Talking with a creationist is like talking with a Looney Tunes cartoon character: convinced that he exists in a reality that defies all laws of physics, biology and logical paradigms, the creationist always has the upper-hand over the rational person, wildly running about in a crazy-quilt pattern, unadhered to any sound reason or settled law. Talking with a creationist is also like talking with a very young child, an inebriated addict, or the clinically insane.
The information for life's molecules is stored on DNA, copied onto RNA and used to make proteins, but proteins are needed to make DNA and copy it onto RNA.
For evolution to have occurred, information must have spontaneously arisen in the original molecules and then increased over time, by natural processes.
@SuperPaddywhacker "However arguments from ignorance or lack of understanding have no merit. Ones short falls in education and understanding doesn’t alter the facts I'm affraid!"
This is the only intelligent thing you've said! If only I could believe you understood it. Clearly you copy/pasted this just like all those arguments from ignorance and lack of understanding you were pasting before.
Instead of whining and bitching about useless creationist arguments that have been answered a million times already, try googling the evolution of genetics, studying it, and then sitting back and slapping yourself in the face for not having done that in the first place.
@sfg911 DNA does not copy itself. It can only be copied if a number of proteins and other molecules work on it.
One group of proteins with a special role in this process is called DNA polymerase. The structure of DNAp is determined by information stored on DNA, but it takes DNAp and other proteins to make DNA.
Also the information to make DNAp must be transferred to RNA before it can be used to make proteins from amino acids.
It's widely known DNA didn't come first. I don't need to provide a publish-worthy paper on youtube in 500 characters or less to prove your argument silly...
Are you saying that the skepticism of a handful of scientists causes you to doubt sound MODERN science? Do you realize the massive conspiracy that you are suggesting amongst scientists across a plethora of disciplines?
These quotes date from AT LEAST 1955 seeing as the man died on August 3rd of that year.
This is the same man who said enzymes were genes and preferred his foolish theory of "Emication". Nice science.
@phenomenon717 No not at all. I’m merely pointing out that science has known for a considerable amount time that evolutionary hypothesis is an absurd fallacy. Modern science confirms this fact but adherence to this naturalistic dogma is compulsory.
Any scientist brave enough to even question this dogma is ostracised immediately. How unscientific can you get!
You're making pretty GRAND claims and I would like to know your reasoning.
The quotes you posted were of 60+ old ideas of scientists who rejected science that is widely accepted today because they had their own theories of biology which in their time was quite young. Their theories where wrong as well.
What exactly are the problems that you have with the current theories and what are yours?
@sfg911 DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering.
This is not subjective; it is not debatable or even controversial.
Ah well I guess holes will show up in people's education and expose their Atheist fallacies!
@SuperPaddywhacker And I explained to you quite clearly how it's nothing more than a larger amino acid that can copy itself.... (with error) and only the good copies continue. This is easy enough for a child to understand... but not you.
Remember Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a reason Kent Hovind is in jail and Neil Degrass Tyson is a world renowned scientific icon. One believes that his mythical sky fairy will protect him as he breaks the law, the other uses logic and the combined total of human history and scientific advancement to follow the law.
@CubbyE That's strange, I've been commenting here quite a while and haven't noticed any deleting. Got anything to back up your accusation? Screen shot maybe??
Anyway.. let's say he did delete a comment. It's his channel and can do what he likes with it. The religious channels are the kings of comment censorship hands down.
@CubbyE So... did this comment you claim was deleted have any merit? Did it have content or an argument or was it a useless ignorant baseless attack by a troll?
@CubbyE So you are claiming a comment from you was deleted? I didn't see one from you that isn't still here. You should consider it may have been user error or a very common youtube glitch. Happens to me every so often.
@sfg911 I'm a fan of knowledge bra))) and yea I heard.. reminds me of how money is evil :p I worship God yo not people. People tend to make the mistakes)) And I am one of them)
@iammikeywright Science does not care what you think. You may not like it but facts are cold, hard, and irrefutable. Sorry but that is the universe we live in.
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views:
(Dr Etheridge, World famous Paleontologist of the British Museum)
@SuperPaddywhacker: Etheridge was an obscure nineteenth century figure who was an assistant at the British Museum and was never famous at all.
You creationists are so predictable. Since you don't actually understand what you are talking about, you just blinding copy text from each other like automatons. All I have to do is put your quote on Google. You even copied the "World famous Paleontologist of the British Museum" attribution. Are you unable to even write an attribution of your own?
@dcarrera01 "Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon, which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs".
- Pierre Grasse Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the FA of Ssience
@SuperPaddywhacker Hi, just wondering if you knew that in the same source Grasse also states ""Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position" . Why did you not mention this part? Is there a reason ? here is the original source [Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7] I'm sure you will have read this, yes ?
lol the science part is just words... what proof?? bahahaha it's pathetic.. and the fact is he is right... we are... a part... of God's Universe, either God created us.. and No I can't explain it.. or NOTHING created us... and NO you cant explain that! bahaha 2+2=4 not 4 and 5 sillys
@sfg911 Only something that begins to exist requires a cause. If God did create the universe, then logically such an entity would transend time space and matter and therefore be infinite! An uncaused cause!
@SuperPaddywhacker: I remember that you never replied to my comment about humans and apes. By your own definition, humans and other great apes are the same kind and you should have no problem with (say) humans, chimps and gorillas having a common ancestor. I wonder why you never replied to that (though I posted it twice).
@dcarrera01 I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have never suggested that humans and Apes were the same kind of anything!
I absolutly and unequivocally refute any hypothesis of humans chimps and gorillas having a common ancestor. Its absurd rhetoric refuted by the fossil evidence.
"[Evolution] is absurd rhetoric refuted by the fossil evidence"
The fact that you even say this shows that you have a gross lack of understanding of fossil evidence. We could throw away all the fossils and the evidence for evolution would be just as strong. So unless you found a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, the fossil record cannot refute evolution.
@SuperPaddywhacker Really.. well then have you ever heard of this: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change forms. I guess it doesn't need a cause then! And since everything is basically energy in some form, nothing was created. Thanks for admitting that.
@sfg911 Evolution has no intelligence. It is totally dumb. It does not evaluate, plan, organize or have the ability to intentionally change something based on information of any sort. So it’s obvious to see its attraction to the grasshopper mentality of uneducated intellectually void imbeciles who stand in awe of the miniscule achievements of mankind.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
What part of Information is Information, neither matter nor energy don’t you understand!
@SuperPaddywhacker: In that case, why not skip a step and assume the universe is eternal? We have no reason to believe that it is or it isn't. (no, the Big Bang theory does not tell us whether the universe began or not - at least not in the sense that you are using the term).
@dcarrera01 Now you’re taking the piss! We know the universe is expanding therefore it cannot be eternal and must have had a beginning. To suggest otherwise is pure nonsense not worthy of discussion!
@SuperPaddywhacker: Nonsense? I am an astronomer, how about you? Your "analysis" of cosmology is just naive. We don't know what (if anything) caused or came before the BB. Indeed, several scientists are working on this.
One proposal is eternal inflation (aka "bubble universes") which would have a in infinite series of Big Bangs. Another is Smolin's idea that black holes could produce Big Bangs. There are astronomers studying some tentative observations that might indicate a previous universe.
@CubbyE Non-sequitirs , False dichotomy, Appeal to ridicule, Appeal to ignorance, sloppy grammar and punctuation. You sir, are the epitomy of creationist ignorance and general stupidity.
I think the problem is that you are simplifying the complexities of this universe [and possibly the multi-verse] to the level of the whole 'my particular god did it' pseudo explanation.
Mr. Tyson did not get into immense detail about the astro & theoretical physics of our universe. Believe me, it's not as simple as he attempted to make it sound for the sake of the lei-man that you most certainly are telling by your comment.
I would suggest you watch "How the Universe Works".
@brpierce No its not circular reasoning, and to suggest so is folly. Information is a real entity, not merely a human abstraction.
A coding system can operate for eons without any conscious intervention. Direct observation tells us that only conscious minds create coding systems in the first place.
Information requires a sender, a code and a receiver that exist similtaneously. This is not subjective debatable or controversial, its a verifiable fact and an insurmontable problem for evolution.
@SuperPaddywhacker "Direct observation tells us that only conscious minds create coding systems in the first place."
Direct observation shows us that conscious minds have to learn before coding systems in the first place. Direct observation also tells us the sun revolves around the earth.
Is a water molecule "information"?? How about amino acids? Are they "information"? Is a crystal "information"?
@sfg911 What has water molecules; amino acids or crystals got to do with information? Of course you do understand the difference between a pattern and a code, don’t you?
DNA is just a complicated molecule... basically just like an amino acid, just bigger. DNA is a pattern that has been built step by step. Each step that results in a dead end is no longer copied. Each step that results in more copies... receives the next step.
Do you have an example of information that can copy itself?
