How did an atom so tiny that it cannot even be seen, explode into billions upon billions upon billions of pounds or whatever of matter in our universe, that formed rock which we now call planets? How can an atom even if it exploded become matter, rocks, and planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, souls, spirits?
Not one astrophysicist thinks this Peanut. You are arguing from misconceptions about science. So sorry you have listened to and bought into creationist drivel. :-(
@infidelguy Wow! Genius. Your answer really explained how an atom tinier than anything known to us exploded into rock which we now call planets. And you certainly explained how that atom exploded into planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, our minds, souls and spirits.
The wicked or "atheists" profess to despise religion, and many really do; but their consciences tell them that religion is a good thing. In times of trial they will sooner trust Christians than others. In sickness and death they are often glad to see them and hear them pray, and desire the comfort which they have.
Huh? Now you are making stuff up to make yourself happy. Instead, why don't you conduct an experiment and poll atheists about what they think, instead of you creating a fantasy in your head.
@infidelguy Wow! Genius. Your answer really explained how an atom tinier than anything known to us exploded into rock which we now call planets. And you certainly explained how that atom exploded into planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, our minds, souls and spirits.
Creationists, doth thou believe'st in magic tricks? for you believe in magical unicorns that sprinkle pixie dust over the world in order to create all of us.
And if god were to exist, why would he make me atheist? and dont say he gave us free will, the story behind god and free will is the last time god gave man free will, the crusades broke out.
Then the 2nd law doesnt permit the universe to be wound up. And if it was wound up it would need to be much more complex in the beginning than it was now.
The odds are more like 1 in 10^3,000,000 and those odds grow with the reproduction of another human. And with the maintaenance of a human, IOW that we dont die out
“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.
@Zaunstar...... It is absolutely the arguement YOU claim yourself for evolution. And then you are going to say it is priceless comedy and a bad arguement? Touche' my friend!...now you can see how ridiculous you sound with your evolution theory using the same arguement. hee hee
@misspeanut100 Scientists say that life should spring from peanut butter? Really? Please cite the scientist that EVER claimed that peanut butter contains what is needed for life! Hahhah!
@Zaunstar I did not say a scientist said life springs from peanut butter. Evolution teaches that energy such as lightning or heat PLUS matter can create new life...
@misspeanut100 Under very specific circumstances, yes. Peanut butter doesn't meet those circumstances, and nobody says that they do. Yet, because it doesn't, you say it's an argument AGAINST evolution. Of course, that argument is about abiogenesis anyway, and not evolution. If you understood science better, you would know that. I am actually shocked that you really think the peanut butter thing is actually credible. Almost no creationists use that argument because they know it's silly.
@Zaunstar Ok, then just tell me how an atom tinier than anything known to us exploded into rock which we now call planets. Explain how that atom exploded into planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, our minds, souls and spirits.
@Zaunstar Evolution teaches that energy such as lightning or heat PLUS matter can create new life. A jar of peanut butter contains matter and is exposed to light and heat (energy), but we never find new life inside that fresh jar of peanut butter unless an outside life contaminates it. If evolution is true then when we open a fresh jar of peanut butter, occasionally we’ll open one and there SHOULD be new life in that jar. The ENTIRE food industry depends that this “evolution” does NOT happen.
@Zaunstar Wow! Genius. Your answer really explained how an atom tinier than anything known to us exploded into rock which we now call planets. And you certainly explained how that atom exploded into planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, our minds, souls and spirits.
One more question, then I'll leave you alone (because this is clearly going nowhere): What happened to all missing links? Like the ones in between Ape and Human. Why are they not alive? They were clearly superior to Apes, so they have no reason to be gone now.
@joshthelegodude I thought we were making progress, well unless again, evidence doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, then why bother figuring anything out? Just believe what makes you happy, right?
@joshthelegodude 1. They are not necessarily "extinct", any more than the earliest homo sapiens are extinct, though our gene pools are not identical. There is nothing about evolution that would indicate that this should not happen.
2. See my video called "Humanity Needs More Reliable Allies" or something like that.
My point is, why are modern man and lucy still around, but the others in-between, such as Heidelberg, Debraska, Piltdown, and Peking are all gone? With each one superior to the previous, there's no reason for them to disappear from existence.
@joshthelegodude There is no "superior" except in terms of being well-suited for the environment. If the environment changes quicker than they can evolve, then they go extinct, and/or the genes that survive a near-extinction event will end up becoming a separate species. There isn't always a bright line between species. You should really do some more reading on this. I'm sure you are capable of understanding the concepts, but these questions you are asking me are quite basic. Want suggestions?
@joshthelegodude Oh boy. That claim is easy to debunk. See if you can use google to do it. *:-) If you can't find anything, let me know, and I will take a look.
All the "mutations" I found were either not mutations or impossible to prove. Please, debunk it. Don't you dare say something about the peppered moth. Seriously, that would just be fail.
@joshthelegodude That is incorrect. It could be duplicate genetic information (multiple base pairs in the DNA), or it could be a transposing of the information, or it could be deletion of the information. I believe there are one or two other types as well, though they are less common as I recall. All of these things can lead to a change in the organism. Unless every creature could not possibly be any better suited to the environment than they are, then mutations HAVE to sometimes be beneficial.
I was under the impression that mutations were Information-adding event, presumed to have caused changes between species. I totally believe in minor adaptations such as Darwin's finches, but not major changes (Horse to girraffe, Ape to Human, etc.)
@joshthelegodude It's an information CHANGE, not necessarily an addition. So what, in your mind stops a series of minor changes from adding up to a major one? That is what happens. Look at a phylogenetic tree, and that is what you will see. Also, do you understand the last couple sentences of my last comment? That is a very important thing to understand.
I did understand the last two sentences. Some things just don't make sense. Why did people lose 10mph of speed (Usain Bolt peaked around 28mph, while a monkey can easily go 35mph). Why are we not as agile in climbing. Climbing is still useful. It is just beyond why we allegedly lost those traits.
@joshthelegodude We are heavier, but our increased size enables us to better manipulate our environment. I highly recommend you read "Greatest Show on Earth". It will give you a lot of background on the evolution. Sometimes you can only have one trait of two and really have it be helpful. Natural selection decides which is the better fit. You said you understand the finches, well the beaks evolved for a certain type of food, which often would make it harder to get the OTHER type! See?
@joshthelegodude If you know some of your old arguments are not valid, why would you ever use them again? Also, are you actually, earnestly interested in learning about science, or is the belief that evolution is false considered theological bedrock for you, and not subject to change no matter what the evidence?
Well that's why I don't use them. Also, its a mix of both. I learn about how sciences fits into my worldview. Whenever anyone discovers anything new, they ask "How does this fit into my worldview?", so naturally I do to.
@joshthelegodude Until you decide that evidence takes precedence over worldview, you will always be religious. Doesn't mean you are a bad person of course, but it does mean religion will always take precedence, no matter what is shown to be true.
Ok, so how did the human eye evolve? It takes several hundred years for a Cray super-computer to do what the human eye does in a second. It allegedly took 400,000 years for the eye to evolve to something greater than a cray? Unless you stretch the time out to several billion years, I find it just ridiculous. Also, I'm impressed that you're willing to make solid arguments. The last guy I talked to wouldn't stop screaming "PEOPLE WITH PH.D.s ARE SMARTER THAN YOU!". It was obnoxious
@joshthelegodude There are quite a few science shows (also a NOVA if I remember correctly), that talk about this, the evolution of the eye. It is pretty well understood. Seek that out, and tell me if it makes sense to you.
You know whats funny? I would say to you that creationism cant take rational approaches to irrational people it never works, and ud say the same to me lol.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know, but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT EVEN ALL EVOLUTIONISTS agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with fins evolving into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even inheriting a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations that have survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
“VESTIGIAL” A USELESS ARGUMENT: At one time dozens of structures in the human body were considered vestigial until our knowledge about them increased and we realized they weren’t vestigial, after all. It’s now been published that so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk, after all. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@redeemed0204 Okay. Won't contact you after this one. Cower away. We both know you didn't quit because of my vulgarity alone, and that if you showed my PMs nothing would happen. Maybe a warning. Probably not. Because you do know that insulting someone is not a crime right (even less if they started names-calling) ? As long as I don't go after you and troll around for a week or so after you told me to stop I'll have no problem. I know a bit more about legislation than you.
