@jaminscript no, Hovind wants to see a monkey giving birth to a man. Ironically, if such event does happen, it would actually be proof against evolution.
Is Ali really serious about the Homo Sapien bit? Or his just acting stupid? I hope he's doin it on purpose cuz it's not helping the atheists! Lmfao! OMGosh he's beyond God's help! Spit out da gum dat might help u think! LOL oh he swallowed it! XD
just stop and try to imagine evolution in action. as best you can with however much they taught you. does it even make sense that an animal can somehow change it's dna to make it's 'fin' grow into a 'leg' or vice versa? how about a whales blowhole? used to be a nose, right? how many genetic changes did it require before a whale had a nasal opening on the back of it's head instead on it's face? now think about all those millions of whales with a nasal opening on their face... absurd...
After viewing some comments below makes me realize how stupid americans really are. Stop wathing football, porn and liberal tv. quit doing drugs and read a book or do some research you stupid idiots.
@TangerineGroovin That's why there are many other tests that scientists use to date things. If a multitude of dating techniques point out the same average period in time with a more than acceptable margin (a few hundred or thousand years over hundreds of millions of years) then it shows that this is the real age of that particular tested thing. That argument of yours has been proven wrong due to the proven accuracy of these testing methods, because they all come up with the same similar results.
@Travaillons it helps... science is all about precision, anything else is just guess werk or faith. the problem is that most of science in regard to the origin of either species or everything is theoretical. nothing has been proven. scientific fact must be proven, anything else is just theory, or faith. i do not place any value on theory. one can theorize anything. i much prefer fact and faith. facts are things like 'salt is salty' and 'water is wet'. faith is 'God exists' and 'God is fake'...
@cwross1976 The existence of "scientific fact" is extremely questionable. All scientists avoid calling anything a law now, because we don't really know anything "for sure", and what we know is constantly changing. One can theorize anything, that's called a hypothesis. Most scientific theories are accepted as facts, until further evidence proves it wrong/calls it's accuracy into question. Of course "salt is salty" is a fact. We define what "salty" is. That's not science, that's linguistics.
@TheTrolologuy That's a knowledge statement. You are claiming to know something obviously. So I would ask you, how do you account for this? Where do you get you laws of logic etc. from? Watch videos about Sye TenBruggencate for more.
speak to tha hand, cuz the face ain't listenin. where's me challenge money, yo? yo money's with yo intn'l banksters account, sasha, thas where it is. ha
Remember that we are transitional forms as well. What is a species ? It is hard to define when the first homo sapien evolved because there is no clear definition and the changes are very slow. I have heard estimates from 100 - 200 thousand years.
In my understanding some races may be more evolved than others, but the differences are minute. It is no secret that negroes have an advantage in Olympic sprinting and the marathon. The genome really shows that we are remarkably similar, which may help to reduce racism. The different shape of the Asian skull is another argument against young earth creationism.
There are videos on you tube that show humans with tails e.g. 'boy with tail'. You can also study other vestigal organs such as the appendix. Of course creationists put up arguments to rationalize these findings, but it is up to you to decide if these arguments are lame or not. Creationists have crazy arguments for all kinds of objections, which should show you how desperate these people are to cling onto belief. They do this either for money, social benefit or just so they can be happy.
We share a common ancestor with apes. We diverged away about 6 million yrs ago, most probably because of geography. We became more suited to a hunter|gatherer way of life. Evolution is a very slow process, so we don't normally see it happen. We are still very apelike sharing many physical features and genes. We also have a fused chromosome which is virtual proof that we evolved from creatures without the fusion
@gavincostin1 Are you saying that some humans are more apelike than others? Which ones? And in what ways are they similar? Do all humans have the same genetic proximity to apes or are some more closely related than others?
@1313sku Yes some humans look very apelike in the face, particurlarly aborigines. But we all have similar hands, feet, skulls and bones to apes. Just open your eyes. We also have the stub of a tail i.e. the coccyx. Some humans have even had a tail. Remember you are looking at 6 million years of divergence. This is a long time for us, but not in terms of evolution which is roughly 1 billion years old. Some humans would be more apelike in the genes, but its not that significant.
@gavincostin1 Just to clarify, you are saying the aborigines are, in fact, a transitional form of apes to humans. Do you feel the same about some African people, due to the structure of the facial bones and dark skin? Following this same logic, would you also say that white people are less apelike and have evolved further?
There are hundreds of transitional forms of species, including us !. There is fossil evidence and genetic evidence. What do you creatards need short of a time machine ???
@gavincostin1 If humans evolved from apes, why don't we still see apelike humans in the world today? Why did it only happen long ago and far away? Why are all of the apes just apes, and all of the humans just humans? Has evolution stopped?
'Course we're ape-like, there are some pretty bloody hairy people in the world, lemme tell you, and I doubt ur gonna say we look more like an insect or a bird than an ape, right? What do you want, exactly, the world is as it is exactly as if evolution is true.
I think maybe your biggest problem is that you have no idea of the scale by which evolution usually occurs. Do some research man, I really think it'll help you.
Evolution is a subject that cannot be proven or disproved with a few witty lines. If you actually want to understand what evolutionary science really says, you'll need several hours of study. I recommend the website: "Understanding Evolution" " your one-stop source for information on evolution "
I love how creationists always try to disprove evolutionism. they dont try to prove that creationism is right. they just try to disprove evolution. they have no sound proof that anything from creationism is true. no testable proof. saying the bible says its true doesnt mean shit. Kent always uses the arguement that evolution claims that life started from nothing. well guess what. its possible and has been proven so. look up the urey-miller experiment.
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 his parody was that monkeys eat bananas, as do humans, but seriously religion is for weak minded twits who dont understand the basics of any science, pls dont be a twit
jajaja this is soo funny Ali G proves Kent Hoving evolved from an ape and if you watch the entire chapter Ali G calls evolutionist homo-sexuals jajaja this guyz is crazy
@telectronicguy oh! i think i actually saw that episode one morning, but not the rest. i had no clue i would here more of kent hovind on thunderf00t, lol
So you're willing to believe that "a creature quite literally coming out of thin air" is religious in nature, but you do believe that NOTHING created EVERYTHING, right? Basically, the entire Universe came out of "nothing" as mainstream science puts it today? Not just a human or even a cell, but the entire UNIVERSE! And you still want to believe that evolutionary theories are not religious? Can you even see how religious YOU are?
Just read or re-examine the statements someone like Hawking makes and then reconsider your "idiot" remarks. The one thing you can use when hit with logic is hatred and rudeness. No wonder you believe crap.
@flotopo - If you come out in a public forum, condeming science and the world's smartest people; expect some criticism. I don't hate you, a barely know you, but from what I've read in your comments on how you think...
You're an idiot.
I have read 2 of Hawking's books and I have never heard him or any other astrophysicist say the universe came from nothing.
Now, if you want to accept psuedo-science garbage from Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort... there, again... idiot.
@flotopo - If you're argument for me believing in something you think is illogical is becaise I called you an idiot, you're pretty illogical. By your same standard, every condescending Christian is illogical. Not just that they believe in plagiarized fairy-tales and a god who is biggest asshole ever imagined, but because they're rude about what others believe.
You did the exact same thing that you pointed your finger at me for, with your "no wonder you believe crap" remark.
dude, in my first post to you all I said is you're religious. your reply to me is i was an idiot. I told you you believe crap, you replied back again with your all time original, full of intelligence, all time scientific "you're an idiot". what else can i say other than what you "sow is what you reap" bottom line: Christians are here to discuss politely, to bring forth their arguments and to listen to the arguments the opposition brings, BUT when u're rude, we're human. get it?
as for condemning science, nobody did that. I do not condemn science. an the contrary, I love science. what u fail to se is that scientific process is made up of 2 major parts: data and interpretation of the data. the first is objective, the second is based on a world view that is not. what's worse, is you think that UR worldview is objective and the ones that do not share it are idiots. so much hypocrisy. if you love truth do a research about the geological column.