I have seriously had about a months worth of you tube in about two days. How do you people do this all day every day? You must get paid to do this, you must get paid to be you tube scientists. I need to work for real or else i don't get paid :(
@ZuluFightrunner I made the statement that you believe that everything came from nothing and you responded by saying i do not put effort in my comments and also that you do not believe that everything came from nothing. When I ask you if you could tell me what you believe you simply say (No) I think your a troll who is trying to get people to keep coming back to this video and comment, Maybe you get paid for it? in any case do not contact me because you are a waste of time...
Creation Vs "Evolution" Hello can you please show me the facts? "It's a scientific fact, its been proven!" Ok then, can you show me these facts, show me the proof. "You are a retard, evolution is a scientific fact that the scientific community accepts" Ok no need to call me names, just show me the proof. "You obviously don't understand evolution, go get an education" I am trying, i want you to teach me these solid scientific facts about evolution "I already provided facts, its a proven theory!"
@WombatGully3000 Did you just say you are trying to learn about evolution? Really?!? Well then why did you ignore the long list of evidence I provided you, laugh and call the majority of scientists idiots? Why are you asking for facts AFTER you've already been provided with them?
You are called names because you deserve it. You come here and insult everyone, call people liars for providing what you demand. I treat people how they deserve to be treated. You disgust me.
I think that any rational intelligent sane person recognizes Kent Hovind to be an absurdly stupid person, or else a complete fraud and crook that's fooling others probably to feed off through his scamming.
I the frustrating thing is that so many dumb fools fall for his crap, and we don't like to see a society with stupid people doing stupid things.
One they there will be enough of those stupid people and vote back in the Republicunts for instance.
I am sorry but there are 113 complete idiots who watched this video. Neil deGrasse Tyson rocks! He makes Kent Hovind and the 113 people who clicked thumbs down look like gnats intellectually.
Praise God for sending His Word and His Son Jesus Christ so that we may know the truth of the creation of the universe! I am so glad that we, as humans, do NOT share ancestry with apes and cockroaches! We are fearfully and wonderfully made! Anyone doubt this? Just look in the mirror. Do you look like a monkey? Of course not! You are a beautiful creation and humans were formed by the God of the universe, Jesus Christ!
@RestoredHumanity Jesus Christ is a human sacrificial scapegoat. The idea that an all wise, all knowing, all loving creator god resorted to such tactics is not just ludicrous.... it's full blown contradictory. There is nothing moral about your death cult.
@sfg911 Would you lay your life down for your child? If you don't have a child what if you did would you? Would you lay your life down for your family? If you are like most people on earth you would. Understand? It is beautiful that jesus took on the suffering for us absolutely beautiful.
@WombatGully3000 The entire idea that a god needed to become a man so he could be tortured to death... and that is the best plan for humanity... is ludicrous. What was the sacrifice? Did Jesus lay down his "life"? Is he dead?
The only way one could call human sacrifice "absolutely beautiful" is if they have never really thought about it.
@wombatgully3000 "'We can see stars and even galaxies forming.' That is the biggest lie i have read so far. "
Um . . . we can. It's pretty common. Something like 275 million new stars forming or dying each day in the observable universe. So uh, yeah. Good go I guess.
@WombatGully3000 You're looking at things backwards buddy. Existence doesn't work backwards. We exist because we're in a place we can exist from, we wouldn't otherwise. Stats mean nothing. For example, pull out 27 cards from a deck. The odds that you'd pull those cards are less than that of us being here.
A space shuttle is more complex than a single cell (that's a pretty funny statement). And dna doesn't look designed, at all. Have you looked at it? I know you haven't studied it.
@jondabill1 What an idiotic statement. There are no absolute truths, no one can ever say 'thus can only prove thus.' Ever.
As for the big bang, there's an absurd amount of info that makes it just as fact as gravity. From CMBR to the shape of the universe. And you do know that we can accurately trace now to less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, right?
But again, no absolute knowledge here. Perhaps it was a magic fairy that did it.
Different evolutionists say different things. I have heard the belief that we came from a rock ultimately from evolutionists before, BUT...now, oh so much better, this guy says that we came from stars exploding? Give me a break. "Long ago and far away...."
@jondabill1 This stuff is basic cosmology. If you went to school... then you don't need a break, you need to go back. The big bang theory shows that the universe started with nothing but hydrogen and helium. ALL other elements were created in fusion reactions inside stars. We can even watch it happening using this new invention called a telescope.
What's an "evolutionist"? Is that like a round-earther?
@sfg911 The Big Bang Theory SHOWS nothing.... it purports that something COULD have happened given the RIGHT circumstances and 5 trillion gallons of LUCK. Your reaction is typical of a Christ-rejecting fairy tale swallowing bigot that believes that EVERYBODY HAS to believe what you believe, but I don't have that much faith, buddy. "What's an evolutionist?" Look in the mirror.
@jondabill1: Hello. I am an astrophysicist. Do you have any questions about the Big Bang theory? The Big Bang theory does not talk about what "could" happen but about what did happen. The Big Bang theory does not talk about "the right circumstances" and it does not involve luck. The Big Bang theory is a model for the early stages of the universe. As any good scientific theory, it makes various falsifiable predictions which have been tested and confirmed.
@jondabill1 Yup.. back to school for you. The BB is supported by massive evidence and made predictions that were found. Since it's by far the BEST explanation for the universe then that means everything WAS made in the center of stars.
Sorry simple facts scare you so much. Maybe you should get some help for that.
@sfg911 Again, fine statements and I appreciate your pride and confidence in your theory but statements alone prove jack squat. What? DO you expect me to believe you because you said that it is a fact? Buddy, I am not SCARED of facts AT ALL. It's just hilarious to me that people look at certain things and can only arrive at one conclusion. WHAT exactly is it that you see that can ONLY BE PROOF for a big bang instead of something else? I have an open mind, come on buddy.
@jondabill1 The BB came with some highly complex predictions. So far it's passed them all. Creation comes with its own predictions but it has failed them all. Nothing can be proven 100% but the BB is the only game in town. Clearly you ARE scared... seeing as YOUR pride refuses to let you accept solid facts. The elements were all made in stars. You call that fantasy.... while claiming to have an "open mind". That is pathetic beyond words.
According to the big bang theory, proposed by Creationist Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaitre, the universe emerged from an extremely dense singularity and has been expanding ever since!
A view that challenged the naturalistic Atheistic hypothesis of the time that pleaded in vain to a steady state universe model.
Ironically it was a telescope that confirmed Lemaitre’s findings and exposed hopeful misinformed arrogant rhetoric for what it is!
@SuperPaddywhacker Science always walks the path that evidence reveals. It's no secret that individual scientist have their opinion and most do not let them go easily. However, any scientist worth their education will submit to the best theory once the evidence has been presented. Science encourages improvement and change. The highest honors go to those that disprove old ideas. That is why science will always have the best answer.
@jondabill1: Evolution has never said that we came from a rock. Ever. For that matter, evolution does not even deal with the origin of life, that would be abiogenesis. Abiogenesis proposes a primordial solution of various substances in water. That is not a rock. Before the origin of life you have the origin of the chemical elements needed for life. Those are the ones formed through nuclear fusion in stars. Before that you have the origin of Hydrogen and Helium, which takes you to the Big Bang.
Ok in the first part kent says evolution teaches rocks are the ancestors of dogs (which is sort of true because evolution teaches the first life form evolved from a rock when it rained upon it) Then in the second video the guy is talking about the star exploding. So is this video trying to say dogs come from the stars? *shrugs* found this a stupid video no offense. I have faith, a lot of it too but sorry guys i don't have enough faith to convert to the religion of evolution/darwin. Peace
@ZuluFightrunner Define the word retard for me. Very obvious i can't be a retard, you should of said stupid that could of worked. I still find this video very stupid. Peace
@ZuluFightrunner So your taking advice from me? A stupid person? What does that make you? hahaha your alright i don't care what everyone else says about you.
@WombatGully3000 - When are you going to go back to my original point that the same science that gave us evolution gave us medicine, computers, space travel. It's all or none.
Also, you said "almost every scientific theory and truth was founded by people that believed the world and universe was created" - - So you're saying because they believed in a creator it makes it true??? You said "Everything about the universe and earth and life looks fine tuned. Every single thing!" - Yes. Because
@DJCailler I don't deny that science gave us medicine, computers and space travel. I never did deny this. I am just telling the truth by saying evolution is not science. Majority of the people that gave us medicine, computers and space travel believed in a creator. Even after they had made these principles and discoveries they continued to believe in a creator. If you cannot see why i actually call you guys hypocrites and liars there is something wrong with you.
@WombatGully3000 I am pointing out that you say you are not a retard but don't seem to see the glaring errors in how you formed that sentence "you should of said stupid that could of worked"
@WombatGully3000 -to all you Biblically disadvantaged folks, the same science which has brought us vaccines, computers, farming, surgery, medicine & space travel, is the same science seeking to understand the origins of life. It's easy to pretend that an iPhone doesn't suggest there is no god, but the same is not true for evolution. Point is - if you are going to reject science, reject it all. Admit that doctors, chemists & engineers, despite seeming intelligent, are really just making shit up
@DJCailler You do know that majority of this science was founded by people who believed in a creator right? Albert Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Although he never came to believe in a personal god he acknowledged there must be a creator just as many of the greatest minds of the world have and still do. Get rid of your presuppositions.
