@SummerSunshine1988 comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.*God*don't qualify for even a theory
@SummerSunshine1988 '': There's a reason God doesn't qualify as a theory. He isn't a theory. He is a fact.'' Got any evidence for that? NO? what a surprise!
@SummerSunshine1988 '' There's a reason God doesn't qualify as a theory. He isn't a theory. He is a fact.'' Also your reasoning is.... Well I will be nice... lets say its a bit off... Before something becomes a fact you start with a theory that can be supported with EVIDENCE! You can't just scream something is a fact! Like you just did! Sorry that is just really really stupid
@SummerSunshine1988 This shows a misunderstanding of the word theory. Theories and facts aren't mutually exclusive. Theories explain facts. Facts delineate observations. It's a fact that a dropped object on earth is observed to will fall, this is explained through the theory of gravity. God is not a theory because positing him does not explain anything, it simply asserts an entity capable of resolving a given problem. This is called an argument from ignorance; EX: "I don't know, therefore god."
This is mostly about abiogenesis, but since creationists think evolution is all natural history I guess that's just a semantic disagreement, like ID people not wanting to be called creationists. Since this is somewhat a comedy I'm guessing you know this isn't exactly what people believe happened at abiogenesis...at all... and kinda rushes the more solidly poven stuff
we don't know exactly what gravity or charge are. for a 100 years we didn't know what atoms were. I smell a designer of the gaps.
@nottebaccio tell you what, i know you wont respond to my previous comment and most probably you will use your other YT accounts to dislike this one but never the less here it goes:
- ID is Creationism which is based merely on abrahamic religion bias. It will NEVER be accounted as a science. Your intend is NOT to explain ID, its only to dishonestly try to end evolutionary theory, nothing more.
You can delete/spam/dislike this comment but it will never change this fact and you know it.
@ZZzzzzzWhat Muddying the water with delusional thinking can't stop other people from thinking - that has to be a personal choice. If you define I.D. as being solely based on abrahamic religious bias - then you're ignoring the fact that Information Theory is true science, in direct contrast to Darwinian evolution which is in deep trouble scientifically.
@nottebaccio "Muddying the water" ho please by all mean will you "unmud the waters" by explaining what is ID.. or i'm i right when i say your only propose is to end evolutionary theory and NOT to explain what ID is all about. Please, explain to us how ID is not creationism and it has nothing to do with the abrahamic religions "genesis".
@ZZzzzzzWhat Un- muddying the waters is what my channel page is about - plenty of information there for anyone not trying to avoid it. You're not even close - if you can't distinguish between "evolution" and "Darwinian evolution" then we aren't even talking about the same thing.
@nottebaccio i have read a lot about ID and all of the sources speak of th inteligent designer being god, most of those sources spoke about th christian god but some spoke of allah.
Is there a website that speaks of an int. designer that is not the god of one of the abrahamic religions? your's also speaks of the christian god.
Yes i know very well the difference between Darwins theory and th whole Evolutionary Theory. I suppose then that u believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution.
@ZZzzzzzWhat The fact of the existence of I.D. is irrelevant as to the source of the intelligence insofar as biology is concerned. However you did just succinctly point out that your true aversion to the fact of intelligence inherent in the inception and design of life is it's possible source being "god".
Continuing to throw in irrelevancies such as "abrahamic religions" is uninteresting to me personally, since it has no bearing on the essential facts. Specified complexity is germane however.
@nottebaccio Well there's no use to continue this conversation since you wont come clean about believing in the abrahamic god has the inteligent designer, i know you believe in god (it's on your page comments area) and for what i've seen in your website it must be the christian one(all christian sources/philosofers). this is why a don't like creationists, it's boldface lying, no shame, no shame.
@ZZzzzzzWhat You're right, there's no use continuing the conversation because my personal beliefs about god are irrelevant to the facts concerning I.D. My concept of god is personal, and there are no clues on my channel page as to specifics - that was intentional. Your active aversion to any concept of god, especially the "abrahamic" version, has limited your ability to be impartial concerning the factual evidence.
@ZZzzzzzWhat I've never told one single lie in any conversation I've had with anyone on YT. You're right about one one thing there's no shame on my part because I have nothing to be ashamed of. It''s you that is setting a different standard for your belief system - which must deny intelligence and ignore the evidence if it is to exist.
@ZZzzzzzWhat You just revealed the nature of your bias, "which religion"? - "which" intelligent designer? - "worship"? The evidence is the evidence - clear and irrefutable. Personal considerations and emotional attachments to pre-existing beliefs will not change the truth. People who still deny intelligent design are the modern equivalent of "flat earthers".
@eleminatus Dude, everybody knows full well all the ID-research is being supressed by conspiracy scientists, funded by evil atheists and illuminati, to keep the masses dumb and ignorant. But ID will prevail. The theory of evolution is already in big trouble, so I've heard from trustworthy sources......
@ZZzzzzzWhat & gregrutz You need to talk your atheist friends into using a dictionary to understand and define basic terms and to assimilate some basic logic.
"atheism is the absence of belief" was taken directly from atheists. Awww to bad ;)
@nottebaccio lolwut?? "No one has absence of belief." My description of atheism was taken from an encyclopedia, you can see for yourself. BTW, can you answer my previous question?
"Intelligent design is not Creationism". Are you denying that ID is based on Biblical narratives?
Hi @nottebaccio . What should the alternative to the Evolutionary theory be? Creationism aka I.D.? If so, are you secure about those Creationist beliefs, the 6000 y.o. Earth, Descent from Adam and Eve, Great Flood and all of these claims?
@ZZzzzzzWhat Straw man time? Why not, when it's all you got. LOL
Find a posting of mine where I signed off on a 6000 year old Earth or the Great Flood, etc. Intelligent design is not Creationism as you portray it. It is however essential to the inception and evolution of life, unless you prefer the magical thinking of Darwinism.
@nottebaccio "Intelligent design is not Creationism". Will you deny that ID is based on Biblical narratives? That Man was created(or intelligently designed) by the Abrahamic god?
Did I say that evolution is a fact? I don't remember writing that. You should to learn to be more precise in your thinking . I've already presented difficulties that Darwinian evolution theory has not been able to answer. The information on my channel is available to you. Educate yourself. Or avoid the facts if that is your preferred mode.
Sloppy thinking won't bring you closer to the truth. If you have access to a dictionary - use it. A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural - a fact is a fact. "Sometimes these theories contain the same word as the fact that they pertain to" that's also called circular reasoning. I didn't sat that evolution isn't a fact. Darwinian evolution is the issue, and the process by which it is said to occur violates information theory and The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Evolution is a fact (which you just said was true) Darwinian evolution is the (very strongly supported) theory which suggests the mechanism by which this evolution occurs. If you can somehow show that this mechanism is wrong, then you would win the nobel prize and would likely revolutionise modern science and cause a paradigm shift so large, it is likely anything so large has ever occurred in science. Tell me what your issue is with darwinian evolution. TBC
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@nottebaccio and it wasn't circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is where you start with a conclusion and work backwards endlessly trying to get there forever cycling through the same ideas e.g. "the bible is the word of god, because the bible said god can't lie and it also says it is the word of god"
that my friend is circular logic (not suggesting you believe that)
I just said that it just so happened that the mechanism used to explain evolution also had evolution in its title
@UNNAM3D82 Sir are you able to read I AM FOR EVOLUTION (idiot) but you don't seem to understand what it means to level with your opponent to get your point across. Seriously with people like you makeing rude outbursts no wonder people aren't willing to understand the concepts behind evolution.