@flotopo - Watch out with the judgments of what I know. I completely understand the difference between data and interpretation. And I have studied geological columns.
My worldview is nuetral and open to what evidence and data leads to. Science doesn't have an agenda other than knowledge. Religion has an agenda and if science doesn't jive with it, zealot idiots say it's wrong.
Science leads to conclusions. Religion has a conclusion that science doesn't lead to.
you're not neutral, u only think u are. one principle says that if the premises u start form are false, so is the conclusion u draw. one simple but important example is Charles Lyell's geological column, which is nothing but a fairy tale he invented because HIS AGENDA was to "get Moses out of the science books". so if u say there is no agenda, u'r delusional. also Charles Lyell had not scientific way to determine the age of anything. still, the Darwinian theory is based on it...
@flotopo - Wow... you keep proving you're an idiot.
You do know that the concept evolution was concieved long before Darwin and his research, right? Darwin definitely was a cornerstone in the theory with his work but remember how long ago that was. The modern research and study does show some errors in his work but does not disprove evolution. The DNA/genome research, alone, pretty proves evolution.
You attack guys like Lyell and Darwin like they were the ones that "proved" theories. Idiot.
I am gonna say this and then just leave your foolish heart and mind to be the pray of your stupidity. yes, stupidity. i know evolutionism had a vague and undefined form before Darwin, and also that Darwin put it into a clearly defined theory, BUT what ur stupid mind fails to see, or maybe u do not know this, is that DARWIN'S EVOLUTION THEORY adopted the fallacious concept that Lyell came forth with. How in the wolrd did Lyell measure the age of the earth when he had no means to?
@flotopo - I think you meant 'prey'... not "pray". Silly theist.
I am not familiar with his work enough to know how he came to his conclusion and what led to Darwin's ideas.
But, as I said, attacking someone's work that is out-dated does not prove your view correct. And modern research, with modern technology, still disproves creationist ideals.
I don't "worship" these guys like you seem to imply. I highly respect them for their work, especially with their lack of resources.
Dude, English is not my native tongue, so it is only normal that I make mistakes sometimes. Still, i am able to speak your language, whereas you cannot speak a word in my language. As for, modern technology, what it does is it gives data, but the interpretation is still done by people, not by machines, and the people hold fast to the same false and biased concepts Lyell brought. Without Lyell you have no "billions of years", so you have no evolution taking place. Think 4 a minute
@flotopo - I have never heard this argument before. I think it's funny that I haven't because I research apologitics. So, you're saying that radio-dating is false only because Lyell's ideas are false? And measuring the expension of the solar system as a tool to guage the age of the earth is false because Lyell's ideas are fasle?
You are saying that Lyell's concept is the ONLY concept accepted in science and if he is false, then every single tool and data used now is false?
Again, data is one thing and interpreting the data is another. i am not saying radio-metric dating is false. What radio-metric dating does, is it yields information but that information has to be interpreted. The same applies to the measuring the expansion (not expension) of the solar system. What concept do you think science at large uses when it comes to this matter? Find the answer to that and you'll see if there's any truth to the "billions of years" story. Peace...I'm out.
@flotopo These retards dont even believe in cosmic evolution, even though you can look in a telescope and see starlight that is billions of years old.
@flotopo - That's a common mistake with you idiots. You think that showing error in Darwin and Lyell and the like, whose work is over 100 years old, dispoves the rationale of their hypothesis. No one has read Origin if Species or Principles of Geology and taken it as the only proof of those concepts, except theists that WON'T accept it, for over a hundred years.
It's funny how modern research, with modern technology, still leads to their concepts by improving on their work that they could not.
the fact that u believe even today that Lyell was right, therefore Darwin's chronology was accurate, only shows how much of an ignorant you are about these things. if u loved truth and science, u'd know that a false premise leads to a false conclusion. Lyell's premise was false, Darwin's "billion of years story" was false, too. u have no business talking about science. When so called "science" measure the the age of rocks by the fossils and vice-versa, kids know it;s false. fool
@flotopo - Also, attacking scientist's work (over 100 years old or modern) doesn't prove any type of theistic ideas. Even if they were wrong doesn't make you right. But what is pretty logical is that not all religion and god-concepts can be true, but all can be false. That is why having an atheistic worldview is nuetral. I am not saying there is no god and I will never accept one. I am saying that until it has some object evidence, it's a fairy tale.
@ShadowVeranda It's been thousands of years man. And I ain't seen anything remotely like what is being taught in the THEORY of evolution. The THEORY of evolution.
@MattHatter A scientific theory explains a fact. Saying it is just a theory is quite literally showing your ignorance of all science when you don't consider the theories of gravity, germs, nuclear chemestry, and so on. But you know what we haven't seen that would disprove evolution? A creature quite literally coming out of thin air. I haven't seen a living human come from clay or sand according to the bible. Nor has anyone.
So you're willing to believe that "a creature quite literally coming out of thin air" is religious in nature, but you do believe that NOTHING created EVERYTHING, right? Basically, the entire Universe came out of "nothing" as mainstream science puts it today? Not just a human or even a cell, but the entire UNIVERSE! And you still want to believe that evolutionary theories are not religious? Can you even see how religious YOU are?
Perhaps someone might inform Hovind what DNA is and explain why a monkey will not give birth to a human. More importantly, if he is unaware that the science of evolution does not indicate that humans decended from monkeys, but, rather, they have a common ancestor, then Hovind has done nothing to educate himself. Either that, or he is dumb like a fox and laughing all the way to the bank, taking advantage of the true undereducated in this country who send him checks for pandering to them.
Well duh. Science is gonna change as we learn more about it. That is what good science does. So you are telling me you'd rather get your science knowledge from bad scientists???? The mainstream media and schooling are not deciding what is scientific and what isn't. That is an extremely absurd thing to say.
@TheGreatRL, it goes deeper than schooling and mainstream media, but those are probably the two biggest outlets. Should we trust that these sources are always correct because they are the most common? When I bring this up with people in the general science field, they know exactly what I mean. If something they discover gets in the way of their companies profits, its covered up to the extent that it can be without actually being seen as a coverup.
@miketonon So evolution is just one big conspiracy against science. Brilliant. I already said before that the mainstream media is not responsible for what is scientific and what isn't and how absurd you sound for saying it. Evolution is true science. Depriving schools of teaching it is ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is letting foolish ideas like creationism be taught alongside. Just like what "the so called" Dr. Kent Hovind advocates.
@miketonon So evolution is just one big conspiracy against science. Brilliant. I already said before that the mainstream media is not responsible for what is scientific and what isn't and how absurd you sound for saying it. Evolution is true science. Depriving schools of teaching it is ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is letting foolish ideas like creationism be taught alongside. Just like what "the so called" Dr. Kent Hovind advocates.
@TheGreatRL, haha, attempting to attack me won't get your point across. You just make yourself look pathetic. How do you know evolution (full blown evolution, not just things changing to a degree) is a fact? Are you a scientist?
@miketonon No I am not a scientist. When just about every scientist says evolution is true, I can be pretty sure it is a fact. How do you know that the earth is round? Are you a geographer? How do you know the holocaust happened? Are you a historian? My point is you don't have to be these things to know that they are facts. Oh and when you say something ridiculous like what you said, how do you not expect me to call you out on it?
@TheGreatRL, but thats just my point, what do YOU know personally. Not what have seemingly most experts agreed on. Do you even know the majority of scientists? And if you did, are the majority of people always correct?
Continue to attack me, you're proving I have a point.
@miketonon I can't say I know evolution personally. I do not have the intellect to test it out for myself. But when the people that do have that intellect test it out and try for years to disprove it and just fail, then its safe to say its a fact. Do you believe the earth is round? Do you believe the holocaust happened? How do YOU know personally?
And how exactly am I attacking you? And what point would I be proving?
@Dreamerx47, genes change to a point, its scientifically proven. But whats nonsense religion is the idea that any biological organism can evolve into another type.
