And its no surprise to me that kent hovind is locked up this is what has happened to all of the people that tell the truth thats getting old now the gig is up people.
This martin guy is not owning anybody. He's scrambling around the facts period and simply sounds like someone who refuses to believe that Yahweh is king of this universe. He needs to look around and notice that there are many many many people who worship satan meaning if satan is a entity of this earth then Yahweh is the ruler of all things. There can't be a satan without there being a Jesus.
@fix4111000 human mind is easily subjected to supernatural delusions. If you travel back to Ancient Greece, everybody around you would claim Hades is real, and backed it up by personal testimonies, archaeological evidence, holy scriptures...etc. There can't be a Hates without there being a Zeus.
i have never said that we should put the teachings of the bible into public schools but take out evolution. if the moon is moving away at about 3.8 cm per year than how the earth can be 4.5 billion years old, the tides would cover every continent 40,000 years ago. and if we didn't came from a rock than where did the first organism came from?
@ProMajtas "if the moon is moving away at about 3.8 cm per year than how the earth can be 4.5 billion years old" => the moon is receding at ~3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 10^10 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
@Casshyr you're missing the point, only 40000 thousand years ago the tides would cover the planet meaning every land animal would drown twice a day, I don't know about you but I can drown only once.
@ProMajtas "if we didn't came from rock than where did first organism came from?" => look up abiogenesis. This is an ongoing research, but current popular model is first organism exists as self-replicating RNA strands, which have indeed been demonstrated in labs to be mechanistically possible. btw, nothing is absolute certain when predicting the past. That's the beauty of science. We update our theories as we get more knowledge. Saying "God did it" just because we don't know is wrong.
@Casshyr If i don't understand something I don't just say God did it but if I see something so complex and so perfectly designed than I can see that there was a designer. Evolution is a dying theory you have no idea how can something so complicated as an eye or the defense mechanism of the bombardier beetle evolve, so of course you hide behind some crap. just admit evolution id crap and take the lies out of the public school textbooks.
@ProMajtas "if I see something so complex and so perfectly designed than I can see that there was a designer" => lol but you do much more than that. You assume this designer also designed the universe. You assume this designer is a Christian God (or Catholic God) or whatever your faith is. And you assume this designer and evolution cannot be mixed, when millions of Christians/Catholics/Muslims will say you're wrong.
@ProMajtas "you have no idea how can something so complicated as an eye or the defense mechanism of the bombardier beetle evolve" => we do. Look up PMID: 21929620, and PMID: 10729276. And calling it crap doesn't make it crap. You need to give scientific criticisms, and have it gone through peer-review process. You're just angry cuz the world doesn't respond to you lmao.
@Casshyr if you call this evidence than I can't help you. all these two say is that both an eye and that beetle could evolve but it doesn't say how! human eye has 20 major parts if one of these parts was not 100%evolved than the eye wouldn't work. so if you want to believe that there was a species that lived for millions of years with a vestigial organ on their face until after millions of years it finally became useful than go ahead but don't call it science.
@ProMajtas "all these two say is that both an eye and that beetle could evolve but it doesn't say how!" => they do. This all goes under the concept which for the sake of simplicity, you can call as micro-evolution. At every step there is an advantage to be selected, and since we know gradual transition steps are possible, there's no reason to conclude why a macro-transition over a long period of time is impossible.
@ProMajtas "human eye has 20 major parts if one of these parts was not 100%evolved than the eye wouldn't work" => you do realize there is the transition from non-dependencies to partial dependencies to specialization? The parts of eye are fully dependent on each other because they have evolved to specialize to work as a group, but they are not dependent in the past when their functions are not yet specialize. You see this with Ribosome splicing complexes too.
@ProMajtas "there was a species that lived for millions of years with a vestigial organ on their face until after millions of years it finally became useful" => lmao 2 things. 1) Incorrect use of the term vestigial organ. For someone who claim to think what is science and what is not, you certainly don't know a lot of basic terms. 2) Primitive eye carries out functions too, with an advantage over those that don't.
@Casshyr 1) when there is an organ that is 100% useless than it's ok to call it vestigial.
2) what can an eye do before it was to be fully evolved? you wouldn't move it because the muscles that move it didn't evolve, it could be used by the predator as a good place to attack, it could be used to see blurry upside down world, it could be used to wipe your ass because it would be useless.
@ProMajtas "what can an eye do before it was to be fully evolved?" => certain single-cell organisms possess primitive eye that can detect different shades of light, and can migrate towards the light to carry out photosynthesis. Other primitive creatures evolve a cup-shaped eye to be able to detect where the light is coming from. Detection of light is a big advantage over those that can't. The development of lens further sharpen the image to allow more finite resolution.
@ProMajtas "when there is an organ that is 100% useless than it's ok to call it vestigial." => 2 things. You miss out the part about comparing to original functions, and also, it doesn't have to be 100% loss for an organ to be vestigial. Seriously, this is like grade 10 science....are you out of high school yet?
@ProMajtas And you still haven't yet provide the scientific source for the tide covering the whole planet 40,000 years ago. Either take it back or offer proof to support it with peer-reviewed scientific articles.
@Casshyr look up the inverse square law, look up logic, it's logical to say that if two big objects like the earth and the moon would be close than the gravitational pull would greater than if they would be farther away. LOGIC <-- best teacher there is.
@ProMajtas "if two big objects like the earth and the moon would be close than the gravitational pull would greater than if they would be farther away" => can't understand, too many grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures. I know you are frustrated cuz your precious faith is under attack and you are having a hard time providing evidence lol, but plz remain coherent.
@Casshyr I don't know if you noticed but this argument is not about grammar. Tell me what is wrong about my sentence. Seems pretty clear to me. Tell me how you attacked my faith in this sentence?
@ProMajtas "Seems pretty clear to me" => "if two big objects like the earth and the moon would be close than the gravitational pull would greater than if they would be farther away" ....what are you trying to say? Just rephrase it. It has nothing to do with attack on faith. It's about the clarity. I don't even understand it to know what to attack.
@Casshyr wow so it looks like I have to explain it to you like you're 3. ok tide is movement of bodies of water happens twice a day if this tide was to cover the whole planet every land animal would die. if the moon was to be 1/3 of the distance to the earth the gravitational pull would have 9 times the strength it has today according to the inverse square law. I have no idea how to explain this to you better, relay my brother is 6 and he understands this.
@ProMajtas lmao so your logic is "wow, look how finely tuned the universe is...if it is any bit off, we will all die. that's proof of God design!". That's totally false. If that's your argument, then better luck next time.
@ProMajtas "the tides would cover every continent 40,000 years ago" => nope, look up Eicher, D. L., 1976. Geologic Time. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Precambrian length of day and the validity of tidal rhythmite paleotidal values. Geophysical Research Letters 24(4): 421-424. and Wells, J. W., 1963. Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature 197: 948-950.
@TheCosmokramer09 well if you want to believe we came from a rock, than feel free to do so but don't call it science and get it the fuck out of public school textbooks.
@ProMajtas so u want them to throw into the schools textbooks that earth has been here only 6000 yearsS? Im sorry sir but there is plenty of evidence out there that that proves that is wrong, I dont believe we came from a rock but i know earth has been here for 4.5 billion years
This is why evolutionary biologists, for the most part, refuse to debate creationists. Creationists contend that it's because scientists are arrogant. Well how could they NOT be arrogant? Here you have an individual who's spent a decade or more of their lives studying and understanding evolutionary principles, and then have some idiot like Hovind tell them they're wrong without even having a 6th grader's grasp of biology.
creationists have gotta stop attacking on the issue of "how does life begin" in an evolution debate...abiogenesis and evolution are totally 2 different theories!! Disproving one does not disprove the other.
@Casshyr They dont have a working knowledge of either theory. All they have is their talking points that they cling to despite how many times they've been debunked. You can't attempt to convince someone who has no interest in finding out if they're wrong. Its sad, really.
It takes millions of years to create a new animal. Of course dog won't just create something else. It requires micro-evolution, and spreading adaptive genes. Also, not all creatures evolve unless adaptation creates advantageous characteristics to spread its genes.
This caller really stubbed his own toe stating that we didn't evolve from rock or some other random material. Chemical evolution on many different levels has to be present just to form any kind of DNA. DNA is not simple random structuring. Rather it is a complex helix that demands normalcy lest even in our eukaryotic selves cancer is present quite often or in growth and development we see spontaneous abortion. Genesis 4, 5, and 11 lays Adam to Abraham. Matthew 1 Abraham to Jesus . . .
why do you creatards not understand that evolution is not about "coming from a rock" or monkeys giving birth to humans? Know what you are talking about before you make complete asses of yourselves in public.
@OnePlayGroup No one says life came from a rock, no one is trying to say that a monkey gave birth to a human. Maybe try and actually research what you are trying to talk about?
umm and how exactly does kent get owned?? u idiot, this guy doesnt even sound smart, hes just trying to confuse kent by asking the moron questions, but u idiots would not understand common sence, after all we all came from a rock....
@shpotik Good work, just undermine your own point by stating something idiotic that you are obviously just parroting form some creationist moron. Please, cite me a single paper, textbook, anything, made by a real scientist, that states that we come from a rock, no one is claiming that, its a creationist strawman, nothing more
So now you are suggesting that matter has always been there? I know atheist always do that excuse.. "Science doesn't know it yet and it's a fact that God doesn't exist." How stupid..
