Evolution cannot explain type O- blood. It suddenly showed up 20,000 years ago with no hominid we have ever found containing this negative type blood. The function of the appendix has been found within the last year . It harbors colonies of "good bacteria" which it uses to repopulate the intestines after infections .
A genetic code is a long strand of the four chemicals, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine. This long strand of chemical A's,T's,C's, and G's is used by RNA to make proteins. Proteins control an organism's traits. Different proteins do different things. One could put melanin in the skin and one could affect blood sugar. Radiation can damage the DNA, thus altering the proteins. Most of the time this is bad, but sometimes, it leads to a new protein, and that is evolution.
There has been such a lot of lies and cover up by people pro to Evolutions that it would make your head spin. The facts are that those skulls discovered are just Apes.
The funny thing is you are basing your reasoning around ideals and "scientific thought" that are 2000 years old. 500 years ago you would have thought the world was flat and the universe rotates aroudn the earth. Fact of the matter is, new evidence and data about our world are discovered every day and to not learn and grow from these new discoveries is absolutely a shame. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but a mind blinded by faith and selfishness unwilling to grow is a terrible waste.
I'm stupid? I'm not the one basing my life around a book written 1800 years ago about a zombie. Modern science was begun partially by christian scientists so what? They did scientific work which... watch out! Found evidence of evolution. There are too many proofs that evolution is real and is currently happening today that no man of reason could refuse it. If you'd like I can post some. But go on about your zombie Christ and your "the world is 6,000 years old." Ha, morons.
@Aaandy03 the book wasn't written 1800 years ago, Genesis through Deuteronomy was written by Moses, LONG before Jesus came to existence. Each of the other old testament books were recorded by scribes and other people such as David, Solomon, Samuel, etc. All before Jesus. The New Testament was written after Christ. The Old Testament and New Testament were combined 1800 years ago.
@mijamz That was absolute nonsense . You have ZERO evidence for those statements. There is no historical evidence that Moses or Noah ever existed , so how do you know what they wrote ? It is true some of the writings of the Old Testament were around long before Jesus "lived" , which of course there is no record of , but you cannot say when or by whom they were written .
@MindofaJedi "It is true some of the writings of the Old Testament were around long before Jesus "lived" , which of course there is no record of....."
Are you kidding? What you are saying is ridiculous,saying there is no RECORD of Jesus is as silly as saying there is no record for all of history.I guess you must believe that, unless YOU see something with your own eyes it never happened or never existed,so everything that happened before your birth is suspect and probably not true.
@CBALLEN Nope , you are 100% incorrect . The book of John was written between 100-125 A.D. as were Luke , and Matthew. Even Baptist seminary students are now taught this. So there are ZERO eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the Bible. There are stories passed down for about a century. ZERO Romans, the worlds most literate people at that time, wrote about Jesus during his lifetime. Thie first mention of Jesus was by Josephus in about 60 AD , and he called him "the so called Christ".
Another all knowing Atheist so sure there is no God that he call call everyone else ignorant. You are not fit to polish this mans shoes. Your just a bitter little know it all that either needs to grow up or never grew up. Because if you have, you would have realized that no one KNOWS!!! for sure. So all we have left are opinions. So why you acting like you KNOW the ultimate truth? Are you a liar or just a student of liars? All we can say for sure is evolutionists can't be trusted.
How dare this ignorant creationist use modern day information to support his claims. They have been ignoring modern data for years because they show without a reasonable doubt how evolution is true. Funny how he is using science which is deeply rooted and based on evolution to refute science. Darwin didn't have it all right, we know this, and have adapted our theory of evolution because of new information being learned on the topic.
@Aaandy03 notice you have to adapt the theory, whereas the Bible's acount of creation has never changed in all the thousands of years it's been around.
when are creationists going to get it. disproving a theory does not prove another theory. It's possible that both sides are right, creation is right and evolutions is wrong, evolution is right and creation is wrong, and both are wrong.
thats so true. I dont care how smart this Marilyn lady is, but I guess she's good at twisting things. An opinion can be defended with rational arguments, but it still continues to be an opinion. It all exists in perspective
"..if we can't figure out what it's doing, it must not be doing anything." -Dolt with the mic.
Ironic how they eventually found out LATER ON that there were function to these sequences of DNA.
THIS is what science is about. We continually improve what we know. If we were to just say: Oh, God made it all perfect as is, there's no point to researching this aspect of science.
Then we'd never learn anything new. We question our origins, so we pick apart mechanisms for genesis of life.
Konkaver, I agree with what you said, but I should point out something...
The Bible never says that there's no point to researching or that we shouldn't learn anything new. Actually, there are lots of places in the Bible where God tells His people to seek out knowledge and rebukes people because they are ignorant.
Proverbs 4:5&7
Get wisdom, get understanding; do not forget my words or swerve from them ... Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.
And seeking out knowledge is what scientists have done. Yet religious fanatics constantly persecute those who try their damned hardest to support evolution and other scientific fields. Most scientists are not out to "disprove" the existence of the Christian God, why would you play with religious rights when your academic reputation is on the line? This is why it's so difficult to find scientists to attend debates, save for the few who throw out their own concerns for reputation.
What a moron! And what a slimy and dishonest bastard! He just "happened to forget" to mention that Marilyn Vos Savant is an atheist.. The lying moron creationists are almost all the same..
This video displays some reprehensible, yet common tactics used by creationists. This guy used a poorly constructed strawman to tear down in front of the "congregation".
Vestigial does not imply uselessness as claimed in the video. Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have lost all or most of their ORIGINAL FUNCTION in a species through evolution.
Since the first argument in this video is a blatant lie, the rest of the series credibility is completey shot.
um excuse me rockondon9 when i was in highschool i was tought by my biology teachers, Yes teachers because i took more than one course. I was tought that vestigial parts surve absolutley no purpose. None, they have no function and are completely pointless. Oh and may i mention that my teachers were the OPPOSITE of creationists. So what your preposing is that evolutionists are also morons and are spreading lies out of ignorance. Or is this just a biast view you have towards creationists??
Thats why you can't really trust teacher's below the college level. Most of them don't know what the fuck they're talking about. When I got into college I learned that a lot of the things I was taught (and not just in science) were untrue.
I see where you are coming from massdeicide but where do you think highschool biology teachers are tought there information? Answere, there college profesers. What i was simply trying to say is that it is pointless for people like rockondon9 to jump to assumptions and name calling due to someones faith or beliefs. For a example saying someone does not "know shit" cause they are a "fundy ignorant christian." to say someone is unknowledgable cause their faith is obserd. see where im coming from?
It is their spine which before the become a fetus their spine is outside their body(Lumbar-Coccyx) and if it doesn't mature correctly then the child will be born with something called "Spina-Befida" which is basically when the spine is protruding out of the newborns body either from the Cervical area or the Lumbar and in rare circumstances it protrudes out of the Coccyx.
The tails are spina befida which grows out of the skin from the coccyx area. When the baby moves, the spine moves, thus giving off the impression of a tail. And to answer your final question, it is called "Microevolution"
Don't tell me you are going to use that "micro-evolution but not macro-evolution" crap. There is no difference in the mechanisms for micro and macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is just a lot of micro-evolution. You can't believe in one and not the other.
Because I considered them both the same because alot of creationist believe in it. Evolution is real, that isn't a lie, but the ONLY evolutions(in my opinion) is Macroevolution and Micro.
"but the ONLY evolutions(in my opinion) is Macroevolution and Micro."
I don't understand... so you accept for example that humans descend from primates and that whales descend from quadrupeds etc?
There's evolution, if you really insist, you can make a distinction between small timescales (microevolution) and large timescales (macro)... but yes, I don't see any OTHER possible categories (medium-timescale-evolution?).