@Dreamerx47, oh, come on now, you know its more complicated than that.
Evolution, has happened, TO A POINT, in some sense. But its more of adaptation. Religion is essentially nonsense, blindly believeing something that you're told is scientificly accurate is no different. And God is of no religion.
Evolutionists are full of lies. They seem unaware or dont understand that creationists believe in biological evolution, which consists of the biological facts such as genetic diversity, speciation, and natural selection. However, creationists DONT believe in the theory of evolution--which has many unprovable sub theories, such as gradualism, punctuated equilibrium etc. The misunderstanding arisen by evolutionists come from their ignorance of creationism. Evolution is a LIE!!!!!
@Nashhinton, sad isn't it? I wouldn't care, let everyone believe whatever they want. The problem is all the ignorant people trying to force their beliefs on others. Die-hard evolutionists tend to be some of the worst. They can't understand why so many people won't just take their word for it, expecially after they try to ridicule you for questioning their belief.
@TheGreatRL, uh, not really. First, I'm not against evolution, I'm against nonsense. Second, I had the idea of evolution taught to me back in high school. While I can't remember too much of it, being that it was years ago, alot of it just doesn't seem to fit. But I wasn't around to witness all of these supposid events take place, I'm not an archiologist and I'm not directly exposed to the evidence. So its hard for me to personally come to a solid conlusion of the truth.
@miketonon There are millions of biological, geological and all other types of evidence to support evolution. People just hear the word "theory" and automatically think its not a fact. Do you have any idea what it takes for a scientific idea to become a theory? If something becomes a theory, then its most likely a fact.
@TheGreatRL, alot of so-called science keeps changing, sometimes back and forth. The mainstream media and schooling are the main culprites of that. Since thats how most people find what they "know", thats what most people mainly know as science. How is that science? I would rather, at least attempt to get knowledge on science directly and personally from several unafiliated scientists. And even that could provide false info.
@aveyowyns, the bible actually says the earth is round, not flat. I've heard that the Catholic religion played a major roll in convincing people that the earth was flat and anyone who questioned this was laughed at.
@TheGreatRL, NO NO NO, fake science is religion. True science is science, but you have to understand how difficult it can be sometimes for people not involved in a given scientific discovery to decifer between what is scientific and what is nonsense. The media does a good job at confusing people.
@rugbyanden, alot of so-called science IS NOT ACTUAL SCIENCE! Do you realize, given the proper opportunities, how easy it is to convince most people that something is science when its not?
@JamesThWilliams : If that is true, why don't we ever see a plant produce a non-plant, or a bird produce a non-bird. Why don't we see any examples of one kind of organism becoming another kind of organism (macroevolution). Why did it only happen long ago and far away?
@MannyKunV : What is wrong with Hovind's question? Isn't that exactly what the macroevolutionist's theory teaches? We all came from a common ancestor according to their theory. At some point, a monkey would have to produce a creature that was less monkey and more human. Where are all of these creatures today? Why don't we see any "transitional forms" in any of the other kinds of animals? Has evolution stopped? Where is all the evidence to support this kind of thinking?
@WombatusMaximus If "every animal is a transitional form," where are all the examples of them becoming a different kind of animal. Why don't we see dogs producing something that is non-dog? Or rats producing a non-rat feature? If macroevolution occurs, there should be evidence everywhere. We never see it. Of all the hundreds of dog varieties in the world, we have never seen a dog produce anything but another dog.
@1313sku why are you so presumptuous as to think everything that happens in this world should bow to you by making itsself apparent and percievable within the scope of your meagre lifetime?
@WombatusMaximus Science is based on quantifiable facts. If the data is not available to support someone's theory over time, the theory must be thrown out. There is not one shred of evidence to prove macroevolution, cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, or abiogenesis. There is a lot of make believe and wishful thinking. All we really know is that the Universe exists, but we cannot scientifically prove how it got here.
@1313sku "There is not one shred of evidence to prove macroevolution, cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, or abiogenesis." ...closing your eyes, covering your ears and singing 'LALALA" doesnt make the mass of peer-reviewed evidence do away, unfortunately for you and your creationist friends. Your self-delusion is palpable, and your intellectual dishonesty disgraceful.
@WombatusMaximus It's interesting how you project the same behavior onto me that the evolutionists have been guilty of since the beginning of their dumb theory. If evolutionists can't explain how life began or how matter got here, their entire theory falls apart. I can't prove there is a God in heaven any more than they can prove that the Universe came into existence by itself. Neither ideas are scientific, yet their's continues to be taught in public classrooms.
Why the hell would evolution need the beggining of life for it to be true? That's a completely different topic and you can talk about that as much as you want but it's not going to affect evolutionary theory. If you want to talk about the beginning of life, that's abiogenesis, the theories of that that are kinda iffy at the moment and that's what you might be talking about, but evolution is a completely different theory that hasn't had a scientific paper against it in a century.
you really don't. what you DO show is that you have no idea what you're talking about; you say that abiogenesis isn't supported but abiogenesis just means the beginning of life... saying abiogenesis is saying there is no evidence that life ever began... which is obviously untrue because there is life today. You theory of abiogenesis, that God created life, isn't supported by the evidence. The evidence supports a number of possible theories (iron sulfur world, RNA hypothesis), not God.
@magucheapololkop You cannot claim that any of these ideas are "possible theories," because despite all of their best efforts, atheistic scientists have yet to produce life from non-living material. It is wishful thinking at best. I can't prove that God exists any more than they can prove He does not exist. You would claim the Universe itself is evidence of evolution. I say, it is evidence of a Creator. You believe whatever you want. But don't call it science.
Hah? Why not, that's what the evidence supports, ofc it's science, what the hell else do you want to call it. Have you studied science? Or evidence supports a bunch of those possibile theories, the evidence that supports it is scientific... are you trolling or are you really trying to tell me this and you actually believe it? People aren't that stupid, surely.
@magucheapololkop You have missed my point. When it comes to abiogenesis, a lot of brilliant scientists have done a lot of scientific experimentation trying to prove how life could have evolved from non-living material, and they can't do it. I don't criticize them for trying. They might actually discover something worthwhile in the process. I do criticize those who call their ideas "theories." A theory must be supported by quantifiable evidence over time. Abiogenesis ideas are not theories
There are plenty worth calling theories, limitations in attributing the information gained to real life doesn't make the information wrong, the evidence supports what it does address; thus they are theories.
And abiogenesis still doesn't really have any relevance to the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, which is factual at this point.
You'd have better luck being a holocaust denier, or a 9/11 truther.
@magucheapololkop The problem comes in the definition of the word "evolution." Atheistic evolutionists cite thousands of examples of microevolution and then expect you to BELIEVE macroevolution, cosmic evolution, and abiogenesis. Their evidence for the latter three is slim to none, yet they are all lumped together into the same broad term. Rat poison is 99% good food. It's the 1% poison that kills the rat. Don't feel bad. A lot of other people have been deceived, too.
Haha, there's no difference between micro and macro mate, we have no way to distinguish between the two except for when people like you decide to say they're different in order to support bullshit arguments. Doesn't the clear, easy fossil evidence help? Or do you reject that as well?
Haven't you ever looked through the pages of animals in wikipedia and thought... huh... by denying evolution I'm pretty much denying half the information on any animal in here...
@magucheapololkop Finding a fossil does not "prove" that it evolved from something else. If macroevolution occurred, one would expect to find examples of the various kinds of organisms slowly emerging characteristics of a different kind of organism. This is found no where in the world today or in the millions of fossils discovered. All of the kinds of organisms are found fully formed and fully functioning. Plants have always been plants. Insects have always been insects, and so on.