@avc1234 It is not. The thing is, evolution is not a "magic process." It is a simple process, which talks about random variation and non-random natural selection. This allows, over time, for things to start to change to the point where they are no longer considered similar enough to be the same species as they cannot mate with each other to give fertile offspring.
I'm aware you're for evolution, I'm just writing this so no one reads your comment and think it a good argument.
ok cool so has anyone ever seen a fish walking on land? are there any pictures? or is the government just to cheap to rewrite all the text books because they're full of shit. they don't know how this organism occured but they know we evolved from fish.....so one day fish became people? then where is the middle ground nobodys ever seen a half fish person this is bs
@mtbee9 Evo is definitely an illusion,you're on the money there. Why don't you sit down and draw out the mutation process that got us from fish to quadraped,back to whale,biped so on. Count out the mutations too,should be fun. Then ask why we have not,and cannot observe mutation adding one single new feature in any creature. Not a single,tiny morphological change. It's never been seen,we can't make it happen in a lab or nature,but you're an idiot to doubt it.
Seems you missed my inference when I said idiot,maybe read it again. Re tree of life,look at newscientist mar 09,"Axing Darwins tree" by Graham Lawton. Evo never been falsified???If you believe that,not much point in any discussion. Guesswork and daydreams?Read "Origin of the specious" if you want an objective appraisal of the scientific method in t of e. No,mskipper not found in Cambrian,no-one's claimed all phyla came in that period,but the vast majority did,without precurser.
"proof of magically poofed.." Well,for me it's the fact the fossil record has overwhelmingly demonstrated sudden appearance,something paleos have observed,the core mechanism for evo has never been observed,only limit to change has ever been demonstrated,none of which has ever been morphological. And socially,the fact that evo supporters shout down and ridicule any who cast doubt. It's the way any bully operates. Unverified stories that are sold as irrefutable proof.
@Copsweet "the fossil record has overwhelmingly demonstrated sudden appearance"
The most you can say is punctuated evolution. ie periods of time, usually due to big environmental changes, where evolution is free to expand. Sudden in the fossil record of 4 Billion years is in the order of 10's of Millions of years.
" evo has never been observed" - Of course not it takes millions of years so it cannot be recreated in the lab only micro evolution can - and has. cont..
You are deluded. The scientific method simply looks at the evidence is reviewed by many others and ideas are worked out into theories - Physics, Biology, Chemistry etc. I don't see any 'Bully'. Show some evidence that refutes evolution, or simply come up with a better Theory that fits the facts and you could win a nobel prize!
Hasn't happened yet - ToE is the only explanation that fits the evidence. All you have is wishful thinking.
Fossil evidence did'nt fit the theory,so pun equil is the excuse. Mutations never change morphology,but it is insisted that it does. There's some wishful thinking for you. The evidence could'nt fit the theory less,it's being forced into it. It may shock you to learn I'm aware humans,horses and rabbits did'nt arrive in the Cambrian,but MOST phyla did,without precurser. I'm delusional,but you don't believe evolutionary evidence has ever been falsified? Not too hard to find.
@Copsweet "so pun equil is the excuse" I have no idea what that means.
"Mutations never change morphology" - How come the bones of the arm show a gradual change from a fishes fin all the way to modern mammals? If they didn't have a common ancestor they would be very different!
"evolutionary evidence has ever been falsified?" Not what I said - I said the THEORY has not been falsified - ie proven wrong!
There are a few fossil hoaxes that science threw out - so what.
@Copsweet "it can never be falsified as long as conjecture,extrapolation and speculation are presented and accepted as fact."
You don't understand falsify. If you find some evidence, such as Cambrian rabbit - this would not be possible through evolution and so would prove the Theory wrong.
So far all evidence agrees with the gradual change of form through Millions of years driven by mutation and Natural Selection and so it is considered fact by most Biologists.
All evidence like fossils appearing abruptly? Mutations inability to effect morphological change? You really think that evidence demonstrates gradual change over billions of years? Sorry,I'll never see the logic in that.
@Copsweet "(mammals) didn't arrive in the Cambrian,but MOST phyla did"
Almost forgot - What Phyla did? Not Birds, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, or any other tetrapod, not jawed fishes or terrestrial plants - doesn't leave much does it! The Phyla you refer to are the very basic body types in very simple form which evolved into what we see today through gradual change as shown throughout the fossil record.
Any evidence for an alternative answer other than evolution. I'd love to hear it.
@TheHatefulDead Hey Brainiac,The Origin of Life Foundation is offering one million U.S. dollars to anyone who can "propose a plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life." Go fetch ;)
Tell me Goober, how is that pertinent to my statement regarding Denton's 180° turn?
(Hint: The answer is 'Nothing')
It's also completely irrelevant to the fact that, regardless of the exact mechanism[s] involved in the initial organization of genetic instruction, those instruction are now subjected to selection for genotypic fitness with corresponding effect on phenotypic fitness; i.e. evolution.
You've had a year since we last talked to get a clue...
@TheHatefulDead What are you on about ? Sheeesh can't even help someone capitalize on their amazing intellect! Just thought you might be kind enough to get the ball rolling for those poor schmucks - they realize Darwinists have to rely on magical thinking to get (non - living) chemicals to do intelligent things.
It' s sooo sweet knowing I can still push your buttons ;)
Abiotic chemicals don't "do intelligent things". Emergence in physical systems aren't the result of "magical thinking", either... perhaps your thinking of talking snakes, global floods, The Old Man Who Lived in a Fish, etc.
Speaking of pushing buttons, if you'd down-thumbed my comment & upped your own just one more time you'd have completely falsified my statement... too late now, though.
And pretty girls w/dumb ideas have always pushed my button ;-)
@TheHatefulDead Running out of material? It had to happen - you should have chosen a more internally consistent religion. Just for giggles look at the big picture - some abiotic chemical possessed a "natural" affinity for hooking up in certain advantageous ways, and lo and behold, after a few billion years life "emerged" and then after a few more billion years intelligence "emerged" - so life came from non-life and mind form non-intelligent processes. you're right it's not magic, it's a miracle!
@spursdude92 1. If evolution is a fact - then it can't also be a theory. Learn to think for yourself rather than regurgitating what you've been told is true. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, isn't a theory it's an established fact .. and tossing out terms like "natural selection" and "non random" can't account for sustained increased orders of specified complexity in biological systems. The only thing that can account for increased information is intelligence. Sorry Charlie.
@nottebaccio Something CAN be both fact and scientific theory. The word theory in science is used to mean a way of explaining facts. Sometimes these theories contain the same word as the fact that they pertain to, such as the theory of gravity, cell theory and the theory of evolution. That evolution occurs is a fact. The process by which it occurs? THAT it what is covered by Darwin's theory of Evolution.
"Learn to think for yourself rather than regurgitating what you've been told is true"
What evidence do you have which says the only way something can increase in "information" is intelligence?
Also, please can you define information, or are you going down the "discovery institute" route and using Behe to come up with your arguments (which have already been refuted countless times by others far more intelligent than me)
You feel as though I don't think for myself, when I have spent years pondering and came to a conclusion which sided with the most evidence
@nottebaccio "If evolution is a fact - then it can't also be a theory." Wrong. The fact of evolution simply refers to the phenomenon that allele frequencies change. The theory of evolution refers to the well-substantiated scientific theory that makes a wide array of valid predictions by explaining how selective pressures and genetic drift acting on genetic variation in populations account for various phenomena such as biological evolution.
