Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
First of all no one yet step on the Moon its totally bullshit that america went to the Moon hahahahh Second about fake evolutions...Naturall selection can do nothing untill favorable variations chance to occur.
Charles Darwin and the species of Cambrian about 530 milliions years like
star fish, jelly , trilobites emerged sudden no evolutions the eye of trilobites
like a fly , butterfly , and bee its proof that eyes did not evolved after evolutions
Thanks for that. I have been trying to explain the term "theory" to people who state to me that it is only a theory. this is a great explanation, even to the highly uneducated and mentally challenged.
I was expecting to see so-called "evidence" in this video, but its just more arguments! Everything i click on with a title implying evolution as a hard core fact always ends up being arguments based on perception, conclusions and opinions. Its the"if you dont believe in evolution, you can´t believe in gravity" argument time and time again.
@Colthrone There are 7 of these vid's. This first one explains what scientific theories are based on. The 5th video goes into human evolution. Do you believe in DNA?
@Colthrone "Everything i click on with a title implying evolution as a hard core fact" => evolution theory will never become a fact. A scientific theory doesn't get "promoted" to a fact. A fact remains a fact, and a theory remains a theory. This is why germ theory is still called germ theory, not germ fact, or germ law. And also why a cell theory remains a theory, not a cell fact or cell law. A theory in science is as high as it can ever go.
gotta love how every single one of these videos turns into a religious debate. I know you love to share what youve learned to try and make yourself smart but its extremely annoying and to be honest no one really cares.
To clarify: For example, I have a degree in music theory. It doesn't mean that music is a theory, it means it is a scientifically approached body of knowledge. It is with this definition of the word 'Theory' that Evolutionary Theory is to be understood.
@espakor The King James Bible has been printed and distributed more copies than ANY book EVER produced.... ever in ALL history in every part of the world. Comparing it to ANY other book is vanity, foolishness and utterly futile in every respect. Lord of the Rings? pffffff
@KingJamesBible Oh, so now if a book has been printed more than others, that would validate its claims? That is what you are saying, is it not? So by your own example, if the Qu'ran or some other religions text is printed in greater numbers and distributed accordingly, it could then in a sense be better than the bible according to your comment?
Not a very astute observation nor comment, maybe you would like to re-phrase that.
@EchosFromaBlankMind I agree the number of printings does not (by itself) make the Bible the word of God but it was a comparrison to the book, the Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings will not be read today (or tomorrow or next week or next year for that matter) as much as the King James Bible WILL. This fact is a testament to it's scope of greatness in a comparrison which it was compared to. (see post I responded to)
@KingJamesBible And the second most read book is the communist manifesto of Mao Tse-Tung, coincidence? One of the reasons is that the readers are guilt-ed into buying and reading it, lest they spend an eternity in the pits of hell, I guess that's just good marketing. The real dirt is that it is just a book with stories, some beautiful, some horrific which have the makings of a great Greek tragedy. I know that you feel different, but the book has as much mystical power as an STD brochure.
@EchosFromaBlankMind What a pathetic comparison. The Bible is read without anyone forcing the reader to do so in every part of the world for hundreds of years. Any book in "2nd" place does not even come close on any level. I read the Bible because I love the Saviour who gave it to me NOT becasue of any "guilt". You don't go to hell for not reading the Bible, you go to hell because of your self righteousness and rejection of Jesus Christ as the ONLY payment for sins God accepts.
@KingJamesBible You are correct, my apologies to Mao Tse-Tung. No one forces anyone to read anything, but you have to admit, that if you are in the religion, than you are nudged into reading the bible. Not to mention that Gideons bible is also included in the count. Imagine if a Qu'ran or any other religious book were left in hotel rooms, the christians would make a big stink out of it. The bible contains no special knowledge, nor imparts any magical powers. It is just a book, no more, no less
@EchosFromaBlankMind The Bible is spiritual food and is likened to bread, meat, honey, etc., A person can become a Christian and never read the Bible, however, like physical food, the person will wither away (spiritually speaking) and starve if they do not read the Bible. The Bible is something saved people want to read not because they have too. It's promises are more valuable than any treasure on earth and it contains great treasures they need to be sought out. Seek (first) and ye shall find
@KingJamesBible Though I may not believe (In the bible), that was one of the nicest interpretations that I have heard (Of the bible), so much better than trying to condemn others to hell with it I would say. I do not want to ruin the moment, so I will leave it at that.
@KingJamesBible This coming from someone who believes that animals talk and that survival inside of a fish/whale for a few days is possible? What part of evolutionary theory do you consider a joke, or do you dismiss the whole concept?
@EchosFromaBlankMind There are animals that talk today, just, not using english. You may not understand everything they are saying but the concept is not *that* hard to believe. An animal talking has been a concept that resonates in ALL humans and you would be hard pressed to not see it expressed in art and in culture. The entire concept of evolution (everything is here by chance) is completely absurd and nonsensical.
@KingJamesBible Let me try this again so that you understand and comprehend fully what you are replying to. Do you believe that serpents can not only speak clearly in a known language (Referring to the serpent in Genesis and also current serpents) but also carry on an intelligent conversation with a human? Animals communicate W/ vocalizations, scent, body language etc. But cognitive speech? Let me guess, you have chihuahua that says "I love you". Physiognomy alone prevents animals from speech.
@EchosFromaBlankMind To clarify, communication of animals is not that hard to believe since they do communicate in ways you described. Speech (using words) is one of the distinctions that God gave man to seperate them FROM animals as man is made to have dominion over of all the animals. If you read the Bible and understood it, you would also know that God makes (and allows) exceptions for many various reasons, the exceptions prove the rule.
@KingJamesBible A talking animal as a concept and in fictional tales is one thing, I too loved to watch Mr. Ed, but even as a child I knew that horses could not really talk. And art is just another form of expression that lends itself to the imagination. Are you trying to tell me that the bible was not literal and this was just a "Concept" and not facts. Cause I would tend to believe that more as a metaphor than an actual occurrence. You dismiss evolution entirely? Have you read about it at all?
Evolution is a BELIEF, Not a scientific theory, being that NO Real Science supports it's primary claims. As in : Things are going up hill and getting better and better and more organized and complex when in fact It's all exactly the opposite. - It's wishful thinking at best, to escape The GOD Factor in men who Don't want to answer to God or obey any of His rules or guidelines. AND of course many common people except it because they were taught nothing else and never checked it out for themselves
@blackaboe then what do you think fossils are indicating? that your god is screwing with your brain? come on be serious.
if you really want to disprove evolution, just dig enough to hopefully find a cat's shit with a dinosaur's. that will disprove evolution and prove creationism. so far, there have been no such baloney.
@esp. Not till YOU Give ME The Proof for the silly fair-tale-Evolution-Story. I can do alot better than matching cat-crap with dinos, There's evidence that men and dinosaurs were walking the earth together common place Before and After Noah's Flood. Your trainers have kept your head buried long enough - Wake-Up buddy, smell the coffee, you're believing Pure Nonsense, the whole idea of Evolution is a Joke with Nothing Real to back it up, even after 150 years of desprate searching. - Let's see it.
@blackaboe Blackey you're doing it again, you have your religious goggles on. What part is not supported by science? Making blanket accusations only indicates that you know even less about this than you are letting on. People ACCEPT this because there is physical proof to back it up. You must also understand that evolution in no way delves into the beginning of life or how it got here. Make the separation and perhaps you may be able to comprehend the simplicity of the actual claims.
@Echos YOU don't need to separate the thing in three parts, in fact you Can't really, that's just a cop-out to get away from the cold hard fact that the whole Evolutionary-Fairy-Tale Fails on ALL 3 parts, As In > Big-Bang, A-biogenesis, And the Darwinian part of it. - And lets face it, It's an in-separable packaged deal, you need it all anyway. > Too bad there's NO truth to IT.
@blackaboe Where do you get your facts from? These are theories, and cosmology is different from biology, I bet you did not know that (Yes we can tell from your comment). It is not wishful thinking, it is based on science, hence the more than one theory that ATTEMPTS to explain it. The real intellectual cop out is to just say, GOD DID IT!. Maybe you feel threatened, if you had as much faith in your god as you say you do, than let him fight his own battles and set them straight.
@EchosFromaBlankMind What you have is a Big Fat Fairy-Tale divided into 3 parts, - and ALL 3 claims of those parts are Failed attempts to explain how everything got Here {By natural means} without an Intelligent Designer Creator - GOD. And NONE of the claims are based on ANY real Science at all which can be demonstrated. > None. - The Bible Stands. It makes No such {Proven False} Claims. God is not locked in the little Darwinian box. - He's outside those Laws.
@blackaboe THEORY, look it up. You, I or anyone for that matter will never know what ACTUALLY happened at the beginning, the bibles version included, that much is fact, we are all just guessing. Evolution within animals and plants have and are documented, there is physical proof, your lies cannot change that. Abiogenesis is a theory that has run through many varied models and is still being experimented with today. Science deals with facts, the bible is a mixed bag at best, and you know that.
@EchosFromaBlankMind Yep, "Science deals with facts" - and that's why Evolution / Evolution-Theory, Isn't True Science - No Way, No How, - Science Says So. The whole Evolution Model, with all 3 of it's parts, Separated OR Combined, doesn't pass the test of The "Scientific Method" - So start gettin real. - The Bible Has the answers to the questions that science Can't, - and will Never be able to Answer.
@blackaboe All you are doing is stating opinions. Be specific and cite the sources of where you get your information from, and prove me wrong once and for all. And what answers does the bible have? That god snapped his fingers and it all came to be? Yet you think that abiogenesis is impossible? You're are not reviewing any scientific papers, you're just using the bible as your source. What are you going to have us believe next, that snakes can talk? Be honest and not just dogmatic.
@Echos / A-biogenesis IS impossible, it has been tried thousands & thousands of times using every conceivable means to make something happen - AND Nothing -Nothing -Nothing that they tried could make it happen. - Even Dawkins said he would consider the possibility that Aliens from another Galaxy may have brought the life here - because he knows it Couldn't happen by natural processes. > Give it up, there's Nothing about Evolution thats shown to be possible by demonstrable scientific means.
@blackaboe That is what a theory is, trial and error. Not knowing something is not proof for something else. You also need to understand the concept of natural selection and that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. An organism adapts itself to its surroundings in order to coexist better with its environment. Case in point, Neanderthals, they clearly existed (Yes actual fossils) yet the bible makes no mention of them.I guess its easier to think it all came into existence at once
@EchosFromaBlankMind God is far outside the realms of nature and physics. The Bible Says HE Spoke the universe into existance, - and I believe just That. - And what You Believe has No More physical Proof than what I believe. - In fact what You embrace can be Dis-proven with science, - but the same is NOT true about what I Believe. > Oh yes that's a Fact. Too bad, You're lock in your little box of nature, and I'm NOT, - because God isn't. Can You understand THAT? I'll bet You Can't.