@redeemed0204 2nd part answer: In one message you sent you were litterally jubilating at me having a strong reaction at something you said. When I asked for the exact adress of the web page where Zaunstar was a jerk to you, you answered mockingly, completely ignoring the logic of arguing which I even gave you : YOU make a claim, YOU back it up. Otherwise there's no reason to believe you.
Stop playing the offended because boo-effing-ooh I was vulgar. You were childish, puerile, and mocking.
@redeemed0204 You see this comment shows YOUR immaturity. You believe just because you didn't get vulgar you couldn't have insulted me. You couldn't see past the vulgarity and look at the arguments behind them, greatly because you didn't want to see any argument. You started off by calling Zaunstar a jerk and failed to give evidence of anything, whether of him being so, or my arguments being false, or evolution being false, or creationism being true. You're no better than what you treat me of.
@redeemed0204 Dear, you're a funny specimen. You don't even realize the disrespect you put into your messages. I know, you said never to message you again. But I do think that as long as you keep calling me a troll I have the right to defend myself.
You called Zaunstar a jerk without reason. You insulted me (non-vulgarily but so?) for accepting evolution. Then kept rambling like a nut-job you otherwise don't seem to be. So yes, maybe I shouldn't have been vulgar. But the blame isn't just on me.
@redeemed0204 So this started out by you calling someone I respect a jerk and keeping at it without giving any proof, and then you keep talking to me as though I'm the biggest idiot you've met and giving no evidence for any of your claims all the while disrespecting me, and YOU block ME for being vulgar. You have got to be absolutely kidding me.
@redeemed0204 I'm angry because some creatard dared to insult someone I respect. You keep saying he's a jerk in comments and PMs but you still proved the equivalent of...nothing. Nada, nichts, niente, NOTHING.
And as for your accusation that 'evolutionists' (the term is a good example of your being a creationist idiot, since evolution is not something to believe in but a fact) are nasty and angry, did you consider that the way you adress them might influence their answer ? You get what you give.
@redeemed0204 Him, a jerk ? Ah, alright, you're one of those... Let me explain something : debunking someone's beliefs is NOT being a jerk. That you don't like what one does (debunk creation for him) doesn't mean he/she is a jerk. Because then we would all be jerks to someone no matter how much good we do.
The "what are the chances" argument falls easily. The odds of winning a lottery are very small, yet people win lotteries all the time. You have to consider the number of chances being taken. Tens of millions of lottery tickets are sold for each draw. Likewise, lots and lots of chemical reactions occur naturally that could potentially turn into DNA, RNA, and other building blocks of life. When the number of attempts made significantly outweigh the odds against success, success rules.
Can all these things of this world really happen by chance? Just look at its beauty and how everything has purpose. Why is there good and bad. How do we have a conscience to know these things? Eyesight, hearing, smelling, taste, and feelings of the body and mind. Where does this all come. Did it just evolve out of nothing or was it all designed by a magnificant creator. Please anyone who is in doubt or needs to ask questions send me a message. Im here for you because I was once in your shoes.
@Zaunstar Yes i do know this my friend. I have seen and I have heard the love, and power, and might of our Lord. I would take the guillotine to the neck now instead of deny The One who has saved my life. He is real and he is within all of us. His spirit was poured out on all flesh and its all up to you if you want that spirit to grow inside you. Once you get a taste of this bread you will want nothing else. You will think all things of the past were just a bad dream. He is life brother!
It is a card trick people. real weak argument Weaker than that of the creationists. He claims the odds used by creationists is just like his card trick. A good card trick has a 97% chance of getting the same results every time not the large number he gave you.
Yes this video is all "smoke and mirrors " Imagine any one believing this shit." A card trick to prove odds that he will get those numbers? If it was not a card TRICK then he would be some what right. But he claims he can do it over and over again and get the same results which would obviously lower the odds every time. And get this, the cards are not appearing that way with out An intelligent being doing the card trick.. Then we are talking about intelligent or are we?
@cullet05 Mrs. Zaunstar and I got it in a place that had posters in Willow Grove Mall outside of Philly when we were up there at a friend's wedding several years ago, she just informed me. If you do some google searches on angel and devil or something, you can probably find it.
I"ve been waiting a really long time for just one of the comments you show from creationists to be free from spelling errors. It still hasn't happened. Why are they so prone to this?
Creationists need to actually study what humanity has discovered before even attempting to argue with us. They maybe book smart and did well in school, but when it comes to scientific discoveries, they DON'T KNOW SHIT!
And unlike your assertion that energy came from the big bang, the energy had to have been input for there to have been a big band.. A bullet does not go off unless energy, in the form of a firing pin striking the shell is what sets off the explosion. So that still leaves my initial question. Where did that initial energy come from? I want an answer. Not I dont know. You know for a fact that God does not exist and thus evolution is gospel truth. Tell me then where did it come from?
@130bigdreamer Don't tell me "I don't know"? Um, we don't know for sure where the original matter came from. What "initial energy" created the invisible god that we can't sense or measure in any way? You don't know. You just wish really hard.
@Zaunstar You just stated that you "don't know for sure where the original matter comes from", yet you are the one accusing us of 'wishing.' Not knowing, but saying it can't be from a Creator is the same thing as us saying that a Creator designed and put everything into motion; it's called faith, and that's the only thing we seem to have in common.
When it comes to the source of the matter, that's where we differ, yet you've made it very clear that you have no intention of even considering the notion that you just might be wrong. You are so desperate to be right, out of sheer arrogance nonetheless, that you have resorted again to implying that anyone who believes in a Creator is, for better words, an idiot. That is a typical atheist's last stand when he has been backed into a corner with the truth and he has nothing left to say.
Your feathers have been ruffled, but why if evolution is true? Both jgalvin21 and I have not insulted you. If evolution is true, then what we say shouldn't be considered a threat to your belief system. I don't consider you to be a threat to my belief system, because I know where I stand. Your faith seems to be lacking, otherwise you would have been able to give both of us straight answers to our questions without implying anything about our intelligence (or lack thereof.)
I do hope, for your sake, though, that you are right. I mean, wouldn't it be a little depressing to die and find out that, not only were you wrong, but that the people you chose to demean and insult were right? However, even though we disagree about a lot, I have enjoyed this debate for two reasons: 1) It reaffirms my faith of why I believe what I believe, and 2) It reaffirms my belief that jgalvin21 and I have a good start to our upcoming marriage (did I mention we're engaged?)
And if you decide to continue producing videos insulting Creationists and their intelligence and make mention of us by mocking our beliefs and/or intelligence, it wouldn't bother us; it would only prove, however, that you really do have nothing of relevence to talk about.
So, to end a rather long post, good day, and good night.
@130bigdreamer Demean? I don't think I've demeaned anyone. Congrats. I've been married 10 years, and if you're a good match, it will be just as happy as my marriage. Good luck to you.
@130bigdreamer Neither of you are the least bit of a threat to me or to science. Those that study these things on a regular basis don't waste their time on the unconvinceable. They have the next vaccine to create or the next iPhone to make. You can believe anything you wish.
@130bigdreamer I don't know. That does not mean "well it could be X or it could be Y or it might as well have been a creator". It just means we don't know YET. Speculation is not a basis for belief. Well, for the religious I know it is, but not for those of us that require evidence for something before we believe.
@130bigdreamer It's because of religion that today's technology isn't at the point where we can know much beyond the big bang. There are theories, but you creationists of course will never want to listen to that and demand 'evidence' that YOU yourself can't present on ANY claims from the bible or any holy literature. Once the LISA goes into space we will know more about the multi-verse and perhaps that is the key of where the energy came from to create our universe. I can only count the days.
Hey man. Oh yes Im back. Hey I want to thank you for steering me to the isolated system clause. You have just further proved my point. In this isolated system, the kinetic energy of the system will always decrease until it is used up, and it will remain that way until energy is input into the system from an outside source. We know that the universe is expanding and is slowing down. This implies that it had a beginning.