@nichtmuttersprachler Darwin's version of evolution is just a theory ... and it's a theory that must accept the premise that material causes can ultimately produce life, diversity of life, and intelligence. Accepting that the sum of material causes could produce intelligence is magical thinking. Intelligence would have to be an intricate part of evolution for it to work. Notice your language, "selective pressures" for instance - and all the while working uphill against Thermodynamics ;)
@nottebaccio "Darwin's version of evolution is just a theory" 1) Biologists don't use Darwin's theory anymore. Our understanding of biological evolution has greatly improved. For instance, Darwin knew nothing about the molecular mechanisms of mutation, nor did he consider genetic drift acting on neutral variation. 2) You clearly don't understand the term "scientific theory" if you think evolution is "just" a theory. This webpage briefly explains your misconception: notjustatheory*dot*com
Have you ever heard of genetic entropy? Also, genetic drift has to do with variation and adaptation. The macro-evolutionary part is an assumption. So is that the part that isn't a theory? You may not realize it, but you are equivocating. In order not to, you need to be clear about what you mean by the term evolution. Do you mean common ancestry and/or probable universal common ancestry? And by what observable mechanisms EXACTLY?
@nottebaccio "it's a theory that must accept the premise that material causes can ultimately produce life, diversity of life, and intelligence." 1) Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. 2) The theory of evolution wonderfully explains the diversity of life. Haven't you any understanding of evolutionary theory? 3) It also explains the origin of intelligence, although our understanding of this is still elementary compared to our understanding of other aspects of biology.
@nottebaccio "Intelligence would have to be an intricate part of evolution for it to work." Wrong. I'm guessing you think that, according to evolutionary theory, organisms "decide" to evolve. This is not true at all. Through subsequent generations, populations evolve due to selective pressures acting on adaptive and maladaptive genetic variation and due to genetic drift acting on neutral genetic variation. There is no "decision" to evolve.
@nottebaccio "Notice your language, "selective pressures" for instance" I'm sorry if you don't understand the terminology of biology, but "selective pressures" is the correct term. For example, if bacteria grow in an environment containing antibiotics, the antibiotics act as a selective pressure that causes subsequent generations of the bacteria to evolve antibiotic resistance.
@nottebaccio "all the while working uphill against Thermodynamics" Wrong. Biological evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that for any real spontaneous process, Δ(entropy of the universe) = Δ(entropy of the system) + Δ(entropy of the surroundings) > 0. For any process, one must consider the system *and* its surroundings. While many biological processes are endergonic, the *net* ΔS is always negative.
@nichtmuttersprachler It is said when people silence reason. If the crazy had their way they would still be burning books and heretics. It takes time to shed superstition.
@gregrutz Ask your Darwinist compeers at The Origin of Life Foundation. They seem to be aware of the absolute necessity for those "instructions" to exist if life is to arise. The trick is to find a way for those instructions to arise [spontaneously] even though the word (instructions) itself implies [intelligence]. Sheeesh! such a dilemma!
@gregrutz This is useless, she is not here to learn, she is to preach her abrahamic religion and she won't even admit it. it's shows how honest this creationists are.
lol, atheism is not the absence of belief, but the disbelief in the existence of a deity. People can believe anything, but if you believe in a deity it makes you a theist, otherwise you're an atheist, as simple as that.
"Why do people laugh at creationists?" because their claims are absurd and can be very easily proven wrong.
@gregrutz "Hey Rocky! Want to see me pull a rabbit out of my hat?" - Um sure Bullwinkle .. but don't you need a hat to pull the rabbit out of??? So the people at The Origin of Life Foundation are not Darwinists??? Or is that totally irrelevant to the fact that they desperately need a way to get the Origin of Species off to a Naturalistic start??
"Does a rock need instructions to "know" which way to fall? That's the first time in my experience to have a rock used in a straw-man argument.
@gregrutz A Darwinist is someone who buys into the magical thinking of Darwinian evolutionary biology. The "Foundation" might as well be trying to prove that Abiogenesis can't happen considering their lack of success in finding a way that it possibly could happen :)
So the first claim, that random mutations are selected and create different forms of life, is unsustained. The second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations. - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"...the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school"
~Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, 1998
Denton's position has gone from 'evolution is impossible', to evolution is *inevitable*.
So the first claim, that random mutations are selected and create different forms of life, is unsustained. The second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations. - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
O god, the theory of abiogenesis (not evolution) to start it off and then an oversimplicated and incorrect theory of evolution that honestly doesn't even make sense. This is why we don't respect creationists.
The "good mutation" assumption that drives evolution's engine is a fairy tale for adults. Read Cornell University's John Sanford's Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly demolishes the idea that mutations increase information in the genome. See chapter 10, p. 143 "All evidence points to human genetic degeneration" - Or ignore the science you simply don't want to believe.
The reason life is here is not a simple answer that can be explained in 2 minutes or less. It's childish to say that because evolution is complicated to explain that it is wrong.
umm... humans do use sunlight as energy. Its called vitamin d-12, but as you can see we dont run purely off of it because we do sit in one spot motionless our entire lives.
Oh jeez.. as if we needed more evidence that every mythology addled simpleton that attempts to discredit and disparage Evolutionary Theory never has even a rudimentary grasp of what it EVEN IS..
The creator of the universe would not create a heaven and hell and judge people based on the lives they lived because he would already know all the details of a person's life before it even starts, being that he is supposedly all-knowing and all-wise. Considering the big picture, whether you end up in heaven or hell when you die would be based purely on chance, not free will.
The god of the bible doesn't exist.
There. Now you have no reason to attack evolution anymore.
What's sad is that alot of creationists will watch this video and actually use these arguments. I just discovered this user FFF. Someone named 4thcoming told me this guy is worth debating. He might as well have sent me to Nephy's channel. LOL
The "THEORY" of evolution? No this isn't a theory people, its a fucking FACT. Its easy to make something sound stupid by dumbing it down in 2 minutes and you believe in something different. So since I believe in Evolution and the scientific explanation of life and the universe, the following is my explanation of THEORY of creationism:
-A giant old magic man with all the human traits such as jealousy and insecurity (this is all written in the bible) said BANG! AMEN.
By only changing the concentration of the first proteins in the sells at birth, the final organism can be completely different. Which also means the information is not all in the DNA. But coming from its predecessors organism.
Perhaps a concept too hard for most people are little bits of RNA that float in the cytosol and are transfered to the new baby when the cells are produced. These interference RNA (iRNA) cause the cell to splice those sequences (a mecanism usually against viruses).
By doing so any iRNA passed down from the parent cells, can be passed to subsequent decendants. And since the presence or absence and concentration of protein determines EVERYTHING in the organism, we are the direct product of our past.
Evolution decides the traits on a genetic level. But that leaves the cells memory as a deeper explanation for the rise of completly different looking animals.
What's the difference between a high school kid, a researcher with a pHD and a preacher?
None of them can grasp the concept that there is not only one path possible for life. What we see today is only the result of the cumulative decisions the system took in response to the environment and its own variations.
A mix of proteins and growth factors at the embryonic stage can determine which genes will be activated to create the basic plan. The organism depends on the order, not a design.
@ultamatepower If this video reflects your concept of what evolution is, then I am sorry you received such a poor education about how it works and why it happens.
Fortunately, there are over 27,000 peer reviewed articles on the subject available for you to look at on PubMed, and numerous universities and other public institutions of learning that will be more than willing to share their knowledge on the subject with you. I highly recommend checking them out.
@ultamatepower What we "can't handle" is the fact that people are still stupid enough to think that all the scientists in the world would be lying for some undefined purpose, so they have to make up ridiculous straw men like the one in this video in order to fight science.