Please clarify your position, I thought you were a creationist.
I was just going along with him. My beliefe stands on microevolution(or micro-evolution, etc). For instance, Dogs, cats, fruits, etc. There are different brands and breeds, that doesn't actually mean they evolved, but I do believe that Wild dogs and wild cats were domesticated and so were their broods then their young picked up their traits then there were cross-breeding. You get what I'm saying right?
That guy is trying to dicredit science by telling us that it has made progress, as if science as a method is wrong just because it's refined over time.
Just be glad science *is* what it is. If science was founded on the same principles as religion there would be no room for refinement.
And I know that Creationists like myself come few and far between but I seriously could care less what you believe in because everybody is entitles to their beliefs. I don't believe in having to live a perfect life, to me, all I need to do is accept christ. I live a pretty sinful life- I cuss, I lust, I have pre-maritial sex, I have talked about people behind their backs. If you're a evolutionist or a humanist then more power to ya; I have nothing against you and I hope you feel the same to me.
Anyone who thinks 'vestigial' means 'useless' or 'not being used' is a complete moron. Deceit, lies, ignorance, all the things we expect from creationists. Jesus would be ashamed
It is funny, many of you are saying vestigial parts does not mean left over parts that arent used. The reason i find this funny is that every biology class i have takin every teacher i have had said our vestigial parts are unused completely usless left-overs from past ancestors. And that they are just there because natural selection forgot to and or did not remove them. So why is it that you are trying to change the meaning of a word to fit your theory?
uhhh, Try sitting down without your coccyx, better yet, try bending over without your coccyx. HINT- you won't be able to because you wouldn't be able to sit up straight and after you bend over you would be stuck bent over.
Because we need our coccyx. We need our Apendix when we are young. You may have some points, but when evolutionists or humanists say that our vestigial parts serve no purpose. For one, we don't know that IF we evolved than if those parts served the same purpose they do now, and if that is the case then that debunks part of the evolution theory(depending on which what you believe in). Secondly, you do not know what their initial or past use was for. I am a Creationist but I keep a open mind
The coccyx still serves secondary functions as a muscle attachment, but no longer assists in its original function: to provide balance and mobility. That is why it is vestigial. Human embryos actually have a tail but lose it when they develop into a fetus.
It provides balance and mobility. Thats the point. If evolution was real then it woulndn't serve the same purpose as it does now. The "tail" you are referring to is what is called "spina-bifida" which if it doesn't grow corectly the pressure of the coccyx will force the spine to grow outside of the body(back)in the area of the Lumbar area or the lower Cervical areas. This scenario almost always ends up in death to the infant. The tail you are referring is the coccyx spine(tailbone).
As much as I've commented, I don't think I've really addressed the video. Dr. J clearly does not know the meaning of the word Vestigial. He thinks it means organs that no longer serve ANY function due to evolution. It doesn't.
No, eternal life doesn't sound too appealing. Things have to die. Some people just can't accept that.
Show me how faith does anything but give hope to pessimistic people. People who can't see the beauty of life and nature without having to attach something supernatural to it. Faith is not a virtue. It's a cop-out.
p.s. taking bible quotes and twisting them to what you want them to mean is not proof of creationism.
let me pose a question to all evolutionist out there. please dont write some smart remark because i am serious about this next question. As it is said evolution is always changing right The answer I always hear is that since evolutionist find more and more information,etc.. They have to expand the time or change stuff around. Since this is true how come you believe something that will always be continuously changing.
Nobody is saying that all parts of the evolutionary theory as they stand right now are %100 accurate. We go with the evidence. And if some evidence could show that we are all wrong we'll change our minds. Science is not faith. We have the option of changing our minds based on evidence.
let me ask you something if i said i knew a way that you could have eternal life would you be willing to look into it. google search or youtube search proof of prophecy this is a major evidence for God but the bible teaches that we should live by faith. through faith we obtain understanding of how the world works. we also learn that we (mankind) will not have an understanding of how everything came to be
If you said that you knew a way I could have eternal life, I would want to know how to avoid it.
If I were to live eternally, I would do everything, then do everything again, and again, and again, and again, and I would eventually get bored. And not just any boredom. I would suffer a boredom that could only get worse. I would suffer a boredom that would make me want to go to Hell simply because it would give me something to interesting do.
If I die, I want all of my conscious thought to END.
The essence of science is constant improvement. The age of the earth or whatever decreases in estimation as much as it increases. This is because of repeated readings of it's age.
Newton's laws are wrong. They make sense to believe in though as they are true for macroscopic systems. Einsteinian Relativity replaced these laws and gives slightly different values. Are you seriously saying that the scientists who derive these laws are less trustworthy than the bible?
Dr.J is an ignoramus. His argument is not existent. His thesis is "since we don't have a time machine, science can't provide any incite on how things in the past happened." He has done very little research on so called "junk" DNA. He is data mining and engaging in a dishonest attack. I protest to him calling himself a doctor. I challenge him to put his credentials in his profile.
[21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)
Not quite man if you have a KJV bible look at Genesis 7:8;21-23 these passages tells us that Noah was not told by God to bring fish nor bugs/insects for that matter insects breathe through there skin not there nostrils Genesis 7:22
Why is it that people must see things in black and white? Why must people blieve in God OR evolution? When the world we share is so full of vivid colour, why waste the chance to appreciate such a beautiful picture?
Evolution is a scientific hypothesis, created by SCIENTISTS, but it does not explain the full story. That's where the Good Book comes in!
Those who claim to "disproove God or evolution are lying." All we can do is present evidence. Nobody here has been right yet!!
All this guy is doing is chipping at a cliff with a tiny chisel. Evolutionists have waaaay more evidence than the minisatellite ("junk", as he calls them) areas of DNA and useless organs! The similarities between species of different ecosystems for example. Im my opinion, he's trying to spoil the cake of evolution and offer in its place, a biscuit crumb!
The use of the term "evolutionist" is a leading label. How about the less biased term, "scientist"?
Evolution HAS been observed! I observed it the other day!!!!!!!!
Resistance to antibiotics is a cause of evolution and we are able, in a lab, to cause bacteria to become so via the introduction of a plasmid (transformation).
If I had over 500 characters, I'd explain it all to you.
Stop reading creationalist propaganda and wake up to the truth!
"The pope has already stated he believed in evolution. So don't put up to big of a fight, ok? You're on the wrong side."
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA
HE ACTUALLY THINKS THE POPE HAS ANY AUTHORITY OVER WHAT CHRIST DISCIPLES THINK!!!!!
HAHAHA
no seriously...the "pope" aka joseph ratzinger....has zero authority. He is nobody to me....never will be, nor will any "pope" ever....catholicism is antichrist to the core.
"1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge."
After you say things like that, prepare to be ridiculed. This guy is just a joke. It's an insult against real scientist that this charlatan uses "Dr" before his name.
And btw. this video is utter nonsense and just an obvious piece of creationist propaganda.
I'm tired hearing this phrase "believe in evolution"! For christs sake, there is nothing to believe in evolution. It's a scientific fact and it's not a matter of belief or disbelief! You either understand it or you don't. You can debate it, but you have to be able to back up your arguments. And no, you can't cry about bible saying this and that.
500 characters is way too little for clarifying that.. About every statement he makes is untruthful, biased or simply false.
Basicly the whole idea of this video is false. DNA is not a proof against evolution, it's one of the greatest proofs for it, while it clearly shows that all life share a same beginning and a common ancestor.
Sunnsu, I recommend that you read any basic level book about evolution and scientific method in generally.
seaneire, no reasonable person would debate venomfangx. Venom is a very delusional guy with absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He is just making the same logical fallacies over and over again in his videos.
It's not lack of courage, it's just that thunderf00t doesn't want to waste his time in doing something not useful at all.