@WombatGully3000 - Please don't quote mine Einstein. Einstein ALSO said - "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
@WombatGully3000 - Also - regardless of the history of science and it's supposed "faithful" founders, keep in mind that sometimes it was necessary to publicly be a "believer" Religion is an unforgiving, cruel master seeking subjugation and we are barely out of that era where we needed to lie about god in order to be accepted.
Thankfully that is not the case these days. We have moved on and we are not looking back
@DJCailler You obviously have no clue about history. I agree that the church at times was very cruel to people, but remember they were cruel to their own kind. You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said they were faithful or anything alike, i said they believed in a creator, a lot were not christian. The fact is almost every scientific theory and truth was founded by people that believed the world and universe was created.
@DJCailler Everything about the universe and earth and life looks fine tuned. Every single thing! It points to a creator. There are laws in place throughout the entire universe. This points to a creator. A single cell being more complex then a space shuttle. This points to a creator. Please do not put words in my mouth, all of these point towards a creator, they do not prove the existence of god. This is where my faith kicks in. I just don't have enough to follow evolution sorry.
@WombatGully3000: "Everything about the universe and earth and life looks fine tuned. Every single thing!"
As a physicist, I say that this is simply not true. Life is not possible in free space. That removes 99.999999% of the universe. Life is impossible in stars. That removes 99% of what's left. Life is not possible on gas giants, or most rocky planets, or inside Earth's crust. That removes 99.99999% of what's left.
Life can only exist in an infinitesimal fraction of the universe.
@dcarrera01 Thank you very much, you just pushed me towards god even more. So you admit that 99.999999% of the universe cannot sustain life? Yet miraculously we are in that area? Seriously if you cannot see that life looks like it has been fine tuned there is nothing more i can say or do. Its about as logical as it gets. A single cell is more complex then a space shuttle, DNA looks like is has been designed. If you can't see this then you are being willingly ignorant.
@WombatGully3000 Who designed the ocean to have the right salt content for saltwater fish? It's miraculous that fresh water fish didn't end up in the ocean.
The "fine tuning" argument is transparently flawed. Only the desperate can't see that.
What in DNA looks designed? You don't have a clue.... ERVs, atavisms, laryngeal nerve, blind spots, genetic diseases, wisdom teeth.... humans have broken Vitamin C synthesis and a genetic muscle deficiency. Who designed that?
@WombatGully3000: I am not trying to push you in any direction. I am trying to get you to understand facts without spin. You are welcome to be religious if you like, but you should accept facts and science as they are.
I am very sad to see that you seem to be more interesting in spin than in fact. First you said that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I show you that overwhelmingly the universe is inhospitable to life so you then argue that it was life that was fine tuned. Leave spin aside.
@WombatGully3000: You are confusing logic with your intuition. You see that life is complex and that if it was different it could not exist on Earth, and then you jump to the conclusion that life must be tuned. This is not logic, it is absurd. It is not by magic that sharks live on water and lions on land. Sharks evolved on water so they adapted to be effective on water. Lions evolved on land, so they adapted for land. Same is true for every living being and every habitat on Earth.
@WombatGully3000: The point you make about DNA is another example of you confusing logic with intuition and spin. I understand that you want to believe in a designer. I don't have as much of a preconceived notion, and I can prove it: I was raised Catholic, later became atheist, then evangelical christian, then later atheist (this was over the course of 30 years). I am willing to change my mind, and I will go to where the evidence and logic leads me. If God is real, I want to know.
@WombatGully3000: Organisms are indeed complex. But they do not look designed, they look evolved. They have numerous design errors make no sense from a designer but are expected from evolution. The human eye could be easily improved if you just turned it inside out like the Octopus eye. The laryngeal nerve does a long and absurd detour through the heart. For a giraffe this is an enormous detour.
There is also a great deal of positive evidence for evolution. I just go where the evidence leads.
@dcarrera01 There is not a great deal of positive evidence for evolution, there is a small amount and you all know it. The only reason you have this evidence in the first place is because you all looks at it in the wrong way. Just like detectives sometimes make big mistakes and target the wrong suspect. I really do believe without any presuppositions everyone will come to the same conclusion, that a creator has made this possible. Yes there are things we don't understand, but plenty
@WombatGully3000: The first evidence for evolution is that it can be readily observed in the lab. For example, we can see fruit flies diverge into two separate and distinct species. We see it in husbandry and agriculture. Domestic sheep come from wild sheep but they are now a different species. We see the same thing with innumerable plants that we eat (e.g. cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, corn, etc). We see it in our pets. All dogs in the world were produced by human influence.
@dcarrera01 No it can't only variations can be observed, no new species has ever been observed. No species turning into another has ever been observed throughout all history. This is speculation because of your presuppositions. You are talking about variations which i believe in, i don't believe this can change life forms, i believe the species will always stay the same species.
"No it can't only variations can be observed, no new species has ever been observed. No species turning into another has ever been observed throughout all history."
Speciation can be observed in the *LABORATORY*. In the 1980s, William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies and saw them change to the point that they were different species. They could not interbreed. See Wikipedia on "Speciation" for more information. Please read it.
@WombatGully3000: The second evidence for evolution is the tree of life. This has multiple facets. Take a molecule like hemoglobin. Chimpanzee hemoglobin is different from ours, but very similar. Horse hemoglobin is more different still, but Horse hemoglobin is very similar to that donkeys. Fish hemoglobin is more different yet. By comparing hemoglobin from all animals you naturally build a tree of life. What is amazing is that you can do this for any molecule and the trees all match.
@dcarrera01 Again not evidence, the tree of life shown by darwin does not exist, well the bottom half doesn't anyway. Even most evolutionists will tell you the tree of life is not supported by fossil evidence. I have been a good boy, i did my homework.
@WombatGully3000: What are you talking about? No, you have not been a good boy, you have not done your homework. I never mentioned Darwin. I talked about hemoglobin. I talked about biochemistry that is far more advanced than anything Darwin had access to. Do you still think that you did your homework? You couldn't even figure out that when I talked about biochemistry that was not about Darwin. No, you haven't done your homework.
@dcarrera01 We will have to agree with disagree. I understand why you believe what you believe. I do see some things that i question at times but the problem is evolution has way to many gaps and holes. Way way way to many. I can't accept this, i can't go on faith on this subject. If there were proper intermediate fossils found it would be a different story. The intermediates we have at the moment very weak intermediates.
@WombatGully3000 "If there were proper intermediate fossils found..."
All you need to do is look. But that requires opening your eyes....
Religion is based on faith, faith is believing without evidence. There IS overwhelming evidence for evolution.... I gave you a short but powerful list and asked if you wanted more. Denying proven facts do nothing but expose your hypocritical faith.
@WombatGully3000: If you like, we can switch the discussion to astronomy and the age of the universe. I think this is an easier topic to discuss and I think it is easier to agree on observed evidence.
You said that you believe in Noah's flood and a 6-day creation. So I presume that you believe in a 6,000 year-old universe. Since evolution requires an old Earth, we could talk about the age of the universe.
@dcarrera01 The age of the universe doesn't work when talking to a creationist. They will come out with some bullshit that "god started the universe with starlight already flying through space". Trust me its retarded but its what they do.
@Xellith When they pull that crap about light already flying through space, ask them if their god also bent the light to specifically make the light heading toward earth look like it passed a massive gravitational force a few billion years ago. (gravitational lensing) And if he did... how can that be anything but intentionally deceiving?
@dcarrera01 And I like your first one, never thought of that. Light from so far away that it's so old the original light source can no longer exist.... and if it didn't exist in the last 6K yeas then it never did!
@Xellith: Indeed, that is one possible reply. But it requires believing in a God that is highly deceitful who planted (and perpetually continues to plant) light from stars and supernovae that never existed. I may be foolish, but I think most Christians would feel uncomfortable with that implication. So I hope that theologically they might prefer a God who created the Big Bang.
@dcarrera01 You don't need to mention darwin you believe in evolution. Evolution is the religion of Charles darwin. I never said you were speaking about darwin why are you putting words in my mouth. Oh no i think the real you is coming out, i better go to bed before i get abused right?
@WombatGully3000 Every time you call evolution a religion it just makes you look that much more foolish. Even a simple mind can understand why evolution isn't a religion.
@WombatGully3000: "Oh no i think the real you is coming out, i better go to bed before i get abused right?"
I think the real you has been coming out for a while. You have repeatedly insulted me, called me a liar, claimed that I hold views that I don't hold, and played the victim. I have been respectful and have not called you names. You have admitted that I was respectful and you even apologized to me earlier. Now, a moment later, you go back to insulting me and playing victim.
@WombatGully3000: More on the tree of life: You can do comparative anatomy and it naturally produces another tree: Physically we are clearly apes. All apes are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. All vertebrates are animals. Etc.The tree that you get from comparative anatomy also matches all the trees produced by biochemistry. You can use junk DNA to build a tree too, and that one also matches.
So many ways to build a tree of life, and they all exactly line up.