Better leave the comedy to the professionals and stick to playing with your imaginary friend who tells you to do things, strange and sometimes, obscene things.
I hate to break it to bddy but what you are parodying has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Evolution what you are Parodying is ABiogenesis.... DUDE come ON you are laughable make sure you know what you are parodying b4 you try to make fun... LOL it's like saying I'm going to make fun of abortion, and then showing a video of a woman giving birth.
@upplsuckimcool16 The guys who produced this knew exactly what they were doing. They're aware that the evolution fraternity hates the linking of the two,and duly ignore it. Btw,you realize the two were taught as one for years in schools the world over? It's what I was taught in about 1980 at high school,they were both covered in the same textbook,we were never told to "seperate" the theories. If abiogenesis is ever "proven"you can be sure they'll be reunited.
@CodaCola Fraternity-"Any body of persons having common purposes,interests etc" Macquarie dictionary. You guys are awesome at mock laughter,but really struggle with a genuine chuckle. Dumberass.
@Copsweet So what is the common purpose/interest, then? I hate to disappoint you, but there is absolutely no evidence that the scientists of the world are conspiring against the god-believers. The evidence points to evolution. That's why the scientists say it's true.
Most of this video talks about the process of evolution, not the theory. Ergo; dislike for false advertising.
turbowombat 2 months ago
This is great, I am a science guy and even I can see that evolution isnt science,as the theories just keep getting more and more bizarre
MrPreston49 3 months ago
Great...
BlessElShaddai 3 months ago
There's a reason evolution is called a theory. God is the truth.
SummerSunshine1988 3 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.*God*don't qualify for even a theory
MrThaPatrick 2 months ago
@MrThaPatrick : There's a reason God doesn't qualify as a theory. He isn't a theory. He is a fact.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SummerSunshine1988 '': There's a reason God doesn't qualify as a theory. He isn't a theory. He is a fact.'' Got any evidence for that? NO? what a surprise!
MrThaPatrick 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SummerSunshine1988 '' There's a reason God doesn't qualify as a theory. He isn't a theory. He is a fact.'' Also your reasoning is.... Well I will be nice... lets say its a bit off... Before something becomes a fact you start with a theory that can be supported with EVIDENCE! You can't just scream something is a fact! Like you just did! Sorry that is just really really stupid
MrThaPatrick 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 This shows a misunderstanding of the word theory. Theories and facts aren't mutually exclusive. Theories explain facts. Facts delineate observations. It's a fact that a dropped object on earth is observed to will fall, this is explained through the theory of gravity. God is not a theory because positing him does not explain anything, it simply asserts an entity capable of resolving a given problem. This is called an argument from ignorance; EX: "I don't know, therefore god."
turbowombat 2 months ago 2
I'd hate to insult morons by adding this poster to their number.
dirtydonki 4 months ago
Oh i get it now,, and here's me thinking Dawkins and his disciples are raving, satanist lunatics..!
SovereignBeing 5 months ago in playlist More videos from FirstFreedomFighter
ROFL
greenhornet123 5 months ago in playlist More videos from FirstFreedomFighter
lol the uploader is retarded
MacRief 6 months ago
WOW SO INCREDIBLY IGNORANT
SIXITHS 6 months ago
This is mostly about abiogenesis, but since creationists think evolution is all natural history I guess that's just a semantic disagreement, like ID people not wanting to be called creationists. Since this is somewhat a comedy I'm guessing you know this isn't exactly what people believe happened at abiogenesis...at all... and kinda rushes the more solidly poven stuff
we don't know exactly what gravity or charge are. for a 100 years we didn't know what atoms were. I smell a designer of the gaps.
unassumption 6 months ago
what a poofter
ruzama1995 7 months ago
Trolling
Tearorwrist 7 months ago
FFFLUFFER is a fucking idiot.....
odinata 7 months ago
crap
jcorlettbr 7 months ago
@nottebaccio tell you what, i know you wont respond to my previous comment and most probably you will use your other YT accounts to dislike this one but never the less here it goes:
- ID is Creationism which is based merely on abrahamic religion bias. It will NEVER be accounted as a science. Your intend is NOT to explain ID, its only to dishonestly try to end evolutionary theory, nothing more.
You can delete/spam/dislike this comment but it will never change this fact and you know it.
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Muddying the water with delusional thinking can't stop other people from thinking - that has to be a personal choice. If you define I.D. as being solely based on abrahamic religious bias - then you're ignoring the fact that Information Theory is true science, in direct contrast to Darwinian evolution which is in deep trouble scientifically.
"other YT accounts" ???
nottebaccio 7 months ago
@nottebaccio "Muddying the water" ho please by all mean will you "unmud the waters" by explaining what is ID.. or i'm i right when i say your only propose is to end evolutionary theory and NOT to explain what ID is all about. Please, explain to us how ID is not creationism and it has nothing to do with the abrahamic religions "genesis".
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Un- muddying the waters is what my channel page is about - plenty of information there for anyone not trying to avoid it. You're not even close - if you can't distinguish between "evolution" and "Darwinian evolution" then we aren't even talking about the same thing.
nottebaccio 7 months ago 3
@nottebaccio i have read a lot about ID and all of the sources speak of th inteligent designer being god, most of those sources spoke about th christian god but some spoke of allah.
Is there a website that speaks of an int. designer that is not the god of one of the abrahamic religions? your's also speaks of the christian god.
Yes i know very well the difference between Darwins theory and th whole Evolutionary Theory. I suppose then that u believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution.
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat The fact of the existence of I.D. is irrelevant as to the source of the intelligence insofar as biology is concerned. However you did just succinctly point out that your true aversion to the fact of intelligence inherent in the inception and design of life is it's possible source being "god".
Continuing to throw in irrelevancies such as "abrahamic religions" is uninteresting to me personally, since it has no bearing on the essential facts. Specified complexity is germane however.
nottebaccio 7 months ago 2
@nottebaccio Well there's no use to continue this conversation since you wont come clean about believing in the abrahamic god has the inteligent designer, i know you believe in god (it's on your page comments area) and for what i've seen in your website it must be the christian one(all christian sources/philosofers). this is why a don't like creationists, it's boldface lying, no shame, no shame.
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat You're right, there's no use continuing the conversation because my personal beliefs about god are irrelevant to the facts concerning I.D. My concept of god is personal, and there are no clues on my channel page as to specifics - that was intentional. Your active aversion to any concept of god, especially the "abrahamic" version, has limited your ability to be impartial concerning the factual evidence.
nottebaccio 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat I've never told one single lie in any conversation I've had with anyone on YT. You're right about one one thing there's no shame on my part because I have nothing to be ashamed of. It''s you that is setting a different standard for your belief system - which must deny intelligence and ignore the evidence if it is to exist.
You should stop lying to yourself.
nottebaccio 7 months ago 2
@nottebaccio "You should stop lying to yourself." so, which religion should i embrace? which 'inteligent designer' should i worship?
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat You just revealed the nature of your bias, "which religion"? - "which" intelligent designer? - "worship"? The evidence is the evidence - clear and irrefutable. Personal considerations and emotional attachments to pre-existing beliefs will not change the truth. People who still deny intelligent design are the modern equivalent of "flat earthers".
nottebaccio 7 months ago 2
@nottebaccio would you mind showing evidence, research, papers supporting ID?
eleminatus 6 months ago
@eleminatus Dude, everybody knows full well all the ID-research is being supressed by conspiracy scientists, funded by evil atheists and illuminati, to keep the masses dumb and ignorant. But ID will prevail. The theory of evolution is already in big trouble, so I've heard from trustworthy sources......
thomazz2000 6 months ago
@thomazz2000 ohhhh.... the trustworthy sources!!! This second I renounce my allegiance to dogma of evolution and accept ID as all powerful truth! O.O
eleminatus 6 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat & gregrutz You need to talk your atheist friends into using a dictionary to understand and define basic terms and to assimilate some basic logic.