And by the way, your card trick merely proves that in order to have ANY sequence of cards picked from the deck in ANY order requires something outside of the deck with intelligence to pick them in the first place. Even if it's not the same set of cards each time, you still have to have someone pick the cards from the deck. All you did was give more leverage to Creationists by saying that something outside the system had to contribute to it in order for it to occur in the first place.
And one last thing, have you considered the social ramifications of evolutionary theory before. It was darwinistic thinking which led to Hitler wiping out millions of Jews and other "undesireables" because they were not of the master race and thus should not survive. It was that kind of thinking which has produced communism. If there is no God and we all evolved then power simply falls in the hands of the strongest most brutal person.
@130bigdreamer Evolution has nothing to do with social anything. It is biology, period. If someone did use it for some other purpose, it had nothing to do with science, and had nothing to do with the evidence for it or the reality of it. It's an entirely worthless argument.
@Zaunstar Actually it does. Things that were once acceptable are considered unlawful now. Why did that change? Darwin--the creator of your core beliefs--said women were "eternally primitive. We know that's ridiculous, but why the change in some parts of the world? There are still places where women are treated horribly, but according to evolutionary theory: no Creator, so no set moral standards, so morality varies with each individual and whatever helps him/her to survive.
Who's to say the laws in one country are better than another? We say it's wrong murder someone in cold-blood, but it's okay to kill someone in self-defense. In both cases, someone felt the the other person was a threat to their existence and acted accordingly. Under evolutionary thinking, there was no crime committed in either case. Someone who stepped out into the street and got hit by a car--well, he/she obviously wasn't smart or quick enough, so no loss; their stupid genes are gone.
And if evolutionary thinking is really true, Hitler was well within his rights to exterminate people who viewed as inferior and a threat to him and the German people--the Jews, the handicapped, the mentally ill, etc. By the mere fact that people condemn his actions proves that there has to be something guiding our morales, by the fact we want to see bad guys punished when they hurt people shows we have standards.
However, we all have choices and don't do CHOOSE not to follow those standards. It doesn't mean they don't exist, though. People CHOOSE to murder, but it's wrong. People CHOOSE to rob others, but it's wrong. People CHOOSE to get behind the wheel of a car, but it's wrong. Why is it wrong? Those basic standards that most of us choose to live by didn't just materialize out of thin air. They had to come from somewhere, and if not by a Creator, then who?
@jgalvin21 That is not remotely true. Evolution is not a core belief. If it was shown to be false tomorrow, I have no skin in the game. Without a deity, I'm simply looking for what's backed by evidence. Evolution is about diversity of species, not "what it would mean to society" (or to you), if you accept evolution.
@Zaunstar See, that's where we differ. You say you have evidence, but I don't see it, because you have failed to answer even one of my questions logically. Basic logic says that 1) evolution is true = no Creator. 2) no accountability, 3) we have the right to live the way we want as it benefits each of us. That's why some animals survive and others don't. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, we are no better than the animals and have no right to say things are right or wrong.
@jgalvin21 No matter how many times you assert it, it won't become true. It's a useless and wrong argument. Even if it did have something to do with it, it would have no bearing on whether it was true.
@Zaunstar You just proved how ridiculous all your responses have been. If it has something to do with it, then that DOES have bearing on whether it's true or not--it's called supporting evidence. It's clear you won't believe anything I say or anyone else who disagrees with you; fine, that's your choice, but don't mock beliefs and feign intelligence with insults. Your "god"--true science--is about having rational debates, not resorting to insulting your opponent when you have nothing to argue.
If it didn't have one component (such as the brain tissue), when it bends down to drink, it will have a rush of blood to its head and it will die from an aneuysm. Adaptations arise from a biological need, and the giraffe obviously needed the large heart to pump blood into its large body, which would in turn cause a need for valves and then brain tissue...or is that brain tissue first and THEN the valves? So, which came first: the long neck, heart, the valves, or the brain tissue?
Let me ask you this question. Could i leave a sand box out in my back yard over a period of millions of years and after that time expect to find a brick house? I dont think so because the sand if left to its own devices given natural events will not automatically form bricks. Experiments have been done to try tor create the building blocks of dna and in all of them more proteins were destroyed than created. If it cant be don in a lab, how could it be expected in nature?
your argument is very interesting but has a few holes. Ever heard of the law of reduced complexity? You can't argue that one chance thing happened then another after that over millions of years. For life to exist as it is on earth, everything had to have come together as it is now. A fish for instance cannot spontaneously grow legs and survive on land without lungs. They have to already be in place. remember the second law of thermodynamics. A system tends from a state of order to one of chaos.
@130bigdreamer If you don't know the ENTIRE second law of thermodynamics, including the part about being a closed system, you may not know enough about evolution either. The fish to amphibians transition has been heavily studied. How about reading about it instead of just asserting that you don't get it, therefore it didn't happen?
@Zaunstar Ill ask you a simple question. Have you ever seen anything spontaneously come together? Im sure you have seen things fall apart over time. Sure Babies are born and flowers grow, but even their bodies eventually fall apart and they die. I have yet to see a body spontaneously regenerate. You pride yourself in your scientific knowledge. Part of science is observation, and one does not have to look far to see that things fall apart and not come together.
@130bigdreamer Yes, and then more flowers grow from the seeds, and people grow up and have more babies. At what point in this cycle is god EVER necessary to complete or continue this process? Never.
@Zaunstar Now you're changing the argument man. We are debating about whether evolution took place or were we created. You are not changing the argument to one about the existence of God.
@Zaunstar Also, As far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, it states that over time the kinetic energy within a system decreases. Therefore the kinetic energy of everything from atoms up to planets in solar systems is decreasing not increasing.
@130bigdreamer How many times do I have to explain the "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM" clause of the second law to creationists? It's annoying to have to play personal tutor to you guys. Can you please read some science books before you come here to argue?
@Zaunstar I get your point, but if in a closed system the second law of thermodynamics applies how much more should it apply in a random open system like nature?
@130bigdreamer It doesn't apply AT ALL, because energy is coming in from the outside. Please at least read the wiki article about before you argue about it. I need to work on another video now that has nothing to do with this topic.
@Zaunstar For action to take place anywhere, energy has to be input into something. All the energy in the universe either came from somewhere or it has just been here for eternity. If you argue the latter then you are also arguing a case for faith too. If you argue the former then who input all the energy into the universe?
@130bigdreamer That is not what we're talking about. You asserted that life violates the second law because things grow. I am telling you that's nonsense. Now you changed it to what created the first energy.
@Zaunstar I have no idea what you are talking about. Now you are not making sense. I asserted that nature left to its own devices will not spontaneously create life. You are hiding behind the "closed system" clause. And I am merely asking a simple question. Where did the energy in the universe come from? Surely someone as knowledgeable as you in the ways of science can answer that question.
@130bigdreamer oh and by the way I have been following your conversation with jgalvin21, and I would like to know why, if you have the "underpinnings of science" on your side, why do you resort to personal attacks?
@130bigdreamer You didn't even know there WAS a closed system clause, probably because you're getting your science information from creationist websites. The energy was from the big bang according to what we can measure. Where did the original matter come from? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows yet. Where did your god come from? Who knows, and we can't even see or feel it. At least we can see and test matter.
@Zaunstar I have read many science books; that's my job as a Biology teacher. I've also taught and tutored in Physics, Geology, Astronomy, Marine Science, Forensic Science, Chemistry, and IPC. I know what I've studied, and your arguments contain arrogance and no substance, because you aren't answering 130bigdreamer's question.
If energy comes outside, then it's not "random", so where is it coming from? What started it? Please give a logical answer, because I have yet to hear one.
@jgalvin21 You teach a subject in which you deny the basic underpinnings of the subject? What do your colleagues think about this? Why not teach medicine and deny germ theory? Same thing.
@Zaunstar Yes, Pasteur proved biogenesis, but that dealt with inanimate matter (meat does not produce flies) that was already present; where did the matter first come from? Rober Koch PROVED disease causation with evidence. Miller-Urey showed that the conditions that scientists believe were on Earth to generate life could not produce life, even when they tweaked it. And even if they did produce something, all they would have proven was that something outside the system created those products.
