 1-in-1 probability that there will be A result. Trying to describe the probability of evolution by using a specific, directed outcome calculation is fallacious. That's where these calculations go wrong.
I believe that's what I made clear in the video. Namely that, although the chances of any mutation to happen is 1 in 5 (example), after it happened, it becomes 1 in 1. So lets say between me and my child, there would be 1 mutation happening out of 5 possible ones. At this moment, while I don't have any children, the odds of a mutation happening is 1 in 5. After it happened, it becomes 1 in 1 for the occurred mutation.
What i was trying to get at, is that the reason the 1-in-5 bit is wrong isn't because it already happened. It's wrong because it's not describing evolution by natural selection (the scientific theory). It's describing evolution by random mutation alone (the creationist strawman).
The problem with that is, while there will be a mutation, it may not be beneficial. So there is not a 1-in-1 probability that there will be a beneficial result, thus furthering evolution.
Nobody said it has to be beneficial. A random mutation occurs, on which nature selects. If it's good enough to survive, it'll be passed on. Even if the mutation is bad, as long as the organism survives and reproduces, it works.
To give an example: Down Syndrome is a bad trait, I think we can agree on that. However, it's not bad enough to prevent people with Down Syndrome from surviving and reproducing. And that's what it's all about.
As long as the organisms survives and reproduces, it's good.
That's another lie. Plenty of scientists, including Dawkins, said that it doesn't have to be beneficial, just good enough. Denying the facts doesn't mean they're not there, Micah. I've already given you an example of how it doesn't have to be beneficial in order for it to be Evolution.
Actually, it was in Climbing Mount Improbable. He was discussing how the elephants trunk could have evolved, and he noted that every step had to benefit the elephant. I read that myself. Maybe the idea that they don't all have to be beneficial is a lie by the evolutionists to explain away irreducible complexity?
It is commonly known among rationalists, that creationists quote mine. This means that they read what is said, pick what they want it to say and ignore all the rest. Irreducible complexity? What's that? I've never seen IC in nature. I see reducible complexity, for example: the eye, the flagellum, the brain, etcetera.
What Dawkins said, is that every step mustn't kill the elephant, being beneficial in that sense. Down Syndrome is "beneficial" in the sense that it doesn't kill the organisms.
No, Dawkins said that EVERY step must BENEFIT the elephant. I was just demonstrating that Richard Dawkins says every step must be beneficial. I think he said it in the chapter on spider webs as well.
Ah, "benefit" =/= "beneficial". A trait which doesn't kill the organism, is to the benefit of the organism, but isn't beneficial. Again: Down Syndrome is to the benefit of the organism, that it doesn't kill them directly and doesn't make them incapable of reproducing, but it's certainly not beneficial.
But feel free to send me the paragraph in context to me.
Here's something: "Just because the trunk had to be useful in all its intermediate stages, this does not mean it had to be useful for the same purpose throughout all the intermediate stages." Page 83, Paragraph 2. By the way, for something to benefit something means for it to help it in some way, basically.
No, he was speculating how the trunk could have evolved with EVERY step being beneficial, because he knew it had to be every step. Have you even read it?
Micah, have you read the CONTEXT? By that part alone, I can already figure out what he was talking about, even without having read the book. I've heard and made the arguments plenty of times myself.
Regardless, it's still a fact, as I've shown you, that it doesn't need to be beneficial, it just needs to work.
The only difference between those cults and Christianity is time. If christainity had come ten years ago if would have been laughed at like all the others.
It came at a time when humanity was naturally ignorant of the world and didnt know any better, Great video and I hope the christains do listen and understand 5 stars ;-)
Of course, that is based on the assumption that Christianity is not true. If it is, then we would have seen the miracle of Christ's resurrection, and all the other things He did. Then we would probably have even more Christians.
Your Entire religion is base on the assumption that an all powerful deity created everything.
The strange thing is "God" was quite active during the bible times yet as humanity became more advanced "Gods" activity became none existent, this was due to the fact humanity started to understand the world more and had no need to blame it on a deity.
Interesting fact: the God of the bible is NOT the only god who died for someone else. You are in no position to claim he is, since you don't even have the slightest clue about any other religions. Try looking at Pagan religions, like in Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia,...I'm sure you'll find like half a dozen gods who died for others.
Btw, does Hercules count? He died for others and was a demi-god, like Jesus. Only way cooler and actually did something to improve the world.
Hercules died because of a treacherous centaur, not of his own volition. He shot the centaur with a poison arrow, (because the centaur was abducting his bride), and then the centaur tricked the girl into dipping Hercules's cloak into his blood, which was poisoned by the arrow. He did this by telling her it was a powerful love potion, and would prevent Hercules from leaving her for another woman. Cont...
...Cont. Then, after winning some war somewhere, Hercules requested that his cloak be sent to him, so he could wear it for the celebrations. After putting it on, he was weakened but not killed. Knowing his mortal danger, he gave his bow and arrows to his best friend, and was carried up into Olympus. When there, he helped the gods defeat some giants using a method he had learned earlier in his adventures. I actually enjoy learning about mythology.
However, Jesus was the only God who willingly sacrificed Himself for the good of all. Please present me with stories of other gods who did the same thing.
Actually, Jesus didn't have a choice. Whether he wanted it or not, if caught, they'd kill him. They caught him and killed him, regardless of what Jesus wanted. Also note that the bible is historically inaccurate as to Jesus' crucifixion.
As for the other gods: Prometheus. He's the Greek deity who gave fire to mankind and was subsequently punished by the other gods, by being tied to a rock and getting his liver pecked out by a vulture...EVERY SINGLE DAY, FOR ALL ETERNITY. (worse than Jesus!)
So what was the historical truth of Jesus' crucifixion? (Note: that would imply Jesus did exist.)
Prometheus did good for people and was punished, yes. However, the good he did was his choice. The punishment wasn't. Jesus came on earth for the express intention of dying. With Prometheus, the suffering was a result of his kindness. With Jesus, the death WAS His kindness. Prometheus wasn't punished for his people, he was punished for tricking the gods.
Well, the crucifixion is false, because people weren't crucified by their hands and feet, since it couldn't hold the body's weight. They were crucified by their wrists and ankles. In fact, in the Phillipines, people crucify themselves on their hands and feet, but are supported and survive. So if Jesus was driven a nail through his hands and feet, he could still survive. Technically, one could survive a spear in the side as well, although it's more difficult. (cont)
Actually, Jesus didn't come to Earth to be crucified. It's a result of all his crimes. If the intention was to get him crucified, they could've done so by day 1. The entire story simply doesn't work. God throws sin onto man, he sends himself to get rid of sin which he created, but sin still remains and we'll still all go to Hell, unless we accept Jesus offer of taking the sins away which we didn't commit. It simply doesn't add up, Micah.