@blackaboe You cannot disprove god, because you cannot prove a negative. Just as you cannot prove that Santa or tinker bell exist, nothing is there to disprove. When things are discovered, scientists don't say "Prove it does not exist" they show how they came to that conclusion. You on the other hand work ass backwards and want others to prove his non existence. There is physical proof - FOSSILS. Enter a whale for 3 days, we'll check on you to see if you lived, Bets anyone?Delusion is not a fact
@EchosFromaBlankMind The Fossils are on my side - and against Yours - Sorry. - And yea. you're probably right, A man couldn't survive in a whale for three days - - - Apart from a Miracle. - And I didn't say anything about Proving God's existence, - I said the King James Bible is without Proven error.
@blackaboe You're making a joke right? Please tell us how it is that you think that the fossils are on your side? Maybe you have different criteria for what fossils are? You wrote that what you believe cannot be dis-proven with science, which would include your belief in a god. As for the KJB being without error, wait till I stop laughing.
@EchosFromaBlankMind - Well please don't be So vague, - if you have an error that can be shown to be SO, with the Proof - and the correction of it - if possible - to show that it's indeed an error, - then let's see IT.
@blackaboe So the examples I gave you show that errors are in fact a part of the bible, since you did not refute them? At least we agree on something.
As for evolution, we need to establish what you think it is to ensure that we are both on the same page. If we both have different definitions, it would not make sense to continue. Then we can review the facts correctly.
@EchosFromaBlankMind Sorry echos, but those so-called "errors" you gave aren't errors. Those are passages that you can't receive or understand because your stuck in that little box of Atheistic-naturalism, of which YOU and all the other cult members can't seem to see beyond. You need to learn that because certain things in The Bible can't be explained by natural means, doesn't make them "errors" Otherwise you could just call half of the whole Bible an "Error" - without any Proof.
@blackaboe I'm sorry did you say the King James Bible is without error? To quote the author of "Misquoting Jesus" - "There are more errors in the New Testament than there are number of words". You have to be joking if you think the bible is inerrant. Textual variancy specialists all around the world, including religious ones, admit that it is chalk full of errors.
Do you not get a feeling when you watch this video that it is propaganda to discredit all other theories of the creation of life? It is rather nauseating how obvious it is. Even if you agree with natural selection and evolution you can tell this video's intent is suspicious in nature. Stating that you're a fool if don't agree with every facet of Darwinism. How easily we can be manipulated n'est pas?
I get the feeling it is educational. People in general have a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in scientific terms. It doesn't call people who doubt evolution as stupid, it just removes one of the tools they typically use to smear it, 'it's just a theory". Which is a misleading thing to say.
@boardgabe Well, examine evidence on your own, that's what I did, and when I realized that there were more credible evidence of evolution than creationism, i discarded Christianity.
@espakor i did after read why evolution is true, fossils what they are and what tell us, the greatest show on earth, as well watch several tv shows in the discovery channel, i saw the evidence in several natural history museums in Utah, Idaho, etc, i wish to see the Smithsonian, but the thing is the evidence is there, so far the creationist do not have a theory neither evidence i do not know if we are in the same page but your way of thinking for me sounds good, live long and prosper.
Think not that man is earth-born, though come from the earth he may be. Man is light-born spirit. But, without knowing, he can never be free. Darkness surrounds the light-born. Darkness fetters the Soul. Only the one who is seeking may ever hope to be free.
With clearly bias people on both sides, clear evidence that suports both sides, and clear evidence that disproves both sides, the only logical way to resolve this conflict is not to keep up with your constant pointless bickering, but to accept the one true concreate fact, there will never be a solid "answer" and faith is the only way to come to a conclusion. faith in divergence from a common ansestor, faith in an intelegent creator, or faith in both.
Their is no evidence at all for the religious side. I appreciate you wanting to play peace maker, but to say they have equal amounts of proof for their own ideas, or equal evidence that disproves evolution, is a bald faced lie. They have no evidence for God, and no evidence that disproves evolution in any fashion. Of course if they would stop being so stupid so as to think evolution has anything to do with the origin of life, they could get past this.
To continue, I do not need "faith" in common ancestry, their is an increasing mountain of evidence for that. Creationism? Not a damn bit of evidence outside of the bible, a heavily flawed, inconsistent, edited, plagiarized, scientifically inaccurate, poorly cobbled together book of bronze age sheep herder myths. The bible is no more proof of creationism than Lord of the Rings is proof of the Shire and the One Ring.
at 1:45 where the narrator says, "people used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth because that's how it looked" reminds me of the exchange between L. Wittgenstein and a companion.‘I’ve always wondered why’, says W., ‘for so long people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.’ ‘Why?’ said his surprised interlocutor, ‘well, I suppose it just looks that way’ ‘Hmm’, retorted W. ‘and what would it look like if the Earth revolved around the Sun? Can someone explain W.'s comment?
at 1:45 where the narrator says, "people used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth because that's how it looked" reminds me of the exchange between L. Wittgenstein and a companion.
‘I’ve always wondered why’, says W., ‘for so long people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.’ ‘Why?’ said his surprised interlocutor, ‘well, I suppose it just looks that way’ ‘Hmm’, retorted W. ‘and what would it look like if the Earth revolved around the Sun? Can someone explain W.'s comment?
at 1:45 where the narrator says, "people used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth because that's how it looked" reminds me of the exchange between L. Wittgenstein and a companion.
‘I’ve always wondered why’, says W., ‘for so long people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.’ ‘Why?’ said his surprised interlocutor, ‘well, I suppose it just looks that way’ ‘Hmm’, retorted W. ‘and what would it look like if the Earth revolved around the Sun? Can someone explain W.'s comment?
Calling evolution a theory, is an insult to the word 'theory'...and saying evolutionists evolved from monkeys, is an insult to the monkey. Yahweh forever!!!!!!!
yes! evolution is a theory with more holes than a slice of swiss cheese.Life only exists due to biodiversity and symbiosis within that biodiversity.When a keystone species becomes extinct within an eco system the rest of that eco system suffers and it breaks down and causes further extinctions.Extinctions are observable evolution is not and never will be.Its a mystery and it will never be solved by science or religion.The effects of gravity can be observed no one knows where it originates.
shredder religion cant be a theroy because a theroy has scientific back up. Right? wheres the science in religion. This i would say is unbiased because i belive in neither religion or evolution.
@ShredderOMG90 How can religion be a theory when it's evidently all around us. Now, if you're referring to the belief system OF religion(s), then the answer is no. The Bible (God's word) is fact! Unfortunately, the devil was able to alter most bibles to cause confusion.
@EchosFromaBlankMind Don't worry! God will reveal himself to you real soon (apocalypse). You will be in for the biggest shock of your little life. lol
@monteindamiddle7 So far the predictions of the apocalypse is batting 1000 as to inaccuracy. I have only been alive for over a half a century, and have heard it so many times that I no longer pay attention to it. The last one that they had this year was a great big flop, and so will the ones in the future. Of course the end of the world is inevitable, but I do not think that 4 guys riding horses (Ancient concepts) and ladies with dragons will be the scene that will present itself. N No rapture.
@EchosFromaBlankMind Most of the so-called prophets with their garbage predictions are irrelevant. There's only one prophesy that matters. The rest are just distractions that the devil uses so that naive folks (like yourself) will be blinded from the truth. As far as the horses (black, white, red, pale (green) are concerned, it's just symbolic and it won't be something visible to/seen by the naked eye (not to be taken literal).
Chances are, all evolutionists will receive the mark of the beast!
@EchosFromaBlankMind Most of the so-called prophets with their garbage predictions are irrelevant. There's only one prophesy that matters. The rest are just distractions that the devil uses so that naive folks (like yourself) will be blinded from the truth. As far as the horses (black, white, red, pale (green) are concerned, it's just symbolic and it won't be something visible to/seen by the naked eye (not to be taken literal). Chances are, all evolutionists will receive the mark of the beast!
@ShredderOMG90 the bible is a book, the book contains stories. starwars is a movie series, but they do not prove the existence of darth vator. however, yes it does not claim that he is real. but what about zeus and all of those people?
what would happen if you changed the position of our solar system in the milky way? there would be no big dipper, there would be no orions belt. humans are selfish and want to feel special. we seek to find some way that makes us better in the universe.
@ShredderOMG90 Not in the scientific sense. In that case we would just be juggling what to name something as vague and scientifically unsupported as religion. I wouldn't even call it a theory. Honestly, I don't know what to call religion. It's not an idea, but an early attempt from ignorant men to explain the world around them.
@ShredderOMG90 If religion had any sort of proof whatsoever, then perhaps it would be an educated "guess". Theories have a ton of evidence behind them.
@ShredderOMG90 No. Religion is not a theory as it has no supporting evidence it would be a hypothesis, the God Hypothesis to be specific. Religions are simply institutionalised superstitions, while science is institutionalised curiosity and morality is institutionalised behaviour.
If you want to be free of this delusional HEMG religion of Evotards, then learn what real science is. Goto evolutionforum (dot) info and get the whole truth about this crap pseudo science.
In 2001, NOVA/WBGH created a series of seven hour-long shows named "Evolution", including, in the first two shows, a video recreation of Darwin's life. This series of seven video summarizes and uses footage from the respective member of the NOVA series, while adding new material as well. For some reason NOVA does not list these shows on its website; they used to be available on YouTube before the great 2/10 crackdown.
Thanks for this video! As a theist who very much supports the big bang and continues to try to understand evolution, I am glad that you make the distinctions that you do in this video. If only the general public were more educated on these things. I think it tells us something about certain things in our American education system, specifically in the fields of science.
thanks for the comment. I hope other theists/religious people will read it and understand that all the "extremists" religious people claims, that "science is against god and so if you learn [insert here : big bang / evolution / paleontology / geology / earth formation] theory then you're going to hell" is just a stupid unrational claim & threat.
There are few of them but they're damn active on youtube or in the net, or as you say in politics & school system.
EVOLUTION is an observational FACT. It happens. We've evidence it happened in the past. We KNOW it happens still. We SEE it happen today.