So you have a dozen different ways you could compare life on Earth... each one automatically sorts all life in a gigantic tree. All these trees line up beautifully. The natural explanation for this is common descent.
@dcarrera01 You still on the tree of life? Presuppositions my friend presuppositions. The bottom half is missing and a lot of the rest too so give it up. No facts as usual.
@WombatGully3000: Yes I gave a longer answer so I could explain better. Is this suddenly wrong now? What presuppositions? I described something that can be done by any biochemical lab in the world today using modern animals. On the other hand, you are the one who thought that I was talking about a picture from Darwin. If you were honestly trying to understand what I've said, you wouldn't have assumed that I was talking about Darwin when obviously comparing hemoglobin was beyond Darwin's ability.
@WombatGully3000: The third piece of evidence is the distribution of life on Earth. For example, all marsupials are in Australia and there are none in Africa. Animals on islands look derived from animals from nearby mainland, while there are animals on the other side of the globe that would be perfectly suited to the island environment. If a designer had put animals on Earth, you wouldn't expect this evolution-like pattern. If Noah's flood occurred, you would expect a different pattern.
Any proper scientific theory has to make predictions. It is not enough that a theory explain what you already observe, but it has to predict something new that has not been observed yet. Darwin observed that humans look most similar to African apes. Thus he predicted that Africa is where humans evolved, and that we would find pre-human ancestors in Africa. Indeed, this is where they were later found.
@dcarrera01 Stop you sound like the guy from the documentary i watched last night, your saying the exact same things but you won't even admit you have presuppositions. Plenty of creationists have done the same thing your doing with the presuppositions of god, the theory they put out is much better and logical. Why do they get abused. I will explain for you. I believe god created the heavens and the earth and all life. I believe in the great flood and i believe god sends prophets.
@WombatGully3000: "Stop you sound like the guy from the documentary i watched last night"
Huh? You don't want me to talk about predictions? Predictions are an important part of any scientific theory. I cannot just omit the predictions from a scientific theory. Talking about predictions made by evolution is not the same thing as persecuting or abusing Christians. Please don't play victim. I can go on about Christians persecuting atheists too. I say we stick to the science.
@dcarrera01 Now god tells me he is complex so i predict life will be very complex. I predict all life will have similarities, i see a common creator you see a common ancestor. I believe you will find that certain kinds of living things need other certain kinds of living things to survive. This is explained with a 6 day creation. I believe before the flood times conditions were different on earth. I believe you will find rock strata all over the world because of the great flood.
@dcarrera01 I believe you will find all sorts of fossils all over the world because of the great flood. We all admit fossils don't just appear, they death and sudden burial. I believe you will find fossilized tree;s all over the world, running through different types of rock strata. I believe you will find canyons all over the world because of the great flood. I believe you will find fossils in places they are not supposed to be because of the flood.
@WombatGully3000: Finally, evolution is falsifiable. There are many things you could observe that would disprove evolution. For example, going back to the tree of life I discussed earlier, evolution implies that vertebrates appeared before amphibians, who appeared before reptiles, who appeared before mammals, etc. If the fossil record showed an animal that did not fit this sequence, that would violate evolution. For example, a rabbit appearing before reptiles develop.
@WombatGully3000: As a final note, I'll mention that the 7 replies I wrote only manage to scratch the surface of the evidence for evolution. People have written large volumes that go into much greater detail than what I can describe on YouTube post. They also cover many other forms of evidence that I haven't even mentioned here.
At some point you must realize that scientists have no interest in deluding themselves. We follow the evidence because we honestly want to know the nature of reality.
@dcarrera01 Do you understand yet? The truth of it is my theory is more logical, my theory fits in better. My theory already had the evidence for me, i didn't even have to find it. Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." I believe science works because the creator wanted us to find him.
@WombatGully3000 My theory told me the universe had a beginning from the start. My theory told me things that science only discovered in the last 100 years. My theory teaches me that i am different from animals. My theory teaches me that there is a purpose in life. My theory teaches me to learn things, to question, to seek, to find. My theory teaches me that only the truth will do. Thank you and peace to you
@dcarrera01 plenty we do. I believe the human eye to be a perfect design and i am sure there is a reason why our eyes are not like the octopus eye. I read that if we did have the eyes like an octopus we would go blind because of the uv or something? Look into it, i will look into it more because i am not too sure. Your claims are not fact, they are peoples opinions you can also find others. I believe the human body to be a perfect design, and it was designed like this for a reason.
@WombatGully3000: You *BELIEVE* the human eye and the human body are a perfect design *DESPITE* evidence that this is not true?
The moment you say that, you have given up on evidence. You do not base your opinions on evidence or fact, but on blind dogma. Think about that.
If you really believe this, there is no basis for you and I to have a discourse. You should never again argue on the basis of evidence because you have admitted that evidence is not what you use to form your opinions.
Talking with a creationist is like talking with a Looney Tunes cartoon character: convinced that he exists in a reality that defies all laws of physics, biology and logical paradigms, the creationist always has the upper-hand over the rational person, wildly running about in a crazy-quilt pattern, unadhered to any sound reason or settled law. Talking with a creationist is also like talking with a very young child, an inebriated addict, or the clinically insane.
bronzenrule 4 hours ago
The information for life's molecules is stored on DNA, copied onto RNA and used to make proteins, but proteins are needed to make DNA and copy it onto RNA.
For evolution to have occurred, information must have spontaneously arisen in the original molecules and then increased over time, by natural processes.
Intellectually insane drivel!
SuperPaddywhacker 5 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker Your strawman of "information" is the Intellectually insane drivel.
sfg911 5 hours ago
@sfg911 It probably is to anyone with the IQ of a goldfish.
However arguments from ignorance or lack of understanding have no merit.
Ones short falls in education and understanding doesn’t alter the facts I'm affraid!
SuperPaddywhacker 5 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker "However arguments from ignorance or lack of understanding have no merit. Ones short falls in education and understanding doesn’t alter the facts I'm affraid!"
This is the only intelligent thing you've said! If only I could believe you understood it. Clearly you copy/pasted this just like all those arguments from ignorance and lack of understanding you were pasting before.
sfg911 2 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker
Instead of whining and bitching about useless creationist arguments that have been answered a million times already, try googling the evolution of genetics, studying it, and then sitting back and slapping yourself in the face for not having done that in the first place.
Orthrus 4 hours ago
@Orthrus I don't know... can he copy and paste that stuff and still have it sink in? I think reading is asking a bit too much of the guy.
sfg911 2 hours ago
"My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.
Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden,
SuperPaddywhacker 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker Here for another spanking? Poor fool...
sfg911 6 hours ago
@sfg911 DNA does not copy itself. It can only be copied if a number of proteins and other molecules work on it.
One group of proteins with a special role in this process is called DNA polymerase. The structure of DNAp is determined by information stored on DNA, but it takes DNAp and other proteins to make DNA.
Also the information to make DNAp must be transferred to RNA before it can be used to make proteins from amino acids.
Making the RNA copy also requires proteins.
SuperPaddywhacker 5 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker You understand what I mean. DNA copies itself.
It's widely known DNA didn't come first. I don't need to provide a publish-worthy paper on youtube in 500 characters or less to prove your argument silly...
Poor creationist troll... myths are for kids
sfg911 5 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker
I'm not sure I understand your points.
Are you saying that the skepticism of a handful of scientists causes you to doubt sound MODERN science? Do you realize the massive conspiracy that you are suggesting amongst scientists across a plethora of disciplines?
These quotes date from AT LEAST 1955 seeing as the man died on August 3rd of that year.
This is the same man who said enzymes were genes and preferred his foolish theory of "Emication". Nice science.
phenomenon717 6 hours ago
@phenomenon717 No not at all. I’m merely pointing out that science has known for a considerable amount time that evolutionary hypothesis is an absurd fallacy. Modern science confirms this fact but adherence to this naturalistic dogma is compulsory.
Any scientist brave enough to even question this dogma is ostracised immediately. How unscientific can you get!
SuperPaddywhacker 5 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker
How is it an absurd fallacy?
You're making pretty GRAND claims and I would like to know your reasoning.
The quotes you posted were of 60+ old ideas of scientists who rejected science that is widely accepted today because they had their own theories of biology which in their time was quite young. Their theories where wrong as well.
What exactly are the problems that you have with the current theories and what are yours?
phenomenon717 5 hours ago
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Centre of Scientific Research.)
SuperPaddywhacker 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker Silly creationist troll... myths are for kids.
This "useless" theory brings you better medicine. Some day you'll need it and take it gladly.... hypocrisy is a requirement for people like you.
sfg911 6 hours ago
@sfg911 DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering.
This is not subjective; it is not debatable or even controversial.
Ah well I guess holes will show up in people's education and expose their Atheist fallacies!
SuperPaddywhacker 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker And I explained to you quite clearly how it's nothing more than a larger amino acid that can copy itself.... (with error) and only the good copies continue. This is easy enough for a child to understand... but not you.
sfg911 6 hours ago
Remember Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a reason Kent Hovind is in jail and Neil Degrass Tyson is a world renowned scientific icon. One believes that his mythical sky fairy will protect him as he breaks the law, the other uses logic and the combined total of human history and scientific advancement to follow the law.