And actually, my colleagues and my department chair and supervisors praise my expertise. I just received my contract to teach three science classes next year (two of which are Biology; I had three Biology classes this year), so they obviously trust my knowledge enough for me to come back another year (again), so let's stick with talking about the facts instead of implying that people who don't agree with you are unintelligent.
@Zaunstar So tell me how a tadpole, which has the genetic capability to go from gills to lungs and two-chambered to three chambered hearts when they reach adulthood, and fish don't? Fish have gills and two-chambered hearts, so what made amphibians different--they all came from a common ancestor, because of our similar DNA nucleotieds, right. Did you ever stop and think that maybe we have so much in common is because we all live in the same biosphere so we could interact more efficiently?
Can I ask a few honest questions, since you seem to know *all* the answers to everything? If there is no God, and everything was done by random chance, then:
How could the giraffe (who has specialized tissue in its brain, a 24 pound heart, and valves to prevent blood rush when it bends over to drink) have adapted to its surroundings and survived if everything wasn't in place from the beginning?
@jgalvin21 Evolution is not about "random chance". You will need to read about it and understand how it works in order to see WHY it works. You don't seem to know much about it. I would be happy to to recommend some textbooks on the subject by people that actually work in that field.
@Zaunstar Then explain what evolution is if it isn't "random chance." If it's not random, then it has to have a purpose, which requires a cause, which comes from a designer--basic logic. Saying things adapted to their surroundings--it's called microevolution (I agree with that). That's why we have the dog breeds we have--results from traits determined by an outside source--people. However, to have trait show up in the first place, it has to be coded on the DNA itself--that's basic Biology.
@jgalvin21 Merriam-Webster defines random as "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern," yet you claim that evolution is not random. The only thing opposite of random is "purpose," which is defined as "an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides planned actions." So, either evolution is random or it's not. Since Creationists and evolutionists agree there are patterns on this planet, common sense would indicate that Creationists have more proof God exists than evolution exists.
well you start off with evolution (how bout start at the problem there, the missing link, indicating that we were likely created) I am not a religious person, however I do believe we were created by "Gods" (missing link, jumping years) and we were created for a purpose "originally called the "black headed ones" "Sumerian Tablets of Creation" Circa 9800 BC. There was evolution, it was interrupted and the "Gods" are likely to return, I hope we can all get together so that we have a fighting chance
@Zaunstar What? how is the missing skeletal evidence in the chain of evolution of man a superstition, and before you dismiss any translation of cuniform script that actually exists (the translations are no really guesses any more, the math translated is exact and from the numbers we find the words) They mapped the orbit of Pluto and Uranus and the deviations in their orbits 10,000 years before we even discovered Pluto (1930 A.D.)...more if you ask...
Your logic is flawed because there is a 100% chance of pulling out 5 different cards from a normal deck of 52 cards if you in fact pull out 5 cards from the deck. The odds are also 100% that if you pull out 5 cards from a deck of 52 cards that you will get 5 cards from the deck of 52 cards. Probability is also irrelevant because it is also 100% that the 5 cards you pull out of the deck came from the deck. You can do that trick 1 million times and 100% of the time this will be the true...
@WILLTHEWGMAN I don't actually know what you mean here. I was referring to cards as they pertain to genes in evolution. You wouldn't need any certain number of cards actually. My point is that humans didn't and don't need to have come together from a particular combination of genetics all at once, and anyone that understands how evolution works, even if they don't accept science, would see that.
If you have a belief that something results from randomness, like mankind ; odds, probability and chance had to play a part. You can't claim that a conscious observer is likely or not from the No. of genes within DNA alone because there in no study that proves DNA alone as the contributing factor that separates mankind from all other known life. This separation is more likely a result on a quantum level in the brain; the brain/mind functions in which there is little known about today.
@WILLTHEWGMAN We have no reason not to believe that DNA is the defining factor. We CERTAINLY have zero evidence of YOUR claim that there is some quantum thing in our brains that makes us different.
There is no evidence that the human genome plays any part in human consciousness, self-awareness and that fact we are conscious observers. There is not even protoscientific or fringe science theories that claim otherwise. Human Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics is a very real scientific study! Just to name one such study in science, see, "John Hagelin, Ph.D; Consciousness & Superstring Unified Field Theory" here on youtube. You are wrong twice over in this comment.
All of my comments only prove you have no idea of what you are talking. I never stated nor claimed any other intentions than this. God is of faith and admittedly so.
@WILLTHEWGMAN You mean John Hagelin, perennial "Natural Law Party" presidential candidate and "Raja of Invincible America"? John Hagelin, featured prominently in the scientifically disastrous "What the Bleep Do We Know?" John Hagelin, who claimed that Trancedental Meditation reduced the crime rate in DC (even though it went up), and when confronted said it would have gone up even more, had his group not been meditating?
Stop looking at this guys videos. He is making money off of hits on youtube and he has added GOOGLE ADS which he makes money off of if you click on them. He is stupid of course in the videos, but smart because those of you who want to argue with him...you are making him MONEY!
Athiests/Evolutionists...check this out you non-believers/scientists.
You scientists need proof...right?
Well, go to foxnews dot com and in the search box type.....
discovery of biblical proportions
:)
redeemed213 2 days ago
How did an atom so tiny that it cannot even be seen, explode into billions upon billions upon billions of pounds or whatever of matter in our universe, that formed rock which we now call planets? How can an atom even if it exploded become matter, rocks, and planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, souls, spirits?
misspeanut100 1 week ago
@misspeanut100
Not one astrophysicist thinks this Peanut. You are arguing from misconceptions about science. So sorry you have listened to and bought into creationist drivel. :-(
infidelguy 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@infidelguy Wow! Genius. Your answer really explained how an atom tinier than anything known to us exploded into rock which we now call planets. And you certainly explained how that atom exploded into planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, our minds, souls and spirits.
misspeanut100 3 days ago
The wicked or "atheists" profess to despise religion, and many really do; but their consciences tell them that religion is a good thing. In times of trial they will sooner trust Christians than others. In sickness and death they are often glad to see them and hear them pray, and desire the comfort which they have.
misspeanut100 1 week ago
@misspeanut100
Huh? Now you are making stuff up to make yourself happy. Instead, why don't you conduct an experiment and poll atheists about what they think, instead of you creating a fantasy in your head.
infidelguy 4 days ago
@infidelguy Wow! Genius. Your answer really explained how an atom tinier than anything known to us exploded into rock which we now call planets. And you certainly explained how that atom exploded into planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, our minds, souls and spirits.
misspeanut100 3 days ago
that wasnt 5 cards, but i like it
Creationists, doth thou believe'st in magic tricks? for you believe in magical unicorns that sprinkle pixie dust over the world in order to create all of us.
And if god were to exist, why would he make me atheist? and dont say he gave us free will, the story behind god and free will is the last time god gave man free will, the crusades broke out.
BostonBoy00 3 weeks ago
I hope you can comprehend that most of the scientific fact that evolution is based on has been proven wrong. :)
kitkat98139813 1 month ago
@kitkat98139813 really? how has it been proven wrong? So far its pretty airtight
Hectom8 3 weeks ago
"The God that wasn't there" ... lol ... ad that makes sense to the vid I am watching
darththeo 1 month ago
The odds of ANY life forming are astronomical. ANY LIFE!
Even Dawkins admits that no one knows how life came about.
j919or 2 months ago
Then the 2nd law doesnt permit the universe to be wound up. And if it was wound up it would need to be much more complex in the beginning than it was now.
j919or 2 months ago
The odds are more like 1 in 10^3,000,000 and those odds grow with the reproduction of another human. And with the maintaenance of a human, IOW that we dont die out
j919or 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.
j919or 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Which came first...the chicken or the egg?
misspeanut100 3 months ago
Which came first...the chicken or the egg?
misspeanut100 3 months ago
Hey...ALL Atheists...Watch this youtube video.
Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!
misspeanut100 3 months ago
@misspeanut100 We've all seen it. It's priceless comedy! It's funny that anyone would be credulous enough to believe such a bad argument. Hehheh.