The THEORY of Evolution, is the scientific explanation for how Evolution happens. It's the same as gravity. We KNOW gravity exists. We KNOW it's effects. The THEORY is the explanation of how and why it works.
@robocoindexter To be fair, I don't thing that science has gotten to "in the begining" yet. There are theories about what the universe looked like 10E−43 seconds after the big bang(roughly a billionth billionth billionth billionth billionth of a second), but before that, there is no scientific inference.
Science deduced the existence of a big bang, supported by numerous observations, not it's cause.
@Lioobayoyo: You need to look at the latest quantum dynamical theory on the Big Bang, part of what is known as the Lambda-Cold, Dark Matter model. There is a YT video about it called "Fundamentals of Geology Parts 1 and 2" on the Geochron channel.
But "out of nothing" stated there is simplification vulgarization. There are models and quantum rules. The problem is this kind of statement is "unacceptable" for people who don't understand this, and then they go on posting comments "ironical" and creating groups of anti-big-bang theory saying "Ow look at those sinfull scientists : they say they was nothing and then all, it's impossible ! Let's us rather say that there was nothing then all, but created by god"
@Lioobayoyo: Personally, I don't believe in lying just because they won't understand. Science has to stand with reality, always, and can't let the fact that new observations may change the science to interfere. I can't let anguish over what they'll say change my outlook. The bald truth is that BBT right now has the universe created from nothing, because quantum vacuum energy is the very definition of nothing. Further, it is an incomplete theory now until we understand inflation much better.
Science is a long hypothesis; with absolutely no scientific background. If you disagree with me, link me to some experiments pertaining to the evolution of DNA, bones, replication, transcription/translation, etc...
Also, give me some scientific laws that builds foundations for the theory of evolution. Otherwise, don't teach it to kids in schools.
ALSO, Evolution having weak evidence doesn't mean God exists you fucking liberals. There has to be a scientific explanation, its neither evolution/God
Actually as you have made the claim that Science is a long hypothesis with no scientific background wouldn't you have to be the one with the burden of proof ;).
however Science wouldn't have a scientific background itself since it can't have existed before itself so that statement while true, is also actually short-sighted. My guess is you meant "Evolution is a long hypothesis".
My answer to that is google "Observed Instances of Speciation" to get a piece of Meta-research on the subject.
First of all, you don't need a PhD to look at and evaluate scientific knowledge. Secondly, you don't need to have existed back in the previous eras of Earth history to prove aspects of the Evolution Theory. Instead, you need experimentation that results in stated presumptions of the 'theory' every single time to formulate laws to act as fundamental basis to scientific claims, including evolution. And I did intent to suggest that Evolution is a long hypothesis.
you do however, need more then 500 characters to sometimes finish a point heh, ya jumped in too early >.>. I have given another thing to google and the Observed instances already have given enough knowledge on the subject.
As it goes, previous evolutions can not be dealt with by science because such things are not directly repeatable, this falls into a different field. All science needs to do is prove natural selection can occur and it has, the rest is history... literally.
Science has to prove that Natural Selection must occur, otherwise the entire theory of evolution is negated. This has not been done, and a few bacteria generating a couple new traits does not prove that species have involved in the way they have, or that new species can indeed be created. In rational thinking the idea does have legitimacy and I can see why atheists (I am an atheist btw) and even a lot of Christians would be inclined to believe Evolution is fact, though there are other solutions
Other solutions are not plausible, and I suggest you look up the "fact and theory of evolution", I believe Wikipedia has a piece on it.
As it goes, Natural Selection doesn't have to occur within science, just artificial selection as that alone would prove selection and that is the part that matters to evolution, as that goes we can do that with many animals already and have with many plants too, like wheat grasses and bananas.
But essentially no, Science doesn't need to "prove" individual parts of evolution, only that adaptation occurs as result of selection. That is evolution, what goes passed that, the history of evolution can only refer to things in the passed as such and not science. Anything documents from now on would be on the other hand scientific as that could be proven as the documented cases of Speciation that I suggested to you earlier.
If artificial selection is the backbone to evolution, then how are new traits developed and why? The theory states the developments are random, which I have never seen before in science.
There are systems in the human brain, for example, that are completely unstudied by current science. It hasn't even been established how individuals can even learn. A stronger understanding of developmental science is necessary to understanding and proving how evolution occurs.
Overall there are many documented examples of it. The problem is that evolution uses "Natural Selection", the moment you actually turn it into an experiment to observe evolution, is that still "natural selection" or "artificial selection"? either way, there are some documented cases and samples, however the experiment takes over 6 months even for the simplest of bacteria, however googling "Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab" should give you a link to a new scientist article on it.
There are no fundamental laws suggesting how Natural Selection can occur, and no experimentation showing that it indeed exists.
Also, bacterial changes do not answer questions pertaining to the development of transcription, translation, bone development, brain development, DNA replication, etc...
DNA replication is more likely a part of abiogenesis and not evolution. The rest don't need to be proven for evolution to be proven as such. Evolution goes into several realms and Natural Selection IS essentially the fundamental law behind evolution. I don't suggest that Newton's 3rd law of motion needs a law behind it now do I?
The law is survival of the fittest, and fittest doesn't necessarily mean strongest or fastest, it could be most intelligent or fastest to reproduce for example.
The Law of Motion is a law, therefore it does not need a law behind it.
By my understanding of Evolution, Survival of the Fittest pertains to species the best acclimated to specific climates and the competition of their niches are destined to survive over members of that population.
However, the reasoning behind change as random goes against almost everything concluded in the Scientific World. There almost HAS to be a reason change takes place, and the processes in how that occurs needs laws.
Survival of the Fittest is again, a theory. It is not a law. It needs experimentation and a fundamental understanding of it's function to become scientific law, and yet it would not validate the entire theory of evolution. There are other possibilities on why and how species evolve, other than randomly undergoing genetic changes.
It's not random, there are forces in the universe and these cause such genetic changes to occur. Those that are best suited are the ones that survive best.
As it goes we can simulate "natural selection" without even having to deal with life... v=mcAq9bmCeR0 computer simulations already give examples of how natural selection works and can show the interesting things that the processes can create.
Are you trying to say that, for example, if a species needs to reach high in a tree to survive more and more individuals of that species will develop the ability to reach high (Because of a long neck, whatever) because of a force? And what is this force? And how does this force work exactly?
This is by chance, for example if having a long neck might be beneficial to that situation then if a mutation occurs that benefits it in that way then it will dominate out.
However if that same animal by chance instead gets larger feet, it might be in that environment that those creatures do not have any benefit, but if two miles away there is a bog filled swamp where a lot of things sink, those bigger feet might allow such a creature to float so it's not about a given benefit...
but about any kind of benefit. That things gained certain benefits in the passed and saying this means something must happen this way. You can roll 20 dice and get one set of results but to replicate them becomes very hard, see v=Kvftq2ystmY if you need to know what I mean by this.
My point here is that before birds existed, creatures that gained wings to decrease descent were not aiming at flying or developing wings, simply that developing wings became such a benefit after mutation.
Well if everything is so random, then why wasn't the trait filtered out in many of them? How would Natural Selection know that flying is a positive trait? It can't. It can only go by the consistency in the allele. If it has positive chemical makeup, then it can keep the allele. Otherwise, it will destroy the mutation. Therefore, the likely hood of a mutation to even be kept long enough to implement in a society is almost zero.
If you have a negative mutation that is read as a good allele, then how come species don't generate any traits that actually hurt them? These species would still be able to survive if their traits were supplemented by other 'more favorable traits' yet they are hardly ever discussed in the theory.
You mean like Mutation? The main factor to that is Radiation, Cosmetic Radiation being one of the most key factors.
Other factors are imperfect duplications of genes, they don't necessarily have to be as a result of radiation but they can cause variance.
Overall these things are as a result of chemical and/or physical reactions leading to varying or new results, these types of reactions are governed by other parts of science.
Mutations only generate new species, from my understanding of Evolution. However, how would imperfect duplications of genes create the first bones; which consist of thousands of amino acids placed in a specific order (I think it's 4,400+?)
Also, which other forms of science assist evolution? Speculating other forms of science have raised even more questions of evolution, so I don't fully understand where you are coming from.
This response is going to take a few posts but let's start by quoting Darwin himself...
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
This is meaning to infer that just assuming something is to complex is not the right way to think about it, you need to actually prove it is too complex, changing it for bone or anything else is pretty similar. As it goes, if there is a need for a strong support structure
within organic bodies, it only takes a need for a strong organic material to start the process. once one is in place that creature/being has a beneficial advantage. Well what happens next is another creature develops a lighter but equally strong material in itself and is able to move better and stronger.
As this keeps occurring eventually you end out at a point where things like bones or eyes become feasible. The theory does not fall over by complexity at all.
I simply implied that radiation causing mutation would be under physics and imperfect gene duplication may occur in result to a chemical reaction for example causing damage to a gene. There are many things that can cause these types of alterations and they generally don't sit under biology.
Also, if things can evolve so well and species have such a strong ability to evolve to assist survival, then how come other planets haven't been found to have life on them? It really doesn't make that much sense as the theory currently holds. And when you start mixing in other sciences, the current standing of evolution seems even more unlikely.
Lets figure the odds or probability of randomly spelling the phrase the theory of evolution. There are 26 letters and one space possible adding to 27 possible selections. There are 20 letters in the phrase and 3 spaces. Therefore the odds, on the average, spell out the phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes! That is only one success in 8.3 quadrillion, quadrillion attempts or 8.3 x 1032. Now suppose chance uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters
randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second). On the average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this method.
But the Earth is believed to be 4.6 Billion years old?
That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Obviously if the mutations are indeed random, then Evolution needs to be reconsidered heavily.
Charles Darwin did not have a strong understanding of Genetics. Also, in just a moment I will prove that it is too complex but first I want to introduce you to some simple problems with evolution. First of all i'm going to use Physics to show how complex the development of new species with more complex structures actually is. I validate Physics in issuing problems with evolution as Physics is a fundamental basis for bent proteins, which have been a main focal point of evolutionists for years.
By law matter cannot be created/destroyed, consider the law of entropy. Therefore, if a system gains energy somewhere it must lose energy somewhere else. This is not a strong parallel to developing more complex organisms. Also, natural selection cannot create something off of something that is not there, and it does not have the information to drive ANYTHING. Natural Selection only keeps good alleles and rids bad alleles, it doesn't know if it should continue to hold a mutation.
You didn't just try to use the laws of Thermodynamics?