TyloniusKnight 12 hours ago
Anything he doesn't like he gets rid of))) :*
CubbyE 16 hours ago
@CubbyE That's strange, I've been commenting here quite a while and haven't noticed any deleting. Got anything to back up your accusation? Screen shot maybe??
Anyway.. let's say he did delete a comment. It's his channel and can do what he likes with it. The religious channels are the kings of comment censorship hands down.
sfg911 15 hours ago
@sfg911 LoL no sadly I forgot to screen shot it
CubbyE 15 hours ago
@CubbyE So... did this comment you claim was deleted have any merit? Did it have content or an argument or was it a useless ignorant baseless attack by a troll?
Did you make the comment?... what was it?
sfg911 15 hours ago
@sfg911 it was basically .. I love you sfg911 ;) im gonna go back to enjoying my life now sir)) If you have a question just pm me :p
CubbyE 15 hours ago
@CubbyE So you are claiming a comment from you was deleted? I didn't see one from you that isn't still here. You should consider it may have been user error or a very common youtube glitch. Happens to me every so often.
sfg911 15 hours ago
@CubbyE Are you a Kent Hovind fan? You know he's in jail right..... Kent's a naughty boy.
sfg911 15 hours ago
@sfg911 I'm a fan of knowledge bra))) and yea I heard.. reminds me of how money is evil :p I worship God yo not people. People tend to make the mistakes)) And I am one of them)
CubbyE 15 hours ago
@CubbyE So then why are you here commenting on the video? It appears like you don't like something about it. Is that true?
sfg911 15 hours ago
i do not like that scientist HE WAS THE GUY WHO DECIDED THAT PLUTO WASNT A PLANET!!!
iammikeywright 18 hours ago
@iammikeywright: Actually, he didn't. That decision was made by the International Astronomical Union.
dcarrera01 18 hours ago
@iammikeywright Science does not care what you think. You may not like it but facts are cold, hard, and irrefutable. Sorry but that is the universe we live in.
TyloniusKnight 13 hours ago
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views:
(Dr Etheridge, World famous Paleontologist of the British Museum)
SuperPaddywhacker 19 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker: Etheridge was an obscure nineteenth century figure who was an assistant at the British Museum and was never famous at all.
You creationists are so predictable. Since you don't actually understand what you are talking about, you just blinding copy text from each other like automatons. All I have to do is put your quote on Google. You even copied the "World famous Paleontologist of the British Museum" attribution. Are you unable to even write an attribution of your own?
dcarrera01 18 hours ago
@dcarrera01 "Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon, which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs".
- Pierre Grasse Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the FA of Ssience
SuperPaddywhacker 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker Hi, just wondering if you knew that in the same source Grasse also states ""Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position" . Why did you not mention this part? Is there a reason ? here is the original source [Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7] I'm sure you will have read this, yes ?
ZuluFightrunner 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker: Two words: Project Steve
dcarrera01 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker You never get tired of being spanked do you..... you must get off on it.
sfg911 17 hours ago
lol the science part is just words... what proof?? bahahaha it's pathetic.. and the fact is he is right... we are... a part... of God's Universe, either God created us.. and No I can't explain it.. or NOTHING created us... and NO you cant explain that! bahaha 2+2=4 not 4 and 5 sillys
CubbyE 20 hours ago
@CubbyE What created god? bahaha!
sfg911 20 hours ago
@sfg911 Only something that begins to exist requires a cause. If God did create the universe, then logically such an entity would transend time space and matter and therefore be infinite! An uncaused cause!
SuperPaddywhacker 19 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker: I remember that you never replied to my comment about humans and apes. By your own definition, humans and other great apes are the same kind and you should have no problem with (say) humans, chimps and gorillas having a common ancestor. I wonder why you never replied to that (though I posted it twice).
dcarrera01 18 hours ago
@dcarrera01 I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have never suggested that humans and Apes were the same kind of anything!
I absolutly and unequivocally refute any hypothesis of humans chimps and gorillas having a common ancestor. Its absurd rhetoric refuted by the fossil evidence.
SuperPaddywhacker 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker: I know that you have trouble understanding what you said days ago. Let me remind you:
"Macroevolution is defined as large-scale evolution that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups such as genera & family"
By your definition, if you don't create a new family, it's not macroevolution. Humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans belong to the same family.
dcarrera01 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker: You said:
"[Evolution] is absurd rhetoric refuted by the fossil evidence"
The fact that you even say this shows that you have a gross lack of understanding of fossil evidence. We could throw away all the fossils and the evidence for evolution would be just as strong. So unless you found a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, the fossil record cannot refute evolution.
dcarrera01 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker Really.. well then have you ever heard of this: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change forms. I guess it doesn't need a cause then! And since everything is basically energy in some form, nothing was created. Thanks for admitting that.
sfg911 18 hours ago
@sfg911 Evolution has no intelligence. It is totally dumb. It does not evaluate, plan, organize or have the ability to intentionally change something based on information of any sort. So it’s obvious to see its attraction to the grasshopper mentality of uneducated intellectually void imbeciles who stand in awe of the miniscule achievements of mankind.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
What part of Information is Information, neither matter nor energy don’t you understand!
SuperPaddywhacker 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker Awwww.... poor creotard doesn't understand so he tosses out more insults.
Explain why intelligence is necessary. I explained why it's not quite clearly.... your assertions are rejected. Back up your tripe.
sfg911 6 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker: In that case, why not skip a step and assume the universe is eternal? We have no reason to believe that it is or it isn't. (no, the Big Bang theory does not tell us whether the universe began or not - at least not in the sense that you are using the term).
dcarrera01 9 hours ago
@dcarrera01 Now you’re taking the piss! We know the universe is expanding therefore it cannot be eternal and must have had a beginning. To suggest otherwise is pure nonsense not worthy of discussion!
SuperPaddywhacker 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperPaddywhacker: Nonsense? I am an astronomer, how about you? Your "analysis" of cosmology is just naive. We don't know what (if anything) caused or came before the BB. Indeed, several scientists are working on this.
One proposal is eternal inflation (aka "bubble universes") which would have a in infinite series of Big Bangs. Another is Smolin's idea that black holes could produce Big Bangs. There are astronomers studying some tentative observations that might indicate a previous universe.
dcarrera01 6 hours ago
@CubbyE Non-sequitirs , False dichotomy, Appeal to ridicule, Appeal to ignorance, sloppy grammar and punctuation. You sir, are the epitomy of creationist ignorance and general stupidity.
ZuluFightrunner 19 hours ago
@ZuluFightrunner lol nice
CubbyE 19 hours ago
@ZuluFightrunner you delete peoples comments bahahaha
CubbyE 16 hours ago
@CubbyE Can you provide some evidence to back this claim up?.
ZuluFightrunner 9 hours ago
@CubbyE Seriously? this has been proven...by fucking scientists. And you say it's just words? The bible is just words.
MrFallout72 12 hours ago in playlist Favorite videos
@CubbyE
I think the problem is that you are simplifying the complexities of this universe [and possibly the multi-verse] to the level of the whole 'my particular god did it' pseudo explanation.
Mr. Tyson did not get into immense detail about the astro & theoretical physics of our universe. Believe me, it's not as simple as he attempted to make it sound for the sake of the lei-man that you most certainly are telling by your comment.
I would suggest you watch "How the Universe Works".
phenomenon717 6 hours ago
@brpierce No its not circular reasoning, and to suggest so is folly. Information is a real entity, not merely a human abstraction.
A coding system can operate for eons without any conscious intervention. Direct observation tells us that only conscious minds create coding systems in the first place.
Information requires a sender, a code and a receiver that exist similtaneously. This is not subjective debatable or controversial, its a verifiable fact and an insurmontable problem for evolution.
SuperPaddywhacker 22 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker "Direct observation tells us that only conscious minds create coding systems in the first place."
Direct observation shows us that conscious minds have to learn before coding systems in the first place. Direct observation also tells us the sun revolves around the earth.
Is a water molecule "information"?? How about amino acids? Are they "information"? Is a crystal "information"?
Silly creationist... myths are for kids.
sfg911 21 hours ago
@sfg911 bahaha your right, it just appeared for no reason))
CubbyE 20 hours ago
@sfg911 What has water molecules; amino acids or crystals got to do with information? Of course you do understand the difference between a pattern and a code, don’t you?
SuperPaddywhacker 19 hours ago
@SuperPaddywhacker watch?v=hu3HqSB4It
DNA is just a complicated molecule... basically just like an amino acid, just bigger. DNA is a pattern that has been built step by step. Each step that results in a dead end is no longer copied. Each step that results in more copies... receives the next step.
Do you have an example of information that can copy itself?
Silly creationist... myths are for kids
sfg911 17 hours ago
The idiotic, illogical religion of Darwin.
WombatGully3000 1 day ago
@WombatGully3000 Retarded baseless assertions after being shown how wrong you are prove you a moron.
sfg911 1 day ago
I have seriously had about a months worth of you tube in about two days. How do you people do this all day every day? You must get paid to do this, you must get paid to be you tube scientists. I need to work for real or else i don't get paid :(
WombatGully3000 1 day ago
@WombatGully3000 Baseless assertion time ...