"atheism is the absence of belief" was taken directly from atheists. Awww to bad ;)
nottebaccio 7 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@nottebaccio lolwut?? "No one has absence of belief." My description of atheism was taken from an encyclopedia, you can see for yourself. BTW, can you answer my previous question?
"Intelligent design is not Creationism". Are you denying that ID is based on Biblical narratives?
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago 2
I don't understand why evolutionists dislike this video, considering this is exactly what their belief postulates.
BlessElShaddai 8 months ago
@BlessElShaddai The first minute of the less than two minute video isn't even about evolution.
ketsan 8 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@ketsan What are your sources?
BlessElShaddai 8 months ago
@BlessElShaddai This has very little to do with evolution, way off base.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@BlessElShaddai Not even close. Evolution is not about how life started.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz I realize that.
BlessElShaddai 7 months ago
Hi @nottebaccio . What should the alternative to the Evolutionary theory be? Creationism aka I.D.? If so, are you secure about those Creationist beliefs, the 6000 y.o. Earth, Descent from Adam and Eve, Great Flood and all of these claims?
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Straw man time? Why not, when it's all you got. LOL
Find a posting of mine where I signed off on a 6000 year old Earth or the Great Flood, etc. Intelligent design is not Creationism as you portray it. It is however essential to the inception and evolution of life, unless you prefer the magical thinking of Darwinism.
nottebaccio 7 months ago
@nottebaccio "Intelligent design is not Creationism". Will you deny that ID is based on Biblical narratives? That Man was created(or intelligently designed) by the Abrahamic god?
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
Dumbest video I have seen in years!
mtbee9 8 months ago 2
Did I say that evolution is a fact? I don't remember writing that. You should to learn to be more precise in your thinking . I've already presented difficulties that Darwinian evolution theory has not been able to answer. The information on my channel is available to you. Educate yourself. Or avoid the facts if that is your preferred mode.
nottebaccio 8 months ago 2
Sloppy thinking won't bring you closer to the truth. If you have access to a dictionary - use it. A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural - a fact is a fact. "Sometimes these theories contain the same word as the fact that they pertain to" that's also called circular reasoning. I didn't sat that evolution isn't a fact. Darwinian evolution is the issue, and the process by which it is said to occur violates information theory and The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
nottebaccio 8 months ago 2
Comment removed
nottebaccio 8 months ago 2
@nottebaccio (part 1)
Evolution is a fact (which you just said was true) Darwinian evolution is the (very strongly supported) theory which suggests the mechanism by which this evolution occurs. If you can somehow show that this mechanism is wrong, then you would win the nobel prize and would likely revolutionise modern science and cause a paradigm shift so large, it is likely anything so large has ever occurred in science. Tell me what your issue is with darwinian evolution. TBC
spursdude92 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@nottebaccio and it wasn't circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is where you start with a conclusion and work backwards endlessly trying to get there forever cycling through the same ideas e.g. "the bible is the word of god, because the bible said god can't lie and it also says it is the word of god"
that my friend is circular logic (not suggesting you believe that)
I just said that it just so happened that the mechanism used to explain evolution also had evolution in its title
spursdude92 8 months ago
I can't be sure that this is a troll video, but I sure hope it is. If not, I feel sorry for you.
spursdude92 8 months ago
Why is a magic process anymore unplausable than a magic man?
avc1234 9 months ago
Comment removed
UNNAM3D82 9 months ago
@UNNAM3D82 Sir are you able to read I AM FOR EVOLUTION (idiot) but you don't seem to understand what it means to level with your opponent to get your point across. Seriously with people like you makeing rude outbursts no wonder people aren't willing to understand the concepts behind evolution.
avc1234 9 months ago
@avc1234 It is not. The thing is, evolution is not a "magic process." It is a simple process, which talks about random variation and non-random natural selection. This allows, over time, for things to start to change to the point where they are no longer considered similar enough to be the same species as they cannot mate with each other to give fertile offspring.
I'm aware you're for evolution, I'm just writing this so no one reads your comment and think it a good argument.
spursdude92 8 months ago
ok cool so has anyone ever seen a fish walking on land? are there any pictures? or is the government just to cheap to rewrite all the text books because they're full of shit. they don't know how this organism occured but they know we evolved from fish.....so one day fish became people? then where is the middle ground nobodys ever seen a half fish person this is bs
whenhopedies187 10 months ago
@whenhopedies187 "ok cool so has anyone ever seen a fish walking on l"
Yep - It's called a mudskipper. You really are ignorant of life aren't you.
Read a biology book - or did you skip that subject in school and choose religious indoctrination instead!
Oh to be so ignorant when libraries and the internet are so full of information. Amazing.
mtbee9 10 months ago
@mtbee9 Yep,and the precurser to the mudskipper was.........the mudskipper!! All the way to the Cambrian.
Copsweet 9 months ago
@Copsweet "precurser to the mudskipper was.........the mudskipper"
So you have proof that the mudskipper was alive in the Cambrian and if you do - it was identical to the modern mudskipper! Please show me.
Then we can go through all the other animals that still exist. Where is your Cambrian Rabbit, Horse, Human, Bird etc.
Or do you think each was magically poofed into existence at the exact point in the geological time frame to give the illusion of evolution.
Evidence please.
mtbee9 9 months ago
@mtbee9 Evo is definitely an illusion,you're on the money there. Why don't you sit down and draw out the mutation process that got us from fish to quadraped,back to whale,biped so on. Count out the mutations too,should be fun. Then ask why we have not,and cannot observe mutation adding one single new feature in any creature. Not a single,tiny morphological change. It's never been seen,we can't make it happen in a lab or nature,but you're an idiot to doubt it.
Copsweet 9 months ago
@Copsweet "draw out the mutation process that got us from fish to quadraped,back to whale,biped so on"
Already been done - you are obviously out of touch with modern information on evolution.
Try reading Dawkins the ancestors tail - spells it out in detail.
Or look at the tree of life web project - tolweb to get a greater understanding of what we now know.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and has never been falsified.
On the other hand is - guesswork and day dreams.
Whose the idiot!
mtbee9 9 months ago
@Copsweet Oh I forgot - Why no answers to my questions:
Where is your proof of Cambrian Mudskipper?
What about proof of of Cambrian Rabbits, horses and Humans?
Or proof that they were magically poofed into existence.
Nothing but guesswork and a wish for things to fit into your view of the world no matter how wrong it is!
mtbee9 9 months ago
Seems you missed my inference when I said idiot,maybe read it again. Re tree of life,look at newscientist mar 09,"Axing Darwins tree" by Graham Lawton. Evo never been falsified???If you believe that,not much point in any discussion. Guesswork and daydreams?Read "Origin of the specious" if you want an objective appraisal of the scientific method in t of e. No,mskipper not found in Cambrian,no-one's claimed all phyla came in that period,but the vast majority did,without precurser.
Copsweet 9 months ago
"proof of magically poofed.." Well,for me it's the fact the fossil record has overwhelmingly demonstrated sudden appearance,something paleos have observed,the core mechanism for evo has never been observed,only limit to change has ever been demonstrated,none of which has ever been morphological. And socially,the fact that evo supporters shout down and ridicule any who cast doubt. It's the way any bully operates. Unverified stories that are sold as irrefutable proof.