This relates only to energy and the way you make it sound like, all energy is lost. What it isn't, if you push two balls of clay together, you can make a vase... yeah Entropy stopped that increase in complexity didn't it? in fact if you react Silicon with other metals there is no silicon anymore and the process of silicon doping that is used to create modern computer circuity doesn't exist cas it all gets eaten in entropy!!! Enlightening
If you didn't get the sarcasm there, it was because what you just said was on a very very low level of scientific understanding.
The fact Entropy occurs does NOT stop increasing complexity, it simply transform a small amount of energy over time into less/un-usable forms under modern scientific understanding (we may gain the knowledge later of how to make it usable/reusable).
to further this, the stuff you just said does not collate at all to the points I made above. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM! It is caused by forces like Cosmic Radiation and/or Chemical Reactions. Beneficial alterations of such forces are inherited while weak ones are lost, this is how evolution occurs.
As for other planets with life! Look up Bacterial life on Mars, mostly it comes down to simple things like temperature, you need a lot of reactions, like in a liquid... like liquid water.
Only on Earth and Mars does Liquid water really occur, Venus and Mercury are too hot, it is a vapor/gas, further out, places like Uranus and Neptune on the other hand water would be in an ice like state while other liquids do not offer the same properties that are truly suitable for the organic material to develop life as we know it.
So with all the problems on earth of creating even the substances out of which life could occur scientists looked to space. There has been much hoopla where scientists zapped impure ice, supposedly matching interstellar compositions with ultraviolet light and forming amino acids. The ice contained a high amount of ammonia, methanol and hydrogen cyanide. This study was published in Nature on 28th of March 2002.
How life originated is one of the earliest and most intriguing for humanity. Early experiments on the processing of a gas mixture simulating the primitive earth conditions assumed a reducing atmosphere with methane as the carbon containing molecule. Several amino acids were formed under these conditions as the products of spark discharge, photoprocessing or heat. It is now believed, however, that the Earths early atmosphere was rather non-reducing, with CO2 as the main carbon carrier...
Processing of these alternative gas mixtures under experimental conditions leads to the formation of, at most, traces of amino acids.
In summary they are saying: What they are saying is this: All our best guesses about how life started on earth are busted. But, we by faith believe in evolution so we must look to space as the place where life chemistry started.
@SadegoGG: That is a pretty fairly busted view of abiogenesis theory. It isn't traces, and it isn't just amino acids. Theory is ahead of experimentation in this area, but the latter is onging. The aim is to establish that all the steps needed to create life could have happened naturally, and so far some of those steps have been taken in the lab. Eventually it will result in some sort of life, which most likely will not look like our life, but will prove that the steps are natural.
I could, and am willing to get into the other sciences that disprove global warming, such as geology, chemistry, and physics...but only on one condition.
Provide me with a scientific consensus of exactly how (With absolute inconclusive evidence) a fish evolved into a dinosaur. Yes, you evolution conspiracy theorists truly do believe this. Provide me something that is so overwhelmingly conclusive that it cannot be denied for a second.
@SadegoGG: First of all, who said anything about AGW? Abiogenesis was what I was commenting on.
Secondly, abiogenesis is research conducted more or less strictly within biology and chemistry. Geology might be called in to demonstrate the availability of montmarillonite clay or some such.
Thirdly, what in the hell are you asking for? I'm supposed to raise a scientific consensus for you? Perhaps you're willing to cull the journals for consensus, I've got other fish to fry...
... And then, what the hell does this mean: "(With absolute inconclusive evidence)"? Are you running a comedy show here? Presuming that inconclusive is a typo, you still must know that nothing in science outside math is ever conclusive; it is always open to new data. You want us to lead you into fairy land where you never have to exercise your brain in order to come to a conclusion. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Having faith is not an option in investigating the real world.
In summary, I'm not your servant here. If you don't have the will to find out if there is a scientific consensus on any theory, then you are better off not talking about them. You seem to have a belief in creationism, so let's hear what evidence you have FOR that not against everything else, particularly when you seem to want us to do your lifting and carrying for you, after we undertake to interpret your scrawlings.
I have found out that there is NOT a scientific consensus for evolution. You are denying this, so I am asking you for your resources. You are basing your 'scientific consensus' on assumptions. You should actually take a look at what science really is and the process of developing a hypothesis into scientific fact. Evolution does not provide scientific fact.
You should also look at the work of Jonathan Conleigh and his book "The Hoax Called Evolution"
@SadegoGG: I spent an hour finding out what I could about the book you ref. Two reviews at Amazon, score 1.5 on a 1-5 scale. No one else, except for individuals, mostly in Florida where Mr. Conleigh lives, commenting on Christian forums. As far as I can tell it says nothing about scientific support for ToE.
OTOH, the following wikipedia pages are pretty authoritative: "scientific consensus" and "level of support for evolution". ...
... On skepticwiki, "Evolution is loosing support among scientists" list at least a couple hundred national and international who have made statements in support of ToE. I have URLs for specific statements by the AAAS, NAS (in fact, all the National Academies: Engineering, Medicine, and the NRC). That's about as far as I going to go; you are welcome to array your proof.
Note that the second of the wikipedia articles above address the 700 names list that AiG has posted.
Please, provide me any scientific evidence backing the development of human systems pertaining to how and/or why they developed. My questions all still stand, you have answered not a single one. If you are not going to answer any of my questions...why are you even replying?
Read the interview fro the book labeled something along the lines of 'United States people verses Evolution'.
It proves evolutionists have absolutely no scientific backing for their claims. Are you referencing me to wikipedia and debunking a source just because two random people gave it a bad review...when the two people probably never even read the thing. It can't cost you more than ten bucks..pick up a copy.
You need to understand that there's a difference between actual proof, and "proof" that fits with your view of reality.
Logic and reasoning is not a strong point in your type. You just desperately seek to validate your prescribed perception of reality according to whatever "holy book" you subscribe to (there are quite a few out there).
If there is a god out there, he must be laughing at you for rejecting the process he set in motion to create reality.
I actually do not read the Bible or any other major religious book. I am also what many consider an 'atheist' however I do not like to coin terms to not believing in mystical and/or magical creatures. Also, if I am the one operating on logic, then how come you refuse to explain how evolution works and how various species develop and explain the actual physical processes that have evolved and how they were developed?
@SadegoGG You're asking someone to show fast amounts of evidence for evolution on a limited YT comments section? Maybe you should've done your research before coming here? Or better yet, get an education. But all is not lost, you can still do that. Educating yourself is up to you. There are even plenty of videos here on youtube that go in much detail on the topic. Just use the search function, it's not rocket science. And evolution is not a matter of faith.
Let me answer a specific question you can find the answer to:
1) How did DNA Replication evolve?
Also, education comes from the latin 'educo' meaning to develop or draw within. An educated individual is not an individual with specialized or generalized knowledge. An educated individual is an individual who have so developed the faculties of his/her mind so he/she can attain anything he/she wants or its equivalent without violating the
theorys,big bang,evolution,blah blah blah. God created the Heavens and the Earth. I have proof,THE BIBLE! SCREW YOU EVOLUTION
4EverCanela 1 week ago
I use that one: "Gravity's just a theory too. Go ahead, go throw yourself off your roof to disprove it." XD
UncleBert9731 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 3 weeks ago
Evolution is a big farce, I mean fart.....
darkfur35 4 weeks ago
First of all no one yet step on the Moon its totally bullshit that america went to the Moon hahahahh Second about fake evolutions...Naturall selection can do nothing untill favorable variations chance to occur.
Charles Darwin and the species of Cambrian about 530 milliions years like
star fish, jelly , trilobites emerged sudden no evolutions the eye of trilobites
like a fly , butterfly , and bee its proof that eyes did not evolved after evolutions
begins.....hahahahhahah
strangerlover11 1 month ago
@strangerlover11 Erm.... what?
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
Thanks for that. I have been trying to explain the term "theory" to people who state to me that it is only a theory. this is a great explanation, even to the highly uneducated and mentally challenged.
jafloydian 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Gravitationalist
I was expecting to see so-called "evidence" in this video, but its just more arguments! Everything i click on with a title implying evolution as a hard core fact always ends up being arguments based on perception, conclusions and opinions. Its the"if you dont believe in evolution, you can´t believe in gravity" argument time and time again.
Colthrone 2 months ago
@Colthrone There are 7 of these vid's. This first one explains what scientific theories are based on. The 5th video goes into human evolution. Do you believe in DNA?
Desdenova262 1 month ago
@Colthrone "Everything i click on with a title implying evolution as a hard core fact" => evolution theory will never become a fact. A scientific theory doesn't get "promoted" to a fact. A fact remains a fact, and a theory remains a theory. This is why germ theory is still called germ theory, not germ fact, or germ law. And also why a cell theory remains a theory, not a cell fact or cell law. A theory in science is as high as it can ever go.
Casshyr 1 month ago
gotta love how every single one of these videos turns into a religious debate. I know you love to share what youve learned to try and make yourself smart but its extremely annoying and to be honest no one really cares.
pizzaman2016 4 months ago
3:09 there's (modern) science at work for you. Making sure that the wires attached to those spacesuits can simluate the proper up and down movement.
KingJamesBible 5 months ago
@KingJamesBible Please recheck your time stamp to make your point, the picture shows a view from the module in the one you listed.
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
People are still getting this wrong? REALLY?
To clarify: For example, I have a degree in music theory. It doesn't mean that music is a theory, it means it is a scientifically approached body of knowledge. It is with this definition of the word 'Theory' that Evolutionary Theory is to be understood.
mouthyweasel 5 months ago
Isn't creation just a myth?
JastinBeaver 6 months ago
haha Darwin, the NON- scientist FAILED preacher "collected evidence" did he? 1:04 What evidence? a bunch of different KINDS of finches?
Evolution is a sad joke and anyone calling it "scientific" has rocks for brains.
KingJamesBible 7 months ago
@KingJamesBible and your 'holy' book is just as factual as Lord of the Rings
espakor 7 months ago
@espakor The King James Bible has been printed and distributed more copies than ANY book EVER produced.... ever in ALL history in every part of the world. Comparing it to ANY other book is vanity, foolishness and utterly futile in every respect. Lord of the Rings? pffffff
KingJamesBible 7 months ago
@KingJamesBible Oh, so now if a book has been printed more than others, that would validate its claims? That is what you are saying, is it not? So by your own example, if the Qu'ran or some other religions text is printed in greater numbers and distributed accordingly, it could then in a sense be better than the bible according to your comment?
Not a very astute observation nor comment, maybe you would like to re-phrase that.