I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't be interested to debate someone who thinks that earth is flat or something equally ridiculous.
Thunderf00t also allows people to make negative comments as well as positive comments on his videos, unlike VenomFangX who has to approve a comment before it will show up and will even block people who disagree with him.
If he wants to tell me why I'm wrong about evolution, he should allow me to tell him why his arguments are wrong.
he's the guy who recently and cowardly refused to have a debate with venomfangX
ya I've heard of that coward.
I don't blame VFX for disallowing messages, I think it is a wise move.
for instance you and your sidekick have probablt left close to 50 messages on this video, yet not ONE of them offers any proof of evolution.....you just like to argue and yap alot
why would VFX want evolutionists spamming his comments?
VFX had offered to debate. Thunderfoot assumed that VFX wanted to debate about the most noticeable conflict between the two of them, which would be their views on biological evolution and what creationists see as an alternative to it. However, VFX replied to TF's latest video saying that he doesn't want to debate those things, but wants to debate theology instead. He is scared to debate with TF on the subject of evolution.
As for why he would want evolutionists spamming his comments...
The final truth will have no contradictions and at least one piece of supporting evidence. By having comments that point out the contradictions, lies can be separated from truth, leading to that final truth. The people that are most likely to search for those contradictions will be the ones who believe the truth to be a lie.
Thunderfoot allows negative comments, it is evolutionists on that page that censor for him by spamming replys with a "thumbs down" until it no longer shows. How is that different?
You need only click on the word "show" to see the negative comments on Thunderf00t's videos. VFX doesn't allow any comments that conflict with what he had said, whether true or not.
And how does disproving the big bang disprove evolution?
Evolution is the theory about a process that life goes through, not an origin of life or of the universe.
Even if God made the universe and the first life forms, it is still possible that he also made evolution so that those life forms could create an even greater diversity of life forms.
Actually, the difference between theory and law is that a law can be made into a mathematical equation, thus allowing us to apply the one science that everyone agrees is a universal truth to it, mathematics.
Even the fact that two masses are pulled together by a force that we call "gravity" is a scientific theory rather than a scientific law. The law of gravity is that thing that has all the mathematical symbols but has letters instead of numbers in it.
Show me one piece of evidence against evidence that holds water. You can't, because you are scientifically illiterate. You just believe it's false because preachers told you it is.
I only watched the first part of the video, realised the guy who made this video has as much credibility as a dog trying to conduct a world-class lecture about astrophysics.
Dude, do me a favor. Go to google. Type in bombardier beetle design. Read the first article. Read other ones to if you like. But PLEASE, do some god damn research. You sound like this:
"I don't understand evolution! What you say makes no sense to me! So you must be dumb!"
You're just making a straw-man of evolutionary theory and arguing against your own straw-man.
No you just mad because you're not making sense. I can bring up countless examples, that make the whole "Evolving" concept look like a joke. Granted, yes I do believe that a animals body may adapt slightly to the environment(like gaining body mass for cold environments,) but to say that a entirely new species evolved from a different species is just stupid. The variables for something like that to happen are astronomical. Face it you're just giving evolution too much credit.
*yawn* didn't do that research did ya? Let's face it, until you actually read up on evolution how can you even know what you're saying isn't total bullcrap? I'm not saying there aren't any decent arguments presented against the current evolutionary theory. I'm just saying your arguments are a straw-man because you don't know what you're talking about.
"deja vu to 1932...thats what i say about this...these guys need to get a clue"
wow....this guys an idiot. he forgot to mention that the existence of functions for j-DNA does nothing to debunk evolution. i.e. his 9 mins 39 secs of rant was utterly pointless....but entertaining. smart stupid ppl are amusing.
You know what's really sad? When a jackass gets on stage and starts pointing his little discount laser at a screen like he knows the opposite end of his head from his ass.
An opinion is one thing, but a theory is not just a magical guess like everything in the bible. A theory is something that has been proven to be extremely plausible through many negative and positive tests and even undergone criticism, and then finally debated and agreed upon by a group of experts in the sad field.
And you think that blanks in knowledge give you permission to jump to conclusions? I assume that YOU know your head from your ass. Right? Just by going along with natural selection, it means that apes should have either evolved to humans or gone extinct. So how do you explain that? When did it become beneficial to not be able to grab things with your feet? Why does the human body not regenerate lost limbs, like many crustaceans? Isn't that an evolutionary advancement?
UAshurik, don't embarrass yourself. If you're going to try and argue science, try to know what you're talking about. First, Humans ARE apes, and the other apes today are NOT our ancestors, we evolved from a common ancestor. And a lot of original species have been shown to live on after a species evolved anyway.
If it did learn to mix and eject the chemicals before exploding, how did it reproduce? This means that it had to find the same beetle with the same mutation(that has not exploded,) of the opposite sex, and it had to do this before it died. There are just WAY too many factors for this to be possible. So, MasDecide, quit trying to be a smartass. You sound really stupid.
I sound stupid? You're still mouthing off like you know what you're talking about. A bombardier beetle didn't mutate a combustion chamber in one day. Evolution does not work that way! Its small steps, and over hundreds, thousands, millions of years for things evolve. One organism doesn't evolve into a new species by itself on its own in its own life span. Please, PLEASE, read book on evolution. One written by a scientist. Try to find out what evolution is before you argue against it.
So you're saying that this bug lived for hundreds, tould it housands, millions of years with a useless organ? Why the hell would a bug continue to develop an organ that it can't use? Do you hear yourself? You are retarded. Think about it, that useless organ did help it survive, so how the hell did it manage to survive? The more I talk to you. The more I'm convinced that you really are retarded.
Your next arguments are hilarious. Evolution doesn't work that way. We don't just automatically evolve things that would help us. To put it very simply: Mutation is random, natural selection keeps the good mutations and weeds out the bad.
Yet humans are far more advanced from apes. You say that it's because of mutation that species evolve. So how did the bombardier beetle manage to "mutate" a combustion chamber in it's anus? How did it happen to accidentally produce hydroquinones, and hydrogen peroxide? How did it "mutate" the reservoirs for these chemicals, and how did it figure out that enzymes were needed? How did it learn to mix these chemicals, and how much to mix? How did it not explode from the reaction of the chemicals?
Not true. If something is beneficial to yourself or society, it is right. If it is detrimental it is wrong. For example, murder is wrong because if it was legal to just kill anyone, society would most likely fall.
Rational thought is a much better tool for moral judgement than superstition or doctrine.
does the legality of murder have any influence on whether people murder?
society IS falling because we have lost our faith and belief/trust in God Almighty!
did our conscience evolve or did we always have it?
if it evolved how come people are continuously inventing more powerful killing machines?
If we are evolving how come the media glorifies murder,sex,drugs,war,hate,adultery,homosexuality,violence- we (society) are getting worse and following satan/science.
You seemed to be confused and think biological evolution means moral evolution. Its doesn't.
Look, people have always killed each other, people probably always will, God or no God, faith or no faith. But we already tried the Christian way (Dark Ages) and it didn't work out too well. People always like to say our morals are getting worse but in reality, they don't realize how bad it was. If you wanna good idea of how ethical society was under Christian rule, look at the middle east now.
"does the legality of murder have any influence on whether people murder?"
The fact that murder is illegal means that people are punished for doing it, which provides people with more reason to keep from doing it. Most places have punishments for murder that help prevent the murderer from being able to commit another murder either temporarily or permanently.
So yes, the legality of murder does indeed have influence on whether people murder.
only people living in constant fear feel the need to be able to annihilate, kill, and destroy....
people who fear death and DO NOT know God try to protect the life they live....and the people who create wmd's want to depopulate and especially kill off those who have no fear.