Copsweet 9 months ago
@Copsweet "the fossil record has overwhelmingly demonstrated sudden appearance"
The most you can say is punctuated evolution. ie periods of time, usually due to big environmental changes, where evolution is free to expand. Sudden in the fossil record of 4 Billion years is in the order of 10's of Millions of years.
" evo has never been observed" - Of course not it takes millions of years so it cannot be recreated in the lab only micro evolution can - and has. cont..
mtbee9 9 months ago
@Copsweet " It's the way any bully operates."
You are deluded. The scientific method simply looks at the evidence is reviewed by many others and ideas are worked out into theories - Physics, Biology, Chemistry etc. I don't see any 'Bully'. Show some evidence that refutes evolution, or simply come up with a better Theory that fits the facts and you could win a nobel prize!
Hasn't happened yet - ToE is the only explanation that fits the evidence. All you have is wishful thinking.
mtbee9 9 months ago
@Copsweet "Evo never been falsified" - True, otherwise please explain how it has been falsified.
As for Origin of Specious. Good example of wishful thinking by IDer's. Nothing more.
"no-one's claimed all phyla came in that period,but the vast majority did"
Really - show me a mammal from the Precambrian, or a Dinosaur.
mtbee9 9 months ago
Fossil evidence did'nt fit the theory,so pun equil is the excuse. Mutations never change morphology,but it is insisted that it does. There's some wishful thinking for you. The evidence could'nt fit the theory less,it's being forced into it. It may shock you to learn I'm aware humans,horses and rabbits did'nt arrive in the Cambrian,but MOST phyla did,without precurser. I'm delusional,but you don't believe evolutionary evidence has ever been falsified? Not too hard to find.
Copsweet 9 months ago
@Copsweet "so pun equil is the excuse" I have no idea what that means.
"Mutations never change morphology" - How come the bones of the arm show a gradual change from a fishes fin all the way to modern mammals? If they didn't have a common ancestor they would be very different!
"evolutionary evidence has ever been falsified?" Not what I said - I said the THEORY has not been falsified - ie proven wrong!
There are a few fossil hoaxes that science threw out - so what.
mtbee9 9 months ago
@mtbee9 And it can never be falsified as long as conjecture,extrapolation and speculation are presented and accepted as fact.
Copsweet 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Copsweet "it can never be falsified as long as conjecture,extrapolation and speculation are presented and accepted as fact."
You don't understand falsify. If you find some evidence, such as Cambrian rabbit - this would not be possible through evolution and so would prove the Theory wrong.
So far all evidence agrees with the gradual change of form through Millions of years driven by mutation and Natural Selection and so it is considered fact by most Biologists.
mtbee9 9 months ago
All evidence like fossils appearing abruptly? Mutations inability to effect morphological change? You really think that evidence demonstrates gradual change over billions of years? Sorry,I'll never see the logic in that.
Copsweet 9 months ago
@Copsweet "Sorry,I'll never see the logic in that" Sorry but it's perfectly logical.
Fossils do not appear abruptly - 10's of millions of years is not abrupt.
A gradual change in morphology is very evident in many animals.
The increasing complexity and changes with similarities between creatures clearly indicates a progression.
More and more evidence supports this with every fossil found the gaps are closing.
Still no alternative explanation I see to fit the facts - ID is just unsupported.
mtbee9 9 months ago
@Copsweet "(mammals) didn't arrive in the Cambrian,but MOST phyla did"
Almost forgot - What Phyla did? Not Birds, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, or any other tetrapod, not jawed fishes or terrestrial plants - doesn't leave much does it! The Phyla you refer to are the very basic body types in very simple form which evolved into what we see today through gradual change as shown throughout the fossil record.
Any evidence for an alternative answer other than evolution. I'd love to hear it.
mtbee9 9 months ago
That experiment has actually been done, obviously not with a diaper, but it was successful.
kitsch6987 10 months ago
wait ...f&^king awesome !
lunabirdie 10 months ago
awesome ! ! !
lunabirdie 10 months ago
@TheHatefulDead Hey Brainiac,The Origin of Life Foundation is offering one million U.S. dollars to anyone who can "propose a plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life." Go fetch ;)
nottebaccio 10 months ago 16
@nottebaccio
Tell me Goober, how is that pertinent to my statement regarding Denton's 180° turn?
(Hint: The answer is 'Nothing')
It's also completely irrelevant to the fact that, regardless of the exact mechanism[s] involved in the initial organization of genetic instruction, those instruction are now subjected to selection for genotypic fitness with corresponding effect on phenotypic fitness; i.e. evolution.
You've had a year since we last talked to get a clue...
Go fetch one.
TheHatefulDead 9 months ago
@TheHatefulDead What are you on about ? Sheeesh can't even help someone capitalize on their amazing intellect! Just thought you might be kind enough to get the ball rolling for those poor schmucks - they realize Darwinists have to rely on magical thinking to get (non - living) chemicals to do intelligent things.
It' s sooo sweet knowing I can still push your buttons ;)
Who need a clue? LOL
nottebaccio 9 months ago 18
@nottebaccio
Now who's being silly?
Abiotic chemicals don't "do intelligent things". Emergence in physical systems aren't the result of "magical thinking", either... perhaps your thinking of talking snakes, global floods, The Old Man Who Lived in a Fish, etc.
Speaking of pushing buttons, if you'd down-thumbed my comment & upped your own just one more time you'd have completely falsified my statement... too late now, though.
And pretty girls w/dumb ideas have always pushed my button ;-)
TheHatefulDead 9 months ago
@TheHatefulDead Running out of material? It had to happen - you should have chosen a more internally consistent religion. Just for giggles look at the big picture - some abiotic chemical possessed a "natural" affinity for hooking up in certain advantageous ways, and lo and behold, after a few billion years life "emerged" and then after a few more billion years intelligence "emerged" - so life came from non-life and mind form non-intelligent processes. you're right it's not magic, it's a miracle!
nottebaccio 9 months ago
@nottebaccio It is hard to sum up what evolution is in 2 minutes, but this video certainly does NOT come close.
1. Evolution is not a religion. It is a fact AND a scientific theory (much like gravity and cell theory)
2. It is dependent upon the non-random process of natural selection, which promotes and sustains those with traits favorable to its environment.
3. In order to look at the big picture for evolution, one must spend a long time not roughly 150 characters
spursdude92 8 months ago
@spursdude92 1. If evolution is a fact - then it can't also be a theory. Learn to think for yourself rather than regurgitating what you've been told is true. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, isn't a theory it's an established fact .. and tossing out terms like "natural selection" and "non random" can't account for sustained increased orders of specified complexity in biological systems. The only thing that can account for increased information is intelligence. Sorry Charlie.
nottebaccio 8 months ago 3
@nottebaccio Something CAN be both fact and scientific theory. The word theory in science is used to mean a way of explaining facts. Sometimes these theories contain the same word as the fact that they pertain to, such as the theory of gravity, cell theory and the theory of evolution. That evolution occurs is a fact. The process by which it occurs? THAT it what is covered by Darwin's theory of Evolution.
"Learn to think for yourself rather than regurgitating what you've been told is true"
TBC
spursdude92 8 months ago
@nottebaccio (part 2)
What evidence do you have which says the only way something can increase in "information" is intelligence?