Some scriptures are not canonized and most christians doesnt want to read outside the bible because they think that bible has all the moral needed to live a life. Me, I keep myself open minded and reads outside. Book of Enoch is a good one to start.
"How to shut up pesky evolutionist" sounds really unbias..
Nobody believe someone but THEMSELVES... What kent hovind is saying that every evidence have a different interpretation and what the guy on the radio keep insisting like he knows it %100. This guys presupposition is so strong that he is not accepting Hovinds analogy. He is just blocking hovinds analogy because without his analogy there is no other way to defend hovinds point of view therefore this guy wins.. Atheist are just a bunch of close minded retards..
@gianboy2001 he only doesn't accept hovind's analogies because they are ridiculous. None of them have anything to do with a living thing like martin said. And why do you call an atheist a retard?
@gtisthebest247 It is an analogy, it doesnt have to be the same. It is an analogy to try to make sense what he is trying to say. If he can't accept it then there is no way for him to understand. He doesnt want to accept the analogy because he is close minded like the rest of the atheist... Why do atheist call religious people delusional? RETARD! I can call you whatever I want.... Atheist have strong faith, the only diff is that you believe "everything came from nothing"
@almostskater3210 Well ofcourse you will think that. Like I said on my other comment it wasnt the reproductive system he's trying to compare it was the similarities with the DNA. AWWWW don't try to turn it back on me. It is you who doesnt know the very first existense. You can from BIG BANG which is before is NOTHING and BOOM, Billions of years later we got everything.....
Do we know how the universe was created? No... Do we have the most common theory called the Big Bang... Yes. I never said I believe in that anyway. I say we don't know. Plus, by that analogy, all life should look the same. Why are you guys so hung up on that analogy anyway? Analogies don't prove anything.
@almostskater3210 Here is the basis of creationist summed up in one theme song. Earth!!! FIre!!!! WIND!!! WATER!!! HEART!!!! GO PLANET!!!!! By your powers combined I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!!!!!!!!
@gianboy2001 do you really think bridges and motorized vehicles make good analogies to living things? The analogies don't matter anyway because YOU COULD USE ONE TO COMPARE ANYTHING TO ANYTHING ELSE. That's not the way to prove a point and it feels like that's all kent hovind does.
@gtisthebest247 Okay, Okay, I can tell you that you are so close minded that its making you look stupid.. Lets put it this way. An 8 years old intelligence is the same as ASIMO's Intelligence. Base on your narrow understanding We can't even say that because we are comparing a living things and a non living thing. The fact that he wasn't comparing the reproductive system makes this a valid analogy. He was talking about the similarities because it has the same designer just like creators on earth.
Whether his analogies are valid or not, they prove nothing. All it does is provide a different way of looking at things. Like I said, you shouldn't use analogies to prove a point. It's worthless. That's the only way kent knows how to argue because he has very little back round and using analogies requires little to no back round.
@gtisthebest247 The same reason you can't get anything other than your belief!!!! Nobody listens to anyone nowadays, they only listen to themselves... To truth is that all this evolution stuff are just "I am almost positive this is what happend" because base of ones presupposition. You can never call it a fact. You can find hundreds of fossilized animal and rearranged it but in the end they are just imagination. It can be real or not but you can never call it a fact.
@gtisthebest247 If you believe that our universe was cause by an accident and all the wonders around you and all the 1x1*TRILLION chances around you, that I have no problem with. It's the same reason I have no problem with retards...
I hope we both keep our minds open till the end of our life for us to find the truth...
@gianboy2001 Whatever. But let me clear some misconceptions about earth and the big bang.
1.) It was not a random explosion from nothing. The theory says that all the mass is constantly expanding and contracting (big crunch). The theory doesn't say it came from nothing. Stop calling it "Creation from nothing."
2.) Do you realize there are numerous other terrestrial planets within the Goldilocks zone of their solar system?
3.) If you haven't, watch "How to shut up pesky creationists."
@gianboy2001 Once more; The big bang theory DOES NOT state that all matter came from nothing. Why? Because we don't know (not yet at least).
I apologize for assuming you didn't think there would be life on other planets. Kent Hovind thinks that, so I assumed you would too.
I just looked up "How to shut up pesky evolutionist" and I didn't find any matches. So tell me what you thought about "How to shut up pesky creationists". Every time I ask someone to watch it, they never respond back.
What Hovind fails to realize is the nature of the forces working to promote change in environments. The "designer" has created an enourmously complex system to accomodate change. Logically, this accomodation is driven by need. Need is qualified by purpose. I honestly don't have the confience that Hovind can take his logical thinking to the level required to see the bigger picture. From a pshological persepctive this could be due to a strong need to refinforce a belief system driven by ego.
@Laylow4now : I guess when you say fractal you are referring to a self-emergent phenomenon, which by definition does not require a designer. Pure chaos can create order out of nothing. And its even more interesting that no one can predict what this order will look like.
Kent Hovind didn't get owned. The question of a Designer does raise alot more questions.
So start studying these questions.
The whole classification thing (if Beatles come from a designer who also designed dogs, then why don't we see similar structures?) is proof of nothing.
If God designed living creatures in a fractal manner...I.E. one branch going this way and the other branch going that way....then this is exactly what we would expect.
jesuits phukin rule they said it would be & listen to these fk ups..they realy are convenced of big bang aaaah ha! goddoubledamn & he did didnt he dough!!
idiots suckered by the S. O. J.-IHS poor kent if he woulda just shut up hed be free...yea hes also an idiot..or maybe he was aware....he was warned. got this vid for the big screan on the beach this week...getta laugh-on sum evolution suckas jesuit-fish-head moron fk ups. this is great..!
@ProMajtas Au Contraire..I disagree. I do NOT believe the world is 6000 years old, I do NOT refer to the big bang as an "explosion" and I certainly pay my taxes sir.
This debate firms the idiocy of creationists.. At the end, notice how Kent repeats himself asserting it as a legitimate point after Martin told him that it has nothing in common with evolution.
I know you people would rather sit an listen to a professer on evolution "theorys" that say we all came from a puddle!!?? Then belive your creator who taught us how to love and fullerious in his word! only because people would rather do what they want then just be sober, have sex before marrige, and not feel gulity about what you do is worng! just admit it!? And if you look around you today you'll see chrstians being persecuted in america..Why you ask? look up this verse matthew 24 4-14, PLZ
@CarloOnU2ube You are either deliberately ignorant of the evidence or a jejune dolt - either one suits a theist. There is enough evidence to convince any reasonable person, but if there were reasonable people - there would be no religion. (talkorigins (dot) org/faqs/comdesc)
If you believe evolution teaches that life comes rocks - you are reading too much creationist pseudoscience.
@CarloOnU2ube Are you actually making an analogy between humans and Blu-ray discs? Evolution doesn't make the ridiculous insinuative "we came from nothing", evolution has nothing to do with /how/ life was first created: that is abiogenesis. I cannot believe the stupidity your spouting: "explain viruses, they're not life, they are atoms"? Are you mentally handicapped? Viruses are living organism and /everything/ physical is built with atoms. You axiomatically have produced no actual argument.
@CarloOnU2ube Blu-ray discs are not biological, and we know they are man-made because we /know/ we make them! They are evidently man-made, and nothing points towards design. All the evidence points away.
Why do we have a vomeronasal organ? Why do we have goose bumps? Why do we still have the congenital defect? Why do we have a coccyx? Why do we have wisdom teeth?
@jamesjnr67 i am? ok son. Go find the nearest biology textbook near you and go see what it says on viruses. Viruses are not made of cells NOT or else they could not fit into a cell to invade it. having dna does not make it alive
dna it just highly complex order of molecules. A virus is atoms, yes atoms not cells not molecules and DNA
@CarloOnU2ube well i picked up the nearest copy of livescience as you suggested and found this article "swine flu is an excellent example of evolution at work”. from the editor...........but i guess that will not be proof enough for you of anything
@CarloOnU2ube so im presuming your religious perhaps you could take time out of your busy schedule and answer one question for me........if you dont wish to answer questions dont bother responding ....ill understand
@CarloOnU2ube i dont mind...you have confused me now already..........religious isnt the right word you say............so come clean are you a christian or muslim or atheist or pagan or what? or undecided.
@CarloOnU2ube wow so let me get this straight you believe earth sciences like glaciology,geology,climatology,meteorology,biology,geophysics and oceanology to name a few have all come to the same conclusion as the bible that the earth is 6000 years old.........i cant wait to hear this response
@jamesjnr67 some of those are not earch science and no. I believe the real science of the earth shows this. Plus dont even try to use the excuse that just because different kinds of science agree with each other its true. and that without evolution biology makes no sense. because that doesnt make sense. If you start something with a false base and keep progressing in wrong way you will just get to a false conclusion. Lots of things about the earth PROVE it cant be more than 10,000 years old
@CarloOnU2ube "lots of things about the earth PROVE it cant be more than 10000 years old"......really?........are you sure? name me ten facts that prove the earth is the age you say it is........quite impossible i know........i wonder why?
and you cant prove its millions of years old or even give evidence..
i can give evidence.