ZuluFightrunner 1 day ago
@ZuluFightrunner I made the statement that you believe that everything came from nothing and you responded by saying i do not put effort in my comments and also that you do not believe that everything came from nothing. When I ask you if you could tell me what you believe you simply say (No) I think your a troll who is trying to get people to keep coming back to this video and comment, Maybe you get paid for it? in any case do not contact me because you are a waste of time...
Twinpact 1 day ago
@Twinpact Another Liar. I do have freedom of choice now get some evidence to back up the claim I get paid for it or fuck off.
ZuluFightrunner 1 day ago
@Twinpact In fact that is a wonderful theory but there are a few flaws in it.
Number one this video contains copyrighted material used under fair use so I am not allowed to profit from it.
Number 2 if you did a pesky thing called research you would see on my home page I am not a youtube partner, hence I do not get paid for it.
ZuluFightrunner 1 day ago
@WombatGully3000 "You must get paid to do this, you must get paid to be you tube scientists" No I don't , you fucking liar.
ZuluFightrunner 1 day ago
@WombatGully3000 Are you going to back up that claim that I must get paid for this? What Evidence can you provide?
ZuluFightrunner 1 day ago
Creation Vs "Evolution" Hello can you please show me the facts? "It's a scientific fact, its been proven!" Ok then, can you show me these facts, show me the proof. "You are a retard, evolution is a scientific fact that the scientific community accepts" Ok no need to call me names, just show me the proof. "You obviously don't understand evolution, go get an education" I am trying, i want you to teach me these solid scientific facts about evolution "I already provided facts, its a proven theory!"
WombatGully3000 1 day ago
@WombatGully3000 Did you just say you are trying to learn about evolution? Really?!? Well then why did you ignore the long list of evidence I provided you, laugh and call the majority of scientists idiots? Why are you asking for facts AFTER you've already been provided with them?
You are called names because you deserve it. You come here and insult everyone, call people liars for providing what you demand. I treat people how they deserve to be treated. You disgust me.
sfg911 23 hours ago
looks stoned lol
Justo506 1 day ago
I think that any rational intelligent sane person recognizes Kent Hovind to be an absurdly stupid person, or else a complete fraud and crook that's fooling others probably to feed off through his scamming.
I the frustrating thing is that so many dumb fools fall for his crap, and we don't like to see a society with stupid people doing stupid things.
One they there will be enough of those stupid people and vote back in the Republicunts for instance.
a1mint 1 day ago
is comment disab.
dgnctfrprtcllvr8 2 days ago in playlist my boy
@dgnctfrprtcllvr8 No.
ZuluFightrunner 2 days ago
I am sorry but there are 113 complete idiots who watched this video. Neil deGrasse Tyson rocks! He makes Kent Hovind and the 113 people who clicked thumbs down look like gnats intellectually.
uniteordie1 2 days ago
Praise God for sending His Word and His Son Jesus Christ so that we may know the truth of the creation of the universe! I am so glad that we, as humans, do NOT share ancestry with apes and cockroaches! We are fearfully and wonderfully made! Anyone doubt this? Just look in the mirror. Do you look like a monkey? Of course not! You are a beautiful creation and humans were formed by the God of the universe, Jesus Christ!
RestoredHumanity 2 days ago
@RestoredHumanity Spam eh ?
ZuluFightrunner 2 days ago
@RestoredHumanity Jesus Christ is a human sacrificial scapegoat. The idea that an all wise, all knowing, all loving creator god resorted to such tactics is not just ludicrous.... it's full blown contradictory. There is nothing moral about your death cult.
sfg911 2 days ago
@sfg911 Would you lay your life down for your child? If you don't have a child what if you did would you? Would you lay your life down for your family? If you are like most people on earth you would. Understand? It is beautiful that jesus took on the suffering for us absolutely beautiful.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 The entire idea that a god needed to become a man so he could be tortured to death... and that is the best plan for humanity... is ludicrous. What was the sacrifice? Did Jesus lay down his "life"? Is he dead?
The only way one could call human sacrifice "absolutely beautiful" is if they have never really thought about it.
sfg911 2 days ago
@wombatgully3000 "'We can see stars and even galaxies forming.' That is the biggest lie i have read so far. "
Um . . . we can. It's pretty common. Something like 275 million new stars forming or dying each day in the observable universe. So uh, yeah. Good go I guess.
cemarz 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 You're looking at things backwards buddy. Existence doesn't work backwards. We exist because we're in a place we can exist from, we wouldn't otherwise. Stats mean nothing. For example, pull out 27 cards from a deck. The odds that you'd pull those cards are less than that of us being here.
A space shuttle is more complex than a single cell (that's a pretty funny statement). And dna doesn't look designed, at all. Have you looked at it? I know you haven't studied it.
cemarz 2 days ago
@jondabill1 What an idiotic statement. There are no absolute truths, no one can ever say 'thus can only prove thus.' Ever.
As for the big bang, there's an absurd amount of info that makes it just as fact as gravity. From CMBR to the shape of the universe. And you do know that we can accurately trace now to less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, right?
But again, no absolute knowledge here. Perhaps it was a magic fairy that did it.
cemarz 2 days ago
Different evolutionists say different things. I have heard the belief that we came from a rock ultimately from evolutionists before, BUT...now, oh so much better, this guy says that we came from stars exploding? Give me a break. "Long ago and far away...."
jondabill1 3 days ago
@jondabill1 This stuff is basic cosmology. If you went to school... then you don't need a break, you need to go back. The big bang theory shows that the universe started with nothing but hydrogen and helium. ALL other elements were created in fusion reactions inside stars. We can even watch it happening using this new invention called a telescope.
What's an "evolutionist"? Is that like a round-earther?
sfg911 3 days ago
@sfg911 The Big Bang Theory SHOWS nothing.... it purports that something COULD have happened given the RIGHT circumstances and 5 trillion gallons of LUCK. Your reaction is typical of a Christ-rejecting fairy tale swallowing bigot that believes that EVERYBODY HAS to believe what you believe, but I don't have that much faith, buddy. "What's an evolutionist?" Look in the mirror.
jondabill1 3 days ago
@jondabill1: Hello. I am an astrophysicist. Do you have any questions about the Big Bang theory? The Big Bang theory does not talk about what "could" happen but about what did happen. The Big Bang theory does not talk about "the right circumstances" and it does not involve luck. The Big Bang theory is a model for the early stages of the universe. As any good scientific theory, it makes various falsifiable predictions which have been tested and confirmed.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@jondabill1 Yup.. back to school for you. The BB is supported by massive evidence and made predictions that were found. Since it's by far the BEST explanation for the universe then that means everything WAS made in the center of stars.
Sorry simple facts scare you so much. Maybe you should get some help for that.
sfg911 2 days ago
@sfg911 Again, fine statements and I appreciate your pride and confidence in your theory but statements alone prove jack squat. What? DO you expect me to believe you because you said that it is a fact? Buddy, I am not SCARED of facts AT ALL. It's just hilarious to me that people look at certain things and can only arrive at one conclusion. WHAT exactly is it that you see that can ONLY BE PROOF for a big bang instead of something else? I have an open mind, come on buddy.
jondabill1 2 days ago
@jondabill1 The BB came with some highly complex predictions. So far it's passed them all. Creation comes with its own predictions but it has failed them all. Nothing can be proven 100% but the BB is the only game in town. Clearly you ARE scared... seeing as YOUR pride refuses to let you accept solid facts. The elements were all made in stars. You call that fantasy.... while claiming to have an "open mind". That is pathetic beyond words.
sfg911 2 days ago
According to the big bang theory, proposed by Creationist Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaitre, the universe emerged from an extremely dense singularity and has been expanding ever since!
A view that challenged the naturalistic Atheistic hypothesis of the time that pleaded in vain to a steady state universe model.
Ironically it was a telescope that confirmed Lemaitre’s findings and exposed hopeful misinformed arrogant rhetoric for what it is!
SuperPaddywhacker 2 days ago
@SuperPaddywhacker Science always walks the path that evidence reveals. It's no secret that individual scientist have their opinion and most do not let them go easily. However, any scientist worth their education will submit to the best theory once the evidence has been presented. Science encourages improvement and change. The highest honors go to those that disprove old ideas. That is why science will always have the best answer.
Religion can not in any way say the same.
sfg911 2 days ago
@jondabill1: Evolution has never said that we came from a rock. Ever. For that matter, evolution does not even deal with the origin of life, that would be abiogenesis. Abiogenesis proposes a primordial solution of various substances in water. That is not a rock. Before the origin of life you have the origin of the chemical elements needed for life. Those are the ones formed through nuclear fusion in stars. Before that you have the origin of Hydrogen and Helium, which takes you to the Big Bang.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@jondabill1 Why do you believe in creation?
oceanceaser44 2 days ago
@JuanOlivier1 I was wondering if you already checked out what is known about the bacterial flagellum? It is quite interesting.
watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko
Relloq 3 days ago
Truth has much more beauty than any fairy tale out there. Science is our way forward.