@magucheapololkop Finding great diversity does not "prove" common ancestry. Finding similar characteristics between the kinds of organisms does not "prove" common ancestry. You can BELIEVE that if you want, but you can't prove it scientifically. Simply because you want something to be true does not make it true. Finding an insect with wings does not prove it is becoming a bird. Finding an ape that can use simple tools does not prove that it is becoming human.
hey, it's just evidence that supports the theory, if the theory was true, the fossils we've found would have looked exactly like as they are found. The clues are there but if you wanna block your ears that's absolutely your choice, even if I think you're an idiot for doing so. Oh, and your last few statements have almost nothing to do with evolution, perhaps you should study some biology aye.
So why do you not think that evolution is science anyway, you're obviously not a scientist and you obviously haven't studied any, have you thought maybe an education would help you understand the world a bit better? Just a suggestion, I would hate to be as ignorant as you.
Lol well like I said, I'm assuming you're accepting what you call microevolution, but macroevolution isn't really all that different. Sometimes it can take more time, but you know it's actually been observed multiple times in lab settings and in nature; examples include plants like the evening primrose and hemp nettle evolving into new species, and in animals in a wide array of worms, beetles and flies. Add in fossils and techtonic plates, whatever, what more do you need?
@magucheapololkop In order for me to accept that all of life could have evolved from a single living cell, I would have to see multiple examples of the various kinds of organisms slowly changing to different kinds. This is what evolutionists teach, isn't it? Insects changing colors, plants with more adaptive root structures, fresh water fish that can live in salt water--all of these are examples of variations within the kinds of organisms.
I don't understand, that kinda thing happens in front of your eyes every day, just take a look at all the different dog breeds. They're all the same animal, but humans have just bred them out to become very different indeed, if you want visual confirmation of evolution (by artificial, human selection, ofc) go compare some dogs with each other.
I've shown you how evolution has occurred in labs and in specific instances in nature, what on earth is still giving you doubt?
@magucheapololkop You keep mentioning variations within specific kinds of organisms. Big dogs, little dogs, hairy humans, smooth-skinned humans, flies with 4 wings, flies with 2 wings. I want to see jellyfish becoming reptiles or frogs or birds. Isn't that what evolutionists teach? Where is all of the evidence for that, either in the fossil record or in the world today? If evolution never stops, we should have many examples of exactly this kind of thing.
No, that is not what evolutionists teach. Small changes is what evolution is, lots of small changes put together equals a big change. God that's simplified, but your perceptions of evolution are just so wrong.
Please, please, please, learn what evolution actually is. Don't make up what you want evolution to be, learn what scientists say it is, please, for your own good. Read that wikipedia page.
@magucheapololkop Actually, you are the one who is wrong. Small changes within a particular kind of organism has never and will never equal change to a completely different kind, yet this is exactly what evolutionists teach. I can understand why you are ashamed to admit it, because there is no evidence to support this claim. Most evolutionists try to avoid this inconvenient truth, but it is the truth nonetheless. More honest research on your part will prove what I am saying is true.
@1313sku ok, so you just ignored the evidence I've provided and are now blocking your ears, continuing to attack evolution with no knowledge backing it up? I gave you a whole list of animals that have evolved into new species just in our lifetime or in labs. Nothing in biology makes any sense at all unless evolution is true, it's really that simple.
Look, I'm honestly amazed. People try to tell you whats going on, try to teach you, but you refuse to listen or learn.
@magucheapololkop Actually, biology still makes sense--just not from an evolutionist's perspective. You cannot explain the great diversity of life we see using evolutionary concepts alone. It simply does not work, and the evidence is not there to back you up. At some point, honest researchers must admit that there is no clear scientific reason for the planet to exist as we know it. It is too vast, too diverse, too remarkable in the most minute ways. It is a miracle that any of us are here.
0:19
Atheists could offer people one billion for empirical evidence that God exists, an ultimatum like that alone still wouldn't prove anything
najhoant 3 weeks ago
The banana is genetically modified to be edible. In the wild it's just a fat sausage full of massive seeds. Its shape is also genetically modified.
Kent obviously doesn't research anything and would rather come up with bullshit claims.
jaminscript 1 month ago
The funniest thing is, that Ali G. fires Hovinds own stupid banana-arguments back at him. Genius.
Eckendenker 1 month ago
Ali G is the proof that humans did not evolve.
ikawpipa 1 month ago
We offer a quarter million dollars to anyone who can prove evolution.
My answer: The common cold.
Too bad I can't get my money from him since he's in jail now...
jaminscript 1 month ago 2
@jaminscript no, Hovind wants to see a monkey giving birth to a man. Ironically, if such event does happen, it would actually be proof against evolution.
Casshyr 1 month ago 2
and thats what they can do, "Speak to the hand" when shown how illogical they are.
9906197439 1 month ago
Is Ali really serious about the Homo Sapien bit? Or his just acting stupid? I hope he's doin it on purpose cuz it's not helping the atheists! Lmfao! OMGosh he's beyond God's help! Spit out da gum dat might help u think! LOL oh he swallowed it! XD
Midnite4Life777 3 months ago
@Midnite4Life777 Yes, just like all of his bits, he is indeed, serious.
Debordsbullet 3 months ago
just stop and try to imagine evolution in action. as best you can with however much they taught you. does it even make sense that an animal can somehow change it's dna to make it's 'fin' grow into a 'leg' or vice versa? how about a whales blowhole? used to be a nose, right? how many genetic changes did it require before a whale had a nasal opening on the back of it's head instead on it's face? now think about all those millions of whales with a nasal opening on their face... absurd...
cwross1976 3 months ago
After viewing some comments below makes me realize how stupid americans really are. Stop wathing football, porn and liberal tv. quit doing drugs and read a book or do some research you stupid idiots.
bbfl22 5 months ago
@bbfl22 Other than the football, the same could be said for every other country.
Travaillons 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bbfl22 Shut the fuck up, you self righteous prick.
cmullen69 3 months ago
@TheTrolologuy
Go carbon date two different pieces of the same mammoth. One will come out x, the other y.
Nice day sir.
TangerineGroovin 5 months ago
@TangerineGroovin That's why there are many other tests that scientists use to date things. If a multitude of dating techniques point out the same average period in time with a more than acceptable margin (a few hundred or thousand years over hundreds of millions of years) then it shows that this is the real age of that particular tested thing. That argument of yours has been proven wrong due to the proven accuracy of these testing methods, because they all come up with the same similar results.
whoyoutellin93 5 months ago
@TangerineGroovin Oh yes, because science is math right? Everything must be exact.
Travaillons 4 months ago
@Travaillons it helps... science is all about precision, anything else is just guess werk or faith. the problem is that most of science in regard to the origin of either species or everything is theoretical. nothing has been proven. scientific fact must be proven, anything else is just theory, or faith. i do not place any value on theory. one can theorize anything. i much prefer fact and faith. facts are things like 'salt is salty' and 'water is wet'. faith is 'God exists' and 'God is fake'...
cwross1976 3 months ago
@cwross1976 The existence of "scientific fact" is extremely questionable. All scientists avoid calling anything a law now, because we don't really know anything "for sure", and what we know is constantly changing. One can theorize anything, that's called a hypothesis. Most scientific theories are accepted as facts, until further evidence proves it wrong/calls it's accuracy into question. Of course "salt is salty" is a fact. We define what "salty" is. That's not science, that's linguistics.
Travaillons 3 months ago
@cwross1976 I think I should also point out that for now, evolution is accepted as fact in the scientific community.
Travaillons 3 months ago
@TheTrolologuy
carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate. thanks for proving the bible right.
TangerineGroovin 5 months ago
@TangerineGroovin All of the dating methods, working on independent principles? Or did you just make that up?