Zaunstar 3 months ago
@Zaunstar...... It is absolutely the arguement YOU claim yourself for evolution. And then you are going to say it is priceless comedy and a bad arguement? Touche' my friend!...now you can see how ridiculous you sound with your evolution theory using the same arguement. hee hee
misspeanut100 3 months ago
@misspeanut100 Scientists say that life should spring from peanut butter? Really? Please cite the scientist that EVER claimed that peanut butter contains what is needed for life! Hahhah!
Zaunstar 3 months ago 3
@Zaunstar I did not say a scientist said life springs from peanut butter. Evolution teaches that energy such as lightning or heat PLUS matter can create new life...
misspeanut100 3 months ago
@misspeanut100 Under very specific circumstances, yes. Peanut butter doesn't meet those circumstances, and nobody says that they do. Yet, because it doesn't, you say it's an argument AGAINST evolution. Of course, that argument is about abiogenesis anyway, and not evolution. If you understood science better, you would know that. I am actually shocked that you really think the peanut butter thing is actually credible. Almost no creationists use that argument because they know it's silly.
Zaunstar 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zaunstar Which came first...the chicken or the egg?
misspeanut100 3 months ago
@Zaunstar Ok, then just tell me how an atom tinier than anything known to us exploded into rock which we now call planets. Explain how that atom exploded into planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, our minds, souls and spirits.
misspeanut100 3 days ago
@Zaunstar Evolution teaches that energy such as lightning or heat PLUS matter can create new life. A jar of peanut butter contains matter and is exposed to light and heat (energy), but we never find new life inside that fresh jar of peanut butter unless an outside life contaminates it. If evolution is true then when we open a fresh jar of peanut butter, occasionally we’ll open one and there SHOULD be new life in that jar. The ENTIRE food industry depends that this “evolution” does NOT happen.
misspeanut100 3 months ago
@misspeanut100 WTF? Idiot
nashwhal 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nashwhal Which came first...the chicken or the egg? Sorry, but "WTF" and you "Idiot" is not the answer.
misspeanut100 2 months ago
@nashwhal She's a troll. It's PAINFULLY obvious. @misspeanut100 You suck at trolling bitch xD
LichQueenKathie 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zaunstar Wow! Genius. Your answer really explained how an atom tinier than anything known to us exploded into rock which we now call planets. And you certainly explained how that atom exploded into planets, stars, comets, water, trees, plants, animals, fish, humans, our minds, souls and spirits.
misspeanut100 3 days ago
@misspeanut100....... Zaunstar.....Which came first...the chicken or the egg?
misspeanut100 3 months ago
One more question, then I'll leave you alone (because this is clearly going nowhere): What happened to all missing links? Like the ones in between Ape and Human. Why are they not alive? They were clearly superior to Apes, so they have no reason to be gone now.
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude I thought we were making progress, well unless again, evidence doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, then why bother figuring anything out? Just believe what makes you happy, right?
Zaunstar 3 months ago
@Zaunstar
You still didn't answer my 2 main questions.
1. Why the missing links extict? They were clearly superior to their predecessors, so shouldn't they be around still?
2. Why try to convince people there is no God? With religious, spreading them is commanded/recommended. But why do atheists even bother doing that?
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude 1. They are not necessarily "extinct", any more than the earliest homo sapiens are extinct, though our gene pools are not identical. There is nothing about evolution that would indicate that this should not happen.
2. See my video called "Humanity Needs More Reliable Allies" or something like that.
Zaunstar 3 months ago
@Zaunstar
My point is, why are modern man and lucy still around, but the others in-between, such as Heidelberg, Debraska, Piltdown, and Peking are all gone? With each one superior to the previous, there's no reason for them to disappear from existence.
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude There is no "superior" except in terms of being well-suited for the environment. If the environment changes quicker than they can evolve, then they go extinct, and/or the genes that survive a near-extinction event will end up becoming a separate species. There isn't always a bright line between species. You should really do some more reading on this. I'm sure you are capable of understanding the concepts, but these questions you are asking me are quite basic. Want suggestions?
Zaunstar 3 months ago
Also, we still have no known examples if beneficial mutations as far as I know.
Mutations are the only way to add information to the genetic code, a requirement for evolution (again, only as far as I know)
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude Oh boy. That claim is easy to debunk. See if you can use google to do it. *:-) If you can't find anything, let me know, and I will take a look.
Zaunstar 3 months ago
@Zaunstar
All the "mutations" I found were either not mutations or impossible to prove. Please, debunk it. Don't you dare say something about the peppered moth. Seriously, that would just be fail.
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude What is your understanding of what a mutation is? Do you know what it is on a DNA level and on a more general gene expression level?
Zaunstar 3 months ago
@Zaunstar
Mutuation is adding information to the genetic code. If you're referring to something else, then please explain.
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude That is incorrect. It could be duplicate genetic information (multiple base pairs in the DNA), or it could be a transposing of the information, or it could be deletion of the information. I believe there are one or two other types as well, though they are less common as I recall. All of these things can lead to a change in the organism. Unless every creature could not possibly be any better suited to the environment than they are, then mutations HAVE to sometimes be beneficial.
Zaunstar 3 months ago
@Zaunstar
I was under the impression that mutations were Information-adding event, presumed to have caused changes between species. I totally believe in minor adaptations such as Darwin's finches, but not major changes (Horse to girraffe, Ape to Human, etc.)
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude It's an information CHANGE, not necessarily an addition. So what, in your mind stops a series of minor changes from adding up to a major one? That is what happens. Look at a phylogenetic tree, and that is what you will see. Also, do you understand the last couple sentences of my last comment? That is a very important thing to understand.
Zaunstar 3 months ago
@Zaunstar
I did understand the last two sentences. Some things just don't make sense. Why did people lose 10mph of speed (Usain Bolt peaked around 28mph, while a monkey can easily go 35mph). Why are we not as agile in climbing. Climbing is still useful. It is just beyond why we allegedly lost those traits.
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude We are heavier, but our increased size enables us to better manipulate our environment. I highly recommend you read "Greatest Show on Earth". It will give you a lot of background on the evolution. Sometimes you can only have one trait of two and really have it be helpful. Natural selection decides which is the better fit. You said you understand the finches, well the beaks evolved for a certain type of food, which often would make it harder to get the OTHER type! See?
Zaunstar 3 months ago
By the way, thanks for making these video. I have to know what I'm going up against. Some of my old arguments just won't work anymore.
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude If you know some of your old arguments are not valid, why would you ever use them again? Also, are you actually, earnestly interested in learning about science, or is the belief that evolution is false considered theological bedrock for you, and not subject to change no matter what the evidence?
Zaunstar 3 months ago
@Zaunstar
Well that's why I don't use them. Also, its a mix of both. I learn about how sciences fits into my worldview. Whenever anyone discovers anything new, they ask "How does this fit into my worldview?", so naturally I do to.
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude Until you decide that evidence takes precedence over worldview, you will always be religious. Doesn't mean you are a bad person of course, but it does mean religion will always take precedence, no matter what is shown to be true.
Zaunstar 3 months ago
Ok, so how did the human eye evolve? It takes several hundred years for a Cray super-computer to do what the human eye does in a second. It allegedly took 400,000 years for the eye to evolve to something greater than a cray? Unless you stretch the time out to several billion years, I find it just ridiculous. Also, I'm impressed that you're willing to make solid arguments. The last guy I talked to wouldn't stop screaming "PEOPLE WITH PH.D.s ARE SMARTER THAN YOU!". It was obnoxious
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
@joshthelegodude There are quite a few science shows (also a NOVA if I remember correctly), that talk about this, the evolution of the eye. It is pretty well understood. Seek that out, and tell me if it makes sense to you.
Zaunstar 3 months ago
You know whats funny? I would say to you that creationism cant take rational approaches to irrational people it never works, and ud say the same to me lol.
jo3jo3221 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
B.A. in theology/biology, thus you double majored in both fields. That's great to know. That means my question should be very easy for you to answer.
Can you define evolution in a biological context?
jebus6kryst 6 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52
source please. I want to read the article.
joshthelegodude 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know, but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 //DEBATE IS NOT OVER//
It's been over ever since the publication of "On the origin of species". go fuck yourself.