Pss.27
[1] The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
"only people living in constant fear feel the need to be able to annihilate, kill, and destroy....
people who fear death and DO NOT know God try to protect the life they live....and the people who create wmd's want to depopulate and especially kill off those who have no fear."
Then why did Christians feel the need to go to another country to kill people during the Crusades?
You believe that science is all about helping Satan, correct?
If we see the laws of science as the laws of the natural world that God had created, then scientific study can be seen as an attempt to better understand God, by studying the one thing that he made directly, the natural world.
The Bible may have been written by mortal hands (no matter how much they were guided by God), but the natural world and the laws that govern it are things we can say were made by God and God alone.
Actually it hasn't been proven to be false. And in a way, the existence of evolution shows just how perfect God is.
If the natural world was made by a perfect god, then that perfect god would have made it in a way that it would never need to be fixed by that god. Evolution tells us that any problems that come up with the life that God created will eventually solve themselves, thus life does not reach a point where it becomes so broken that God needs to fix it.
I totally disagree and I do believe evolution has been proven without a shadow of a doubt to be false...
but you are entitled to your opinion.
-also by your logic "a perfect god" obviously isn't perfect in your view because that "perfect god" that you envision has made a mistake that would need to be fixed thus imperfection...
2Sam.22
[31] As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
I tried replying to this comment earlier, but my reply seems to have not shown up.
There is a list of creationist claims at talkorigin which takes claims against evolution and counters them. Even the claims that this video makes can be found on that list along with counter arguments.
"While Creationists are able to present a multitude of scientific evidences (such as are found in this present book), evolutionists can only reply with ridicule and efforts to stifle discussion"
This guy has a doctorate in science education, but he doesn't know the science.
Ironic.
odinata 5 months ago
Evolution cannot explain type O- blood. It suddenly showed up 20,000 years ago with no hominid we have ever found containing this negative type blood. The function of the appendix has been found within the last year . It harbors colonies of "good bacteria" which it uses to repopulate the intestines after infections .
MindofaJedi 9 months ago
A genetic code is a long strand of the four chemicals, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine. This long strand of chemical A's,T's,C's, and G's is used by RNA to make proteins. Proteins control an organism's traits. Different proteins do different things. One could put melanin in the skin and one could affect blood sugar. Radiation can damage the DNA, thus altering the proteins. Most of the time this is bad, but sometimes, it leads to a new protein, and that is evolution.
derekismature 10 months ago
Suddenly he finds 'other functions' for Vestigial Organs.
But everything else is Irriduceible complex.
gregrutz 1 year ago
A nice attempt to avoid the all so many more clues and evidences by showing questionable and unverifiable speculation of a few pieces of evidence.
Science is a continuous improvement plan of knowledge.
Dr J's plan is accepting creation and then attempting to disprove any disagreement with it. The creationist plan does not improve knowledge.
A shame he has abandoned truth for faith.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
There has been such a lot of lies and cover up by people pro to Evolutions that it would make your head spin. The facts are that those skulls discovered are just Apes.
sangstar1 2 years ago
@sangstar1
That is correct. But then again, we are also apes, so that works out nicely, doesn't it?
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo That it does with a little help from the Annunaki to bring our human evolution to were we are now.
sangstar1 1 year ago
@sangstar1
Sumerian gods? Oh that's a new one. I'm excited, tell me more. :-)
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
I have a choice.
With evolution I die.
With Jesus I live.
HHhmmmmm...
bigd522524 2 years ago
@bigd522524 Wrong, you will die.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The funny thing is you are basing your reasoning around ideals and "scientific thought" that are 2000 years old. 500 years ago you would have thought the world was flat and the universe rotates aroudn the earth. Fact of the matter is, new evidence and data about our world are discovered every day and to not learn and grow from these new discoveries is absolutely a shame. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but a mind blinded by faith and selfishness unwilling to grow is a terrible waste.
Aaandy03 2 years ago
agree 100 %
Debesukaleejs 2 years ago
I'm stupid? I'm not the one basing my life around a book written 1800 years ago about a zombie. Modern science was begun partially by christian scientists so what? They did scientific work which... watch out! Found evidence of evolution. There are too many proofs that evolution is real and is currently happening today that no man of reason could refuse it. If you'd like I can post some. But go on about your zombie Christ and your "the world is 6,000 years old." Ha, morons.
Aaandy03 2 years ago
@Aaandy03 the book wasn't written 1800 years ago, Genesis through Deuteronomy was written by Moses, LONG before Jesus came to existence. Each of the other old testament books were recorded by scribes and other people such as David, Solomon, Samuel, etc. All before Jesus. The New Testament was written after Christ. The Old Testament and New Testament were combined 1800 years ago.
mijamz 2 years ago
@mijamz You are right, men wrote the bible, old testament befor and old testament way after Jesus. Then men chose the ones that support a religion.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@mijamz That was absolute nonsense . You have ZERO evidence for those statements. There is no historical evidence that Moses or Noah ever existed , so how do you know what they wrote ? It is true some of the writings of the Old Testament were around long before Jesus "lived" , which of course there is no record of , but you cannot say when or by whom they were written .
MindofaJedi 9 months ago
??? I am pretty sure Jesus' existence is confirmed in numerous writings. You have ZERO evidence that they didn't exist so your argument is futile.
mijamz 9 months ago
@MindofaJedi "It is true some of the writings of the Old Testament were around long before Jesus "lived" , which of course there is no record of....."
Are you kidding? What you are saying is ridiculous,saying there is no RECORD of Jesus is as silly as saying there is no record for all of history.I guess you must believe that, unless YOU see something with your own eyes it never happened or never existed,so everything that happened before your birth is suspect and probably not true.
CBALLEN 6 months ago in playlist Dr. G. Charles Jackson
@CBALLEN Nope , you are 100% incorrect . The book of John was written between 100-125 A.D. as were Luke , and Matthew. Even Baptist seminary students are now taught this. So there are ZERO eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the Bible. There are stories passed down for about a century. ZERO Romans, the worlds most literate people at that time, wrote about Jesus during his lifetime. Thie first mention of Jesus was by Josephus in about 60 AD , and he called him "the so called Christ".
MindofaJedi 6 months ago
Another all knowing Atheist so sure there is no God that he call call everyone else ignorant. You are not fit to polish this mans shoes. Your just a bitter little know it all that either needs to grow up or never grew up. Because if you have, you would have realized that no one KNOWS!!! for sure. So all we have left are opinions. So why you acting like you KNOW the ultimate truth? Are you a liar or just a student of liars? All we can say for sure is evolutionists can't be trusted.
easymoney4ever 2 years ago
How dare this ignorant creationist use modern day information to support his claims. They have been ignoring modern data for years because they show without a reasonable doubt how evolution is true. Funny how he is using science which is deeply rooted and based on evolution to refute science. Darwin didn't have it all right, we know this, and have adapted our theory of evolution because of new information being learned on the topic.
Aaandy03 2 years ago
@Aaandy
you're stupid.
the beginning of modern science was begun by christian scientist.
Dont be stupid a mind is a terrible thing to waste
EXDEMWIT 2 years ago
@Aaandy03 notice you have to adapt the theory, whereas the Bible's acount of creation has never changed in all the thousands of years it's been around.
mijamz 2 years ago
Weak Point. Shout Loud. This dude needs to go back to school. read "Relics of Eden" dude.
infidelguy 2 years ago
Evolutionist Need to read the bible. it has all the proof we need =]
TenderLovinTeague 2 years ago
Systematic101. You are right. But it does make one think.
Elestareus 3 years ago
when are creationists going to get it. disproving a theory does not prove another theory. It's possible that both sides are right, creation is right and evolutions is wrong, evolution is right and creation is wrong, and both are wrong.
systematic101 3 years ago
thats so true. I dont care how smart this Marilyn lady is, but I guess she's good at twisting things. An opinion can be defended with rational arguments, but it still continues to be an opinion. It all exists in perspective
Dennio83 3 years ago
IQ means nothing, it's what you do with information in your life that makes you intelligent and that is usually based on your circumstance.