Travaillons 4 months ago
@TheTrolologuy That's a knowledge statement. You are claiming to know something obviously. So I would ask you, how do you account for this? Where do you get you laws of logic etc. from? Watch videos about Sye TenBruggencate for more.
jesse8857 5 months ago
speak to tha hand, cuz the face ain't listenin. where's me challenge money, yo? yo money's with yo intn'l banksters account, sasha, thas where it is. ha
ultrakool 6 months ago in playlist Kent Hovind
Is he borat? =o
Ryosuke1208 7 months ago
@Ryosuke1208 yes, and many other characters
truthseeker010101 7 months ago
Professor G pwned convict 298603
1RothMan 7 months ago
Banana
#Nuff-said
ChanzAreBaD 8 months ago
Remember that we are transitional forms as well. What is a species ? It is hard to define when the first homo sapien evolved because there is no clear definition and the changes are very slow. I have heard estimates from 100 - 200 thousand years.
gavincostin1 8 months ago
In my understanding some races may be more evolved than others, but the differences are minute. It is no secret that negroes have an advantage in Olympic sprinting and the marathon. The genome really shows that we are remarkably similar, which may help to reduce racism. The different shape of the Asian skull is another argument against young earth creationism.
gavincostin1 8 months ago
There are videos on you tube that show humans with tails e.g. 'boy with tail'. You can also study other vestigal organs such as the appendix. Of course creationists put up arguments to rationalize these findings, but it is up to you to decide if these arguments are lame or not. Creationists have crazy arguments for all kinds of objections, which should show you how desperate these people are to cling onto belief. They do this either for money, social benefit or just so they can be happy.
gavincostin1 8 months ago
We share a common ancestor with apes. We diverged away about 6 million yrs ago, most probably because of geography. We became more suited to a hunter|gatherer way of life. Evolution is a very slow process, so we don't normally see it happen. We are still very apelike sharing many physical features and genes. We also have a fused chromosome which is virtual proof that we evolved from creatures without the fusion
gavincostin1 8 months ago
@gavincostin1 Are you saying that some humans are more apelike than others? Which ones? And in what ways are they similar? Do all humans have the same genetic proximity to apes or are some more closely related than others?
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku Yes some humans look very apelike in the face, particurlarly aborigines. But we all have similar hands, feet, skulls and bones to apes. Just open your eyes. We also have the stub of a tail i.e. the coccyx. Some humans have even had a tail. Remember you are looking at 6 million years of divergence. This is a long time for us, but not in terms of evolution which is roughly 1 billion years old. Some humans would be more apelike in the genes, but its not that significant.
gavincostin1 8 months ago
@gavincostin1 Just to clarify, you are saying the aborigines are, in fact, a transitional form of apes to humans. Do you feel the same about some African people, due to the structure of the facial bones and dark skin? Following this same logic, would you also say that white people are less apelike and have evolved further?
1313sku 8 months ago
There are hundreds of transitional forms of species, including us !. There is fossil evidence and genetic evidence. What do you creatards need short of a time machine ???
gavincostin1 8 months ago
@gavincostin1 If humans evolved from apes, why don't we still see apelike humans in the world today? Why did it only happen long ago and far away? Why are all of the apes just apes, and all of the humans just humans? Has evolution stopped?
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku
'Course we're ape-like, there are some pretty bloody hairy people in the world, lemme tell you, and I doubt ur gonna say we look more like an insect or a bird than an ape, right? What do you want, exactly, the world is as it is exactly as if evolution is true.
I think maybe your biggest problem is that you have no idea of the scale by which evolution usually occurs. Do some research man, I really think it'll help you.
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
I hate Ali G, but I really hate Kent more!
pandorachild 8 months ago
Lol @ Ali trollin Kent hovind
destroyedklkk 8 months ago
Kent owned em both!
alvinl1957 8 months ago
Evolution is a subject that cannot be proven or disproved with a few witty lines. If you actually want to understand what evolutionary science really says, you'll need several hours of study. I recommend the website: "Understanding Evolution" " your one-stop source for information on evolution "
tanfoukdance 8 months ago
HAHA if you cover the right side of the screen with your hand when the evolutionist is talking, i swear you'll think its tommy chong!
zazzeyzaz 9 months ago
This was dumb. The snack machine eats my money. Does that mean it evolved from a politician?
PeanutButterGtr 9 months ago
creation vs evolution . free forums . org
purdyr 9 months ago
Kent started spouting bullshit, Ali G spouted bigger bullshit & showed Kent his corner among the big boys. !!! :p
prodigytechus 9 months ago
also, dinosaurs are from millions of years ago. we KNOW this. radioactive dating...
hockeyfan2688 9 months ago
I love how creationists always try to disprove evolutionism. they dont try to prove that creationism is right. they just try to disprove evolution. they have no sound proof that anything from creationism is true. no testable proof. saying the bible says its true doesnt mean shit. Kent always uses the arguement that evolution claims that life started from nothing. well guess what. its possible and has been proven so. look up the urey-miller experiment.
hockeyfan2688 9 months ago
@PUMKINMANforever no lol, i never watched his show. i heard its funny though.
KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 11 months ago
what part does he prove? he asked if you have eaten a banana. that proves kent likes bananas. who can watch this and say he proved evolution? really?
KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 11 months ago
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 You do understand that it's a parody right? And that Ali G was using the logic Hovind regularly employs to prove a point? :P
PUMKINMANforever 11 months ago
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 The Banana is an example of something that humans have seen evolve....that is why he said Banana, check it out.
AFGknight 11 months ago
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 his parody was that monkeys eat bananas, as do humans, but seriously religion is for weak minded twits who dont understand the basics of any science, pls dont be a twit
Kdajrocks 9 months ago
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 Because Ali G eats bananas, he is the missing link evolutionists have been looking for.
1313sku 8 months ago
duh, if Kent likes bannanas, Evolution MUST be true, jeez didn't you study psuedo-logic in church?
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop my ancestors were human, sorry bout yours :)
KyuuketsukiNekoMim1 8 months ago
@KyuuketsukiNekoMim1
Wow! I have human ancestors too, isn't it amazing how much we have in common?
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
The Creationist is a Dr.? woot?
SodaPopDumb 11 months ago
give Ali G. his 250 K!!
scarletharlot69 1 year ago 2
jajaja this is soo funny Ali G proves Kent Hoving evolved from an ape and if you watch the entire chapter Ali G calls evolutionist homo-sexuals jajaja this guyz is crazy
telectronicguy 1 year ago
@telectronicguy oh! i think i actually saw that episode one morning, but not the rest. i had no clue i would here more of kent hovind on thunderf00t, lol
Runningtail 1 year ago
So you're willing to believe that "a creature quite literally coming out of thin air" is religious in nature, but you do believe that NOTHING created EVERYTHING, right? Basically, the entire Universe came out of "nothing" as mainstream science puts it today? Not just a human or even a cell, but the entire UNIVERSE! And you still want to believe that evolutionary theories are not religious? Can you even see how religious YOU are?
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo- If you believe that science says the universe came from nothing, you're an idiot.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind ,
Just read or re-examine the statements someone like Hawking makes and then reconsider your "idiot" remarks. The one thing you can use when hit with logic is hatred and rudeness. No wonder you believe crap.
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo - If you come out in a public forum, condeming science and the world's smartest people; expect some criticism. I don't hate you, a barely know you, but from what I've read in your comments on how you think...
You're an idiot.
I have read 2 of Hawking's books and I have never heard him or any other astrophysicist say the universe came from nothing.
Now, if you want to accept psuedo-science garbage from Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort... there, again... idiot.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@flotopo - If you're argument for me believing in something you think is illogical is becaise I called you an idiot, you're pretty illogical. By your same standard, every condescending Christian is illogical. Not just that they believe in plagiarized fairy-tales and a god who is biggest asshole ever imagined, but because they're rude about what others believe.
You did the exact same thing that you pointed your finger at me for, with your "no wonder you believe crap" remark.
Hypocritical idiot.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind ,
dude, in my first post to you all I said is you're religious. your reply to me is i was an idiot. I told you you believe crap, you replied back again with your all time original, full of intelligence, all time scientific "you're an idiot". what else can i say other than what you "sow is what you reap" bottom line: Christians are here to discuss politely, to bring forth their arguments and to listen to the arguments the opposition brings, BUT when u're rude, we're human. get it?
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo - What? I'm religious? When did you say this and what makes me religious?