Anyone with a functioning brain, realises the bible fails
Man sins, God sends His Son to die for man, (so there would be a recipient for His just wrath), but not everyone accepts God. Jesus' sacrifice didn't get rid of sin, it conquered it. Jesus probably died as an adult so He could let people know what was going to happen, and why. This opened the possibility of accepting Him. Note: when people point out a loving God wouldn't let anybody go to Hell, they forget one thing. God is just as well as loving.
Man commits crimes: check. God: doesn't exist. His son: doesn't exist. God's plan of delivering the message to the world: uber-fail. Justice: NOT sending anyone to be tortured for all eternity, for not accepting his existence, because of a total lack of evidence.
As said, the story doesn't work, it's completely wrong from beginning to end. The creation is wrong and the crucifixion isn't even historically accurate.
And Jesus died because of the treacherous Jews (and/or Judas). No difference.
Point is: Jesus disturbed the community and was punished for his crimes. Hercules helped the community and was poisoned by an evil creature. Jesus did NOT die for our sins. In fact, it's likely he never even existed.
Jesus predicted His death beforehand. He said it was for the good of all. He died on purpose. In fact, Peter tried to rescue Him, but Jesus stopped him. The Jews were disturbed because Jesus claimed to be God.
No, he didn't. It were the writers who fabricated the story in order to make it look like the fictional Jesus predicted his death. And yes, the Jewish Messiah wouldn't claim to be God, thus proving Jesus wasn't the Messiah and was extremely blasphemous, according to scripture. (even though it never happened this way)
Now you're saying that "it's wrong because it's wrong." You're just going into denial here. Even if the Bible is wrong, you can't use that for this debate, as here we are dealing on the premise that the Bible is right. Or at least that's how it appeared to me.
No, YOU start with the premise that the bible is right. I start with the conclusion that the bible is wrong.
Whether you accept this fact or not: THE BIBLE IS WRONG. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE WRONG AND IS CONCLUDED TO BE WRONG. IT IS NOT RIGHT, BUT WRONG.
Again, I'm not saying it's wrong because it's wrong, I'm saying it's wrong because it's PROVEN to be wrong. You seem to make that lie a lot, making me say things I never said.
If the bible were right, then we'd see actual evidence.
Actually, I was saying that, considering the subject of the debate, (Jesus being the only God who died for us), it would seem like you are ducking out to say that I'm wrong because the Bible is wrong. That is irrelevant to the subject right now. Stay on topic, please.
And I showed you that Prometheus's suffering was a result of him helping mankind, while Jesus's death was him helping us. It's like a chicken/egg scenario.
If you want to debate here, then the debate is about the video, not about anything else, so you've been off topic for quite a while now.
Jesus' death helped nobody. (and the egg is always first)
Also, Prometheus dies every day, but resurrects to repeat the cycle continuously. So while Jesus died on the cross, once (according tot he fairy tale), Prometheus dies every single day. Hence: far worse.
Jesus' death was supposedly to rid us of the sin of our ancestors. However, it doesn't rid us of the sins we commit ourselves. So eventually, Jesus didn't help anyone, since we'd still all go to Hell. Also note that God started all of this in the first place.
No, Prometheus sinned, in order for everyone to benefit from it and still suffers the consequences. Jesus only had to die once and is now in paradise again. Also, Jesus might not have died.
Jesus' death was to cleanse us each of our individual sins, not the sins of our ancestors. And it was Adam/Eve who technically did the act. There's more to it, but that's a discussion for another time, 'kay?
I don't see how your 3rd paragraph is relevant, so my comment still stands.
My point being: the entire story just doesn't work. He's freakin' God and does ungodly things. So, first mistake: God gives man hereditary sin. Second mistake: he sends himself to Earth as human, in a backwards ass of the world, to redeem everyone. Third mistake: he gets himself killed, to get himself to rid man of hereditary sin. Mistake four: he doesn't rid the world of all the other sinning.
A real God, would just say "poof" and sin would be gone. Very ungodly of him.
It is a FACT that Christianity is not true. Scientists have proven the bible wrong on numerous occasions. Genesis: WRONG. Exodus: WRONG. Deuteronomy: WRONG. Etcetera. Every book in the bible has mistakes in it. Not to mention the entire New Testament, which is Christianity itself, is FABRICATED. It isn't even correct on how people were crucified, doesn't fulfil all OT prophecies, etcetera.
We have seen from more modern cults, how dependent, followers become, after indoctrination, even to the extremes of giving up their possession's and money.
And lets not kid ourselves Christianity is a cult like any other it just has more followers. We laugh at cults that believe a giant spaceship is on the way to pick up its members. And yet find it perfectly ok to believe that a all powerful super wizard created everything, Continued.....
P.J they got it the first time they are just to ignorant to admit it, and this is the key they will never admit to any evidence that proves their religion wrong.
They are like addicts accept they arnt addicted to drugs, they are dependent on their beliefs, they need their faith and belief to feel good about themselves, they feel that without a god life is meaningless.
Religion is as powerful as any drug, once addicted its hard to kick the habbit.
Maybe so, but if my videos convince even only 1 person in the entire world, if only 1 person comes to accept the scientific fact of Evolution, thanks to my videos, then all my time will have been worth it.
As an old military saying goes: "It is better to be on hand with ten men, than to be absent with ten thousand."
So you think that the odds of evolution occurring is 1/1 because it happened? That's called circular reasoning (the odds are 1/1 because I believe is has happened, and the "fact" that it has happened means that the odds are 1/1).
Wow, hopefully you don't ever become a teacher of any kind.
Alacazam777 5 months ago
@quagmire444: to continue: Evolution is such a process, that the ones with the good mutations are more likely to survive, the survivors reproduce and by reproducing, the beneficial genes get passed on to the next generation. As for the universe: it's 13.7 billion years old, while Earth is 4.545 billion years old. Life arose about 3 billion years ago (on Earth). Obviously, you can't have life on Earth before Earth exists, and it needed to cool down as well.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@PJDesseyn whose to say the ones that the species who survived are more evolved? i know the typical examples of the faster animals were the ones that get a way, such and such. for some examples i think your point is valid but not all. with mutations, that doesnt always apply. if a good mutation occurs, it doesnt necessarily benefit the specimen to a chance at survival. the probability of evolution is also determined by the amount of variables included in the steps of evolution. natural disaster
quagmire444 11 months ago
@quagmire444: species living today are more evolved than species who are already extinct, for the very simple reason that they're still living today. We're all part of the same evolutionary tree. That doesn't mean we're BETTER though, we simply exist. And yes, beneficial mutations DO benefit the specimen at survival, that's why we call it a beneficial mutation (duh). Having a higher chance of survival, however, doesn't mean you'll actually survive. Probability still doesn't apply though.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@PJDesseyn probability does apply though lol. you cant just say it blindly doesnt. i see the point your making, but for the odds to be 1 to 1 you need an extraordinary amount of time. that depends on what you define as beneficial honestly. i dont disagree with natural selection. it makes sense. but my consensus is that its still incredibly unlikely that with mutations randomly occuring over the time period giving for life and the variables included in evolution occured by chance.