AscensionSeries 3 years ago
"..if we can't figure out what it's doing, it must not be doing anything." -Dolt with the mic.
Ironic how they eventually found out LATER ON that there were function to these sequences of DNA.
THIS is what science is about. We continually improve what we know. If we were to just say: Oh, God made it all perfect as is, there's no point to researching this aspect of science.
Then we'd never learn anything new. We question our origins, so we pick apart mechanisms for genesis of life.
Konkaver 3 years ago
Konkaver, I agree with what you said, but I should point out something...
The Bible never says that there's no point to researching or that we shouldn't learn anything new. Actually, there are lots of places in the Bible where God tells His people to seek out knowledge and rebukes people because they are ignorant.
Proverbs 4:5&7
Get wisdom, get understanding; do not forget my words or swerve from them ... Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.
Barrikor 3 years ago
And seeking out knowledge is what scientists have done. Yet religious fanatics constantly persecute those who try their damned hardest to support evolution and other scientific fields. Most scientists are not out to "disprove" the existence of the Christian God, why would you play with religious rights when your academic reputation is on the line? This is why it's so difficult to find scientists to attend debates, save for the few who throw out their own concerns for reputation.
Konkaver 3 years ago
bad.
Konkaver 3 years ago
What a moron! And what a slimy and dishonest bastard! He just "happened to forget" to mention that Marilyn Vos Savant is an atheist.. The lying moron creationists are almost all the same..
winterstellar 3 years ago
you were not paying attention==he indicate she was a non-believer. probably agnostic.
gerry37g 3 years ago
This video displays some reprehensible, yet common tactics used by creationists. This guy used a poorly constructed strawman to tear down in front of the "congregation".
Vestigial does not imply uselessness as claimed in the video. Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have lost all or most of their ORIGINAL FUNCTION in a species through evolution.
Since the first argument in this video is a blatant lie, the rest of the series credibility is completey shot.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
evolutionists always nitpick words and definitions and completely miss the whole point.
The organs have always had the same function and have not evolved.
gerry37g 3 years ago
"The organs have always had the same function and have not evolved."
What is the purpose of stress induced goosebumps?
Why do humans have ear muscles?
Why do some asexual plants produce flowers?
Why do blind mole rats have eyes?
What is the purpose of pelvic bones in boas and pythons?
Why do some female moths have wings if they cannot fly?
You've got some splainin' to do...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago 2
That's because creationists don't understand what they are saying.
How can you have a "scientific" discution when the guy you are talking to just speak nonesense.
The "whole" point is missed if all the points are missed because you don't know what you are talking about
atomusk2015 3 years ago
This guy's voice is so annoying that I'd rather go to hell than be in heaven with him.
andrewkennedymusic 3 years ago
um excuse me rockondon9 when i was in highschool i was tought by my biology teachers, Yes teachers because i took more than one course. I was tought that vestigial parts surve absolutley no purpose. None, they have no function and are completely pointless. Oh and may i mention that my teachers were the OPPOSITE of creationists. So what your preposing is that evolutionists are also morons and are spreading lies out of ignorance. Or is this just a biast view you have towards creationists??
youngscientist18 3 years ago
Thats why you can't really trust teacher's below the college level. Most of them don't know what the fuck they're talking about. When I got into college I learned that a lot of the things I was taught (and not just in science) were untrue.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
I see where you are coming from massdeicide but where do you think highschool biology teachers are tought there information? Answere, there college profesers. What i was simply trying to say is that it is pointless for people like rockondon9 to jump to assumptions and name calling due to someones faith or beliefs. For a example saying someone does not "know shit" cause they are a "fundy ignorant christian." to say someone is unknowledgable cause their faith is obserd. see where im coming from?
youngscientist18 3 years ago
"It is not a tail, it never develops into a tail"
You are wrong.
There's human babies born with fully functional controlable tails.
Paulginz 3 years ago
It is their spine which before the become a fetus their spine is outside their body(Lumbar-Coccyx) and if it doesn't mature correctly then the child will be born with something called "Spina-Befida" which is basically when the spine is protruding out of the newborns body either from the Cervical area or the Lumbar and in rare circumstances it protrudes out of the Coccyx.
NewbernFireDept 3 years ago
Sure, there's spina bifida.
But there's also, (very very rarely) actual tails, with extra vertebrae etc.
However, I think the mainstream explanation is that it's a developmental problem (like polydactyl), not a result of vestigial DNA.
Anyway, how can you dismiss all the genetic evidence for common ancestry?
Why do chickens have genes for teeth, and we have genes for egg yolk, and some mammals have "internal temporary eggs"?
Paulginz 3 years ago
The tails are spina befida which grows out of the skin from the coccyx area. When the baby moves, the spine moves, thus giving off the impression of a tail. And to answer your final question, it is called "Microevolution"
NewbernFireDept 3 years ago
Don't tell me you are going to use that "micro-evolution but not macro-evolution" crap. There is no difference in the mechanisms for micro and macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is just a lot of micro-evolution. You can't believe in one and not the other.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
Because I considered them both the same because alot of creationist believe in it. Evolution is real, that isn't a lie, but the ONLY evolutions(in my opinion) is Macroevolution and Micro.
NewbernFireDept 3 years ago
Um, ok, I'll agree with that.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
"but the ONLY evolutions(in my opinion) is Macroevolution and Micro."
I don't understand... so you accept for example that humans descend from primates and that whales descend from quadrupeds etc?
There's evolution, if you really insist, you can make a distinction between small timescales (microevolution) and large timescales (macro)... but yes, I don't see any OTHER possible categories (medium-timescale-evolution?).
Please clarify your position, I thought you were a creationist.
Paulginz 3 years ago
I was just going along with him. My beliefe stands on microevolution(or micro-evolution, etc). For instance, Dogs, cats, fruits, etc. There are different brands and breeds, that doesn't actually mean they evolved, but I do believe that Wild dogs and wild cats were domesticated and so were their broods then their young picked up their traits then there were cross-breeding. You get what I'm saying right?
NewbernFireDept 3 years ago
Evolution is what allows breeding. It's just Artificial Selection instead of Natural Selection.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
I get where you're coming from.
NewbernFireDept 3 years ago
That guy is trying to dicredit science by telling us that it has made progress, as if science as a method is wrong just because it's refined over time.
Just be glad science *is* what it is. If science was founded on the same principles as religion there would be no room for refinement.
Gameboygenius 3 years ago
The guy is making everyone in the room dumber... but, it looks like the room is a church of some sort, so I guess they're used to it.
PoJonez 3 years ago
And I know that Creationists like myself come few and far between but I seriously could care less what you believe in because everybody is entitles to their beliefs. I don't believe in having to live a perfect life, to me, all I need to do is accept christ. I live a pretty sinful life- I cuss, I lust, I have pre-maritial sex, I have talked about people behind their backs. If you're a evolutionist or a humanist then more power to ya; I have nothing against you and I hope you feel the same to me.