Also, please can you define information, or are you going down the "discovery institute" route and using Behe to come up with your arguments (which have already been refuted countless times by others far more intelligent than me)
You feel as though I don't think for myself, when I have spent years pondering and came to a conclusion which sided with the most evidence
spursdude92 8 months ago
Comment removed
nichtmuttersprachler 5 months ago
Comment removed
nichtmuttersprachler 5 months ago
@nottebaccio "If evolution is a fact - then it can't also be a theory." Wrong. The fact of evolution simply refers to the phenomenon that allele frequencies change. The theory of evolution refers to the well-substantiated scientific theory that makes a wide array of valid predictions by explaining how selective pressures and genetic drift acting on genetic variation in populations account for various phenomena such as biological evolution.
nichtmuttersprachler 5 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler Darwin's version of evolution is just a theory ... and it's a theory that must accept the premise that material causes can ultimately produce life, diversity of life, and intelligence. Accepting that the sum of material causes could produce intelligence is magical thinking. Intelligence would have to be an intricate part of evolution for it to work. Notice your language, "selective pressures" for instance - and all the while working uphill against Thermodynamics ;)
nottebaccio 5 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@nottebaccio
Atomic Theory is just a theory too!
And Cell Theory, and Number Theory....
Maybe you should look up the term "scientific theory"--google it!
odinata 4 months ago
Comment removed
kappapi560 4 months ago
@nottebaccio "Darwin's version of evolution is just a theory" 1) Biologists don't use Darwin's theory anymore. Our understanding of biological evolution has greatly improved. For instance, Darwin knew nothing about the molecular mechanisms of mutation, nor did he consider genetic drift acting on neutral variation. 2) You clearly don't understand the term "scientific theory" if you think evolution is "just" a theory. This webpage briefly explains your misconception: notjustatheory*dot*com
nichtmuttersprachler 4 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler
Have you ever heard of genetic entropy? Also, genetic drift has to do with variation and adaptation. The macro-evolutionary part is an assumption. So is that the part that isn't a theory? You may not realize it, but you are equivocating. In order not to, you need to be clear about what you mean by the term evolution. Do you mean common ancestry and/or probable universal common ancestry? And by what observable mechanisms EXACTLY?
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
The Young Earth Creationist John Sanford's "genetic entropy has been thoroughly debunked.
But then again, even FFFighter abandoned the Young Earth part of his creationism after engaging me and realizing the faulty logic of his claims....
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respond to this video...
"And by what observable mechanisms EXACTLY?"
Organisms have heritable traits. They pass those traits on with varying degrees of success.
Speciation is demonstrable, observable, and testable.
DNA-DNA hybridization even gives a time frame WHEN the branching occurs.
This IS the mechanism.
Exactly.
odinata 4 months ago
@nottebaccio "it's a theory that must accept the premise that material causes can ultimately produce life, diversity of life, and intelligence." 1) Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. 2) The theory of evolution wonderfully explains the diversity of life. Haven't you any understanding of evolutionary theory? 3) It also explains the origin of intelligence, although our understanding of this is still elementary compared to our understanding of other aspects of biology.
nichtmuttersprachler 4 months ago
@nottebaccio "Intelligence would have to be an intricate part of evolution for it to work." Wrong. I'm guessing you think that, according to evolutionary theory, organisms "decide" to evolve. This is not true at all. Through subsequent generations, populations evolve due to selective pressures acting on adaptive and maladaptive genetic variation and due to genetic drift acting on neutral genetic variation. There is no "decision" to evolve.
nichtmuttersprachler 4 months ago
@nottebaccio "Notice your language, "selective pressures" for instance" I'm sorry if you don't understand the terminology of biology, but "selective pressures" is the correct term. For example, if bacteria grow in an environment containing antibiotics, the antibiotics act as a selective pressure that causes subsequent generations of the bacteria to evolve antibiotic resistance.
nichtmuttersprachler 4 months ago
@nottebaccio "all the while working uphill against Thermodynamics" Wrong. Biological evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that for any real spontaneous process, Δ(entropy of the universe) = Δ(entropy of the system) + Δ(entropy of the surroundings) > 0. For any process, one must consider the system *and* its surroundings. While many biological processes are endergonic, the *net* ΔS is always negative.
nichtmuttersprachler 4 months ago
@nichtmuttersprachler It is said when people silence reason. If the crazy had their way they would still be burning books and heretics. It takes time to shed superstition.
kappapi560 4 months ago
@nottebaccio
"they realize Darwinists have to rely on magical thinking"
magical thinking = your lack of understanding.
LiveTheWild 8 months ago
@nottebaccio ''spontaneous rise of genetic instructions'' What the hell is that and what does it have to do with life starting?!?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Ask your Darwinist compeers at The Origin of Life Foundation. They seem to be aware of the absolute necessity for those "instructions" to exist if life is to arise. The trick is to find a way for those instructions to arise [spontaneously] even though the word (instructions) itself implies [intelligence]. Sheeesh! such a dilemma!
nottebaccio 7 months ago
@nottebaccio Darwinists?!? Darwin wrote ''Origin of Species'' NOT Origin of Life.
Does a rock need ''instructions' or 'intelligence' to know which way to fall?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz This is useless, she is not here to learn, she is to preach her abrahamic religion and she won't even admit it. it's shows how honest this creationists are.
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat SHE SAYS "atheism is a non-belief" .. then atheists cannot [believe] that there is no God.
.
Why do people laugh at creationists?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
lol, atheism is not the absence of belief, but the disbelief in the existence of a deity. People can believe anything, but if you believe in a deity it makes you a theist, otherwise you're an atheist, as simple as that.
"Why do people laugh at creationists?" because their claims are absurd and can be very easily proven wrong.
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@gregrutz "Hey Rocky! Want to see me pull a rabbit out of my hat?" - Um sure Bullwinkle .. but don't you need a hat to pull the rabbit out of??? So the people at The Origin of Life Foundation are not Darwinists??? Or is that totally irrelevant to the fact that they desperately need a way to get the Origin of Species off to a Naturalistic start??
"Does a rock need instructions to "know" which way to fall? That's the first time in my experience to have a rock used in a straw-man argument.
nottebaccio 7 months ago 5
@nottebaccio WTF is a Darwinsit? Darwin is dead dummy.
Origin of life had nothing to do with Evolution.
As far as I can tell the ''foundation' is trying to prove Abiogenesis can't happen.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz A Darwinist is someone who buys into the magical thinking of Darwinian evolutionary biology. The "Foundation" might as well be trying to prove that Abiogenesis can't happen considering their lack of success in finding a way that it possibly could happen :)
nottebaccio 7 months ago 3
@nottebaccio ''the magical thinking '' Science does not use Magic. Evolution has been accepted.
Creatards are the only ones who can't imagine how chemisty and life happens.
gregrutz 7 months ago
How did you get this stupid?
HorrorIllogium 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As retarded as this was, it was still kinda funny.
EmperorZ19 10 months ago
Nice, fuck evolution. It's retarded. People are so blind to not see right through evolution's flaws.
2pacOG 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
So the first claim, that random mutations are selected and create different forms of life, is unsustained. The second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations. - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
achilles197474 11 months ago 2
@achilles197474
"...the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school"
~Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, 1998
Denton's position has gone from 'evolution is impossible', to evolution is *inevitable*.