The magnetic field weakens at a rate than 15,000 years ago it would be so strong it would not support any life. Even if thats slightly innacurate (which its not) and it was weaking at 10 times alower it would mean 250,000 years ago the magnetic field would not support life.
so its quite impossible for the earth to be "4.6 bill
@CarloOnU2ube oh dear you really have made yourself look silly,yes the magnetic field weakens but it also gains strength ie the magnetic field (dipole moment) fluctuates over time......this has been proven and is common knowledge it seems to everyone except you....... so your statement the field is on a one way downward decline of weakness is ridiculous in the extreme......please go back to school and ask a science teacher.......
@jamesjnr67 ion years old. The thing scientists use to classify age of the earth by sedimentary rock doesnt work because if theyre theory was true then they shouldnt be finding modern things under what is supposed to prehistoric.
@weseethroughyou ugh. scientists classify things by layers of the earths crust which they claim is the age of the earth. They find layers of rock under what is supposed to be way way older layers of rock. the only way this would make sense is if there was a flood. or else what did time go crazy?
@CarloOnU2ube you need to look up Plate Tectonics and how even the youngest rocks can be pushed up to form the tops of mountain ranges,thats why you can find ammonite fossils in the Himalayas, you really need to go back to school and learn the basics......of everything itseems
@CarloOnU2ube can i ask you one question now? If evolution is so true, then how come we have NEVER found any intermediate species or forms inbetween the species that is evolving? It is clearly not logical since there are millions of species in the world and we have never found any intermediate forms for any
not even dinosaurs. every dinosaur (well bones) ever found was 100 percent dinosaur not 99 not anything less. Darwin said if his theory is true then there MUST be intermediate species
@CarloOnU2ube actually there are transitional species,creationist just refuse to ignore the evidence examples are Archaeopteryx, Probelesedon, Eusthenopteron and Seymouria to name a few,now please stop being so idiotic
@weseethroughyou haha i knew you would respond in a way like this
those are in no way transitional
because they may look similar they are not transitional
there genes for specific things are in chromosomes so theres no way for them to have evolved
just like they say birds evolved from dinosaurs. bird experts say thats impossible because the genes for feathers and scales are in different chromosomes etc. but anyways lets go beyond evolution.
@weseethroughyou If the big band happened from nothing like is says
nothing means no time, space, matter or energy. yes you would need all the activation energy in the world to start the biggest explosion in the world that somehow compressed all the matter we see today that wasnt there at the time and it compressed nothing to everything? and everyting into the size of an atom? and its also impossible to be a beggining when there was no time before. if there was no time there would be no reason
@CarloOnU2ube The big bang doesn't say anything about what was before, it only takes place when the expansion of time and space began, what was before this has yet to be known.
@weseethroughyou youve bored me to tears now,you are quite simply the most uneducated twat i have ever encountered,so i am going to ignore you.....but please keep posting on youtube, everytime you post on here creationism looks more and more stupid,so keep up the good work you make the atheists life easier and easier
@CarloOnU2ube Okay so what you're saying is that you're looking for something like the crocoduck. Oh geez this is embarassing. There's many intermediate species pal, you just don't want to accept it.
@jamesjnr67 and the next thing that makes all "science" think the earth is old is carbon dating. which CANT work in any accurate way if the earth is not in equilibrium. which it isnt. uh well last thing im gonna explain right now is both together. Since they started out the investigation to "prove" there was no God they had jumped to conclusions and thought the earth was way older than 10,000 years. and from there they started asuming carbon dating would work for that reason, but it doesnt.
@CarloOnU2ube ''think the earth is old is carbon dating'' Well geez man, maybe that's why they DON'T use carbon dating to date things that are more than a few hundreds of years old.
@Reasonwillwin im not even going to laugh at you but are you actually serious? where do you think the idea that dinosaurs are 65 million years old came from? because thats what they get from carbon dating. google it
@CarloOnU2ube No they don't use carbon dating to date dinosaurs you uneducated fool, you are the one who should be laughed at right now, there are lots of other dating methods. Of course I don't expect you to know this since you clearly are a science illiterate. Stop getting your information from uneducated college dropouts like Kent Hovind.
@Reasonwillwin hmm uneducared college dropuots....like Kent Hovind?? right now you shold be laughed at. You can make fun of his theory and what he says, but just because he went to a Bible college doesnt make him uneducated
and your wrong about dinosaurs
yes theres other methods but they still use carbon dating for the most part
@CarloOnU2ube ''but just because he went to a Bible college doesnt make him uneducated'' Yes it means he's uneducated, the guy doesn't have a real college degree. He went to a college that is not recognize to have any educational credentials, his ''degree'' is therefore worthless. ''yes theres other methods but they still use carbon dating for the most part'' Nah they really don't,do some real research buddy. Whatever they'll say you won't accept because you were brainwashed by the bible.
@Reasonwillwin haha funny funny, i used to be like you till about a year ago. Brainwashed by a book you say? I havent actually read much of the Bible. Use your evolutionist arguements but dont say that we deny truth because all i see is you guys denying the obvious. Like for the most important part of your theory. Tell me please, how do YOU think the Big Bang happened or how it came to happen?
@CarloOnU2ube ''how do YOU think the Big Bang happened or how it came to happen?'' I told you already, nobody knows for sure, we know that the big bang happened, the expansion of the universe is shown to have started at a point of singularity but what caused this expansion is still a mystery. But don't make a fool out of yourself, answering every questions with ''God did it!'' is completly absurd. Now you can debate evolution all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's proven process.
@Reasonwillwin First, In the Bible it talks about God expanding the universe
pretty odd hed say that if it was written by man
second its not a fact at all and you do not know it happened. thats a statement of faith, i dont care how much you believe your theory or how much it looks to have happened
even if there was stars that spelled out the big bang happened you cant say it happened thats faith
@CarloOnU2ube First of all, learn how to spell. 2nd of, no sir it is not a statement of faith, the universe is expanding , we know this thanks to SCIENCE. The bible talks about stretching the heavens, that's not the universe. Evolution is a scientific fact proved by hundreds of years of research and discoveries. There's evidence for evolution in our dna, in the stratas, in the fossil records and more. The only reason you don't accept this is because you have been brainwashed into a cult.
@CarloOnU2ube You don't have any understanding of science. Stretches out the heavens? You really think the heavens are the universe? What a joke. Just pick up a science book and read it for a change.
@CarloOnU2ube You know what else god says in the bible? He says that killing two birds and bathing yourself in their blood will cure you of lepracy. Well shit, good luck with that! I'm gonna tell you something kid, if the earth would be thousands of years old there would be NO WAY for you to look at the some of the stars outside your window, their light wouldn't reach this planet, it takes too long, in fact, millions of years. This universe is old, just accept it, you can still believe in god.
@Reasonwillwin Im sorry have you ever heard of metaphors? and No thats not true, look it up, theres a new cosmology ACCEPTED by astronomers and scientists and everything because eintein proved time is not a constant and that gravity alone affects time
and with the central gravity effect of the universe the light could talk minutes or second to reach here
like those theories of time travel with light speed
@CarloOnU2ube Wrong? What you told me had NOTHING to do with what I talked about, you just wrote stuff about your complete lack of understanding of science! Light from a star millions of light years away from us taking minutes to reach us? Are you insane????? This is IMPOSSIBLE. ''like those theories of time travel with light speed'' Time travel? Oh for pete sakes, just stop right there, this ain't Superman or the matrix. Stop taking your arguments from dumbass creationists, they're crazy.
@Reasonwillwin hahahaha your are so stupid. ok look buddy. TIME is NOT a constant, NOT so if that light would talk MILLIONS OF YEARS ( a time!!) then this could be changed by the gravit of the center of the universe. Listen. even if the big bang happened that would mean there is no matter beyond a certain point. yes it works with the big bang so that means there would be an aproximate center which would affect the time of things like millions of years to much much less. I make points while you
@CarloOnU2ube ''ahahaha your are so stupid.'' As opposed to the cult following dumbass who believes this planet is 6000 years old even though most of the scientific community discovered otherwise? What a patheitc schmuck you are. ''ts an accepted theory by evolutionists'' Evolutionists? What the hell are evolutionists? Are there gravitationists? Germists? Heliocentrists? Dude come on, you can't be that stupid. I like how you cherry pick theories for your own benefits like a child.
@CarloOnU2ube ''ahahaha your are so stupid.'' As opposed to the cult following dumbass who believes this planet is 6000 years old even though most of the scientific community discovered otherwise? What a patheitc schmuck you are. ''ts an accepted theory by evolutionists'' Evolutionists? What the hell are evolutionists? Are there gravitationists? Germists? Heliocentrists? Dude come on, you can't be that stupid. I like how you cherry pick theories for your own benefits like a child.
@CarloOnU2ube You clearly have a large lack of understandinfg of modern science and you twist scientific theories to fit your young earth fairytale. Most of the things you said are unfunded and lack any kind of logic.
@Reasonwillwin Im sorry but please dont make this a 1st grade arguement. If you want opinions i think that if you belive that nothing, no space no time matter or energy was once present then thought oh wait matter is not created nor destroyed so you came to a conclusion that all the matter present
with the amount of every human on earth being able to hav 11 trillion stars just to himself just came all at once and was compressed to the space of an atom. your right, thats not ridiculous!!