NewbernFireDept 3 years ago
Anyone who thinks 'vestigial' means 'useless' or 'not being used' is a complete moron. Deceit, lies, ignorance, all the things we expect from creationists. Jesus would be ashamed
rockondon9 3 years ago
he is talking about how our abdominal muscles are attatched to your coccyx please listen and dont jump to conclusions that the guys is an idiot.
youngscientist18 3 years ago
your abdominals originate from the illium (or is it ischium?) of your PELVIS not the coccyx
fangorn23 3 years ago
It is funny, many of you are saying vestigial parts does not mean left over parts that arent used. The reason i find this funny is that every biology class i have takin every teacher i have had said our vestigial parts are unused completely usless left-overs from past ancestors. And that they are just there because natural selection forgot to and or did not remove them. So why is it that you are trying to change the meaning of a word to fit your theory?
youngscientist18 3 years ago
They know longer serve all or most of their ORIGINAL purpose, they may still serve a minor purpose. Most do serve no purpose at all though.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
uhhh, Try sitting down without your coccyx, better yet, try bending over without your coccyx. HINT- you won't be able to because you wouldn't be able to sit up straight and after you bend over you would be stuck bent over.
NewbernFireDept 3 years ago
What's your point?
MassDeicide 3 years ago
Because we need our coccyx. We need our Apendix when we are young. You may have some points, but when evolutionists or humanists say that our vestigial parts serve no purpose. For one, we don't know that IF we evolved than if those parts served the same purpose they do now, and if that is the case then that debunks part of the evolution theory(depending on which what you believe in). Secondly, you do not know what their initial or past use was for. I am a Creationist but I keep a open mind
NewbernFireDept 3 years ago
The coccyx still serves secondary functions as a muscle attachment, but no longer assists in its original function: to provide balance and mobility. That is why it is vestigial. Human embryos actually have a tail but lose it when they develop into a fetus.
MassDeicide 3 years ago 2
It provides balance and mobility. Thats the point. If evolution was real then it woulndn't serve the same purpose as it does now. The "tail" you are referring to is what is called "spina-bifida" which if it doesn't grow corectly the pressure of the coccyx will force the spine to grow outside of the body(back)in the area of the Lumbar area or the lower Cervical areas. This scenario almost always ends up in death to the infant. The tail you are referring is the coccyx spine(tailbone).
NewbernFireDept 3 years ago
I don't know what Dr. J. is smoking , but it ain't evolution.
TMTGAU 3 years ago
As much as I've commented, I don't think I've really addressed the video. Dr. J clearly does not know the meaning of the word Vestigial. He thinks it means organs that no longer serve ANY function due to evolution. It doesn't.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
Never a truer word.
AND he has an annoying voice.
revilo314 3 years ago
No, eternal life doesn't sound too appealing. Things have to die. Some people just can't accept that.
Show me how faith does anything but give hope to pessimistic people. People who can't see the beauty of life and nature without having to attach something supernatural to it. Faith is not a virtue. It's a cop-out.
p.s. taking bible quotes and twisting them to what you want them to mean is not proof of creationism.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
This video made me lol! The guy is just so dumb and uneducated, it's hard to listen to him and keep a straight face.
kkirT 3 years ago
let me pose a question to all evolutionist out there. please dont write some smart remark because i am serious about this next question. As it is said evolution is always changing right The answer I always hear is that since evolutionist find more and more information,etc.. They have to expand the time or change stuff around. Since this is true how come you believe something that will always be continuously changing.
xbrakx 3 years ago
Nobody is saying that all parts of the evolutionary theory as they stand right now are %100 accurate. We go with the evidence. And if some evidence could show that we are all wrong we'll change our minds. Science is not faith. We have the option of changing our minds based on evidence.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
let me ask you something if i said i knew a way that you could have eternal life would you be willing to look into it. google search or youtube search proof of prophecy this is a major evidence for God but the bible teaches that we should live by faith. through faith we obtain understanding of how the world works. we also learn that we (mankind) will not have an understanding of how everything came to be
xbrakx 3 years ago
If you said that you knew a way I could have eternal life, I would want to know how to avoid it.
If I were to live eternally, I would do everything, then do everything again, and again, and again, and again, and I would eventually get bored. And not just any boredom. I would suffer a boredom that could only get worse. I would suffer a boredom that would make me want to go to Hell simply because it would give me something to interesting do.
If I die, I want all of my conscious thought to END.
markermage 3 years ago
The essence of science is constant improvement. The age of the earth or whatever decreases in estimation as much as it increases. This is because of repeated readings of it's age.
Newton's laws are wrong. They make sense to believe in though as they are true for macroscopic systems. Einsteinian Relativity replaced these laws and gives slightly different values. Are you seriously saying that the scientists who derive these laws are less trustworthy than the bible?
revilo314 3 years ago
Dr.J is an ignoramus. His argument is not existent. His thesis is "since we don't have a time machine, science can't provide any incite on how things in the past happened." He has done very little research on so called "junk" DNA. He is data mining and engaging in a dishonest attack. I protest to him calling himself a doctor. I challenge him to put his credentials in his profile.
dlhitch2007 3 years ago
Gen.1
[21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
seaneire 3 years ago
no species has ever gave birth to another species. EVER.
seaneire 3 years ago
Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)
markermage 3 years ago
Not quite man if you have a KJV bible look at Genesis 7:8;21-23 these passages tells us that Noah was not told by God to bring fish nor bugs/insects for that matter insects breathe through there skin not there nostrils Genesis 7:22
xbrakx 3 years ago
Evolution does not work that way. Stop trying to argue against something you know nothing about.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
looks like he knows quite a bit to me XD
xbrakx 3 years ago
looks like he knows quite a bit to me XD
xbrakx 3 years ago
it pretty much is dude and believe me im not trying to make you mad but i do care about people getting saved so they dont go to hell
xbrakx 3 years ago
I don't get what you're saying here.
What pretty much is what?
MassDeicide 3 years ago
this video is pretty much all fact
xbrakx 3 years ago 2
Except for what he calls vestigial. Vestigial things aren't necessarily unused. They are just left-over.
revilo314 3 years ago
lol
mattfox06 3 years ago
Why is it that people must see things in black and white? Why must people blieve in God OR evolution? When the world we share is so full of vivid colour, why waste the chance to appreciate such a beautiful picture?
Evolution is a scientific hypothesis, created by SCIENTISTS, but it does not explain the full story. That's where the Good Book comes in!
Those who claim to "disproove God or evolution are lying." All we can do is present evidence. Nobody here has been right yet!!
triedallelse3000 3 years ago
What an idiot. A vestigial organs still have function. They've just lost some/most of their original function.
RealYungMoney 3 years ago
All this guy is doing is chipping at a cliff with a tiny chisel. Evolutionists have waaaay more evidence than the minisatellite ("junk", as he calls them) areas of DNA and useless organs! The similarities between species of different ecosystems for example. Im my opinion, he's trying to spoil the cake of evolution and offer in its place, a biscuit crumb!
The use of the term "evolutionist" is a leading label. How about the less biased term, "scientist"?
triedallelse3000 3 years ago
well evolutionists would be considered scientists except that evolution can not be observed and is scientifically impossible.
seaneire 3 years ago
Where did you get that from?
100+ observed instances of speciation
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/faq-speciation(dot)html
Evolution is also the reason why HIV is still around today.
RealYungMoney 3 years ago
Evolution HAS been observed! I observed it the other day!!!!!!!!
Resistance to antibiotics is a cause of evolution and we are able, in a lab, to cause bacteria to become so via the introduction of a plasmid (transformation).
If I had over 500 characters, I'd explain it all to you.
Stop reading creationalist propaganda and wake up to the truth!
triedallelse3000 3 years ago
yes one type of evolution has been observed.
not the type we are talking about here.
seaneire 3 years ago
You stupid fucktard. There is just a one type of evolution: THE REAL ONE! There is only differences in the scale.
nomoredelusions 3 years ago
message I just recieved from...
MassDeicide
"The pope has already stated he believed in evolution. So don't put up to big of a fight, ok? You're on the wrong side."
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA
HE ACTUALLY THINKS THE POPE HAS ANY AUTHORITY OVER WHAT CHRIST DISCIPLES THINK!!!!!