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind I agree the number of printings does not (by itself) make the Bible the word of God but it was a comparrison to the book, the Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings will not be read today (or tomorrow or next week or next year for that matter) as much as the King James Bible WILL. This fact is a testament to it's scope of greatness in a comparrison which it was compared to. (see post I responded to)
KingJamesBible 5 months ago
@KingJamesBible And the second most read book is the communist manifesto of Mao Tse-Tung, coincidence? One of the reasons is that the readers are guilt-ed into buying and reading it, lest they spend an eternity in the pits of hell, I guess that's just good marketing. The real dirt is that it is just a book with stories, some beautiful, some horrific which have the makings of a great Greek tragedy. I know that you feel different, but the book has as much mystical power as an STD brochure.
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind What a pathetic comparison. The Bible is read without anyone forcing the reader to do so in every part of the world for hundreds of years. Any book in "2nd" place does not even come close on any level. I read the Bible because I love the Saviour who gave it to me NOT becasue of any "guilt". You don't go to hell for not reading the Bible, you go to hell because of your self righteousness and rejection of Jesus Christ as the ONLY payment for sins God accepts.
KingJamesBible 4 months ago
@KingJamesBible You are correct, my apologies to Mao Tse-Tung. No one forces anyone to read anything, but you have to admit, that if you are in the religion, than you are nudged into reading the bible. Not to mention that Gideons bible is also included in the count. Imagine if a Qu'ran or any other religious book were left in hotel rooms, the christians would make a big stink out of it. The bible contains no special knowledge, nor imparts any magical powers. It is just a book, no more, no less
EchosFromaBlankMind 4 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind The Bible is spiritual food and is likened to bread, meat, honey, etc., A person can become a Christian and never read the Bible, however, like physical food, the person will wither away (spiritually speaking) and starve if they do not read the Bible. The Bible is something saved people want to read not because they have too. It's promises are more valuable than any treasure on earth and it contains great treasures they need to be sought out. Seek (first) and ye shall find
KingJamesBible 4 months ago
@KingJamesBible Though I may not believe (In the bible), that was one of the nicest interpretations that I have heard (Of the bible), so much better than trying to condemn others to hell with it I would say. I do not want to ruin the moment, so I will leave it at that.
EchosFromaBlankMind 4 months ago
@KingJamesBible This coming from someone who believes that animals talk and that survival inside of a fish/whale for a few days is possible? What part of evolutionary theory do you consider a joke, or do you dismiss the whole concept?
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind There are animals that talk today, just, not using english. You may not understand everything they are saying but the concept is not *that* hard to believe. An animal talking has been a concept that resonates in ALL humans and you would be hard pressed to not see it expressed in art and in culture. The entire concept of evolution (everything is here by chance) is completely absurd and nonsensical.
KingJamesBible 5 months ago
@KingJamesBible Let me try this again so that you understand and comprehend fully what you are replying to. Do you believe that serpents can not only speak clearly in a known language (Referring to the serpent in Genesis and also current serpents) but also carry on an intelligent conversation with a human? Animals communicate W/ vocalizations, scent, body language etc. But cognitive speech? Let me guess, you have chihuahua that says "I love you". Physiognomy alone prevents animals from speech.
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind To clarify, communication of animals is not that hard to believe since they do communicate in ways you described. Speech (using words) is one of the distinctions that God gave man to seperate them FROM animals as man is made to have dominion over of all the animals. If you read the Bible and understood it, you would also know that God makes (and allows) exceptions for many various reasons, the exceptions prove the rule.
KingJamesBible 4 months ago
@KingJamesBible A talking animal as a concept and in fictional tales is one thing, I too loved to watch Mr. Ed, but even as a child I knew that horses could not really talk. And art is just another form of expression that lends itself to the imagination. Are you trying to tell me that the bible was not literal and this was just a "Concept" and not facts. Cause I would tend to believe that more as a metaphor than an actual occurrence. You dismiss evolution entirely? Have you read about it at all?
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
Evolution is a BELIEF, Not a scientific theory, being that NO Real Science supports it's primary claims. As in : Things are going up hill and getting better and better and more organized and complex when in fact It's all exactly the opposite. - It's wishful thinking at best, to escape The GOD Factor in men who Don't want to answer to God or obey any of His rules or guidelines. AND of course many common people except it because they were taught nothing else and never checked it out for themselves
blackaboe 7 months ago
@blackaboe then what do you think fossils are indicating? that your god is screwing with your brain? come on be serious.
if you really want to disprove evolution, just dig enough to hopefully find a cat's shit with a dinosaur's. that will disprove evolution and prove creationism. so far, there have been no such baloney.
espakor 7 months ago
@esp. Not till YOU Give ME The Proof for the silly fair-tale-Evolution-Story. I can do alot better than matching cat-crap with dinos, There's evidence that men and dinosaurs were walking the earth together common place Before and After Noah's Flood. Your trainers have kept your head buried long enough - Wake-Up buddy, smell the coffee, you're believing Pure Nonsense, the whole idea of Evolution is a Joke with Nothing Real to back it up, even after 150 years of desprate searching. - Let's see it.
blackaboe 7 months ago
@blackaboe
I'm curious, whats the evidence you have of this Flintstones era of history?
Cha4k 5 months ago in playlist Evolution Primer: Isn't evolution just a theory?
@Cha4k I didn't know there was a "Flintstone ara" is that another one of those things you learned in collage?
blackaboe 5 months ago
@blackaboe Blackey you're doing it again, you have your religious goggles on. What part is not supported by science? Making blanket accusations only indicates that you know even less about this than you are letting on. People ACCEPT this because there is physical proof to back it up. You must also understand that evolution in no way delves into the beginning of life or how it got here. Make the separation and perhaps you may be able to comprehend the simplicity of the actual claims.
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@Echos YOU don't need to separate the thing in three parts, in fact you Can't really, that's just a cop-out to get away from the cold hard fact that the whole Evolutionary-Fairy-Tale Fails on ALL 3 parts, As In > Big-Bang, A-biogenesis, And the Darwinian part of it. - And lets face it, It's an in-separable packaged deal, you need it all anyway. > Too bad there's NO truth to IT.
blackaboe 5 months ago
@blackaboe Where do you get your facts from? These are theories, and cosmology is different from biology, I bet you did not know that (Yes we can tell from your comment). It is not wishful thinking, it is based on science, hence the more than one theory that ATTEMPTS to explain it. The real intellectual cop out is to just say, GOD DID IT!. Maybe you feel threatened, if you had as much faith in your god as you say you do, than let him fight his own battles and set them straight.
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind What you have is a Big Fat Fairy-Tale divided into 3 parts, - and ALL 3 claims of those parts are Failed attempts to explain how everything got Here {By natural means} without an Intelligent Designer Creator - GOD. And NONE of the claims are based on ANY real Science at all which can be demonstrated. > None. - The Bible Stands. It makes No such {Proven False} Claims. God is not locked in the little Darwinian box. - He's outside those Laws.
blackaboe 5 months ago
@blackaboe THEORY, look it up. You, I or anyone for that matter will never know what ACTUALLY happened at the beginning, the bibles version included, that much is fact, we are all just guessing. Evolution within animals and plants have and are documented, there is physical proof, your lies cannot change that. Abiogenesis is a theory that has run through many varied models and is still being experimented with today. Science deals with facts, the bible is a mixed bag at best, and you know that.
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind Yep, "Science deals with facts" - and that's why Evolution / Evolution-Theory, Isn't True Science - No Way, No How, - Science Says So. The whole Evolution Model, with all 3 of it's parts, Separated OR Combined, doesn't pass the test of The "Scientific Method" - So start gettin real. - The Bible Has the answers to the questions that science Can't, - and will Never be able to Answer.
blackaboe 5 months ago
@blackaboe All you are doing is stating opinions. Be specific and cite the sources of where you get your information from, and prove me wrong once and for all. And what answers does the bible have? That god snapped his fingers and it all came to be? Yet you think that abiogenesis is impossible? You're are not reviewing any scientific papers, you're just using the bible as your source. What are you going to have us believe next, that snakes can talk? Be honest and not just dogmatic.
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@Echos / A-biogenesis IS impossible, it has been tried thousands & thousands of times using every conceivable means to make something happen - AND Nothing -Nothing -Nothing that they tried could make it happen. - Even Dawkins said he would consider the possibility that Aliens from another Galaxy may have brought the life here - because he knows it Couldn't happen by natural processes. > Give it up, there's Nothing about Evolution thats shown to be possible by demonstrable scientific means.
blackaboe 5 months ago
@blackaboe That is what a theory is, trial and error. Not knowing something is not proof for something else. You also need to understand the concept of natural selection and that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. An organism adapts itself to its surroundings in order to coexist better with its environment. Case in point, Neanderthals, they clearly existed (Yes actual fossils) yet the bible makes no mention of them.I guess its easier to think it all came into existence at once
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind God is far outside the realms of nature and physics. The Bible Says HE Spoke the universe into existance, - and I believe just That. - And what You Believe has No More physical Proof than what I believe. - In fact what You embrace can be Dis-proven with science, - but the same is NOT true about what I Believe. > Oh yes that's a Fact. Too bad, You're lock in your little box of nature, and I'm NOT, - because God isn't. Can You understand THAT? I'll bet You Can't.
blackaboe 5 months ago
@blackaboe You cannot disprove god, because you cannot prove a negative. Just as you cannot prove that Santa or tinker bell exist, nothing is there to disprove. When things are discovered, scientists don't say "Prove it does not exist" they show how they came to that conclusion. You on the other hand work ass backwards and want others to prove his non existence. There is physical proof - FOSSILS. Enter a whale for 3 days, we'll check on you to see if you lived, Bets anyone?Delusion is not a fact
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind The Fossils are on my side - and against Yours - Sorry. - And yea. you're probably right, A man couldn't survive in a whale for three days - - - Apart from a Miracle. - And I didn't say anything about Proving God's existence, - I said the King James Bible is without Proven error.
blackaboe 5 months ago
@blackaboe You're making a joke right? Please tell us how it is that you think that the fossils are on your side? Maybe you have different criteria for what fossils are? You wrote that what you believe cannot be dis-proven with science, which would include your belief in a god. As for the KJB being without error, wait till I stop laughing.
Gen 2:17 - Gen 5:5, They ate the fruit and lived
Gen 32:30 - John 1:18, Seen god or not?
Matt 13:31-32: mustard plants do not grow into trees
just a few
EchosFromaBlankMind 4 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind - Well please don't be So vague, - if you have an error that can be shown to be SO, with the Proof - and the correction of it - if possible - to show that it's indeed an error, - then let's see IT.
blackaboe 4 months ago
@blackaboe So the examples I gave you show that errors are in fact a part of the bible, since you did not refute them? At least we agree on something.