@CarloOnU2ube ''just came all at once'' Woah man, the theory of the big bang doesn't state that all stars came all at once, that's the theory of creationism. And once again we don't know what preceded the big bang, that doesn't mean the theory is worthless. Answering everything with ''God did it!!'' has always inhibited our process in the scientific world. Religions and science don't mix up.
@Reasonwillwin I have to say you are very right about that, well part of that. Religions and science shouldnt mix up, but if one religion is true it should go right next to science, but evolution is not science, you can say ive been watching too much Kent Hovind if you want but it is simply not science. we cant observ grab feel experiment on it, its all faith. which links to religion. You never saw the Big Bang. Plus if there was no God and how the world came had to be like the Big Bang, how on
@Reasonwillwin earth are we, these tiny humans on a tiny planet of a giant universe, supposed to know the origin of it? we wouldnt. And about you saying "thats creationism" evolution says all matter came at once and ALL THE MATTER IN THE WORLD WAS COMPRESSED INTO THE SPACE OF AN ATOM? now whoa whoa whoa, is that were even possible, that would take so much activation energy that.. i dont know what to compare it to but it would take alot. and when there was nothing there was no energy.
@CarloOnU2ube ''evolution says all matter came at once and ALL THE MATTER IN THE WORLD WAS COMPRESSED INTO THE SPACE OF AN ATOM?'' Nah, evolution doesn't say that pal, that's the big bang theory, which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is only the process of adaptation of forms of life. No evolution is not faith, yet again it has been proven by the fossil record, DNA and observations. We don't know what was before the big bang, we know it happened, but before this is mystery.
@Reasonwillwin nah do research the Big Bang is a form of cosmic evolution. and you are talking about micro evolution which is variety
macro evolution has never been seen or ever observed or proven. It is faith. even if the bones pointed right to that kind of evolution (which they dont) im not saying i would deny it im just saying it would still be faith to belive they evolved because you werent there. Stupid evolutionists think that because bones of animals have similarites like a whale and a
@CarloOnU2ube '' nah do research the Big Bang is a form of cosmic evolution.'' You mean COSMOLOGY. My god, stop rehashing Hovind arguments! I many times will I have to say this! He's an uneducated moron who doesn't understand scrap about evolution and COSMOLOGY. They are 2 different theories, they are NOT related . '' it would still be faith to belive they evolved because you werent there.'' You weren't there so you don't know! Dumbest freaing argument I've ever seen, just plain ignorance.
@Reasonwillwin that whey had a common ancestor, and they say its a fact. when that is your opinion on common ancestor or common designer. its not a face. and evolution and the big bang remains faith.
@CarloOnU2ube If evolution isn't true then could you please tell me why we can observe animals going from unicellular organisms to develloped vertabraes in a clear order in the fossil records? Please give me a logical answer.
@Reasonwillwin What? are you saying that we clearly see that? First of all, unicellular, thats funny because they dont have bones. and we dont not see animals evolving in the fossil record. we see animals with similar characteristic and we see micro evolution in the fossil record which is how they trick you. Logic example: When darwin created his theory he thought of it because he thought a bunch of similar birds had a common ancestor(which they did)....a bird... And that is micro evolution.
@CarloOnU2ube ''First of all, unicellular, thats funny because they dont have bones'' Yeah no shit, when did I say they had bones? They're descendents did devellop bone structures though. Animals and plants being related is a biological fact. we know this thanks to DNA. Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are the same process. Again, since the discovery of DNA we made considerable discoveries for evolution. Then again you haven't answered my question.
@CarloOnU2ube i see from your previous comments you have dismissed the scientific theory of plate tectonics and prefer the flood story,with that in mind and the fact the continents must have always been in this position according to your belief how was it possible for noah as instructed by god in genesis 6:19.to go to australia,SAmerica Africa etc "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort SHALT THOU BRING into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female"
@Reasonwillwin wait let me explain more. A bird can have varieties in DNA with other birds which would make other kinds of birds which is evolution in the fossil record, but micro. macro says birds used to be dinosaurs and that ultimately we came from frogs (yes thats what they state) and that dogs, roses, elephants, tigers, and fish are all related. that we dont not see.
@CarloOnU2ube i mean how did he physically go to all these continents as instructed by god and round up all these animals,its obvious from genesis 6:20 the birds cattle and all the bugs allegedly made their own way but i would love to hear some sort of explanation if you capable of having one......oh i forgot noah had to go to asia europe north america as well as allthe other continents.........remembering all the time you dont believe in plate tectonics
@themoronhunter Funny. If you even heard the theory you would know everything you just said wouldnt make sense. There were not many species back then
God said bring one of each kind. not species. kind. like a kind could be the ancestor of the horse zebra donkey etc. all came from a common ancestor. and why would i not belive in plates?
@CarloOnU2ube well done for completely avoiding answering the question i thought you would find it too difficult,you dont believe in plate tectonics as you have already stated on here layers of rock that are newer are found below older rocks and this is the result of the flood according to you therefore no other theory is possible again according to you
@CarloOnU2ube mind you at least you inadvertently championed the cause of evolution by claiming there were not many species back then-there is certainly a lot now and god didnt create them after the flood!
@CarloOnU2ube i always knew you would slip up on your own arguments,so perhaps you could explain to everyone how the science of dating is flawed,not carbon14 dating mind you which can only give us accurate readings for the last 70000 years but Radiometric dating.please explain why you believe the science behind(not results but the actual science)Radiometric dating is scientifically flawed,remember god says is not an argument please give facts as to why Radiometric dating is scientifically flawed
@CarloOnU2ube you might also wish to explain how if according to you the fossil record is the result of a great flood why oh why are the fossils of a different ages.....surely they should all be the same age if a flood theory was true
@jamesjnr67 haha, thats funny, all of you always say everything we say is false. when there is no reason for it to be false. anyone can say something is false, and then of course you rely on name calling to make you look like your not losing the argument.
@Reasonwillwin and just like you say about your theory, just cuz you dont understand does not mean its worthless. Just cause our 3 pound brain doesnt understand how the most complex thing in the universe works doesnt mean its not real.
And its no surprise to me that kent hovind is locked up this is what has happened to all of the people that tell the truth thats getting old now the gig is up people.
fix4111000 2 days ago
This martin guy is not owning anybody. He's scrambling around the facts period and simply sounds like someone who refuses to believe that Yahweh is king of this universe. He needs to look around and notice that there are many many many people who worship satan meaning if satan is a entity of this earth then Yahweh is the ruler of all things. There can't be a satan without there being a Jesus.
fix4111000 2 days ago
@fix4111000 human mind is easily subjected to supernatural delusions. If you travel back to Ancient Greece, everybody around you would claim Hades is real, and backed it up by personal testimonies, archaeological evidence, holy scriptures...etc. There can't be a Hates without there being a Zeus.
Casshyr 1 day ago
hell ya!
virgilxoxo1 2 weeks ago
i have never said that we should put the teachings of the bible into public schools but take out evolution. if the moon is moving away at about 3.8 cm per year than how the earth can be 4.5 billion years old, the tides would cover every continent 40,000 years ago. and if we didn't came from a rock than where did the first organism came from?
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "if the moon is moving away at about 3.8 cm per year than how the earth can be 4.5 billion years old" => the moon is receding at ~3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 10^10 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr you're missing the point, only 40000 thousand years ago the tides would cover the planet meaning every land animal would drown twice a day, I don't know about you but I can drown only once.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "only 40000 thousand years ago the tides would cover the planet" => scientific source for this claim?
Casshyr 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "if we didn't came from rock than where did first organism came from?" => look up abiogenesis. This is an ongoing research, but current popular model is first organism exists as self-replicating RNA strands, which have indeed been demonstrated in labs to be mechanistically possible. btw, nothing is absolute certain when predicting the past. That's the beauty of science. We update our theories as we get more knowledge. Saying "God did it" just because we don't know is wrong.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr If i don't understand something I don't just say God did it but if I see something so complex and so perfectly designed than I can see that there was a designer. Evolution is a dying theory you have no idea how can something so complicated as an eye or the defense mechanism of the bombardier beetle evolve, so of course you hide behind some crap. just admit evolution id crap and take the lies out of the public school textbooks.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "if I see something so complex and so perfectly designed than I can see that there was a designer" => lol but you do much more than that. You assume this designer also designed the universe. You assume this designer is a Christian God (or Catholic God) or whatever your faith is. And you assume this designer and evolution cannot be mixed, when millions of Christians/Catholics/Muslims will say you're wrong.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "you have no idea how can something so complicated as an eye or the defense mechanism of the bombardier beetle evolve" => we do. Look up PMID: 21929620, and PMID: 10729276. And calling it crap doesn't make it crap. You need to give scientific criticisms, and have it gone through peer-review process. You're just angry cuz the world doesn't respond to you lmao.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr if you call this evidence than I can't help you. all these two say is that both an eye and that beetle could evolve but it doesn't say how! human eye has 20 major parts if one of these parts was not 100%evolved than the eye wouldn't work. so if you want to believe that there was a species that lived for millions of years with a vestigial organ on their face until after millions of years it finally became useful than go ahead but don't call it science.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "all these two say is that both an eye and that beetle could evolve but it doesn't say how!" => they do. This all goes under the concept which for the sake of simplicity, you can call as micro-evolution. At every step there is an advantage to be selected, and since we know gradual transition steps are possible, there's no reason to conclude why a macro-transition over a long period of time is impossible.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "human eye has 20 major parts if one of these parts was not 100%evolved than the eye wouldn't work" => you do realize there is the transition from non-dependencies to partial dependencies to specialization? The parts of eye are fully dependent on each other because they have evolved to specialize to work as a group, but they are not dependent in the past when their functions are not yet specialize. You see this with Ribosome splicing complexes too.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "there was a species that lived for millions of years with a vestigial organ on their face until after millions of years it finally became useful" => lmao 2 things. 1) Incorrect use of the term vestigial organ. For someone who claim to think what is science and what is not, you certainly don't know a lot of basic terms. 2) Primitive eye carries out functions too, with an advantage over those that don't.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr 1) when there is an organ that is 100% useless than it's ok to call it vestigial.
