Cont. So..Yeshua could create time, space, matter & energy & this vast beyond imagining universe with all of its laws of nature, ..and you can believe that if you want, but don't you dare believe that He could also create animal & plant life fully formed? Evolution is based on the illogical, even the absurd. It is a system where speculations are presented as evidence piled on logical fallacies, where dissenters are ridiculed - or worse. Come out of the matrix.
Cont. For ex. in Nature Magazine a scientist says "Even if all the data [!!} points to an intelligent designer such an hypothesis is excluded...since it's not natural." Gee, I thought science was the search for truth whereverer it leads. Miller also said on a Colbert show, here in a YT clip, that as an RC he believes Yeshua, aka Jesus, "Created all that is seen and unseen" Then he holds workshops on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design." So Yeshua was stupid when He designed all this? Cont.
Cont. He tells us Tiktaalik "is as good as it gets" for a transitional form. He's right about that. The fossil is 100% But o, yeal it has "characteristics" of a tetrapod. But it's 100% fish & again there is 0 evidence its descendants were ever anything but Tiktaaliks. Period. We're also told that those horrible creationists want to consider not just the natural but the supernatural in their search for truth. But they think its find to redefine science as "natural" only. Cont.
Instead of worrying about Hovind, why not analyze the things Miller is saying? He "refutes" Behe's intelligent design argument with a mousetrap by mangling a trap & telling us to believe (as usual with no evidence) that it still kills mice, even when it has been demolished to mostly just a spring. Like most all evolutionists he also asks us to "believe" that "transitional" forms had descendants that led to such & such animals when there is 0 evidence for what their progeny were like. Cont.
As usual ken miller and richard dawkins refuse to debate kent hovind, because his arguements are so weak. Yeah right. If they are so wise, then they should collect their $250,000. Don't make fun of the offer, just present the evidence. Ken Miller is a bozo and many of his claims have indeed been refuted, yes even chromosome 2.
Abiogenesis has been tested in the lab. Look it up. The big bang has been tested in the lab as well, albiet by accident. Fortunately it was too small to have any impact when it happened. Look it up.
Agan, non-sequiter. I love my parents, and even though they're christian they're clearly more intelligent than you. And I don't have-or ever want-tatoos. Even if I did, how does that make me a bad person? A lot of people have tatoos of crosses with "Jesus" written on a banner. How can that be considered evil by your definition? It makes no sense.
@NUTCASE71733 : Your personal problems ARE important. Perhaps things aren't as bad as you believe them to be. Talk with your parents. Make them listen.
The only problem I got are creationists wanting to fuck up everyone's lives. And my parents hate you guys, even though they're christians too. As am I.
It's been so long since I've seen a serious Hovind defender. Those professors lose because they lack the ability to debate. Not because they are wrong. Have you ever seen the videos where the college student calls Kent and totally crushes him? It's because he has skill in debate.
A student calls Kent and crushes him? LOL! Are you kidding me. I've watched that entire debate. It was made to (look) like he owned him but if you've seen the whole thing it isn't. Kent ruins the student in just the first response about peer reviewed journals and the kid dodges it completely. If you understand the structure of debate usually one person has time to speak and the other defends. This was completely out of order, the student interrupts Kent the (entire) time. Purely unreasonable
No, I'm not kidding you. Even if he lost the point on peer reviewed journals, he won almost every single other point. Kent interrupts him as well. I know the structure of debate very well, I've been in forensics for three years. The problem is that on Kent's radio show, it is informal debate, not formal debate with structured speeches. I should have said that the college kid had skill in argumentation and quick thinking, which most professors, no offense to them, simply do not have.
He won because he wouldn't allow Kent to speak. Go back and watch it again. Every time Kent brings up an objection to his claims, he jumps in again and interrupts. Kent himself even asks when he's going to be able to speak.
That entire conversation wasn't a real debate. It was only a discussion. Real debates are carried out in front of an audience and table of judges where each person gets time to speak on both sides. That entire discussion was far from it.