HAHAHA
no seriously...the "pope" aka joseph ratzinger....has zero authority. He is nobody to me....never will be, nor will any "pope" ever....catholicism is antichrist to the core.
I trust in Jesus Christ alone
seaneire 3 years ago
This guy's web page kind of says it all..
"1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge."
After you say things like that, prepare to be ridiculed. This guy is just a joke. It's an insult against real scientist that this charlatan uses "Dr" before his name.
nomoredelusions 3 years ago
Thanks VFX for the links to these informative videos.
dingorex 3 years ago
great video. destroys many of yesterdays 'proofs' of the secular sadism called evolutionism.
dingorex 3 years ago
It's time you people realized that bible is just a bad piece of fiction.
nomoredelusions 3 years ago
And btw. this video is utter nonsense and just an obvious piece of creationist propaganda.
I'm tired hearing this phrase "believe in evolution"! For christs sake, there is nothing to believe in evolution. It's a scientific fact and it's not a matter of belief or disbelief! You either understand it or you don't. You can debate it, but you have to be able to back up your arguments. And no, you can't cry about bible saying this and that.
nomoredelusions 3 years ago
If it is propaganda what incorrect statements did he make in it? Thanks
sunnsu 3 years ago
500 characters is way too little for clarifying that.. About every statement he makes is untruthful, biased or simply false.
Basicly the whole idea of this video is false. DNA is not a proof against evolution, it's one of the greatest proofs for it, while it clearly shows that all life share a same beginning and a common ancestor.
Sunnsu, I recommend that you read any basic level book about evolution and scientific method in generally.
nomoredelusions 3 years ago
Who died and make you rule maker????
Psalm 34:18 The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
dingorex 3 years ago
seaneire, no reasonable person would debate venomfangx. Venom is a very delusional guy with absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He is just making the same logical fallacies over and over again in his videos.
It's not lack of courage, it's just that thunderf00t doesn't want to waste his time in doing something not useful at all.
I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't be interested to debate someone who thinks that earth is flat or something equally ridiculous.
nomoredelusions 3 years ago
aha! this guy rocks!!!
triedallelse3000 3 years ago
there is a guy on youtube called
VENOMFANGX
he has a series of videos called
SATAN INVENTED EVOLUTION
it is a good series.
seaneire 3 years ago
There is a guy on youtube called
Thunderf00t
He has a series of videos called
Why do people laugh at creationists?
It is a good series.
Thunderf00t also allows people to make negative comments as well as positive comments on his videos, unlike VenomFangX who has to approve a comment before it will show up and will even block people who disagree with him.
If he wants to tell me why I'm wrong about evolution, he should allow me to tell him why his arguments are wrong.
markermage 3 years ago
thundefOOt
he's the guy who recently and cowardly refused to have a debate with venomfangX
ya I've heard of that coward.
I don't blame VFX for disallowing messages, I think it is a wise move.
for instance you and your sidekick have probablt left close to 50 messages on this video, yet not ONE of them offers any proof of evolution.....you just like to argue and yap alot
why would VFX want evolutionists spamming his comments?
seaneire 3 years ago
Actually, I believe that VenomFangX is scared.
VFX had offered to debate. Thunderfoot assumed that VFX wanted to debate about the most noticeable conflict between the two of them, which would be their views on biological evolution and what creationists see as an alternative to it. However, VFX replied to TF's latest video saying that he doesn't want to debate those things, but wants to debate theology instead. He is scared to debate with TF on the subject of evolution.
markermage 3 years ago
As for why he would want evolutionists spamming his comments...
The final truth will have no contradictions and at least one piece of supporting evidence. By having comments that point out the contradictions, lies can be separated from truth, leading to that final truth. The people that are most likely to search for those contradictions will be the ones who believe the truth to be a lie.
markermage 3 years ago
Oh, and I remember sending you a message that contains the url of a website that includes a list of proof of evolution.
markermage 3 years ago
Thunderfoot allows negative comments, it is evolutionists on that page that censor for him by spamming replys with a "thumbs down" until it no longer shows. How is that different?
sunnsu 3 years ago
You need only click on the word "show" to see the negative comments on Thunderf00t's videos. VFX doesn't allow any comments that conflict with what he had said, whether true or not.
markermage 3 years ago 2
It's funny, not only does seaneire not understand evolution, he doesn't even understand his own objections to it.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
watch?v=CGrvp-8oDok
seaneire 3 years ago
And how does disproving the big bang disprove evolution?
Evolution is the theory about a process that life goes through, not an origin of life or of the universe.
Even if God made the universe and the first life forms, it is still possible that he also made evolution so that those life forms could create an even greater diversity of life forms.
markermage 3 years ago
the video was the 1st in a series...which disproves evolution....
k gotta go....bye
seaneire 3 years ago
Actually, the difference between theory and law is that a law can be made into a mathematical equation, thus allowing us to apply the one science that everyone agrees is a universal truth to it, mathematics.
Even the fact that two masses are pulled together by a force that we call "gravity" is a scientific theory rather than a scientific law. The law of gravity is that thing that has all the mathematical symbols but has letters instead of numbers in it.
markermage 3 years ago
Show me one piece of evidence against evidence that holds water. You can't, because you are scientifically illiterate. You just believe it's false because preachers told you it is.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
I have never had a preacher tell me anything about evolution. I don't attend a church.
interesting assumption.
Do your own research....
seaneire 3 years ago
I only watched the first part of the video, realised the guy who made this video has as much credibility as a dog trying to conduct a world-class lecture about astrophysics.
AddANumberToThis 3 years ago
Dude, do me a favor. Go to google. Type in bombardier beetle design. Read the first article. Read other ones to if you like. But PLEASE, do some god damn research. You sound like this:
"I don't understand evolution! What you say makes no sense to me! So you must be dumb!"
You're just making a straw-man of evolutionary theory and arguing against your own straw-man.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
No you just mad because you're not making sense. I can bring up countless examples, that make the whole "Evolving" concept look like a joke. Granted, yes I do believe that a animals body may adapt slightly to the environment(like gaining body mass for cold environments,) but to say that a entirely new species evolved from a different species is just stupid. The variables for something like that to happen are astronomical. Face it you're just giving evolution too much credit.
UAshurik 3 years ago
*yawn* didn't do that research did ya? Let's face it, until you actually read up on evolution how can you even know what you're saying isn't total bullcrap? I'm not saying there aren't any decent arguments presented against the current evolutionary theory. I'm just saying your arguments are a straw-man because you don't know what you're talking about.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
"if we cant figure out what it does, it must not do anything"...
lmao i love it...
dmix09 3 years ago
"deja vu to 1932...thats what i say about this...these guys need to get a clue"
wow....this guys an idiot. he forgot to mention that the existence of functions for j-DNA does nothing to debunk evolution. i.e. his 9 mins 39 secs of rant was utterly pointless....but entertaining. smart stupid ppl are amusing.
aehaynes 4 years ago
You know what's really sad? When a jackass gets on stage and starts pointing his little discount laser at a screen like he knows the opposite end of his head from his ass.
An opinion is one thing, but a theory is not just a magical guess like everything in the bible. A theory is something that has been proven to be extremely plausible through many negative and positive tests and even undergone criticism, and then finally debated and agreed upon by a group of experts in the sad field.
rba718 4 years ago
And you think that blanks in knowledge give you permission to jump to conclusions? I assume that YOU know your head from your ass. Right? Just by going along with natural selection, it means that apes should have either evolved to humans or gone extinct. So how do you explain that? When did it become beneficial to not be able to grab things with your feet? Why does the human body not regenerate lost limbs, like many crustaceans? Isn't that an evolutionary advancement?