quagmire444 11 months ago
@quagmire444: *sigh* take a deck of cards, and lay them out 1 by 1. The odds of them being laid that way are 52 to the 51st power, however you did it randomly and very easily. This principle also applies to evolution. While maths say it's highly improbable, the improbability has no effect on the mutations. Probability only applies with natural selection. (e.g. zebras won't survive in the arctic) As said, "beneficial" depends on numerous variables. And really, study Evolution. It'll do you good.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@PJDesseyn predators, etc. it seems like a miracle to me if evolution occured this far without a guiding hand. part of the controversy in evolution also occurs in the beginning of the first proteins assembled by amino acids. i dont know much about that subject, but google probability of evolution and look at the statistics and commentaries provided by mathematicians who have calculated this. they know a lot more about probability then i do.
quagmire444 11 months ago
@quagmire444: no miracles, no guiding hands, no gods or other imaginary creatures. Just the laws of nature. You might want to study basic Evolution if you really don't know anything about it. (certainly don't learn it from creationists) "part of the controversy in evolution" there is no controversy. There's the fact of Evolution, and there's the creationists who refuse to accept that fact for religious reasons. No controversy. Also, proteins into amino acids, that's abiogenesis, not Evolution.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@quagmire444: and I've already checked the probability argument from mathematicians, used by creationists. That's why I made this video to refute that argument. Again with the analogy: if you pick up any random grain of sand from the beach, maths will prove it was impossible for you to pick that grain of sand, eventhough you just randomly did it. Every random grain of sand you'd pick, would be a mathematical impossibility, but to nature, it's very casual. Maths don't always apply.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@PJDesseyn ok well im not talking about mathematical arguments made by creationists. im not a creationist, i dont advocate creationism. i believe most of evolution, i dont think its possible for it to have randomly occured though. go look up mathematical probabilities calculated by mathematicians who arent creationists. math always applies. you cant escape math. its governed by logic which governs the universe. now, in an instance, if nature picks up a grain of sand from the beach....
quagmire444 11 months ago
@quagmire444: you may not advocate creationism, but you ARE using their arguments. The mathematican argument is a creationist argument and I assume mathematicians realise their probability calculations don't really apply. "maths always applies" no, it doesn't. Psychology, neurology, uncertainty principle, evolution, etc. don't use maths.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@PJDesseyn well im not using my argument based on common sense lol. well actually yes, you can apply mathematics to psychology, neurology, etc. depending on the way you use it. the specific mathematics of probability may not be used in those field but another field of math is.
quagmire444 11 months ago
drops it, then the probability of it picking it up again with one chance is literally 1 and some astronomically big number. with an incredibly large amount of time i could see nature picking up that same grain of sand. but thats an incredibly large amount of time. i couldnt give you a number, but i dont know if its in favor of that suggest by the age of lifes existence.
quagmire444 11 months ago
@quagmire444: you're completely missing the ball here...first of all, the mutation rate is something like 20 mutations per million base pairs or something, for humans. (may be off) Second, there is no "correct" mutation. You have beneficial ones, neutral ones and detrimental ones, which all depend on numerous variables, like species, environment, climate, etc. If a very detrimental one happens, then the individual won't survive, or might die before birth. If it's good, it survives and reproduces
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
the argument behind the probability of evolution is used to suggest that these mutations couldnt have taken place without a guiding force/hand/etc.(god). and since they did happen, then that is support for a guiding hand.
quagmire444 11 months ago
@quagmire444: but their argument fails, because as I've shown in this video, the probability does NOT suggest any guiding force. (other than nature itself, of course) That is to say: probability measurements are completely pointless, as the process isn't subject to probabilities. It's a random process and every time, you get 1 possible outcome. If it's good, it stays and becomes the "improbable" one and if it's bad, it gets removed naturally and the creationists forget about it. No God involved.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@PJDesseyn i think what your trying to say is that the probability of evolution leading to human beings is 1 to 1. am i right? in other words, evolution inevitably leads to human beings
quagmire444 11 months ago
@quagmire444: nope, not even close. What I'm trying to make clear is (as the video says): at every point, you have a great variety of potential mutations. A mutation is random, so it doesn't care about probabilities. Once you have a mutation, it then goes through natural selection. If it's a good mutation, the organism survives. If it's a bad mutation, the organism dies. What we see every day, are evolutionary successes, because all the bad ones are removed. Probability has no effect to this.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@PJDesseyn the problem is that there arnt 5 mutations. i know you were using that as an example but its not sufficient because their are probably millions of mutations. id need to know how frequnt mutations are and the variables included in natural selection. if one correct mutation occurs with a specimen of a certain species, what are the chances they could survive. if they dont survive what are the chances that the mutation could occur again. time is also a factor here, one that i dont know
quagmire444 11 months ago
@quagmire444: let me give an analogy: you walk on a random beach. There are innumerable grains of sand on the entire world. Suddenly, you stoop down and pick any random grain of sand. If we use creationist probability, then the odds of you picking that exact grain of sand is as good as impossible. HOWEVER, it's a random process. You simply picked any random grain of sand, so while the odds were astronomically small to creationists, in reality, the odds are irrelevant as it's random. Get it?
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@PJDesseyn sorry i accidently posted the same thing like 5 times. i dno if it posted or not.
quagmire444 11 months ago
There is one criticism I have of your final probability: theistic creationists will say that all the lifeforms being here are 1/1 because "God did it". In the case of your hypothetical phylogenetic-tree, I would say that the probability of the form we have now is the (1/5)^6 that happened.
MustDimTheSun 1 year ago
@MustDimTheSun: the problem is that creationists take the odds and then say "since it's nigh-impossible, this couldn't have happened", ignoring the fact that it already happened. Example: I deal out a set of cards, then calculate the probability of dealing the cards in that exact way. Since the odds would be very small, creationists would say I didn't deal the cards that way, due to the very low odds, eventhough I just dealt them.
So they use probability incorrectly.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn:
What the theistic creationists need to realize is that improbability =/= impossibility. After all, if you look at abiogenesis alone, the odds of life occuring in the 1 trillion+ galaxies, each galaxy containing 1 trillion+ stars, etc. is improbable. Us homo sapiens coming about was improbable, but obviously, it was not impossible. Such low odds came to fruition!
MustDimTheSun 1 year ago
haha you're an idiot. the probability is 1/1 because it already happened???? hahaha if i win the lottery does that mean the odds of my winning were predestined to be 1/1? NOPE lol your really dumb. waste of my time watching this video. go read Dr. Carl Sagan. the odds of evolution according to AN EVOLUTIONIST are along the lines of 1/10^2,000,000,000 thats over 13 million times less likely than the accepted figure of practical impossibility. sorry nub, you dum
tonymac091270 1 year ago
@tonymac091270: The odds BEFORE the event are really small. The odds AFTER the event are either 0/1 or 1/1, depending on the outcome. BEFORE you win the lottery, your odds are pretty low. AFTER you've won it, the odds are 1/1, because you've already won it. So the odds of a specific mutation happening, before it happens, is very small, but after it happened, is 1/1.