GonzAntuz 3 days ago
Ok in the first part kent says evolution teaches rocks are the ancestors of dogs (which is sort of true because evolution teaches the first life form evolved from a rock when it rained upon it) Then in the second video the guy is talking about the star exploding. So is this video trying to say dogs come from the stars? *shrugs* found this a stupid video no offense. I have faith, a lot of it too but sorry guys i don't have enough faith to convert to the religion of evolution/darwin. Peace
WombatGully3000 3 days ago
@WombatGully3000 Nope. Looks like your too much of a retard to understand (no offence).
ZuluFightrunner 3 days ago
@ZuluFightrunner Define the word retard for me. Very obvious i can't be a retard, you should of said stupid that could of worked. I still find this video very stupid. Peace
WombatGully3000 3 days ago
@WombatGully3000 "you should of said stupid that could of worked" Enough said.
ZuluFightrunner 3 days ago
@ZuluFightrunner So your taking advice from me? A stupid person? What does that make you? hahaha your alright i don't care what everyone else says about you.
WombatGully3000 3 days ago
@WombatGully3000 - When are you going to go back to my original point that the same science that gave us evolution gave us medicine, computers, space travel. It's all or none.
Also, you said "almost every scientific theory and truth was founded by people that believed the world and universe was created" - - So you're saying because they believed in a creator it makes it true??? You said "Everything about the universe and earth and life looks fine tuned. Every single thing!" - Yes. Because
DJCailler 3 days ago
@DJCailler I don't deny that science gave us medicine, computers and space travel. I never did deny this. I am just telling the truth by saying evolution is not science. Majority of the people that gave us medicine, computers and space travel believed in a creator. Even after they had made these principles and discoveries they continued to believe in a creator. If you cannot see why i actually call you guys hypocrites and liars there is something wrong with you.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 They don't teach sarcasm round your way do they ?.
ZuluFightrunner 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 I am pointing out that you say you are not a retard but don't seem to see the glaring errors in how you formed that sentence "you should of said stupid that could of worked"
ZuluFightrunner 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 -to all you Biblically disadvantaged folks, the same science which has brought us vaccines, computers, farming, surgery, medicine & space travel, is the same science seeking to understand the origins of life. It's easy to pretend that an iPhone doesn't suggest there is no god, but the same is not true for evolution. Point is - if you are going to reject science, reject it all. Admit that doctors, chemists & engineers, despite seeming intelligent, are really just making shit up
DJCailler 3 days ago
@DJCailler You do know that majority of this science was founded by people who believed in a creator right? Albert Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Although he never came to believe in a personal god he acknowledged there must be a creator just as many of the greatest minds of the world have and still do. Get rid of your presuppositions.
WombatGully3000 3 days ago
@WombatGully3000 - Please don't quote mine Einstein. Einstein ALSO said - "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
DJCailler 3 days ago
@DJCailler If you read what i wrote i said he never came to believe in a personal god. Read his later quotes too.
WombatGully3000 3 days ago
@WombatGully3000 - Also - regardless of the history of science and it's supposed "faithful" founders, keep in mind that sometimes it was necessary to publicly be a "believer" Religion is an unforgiving, cruel master seeking subjugation and we are barely out of that era where we needed to lie about god in order to be accepted.
Thankfully that is not the case these days. We have moved on and we are not looking back
DJCailler 3 days ago
@DJCailler You obviously have no clue about history. I agree that the church at times was very cruel to people, but remember they were cruel to their own kind. You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said they were faithful or anything alike, i said they believed in a creator, a lot were not christian. The fact is almost every scientific theory and truth was founded by people that believed the world and universe was created.
WombatGully3000 3 days ago
@DJCailler Everything about the universe and earth and life looks fine tuned. Every single thing! It points to a creator. There are laws in place throughout the entire universe. This points to a creator. A single cell being more complex then a space shuttle. This points to a creator. Please do not put words in my mouth, all of these point towards a creator, they do not prove the existence of god. This is where my faith kicks in. I just don't have enough to follow evolution sorry.
WombatGully3000 3 days ago
@WombatGully3000: "Everything about the universe and earth and life looks fine tuned. Every single thing!"
As a physicist, I say that this is simply not true. Life is not possible in free space. That removes 99.999999% of the universe. Life is impossible in stars. That removes 99% of what's left. Life is not possible on gas giants, or most rocky planets, or inside Earth's crust. That removes 99.99999% of what's left.
Life can only exist in an infinitesimal fraction of the universe.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 Thank you very much, you just pushed me towards god even more. So you admit that 99.999999% of the universe cannot sustain life? Yet miraculously we are in that area? Seriously if you cannot see that life looks like it has been fine tuned there is nothing more i can say or do. Its about as logical as it gets. A single cell is more complex then a space shuttle, DNA looks like is has been designed. If you can't see this then you are being willingly ignorant.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 Who designed the ocean to have the right salt content for saltwater fish? It's miraculous that fresh water fish didn't end up in the ocean.
The "fine tuning" argument is transparently flawed. Only the desperate can't see that.
What in DNA looks designed? You don't have a clue.... ERVs, atavisms, laryngeal nerve, blind spots, genetic diseases, wisdom teeth.... humans have broken Vitamin C synthesis and a genetic muscle deficiency. Who designed that?
sfg911 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: I am not trying to push you in any direction. I am trying to get you to understand facts without spin. You are welcome to be religious if you like, but you should accept facts and science as they are.
I am very sad to see that you seem to be more interesting in spin than in fact. First you said that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I show you that overwhelmingly the universe is inhospitable to life so you then argue that it was life that was fine tuned. Leave spin aside.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: You are confusing logic with your intuition. You see that life is complex and that if it was different it could not exist on Earth, and then you jump to the conclusion that life must be tuned. This is not logic, it is absurd. It is not by magic that sharks live on water and lions on land. Sharks evolved on water so they adapted to be effective on water. Lions evolved on land, so they adapted for land. Same is true for every living being and every habitat on Earth.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: The point you make about DNA is another example of you confusing logic with intuition and spin. I understand that you want to believe in a designer. I don't have as much of a preconceived notion, and I can prove it: I was raised Catholic, later became atheist, then evangelical christian, then later atheist (this was over the course of 30 years). I am willing to change my mind, and I will go to where the evidence and logic leads me. If God is real, I want to know.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: Organisms are indeed complex. But they do not look designed, they look evolved. They have numerous design errors make no sense from a designer but are expected from evolution. The human eye could be easily improved if you just turned it inside out like the Octopus eye. The laryngeal nerve does a long and absurd detour through the heart. For a giraffe this is an enormous detour.
There is also a great deal of positive evidence for evolution. I just go where the evidence leads.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 There is not a great deal of positive evidence for evolution, there is a small amount and you all know it. The only reason you have this evidence in the first place is because you all looks at it in the wrong way. Just like detectives sometimes make big mistakes and target the wrong suspect. I really do believe without any presuppositions everyone will come to the same conclusion, that a creator has made this possible. Yes there are things we don't understand, but plenty
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: The first evidence for evolution is that it can be readily observed in the lab. For example, we can see fruit flies diverge into two separate and distinct species. We see it in husbandry and agriculture. Domestic sheep come from wild sheep but they are now a different species. We see the same thing with innumerable plants that we eat (e.g. cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, corn, etc). We see it in our pets. All dogs in the world were produced by human influence.
Continued.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 No it can't only variations can be observed, no new species has ever been observed. No species turning into another has ever been observed throughout all history. This is speculation because of your presuppositions. You are talking about variations which i believe in, i don't believe this can change life forms, i believe the species will always stay the same species.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: Ok, you made a testable statement:
"No it can't only variations can be observed, no new species has ever been observed. No species turning into another has ever been observed throughout all history."
Speciation can be observed in the *LABORATORY*. In the 1980s, William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies and saw them change to the point that they were different species. They could not interbreed. See Wikipedia on "Speciation" for more information. Please read it.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: The second evidence for evolution is the tree of life. This has multiple facets. Take a molecule like hemoglobin. Chimpanzee hemoglobin is different from ours, but very similar. Horse hemoglobin is more different still, but Horse hemoglobin is very similar to that donkeys. Fish hemoglobin is more different yet. By comparing hemoglobin from all animals you naturally build a tree of life. What is amazing is that you can do this for any molecule and the trees all match.
Continued
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 Again not evidence, the tree of life shown by darwin does not exist, well the bottom half doesn't anyway. Even most evolutionists will tell you the tree of life is not supported by fossil evidence. I have been a good boy, i did my homework.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: What are you talking about? No, you have not been a good boy, you have not done your homework. I never mentioned Darwin. I talked about hemoglobin. I talked about biochemistry that is far more advanced than anything Darwin had access to. Do you still think that you did your homework? You couldn't even figure out that when I talked about biochemistry that was not about Darwin. No, you haven't done your homework.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 We will have to agree with disagree. I understand why you believe what you believe. I do see some things that i question at times but the problem is evolution has way to many gaps and holes. Way way way to many. I can't accept this, i can't go on faith on this subject. If there were proper intermediate fossils found it would be a different story. The intermediates we have at the moment very weak intermediates.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 "If there were proper intermediate fossils found..."