TheHatefulDead 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So the first claim, that random mutations are selected and create different forms of life, is unsustained. The second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations. - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
achilles197474 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
O god, the theory of abiogenesis (not evolution) to start it off and then an oversimplicated and incorrect theory of evolution that honestly doesn't even make sense. This is why we don't respect creationists.
mydogdaisy1212 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "good mutation" assumption that drives evolution's engine is a fairy tale for adults. Read Cornell University's John Sanford's Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly demolishes the idea that mutations increase information in the genome. See chapter 10, p. 143 "All evidence points to human genetic degeneration" - Or ignore the science you simply don't want to believe.
achilles197474 11 months ago
"Since I can't explain or understand evolution, therefore a sky daddy created the world 6000 years ago."
Sounds like a solid argument.
thepoo1234 11 months ago
What is happening?
sk8inkill 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is hard to believe that anyone would teach that people are descended from fish. Only goes to show...you really can't fix stupid.
achilles197474 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I don't understand it so God did it."
miketwo345 1 year ago
evolution (or should I say, EVILUTION) is a lie sent from the devil. you call christians gullible but you believe the greatest lie of all!
TheChristisgreat 1 year ago
@TheChristisgreat How?
XpumpkinheadXhearseX 1 year ago
Huh.. For a video about evolution, there wasn't much about evolution in it.
Weird.
Seffyzero 1 year ago
That's not evolution. Evolution is how life changes and adapts to its environment.
You talked about abiogenesis, and didn't even describe it correctly.
Nezzytheawesome 1 year ago
The reason life is here is not a simple answer that can be explained in 2 minutes or less. It's childish to say that because evolution is complicated to explain that it is wrong.
rlbond 1 year ago
What?
berniebay 1 year ago
You know that the creation of life is different from the evolution of life, right?
revspikejonez 1 year ago
You know that the creation of life is different from the evolution of life, right?
revspikejonez 1 year ago
Here's the theory of a guy playing with dirty diapers for science.
TheLowbornKing 1 year ago
One of the dumbest videos ever.
odinata 1 year ago
umm... humans do use sunlight as energy. Its called vitamin d-12, but as you can see we dont run purely off of it because we do sit in one spot motionless our entire lives.
coopmuch56 1 year ago
Surprised the dumb ass knew how to work the camera lol
Slyteradon 1 year ago
Oh jeez.. as if we needed more evidence that every mythology addled simpleton that attempts to discredit and disparage Evolutionary Theory never has even a rudimentary grasp of what it EVEN IS..
SofaKingLoaded 1 year ago 3
It is so obvious how well educated you are since abiogenesis and evolution are the same to you!
What a fucking moron!!!
FPamelaMD 1 year ago
The creator of the universe would not create a heaven and hell and judge people based on the lives they lived because he would already know all the details of a person's life before it even starts, being that he is supposedly all-knowing and all-wise. Considering the big picture, whether you end up in heaven or hell when you die would be based purely on chance, not free will.
The god of the bible doesn't exist.
There. Now you have no reason to attack evolution anymore.
CodaCola 1 year ago 3
shameful anyone would cite conservapedia as a source.
agentorange20 1 year ago
Nice parody of the creatards' ideas of evolution.
trueleroix 1 year ago
What's sad is that alot of creationists will watch this video and actually use these arguments. I just discovered this user FFF. Someone named 4thcoming told me this guy is worth debating. He might as well have sent me to Nephy's channel. LOL
Educateftw 1 year ago
lol, "this spineless creature must have been a politician!":D
BRESHEET 1 year ago
The "THEORY" of evolution? No this isn't a theory people, its a fucking FACT. Its easy to make something sound stupid by dumbing it down in 2 minutes and you believe in something different. So since I believe in Evolution and the scientific explanation of life and the universe, the following is my explanation of THEORY of creationism:
-A giant old magic man with all the human traits such as jealousy and insecurity (this is all written in the bible) said BANG! AMEN.
Now what sounds crazier?
SilentMott 1 year ago 2
By only changing the concentration of the first proteins in the sells at birth, the final organism can be completely different. Which also means the information is not all in the DNA. But coming from its predecessors organism.
Perhaps a concept too hard for most people are little bits of RNA that float in the cytosol and are transfered to the new baby when the cells are produced. These interference RNA (iRNA) cause the cell to splice those sequences (a mecanism usually against viruses).
Flem1337 1 year ago
By doing so any iRNA passed down from the parent cells, can be passed to subsequent decendants. And since the presence or absence and concentration of protein determines EVERYTHING in the organism, we are the direct product of our past.
Evolution decides the traits on a genetic level. But that leaves the cells memory as a deeper explanation for the rise of completly different looking animals.
Flem1337 1 year ago
What's the difference between a high school kid, a researcher with a pHD and a preacher?
None of them can grasp the concept that there is not only one path possible for life. What we see today is only the result of the cumulative decisions the system took in response to the environment and its own variations.
A mix of proteins and growth factors at the embryonic stage can determine which genes will be activated to create the basic plan. The organism depends on the order, not a design.
Flem1337 1 year ago
@Flem1337 Is that really THE difference? The researcher has evidence, and the preacher and high school kid have name-calling.
CodaCola 1 year ago
Lol, obviously creationist don't have any real science to prove evolution wrong but at least they have parody.....
Dragontao1 1 year ago
BOOBZILLA ROCKS
DragonTyrion 1 year ago
I like how angry the atheists get when they see this video, they can't handle to see evolution as it actually is.
ultamatepower 1 year ago
@ultamatepower If this video reflects your concept of what evolution is, then I am sorry you received such a poor education about how it works and why it happens.
Fortunately, there are over 27,000 peer reviewed articles on the subject available for you to look at on PubMed, and numerous universities and other public institutions of learning that will be more than willing to share their knowledge on the subject with you. I highly recommend checking them out.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@ultamatepower What we "can't handle" is the fact that people are still stupid enough to think that all the scientists in the world would be lying for some undefined purpose, so they have to make up ridiculous straw men like the one in this video in order to fight science.
CodaCola 1 year ago
Better leave the comedy to the professionals and stick to playing with your imaginary friend who tells you to do things, strange and sometimes, obscene things.
BOULDERDP 1 year ago
"this spineless creature must've been a politician" LOL
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
this is so stupid.
steelheadjake 1 year ago
WOW this guy is incredibly retarded.....
I hate to break it to bddy but what you are parodying has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Evolution what you are Parodying is ABiogenesis.... DUDE come ON you are laughable make sure you know what you are parodying b4 you try to make fun... LOL it's like saying I'm going to make fun of abortion, and then showing a video of a woman giving birth.
Unbelievable how ignorant people are.
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
@upplsuckimcool16 The guys who produced this knew exactly what they were doing. They're aware that the evolution fraternity hates the linking of the two,and duly ignore it. Btw,you realize the two were taught as one for years in schools the world over? It's what I was taught in about 1980 at high school,they were both covered in the same textbook,we were never told to "seperate" the theories. If abiogenesis is ever "proven"you can be sure they'll be reunited.
Copsweet 1 year ago
@Copsweet "the evolution fraternity"
Hahaha. Dumbass.
CodaCola 1 year ago
@CodaCola Fraternity-"Any body of persons having common purposes,interests etc" Macquarie dictionary. You guys are awesome at mock laughter,but really struggle with a genuine chuckle. Dumberass.
Copsweet 1 year ago
@Copsweet So what is the common purpose/interest, then? I hate to disappoint you, but there is absolutely no evidence that the scientists of the world are conspiring against the god-believers. The evidence points to evolution. That's why the scientists say it's true.
CodaCola 1 year ago
@CodaCola What's the common interest?? Really?? It's not evolution? You must be here for the shopping then.
Conspiracy is a very dramatic word,and I've never used it to describe the situation.
Copsweet 1 year ago