And no, the odds of evolution occuring is 1 in 1, because it's occurring. I base my statements on FACTS, not on opinions or lies.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Your argument is completely circular logic. You say the possibility is 1/1 because it happened. But you are assuming that evolution DID happen to prove that evolution's probability is 100%. The creationist argument is what are the possibilities that the evolution mutations would progress to such a higher state. We look back and say the probability of evolution producing the modern human would be 1 / 9.9*10^99.
fighterace0 1 year ago
Nevertheless there is no proof evolution carries over to new species. Evolution has shown to change attributes over seasonal change but only to average out at the next seasonal change. Darwin's finch beak sizes were shown to increase but what is often not mentioned is that they are often showed to decrease.
fighterace0 1 year ago
@fighterace0: actually, there is LOTS of proof...over 300 cases of directly observed macro-evolution recorded and innumerable examples of micro-evolution.
As for Darwin's finches' beaks, the beaks evolved to be fit for different food sources. The beak size decreasing is beneficial, if you use it for, say, prying into wood after insects, while bigger beaks are beneficial to crack nuts.
My advice: go to an Evolution-site and learn what Evolution actually is, before commenting on it.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@fighterace0: it's not circular reasoning at all. All the scientific facts PROVE Evolution happened (and is happening), hence the chances of it having happened are 1 in 1. Just like the chances of WWI having happened are 1 in 1.
The creationist argument is as flawed as flaws can get, because you deny the plethora of scientific facts. Not to mention the actual meaning of Evolution...Evolution isn't goal-directed, it's RANDOM. We just happened to be one result of it.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
It's your right to want to be a monkey's uncle.
denn034 1 year ago
@denn034: it has nothing to do with one's right, choice, opinion and beliefs. It's a scientific fact that all humans are monkeys, apes, mammals, primates, eukaryotes, etcetera. Unlike you, I don't deny what I am. I'm also not ashamed of myself. There's nothing which makes us no longer monkeys.
Seriously, get a fucking education, child. You commented on 3 videos and have shown the intellectual expertise of a corpse.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Can't take a joke, huh?
denn034 1 year ago
@denn034: nope, not when talking about serious business.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: since you're completely unwilling to even listen to the truth and are constantly spreading your filth, I'll block you for being a slave bent on destroying modern civilisation. I don't want your filth here. Get a fucking education for a change. You're 50 years old and you don't even know one iota of reality. You're truly sad, man.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
5 of ?
In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.
Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis," New Scientist (Volume 106. May 2, 1985), p. 30.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: notice how all your quote mines are from articles over 20 years ago and still don't have any argument at all against Evolution, because you're too ignorant to realise how fucking stupid your quote mines are.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
4 of ?
Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The "fundamental" forces of gravity, electro-magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established and how much remains hopeful speculation?
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
3 of ?
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. . Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life. " *Theodosius Dobzansky, "Changing Man," Science, Vol. 155, January 27, 1987, p. 409.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: again, this isn't about the Theory of Evolution, but the general concept of evolution, aka CHANGE. Evolution has more than one meaning. You have the Theory of Evolution, which is first life evolving to become the diversity in life we see today and you have the broad meaning of evolution which means "change". For example: "the evolution of cars". Cars change (evolve) through time and new technology, but this has NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution. Again: you're deceiving
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2 of ?
"It is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life, and the stars with earth, and matter with mind, and animals with man. " *Julian Huxley, "At Random, " in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 42.
"Evolution. The process by which all organisms have arisen by the descent from a common ancestor." *S. Luria, *S. Gould and *S. Singer, A View of Life (1981), p. 767.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PJDesseyn the anti-intellectual and uneducated evil lying atheist:
1 of ? about your fairytale:
"All living forms in the world have arisen from a single source that came from an inorganic beginning. So, according to the model of evolution, the first living cell 'evolved' into complex multicellular forms of life; these 'evolved' into animals with backbones. Fish evolved into amphibia, amphibia into primates, and primates into man." *A. Thompson, Biology. Zoology, and Genetics (1983), p.1
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: you're projecting your own wickedness on me. You're the anti-intellectual, uneducated, evil, lying theist. I'm pro-intelligence, have an education, I'm good and don't lie.
On part one: this quote which you clearly don't understand, shows that Evolution only starts from FIRST LIFE and not before. So life having arisen from non-life, is NOT EVOLUTION!!!! (that's what Thompson says, but you don't understand)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
2 of 2 If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: go to a random beach, pick up a random grain of sand, then calculate the odds of you taking that exact grain of sand randomly. In other words, count all the grains of sand in the world and you'll have the odds of you taking that exact one. Lets say the odds were 1 in 15 trillion (I'm being very generous). You just picked a grain of sand of which the odds were 1 in 15 trillion to pick it. The odds are so low and yet so easily attained. That's because you suck at maths, idiot.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn: YOU ARE TRULY STUPID i.e. you have a reprobate mind.
I can pick any grain of sand. I do not need odds to pick up a grain of sand at the beach you total moron.
Can you pick the right numbers to win every lottery on earth every day it is played?
You are a total joke. YOUR VIDEO IS AN INSULT TO HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. SHOW YOUR VIDEO TO ANY PROFESSOR AND YOU WILL BE LAUGHED AT. SHUT IT DOWN IDIOT.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: congratulations, you completely fucked up in understanding a simple analogy concerning odds. I DID show it to a professor and he agreed with it, so take that retard.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn the VERY STUPID EVIL LYING ATHEIST.
Give me the definition of odds in statistical analysis.
What are the odds that you can pick the correct 7 numbers our 49 numbers with one lottery ticket? PUT UP OR SHUT UP MORON
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: the meaning of my odds analogy, is that the creationist argument for the origin of life is invalid, as they look at it the wrong way. They look at everything in and around the topic and don't focus on what's really needed to make the calculations. To put it in my sand analogy again: creationists first pick up the grain of sand at random (meaning the odds were 1 in 1) and then count all the other grains of sand to get their odds. The chance calculation of creationists is wrong.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
1 of 2
The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2,000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: Since we don't need 2000 enzymes for life to arise and since the primordial soup is no longer used by the scientific community as to the origin of life, add to the fact that you just make bullshit up, proves you wrong yet again.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn :
NEW FLASH. YOU ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING. YOUR OPINION IS USELESS.
CAN YOU MAKE A FLEA USING THE ELEMENTS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE?
WHEN YOU CAN THEN RESPOND. MORON.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: you are even less an authority on anything. Even worse: your opinion is contra-reality, while mine is pro-reality AND supported by loads of scientific facts.
Can one make a flea using the elements of the periodic table? YES!!! There's absolutely nothing in a flea that isn't part of nature, so yes, a flea can be made using the elements of the periodic table.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn the mentally difficient evil lying atheist.