Drgamedood 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Zaunstar
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
NOT EVEN ALL EVOLUTIONISTS agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 6 months ago
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with fins evolving into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even inheriting a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations that have survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
“VESTIGIAL” A USELESS ARGUMENT: At one time dozens of structures in the human body were considered vestigial until our knowledge about them increased and we realized they weren’t vestigial, after all. It’s now been published that so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk, after all. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
@redeemed0204 Okay. Won't contact you after this one. Cower away. We both know you didn't quit because of my vulgarity alone, and that if you showed my PMs nothing would happen. Maybe a warning. Probably not. Because you do know that insulting someone is not a crime right (even less if they started names-calling) ? As long as I don't go after you and troll around for a week or so after you told me to stop I'll have no problem. I know a bit more about legislation than you.
But anyway. Bye lady.
gilless429 6 months ago
@redeemed0204 2nd part answer: In one message you sent you were litterally jubilating at me having a strong reaction at something you said. When I asked for the exact adress of the web page where Zaunstar was a jerk to you, you answered mockingly, completely ignoring the logic of arguing which I even gave you : YOU make a claim, YOU back it up. Otherwise there's no reason to believe you.
Stop playing the offended because boo-effing-ooh I was vulgar. You were childish, puerile, and mocking.
gilless429 6 months ago
@redeemed0204 You see this comment shows YOUR immaturity. You believe just because you didn't get vulgar you couldn't have insulted me. You couldn't see past the vulgarity and look at the arguments behind them, greatly because you didn't want to see any argument. You started off by calling Zaunstar a jerk and failed to give evidence of anything, whether of him being so, or my arguments being false, or evolution being false, or creationism being true. You're no better than what you treat me of.
gilless429 6 months ago
@redeemed0204 Dear, you're a funny specimen. You don't even realize the disrespect you put into your messages. I know, you said never to message you again. But I do think that as long as you keep calling me a troll I have the right to defend myself.
You called Zaunstar a jerk without reason. You insulted me (non-vulgarily but so?) for accepting evolution. Then kept rambling like a nut-job you otherwise don't seem to be. So yes, maybe I shouldn't have been vulgar. But the blame isn't just on me.
gilless429 6 months ago
@redeemed0204 So this started out by you calling someone I respect a jerk and keeping at it without giving any proof, and then you keep talking to me as though I'm the biggest idiot you've met and giving no evidence for any of your claims all the while disrespecting me, and YOU block ME for being vulgar. You have got to be absolutely kidding me.
gilless429 6 months ago
@redeemed0204 I'm angry because some creatard dared to insult someone I respect. You keep saying he's a jerk in comments and PMs but you still proved the equivalent of...nothing. Nada, nichts, niente, NOTHING.
And as for your accusation that 'evolutionists' (the term is a good example of your being a creationist idiot, since evolution is not something to believe in but a fact) are nasty and angry, did you consider that the way you adress them might influence their answer ? You get what you give.
gilless429 6 months ago
@redeemed0204 Him, a jerk ? Ah, alright, you're one of those... Let me explain something : debunking someone's beliefs is NOT being a jerk. That you don't like what one does (debunk creation for him) doesn't mean he/she is a jerk. Because then we would all be jerks to someone no matter how much good we do.
gilless429 6 months ago
The "what are the chances" argument falls easily. The odds of winning a lottery are very small, yet people win lotteries all the time. You have to consider the number of chances being taken. Tens of millions of lottery tickets are sold for each draw. Likewise, lots and lots of chemical reactions occur naturally that could potentially turn into DNA, RNA, and other building blocks of life. When the number of attempts made significantly outweigh the odds against success, success rules.
ChipArgyle 6 months ago
@rekindling1 Actually satanists are atheists as well. It was started by Anton Levey in the 60's.
shagoosty 6 months ago
Can all these things of this world really happen by chance? Just look at its beauty and how everything has purpose. Why is there good and bad. How do we have a conscience to know these things? Eyesight, hearing, smelling, taste, and feelings of the body and mind. Where does this all come. Did it just evolve out of nothing or was it all designed by a magnificant creator. Please anyone who is in doubt or needs to ask questions send me a message. Im here for you because I was once in your shoes.
Laqueyhornet 7 months ago
@Laqueyhornet So, you don't understand how it could happen, therefore it must have been magic?
Zaunstar 7 months ago 5
@Zaunstar Yes i do know this my friend. I have seen and I have heard the love, and power, and might of our Lord. I would take the guillotine to the neck now instead of deny The One who has saved my life. He is real and he is within all of us. His spirit was poured out on all flesh and its all up to you if you want that spirit to grow inside you. Once you get a taste of this bread you will want nothing else. You will think all things of the past were just a bad dream. He is life brother!
Laqueyhornet 7 months ago
It is a card trick people. real weak argument Weaker than that of the creationists. He claims the odds used by creationists is just like his card trick. A good card trick has a 97% chance of getting the same results every time not the large number he gave you.
mindscrape69 7 months ago
Yes this video is all "smoke and mirrors " Imagine any one believing this shit." A card trick to prove odds that he will get those numbers? If it was not a card TRICK then he would be some what right. But he claims he can do it over and over again and get the same results which would obviously lower the odds every time. And get this, the cards are not appearing that way with out An intelligent being doing the card trick.. Then we are talking about intelligent or are we?
mindscrape69 7 months ago
@ Zaunstar can you tell me what that picture in the background is and where you got it? I like it :D
cullet05 8 months ago
@cullet05 Mrs. Zaunstar and I got it in a place that had posters in Willow Grove Mall outside of Philly when we were up there at a friend's wedding several years ago, she just informed me. If you do some google searches on angel and devil or something, you can probably find it.
Zaunstar 8 months ago
I"ve been waiting a really long time for just one of the comments you show from creationists to be free from spelling errors. It still hasn't happened. Why are they so prone to this?
PainefulMass 8 months ago
@rekindling1 I think those sentences alone summed up what goes on in your head. Sounds exciting, but count me out, thanks. *:-)
Zaunstar 8 months ago
Creationists need to actually study what humanity has discovered before even attempting to argue with us. They maybe book smart and did well in school, but when it comes to scientific discoveries, they DON'T KNOW SHIT!
icxnamjah 8 months ago
I have some calculations as well
1+2+6+5+56+14+5+5+5+5= there is no god,
wait howd that happen
deathman1021 9 months ago
Great video with perfect analogy, keep it up man good job.
LHGH4x0r 10 months ago
Such a perfect analogy! You have a gift with words
GarretsShadow 10 months ago
I've heard this explained as the sharpshooter fallacy . Shoot a bullet at a wall then you draw a bulls eye around the hole.
Bo1618 10 months ago 2
@Bo1618 I like it! I hadn't heard that before.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
And unlike your assertion that energy came from the big bang, the energy had to have been input for there to have been a big band.. A bullet does not go off unless energy, in the form of a firing pin striking the shell is what sets off the explosion. So that still leaves my initial question. Where did that initial energy come from? I want an answer. Not I dont know. You know for a fact that God does not exist and thus evolution is gospel truth. Tell me then where did it come from?
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer Don't tell me "I don't know"? Um, we don't know for sure where the original matter came from. What "initial energy" created the invisible god that we can't sense or measure in any way? You don't know. You just wish really hard.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar You just stated that you "don't know for sure where the original matter comes from", yet you are the one accusing us of 'wishing.' Not knowing, but saying it can't be from a Creator is the same thing as us saying that a Creator designed and put everything into motion; it's called faith, and that's the only thing we seem to have in common.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
When it comes to the source of the matter, that's where we differ, yet you've made it very clear that you have no intention of even considering the notion that you just might be wrong. You are so desperate to be right, out of sheer arrogance nonetheless, that you have resorted again to implying that anyone who believes in a Creator is, for better words, an idiot. That is a typical atheist's last stand when he has been backed into a corner with the truth and he has nothing left to say.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
Your feathers have been ruffled, but why if evolution is true? Both jgalvin21 and I have not insulted you. If evolution is true, then what we say shouldn't be considered a threat to your belief system. I don't consider you to be a threat to my belief system, because I know where I stand. Your faith seems to be lacking, otherwise you would have been able to give both of us straight answers to our questions without implying anything about our intelligence (or lack thereof.)