2) what can an eye do before it was to be fully evolved? you wouldn't move it because the muscles that move it didn't evolve, it could be used by the predator as a good place to attack, it could be used to see blurry upside down world, it could be used to wipe your ass because it would be useless.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "what can an eye do before it was to be fully evolved?" => certain single-cell organisms possess primitive eye that can detect different shades of light, and can migrate towards the light to carry out photosynthesis. Other primitive creatures evolve a cup-shaped eye to be able to detect where the light is coming from. Detection of light is a big advantage over those that can't. The development of lens further sharpen the image to allow more finite resolution.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "when there is an organ that is 100% useless than it's ok to call it vestigial." => 2 things. You miss out the part about comparing to original functions, and also, it doesn't have to be 100% loss for an organ to be vestigial. Seriously, this is like grade 10 science....are you out of high school yet?
Casshyr 1 month ago
@ProMajtas And you still haven't yet provide the scientific source for the tide covering the whole planet 40,000 years ago. Either take it back or offer proof to support it with peer-reviewed scientific articles.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr look up the inverse square law, look up logic, it's logical to say that if two big objects like the earth and the moon would be close than the gravitational pull would greater than if they would be farther away. LOGIC <-- best teacher there is.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "if two big objects like the earth and the moon would be close than the gravitational pull would greater than if they would be farther away" => can't understand, too many grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures. I know you are frustrated cuz your precious faith is under attack and you are having a hard time providing evidence lol, but plz remain coherent.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr I don't know if you noticed but this argument is not about grammar. Tell me what is wrong about my sentence. Seems pretty clear to me. Tell me how you attacked my faith in this sentence?
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas "Seems pretty clear to me" => "if two big objects like the earth and the moon would be close than the gravitational pull would greater than if they would be farther away" ....what are you trying to say? Just rephrase it. It has nothing to do with attack on faith. It's about the clarity. I don't even understand it to know what to attack.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr wow so it looks like I have to explain it to you like you're 3. ok tide is movement of bodies of water happens twice a day if this tide was to cover the whole planet every land animal would die. if the moon was to be 1/3 of the distance to the earth the gravitational pull would have 9 times the strength it has today according to the inverse square law. I have no idea how to explain this to you better, relay my brother is 6 and he understands this.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas lmao so your logic is "wow, look how finely tuned the universe is...if it is any bit off, we will all die. that's proof of God design!". That's totally false. If that's your argument, then better luck next time.
Casshyr 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProMajtas "the tides would cover every continent 40,000 years ago" => nope, look up Eicher, D. L., 1976. Geologic Time. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Precambrian length of day and the validity of tidal rhythmite paleotidal values. Geophysical Research Letters 24(4): 421-424. and Wells, J. W., 1963. Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature 197: 948-950.
Casshyr 1 month ago
kent hovind owns a guy on a radio show <-- that what the title should be.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas i honestly don't believe you people exist. I would like to fly to wherever you are and meet you. It's like going back in time.
rightnearthebeachboy 1 month ago
@rightnearthebeachboy honestly I don't know how can you believe in that evolution BS.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas honestly i dont know how u can believe in this guys bullshit
TheCosmokramer09 1 month ago in playlist Kent Hovind gets owned on his radio show
@TheCosmokramer09 well if you want to believe we came from a rock, than feel free to do so but don't call it science and get it the fuck out of public school textbooks.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas so u want them to throw into the schools textbooks that earth has been here only 6000 yearsS? Im sorry sir but there is plenty of evidence out there that that proves that is wrong, I dont believe we came from a rock but i know earth has been here for 4.5 billion years
TheCosmokramer09 1 month ago
This is why evolutionary biologists, for the most part, refuse to debate creationists. Creationists contend that it's because scientists are arrogant. Well how could they NOT be arrogant? Here you have an individual who's spent a decade or more of their lives studying and understanding evolutionary principles, and then have some idiot like Hovind tell them they're wrong without even having a 6th grader's grasp of biology.
Nucl3arTeacup 2 months ago
creationists have gotta stop attacking on the issue of "how does life begin" in an evolution debate...abiogenesis and evolution are totally 2 different theories!! Disproving one does not disprove the other.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr They dont have a working knowledge of either theory. All they have is their talking points that they cling to despite how many times they've been debunked. You can't attempt to convince someone who has no interest in finding out if they're wrong. Its sad, really.
Nucl3arTeacup 2 months ago
It takes millions of years to create a new animal. Of course dog won't just create something else. It requires micro-evolution, and spreading adaptive genes. Also, not all creatures evolve unless adaptation creates advantageous characteristics to spread its genes.
MrNicMachiavelli 3 months ago
This caller really stubbed his own toe stating that we didn't evolve from rock or some other random material. Chemical evolution on many different levels has to be present just to form any kind of DNA. DNA is not simple random structuring. Rather it is a complex helix that demands normalcy lest even in our eukaryotic selves cancer is present quite often or in growth and development we see spontaneous abortion. Genesis 4, 5, and 11 lays Adam to Abraham. Matthew 1 Abraham to Jesus . . .
RypTyde 3 months ago
When people try to use Science to prove creationism, it's like a murder suspect trying to kill someone to prove he's innocent.
777Clong 4 months ago
why do you creatards not understand that evolution is not about "coming from a rock" or monkeys giving birth to humans? Know what you are talking about before you make complete asses of yourselves in public.
nancy6ify 4 months ago
@nancy6ify because they refuse to actually try to understand it because personal psychology keeps them from trying to understand.
MrNicMachiavelli 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrNicMachiavelli " because they refuse to actually try to understand it because personal psychology keeps them from trying to understand' well put
BESERKER09 3 months ago
@OnePlayGroup No one says life came from a rock, no one is trying to say that a monkey gave birth to a human. Maybe try and actually research what you are trying to talk about?
iseezapie 4 months ago
umm and how exactly does kent get owned?? u idiot, this guy doesnt even sound smart, hes just trying to confuse kent by asking the moron questions, but u idiots would not understand common sence, after all we all came from a rock....
shpotik 4 months ago
@shpotik Good work, just undermine your own point by stating something idiotic that you are obviously just parroting form some creationist moron. Please, cite me a single paper, textbook, anything, made by a real scientist, that states that we come from a rock, no one is claiming that, its a creationist strawman, nothing more
iseezapie 4 months ago
So now you are suggesting that matter has always been there? I know atheist always do that excuse.. "Science doesn't know it yet and it's a fact that God doesn't exist." How stupid..
Some scriptures are not canonized and most christians doesnt want to read outside the bible because they think that bible has all the moral needed to live a life. Me, I keep myself open minded and reads outside. Book of Enoch is a good one to start.
"How to shut up pesky evolutionist" sounds really unbias..
gianboy2001 5 months ago
Nobody believe someone but THEMSELVES... What kent hovind is saying that every evidence have a different interpretation and what the guy on the radio keep insisting like he knows it %100. This guys presupposition is so strong that he is not accepting Hovinds analogy. He is just blocking hovinds analogy because without his analogy there is no other way to defend hovinds point of view therefore this guy wins.. Atheist are just a bunch of close minded retards..
gianboy2001 6 months ago
@gianboy2001 he only doesn't accept hovind's analogies because they are ridiculous. None of them have anything to do with a living thing like martin said. And why do you call an atheist a retard?
gtisthebest247 6 months ago
@gtisthebest247 It is an analogy, it doesnt have to be the same. It is an analogy to try to make sense what he is trying to say. If he can't accept it then there is no way for him to understand. He doesnt want to accept the analogy because he is close minded like the rest of the atheist... Why do atheist call religious people delusional? RETARD! I can call you whatever I want.... Atheist have strong faith, the only diff is that you believe "everything came from nothing"
gianboy2001 6 months ago
@gianboy2001
No it's called a faulty parallel. Look it up. Isn't it you guys who believe everything came from nothing? water *poof* sun *poof* animals *poof*
almostskater3210 6 months ago
@almostskater3210 Well ofcourse you will think that. Like I said on my other comment it wasnt the reproductive system he's trying to compare it was the similarities with the DNA. AWWWW don't try to turn it back on me. It is you who doesnt know the very first existense. You can from BIG BANG which is before is NOTHING and BOOM, Billions of years later we got everything.....
gianboy2001 6 months ago
@gianboy2001
Do we know how the universe was created? No... Do we have the most common theory called the Big Bang... Yes. I never said I believe in that anyway. I say we don't know. Plus, by that analogy, all life should look the same. Why are you guys so hung up on that analogy anyway? Analogies don't prove anything.
almostskater3210 6 months ago
@almostskater3210 Here is the basis of creationist summed up in one theme song. Earth!!! FIre!!!! WIND!!! WATER!!! HEART!!!! GO PLANET!!!!! By your powers combined I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!!!!!!!!