The question was can you i.e. make me a flea with the elements of the periodic table. PUT UP OR SHUT UP MORON
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: and I told you: YES, IT CAN BE DONE!!! It's just too much pointless work for anyone to do.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. Ibid., p. 141.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: ever heard of the laws of nature? Well, randomness guided by the laws of nature, can make life. We have made the building blocks of life and they can form naturally and all that needs to happen (and it did) is to combine these into a self-replicating cell and voila: life. This happened, as proven by science and no argument has ever been presented against it which disproved this fact.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn THE EVIL LYING ATHEIST WITH A REPROBATE MIND.
THE FEW AMINO ACIDS MADE WHERE REVERSE ENGINEERED BY THE INTELLIGENCE GOD GAVE HUMANS. THERE WAS NOTHING NATURALISTIC ABOUT AN EXPERIMENT THAT ISOLATES OXYGEN WHEN IT ALWAYS EXISTED. AND, A RACEMIX OF AMINO ACIDS WHERE MADE WHICH IS USELESS/HARMFUL FOR LIFE.
STORY TELLING/LYING IS NOT SCIENTIFIC OR TRUTHFUL MORON.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: note: THERE IS NO GOD!! GOD IS MADE UP BY MAN!!! YOU BELIEVE A LIE!
before you comment on science, first make sure you went to and passed pre-school, primary school and high school. Then you'll have a very, very, very basic understanding of science, considering you're an American.
Oxygen didn't always exist and still doesn't exist in some places, like the vacuum of space, which is why we need space suits. Amino acids are the building blocks of life...useless???
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn the total retard and evil lying atheist. Grains of sand are used to make bricks, but bricks are not a 50 story 4 wing hospital with energy and waste management systems, maintenance and engineering departments etc. which a living cell has. Left hand amino acids and 20 specific ones are used in cells but they are not life. The reverse engineering of the Urey-Miller experiment was not naturalistic and did not make these 20 left-handed amino acids MORON.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: hey zombie, YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE FUCKING POINT, YOU FUCKING RETARD!!!! GO BACK TO PRE-SCHOOL AND LEARN SOMETHING REAL FOR A CHANGE!!!
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material. Ibid., p. 148.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: OF COURSE IT CAN HAVE A RANDOM BEGINNING!!!! RANDOM THINGS HAPPEN EVERY PICOSECOND! On your bullshit monkey analogies: all humans are monkeys, which includes Shakespeare, so monkeys randomly typing away CAN produce the work of Shakespeare, especially when done by the monkey called Shakespeare.
Before you quote any more bullshit, know that every single argument ever made by creationists, has already been destroyed entirely by the scientific community. Hence Evolution stays.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn :
Humans are made in the image of God, not monkeys/primates because EVIL LYING ATHEISTS/EVIL-utionists concoct a evolutionary definition. How stupid are you. Pond scum to you evolution does not happen nor happened. This was not and is not observed and is thereby unscientific and a COSMIC LIE.
You cannot refute my comment. Pond scum to you evolution is/was not observed and does not occur.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: nope, God is made in the image of humans, just like all other gods (which you are atheistic towards). We're all atheists, I simply take it one false god further: yours. Also, it was Linnaeus, A CREATIONIST, who proved we're monkeys/primates. He was a strong believer in God and the bible and he was the one who proved without regret that we were in fact still monkeys and primates and humans at the same time. Evolution is observed on a daily basis. That's a scientific fact.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Provide the quote from Linnaeus. Linnaeus as a Creationist and a Christian would not say that. Jesus was a creationist. A real Christians are creationists. Lifeless and brainless raw elements cannot contrive life, a communication code, the DNA code, the 3 billion sequences of base pairs to instruct biological machines to make humans, or any other form of life. Information only comes from a mind. Only the mind of God did and can make life not mindless and lifeless raw elements.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: google Linnaeus, abiogenesis (modern version, not old one) and look around on youtube for rebuttals to your mindless arguments.
We have evolved to see patterns and design everywhere, even in trees or on other planets. Information doesn't need a mind and we know for a fact that your god is invented by man, so we know for a fact that he doesn't exist. He's not even a monotheistic nor highest god, he's the son of El, fucking retard.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: completely refuted by the tons of directly observed cases of nature forming said biochemical systems, as Evolution is as real and as true as can be. We are more certain of Evolution than of Gravity! The only problem is that you're mentally disabled and cannot comprehend one iota of the FACT of Evolution.
Also, the odds for God existing are that low. The odds for Evolution are 1 on 1, as it is known to be true, by those who actually accept reality.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn:
Provide the scientific fact i.e. testable repeatable evidence for pond scum to you evolution by brainless and lifeless raw elements.
Story telling is not the scientific method you EVIL LYING ATHEIST.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: so you're asking me for the proof that non-life evolved into life, right? Well: NOBODY WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION, EVER SAID IT CONCERNS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, YOU FUCKING RETARD! EVOLUTION STARTS WITH FIRST LIFE, NOT BEFORE THAT!
See, how can you possibly win against something you know nothing about? First learn what we claim and what it means and what it is, BEFORE you start commenting on it.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
I posted 5 comments of quotes from those before you that lied and made grandiose comments about evolution which I'm not surprised you are IGNORANT OF i.e. you are an anti-intellectual and uneducated. STOP LYING, THAT IS EVIL BUT NORMAL FOR A MORAL ATHEISTS.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: You gave 5 quote mines, which first of all you didn't understand, second of all didn't give any argument against the Theory of Evolution and even CONFIRMED it and third, they're all over 20 years old.
It is not I, but YOU who is anti-intellectual, uneducated, lies all the time, is evil and amoral. I'm the good guy here, as I'm trying to educate you, but you just want to destroy the world.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
to the mentally deficient and delusional mind of PJDesseyn: You are using fallacious logic. Because you purely believed that EVIL EVIL-utionism/Darwinism happened and happens you conclude that the probability is one. Science and mathematical probability is not based on imagined events. You are CLUELESS. 99.9% of all mutations are deleterious or neutral. You are a LIAR.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: IT IS A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT that Evolution happens. It happens every day, it is observed every day, we can test it, repeat it, demonstrate it, we can do every test there is to determine it's validity and it is 100% real. Also, you made that bullshit percentage up. First of all, deletions can cause new information to arise and neutral mutations doesn't refer to what kind of mutation actually happened. A deletion can be neutral. Also, it's far from 99.9%. Get educated.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn: Okay you EVIL LYING ATHEIST: Show me life emerging from raw elements in a pool of water, show me a fishing becoming an amphibian, show me a bear becoming a whale, and a monkey becoming a human so we all can see this evolution you claim happens every day.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP YOU TOTAL MORON.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: "evil lying atheist": I'm not evil and I'm not lying. It is also a scientific fact that atheists are more moral than Christians. You can't beat the facts, retard. So, Evolution doesn't concern the origin of life, which means I can dismiss your first request as being invalid. Your other requests (a fish becoming an amphibian, a bear becoming a whale, etc.) show you dont understand Evolution one bit, so I can dismiss those too. Do I need to explain the basics of Evolution to you?