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
I do hope, for your sake, though, that you are right. I mean, wouldn't it be a little depressing to die and find out that, not only were you wrong, but that the people you chose to demean and insult were right? However, even though we disagree about a lot, I have enjoyed this debate for two reasons: 1) It reaffirms my faith of why I believe what I believe, and 2) It reaffirms my belief that jgalvin21 and I have a good start to our upcoming marriage (did I mention we're engaged?)
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
And if you decide to continue producing videos insulting Creationists and their intelligence and make mention of us by mocking our beliefs and/or intelligence, it wouldn't bother us; it would only prove, however, that you really do have nothing of relevence to talk about.
So, to end a rather long post, good day, and good night.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer Demean? I don't think I've demeaned anyone. Congrats. I've been married 10 years, and if you're a good match, it will be just as happy as my marriage. Good luck to you.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer Neither of you are the least bit of a threat to me or to science. Those that study these things on a regular basis don't waste their time on the unconvinceable. They have the next vaccine to create or the next iPhone to make. You can believe anything you wish.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer I don't know. That does not mean "well it could be X or it could be Y or it might as well have been a creator". It just means we don't know YET. Speculation is not a basis for belief. Well, for the religious I know it is, but not for those of us that require evidence for something before we believe.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer It's because of religion that today's technology isn't at the point where we can know much beyond the big bang. There are theories, but you creationists of course will never want to listen to that and demand 'evidence' that YOU yourself can't present on ANY claims from the bible or any holy literature. Once the LISA goes into space we will know more about the multi-verse and perhaps that is the key of where the energy came from to create our universe. I can only count the days.
icxnamjah 8 months ago
Hey man. Oh yes Im back. Hey I want to thank you for steering me to the isolated system clause. You have just further proved my point. In this isolated system, the kinetic energy of the system will always decrease until it is used up, and it will remain that way until energy is input into the system from an outside source. We know that the universe is expanding and is slowing down. This implies that it had a beginning.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
And by the way, your card trick merely proves that in order to have ANY sequence of cards picked from the deck in ANY order requires something outside of the deck with intelligence to pick them in the first place. Even if it's not the same set of cards each time, you still have to have someone pick the cards from the deck. All you did was give more leverage to Creationists by saying that something outside the system had to contribute to it in order for it to occur in the first place.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
And one last thing, have you considered the social ramifications of evolutionary theory before. It was darwinistic thinking which led to Hitler wiping out millions of Jews and other "undesireables" because they were not of the master race and thus should not survive. It was that kind of thinking which has produced communism. If there is no God and we all evolved then power simply falls in the hands of the strongest most brutal person.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer Evolution has nothing to do with social anything. It is biology, period. If someone did use it for some other purpose, it had nothing to do with science, and had nothing to do with the evidence for it or the reality of it. It's an entirely worthless argument.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar Actually it does. Things that were once acceptable are considered unlawful now. Why did that change? Darwin--the creator of your core beliefs--said women were "eternally primitive. We know that's ridiculous, but why the change in some parts of the world? There are still places where women are treated horribly, but according to evolutionary theory: no Creator, so no set moral standards, so morality varies with each individual and whatever helps him/her to survive.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
Who's to say the laws in one country are better than another? We say it's wrong murder someone in cold-blood, but it's okay to kill someone in self-defense. In both cases, someone felt the the other person was a threat to their existence and acted accordingly. Under evolutionary thinking, there was no crime committed in either case. Someone who stepped out into the street and got hit by a car--well, he/she obviously wasn't smart or quick enough, so no loss; their stupid genes are gone.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
And if evolutionary thinking is really true, Hitler was well within his rights to exterminate people who viewed as inferior and a threat to him and the German people--the Jews, the handicapped, the mentally ill, etc. By the mere fact that people condemn his actions proves that there has to be something guiding our morales, by the fact we want to see bad guys punished when they hurt people shows we have standards.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
However, we all have choices and don't do CHOOSE not to follow those standards. It doesn't mean they don't exist, though. People CHOOSE to murder, but it's wrong. People CHOOSE to rob others, but it's wrong. People CHOOSE to get behind the wheel of a car, but it's wrong. Why is it wrong? Those basic standards that most of us choose to live by didn't just materialize out of thin air. They had to come from somewhere, and if not by a Creator, then who?
jgalvin21 11 months ago
@jgalvin21 That is not remotely true. Evolution is not a core belief. If it was shown to be false tomorrow, I have no skin in the game. Without a deity, I'm simply looking for what's backed by evidence. Evolution is about diversity of species, not "what it would mean to society" (or to you), if you accept evolution.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar See, that's where we differ. You say you have evidence, but I don't see it, because you have failed to answer even one of my questions logically. Basic logic says that 1) evolution is true = no Creator. 2) no accountability, 3) we have the right to live the way we want as it benefits each of us. That's why some animals survive and others don't. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, we are no better than the animals and have no right to say things are right or wrong.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
@jgalvin21 No matter how many times you assert it, it won't become true. It's a useless and wrong argument. Even if it did have something to do with it, it would have no bearing on whether it was true.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar You just proved how ridiculous all your responses have been. If it has something to do with it, then that DOES have bearing on whether it's true or not--it's called supporting evidence. It's clear you won't believe anything I say or anyone else who disagrees with you; fine, that's your choice, but don't mock beliefs and feign intelligence with insults. Your "god"--true science--is about having rational debates, not resorting to insulting your opponent when you have nothing to argue.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
If it didn't have one component (such as the brain tissue), when it bends down to drink, it will have a rush of blood to its head and it will die from an aneuysm. Adaptations arise from a biological need, and the giraffe obviously needed the large heart to pump blood into its large body, which would in turn cause a need for valves and then brain tissue...or is that brain tissue first and THEN the valves? So, which came first: the long neck, heart, the valves, or the brain tissue?
jgalvin21 11 months ago
Let me ask you this question. Could i leave a sand box out in my back yard over a period of millions of years and after that time expect to find a brick house? I dont think so because the sand if left to its own devices given natural events will not automatically form bricks. Experiments have been done to try tor create the building blocks of dna and in all of them more proteins were destroyed than created. If it cant be don in a lab, how could it be expected in nature?
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
your argument is very interesting but has a few holes. Ever heard of the law of reduced complexity? You can't argue that one chance thing happened then another after that over millions of years. For life to exist as it is on earth, everything had to have come together as it is now. A fish for instance cannot spontaneously grow legs and survive on land without lungs. They have to already be in place. remember the second law of thermodynamics. A system tends from a state of order to one of chaos.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer If you don't know the ENTIRE second law of thermodynamics, including the part about being a closed system, you may not know enough about evolution either. The fish to amphibians transition has been heavily studied. How about reading about it instead of just asserting that you don't get it, therefore it didn't happen?
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar Ill ask you a simple question. Have you ever seen anything spontaneously come together? Im sure you have seen things fall apart over time. Sure Babies are born and flowers grow, but even their bodies eventually fall apart and they die. I have yet to see a body spontaneously regenerate. You pride yourself in your scientific knowledge. Part of science is observation, and one does not have to look far to see that things fall apart and not come together.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer Yes, and then more flowers grow from the seeds, and people grow up and have more babies. At what point in this cycle is god EVER necessary to complete or continue this process? Never.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar Now you're changing the argument man. We are debating about whether evolution took place or were we created. You are not changing the argument to one about the existence of God.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@Zaunstar Also, As far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, it states that over time the kinetic energy within a system decreases. Therefore the kinetic energy of everything from atoms up to planets in solar systems is decreasing not increasing.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer How many times do I have to explain the "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM" clause of the second law to creationists? It's annoying to have to play personal tutor to you guys. Can you please read some science books before you come here to argue?
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar I get your point, but if in a closed system the second law of thermodynamics applies how much more should it apply in a random open system like nature?