Boxanadu 6 months ago
@Boxanadu
lol
almostskater3210 6 months ago
@almostskater3210 lol, but think about it, I am right am I not?
Boxanadu 6 months ago
@Boxanadu
hahah thats spot on basically. the creationist would just have to switch some of this names and bam there you go.
almostskater3210 6 months ago
@gianboy2001 do you really think bridges and motorized vehicles make good analogies to living things? The analogies don't matter anyway because YOU COULD USE ONE TO COMPARE ANYTHING TO ANYTHING ELSE. That's not the way to prove a point and it feels like that's all kent hovind does.
gtisthebest247 6 months ago
@gtisthebest247 Okay, Okay, I can tell you that you are so close minded that its making you look stupid.. Lets put it this way. An 8 years old intelligence is the same as ASIMO's Intelligence. Base on your narrow understanding We can't even say that because we are comparing a living things and a non living thing. The fact that he wasn't comparing the reproductive system makes this a valid analogy. He was talking about the similarities because it has the same designer just like creators on earth.
gianboy2001 6 months ago
@gianboy2001
Whether his analogies are valid or not, they prove nothing. All it does is provide a different way of looking at things. Like I said, you shouldn't use analogies to prove a point. It's worthless. That's the only way kent knows how to argue because he has very little back round and using analogies requires little to no back round.
gtisthebest247 6 months ago
@gtisthebest247 You finally got it.. BRAVO!!!
"Like I said, you shouldn't use analogies to prove a point" WOW, Nice talking with you!!
gianboy2001 6 months ago
@gianboy2001 I don't get your optimism.
gtisthebest247 5 months ago
@gtisthebest247 The same reason you can't get anything other than your belief!!!! Nobody listens to anyone nowadays, they only listen to themselves... To truth is that all this evolution stuff are just "I am almost positive this is what happend" because base of ones presupposition. You can never call it a fact. You can find hundreds of fossilized animal and rearranged it but in the end they are just imagination. It can be real or not but you can never call it a fact.
gianboy2001 5 months ago
@gtisthebest247 If you believe that our universe was cause by an accident and all the wonders around you and all the 1x1*TRILLION chances around you, that I have no problem with. It's the same reason I have no problem with retards...
I hope we both keep our minds open till the end of our life for us to find the truth...
God Bless...
gianboy2001 5 months ago
@gianboy2001 Whatever. But let me clear some misconceptions about earth and the big bang.
1.) It was not a random explosion from nothing. The theory says that all the mass is constantly expanding and contracting (big crunch). The theory doesn't say it came from nothing. Stop calling it "Creation from nothing."
2.) Do you realize there are numerous other terrestrial planets within the Goldilocks zone of their solar system?
3.) If you haven't, watch "How to shut up pesky creationists."
gtisthebest247 5 months ago
@gtisthebest247 Ofcoures it came from nothing.. If you think that something can be infinite then which law are you looking at?
What makes you think that i believe that there isn't another planet like ours.. Infact, I absolutely believe in it, read the book of enoch.
Have you watch, "How to shut up pesky evolutionist." ?
gianboy2001 5 months ago
@gianboy2001 Once more; The big bang theory DOES NOT state that all matter came from nothing. Why? Because we don't know (not yet at least).
I apologize for assuming you didn't think there would be life on other planets. Kent Hovind thinks that, so I assumed you would too.
I just looked up "How to shut up pesky evolutionist" and I didn't find any matches. So tell me what you thought about "How to shut up pesky creationists". Every time I ask someone to watch it, they never respond back.
gtisthebest247 5 months ago
What Hovind fails to realize is the nature of the forces working to promote change in environments. The "designer" has created an enourmously complex system to accomodate change. Logically, this accomodation is driven by need. Need is qualified by purpose. I honestly don't have the confience that Hovind can take his logical thinking to the level required to see the bigger picture. From a pshological persepctive this could be due to a strong need to refinforce a belief system driven by ego.
wtrandall 7 months ago
@Laylow4now : I guess when you say fractal you are referring to a self-emergent phenomenon, which by definition does not require a designer. Pure chaos can create order out of nothing. And its even more interesting that no one can predict what this order will look like.
vaibhav1P 7 months ago
Kent Hovind didn't get owned. The question of a Designer does raise alot more questions.
So start studying these questions.
The whole classification thing (if Beatles come from a designer who also designed dogs, then why don't we see similar structures?) is proof of nothing.
If God designed living creatures in a fractal manner...I.E. one branch going this way and the other branch going that way....then this is exactly what we would expect.
Laylow4now 8 months ago
this 1st grad student is dumb hahahahahaLOL! some parts of this debate has been cut out
yanashkidd77 8 months ago
this 1st grad student is dumb hahahahahaLOL!
yanashkidd77 8 months ago
jesuits phukin rule they said it would be & listen to these fk ups..they realy are convenced of big bang aaaah ha! goddoubledamn & he did didnt he dough!!
idiots suckered by the S. O. J.-IHS poor kent if he woulda just shut up hed be free...yea hes also an idiot..or maybe he was aware....he was warned. got this vid for the big screan on the beach this week...getta laugh-on sum evolution suckas jesuit-fish-head moron fk ups. this is great..!
dubvishun 9 months ago
hahahahah kent hovind is sooo dumb.
chambasa2006 9 months ago
@chambasa2006 why ? I am sure he is smarter than you
ProMajtas 7 months ago
@ProMajtas Au Contraire..I disagree. I do NOT believe the world is 6000 years old, I do NOT refer to the big bang as an "explosion" and I certainly pay my taxes sir.
chambasa2006 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chambasa2006 You may believe what you believe but it doesn't change the truth. What does it have to do with taxes?
ProMajtas 7 months ago
i love it when you idiots just shut up and leave an argument .....i have a pet frog with more faith than you
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
This debate firms the idiocy of creationists.. At the end, notice how Kent repeats himself asserting it as a legitimate point after Martin told him that it has nothing in common with evolution.
fucking. idiot.
MajorisVYCanis 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I guess God will have to end this debate.
cinema2k 9 months ago
I know you people would rather sit an listen to a professer on evolution "theorys" that say we all came from a puddle!!?? Then belive your creator who taught us how to love and fullerious in his word! only because people would rather do what they want then just be sober, have sex before marrige, and not feel gulity about what you do is worng! just admit it!? And if you look around you today you'll see chrstians being persecuted in america..Why you ask? look up this verse matthew 24 4-14, PLZ
oklahomakidz 9 months ago
They're chainsaw parts
sirjackson5 10 months ago
After years of debate and putting up with Creationist shit ~
we're finally getting to the point where we know how these Creationists think and are ready with an answer.
It's nice to see - not just here - but across the 'debate' spectrum - creationists getting increasingly cornered and befuddled.
hybridamerica 10 months ago
Oh good another uneducated fundie with a conspiracy theory. We need more of them.
Ozzyman200 11 months ago
this college guy is stupid
and so is the video maker
creationists are afraid of evolution cuz God is incapable of it?
ha
there is evolution is creation
micro evolution
means varieties
we resuse to accept it because it is a fact that there is 0% evidence for macro evolution
meaning real evolution and because that means we come from rocks and it is a religion and should not be showed in school
CarloOnU2ube 11 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube You are either deliberately ignorant of the evidence or a jejune dolt - either one suits a theist. There is enough evidence to convince any reasonable person, but if there were reasonable people - there would be no religion. (talkorigins (dot) org/faqs/comdesc)
If you believe evolution teaches that life comes rocks - you are reading too much creationist pseudoscience.
inswoon 10 months ago
@inswoon if anyone is ignorant it is obviously you
everything points to creation
if you found a HD blue ray movie in the wild there would be no reason to think it evolved with no reason
so how come the most complex thing anyone knows about (human brain and life) is the one thing that people say came from nothing.
explain viruses, theyre not life
theyre atoms
yet so perfect
they couldnt have "evolved"
or those beatles who shoot temperatures of 200 degrees
if they send one gas too son they
CarloOnU2ube 10 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube Are you actually making an analogy between humans and Blu-ray discs? Evolution doesn't make the ridiculous insinuative "we came from nothing", evolution has nothing to do with /how/ life was first created: that is abiogenesis. I cannot believe the stupidity your spouting: "explain viruses, they're not life, they are atoms"? Are you mentally handicapped? Viruses are living organism and /everything/ physical is built with atoms. You axiomatically have produced no actual argument.
inswoon 10 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube Nor a premise. You just assert "they just couldn't have evolved!". What kind of argument is that?
inswoon 10 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube Blu-ray discs are not biological, and we know they are man-made because we /know/ we make them! They are evidently man-made, and nothing points towards design. All the evidence points away.