And, if you think that Youtube Christians are polite, fair and listen to opposite arguments; you truly are an idiot.
My original "idiot" remark to you is how you have totally perverted the theories of science and if you believe "magic" over science, you're an idiot.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind , see? i was right...you're like a cursing machine...! i pity u...
flotopo 1 year ago
@besidemymind ,
as for condemning science, nobody did that. I do not condemn science. an the contrary, I love science. what u fail to se is that scientific process is made up of 2 major parts: data and interpretation of the data. the first is objective, the second is based on a world view that is not. what's worse, is you think that UR worldview is objective and the ones that do not share it are idiots. so much hypocrisy. if you love truth do a research about the geological column.
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo - Watch out with the judgments of what I know. I completely understand the difference between data and interpretation. And I have studied geological columns.
My worldview is nuetral and open to what evidence and data leads to. Science doesn't have an agenda other than knowledge. Religion has an agenda and if science doesn't jive with it, zealot idiots say it's wrong.
Science leads to conclusions. Religion has a conclusion that science doesn't lead to.
Again, you're an idiot.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind ,
you're not neutral, u only think u are. one principle says that if the premises u start form are false, so is the conclusion u draw. one simple but important example is Charles Lyell's geological column, which is nothing but a fairy tale he invented because HIS AGENDA was to "get Moses out of the science books". so if u say there is no agenda, u'r delusional. also Charles Lyell had not scientific way to determine the age of anything. still, the Darwinian theory is based on it...
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo - Wow... you keep proving you're an idiot.
You do know that the concept evolution was concieved long before Darwin and his research, right? Darwin definitely was a cornerstone in the theory with his work but remember how long ago that was. The modern research and study does show some errors in his work but does not disprove evolution. The DNA/genome research, alone, pretty proves evolution.
You attack guys like Lyell and Darwin like they were the ones that "proved" theories. Idiot.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind ,
I am gonna say this and then just leave your foolish heart and mind to be the pray of your stupidity. yes, stupidity. i know evolutionism had a vague and undefined form before Darwin, and also that Darwin put it into a clearly defined theory, BUT what ur stupid mind fails to see, or maybe u do not know this, is that DARWIN'S EVOLUTION THEORY adopted the fallacious concept that Lyell came forth with. How in the wolrd did Lyell measure the age of the earth when he had no means to?
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo - I think you meant 'prey'... not "pray". Silly theist.
I am not familiar with his work enough to know how he came to his conclusion and what led to Darwin's ideas.
But, as I said, attacking someone's work that is out-dated does not prove your view correct. And modern research, with modern technology, still disproves creationist ideals.
I don't "worship" these guys like you seem to imply. I highly respect them for their work, especially with their lack of resources.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind ,
Dude, English is not my native tongue, so it is only normal that I make mistakes sometimes. Still, i am able to speak your language, whereas you cannot speak a word in my language. As for, modern technology, what it does is it gives data, but the interpretation is still done by people, not by machines, and the people hold fast to the same false and biased concepts Lyell brought. Without Lyell you have no "billions of years", so you have no evolution taking place. Think 4 a minute
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo - I have never heard this argument before. I think it's funny that I haven't because I research apologitics. So, you're saying that radio-dating is false only because Lyell's ideas are false? And measuring the expension of the solar system as a tool to guage the age of the earth is false because Lyell's ideas are fasle?
You are saying that Lyell's concept is the ONLY concept accepted in science and if he is false, then every single tool and data used now is false?
Interesting.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind ,
Again, data is one thing and interpreting the data is another. i am not saying radio-metric dating is false. What radio-metric dating does, is it yields information but that information has to be interpreted. The same applies to the measuring the expansion (not expension) of the solar system. What concept do you think science at large uses when it comes to this matter? Find the answer to that and you'll see if there's any truth to the "billions of years" story. Peace...I'm out.
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo - Ok... Bye, idiot.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@flotopo These retards dont even believe in cosmic evolution, even though you can look in a telescope and see starlight that is billions of years old.
Smexen 1 year ago
@flotopo - That's a common mistake with you idiots. You think that showing error in Darwin and Lyell and the like, whose work is over 100 years old, dispoves the rationale of their hypothesis. No one has read Origin if Species or Principles of Geology and taken it as the only proof of those concepts, except theists that WON'T accept it, for over a hundred years.
It's funny how modern research, with modern technology, still leads to their concepts by improving on their work that they could not.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind ,
the fact that u believe even today that Lyell was right, therefore Darwin's chronology was accurate, only shows how much of an ignorant you are about these things. if u loved truth and science, u'd know that a false premise leads to a false conclusion. Lyell's premise was false, Darwin's "billion of years story" was false, too. u have no business talking about science. When so called "science" measure the the age of rocks by the fossils and vice-versa, kids know it;s false. fool
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo - You fool! I never said Lyell was right!
And I thought you said you were done with me... that you would leave my "stupidity" to "pray" on my mind.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@flotopo - Also, attacking scientist's work (over 100 years old or modern) doesn't prove any type of theistic ideas. Even if they were wrong doesn't make you right. But what is pretty logical is that not all religion and god-concepts can be true, but all can be false. That is why having an atheistic worldview is nuetral. I am not saying there is no god and I will never accept one. I am saying that until it has some object evidence, it's a fairy tale.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@ shadow Veranda
Why are calling the name of Jesus? You don''t even believe in Him. And this ali g show is just stupid
Ernaldinho1993 1 year ago
Comment removed
Jayoung1000 1 year ago
evolution sucks no proof just guesses
isaac80001 1 year ago
Ken Hovind sucks... In Jail... He He
BrianBartholin 1 year ago
Kent Hovind is currently in prison for fraud. Not a very christian act there Kent.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
And this video is suppose to prove that evolution is real? No, it simply proves that anyone that believes that it does is an absolute idiot.
machinator1971 1 year ago
People are so fucking stupid. Monkey's just can't have human babies. EVOLUTIONS TAKES THOUSANDS OF YEARS!! ..jesus..
ShadowVeranda 1 year ago
@ShadowVeranda It's been thousands of years man. And I ain't seen anything remotely like what is being taught in the THEORY of evolution. The THEORY of evolution.
MattHatter 1 year ago
@MattHatter A scientific theory explains a fact. Saying it is just a theory is quite literally showing your ignorance of all science when you don't consider the theories of gravity, germs, nuclear chemestry, and so on. But you know what we haven't seen that would disprove evolution? A creature quite literally coming out of thin air. I haven't seen a living human come from clay or sand according to the bible. Nor has anyone.
crazyinsane500 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crazyinsane500 ,
So you're willing to believe that "a creature quite literally coming out of thin air" is religious in nature, but you do believe that NOTHING created EVERYTHING, right? Basically, the entire Universe came out of "nothing" as mainstream science puts it today? Not just a human or even a cell, but the entire UNIVERSE! And you still want to believe that evolutionary theories are not religious? Can you even see how religious YOU are?
flotopo 1 year ago
Perhaps someone might inform Hovind what DNA is and explain why a monkey will not give birth to a human. More importantly, if he is unaware that the science of evolution does not indicate that humans decended from monkeys, but, rather, they have a common ancestor, then Hovind has done nothing to educate himself. Either that, or he is dumb like a fox and laughing all the way to the bank, taking advantage of the true undereducated in this country who send him checks for pandering to them.
friedie1jeff 1 year ago
Looks like Kent Hovind owes Ali G $250,000.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
Well duh. Science is gonna change as we learn more about it. That is what good science does. So you are telling me you'd rather get your science knowledge from bad scientists???? The mainstream media and schooling are not deciding what is scientific and what isn't. That is an extremely absurd thing to say.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL, it goes deeper than schooling and mainstream media, but those are probably the two biggest outlets. Should we trust that these sources are always correct because they are the most common? When I bring this up with people in the general science field, they know exactly what I mean. If something they discover gets in the way of their companies profits, its covered up to the extent that it can be without actually being seen as a coverup.