As for evolution, we need to establish what you think it is to ensure that we are both on the same page. If we both have different definitions, it would not make sense to continue. Then we can review the facts correctly.
EchosFromaBlankMind 4 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind Sorry echos, but those so-called "errors" you gave aren't errors. Those are passages that you can't receive or understand because your stuck in that little box of Atheistic-naturalism, of which YOU and all the other cult members can't seem to see beyond. You need to learn that because certain things in The Bible can't be explained by natural means, doesn't make them "errors" Otherwise you could just call half of the whole Bible an "Error" - without any Proof.
blackaboe 4 months ago
@blackaboe I'm sorry did you say the King James Bible is without error? To quote the author of "Misquoting Jesus" - "There are more errors in the New Testament than there are number of words". You have to be joking if you think the bible is inerrant. Textual variancy specialists all around the world, including religious ones, admit that it is chalk full of errors.
PhilipGregory1981 1 month ago
isnt obama just a black president?
ComicGenius127 7 months ago
Isn't Bill Gates just a billionaire?
drrobertoboogie97 7 months ago
Do you not get a feeling when you watch this video that it is propaganda to discredit all other theories of the creation of life? It is rather nauseating how obvious it is. Even if you agree with natural selection and evolution you can tell this video's intent is suspicious in nature. Stating that you're a fool if don't agree with every facet of Darwinism. How easily we can be manipulated n'est pas?
boardgabe 8 months ago in playlist Series-- History of the Universe
@boardgabe
I get the feeling it is educational. People in general have a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in scientific terms. It doesn't call people who doubt evolution as stupid, it just removes one of the tools they typically use to smear it, 'it's just a theory". Which is a misleading thing to say.
SteveTabernacle 7 months ago
@boardgabe Well, examine evidence on your own, that's what I did, and when I realized that there were more credible evidence of evolution than creationism, i discarded Christianity.
espakor 7 months ago 2
@espakor i did after read why evolution is true, fossils what they are and what tell us, the greatest show on earth, as well watch several tv shows in the discovery channel, i saw the evidence in several natural history museums in Utah, Idaho, etc, i wish to see the Smithsonian, but the thing is the evidence is there, so far the creationist do not have a theory neither evidence i do not know if we are in the same page but your way of thinking for me sounds good, live long and prosper.
legolasgreenleaff 5 months ago
Comment removed
boardgabe 8 months ago in playlist Series-- History of the Universe
I stopped watching after 1 minutes. That womanise voice males me feel retarded.
outerpol 9 months ago
@outerpol 1 minutes? ... Males you ? .... You better be feeling retarded ;)
MsFlexxy 9 months ago
@MsFlexxy iphone spelling correction is retarded :)
outerpol 9 months ago
Evolution is a theory.
God is a hypothesis.
Do you know the difference between theory and hypothesis?
JSiberx 9 months ago
Think not that man is earth-born, though come from the earth he may be. Man is light-born spirit. But, without knowing, he can never be free. Darkness surrounds the light-born. Darkness fetters the Soul. Only the one who is seeking may ever hope to be free.
Alkhemist10 9 months ago
With clearly bias people on both sides, clear evidence that suports both sides, and clear evidence that disproves both sides, the only logical way to resolve this conflict is not to keep up with your constant pointless bickering, but to accept the one true concreate fact, there will never be a solid "answer" and faith is the only way to come to a conclusion. faith in divergence from a common ansestor, faith in an intelegent creator, or faith in both.
OneUnbiasSkeptic 10 months ago
@OneUnbiasSkeptic
Their is no evidence at all for the religious side. I appreciate you wanting to play peace maker, but to say they have equal amounts of proof for their own ideas, or equal evidence that disproves evolution, is a bald faced lie. They have no evidence for God, and no evidence that disproves evolution in any fashion. Of course if they would stop being so stupid so as to think evolution has anything to do with the origin of life, they could get past this.
SteveTabernacle 7 months ago
@OneUnbiasSkeptic
To continue, I do not need "faith" in common ancestry, their is an increasing mountain of evidence for that. Creationism? Not a damn bit of evidence outside of the bible, a heavily flawed, inconsistent, edited, plagiarized, scientifically inaccurate, poorly cobbled together book of bronze age sheep herder myths. The bible is no more proof of creationism than Lord of the Rings is proof of the Shire and the One Ring.
SteveTabernacle 7 months ago
Saying 'evolutionists evolved from monkeys' is an insult to the monkey!
monteindamiddle7 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
at 1:45 where the narrator says, "people used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth because that's how it looked" reminds me of the exchange between L. Wittgenstein and a companion.‘I’ve always wondered why’, says W., ‘for so long people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.’ ‘Why?’ said his surprised interlocutor, ‘well, I suppose it just looks that way’ ‘Hmm’, retorted W. ‘and what would it look like if the Earth revolved around the Sun? Can someone explain W.'s comment?
slsk909 11 months ago
at 1:45 where the narrator says, "people used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth because that's how it looked" reminds me of the exchange between L. Wittgenstein and a companion.
‘I’ve always wondered why’, says W., ‘for so long people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.’ ‘Why?’ said his surprised interlocutor, ‘well, I suppose it just looks that way’ ‘Hmm’, retorted W. ‘and what would it look like if the Earth revolved around the Sun? Can someone explain W.'s comment?
slsk909 11 months ago
at 1:45 where the narrator says, "people used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth because that's how it looked" reminds me of the exchange between L. Wittgenstein and a companion.
‘I’ve always wondered why’, says W., ‘for so long people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.’ ‘Why?’ said his surprised interlocutor, ‘well, I suppose it just looks that way’ ‘Hmm’, retorted W. ‘and what would it look like if the Earth revolved around the Sun? Can someone explain W.'s comment?
slsk909 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Calling evolution a theory, is an insult to the word 'theory'...and saying evolutionists evolved from monkeys, is an insult to the monkey. Yahweh forever!!!!!!!
monteindamiddle7 1 year ago
yes! evolution is a theory with more holes than a slice of swiss cheese.Life only exists due to biodiversity and symbiosis within that biodiversity.When a keystone species becomes extinct within an eco system the rest of that eco system suffers and it breaks down and causes further extinctions.Extinctions are observable evolution is not and never will be.Its a mystery and it will never be solved by science or religion.The effects of gravity can be observed no one knows where it originates.
2karriizman 1 year ago
shredder religion cant be a theroy because a theroy has scientific back up. Right? wheres the science in religion. This i would say is unbiased because i belive in neither religion or evolution.
Skystrife00 1 year ago
Is religion not a theory as well?
ShredderOMG90 1 year ago 13
@ShredderOMG90 religion is faith which means you believe in something with no evidence/chance.
CALlFORNIAXWEED 1 year ago
@ShredderOMG90 How can religion be a theory when it's evidently all around us. Now, if you're referring to the belief system OF religion(s), then the answer is no. The Bible (God's word) is fact! Unfortunately, the devil was able to alter most bibles to cause confusion.
monteindamiddle7 1 year ago
@monteindamiddle7
The bible is not FACT.
AussieTheOztralian 11 months ago
@AussieTheOztralian Your comment are words the devil would say, and would want people to believe. Get behind me, satan!
monteindamiddle7 11 months ago
Comment removed
AussieTheOztralian 11 months ago
@monteindamiddle7
Your comment are the words of a typical Religious nut case. Time for you to step in to the year 2011 and step out of the dark ages.
I believe in reality while you believe in fairy tale mythological stories.
AussieTheOztralian 11 months ago
@AussieTheOztralian I said: "Get behind me, satan!"
monteindamiddle7 11 months ago
@monteindamiddle7
I said: shut up you ranting, raving Religious lunatic.
History will condemn you for the lies you spread.
AussieTheOztralian 11 months ago
@AussieTheOztralian <~~ goofball....... {{{snicker}}}
monteindamiddle7 11 months ago
@monteindamiddle7
And you're a LIAR.
AussieTheOztralian 11 months ago
Comment removed
monteindamiddle7 11 months ago
Comment removed
monteindamiddle7 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AussieTheOztralian The real 'LIAR/LIE' is in the following quote.......
"The bible is not FACT."
AussieTheOztralian 5 days ago
monteindamiddle7 11 months ago
@monteindamiddle7 "The Bible (God's word) is fact! Unfortunately, the devil was able to alter most bibles to cause confusion."
You can back up this assertion how?
hawklord2001 10 months ago
@monteindamiddle7 The devil is real and god is a fact? (Facepalm) Show me da god!!
EchosFromaBlankMind 5 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind Don't worry! God will reveal himself to you real soon (apocalypse). You will be in for the biggest shock of your little life. lol
monteindamiddle7 4 months ago
@monteindamiddle7 So far the predictions of the apocalypse is batting 1000 as to inaccuracy. I have only been alive for over a half a century, and have heard it so many times that I no longer pay attention to it. The last one that they had this year was a great big flop, and so will the ones in the future. Of course the end of the world is inevitable, but I do not think that 4 guys riding horses (Ancient concepts) and ladies with dragons will be the scene that will present itself. N No rapture.
EchosFromaBlankMind 4 months ago
@EchosFromaBlankMind Most of the so-called prophets with their garbage predictions are irrelevant. There's only one prophesy that matters. The rest are just distractions that the devil uses so that naive folks (like yourself) will be blinded from the truth. As far as the horses (black, white, red, pale (green) are concerned, it's just symbolic and it won't be something visible to/seen by the naked eye (not to be taken literal).
Chances are, all evolutionists will receive the mark of the beast!
monteindamiddle7 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EchosFromaBlankMind Most of the so-called prophets with their garbage predictions are irrelevant. There's only one prophesy that matters. The rest are just distractions that the devil uses so that naive folks (like yourself) will be blinded from the truth. As far as the horses (black, white, red, pale (green) are concerned, it's just symbolic and it won't be something visible to/seen by the naked eye (not to be taken literal). Chances are, all evolutionists will receive the mark of the beast!
monteindamiddle7 4 months ago
@ShredderOMG90 the bible is a book, the book contains stories. starwars is a movie series, but they do not prove the existence of darth vator. however, yes it does not claim that he is real. but what about zeus and all of those people?
what would happen if you changed the position of our solar system in the milky way? there would be no big dipper, there would be no orions belt. humans are selfish and want to feel special. we seek to find some way that makes us better in the universe.