Why do we have a vomeronasal organ? Why do we have goose bumps? Why do we still have the congenital defect? Why do we have a coccyx? Why do we have wisdom teeth?
inswoon 10 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube what a fuckwit you are,please explain how on earth you came to the conclusion a virus is an atom and not alive
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@jamesjnr67 i am? ok son. Go find the nearest biology textbook near you and go see what it says on viruses. Viruses are not made of cells NOT or else they could not fit into a cell to invade it. having dna does not make it alive
dna it just highly complex order of molecules. A virus is atoms, yes atoms not cells not molecules and DNA
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube well i picked up the nearest copy of livescience as you suggested and found this article "swine flu is an excellent example of evolution at work”. from the editor...........but i guess that will not be proof enough for you of anything
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube so im presuming your religious perhaps you could take time out of your busy schedule and answer one question for me........if you dont wish to answer questions dont bother responding ....ill understand
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@jamesjnr67 religios isnt the right word but sure ill answer any question, as long as i can ask you one if i want
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube i dont mind...you have confused me now already..........religious isnt the right word you say............so come clean are you a christian or muslim or atheist or pagan or what? or undecided.
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube Christian, but i dont see it as so much being religious as having a relationship with God. Religious people are different
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube ok so how old do you think planet earth is
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@jamesjnr67 definatly not billions of years. its in the thousands
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube so you mean about 6000 (give or take a couple of thousand)years old as in accordance with the bible
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@jamesjnr67 with the bible and earth science yeah
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@jamesjnr67 yeah according to the bible and earth science
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube wow so let me get this straight you believe earth sciences like glaciology,geology,climatology,meteorology,biology,geophysics and oceanology to name a few have all come to the same conclusion as the bible that the earth is 6000 years old.........i cant wait to hear this response
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@jamesjnr67 some of those are not earch science and no. I believe the real science of the earth shows this. Plus dont even try to use the excuse that just because different kinds of science agree with each other its true. and that without evolution biology makes no sense. because that doesnt make sense. If you start something with a false base and keep progressing in wrong way you will just get to a false conclusion. Lots of things about the earth PROVE it cant be more than 10,000 years old
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube "lots of things about the earth PROVE it cant be more than 10000 years old"......really?........are you sure? name me ten facts that prove the earth is the age you say it is........quite impossible i know........i wonder why?
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@jamesjnr67 not proof but evidence
its impossible because we werent alive then...
and you cant prove its millions of years old or even give evidence..
i can give evidence.
The magnetic field weakens at a rate than 15,000 years ago it would be so strong it would not support any life. Even if thats slightly innacurate (which its not) and it was weaking at 10 times alower it would mean 250,000 years ago the magnetic field would not support life.
so its quite impossible for the earth to be "4.6 bill
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube oh dear you really have made yourself look silly,yes the magnetic field weakens but it also gains strength ie the magnetic field (dipole moment) fluctuates over time......this has been proven and is common knowledge it seems to everyone except you....... so your statement the field is on a one way downward decline of weakness is ridiculous in the extreme......please go back to school and ask a science teacher.......
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@jamesjnr67 ion years old. The thing scientists use to classify age of the earth by sedimentary rock doesnt work because if theyre theory was true then they shouldnt be finding modern things under what is supposed to prehistoric.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube please explain with examples which modern things scientists find below what is supposed to be prehistoric
weseethroughyou 9 months ago
@weseethroughyou ugh. scientists classify things by layers of the earths crust which they claim is the age of the earth. They find layers of rock under what is supposed to be way way older layers of rock. the only way this would make sense is if there was a flood. or else what did time go crazy?
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube you need to look up Plate Tectonics and how even the youngest rocks can be pushed up to form the tops of mountain ranges,thats why you can find ammonite fossils in the Himalayas, you really need to go back to school and learn the basics......of everything itseems
weseethroughyou 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube can i ask you one question now? If evolution is so true, then how come we have NEVER found any intermediate species or forms inbetween the species that is evolving? It is clearly not logical since there are millions of species in the world and we have never found any intermediate forms for any
not even dinosaurs. every dinosaur (well bones) ever found was 100 percent dinosaur not 99 not anything less. Darwin said if his theory is true then there MUST be intermediate species
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube actually there are transitional species,creationist just refuse to ignore the evidence examples are Archaeopteryx, Probelesedon, Eusthenopteron and Seymouria to name a few,now please stop being so idiotic
weseethroughyou 9 months ago
@weseethroughyou haha i knew you would respond in a way like this
those are in no way transitional
because they may look similar they are not transitional
there genes for specific things are in chromosomes so theres no way for them to have evolved
just like they say birds evolved from dinosaurs. bird experts say thats impossible because the genes for feathers and scales are in different chromosomes etc. but anyways lets go beyond evolution.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@weseethroughyou If the big band happened from nothing like is says
nothing means no time, space, matter or energy. yes you would need all the activation energy in the world to start the biggest explosion in the world that somehow compressed all the matter we see today that wasnt there at the time and it compressed nothing to everything? and everyting into the size of an atom? and its also impossible to be a beggining when there was no time before. if there was no time there would be no reason
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube The big bang doesn't say anything about what was before, it only takes place when the expansion of time and space began, what was before this has yet to be known.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@weseethroughyou for it to be 20 billion years ago. why not 25? if there was no time there was no time for it to start.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@weseethroughyou and no to mention there was no space for it to happen.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@weseethroughyou if you wanna talk about how manyt things people ignore
evlolutionists ignore the most
bye far
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@weseethroughyou youve bored me to tears now,you are quite simply the most uneducated twat i have ever encountered,so i am going to ignore you.....but please keep posting on youtube, everytime you post on here creationism looks more and more stupid,so keep up the good work you make the atheists life easier and easier
weseethroughyou 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube Okay so what you're saying is that you're looking for something like the crocoduck. Oh geez this is embarassing. There's many intermediate species pal, you just don't want to accept it.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@jamesjnr67 and the next thing that makes all "science" think the earth is old is carbon dating. which CANT work in any accurate way if the earth is not in equilibrium. which it isnt. uh well last thing im gonna explain right now is both together. Since they started out the investigation to "prove" there was no God they had jumped to conclusions and thought the earth was way older than 10,000 years. and from there they started asuming carbon dating would work for that reason, but it doesnt.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube ''think the earth is old is carbon dating'' Well geez man, maybe that's why they DON'T use carbon dating to date things that are more than a few hundreds of years old.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin im not even going to laugh at you but are you actually serious? where do you think the idea that dinosaurs are 65 million years old came from? because thats what they get from carbon dating. google it
they carbon date anything
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube No they don't use carbon dating to date dinosaurs you uneducated fool, you are the one who should be laughed at right now, there are lots of other dating methods. Of course I don't expect you to know this since you clearly are a science illiterate. Stop getting your information from uneducated college dropouts like Kent Hovind.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin hmm uneducared college dropuots....like Kent Hovind?? right now you shold be laughed at. You can make fun of his theory and what he says, but just because he went to a Bible college doesnt make him uneducated
and your wrong about dinosaurs
yes theres other methods but they still use carbon dating for the most part
plus sedimentery rock dating doesnt work either
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube ''but just because he went to a Bible college doesnt make him uneducated'' Yes it means he's uneducated, the guy doesn't have a real college degree. He went to a college that is not recognize to have any educational credentials, his ''degree'' is therefore worthless. ''yes theres other methods but they still use carbon dating for the most part'' Nah they really don't,do some real research buddy. Whatever they'll say you won't accept because you were brainwashed by the bible.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin haha funny funny, i used to be like you till about a year ago. Brainwashed by a book you say? I havent actually read much of the Bible. Use your evolutionist arguements but dont say that we deny truth because all i see is you guys denying the obvious. Like for the most important part of your theory. Tell me please, how do YOU think the Big Bang happened or how it came to happen?