miketonon 1 year ago
@miketonon So evolution is just one big conspiracy against science. Brilliant. I already said before that the mainstream media is not responsible for what is scientific and what isn't and how absurd you sound for saying it. Evolution is true science. Depriving schools of teaching it is ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is letting foolish ideas like creationism be taught alongside. Just like what "the so called" Dr. Kent Hovind advocates.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@miketonon So evolution is just one big conspiracy against science. Brilliant. I already said before that the mainstream media is not responsible for what is scientific and what isn't and how absurd you sound for saying it. Evolution is true science. Depriving schools of teaching it is ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is letting foolish ideas like creationism be taught alongside. Just like what "the so called" Dr. Kent Hovind advocates.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL, haha, attempting to attack me won't get your point across. You just make yourself look pathetic. How do you know evolution (full blown evolution, not just things changing to a degree) is a fact? Are you a scientist?
miketonon 1 year ago
@miketonon No I am not a scientist. When just about every scientist says evolution is true, I can be pretty sure it is a fact. How do you know that the earth is round? Are you a geographer? How do you know the holocaust happened? Are you a historian? My point is you don't have to be these things to know that they are facts. Oh and when you say something ridiculous like what you said, how do you not expect me to call you out on it?
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL, but thats just my point, what do YOU know personally. Not what have seemingly most experts agreed on. Do you even know the majority of scientists? And if you did, are the majority of people always correct?
Continue to attack me, you're proving I have a point.
miketonon 1 year ago
@miketonon I can't say I know evolution personally. I do not have the intellect to test it out for myself. But when the people that do have that intellect test it out and try for years to disprove it and just fail, then its safe to say its a fact. Do you believe the earth is round? Do you believe the holocaust happened? How do YOU know personally?
And how exactly am I attacking you? And what point would I be proving?
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
if you know that "things happen to a degree" just apply 5 billion years of time and the "degree" part turns into evolution
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47, the issue here is carbon dating isn't acurate. And something can become "fossilized" in far less time than what many people believe.
miketonon 1 year ago
the issue here is that with what we know about genes now fossiles became largely irrelevant as evidence
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47, genes change to a point, its scientifically proven. But whats nonsense religion is the idea that any biological organism can evolve into another type.
miketonon 1 year ago
no religion is just nonsense, evolution is fact
i dont know why i still bother with you people
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47, oh, come on now, you know its more complicated than that.
Evolution, has happened, TO A POINT, in some sense. But its more of adaptation. Religion is essentially nonsense, blindly believeing something that you're told is scientificly accurate is no different. And God is of no religion.
miketonon 1 year ago
the difference is evidence
if you cant see that i dont think i can help you
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
Evolutionists are full of lies. They seem unaware or dont understand that creationists believe in biological evolution, which consists of the biological facts such as genetic diversity, speciation, and natural selection. However, creationists DONT believe in the theory of evolution--which has many unprovable sub theories, such as gradualism, punctuated equilibrium etc. The misunderstanding arisen by evolutionists come from their ignorance of creationism. Evolution is a LIE!!!!!
Nashhinton 1 year ago
@Nashhinton, sad isn't it? I wouldn't care, let everyone believe whatever they want. The problem is all the ignorant people trying to force their beliefs on others. Die-hard evolutionists tend to be some of the worst. They can't understand why so many people won't just take their word for it, expecially after they try to ridicule you for questioning their belief.
miketonon 1 year ago
Isn't it weird how most people that are against evolution don't know anything about it.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL, uh, not really. First, I'm not against evolution, I'm against nonsense. Second, I had the idea of evolution taught to me back in high school. While I can't remember too much of it, being that it was years ago, alot of it just doesn't seem to fit. But I wasn't around to witness all of these supposid events take place, I'm not an archiologist and I'm not directly exposed to the evidence. So its hard for me to personally come to a solid conlusion of the truth.
miketonon 1 year ago
@miketonon There are millions of biological, geological and all other types of evidence to support evolution. People just hear the word "theory" and automatically think its not a fact. Do you have any idea what it takes for a scientific idea to become a theory? If something becomes a theory, then its most likely a fact.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL, alot of so-called science keeps changing, sometimes back and forth. The mainstream media and schooling are the main culprites of that. Since thats how most people find what they "know", thats what most people mainly know as science. How is that science? I would rather, at least attempt to get knowledge on science directly and personally from several unafiliated scientists. And even that could provide false info.
miketonon 1 year ago
Kent Hovind thrashing scince as "pure religion"... Interesting, what does that make christianity then?
rugbyanden 1 year ago
@rugbyanden
no science, genius - evolution.
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns and through what process do you think this theory came out?
rugbyanden 1 year ago
@rugbyanden
what process do you think "the earth is flat" came out of?
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns dogma. Next question?
rugbyanden 1 year ago
@rugbyanden
The Bible doesn't say that the earth is flat... sorry - try again.
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns, the bible actually says the earth is round, not flat. I've heard that the Catholic religion played a major roll in convincing people that the earth was flat and anyone who questioned this was laughed at.
miketonon 1 year ago
@miketonon
I don't care for what you've heard.
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns, me neither, thats why I just can't except a religion like evolution to be a fact.
miketonon 1 year ago
@miketonon So good science is religion??
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL, NO NO NO, fake science is religion. True science is science, but you have to understand how difficult it can be sometimes for people not involved in a given scientific discovery to decifer between what is scientific and what is nonsense. The media does a good job at confusing people.
miketonon 1 year ago
@rugbyanden, alot of so-called science IS NOT ACTUAL SCIENCE! Do you realize, given the proper opportunities, how easy it is to convince most people that something is science when its not?
miketonon 1 year ago
thumb down...
couronne100 1 year ago
@JamesThWilliams : If that is true, why don't we ever see a plant produce a non-plant, or a bird produce a non-bird. Why don't we see any examples of one kind of organism becoming another kind of organism (macroevolution). Why did it only happen long ago and far away?
1313sku 1 year ago
@darthjader08 : Such hostility! I actually love museums! Exactly what evidence for macroevolution and the big bang is there in a museum?
1313sku 1 year ago
Ali G Pwns Kent.....with irrefutable association....awesome...
darthjader08 1 year ago
@MannyKunV : What is wrong with Hovind's question? Isn't that exactly what the macroevolutionist's theory teaches? We all came from a common ancestor according to their theory. At some point, a monkey would have to produce a creature that was less monkey and more human. Where are all of these creatures today? Why don't we see any "transitional forms" in any of the other kinds of animals? Has evolution stopped? Where is all the evidence to support this kind of thinking?
1313sku 1 year ago
@1313sku
Get off your couch, away from all those creationist dvd's and go to a fucking Museum you dimwit.
darthjader08 1 year ago
@1313sku
Every form except blue green algea is a transitional form dimwit.
JamesThWilliams 1 year ago
@1313sku every animal is a transitional form
WombatusMaximus 9 months ago
@WombatusMaximus If "every animal is a transitional form," where are all the examples of them becoming a different kind of animal. Why don't we see dogs producing something that is non-dog? Or rats producing a non-rat feature? If macroevolution occurs, there should be evidence everywhere. We never see it. Of all the hundreds of dog varieties in the world, we have never seen a dog produce anything but another dog.
1313sku 9 months ago
@1313sku why are you so presumptuous as to think everything that happens in this world should bow to you by making itsself apparent and percievable within the scope of your meagre lifetime?
WombatusMaximus 9 months ago
@WombatusMaximus Science is based on quantifiable facts. If the data is not available to support someone's theory over time, the theory must be thrown out. There is not one shred of evidence to prove macroevolution, cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, or abiogenesis. There is a lot of make believe and wishful thinking. All we really know is that the Universe exists, but we cannot scientifically prove how it got here.
1313sku 9 months ago
@1313sku "There is not one shred of evidence to prove macroevolution, cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, or abiogenesis." ...closing your eyes, covering your ears and singing 'LALALA" doesnt make the mass of peer-reviewed evidence do away, unfortunately for you and your creationist friends. Your self-delusion is palpable, and your intellectual dishonesty disgraceful.