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn the anti-intellectual and uneducated evil lying atheist:
1 of ? about your fairytale:
"All living forms in the world have arisen from a single source that came from an inorganic beginning. So, according to the model of evolution, the first living cell 'evolved' into complex multicellular forms of life; these 'evolved' into animals with backbones. Fish evolved into amphibia, amphibia into primates, and primates into man." *A. Thompson, Biology. Zoology, and Genetics (1983), p.1
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PJDesseyn the anti-intellectual and uneducated evil lying atheist:
1 of ? about your fairytale:
"All living forms in the world have arisen from a single source that came from an inorganic beginning. So, according to the model of evolution, the first living cell 'evolved' into complex multicellular forms of life; these 'evolved' into animals with backbones. Fish evolved into amphibia, amphibia into primates, and primates into man." *A. Thompson, Biology. Zoology, and Genetics (1983), p.1
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
2 of ?
"It is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life, and the stars with earth, and matter with mind, and animals with man. " *Julian Huxley, "At Random, " in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 42.
"Evolution. The process by which all organisms have arisen by the descent from a common ancestor." *S. Luria, *S. Gould and *S. Singer, A View of Life (1981), p. 767.
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 year ago
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: on the Huxley quote: "IN THE BROAD SENSE"!!!! you're quote mining stuff you know shit about. You're lying and deceiving, but I won't fall for your trickery. The "View of Life" quote: this says nothing about the origin of life, so that's a correct statement. All organisms are descended from a common ancestor.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
my theory evolution is also in the brain, say when the 1st fish was born with a tail fin not legs, for example, the fish wud have found it alot easier to get about, so therefor when it mated it already had in its brain that having the tail was mroe eficient, so therefor subconciously decides to pass it on in its sperm or egg or w/e, so then theres another 20 fish with tails as its eggs hatch with the same "mutated" gene the original fish had.
raver4lyfe16 2 years ago
Sorry, but research shows that we've only been able to understand that certain traits are beneficial, AFTER we (humans) got our large brains. So by the time we realised we have an advantage, we had already evolved that far. Now, however, we can artificially select traits and fulfil your theory.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is very simple. I would rather compare it to a dice pool.
If I would take 5 dices and make 10 throws, the odds that I throw 5 numbers of 6 every throw are really small, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
So yeah, we're indeed REALLY lucky to be here, since one tiny difference in the tree of evolution might have given a totally different outcome!
MortalLuc 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
95% of evolutionist proofs are artist's drawings. Touche' IF you want to know the REAL "probability of evolution taking place (not your worthless drawings) see the LAST (14 of 14) of my latest upload on the creation vs. evolution video. Get your head out of the sand, wake up and learn something or in others words get an EDUCATION!!!!! Punk!
KingJamesBible 2 years ago
KJB, apart from the fact that you completely missed the point of the video, can you give me any evidence for creationism? Or evidence against Evolution? or at the very least a picture of a nice spaceship?
Oh yes, if you do post something, you'll have to check back over here as well, if you want to see my replies, seeing that you've blocked me and all...
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
But do tell me, KJB, is there some sort of social club where they train you to be asses and completely miss the point being made and subsequently deny all the evidence thrown in your face?
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
yep, that "club" is almost any "higher" education system in the world ... all promoting the NWO religion of evolution. They will surely teach you to be an "ass"
KingJamesBible 2 years ago 2
Yes, because knowing the truth will lead us to oblivion.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Man, it's kinda sad when you have to claim that people with more education than you are all wrong.
BenkaiDebussy 1 year ago
Even the smartest person ever was wrong from time to time. Being smarter than me won't keep me from telling you you're wrong, when you're wrong. And so far, all creationists are wrong and have nothing to prove them right. I didn't make the facts, BD, I merely share them.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Yeah, I was replying to KingJamesBible's comment where he said "that 'club' is almost any 'higher' education system" and was essentially mocking higher education. When someone has to resort to claiming that anyone with more education than them is wrong, there's nothing you can really do to change their mind.
BenkaiDebussy 1 year ago
Oh, my bad...I thought you addressed it to me. Still, my statement is true.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@BenkaiDebussy Education without salvation is damnation - Bob Jones Sr.
KingJamesBible 1 year ago
Education teaches you there is neither salvation nor damnation, so that you wouldn't have to spout religious bullshit, like you're doing.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@KingJamesBible Well, that certainly convinced me!
...huh?
BenkaiDebussy 1 year ago
@BenkaiDebussy I think it reasonable to assume that comments made on a board like this are NOT really to "convince" anyone but rather give some food for thought.
Bob Jones Sr. started a university, have you?
KingJamesBible 1 year ago
That's a red herring, KJB. Starting a university only means you have the money to do so, not that you're any good or right or smart or whatever. This is a quote from his chapel hour: "It's never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right." He violated his own rules, making him a hypocrite.
KJB, if you want to discuss ANYTHING AT ALL, first learn the truth and learn how to discuss things properly. Don't throw in red herrings, straw man arguments or things like that.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
You are avoiding the question. HAVE YOU YOURSELF STARTED A UNIVERSITY?
TruthfulChristian 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian: The question is a red herring. Starting a university doesn't make you good, especially if the university teaches lies and falsehoods. So no, I haven't started a university, but this is absolutely no argument at all.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
P.J maybe you should create a video for general debate like Neverdieagain79 did, then it would create a place for all types of debate. then if anyone wants to debate another subject just point them to that video, it would help to keep comments on other videos on topic.
Just a suggestion P.J
TheVindicator12 2 years ago
or I could re-open my forum...but I'd need a good group of people to help me out...
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Micahklaz remember with no evidence for "God" any argument you use to dismiss any other gods can also be used to dismiss the god of the bible.
TheVindicator12 2 years ago
the probability is very small however the fact the universe has existed for billions of years and is so vast creates the chances for anything to happen....
speakerphone94 2 years ago
I commend you for your patience, though I consider it somewhat simplistic.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Micah, that's the whole point. I try to explain it as simple as possible, because you people don't understand the normal terms, let alone the scientific terms. (which I hardly understand myself)
I figure, if I explain it really really simple, you guys might actually understand it.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
I think there needs to be some clarification here. The 1-in-5-per-generation compounding does accurately describe the probability of a SPECIFIC outcome out of all the possibilities. However, it does not represent the probability that ANY outcome will occur. There is a 1-in-1 probability that there will be A result. Trying to describe the probability of evolution by using a specific, directed outcome calculation is fallacious. That's where these calculations go wrong.
daughertymat 2 years ago
I believe that's what I made clear in the video. Namely that, although the chances of any mutation to happen is 1 in 5 (example), after it happened, it becomes 1 in 1. So lets say between me and my child, there would be 1 mutation happening out of 5 possible ones. At this moment, while I don't have any children, the odds of a mutation happening is 1 in 5. After it happened, it becomes 1 in 1 for the occurred mutation.