All you need to do is look. But that requires opening your eyes....
Religion is based on faith, faith is believing without evidence. There IS overwhelming evidence for evolution.... I gave you a short but powerful list and asked if you wanted more. Denying proven facts do nothing but expose your hypocritical faith.
sfg911 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: If you like, we can switch the discussion to astronomy and the age of the universe. I think this is an easier topic to discuss and I think it is easier to agree on observed evidence.
You said that you believe in Noah's flood and a 6-day creation. So I presume that you believe in a 6,000 year-old universe. Since evolution requires an old Earth, we could talk about the age of the universe.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 The age of the universe doesn't work when talking to a creationist. They will come out with some bullshit that "god started the universe with starlight already flying through space". Trust me its retarded but its what they do.
Xellith 1 day ago
@Xellith When they pull that crap about light already flying through space, ask them if their god also bent the light to specifically make the light heading toward earth look like it passed a massive gravitational force a few billion years ago. (gravitational lensing) And if he did... how can that be anything but intentionally deceiving?
sfg911 1 day ago
@sfg911 I already know what they will say "god put it there to test our faith". Its bullshit but thats the kinda stuff idiots come up with.
Xellith 1 day ago
@sfg911: Oh, excellent point about gravitational light deflection. I hadn't thought of that. Other examples:
* Light from stars and supernovae that never existed.
* Light from fake quasars and gamma ray bursts.
* Light reddening designed to emulate the effect of interstellar dust that isn't there.
* Star light spread and twisted to give the appearance of parallax.
* Fake galaxies with morphology and chemical composition suggesting stages of evolution that precisely match distance measurements.
dcarrera01 1 day ago
@dcarrera01 And I like your first one, never thought of that. Light from so far away that it's so old the original light source can no longer exist.... and if it didn't exist in the last 6K yeas then it never did!
sfg911 1 day ago
@Xellith: Indeed, that is one possible reply. But it requires believing in a God that is highly deceitful who planted (and perpetually continues to plant) light from stars and supernovae that never existed. I may be foolish, but I think most Christians would feel uncomfortable with that implication. So I hope that theologically they might prefer a God who created the Big Bang.
dcarrera01 1 day ago
@dcarrera01 You don't need to mention darwin you believe in evolution. Evolution is the religion of Charles darwin. I never said you were speaking about darwin why are you putting words in my mouth. Oh no i think the real you is coming out, i better go to bed before i get abused right?
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 Every time you call evolution a religion it just makes you look that much more foolish. Even a simple mind can understand why evolution isn't a religion.
sfg911 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: I am not putting words into your mouth. This is what I said:
"Take a molecule like hemoglobin... By comparing hemoglobin from all animals you naturally build a tree of life."
You replied:
"Again not evidence, the tree of life shown by darwin does not exist, well the bottom half doesn't anyway."
So yes. Your reply has conflated the tree produced with hemoglobin with Darwin. I think it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: "Oh no i think the real you is coming out, i better go to bed before i get abused right?"
I think the real you has been coming out for a while. You have repeatedly insulted me, called me a liar, claimed that I hold views that I don't hold, and played the victim. I have been respectful and have not called you names. You have admitted that I was respectful and you even apologized to me earlier. Now, a moment later, you go back to insulting me and playing victim.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: More on the tree of life: You can do comparative anatomy and it naturally produces another tree: Physically we are clearly apes. All apes are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. All vertebrates are animals. Etc.The tree that you get from comparative anatomy also matches all the trees produced by biochemistry. You can use junk DNA to build a tree too, and that one also matches.
So many ways to build a tree of life, and they all exactly line up.
Continued.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: Last bit on the tree of life:
So you have a dozen different ways you could compare life on Earth... each one automatically sorts all life in a gigantic tree. All these trees line up beautifully. The natural explanation for this is common descent.
Continued. (third evidence coming up).
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 You still on the tree of life? Presuppositions my friend presuppositions. The bottom half is missing and a lot of the rest too so give it up. No facts as usual.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: Yes I gave a longer answer so I could explain better. Is this suddenly wrong now? What presuppositions? I described something that can be done by any biochemical lab in the world today using modern animals. On the other hand, you are the one who thought that I was talking about a picture from Darwin. If you were honestly trying to understand what I've said, you wouldn't have assumed that I was talking about Darwin when obviously comparing hemoglobin was beyond Darwin's ability.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 *yawns* getting late here, bed time for me. Until next time. Peace to you
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: The third piece of evidence is the distribution of life on Earth. For example, all marsupials are in Australia and there are none in Africa. Animals on islands look derived from animals from nearby mainland, while there are animals on the other side of the globe that would be perfectly suited to the island environment. If a designer had put animals on Earth, you wouldn't expect this evolution-like pattern. If Noah's flood occurred, you would expect a different pattern.
Cont'd
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: More on the distribution of life:
Any proper scientific theory has to make predictions. It is not enough that a theory explain what you already observe, but it has to predict something new that has not been observed yet. Darwin observed that humans look most similar to African apes. Thus he predicted that Africa is where humans evolved, and that we would find pre-human ancestors in Africa. Indeed, this is where they were later found.
Continued.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 Stop you sound like the guy from the documentary i watched last night, your saying the exact same things but you won't even admit you have presuppositions. Plenty of creationists have done the same thing your doing with the presuppositions of god, the theory they put out is much better and logical. Why do they get abused. I will explain for you. I believe god created the heavens and the earth and all life. I believe in the great flood and i believe god sends prophets.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: "Stop you sound like the guy from the documentary i watched last night"
Huh? You don't want me to talk about predictions? Predictions are an important part of any scientific theory. I cannot just omit the predictions from a scientific theory. Talking about predictions made by evolution is not the same thing as persecuting or abusing Christians. Please don't play victim. I can go on about Christians persecuting atheists too. I say we stick to the science.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 Now god tells me he is complex so i predict life will be very complex. I predict all life will have similarities, i see a common creator you see a common ancestor. I believe you will find that certain kinds of living things need other certain kinds of living things to survive. This is explained with a 6 day creation. I believe before the flood times conditions were different on earth. I believe you will find rock strata all over the world because of the great flood.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: Ok. At least you are trying to make predictions.
Why does your believe in God imply a 6 day creation? Why not 12 days? My not 4? How do you define day if the Sun is not created until the 4th day?
These are all fair questions. I just want you to try to take your premise (God exists) and actually see where it leads and where it doesn't lead.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 I believe you will find all sorts of fossils all over the world because of the great flood. We all admit fossils don't just appear, they death and sudden burial. I believe you will find fossilized tree;s all over the world, running through different types of rock strata. I believe you will find canyons all over the world because of the great flood. I believe you will find fossils in places they are not supposed to be because of the flood.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: Finally, evolution is falsifiable. There are many things you could observe that would disprove evolution. For example, going back to the tree of life I discussed earlier, evolution implies that vertebrates appeared before amphibians, who appeared before reptiles, who appeared before mammals, etc. If the fossil record showed an animal that did not fit this sequence, that would violate evolution. For example, a rabbit appearing before reptiles develop.
Continued.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: As a final note, I'll mention that the 7 replies I wrote only manage to scratch the surface of the evidence for evolution. People have written large volumes that go into much greater detail than what I can describe on YouTube post. They also cover many other forms of evidence that I haven't even mentioned here.
At some point you must realize that scientists have no interest in deluding themselves. We follow the evidence because we honestly want to know the nature of reality.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 Do you understand yet? The truth of it is my theory is more logical, my theory fits in better. My theory already had the evidence for me, i didn't even have to find it. Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." I believe science works because the creator wanted us to find him.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 My theory told me the universe had a beginning from the start. My theory told me things that science only discovered in the last 100 years. My theory teaches me that i am different from animals. My theory teaches me that there is a purpose in life. My theory teaches me to learn things, to question, to seek, to find. My theory teaches me that only the truth will do. Thank you and peace to you
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000 Star Trek V : What does God need with a Starship? . I thought I would throw in some quoted of fiction as well.
ZuluFightrunner 1 day ago
@dcarrera01 plenty we do. I believe the human eye to be a perfect design and i am sure there is a reason why our eyes are not like the octopus eye. I read that if we did have the eyes like an octopus we would go blind because of the uv or something? Look into it, i will look into it more because i am not too sure. Your claims are not fact, they are peoples opinions you can also find others. I believe the human body to be a perfect design, and it was designed like this for a reason.
WombatGully3000 2 days ago
@WombatGully3000: You *BELIEVE* the human eye and the human body are a perfect design *DESPITE* evidence that this is not true?
The moment you say that, you have given up on evidence. You do not base your opinions on evidence or fact, but on blind dogma. Think about that.
If you really believe this, there is no basis for you and I to have a discourse. You should never again argue on the basis of evidence because you have admitted that evidence is not what you use to form your opinions.
dcarrera01 2 days ago
@dcarrera01 I always hear people talking about facts, scientific tests and so on. Yet you ignore the fact that