WombatusMaximus 9 months ago
@WombatusMaximus It's interesting how you project the same behavior onto me that the evolutionists have been guilty of since the beginning of their dumb theory. If evolutionists can't explain how life began or how matter got here, their entire theory falls apart. I can't prove there is a God in heaven any more than they can prove that the Universe came into existence by itself. Neither ideas are scientific, yet their's continues to be taught in public classrooms.
1313sku 9 months ago
@1313sku yes, you have convinced me, I am a convert, Praise Raptorjebus, he went extinct for our sins
WombatusMaximus 9 months ago
@1313sku
Why the hell would evolution need the beggining of life for it to be true? That's a completely different topic and you can talk about that as much as you want but it's not going to affect evolutionary theory. If you want to talk about the beginning of life, that's abiogenesis, the theories of that that are kinda iffy at the moment and that's what you might be talking about, but evolution is a completely different theory that hasn't had a scientific paper against it in a century.
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop If you will scroll back and read some of my earlier comments, I explain this in detail.
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku
you really don't. what you DO show is that you have no idea what you're talking about; you say that abiogenesis isn't supported but abiogenesis just means the beginning of life... saying abiogenesis is saying there is no evidence that life ever began... which is obviously untrue because there is life today. You theory of abiogenesis, that God created life, isn't supported by the evidence. The evidence supports a number of possible theories (iron sulfur world, RNA hypothesis), not God.
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop You cannot claim that any of these ideas are "possible theories," because despite all of their best efforts, atheistic scientists have yet to produce life from non-living material. It is wishful thinking at best. I can't prove that God exists any more than they can prove He does not exist. You would claim the Universe itself is evidence of evolution. I say, it is evidence of a Creator. You believe whatever you want. But don't call it science.
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku
Hah? Why not, that's what the evidence supports, ofc it's science, what the hell else do you want to call it. Have you studied science? Or evidence supports a bunch of those possibile theories, the evidence that supports it is scientific... are you trolling or are you really trying to tell me this and you actually believe it? People aren't that stupid, surely.
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop You have missed my point. When it comes to abiogenesis, a lot of brilliant scientists have done a lot of scientific experimentation trying to prove how life could have evolved from non-living material, and they can't do it. I don't criticize them for trying. They might actually discover something worthwhile in the process. I do criticize those who call their ideas "theories." A theory must be supported by quantifiable evidence over time. Abiogenesis ideas are not theories
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku
There are plenty worth calling theories, limitations in attributing the information gained to real life doesn't make the information wrong, the evidence supports what it does address; thus they are theories.
And abiogenesis still doesn't really have any relevance to the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, which is factual at this point.
You'd have better luck being a holocaust denier, or a 9/11 truther.
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop The problem comes in the definition of the word "evolution." Atheistic evolutionists cite thousands of examples of microevolution and then expect you to BELIEVE macroevolution, cosmic evolution, and abiogenesis. Their evidence for the latter three is slim to none, yet they are all lumped together into the same broad term. Rat poison is 99% good food. It's the 1% poison that kills the rat. Don't feel bad. A lot of other people have been deceived, too.
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku
Haha, there's no difference between micro and macro mate, we have no way to distinguish between the two except for when people like you decide to say they're different in order to support bullshit arguments. Doesn't the clear, easy fossil evidence help? Or do you reject that as well?
Haven't you ever looked through the pages of animals in wikipedia and thought... huh... by denying evolution I'm pretty much denying half the information on any animal in here...
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop Finding a fossil does not "prove" that it evolved from something else. If macroevolution occurred, one would expect to find examples of the various kinds of organisms slowly emerging characteristics of a different kind of organism. This is found no where in the world today or in the millions of fossils discovered. All of the kinds of organisms are found fully formed and fully functioning. Plants have always been plants. Insects have always been insects, and so on.
1313sku 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop Finding great diversity does not "prove" common ancestry. Finding similar characteristics between the kinds of organisms does not "prove" common ancestry. You can BELIEVE that if you want, but you can't prove it scientifically. Simply because you want something to be true does not make it true. Finding an insect with wings does not prove it is becoming a bird. Finding an ape that can use simple tools does not prove that it is becoming human.
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku
hey, it's just evidence that supports the theory, if the theory was true, the fossils we've found would have looked exactly like as they are found. The clues are there but if you wanna block your ears that's absolutely your choice, even if I think you're an idiot for doing so. Oh, and your last few statements have almost nothing to do with evolution, perhaps you should study some biology aye.
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@1313sku
So why do you not think that evolution is science anyway, you're obviously not a scientist and you obviously haven't studied any, have you thought maybe an education would help you understand the world a bit better? Just a suggestion, I would hate to be as ignorant as you.
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop Well, help me out then, mate. Exactly what is the evidence for macroevolution that you are referring to?
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku
Lol well like I said, I'm assuming you're accepting what you call microevolution, but macroevolution isn't really all that different. Sometimes it can take more time, but you know it's actually been observed multiple times in lab settings and in nature; examples include plants like the evening primrose and hemp nettle evolving into new species, and in animals in a wide array of worms, beetles and flies. Add in fossils and techtonic plates, whatever, what more do you need?
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop In order for me to accept that all of life could have evolved from a single living cell, I would have to see multiple examples of the various kinds of organisms slowly changing to different kinds. This is what evolutionists teach, isn't it? Insects changing colors, plants with more adaptive root structures, fresh water fish that can live in salt water--all of these are examples of variations within the kinds of organisms.
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku
I don't understand, that kinda thing happens in front of your eyes every day, just take a look at all the different dog breeds. They're all the same animal, but humans have just bred them out to become very different indeed, if you want visual confirmation of evolution (by artificial, human selection, ofc) go compare some dogs with each other.
I've shown you how evolution has occurred in labs and in specific instances in nature, what on earth is still giving you doubt?
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop You keep mentioning variations within specific kinds of organisms. Big dogs, little dogs, hairy humans, smooth-skinned humans, flies with 4 wings, flies with 2 wings. I want to see jellyfish becoming reptiles or frogs or birds. Isn't that what evolutionists teach? Where is all of the evidence for that, either in the fossil record or in the world today? If evolution never stops, we should have many examples of exactly this kind of thing.
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku
No, that is not what evolutionists teach. Small changes is what evolution is, lots of small changes put together equals a big change. God that's simplified, but your perceptions of evolution are just so wrong.
Please, please, please, learn what evolution actually is. Don't make up what you want evolution to be, learn what scientists say it is, please, for your own good. Read that wikipedia page.
Actually work out what you're arguing against.
Come back when you understand.
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop Actually, you are the one who is wrong. Small changes within a particular kind of organism has never and will never equal change to a completely different kind, yet this is exactly what evolutionists teach. I can understand why you are ashamed to admit it, because there is no evidence to support this claim. Most evolutionists try to avoid this inconvenient truth, but it is the truth nonetheless. More honest research on your part will prove what I am saying is true.
1313sku 8 months ago
@1313sku ok, so you just ignored the evidence I've provided and are now blocking your ears, continuing to attack evolution with no knowledge backing it up? I gave you a whole list of animals that have evolved into new species just in our lifetime or in labs. Nothing in biology makes any sense at all unless evolution is true, it's really that simple.
Look, I'm honestly amazed. People try to tell you whats going on, try to teach you, but you refuse to listen or learn.
magucheapololkop 8 months ago
@magucheapololkop Actually, biology still makes sense--just not from an evolutionist's perspective. You cannot explain the great diversity of life we see using evolutionary concepts alone. It simply does not work, and the evidence is not there to back you up. At some point, honest researchers must admit that there is no clear scientific reason for the planet to exist as we know it. It is too vast, too diverse, too remarkable in the most minute ways. It is a miracle that any of us are here.
1313sku 8 months ago