UAshurik 3 years ago
UAshurik, don't embarrass yourself. If you're going to try and argue science, try to know what you're talking about. First, Humans ARE apes, and the other apes today are NOT our ancestors, we evolved from a common ancestor. And a lot of original species have been shown to live on after a species evolved anyway.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
If it did learn to mix and eject the chemicals before exploding, how did it reproduce? This means that it had to find the same beetle with the same mutation(that has not exploded,) of the opposite sex, and it had to do this before it died. There are just WAY too many factors for this to be possible. So, MasDecide, quit trying to be a smartass. You sound really stupid.
UAshurik 3 years ago
I sound stupid? You're still mouthing off like you know what you're talking about. A bombardier beetle didn't mutate a combustion chamber in one day. Evolution does not work that way! Its small steps, and over hundreds, thousands, millions of years for things evolve. One organism doesn't evolve into a new species by itself on its own in its own life span. Please, PLEASE, read book on evolution. One written by a scientist. Try to find out what evolution is before you argue against it.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
So you're saying that this bug lived for hundreds, tould it housands, millions of years with a useless organ? Why the hell would a bug continue to develop an organ that it can't use? Do you hear yourself? You are retarded. Think about it, that useless organ did help it survive, so how the hell did it manage to survive? The more I talk to you. The more I'm convinced that you really are retarded.
UAshurik 3 years ago
continued
UAshiruk:
Your next arguments are hilarious. Evolution doesn't work that way. We don't just automatically evolve things that would help us. To put it very simply: Mutation is random, natural selection keeps the good mutations and weeds out the bad.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
Yet humans are far more advanced from apes. You say that it's because of mutation that species evolve. So how did the bombardier beetle manage to "mutate" a combustion chamber in it's anus? How did it happen to accidentally produce hydroquinones, and hydrogen peroxide? How did it "mutate" the reservoirs for these chemicals, and how did it figure out that enzymes were needed? How did it learn to mix these chemicals, and how much to mix? How did it not explode from the reaction of the chemicals?
UAshurik 3 years ago
Vulgar language huh? You amuse me.
I guess the bible never taught you how sad the truth can be did it.
Take your preaching nonsense and shove it up back up your ass.
rba718 3 years ago
technically if you don't believe in any kind of creator or universal "force" you can't believe in anything being "wrong"... like "vulgar" language.
words are but the means to meaning -V
anonazero 3 years ago
Not true. If something is beneficial to yourself or society, it is right. If it is detrimental it is wrong. For example, murder is wrong because if it was legal to just kill anyone, society would most likely fall.
Rational thought is a much better tool for moral judgement than superstition or doctrine.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
i see no reason why filthy language should be logically considered wrong.
anonazero 3 years ago
Me neither.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
someone commented on vulgar language, i guess it wasn't you.
on another note, whats best for the species is for the strongest/smartest to survive. i'm sure you'll agree there.
so why is it so instinctive for the majority to protect the weak in humanity?
anonazero 3 years ago
does the legality of murder have any influence on whether people murder?
society IS falling because we have lost our faith and belief/trust in God Almighty!
did our conscience evolve or did we always have it?
if it evolved how come people are continuously inventing more powerful killing machines?
If we are evolving how come the media glorifies murder,sex,drugs,war,hate,adultery,homosexuality,violence- we (society) are getting worse and following satan/science.
seaneire 3 years ago
You seemed to be confused and think biological evolution means moral evolution. Its doesn't.
Look, people have always killed each other, people probably always will, God or no God, faith or no faith. But we already tried the Christian way (Dark Ages) and it didn't work out too well. People always like to say our morals are getting worse but in reality, they don't realize how bad it was. If you wanna good idea of how ethical society was under Christian rule, look at the middle east now.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
"does the legality of murder have any influence on whether people murder?"
The fact that murder is illegal means that people are punished for doing it, which provides people with more reason to keep from doing it. Most places have punishments for murder that help prevent the murderer from being able to commit another murder either temporarily or permanently.
So yes, the legality of murder does indeed have influence on whether people murder.
markermage 3 years ago
so says you...
seaneire 3 years ago
"society IS falling because we have lost our faith and belief/trust in God Almighty!"
Society had fallen even worse back in the dark ages when we had complete faith and belief/trust in God Almighty.
"did our conscience evolve or did we always have it?"
It must have evolved.
"if it evolved how come people are continuously inventing more powerful killing machines?"
Because we still feel a need to protect our territory from others, just like many animals do.
markermage 3 years ago
so says you....
the dark ages? lol
"WE" NEVER EVER EVER HAD COMPLETE FAITH IN GOD...."WE" AS A PEOPLE HAVE NEVER FOLLOWED THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST.
not many have ever truly had faith in our God and Creator...
seaneire 3 years ago
only people living in constant fear feel the need to be able to annihilate, kill, and destroy....
people who fear death and DO NOT know God try to protect the life they live....and the people who create wmd's want to depopulate and especially kill off those who have no fear.
Pss.27
[1] The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
seaneire 3 years ago
"only people living in constant fear feel the need to be able to annihilate, kill, and destroy....
people who fear death and DO NOT know God try to protect the life they live....and the people who create wmd's want to depopulate and especially kill off those who have no fear."
Then why did Christians feel the need to go to another country to kill people during the Crusades?
markermage 3 years ago
shows your lack of knowledge of who true Christians are
seaneire 3 years ago
"shows your lack of knowledge of who true Christians are"
Just as you have shown your lack of what true science is.
markermage 3 years ago
interesting.....show me where my understanding lacked....and I will acknowledge it.
seaneire 3 years ago
You believe that science is all about helping Satan, correct?
If we see the laws of science as the laws of the natural world that God had created, then scientific study can be seen as an attempt to better understand God, by studying the one thing that he made directly, the natural world.
The Bible may have been written by mortal hands (no matter how much they were guided by God), but the natural world and the laws that govern it are things we can say were made by God and God alone.
markermage 3 years ago
"You believe that science is all about helping Satan, correct?"
incorrect.
seaneire 3 years ago
Then from where did that "we (society) are getting worse and following satan/science" come from?
markermage 3 years ago
that was something I typed...
"we" (society) are Not following God.
evolution is considered "science" though it is false.
another invention of satan to bring men further from truth.
I see where my post could have been misunderstood...I apologize for the lack of clarity.
God bless you
seaneire 3 years ago
Actually it hasn't been proven to be false. And in a way, the existence of evolution shows just how perfect God is.
If the natural world was made by a perfect god, then that perfect god would have made it in a way that it would never need to be fixed by that god. Evolution tells us that any problems that come up with the life that God created will eventually solve themselves, thus life does not reach a point where it becomes so broken that God needs to fix it.
markermage 3 years ago
interesting opinion.
I totally disagree and I do believe evolution has been proven without a shadow of a doubt to be false...
but you are entitled to your opinion.
-also by your logic "a perfect god" obviously isn't perfect in your view because that "perfect god" that you envision has made a mistake that would need to be fixed thus imperfection...
2Sam.22
[31] As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
seaneire 3 years ago
I tried replying to this comment earlier, but my reply seems to have not shown up.
There is a list of creationist claims at talkorigin which takes claims against evolution and counters them. Even the claims that this video makes can be found on that list along with counter arguments.
markermage 3 years ago
see...what you don't understand is that God has revealed Himself to me.
I trust in God and His Word.
I have done research into evolution and I know it to be false...
so it doesn't matter how many counter arguments you present.
Google: disproving evolution with science
seaneire 3 years ago
I see. You choose to be blind.
"Google: disproving evolution with science"
I did. Just a few articles with really old long since debunked creationist arguments and some articles actually supporting evolution.
MassDeicide 3 years ago
as the website I sent to your mailbox says
"While Creationists are able to present a multitude of scientific evidences (such as are found in this present book), evolutionists can only reply with ridicule and efforts to stifle discussion"
seaneire 3 years ago