Sc0ttPrian 11 months ago
@ShredderOMG90 Not in the scientific sense. In that case we would just be juggling what to name something as vague and scientifically unsupported as religion. I wouldn't even call it a theory. Honestly, I don't know what to call religion. It's not an idea, but an early attempt from ignorant men to explain the world around them.
StarFoxEternity 11 months ago
@ShredderOMG90 If religion had any sort of proof whatsoever, then perhaps it would be an educated "guess". Theories have a ton of evidence behind them.
leumasyawdarb1 8 months ago
@ShredderOMG90 where do you think the word "theocracy" comes from?
FriendlyUCKids 7 months ago
@ShredderOMG90 Not in the scientific sense, because there's no proof to back the theory up.
sonictrasher 6 months ago
@ShredderOMG90 No. Religion is not a theory as it has no supporting evidence it would be a hypothesis, the God Hypothesis to be specific. Religions are simply institutionalised superstitions, while science is institutionalised curiosity and morality is institutionalised behaviour.
FilterCup 6 months ago
@ShredderOMG90 No, it's a hypothesis.
Raisingbob 5 months ago
@ShredderOMG90 That makes sense since evolution is a religion.
KingJamesBible 5 months ago
18 people were mokeys
NWA90s 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to be free of this delusional HEMG religion of Evotards, then learn what real science is. Goto evolutionforum (dot) info and get the whole truth about this crap pseudo science.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
In 2001, NOVA/WBGH created a series of seven hour-long shows named "Evolution", including, in the first two shows, a video recreation of Darwin's life. This series of seven video summarizes and uses footage from the respective member of the NOVA series, while adding new material as well. For some reason NOVA does not list these shows on its website; they used to be available on YouTube before the great 2/10 crackdown.
puncheex 1 year ago
Thanks for this video! As a theist who very much supports the big bang and continues to try to understand evolution, I am glad that you make the distinctions that you do in this video. If only the general public were more educated on these things. I think it tells us something about certain things in our American education system, specifically in the fields of science.
StorminMormin91 1 year ago
@StorminMormin91
thanks for the comment. I hope other theists/religious people will read it and understand that all the "extremists" religious people claims, that "science is against god and so if you learn [insert here : big bang / evolution / paleontology / geology / earth formation] theory then you're going to hell" is just a stupid unrational claim & threat.
There are few of them but they're damn active on youtube or in the net, or as you say in politics & school system.
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
EVOLUTION is an observational FACT. It happens. We've evidence it happened in the past. We KNOW it happens still. We SEE it happen today.
The THEORY of Evolution, is the scientific explanation for how Evolution happens. It's the same as gravity. We KNOW gravity exists. We KNOW it's effects. The THEORY is the explanation of how and why it works.
EmeraldView 1 year ago
THE BIG BANG THEORY: in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded
robocoindexter 1 year ago
@robocoindexter To be fair, I don't thing that science has gotten to "in the begining" yet. There are theories about what the universe looked like 10E−43 seconds after the big bang(roughly a billionth billionth billionth billionth billionth of a second), but before that, there is no scientific inference.
Science deduced the existence of a big bang, supported by numerous observations, not it's cause.
sagarat 1 year ago
@robocoindexter hum... you're simplfying a bit too much...
where have you read that there was "nothing" ?
The big Bang theory just says roughly that all the observable universe was gathered in a space that would be about an atom diameter.
Never said there was "nothing then it exploded"
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
@Lioobayoyo: You need to look at the latest quantum dynamical theory on the Big Bang, part of what is known as the Lambda-Cold, Dark Matter model. There is a YT video about it called "Fundamentals of Geology Parts 1 and 2" on the Geochron channel.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
thx for the vid.
But "out of nothing" stated there is simplification vulgarization. There are models and quantum rules. The problem is this kind of statement is "unacceptable" for people who don't understand this, and then they go on posting comments "ironical" and creating groups of anti-big-bang theory saying "Ow look at those sinfull scientists : they say they was nothing and then all, it's impossible ! Let's us rather say that there was nothing then all, but created by god"
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
@Lioobayoyo: Personally, I don't believe in lying just because they won't understand. Science has to stand with reality, always, and can't let the fact that new observations may change the science to interfere. I can't let anguish over what they'll say change my outlook. The bald truth is that BBT right now has the universe created from nothing, because quantum vacuum energy is the very definition of nothing. Further, it is an incomplete theory now until we understand inflation much better.
puncheex 1 year ago
Science is a long hypothesis; with absolutely no scientific background. If you disagree with me, link me to some experiments pertaining to the evolution of DNA, bones, replication, transcription/translation, etc...
Also, give me some scientific laws that builds foundations for the theory of evolution. Otherwise, don't teach it to kids in schools.
ALSO, Evolution having weak evidence doesn't mean God exists you fucking liberals. There has to be a scientific explanation, its neither evolution/God
SadegoGG 1 year ago
Actually as you have made the claim that Science is a long hypothesis with no scientific background wouldn't you have to be the one with the burden of proof ;).
however Science wouldn't have a scientific background itself since it can't have existed before itself so that statement while true, is also actually short-sighted. My guess is you meant "Evolution is a long hypothesis".
My answer to that is google "Observed Instances of Speciation" to get a piece of Meta-research on the subject.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
First of all, you don't need a PhD to look at and evaluate scientific knowledge. Secondly, you don't need to have existed back in the previous eras of Earth history to prove aspects of the Evolution Theory. Instead, you need experimentation that results in stated presumptions of the 'theory' every single time to formulate laws to act as fundamental basis to scientific claims, including evolution. And I did intent to suggest that Evolution is a long hypothesis.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
you do however, need more then 500 characters to sometimes finish a point heh, ya jumped in too early >.>. I have given another thing to google and the Observed instances already have given enough knowledge on the subject.
As it goes, previous evolutions can not be dealt with by science because such things are not directly repeatable, this falls into a different field. All science needs to do is prove natural selection can occur and it has, the rest is history... literally.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
Science has to prove that Natural Selection must occur, otherwise the entire theory of evolution is negated. This has not been done, and a few bacteria generating a couple new traits does not prove that species have involved in the way they have, or that new species can indeed be created. In rational thinking the idea does have legitimacy and I can see why atheists (I am an atheist btw) and even a lot of Christians would be inclined to believe Evolution is fact, though there are other solutions
SadegoGG 1 year ago
Other solutions are not plausible, and I suggest you look up the "fact and theory of evolution", I believe Wikipedia has a piece on it.
As it goes, Natural Selection doesn't have to occur within science, just artificial selection as that alone would prove selection and that is the part that matters to evolution, as that goes we can do that with many animals already and have with many plants too, like wheat grasses and bananas.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
But essentially no, Science doesn't need to "prove" individual parts of evolution, only that adaptation occurs as result of selection. That is evolution, what goes passed that, the history of evolution can only refer to things in the passed as such and not science. Anything documents from now on would be on the other hand scientific as that could be proven as the documented cases of Speciation that I suggested to you earlier.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
If artificial selection is the backbone to evolution, then how are new traits developed and why? The theory states the developments are random, which I have never seen before in science.
There are systems in the human brain, for example, that are completely unstudied by current science. It hasn't even been established how individuals can even learn. A stronger understanding of developmental science is necessary to understanding and proving how evolution occurs.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
Overall there are many documented examples of it. The problem is that evolution uses "Natural Selection", the moment you actually turn it into an experiment to observe evolution, is that still "natural selection" or "artificial selection"? either way, there are some documented cases and samples, however the experiment takes over 6 months even for the simplest of bacteria, however googling "Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab" should give you a link to a new scientist article on it.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
There are no fundamental laws suggesting how Natural Selection can occur, and no experimentation showing that it indeed exists.
Also, bacterial changes do not answer questions pertaining to the development of transcription, translation, bone development, brain development, DNA replication, etc...
SadegoGG 1 year ago
DNA replication is more likely a part of abiogenesis and not evolution. The rest don't need to be proven for evolution to be proven as such. Evolution goes into several realms and Natural Selection IS essentially the fundamental law behind evolution. I don't suggest that Newton's 3rd law of motion needs a law behind it now do I?
The law is survival of the fittest, and fittest doesn't necessarily mean strongest or fastest, it could be most intelligent or fastest to reproduce for example.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
The Law of Motion is a law, therefore it does not need a law behind it.
By my understanding of Evolution, Survival of the Fittest pertains to species the best acclimated to specific climates and the competition of their niches are destined to survive over members of that population.
However, the reasoning behind change as random goes against almost everything concluded in the Scientific World. There almost HAS to be a reason change takes place, and the processes in how that occurs needs laws.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
Survival of the Fittest is again, a theory. It is not a law. It needs experimentation and a fundamental understanding of it's function to become scientific law, and yet it would not validate the entire theory of evolution. There are other possibilities on why and how species evolve, other than randomly undergoing genetic changes.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
It's not random, there are forces in the universe and these cause such genetic changes to occur. Those that are best suited are the ones that survive best.
As it goes we can simulate "natural selection" without even having to deal with life... v=mcAq9bmCeR0 computer simulations already give examples of how natural selection works and can show the interesting things that the processes can create.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
Are you trying to say that, for example, if a species needs to reach high in a tree to survive more and more individuals of that species will develop the ability to reach high (Because of a long neck, whatever) because of a force? And what is this force? And how does this force work exactly?
SadegoGG 1 year ago
This is by chance, for example if having a long neck might be beneficial to that situation then if a mutation occurs that benefits it in that way then it will dominate out.
However if that same animal by chance instead gets larger feet, it might be in that environment that those creatures do not have any benefit, but if two miles away there is a bog filled swamp where a lot of things sink, those bigger feet might allow such a creature to float so it's not about a given benefit...
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
but about any kind of benefit. That things gained certain benefits in the passed and saying this means something must happen this way. You can roll 20 dice and get one set of results but to replicate them becomes very hard, see v=Kvftq2ystmY if you need to know what I mean by this.
My point here is that before birds existed, creatures that gained wings to decrease descent were not aiming at flying or developing wings, simply that developing wings became such a benefit after mutation.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
Well if everything is so random, then why wasn't the trait filtered out in many of them? How would Natural Selection know that flying is a positive trait? It can't. It can only go by the consistency in the allele. If it has positive chemical makeup, then it can keep the allele. Otherwise, it will destroy the mutation. Therefore, the likely hood of a mutation to even be kept long enough to implement in a society is almost zero.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
If you have a negative mutation that is read as a good allele, then how come species don't generate any traits that actually hurt them? These species would still be able to survive if their traits were supplemented by other 'more favorable traits' yet they are hardly ever discussed in the theory.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
You mean like Mutation? The main factor to that is Radiation, Cosmetic Radiation being one of the most key factors.