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube ''how do YOU think the Big Bang happened or how it came to happen?'' I told you already, nobody knows for sure, we know that the big bang happened, the expansion of the universe is shown to have started at a point of singularity but what caused this expansion is still a mystery. But don't make a fool out of yourself, answering every questions with ''God did it!'' is completly absurd. Now you can debate evolution all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's proven process.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin First, In the Bible it talks about God expanding the universe
pretty odd hed say that if it was written by man
second its not a fact at all and you do not know it happened. thats a statement of faith, i dont care how much you believe your theory or how much it looks to have happened
even if there was stars that spelled out the big bang happened you cant say it happened thats faith
so is evolution
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube First of all, learn how to spell. 2nd of, no sir it is not a statement of faith, the universe is expanding , we know this thanks to SCIENCE. The bible talks about stretching the heavens, that's not the universe. Evolution is a scientific fact proved by hundreds of years of research and discoveries. There's evidence for evolution in our dna, in the stratas, in the fossil records and more. The only reason you don't accept this is because you have been brainwashed into a cult.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube You don't have any understanding of science. Stretches out the heavens? You really think the heavens are the universe? What a joke. Just pick up a science book and read it for a change.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube You know what else god says in the bible? He says that killing two birds and bathing yourself in their blood will cure you of lepracy. Well shit, good luck with that! I'm gonna tell you something kid, if the earth would be thousands of years old there would be NO WAY for you to look at the some of the stars outside your window, their light wouldn't reach this planet, it takes too long, in fact, millions of years. This universe is old, just accept it, you can still believe in god.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin Im sorry have you ever heard of metaphors? and No thats not true, look it up, theres a new cosmology ACCEPTED by astronomers and scientists and everything because eintein proved time is not a constant and that gravity alone affects time
and with the central gravity effect of the universe the light could talk minutes or second to reach here
like those theories of time travel with light speed
something related to that
so again you are wrong
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube Wrong? What you told me had NOTHING to do with what I talked about, you just wrote stuff about your complete lack of understanding of science! Light from a star millions of light years away from us taking minutes to reach us? Are you insane????? This is IMPOSSIBLE. ''like those theories of time travel with light speed'' Time travel? Oh for pete sakes, just stop right there, this ain't Superman or the matrix. Stop taking your arguments from dumbass creationists, they're crazy.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin hahahaha your are so stupid. ok look buddy. TIME is NOT a constant, NOT so if that light would talk MILLIONS OF YEARS ( a time!!) then this could be changed by the gravit of the center of the universe. Listen. even if the big bang happened that would mean there is no matter beyond a certain point. yes it works with the big bang so that means there would be an aproximate center which would affect the time of things like millions of years to much much less. I make points while you
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube ''ahahaha your are so stupid.'' As opposed to the cult following dumbass who believes this planet is 6000 years old even though most of the scientific community discovered otherwise? What a patheitc schmuck you are. ''ts an accepted theory by evolutionists'' Evolutionists? What the hell are evolutionists? Are there gravitationists? Germists? Heliocentrists? Dude come on, you can't be that stupid. I like how you cherry pick theories for your own benefits like a child.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube ''ahahaha your are so stupid.'' As opposed to the cult following dumbass who believes this planet is 6000 years old even though most of the scientific community discovered otherwise? What a patheitc schmuck you are. ''ts an accepted theory by evolutionists'' Evolutionists? What the hell are evolutionists? Are there gravitationists? Germists? Heliocentrists? Dude come on, you can't be that stupid. I like how you cherry pick theories for your own benefits like a child.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube You clearly have a large lack of understandinfg of modern science and you twist scientific theories to fit your young earth fairytale. Most of the things you said are unfunded and lack any kind of logic.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin Im sorry but please dont make this a 1st grade arguement. If you want opinions i think that if you belive that nothing, no space no time matter or energy was once present then thought oh wait matter is not created nor destroyed so you came to a conclusion that all the matter present
with the amount of every human on earth being able to hav 11 trillion stars just to himself just came all at once and was compressed to the space of an atom. your right, thats not ridiculous!!
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube ''just came all at once'' Woah man, the theory of the big bang doesn't state that all stars came all at once, that's the theory of creationism. And once again we don't know what preceded the big bang, that doesn't mean the theory is worthless. Answering everything with ''God did it!!'' has always inhibited our process in the scientific world. Religions and science don't mix up.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin I have to say you are very right about that, well part of that. Religions and science shouldnt mix up, but if one religion is true it should go right next to science, but evolution is not science, you can say ive been watching too much Kent Hovind if you want but it is simply not science. we cant observ grab feel experiment on it, its all faith. which links to religion. You never saw the Big Bang. Plus if there was no God and how the world came had to be like the Big Bang, how on
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin earth are we, these tiny humans on a tiny planet of a giant universe, supposed to know the origin of it? we wouldnt. And about you saying "thats creationism" evolution says all matter came at once and ALL THE MATTER IN THE WORLD WAS COMPRESSED INTO THE SPACE OF AN ATOM? now whoa whoa whoa, is that were even possible, that would take so much activation energy that.. i dont know what to compare it to but it would take alot. and when there was nothing there was no energy.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube ''evolution says all matter came at once and ALL THE MATTER IN THE WORLD WAS COMPRESSED INTO THE SPACE OF AN ATOM?'' Nah, evolution doesn't say that pal, that's the big bang theory, which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is only the process of adaptation of forms of life. No evolution is not faith, yet again it has been proven by the fossil record, DNA and observations. We don't know what was before the big bang, we know it happened, but before this is mystery.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin nah do research the Big Bang is a form of cosmic evolution. and you are talking about micro evolution which is variety
macro evolution has never been seen or ever observed or proven. It is faith. even if the bones pointed right to that kind of evolution (which they dont) im not saying i would deny it im just saying it would still be faith to belive they evolved because you werent there. Stupid evolutionists think that because bones of animals have similarites like a whale and a
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube '' nah do research the Big Bang is a form of cosmic evolution.'' You mean COSMOLOGY. My god, stop rehashing Hovind arguments! I many times will I have to say this! He's an uneducated moron who doesn't understand scrap about evolution and COSMOLOGY. They are 2 different theories, they are NOT related . '' it would still be faith to belive they evolved because you werent there.'' You weren't there so you don't know! Dumbest freaing argument I've ever seen, just plain ignorance.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin that whey had a common ancestor, and they say its a fact. when that is your opinion on common ancestor or common designer. its not a face. and evolution and the big bang remains faith.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube If evolution isn't true then could you please tell me why we can observe animals going from unicellular organisms to develloped vertabraes in a clear order in the fossil records? Please give me a logical answer.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin What? are you saying that we clearly see that? First of all, unicellular, thats funny because they dont have bones. and we dont not see animals evolving in the fossil record. we see animals with similar characteristic and we see micro evolution in the fossil record which is how they trick you. Logic example: When darwin created his theory he thought of it because he thought a bunch of similar birds had a common ancestor(which they did)....a bird... And that is micro evolution.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube ''First of all, unicellular, thats funny because they dont have bones'' Yeah no shit, when did I say they had bones? They're descendents did devellop bone structures though. Animals and plants being related is a biological fact. we know this thanks to DNA. Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are the same process. Again, since the discovery of DNA we made considerable discoveries for evolution. Then again you haven't answered my question.
Reasonwillwin 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube i see from your previous comments you have dismissed the scientific theory of plate tectonics and prefer the flood story,with that in mind and the fact the continents must have always been in this position according to your belief how was it possible for noah as instructed by god in genesis 6:19.to go to australia,SAmerica Africa etc "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort SHALT THOU BRING into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female"
themoronhunter 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin wait let me explain more. A bird can have varieties in DNA with other birds which would make other kinds of birds which is evolution in the fossil record, but micro. macro says birds used to be dinosaurs and that ultimately we came from frogs (yes thats what they state) and that dogs, roses, elephants, tigers, and fish are all related. that we dont not see.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube i mean how did he physically go to all these continents as instructed by god and round up all these animals,its obvious from genesis 6:20 the birds cattle and all the bugs allegedly made their own way but i would love to hear some sort of explanation if you capable of having one......oh i forgot noah had to go to asia europe north america as well as allthe other continents.........remembering all the time you dont believe in plate tectonics
themoronhunter 9 months ago
@themoronhunter Funny. If you even heard the theory you would know everything you just said wouldnt make sense. There were not many species back then
God said bring one of each kind. not species. kind. like a kind could be the ancestor of the horse zebra donkey etc. all came from a common ancestor. and why would i not belive in plates?
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube well done for completely avoiding answering the question i thought you would find it too difficult,you dont believe in plate tectonics as you have already stated on here layers of rock that are newer are found below older rocks and this is the result of the flood according to you therefore no other theory is possible again according to you
themoronhunter 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube mind you at least you inadvertently championed the cause of evolution by claiming there were not many species back then-there is certainly a lot now and god didnt create them after the flood!
themoronhunter 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube i always knew you would slip up on your own arguments,so perhaps you could explain to everyone how the science of dating is flawed,not carbon14 dating mind you which can only give us accurate readings for the last 70000 years but Radiometric dating.please explain why you believe the science behind(not results but the actual science)Radiometric dating is scientifically flawed,remember god says is not an argument please give facts as to why Radiometric dating is scientifically flawed
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube you might also wish to explain how if according to you the fossil record is the result of a great flood why oh why are the fossils of a different ages.....surely they should all be the same age if a flood theory was true
jamesjnr67 9 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube come on you twat.....you may have been made to look a cunt but dont you have any confidence in your false convictions
jamesjnr67 8 months ago
@jamesjnr67 haha, thats funny, all of you always say everything we say is false. when there is no reason for it to be false. anyone can say something is false, and then of course you rely on name calling to make you look like your not losing the argument.
CarloOnU2ube 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarloOnU2ube its been 3 weeks now since you have spouted your shit.......have you admitted defeat?
jamesjnr67 8 months ago
@Reasonwillwin and just like you say about your theory, just cuz you dont understand does not mean its worthless. Just cause our 3 pound brain doesnt understand how the most complex thing in the universe works doesnt mean its not real.
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin call creationists dumbasses?
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@Reasonwillwin its an accepted theory by evolutionists
CarloOnU2ube 9 months ago
@inswoon explode
pretty obvious that couldnt have come from "trial and error"
CarloOnU2ube 10 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube What?
inswoon 10 months ago
@CarloOnU2ube Why does the vagus nerve in giraffes run from the brain, down through the throat, down to the heart and back up?
inswoon 10 months ago
regardless of what side I'm taking, this is in no way ownage
opticfire 11 months ago
Bridges evolving from spider webs lol
Kent Hovind what a dumb ass.
josuedinho98 1 year ago