I really hope I made the video clear enough...
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
What i was trying to get at, is that the reason the 1-in-5 bit is wrong isn't because it already happened. It's wrong because it's not describing evolution by natural selection (the scientific theory). It's describing evolution by random mutation alone (the creationist strawman).
daughertymat 2 years ago
point taken.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
The problem with that is, while there will be a mutation, it may not be beneficial. So there is not a 1-in-1 probability that there will be a beneficial result, thus furthering evolution.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Nobody said it has to be beneficial. A random mutation occurs, on which nature selects. If it's good enough to survive, it'll be passed on. Even if the mutation is bad, as long as the organism survives and reproduces, it works.
To give an example: Down Syndrome is a bad trait, I think we can agree on that. However, it's not bad enough to prevent people with Down Syndrome from surviving and reproducing. And that's what it's all about.
As long as the organisms survives and reproduces, it's good.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Actually, every evolutionist scientist I have ever heard says that every step must be beneficial. Richard Dawkins, for instance.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
That's another lie. Plenty of scientists, including Dawkins, said that it doesn't have to be beneficial, just good enough. Denying the facts doesn't mean they're not there, Micah. I've already given you an example of how it doesn't have to be beneficial in order for it to be Evolution.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Actually, it was in Climbing Mount Improbable. He was discussing how the elephants trunk could have evolved, and he noted that every step had to benefit the elephant. I read that myself. Maybe the idea that they don't all have to be beneficial is a lie by the evolutionists to explain away irreducible complexity?
Micahklaz 2 years ago
It is commonly known among rationalists, that creationists quote mine. This means that they read what is said, pick what they want it to say and ignore all the rest. Irreducible complexity? What's that? I've never seen IC in nature. I see reducible complexity, for example: the eye, the flagellum, the brain, etcetera.
What Dawkins said, is that every step mustn't kill the elephant, being beneficial in that sense. Down Syndrome is "beneficial" in the sense that it doesn't kill the organisms.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
No, Dawkins said that EVERY step must BENEFIT the elephant. I was just demonstrating that Richard Dawkins says every step must be beneficial. I think he said it in the chapter on spider webs as well.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Ah, "benefit" =/= "beneficial". A trait which doesn't kill the organism, is to the benefit of the organism, but isn't beneficial. Again: Down Syndrome is to the benefit of the organism, that it doesn't kill them directly and doesn't make them incapable of reproducing, but it's certainly not beneficial.
But feel free to send me the paragraph in context to me.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Here's something: "Just because the trunk had to be useful in all its intermediate stages, this does not mean it had to be useful for the same purpose throughout all the intermediate stages." Page 83, Paragraph 2. By the way, for something to benefit something means for it to help it in some way, basically.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Not killing the organism is good, but not beneficial. Not killing you is good, but doesn't help you. Get it?
As for that quote: he was addressing Irreducible Complexity, not whether or not a mutation is beneficial. See, that's what I mean with CONTEXT.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
No, he was speculating how the trunk could have evolved with EVERY step being beneficial, because he knew it had to be every step. Have you even read it?
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Micah, have you read the CONTEXT? By that part alone, I can already figure out what he was talking about, even without having read the book. I've heard and made the arguments plenty of times myself.
Regardless, it's still a fact, as I've shown you, that it doesn't need to be beneficial, it just needs to work.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
You're arguing from ignorance. I HAVE read the book, so I DO know what the context is.
You haven't shown me this, you've just told me. All the evo scientists I know of say that every step has to be beneficial.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Give my paragraph 1, 2 and 3 in a mail. Then I'll have read the context too and will show you I'm right.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Ok, but paragraph 1 is left over from the previous page. And I'd like to find a place I can copy and paste from.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Well, when you have it, feel free to mail it to me.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
The only difference between those cults and Christianity is time. If christainity had come ten years ago if would have been laughed at like all the others.
It came at a time when humanity was naturally ignorant of the world and didnt know any better, Great video and I hope the christains do listen and understand 5 stars ;-)
TheVindicator12 2 years ago
Thanks, but you're preaching to the choir here :p
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Of course, that is based on the assumption that Christianity is not true. If it is, then we would have seen the miracle of Christ's resurrection, and all the other things He did. Then we would probably have even more Christians.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Your Entire religion is base on the assumption that an all powerful deity created everything.
The strange thing is "God" was quite active during the bible times yet as humanity became more advanced "Gods" activity became none existent, this was due to the fact humanity started to understand the world more and had no need to blame it on a deity.
TheVindicator12 2 years ago
When Jesus came, He told us that the time for miracles is past. (Interesting fact: The God of the Bible is the only God who died for someone else.)
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Interesting fact: the God of the bible is NOT the only god who died for someone else. You are in no position to claim he is, since you don't even have the slightest clue about any other religions. Try looking at Pagan religions, like in Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia,...I'm sure you'll find like half a dozen gods who died for others.
Btw, does Hercules count? He died for others and was a demi-god, like Jesus. Only way cooler and actually did something to improve the world.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Hercules died because of a treacherous centaur, not of his own volition. He shot the centaur with a poison arrow, (because the centaur was abducting his bride), and then the centaur tricked the girl into dipping Hercules's cloak into his blood, which was poisoned by the arrow. He did this by telling her it was a powerful love potion, and would prevent Hercules from leaving her for another woman. Cont...
Micahklaz 2 years ago
...Cont. Then, after winning some war somewhere, Hercules requested that his cloak be sent to him, so he could wear it for the celebrations. After putting it on, he was weakened but not killed. Knowing his mortal danger, he gave his bow and arrows to his best friend, and was carried up into Olympus. When there, he helped the gods defeat some giants using a method he had learned earlier in his adventures. I actually enjoy learning about mythology.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
However, Jesus was the only God who willingly sacrificed Himself for the good of all. Please present me with stories of other gods who did the same thing.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Actually, Jesus didn't have a choice. Whether he wanted it or not, if caught, they'd kill him. They caught him and killed him, regardless of what Jesus wanted. Also note that the bible is historically inaccurate as to Jesus' crucifixion.
As for the other gods: Prometheus. He's the Greek deity who gave fire to mankind and was subsequently punished by the other gods, by being tied to a rock and getting his liver pecked out by a vulture...EVERY SINGLE DAY, FOR ALL ETERNITY. (worse than Jesus!)
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
So what was the historical truth of Jesus' crucifixion? (Note: that would imply Jesus did exist.)