Other factors are imperfect duplications of genes, they don't necessarily have to be as a result of radiation but they can cause variance.
Overall these things are as a result of chemical and/or physical reactions leading to varying or new results, these types of reactions are governed by other parts of science.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
Mutations only generate new species, from my understanding of Evolution. However, how would imperfect duplications of genes create the first bones; which consist of thousands of amino acids placed in a specific order (I think it's 4,400+?)
Also, which other forms of science assist evolution? Speculating other forms of science have raised even more questions of evolution, so I don't fully understand where you are coming from.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
This response is going to take a few posts but let's start by quoting Darwin himself...
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
This is meaning to infer that just assuming something is to complex is not the right way to think about it, you need to actually prove it is too complex, changing it for bone or anything else is pretty similar. As it goes, if there is a need for a strong support structure
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
within organic bodies, it only takes a need for a strong organic material to start the process. once one is in place that creature/being has a beneficial advantage. Well what happens next is another creature develops a lighter but equally strong material in itself and is able to move better and stronger.
As this keeps occurring eventually you end out at a point where things like bones or eyes become feasible. The theory does not fall over by complexity at all.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
I simply implied that radiation causing mutation would be under physics and imperfect gene duplication may occur in result to a chemical reaction for example causing damage to a gene. There are many things that can cause these types of alterations and they generally don't sit under biology.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
Also, if things can evolve so well and species have such a strong ability to evolve to assist survival, then how come other planets haven't been found to have life on them? It really doesn't make that much sense as the theory currently holds. And when you start mixing in other sciences, the current standing of evolution seems even more unlikely.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
Lets figure the odds or probability of randomly spelling the phrase the theory of evolution. There are 26 letters and one space possible adding to 27 possible selections. There are 20 letters in the phrase and 3 spaces. Therefore the odds, on the average, spell out the phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes! That is only one success in 8.3 quadrillion, quadrillion attempts or 8.3 x 1032. Now suppose chance uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters
SadegoGG 1 year ago
randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second). On the average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this method.
But the Earth is believed to be 4.6 Billion years old?
That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Obviously if the mutations are indeed random, then Evolution needs to be reconsidered heavily.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
And here is a complexity in developing something like bones:
The odds of forming a chain of 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acid bases is 1 x 10^64,489
Imagine all the structures in which were created out of similar probabilities just to make life possible.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
Charles Darwin did not have a strong understanding of Genetics. Also, in just a moment I will prove that it is too complex but first I want to introduce you to some simple problems with evolution. First of all i'm going to use Physics to show how complex the development of new species with more complex structures actually is. I validate Physics in issuing problems with evolution as Physics is a fundamental basis for bent proteins, which have been a main focal point of evolutionists for years.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
By law matter cannot be created/destroyed, consider the law of entropy. Therefore, if a system gains energy somewhere it must lose energy somewhere else. This is not a strong parallel to developing more complex organisms. Also, natural selection cannot create something off of something that is not there, and it does not have the information to drive ANYTHING. Natural Selection only keeps good alleles and rids bad alleles, it doesn't know if it should continue to hold a mutation.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
You didn't just try to use the laws of Thermodynamics?
This relates only to energy and the way you make it sound like, all energy is lost. What it isn't, if you push two balls of clay together, you can make a vase... yeah Entropy stopped that increase in complexity didn't it? in fact if you react Silicon with other metals there is no silicon anymore and the process of silicon doping that is used to create modern computer circuity doesn't exist cas it all gets eaten in entropy!!! Enlightening
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
If you didn't get the sarcasm there, it was because what you just said was on a very very low level of scientific understanding.
The fact Entropy occurs does NOT stop increasing complexity, it simply transform a small amount of energy over time into less/un-usable forms under modern scientific understanding (we may gain the knowledge later of how to make it usable/reusable).
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
to further this, the stuff you just said does not collate at all to the points I made above. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM! It is caused by forces like Cosmic Radiation and/or Chemical Reactions. Beneficial alterations of such forces are inherited while weak ones are lost, this is how evolution occurs.
As for other planets with life! Look up Bacterial life on Mars, mostly it comes down to simple things like temperature, you need a lot of reactions, like in a liquid... like liquid water.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
Only on Earth and Mars does Liquid water really occur, Venus and Mercury are too hot, it is a vapor/gas, further out, places like Uranus and Neptune on the other hand water would be in an ice like state while other liquids do not offer the same properties that are truly suitable for the organic material to develop life as we know it.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
So with all the problems on earth of creating even the substances out of which life could occur scientists looked to space. There has been much hoopla where scientists zapped impure ice, supposedly matching interstellar compositions with ultraviolet light and forming amino acids. The ice contained a high amount of ammonia, methanol and hydrogen cyanide. This study was published in Nature on 28th of March 2002.
And I Quote:
SadegoGG 1 year ago
How life originated is one of the earliest and most intriguing for humanity. Early experiments on the processing of a gas mixture simulating the primitive earth conditions assumed a reducing atmosphere with methane as the carbon containing molecule. Several amino acids were formed under these conditions as the products of spark discharge, photoprocessing or heat. It is now believed, however, that the Earths early atmosphere was rather non-reducing, with CO2 as the main carbon carrier...
SadegoGG 1 year ago
Processing of these alternative gas mixtures under experimental conditions leads to the formation of, at most, traces of amino acids.
In summary they are saying: What they are saying is this: All our best guesses about how life started on earth are busted. But, we by faith believe in evolution so we must look to space as the place where life chemistry started.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG: That is a pretty fairly busted view of abiogenesis theory. It isn't traces, and it isn't just amino acids. Theory is ahead of experimentation in this area, but the latter is onging. The aim is to establish that all the steps needed to create life could have happened naturally, and so far some of those steps have been taken in the lab. Eventually it will result in some sort of life, which most likely will not look like our life, but will prove that the steps are natural.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
I could, and am willing to get into the other sciences that disprove global warming, such as geology, chemistry, and physics...but only on one condition.
Provide me with a scientific consensus of exactly how (With absolute inconclusive evidence) a fish evolved into a dinosaur. Yes, you evolution conspiracy theorists truly do believe this. Provide me something that is so overwhelmingly conclusive that it cannot be denied for a second.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG: First of all, who said anything about AGW? Abiogenesis was what I was commenting on.
Secondly, abiogenesis is research conducted more or less strictly within biology and chemistry. Geology might be called in to demonstrate the availability of montmarillonite clay or some such.
Thirdly, what in the hell are you asking for? I'm supposed to raise a scientific consensus for you? Perhaps you're willing to cull the journals for consensus, I've got other fish to fry...
puncheex 1 year ago
... And then, what the hell does this mean: "(With absolute inconclusive evidence)"? Are you running a comedy show here? Presuming that inconclusive is a typo, you still must know that nothing in science outside math is ever conclusive; it is always open to new data. You want us to lead you into fairy land where you never have to exercise your brain in order to come to a conclusion. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Having faith is not an option in investigating the real world.
puncheex 1 year ago
In summary, I'm not your servant here. If you don't have the will to find out if there is a scientific consensus on any theory, then you are better off not talking about them. You seem to have a belief in creationism, so let's hear what evidence you have FOR that not against everything else, particularly when you seem to want us to do your lifting and carrying for you, after we undertake to interpret your scrawlings.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
I have found out that there is NOT a scientific consensus for evolution. You are denying this, so I am asking you for your resources. You are basing your 'scientific consensus' on assumptions. You should actually take a look at what science really is and the process of developing a hypothesis into scientific fact. Evolution does not provide scientific fact.
You should also look at the work of Jonathan Conleigh and his book "The Hoax Called Evolution"
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG: I spent an hour finding out what I could about the book you ref. Two reviews at Amazon, score 1.5 on a 1-5 scale. No one else, except for individuals, mostly in Florida where Mr. Conleigh lives, commenting on Christian forums. As far as I can tell it says nothing about scientific support for ToE.
OTOH, the following wikipedia pages are pretty authoritative: "scientific consensus" and "level of support for evolution". ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... On skepticwiki, "Evolution is loosing support among scientists" list at least a couple hundred national and international who have made statements in support of ToE. I have URLs for specific statements by the AAAS, NAS (in fact, all the National Academies: Engineering, Medicine, and the NRC). That's about as far as I going to go; you are welcome to array your proof.
Note that the second of the wikipedia articles above address the 700 names list that AiG has posted.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
Please, provide me any scientific evidence backing the development of human systems pertaining to how and/or why they developed. My questions all still stand, you have answered not a single one. If you are not going to answer any of my questions...why are you even replying?
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@puncheex
Read the interview fro the book labeled something along the lines of 'United States people verses Evolution'.
It proves evolutionists have absolutely no scientific backing for their claims. Are you referencing me to wikipedia and debunking a source just because two random people gave it a bad review...when the two people probably never even read the thing. It can't cost you more than ten bucks..pick up a copy.
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG It may prove that to you...
You need to understand that there's a difference between actual proof, and "proof" that fits with your view of reality.
Logic and reasoning is not a strong point in your type. You just desperately seek to validate your prescribed perception of reality according to whatever "holy book" you subscribe to (there are quite a few out there).
If there is a god out there, he must be laughing at you for rejecting the process he set in motion to create reality.
kaikou1098 1 year ago
@kaikou1098
I actually do not read the Bible or any other major religious book. I am also what many consider an 'atheist' however I do not like to coin terms to not believing in mystical and/or magical creatures. Also, if I am the one operating on logic, then how come you refuse to explain how evolution works and how various species develop and explain the actual physical processes that have evolved and how they were developed?
Religion and Evolution rely on logic. Hypocrite.
I believe neither
SadegoGG 1 year ago
@SadegoGG You're asking someone to show fast amounts of evidence for evolution on a limited YT comments section? Maybe you should've done your research before coming here? Or better yet, get an education. But all is not lost, you can still do that. Educating yourself is up to you. There are even plenty of videos here on youtube that go in much detail on the topic. Just use the search function, it's not rocket science. And evolution is not a matter of faith.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor
PM me scientific articles if you want...
Let me answer a specific question you can find the answer to:
1) How did DNA Replication evolve?
Also, education comes from the latin 'educo' meaning to develop or draw within. An educated individual is not an individual with specialized or generalized knowledge. An educated individual is an individual who have so developed the faculties of his/her mind so he/she can attain anything he/she wants or its equivalent without violating the
SadegoGG 1 year ago