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer It doesn't apply AT ALL, because energy is coming in from the outside. Please at least read the wiki article about before you argue about it. I need to work on another video now that has nothing to do with this topic.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar For action to take place anywhere, energy has to be input into something. All the energy in the universe either came from somewhere or it has just been here for eternity. If you argue the latter then you are also arguing a case for faith too. If you argue the former then who input all the energy into the universe?
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer That is not what we're talking about. You asserted that life violates the second law because things grow. I am telling you that's nonsense. Now you changed it to what created the first energy.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar I have no idea what you are talking about. Now you are not making sense. I asserted that nature left to its own devices will not spontaneously create life. You are hiding behind the "closed system" clause. And I am merely asking a simple question. Where did the energy in the universe come from? Surely someone as knowledgeable as you in the ways of science can answer that question.
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer oh and by the way I have been following your conversation with jgalvin21, and I would like to know why, if you have the "underpinnings of science" on your side, why do you resort to personal attacks?
130bigdreamer 11 months ago
@130bigdreamer You didn't even know there WAS a closed system clause, probably because you're getting your science information from creationist websites. The energy was from the big bang according to what we can measure. Where did the original matter come from? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows yet. Where did your god come from? Who knows, and we can't even see or feel it. At least we can see and test matter.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar I have read many science books; that's my job as a Biology teacher. I've also taught and tutored in Physics, Geology, Astronomy, Marine Science, Forensic Science, Chemistry, and IPC. I know what I've studied, and your arguments contain arrogance and no substance, because you aren't answering 130bigdreamer's question.
If energy comes outside, then it's not "random", so where is it coming from? What started it? Please give a logical answer, because I have yet to hear one.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
@jgalvin21 You teach a subject in which you deny the basic underpinnings of the subject? What do your colleagues think about this? Why not teach medicine and deny germ theory? Same thing.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar Yes, Pasteur proved biogenesis, but that dealt with inanimate matter (meat does not produce flies) that was already present; where did the matter first come from? Rober Koch PROVED disease causation with evidence. Miller-Urey showed that the conditions that scientists believe were on Earth to generate life could not produce life, even when they tweaked it. And even if they did produce something, all they would have proven was that something outside the system created those products.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
And actually, my colleagues and my department chair and supervisors praise my expertise. I just received my contract to teach three science classes next year (two of which are Biology; I had three Biology classes this year), so they obviously trust my knowledge enough for me to come back another year (again), so let's stick with talking about the facts instead of implying that people who don't agree with you are unintelligent.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
@Zaunstar So tell me how a tadpole, which has the genetic capability to go from gills to lungs and two-chambered to three chambered hearts when they reach adulthood, and fish don't? Fish have gills and two-chambered hearts, so what made amphibians different--they all came from a common ancestor, because of our similar DNA nucleotieds, right. Did you ever stop and think that maybe we have so much in common is because we all live in the same biosphere so we could interact more efficiently?
jgalvin21 11 months ago
Can I ask a few honest questions, since you seem to know *all* the answers to everything? If there is no God, and everything was done by random chance, then:
How could the giraffe (who has specialized tissue in its brain, a 24 pound heart, and valves to prevent blood rush when it bends over to drink) have adapted to its surroundings and survived if everything wasn't in place from the beginning?
jgalvin21 11 months ago
@jgalvin21 Evolution is not about "random chance". You will need to read about it and understand how it works in order to see WHY it works. You don't seem to know much about it. I would be happy to to recommend some textbooks on the subject by people that actually work in that field.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar Then explain what evolution is if it isn't "random chance." If it's not random, then it has to have a purpose, which requires a cause, which comes from a designer--basic logic. Saying things adapted to their surroundings--it's called microevolution (I agree with that). That's why we have the dog breeds we have--results from traits determined by an outside source--people. However, to have trait show up in the first place, it has to be coded on the DNA itself--that's basic Biology.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
@jgalvin21 Merriam-Webster defines random as "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern," yet you claim that evolution is not random. The only thing opposite of random is "purpose," which is defined as "an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides planned actions." So, either evolution is random or it's not. Since Creationists and evolutionists agree there are patterns on this planet, common sense would indicate that Creationists have more proof God exists than evolution exists.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
well you start off with evolution (how bout start at the problem there, the missing link, indicating that we were likely created) I am not a religious person, however I do believe we were created by "Gods" (missing link, jumping years) and we were created for a purpose "originally called the "black headed ones" "Sumerian Tablets of Creation" Circa 9800 BC. There was evolution, it was interrupted and the "Gods" are likely to return, I hope we can all get together so that we have a fighting chance
audiotomic 1 year ago
@audiotomic That all sounds like an odd superstition to me.
Zaunstar 1 year ago
@Zaunstar What? how is the missing skeletal evidence in the chain of evolution of man a superstition, and before you dismiss any translation of cuniform script that actually exists (the translations are no really guesses any more, the math translated is exact and from the numbers we find the words) They mapped the orbit of Pluto and Uranus and the deviations in their orbits 10,000 years before we even discovered Pluto (1930 A.D.)...more if you ask...
audiotomic 1 year ago
e@Zaunstar Sounds no different that the superstition of evolution that spouts from your mouth.
jgalvin21 11 months ago
There will not be any atheists in hell.
misspeanut100 1 year ago
Comment removed
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
Your logic is flawed because there is a 100% chance of pulling out 5 different cards from a normal deck of 52 cards if you in fact pull out 5 cards from the deck. The odds are also 100% that if you pull out 5 cards from a deck of 52 cards that you will get 5 cards from the deck of 52 cards. Probability is also irrelevant because it is also 100% that the 5 cards you pull out of the deck came from the deck. You can do that trick 1 million times and 100% of the time this will be the true...
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I don't actually know what you mean here. I was referring to cards as they pertain to genes in evolution. You wouldn't need any certain number of cards actually. My point is that humans didn't and don't need to have come together from a particular combination of genetics all at once, and anyone that understands how evolution works, even if they don't accept science, would see that.
Zaunstar 1 year ago
@Zaunstar
If you have a belief that something results from randomness, like mankind ; odds, probability and chance had to play a part. You can't claim that a conscious observer is likely or not from the No. of genes within DNA alone because there in no study that proves DNA alone as the contributing factor that separates mankind from all other known life. This separation is more likely a result on a quantum level in the brain; the brain/mind functions in which there is little known about today.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN We have no reason not to believe that DNA is the defining factor. We CERTAINLY have zero evidence of YOUR claim that there is some quantum thing in our brains that makes us different.
Zaunstar 1 year ago
@Zaunstar
There is no evidence that the human genome plays any part in human consciousness, self-awareness and that fact we are conscious observers. There is not even protoscientific or fringe science theories that claim otherwise. Human Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics is a very real scientific study! Just to name one such study in science, see, "John Hagelin, Ph.D; Consciousness & Superstring Unified Field Theory" here on youtube. You are wrong twice over in this comment.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN ...and this all proves god... how?
Zaunstar 1 year ago
@Zaunstar
All of my comments only prove you have no idea of what you are talking. I never stated nor claimed any other intentions than this. God is of faith and admittedly so.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN You mean John Hagelin, perennial "Natural Law Party" presidential candidate and "Raja of Invincible America"? John Hagelin, featured prominently in the scientifically disastrous "What the Bleep Do We Know?" John Hagelin, who claimed that Trancedental Meditation reduced the crime rate in DC (even though it went up), and when confronted said it would have gone up even more, had his group not been meditating?
*That* John Hagelin?
Nostrabar 1 year ago
Everyone!
Stop looking at this guys videos. He is making money off of hits on youtube and he has added GOOGLE ADS which he makes money off of if you click on them. He is stupid of course in the videos, but smart because those of you who want to argue with him...you are making him MONEY!
DON'T HELP HIM MAKE MONEY!
annabella1629 1 year ago
Don't get them started on the lizard people... you'll be in for a whole new world of ridiculousness.
ReddmanDGZ 1 year ago
Comment removed
CSK225 1 year ago
Thinking?......What a bizarre concept!
panterguy 1 year ago
Which came first, DNA or Amino Acid? Please explain.
Mensdivinior 1 year ago
@Mensdivinior
Amino acids. We have found them in meteorites.
DNAunion 1 year ago