Prometheus did good for people and was punished, yes. However, the good he did was his choice. The punishment wasn't. Jesus came on earth for the express intention of dying. With Prometheus, the suffering was a result of his kindness. With Jesus, the death WAS His kindness. Prometheus wasn't punished for his people, he was punished for tricking the gods.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Well, the crucifixion is false, because people weren't crucified by their hands and feet, since it couldn't hold the body's weight. They were crucified by their wrists and ankles. In fact, in the Phillipines, people crucify themselves on their hands and feet, but are supported and survive. So if Jesus was driven a nail through his hands and feet, he could still survive. Technically, one could survive a spear in the side as well, although it's more difficult. (cont)
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Actually, Jesus didn't come to Earth to be crucified. It's a result of all his crimes. If the intention was to get him crucified, they could've done so by day 1. The entire story simply doesn't work. God throws sin onto man, he sends himself to get rid of sin which he created, but sin still remains and we'll still all go to Hell, unless we accept Jesus offer of taking the sins away which we didn't commit. It simply doesn't add up, Micah.
Anyone with a functioning brain, realises the bible fails
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Man sins, God sends His Son to die for man, (so there would be a recipient for His just wrath), but not everyone accepts God. Jesus' sacrifice didn't get rid of sin, it conquered it. Jesus probably died as an adult so He could let people know what was going to happen, and why. This opened the possibility of accepting Him. Note: when people point out a loving God wouldn't let anybody go to Hell, they forget one thing. God is just as well as loving.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
Man commits crimes: check. God: doesn't exist. His son: doesn't exist. God's plan of delivering the message to the world: uber-fail. Justice: NOT sending anyone to be tortured for all eternity, for not accepting his existence, because of a total lack of evidence.
As said, the story doesn't work, it's completely wrong from beginning to end. The creation is wrong and the crucifixion isn't even historically accurate.
THE BIBLE IS WRONG! EVERY BIT OF IT!
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
And Jesus died because of the treacherous Jews (and/or Judas). No difference.
Point is: Jesus disturbed the community and was punished for his crimes. Hercules helped the community and was poisoned by an evil creature. Jesus did NOT die for our sins. In fact, it's likely he never even existed.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Jesus predicted His death beforehand. He said it was for the good of all. He died on purpose. In fact, Peter tried to rescue Him, but Jesus stopped him. The Jews were disturbed because Jesus claimed to be God.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
No, he didn't. It were the writers who fabricated the story in order to make it look like the fictional Jesus predicted his death. And yes, the Jewish Messiah wouldn't claim to be God, thus proving Jesus wasn't the Messiah and was extremely blasphemous, according to scripture. (even though it never happened this way)
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Now you're saying that "it's wrong because it's wrong." You're just going into denial here. Even if the Bible is wrong, you can't use that for this debate, as here we are dealing on the premise that the Bible is right. Or at least that's how it appeared to me.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
No, YOU start with the premise that the bible is right. I start with the conclusion that the bible is wrong.
Whether you accept this fact or not: THE BIBLE IS WRONG. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE WRONG AND IS CONCLUDED TO BE WRONG. IT IS NOT RIGHT, BUT WRONG.
Again, I'm not saying it's wrong because it's wrong, I'm saying it's wrong because it's PROVEN to be wrong. You seem to make that lie a lot, making me say things I never said.
If the bible were right, then we'd see actual evidence.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Actually, I was saying that, considering the subject of the debate, (Jesus being the only God who died for us), it would seem like you are ducking out to say that I'm wrong because the Bible is wrong. That is irrelevant to the subject right now. Stay on topic, please.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
The topic is mathematical probability of Evolution happening... -.-"
Also, I've shown you that Prometheus also died for us.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
The topic of the video is, not this debate.
And I showed you that Prometheus's suffering was a result of him helping mankind, while Jesus's death was him helping us. It's like a chicken/egg scenario.
Also, Prometheus didn't even die.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
If you want to debate here, then the debate is about the video, not about anything else, so you've been off topic for quite a while now.
Jesus' death helped nobody. (and the egg is always first)
Also, Prometheus dies every day, but resurrects to repeat the cycle continuously. So while Jesus died on the cross, once (according tot he fairy tale), Prometheus dies every single day. Hence: far worse.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Well, you started by attacking my comment that Jesus is the only one who died for us. You didn't have to start a debate about that.
...On what basis do you make this claim? (Not the one about the chicken and the egg.)
The reason Jesus died once is because He conquered death and sin. Prometheus can't make that claim.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
I attacked a lie and gave you the truth.
Jesus' death was supposedly to rid us of the sin of our ancestors. However, it doesn't rid us of the sins we commit ourselves. So eventually, Jesus didn't help anyone, since we'd still all go to Hell. Also note that God started all of this in the first place.
No, Prometheus sinned, in order for everyone to benefit from it and still suffers the consequences. Jesus only had to die once and is now in paradise again. Also, Jesus might not have died.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Jesus' death was to cleanse us each of our individual sins, not the sins of our ancestors. And it was Adam/Eve who technically did the act. There's more to it, but that's a discussion for another time, 'kay?
I don't see how your 3rd paragraph is relevant, so my comment still stands.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
My point being: the entire story just doesn't work. He's freakin' God and does ungodly things. So, first mistake: God gives man hereditary sin. Second mistake: he sends himself to Earth as human, in a backwards ass of the world, to redeem everyone. Third mistake: he gets himself killed, to get himself to rid man of hereditary sin. Mistake four: he doesn't rid the world of all the other sinning.
A real God, would just say "poof" and sin would be gone. Very ungodly of him.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
That debate is another one, for another time and place. I'll be happy to address it some other time, but for now it's a red herring.
Micahklaz 2 years ago
It is a FACT that Christianity is not true. Scientists have proven the bible wrong on numerous occasions. Genesis: WRONG. Exodus: WRONG. Deuteronomy: WRONG. Etcetera. Every book in the bible has mistakes in it. Not to mention the entire New Testament, which is Christianity itself, is FABRICATED. It isn't even correct on how people were crucified, doesn't fulfil all OT prophecies, etcetera.
THE BIBLE IS WRONG, PERIOD.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
We have seen from more modern cults, how dependent, followers become, after indoctrination, even to the extremes of giving up their possession's and money.
And lets not kid ourselves Christianity is a cult like any other it just has more followers. We laugh at cults that believe a giant spaceship is on the way to pick up its members. And yet find it perfectly ok to believe that a all powerful super wizard created everything, Continued.....
TheVindicator12 2 years ago
P.J they got it the first time they are just to ignorant to admit it, and this is the key they will never admit to any evidence that proves their religion wrong.
They are like addicts accept they arnt addicted to drugs, they are dependent on their beliefs, they need their faith and belief to feel good about themselves, they feel that without a god life is meaningless.
Religion is as powerful as any drug, once addicted its hard to kick the habbit.
TheVindicator12 2 years ago
Maybe so, but if my videos convince even only 1 person in the entire world, if only 1 person comes to accept the scientific fact of Evolution, thanks to my videos, then all my time will have been worth it.
As an old military saying goes: "It is better to be on hand with ten men, than to be absent with ten thousand."
PJDesseyn 2 years ago