I know what real debates are. I am in forensics. I do formal policy and LD debating. No, that was not a formal debate, clearly. But in its loosest form, a debate is simply an argument. Let's not get into semantic arguments. Both of them speak over each other.
@KingKumaForever Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins etc. don't debate because they know they will be publicly humilated. They make their scientifically false statements and assumptions in videos but down have the marbles to do it in public where there can be an instant rebuttal offered.
Try looking up a video called "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design". While not a debate, e totally trashes the concept. Deal with the fact America has the establishment clause in the constitution.
@micah1116 Once I saw someone make a scientifically false statement about new born stars, claiming that because we couldn't see them in a certain light spectrum we couldn't know they were being made. This completely ignored the fact that we could see the effects of the star formation and see the star in different spectra of light. I think the video was called "Newborn Stars?" That same guy also says Islam was created by Catholics.
@TheMathLife One time I saw a troll, oh wait. I didn't ignore anything, the article blatantly stated they could not see the stars, and made no mention on anything else. And if you would actually listen, I told you I don't have any views about islam anymore, I could really care less who created it. It's obvious to anyone the quaran is nothing but distorted biblical text, that's the only way you will get the common themes and stories.
@micah1116 you are right about stars formation and islam....themathlife is obviously ignorant .....especially when it comes to science and history....
@TheMathLife Tell you what, you've been saying for weeks you want to debate me, how about you do it instead of trolling and finding every video I comment on? I'll give you a link to a place you can come and debate me in. If you have time to find every video I comment on, then surely you have the time to have a discussion with me.
@TheMathLife i think that you are completel wrong kid....yes you are,micah1116 is correct about both,star formation and islam being created by catholics..if you studied history (including histricity of religions) you would know tht it was catholics i.e muhammads wife khadija and catholic monk waraqa who told muhammad that he is prophet...later waraqa together with nestorian local sect in arabian peninsula taught muhammad and everything he wrote in quarn was mixing of their teachings.....
@giska1000 As demonstrated by your awful grammar and spelling, you sir are extremely under educated. To know the origins of Islam you need not go to conspiracy theory websites, rather just read the Quran and Hadiths. Though that would be a truly intellectual endeavor, and I feel you are probably more comfortable lost in the wilderness of your own ignorance. Take care now.
@TheMathLife judging by your comment...yu re an extremly....blind little child...yre you??why dont you at least try to check on my channel and see if i am from usa or uk??i unfortunatelly for you dont know english like you do because my natives are greek and serbian,and beside them i also speak german,italian,spanish and russian because we need these languages here in europe...especially german...AND i also speak latin and hebrew(because of philosophy,history and biomedicine)...
@TheMathLife now..id ont know if you are some ,,psychic,, ...or maybe prophet...or just an lunatic wo thinks he knows me...but...i ll suggest you to stop making claims and describing people without knowing them first....so...your last part of comment ...NO...i am not lost in the wilderness..i was once an atheist...who studied science and then after came to know that there is a Creator..i...like every european i.e sceptic...went to study which one could be...so...yeah...beside BSc and MSc in....
@TheMathLife ...in biology,microbiology,biochemistry and genetics...i also own diplomas in philosophy and history...(yeah it includes historicity of religions)...so i studied as you know...beside other religions ...islam too..:)))...i read quran and hadith and whole historicity of islam and how it started...thats why i can clearly see that you newer even knew name of muhammads wife in first place,and you definitely dont know who is waraqa...actually..is there anything you know about islam???
@Kabane52 Why don't you use YOUR skill & debate & defend anyting whatsoever that Ken Miller has said using actual data and not "millions of years ago...could have...might have...probably....characteristics of....similar homology...." logical fallacies & "The Dover Court said so." And btw in the Dover Court we had a politcally appointed non scieince trained judge dictaing to people what science is & what it is not - with no constituional right to do so! "Science" abdicated to the state.
Hovind's arguments are total crap, and through them you see that he has no basic understanding of evolution. He really should do some learning about evolution as should you. In the end, even if you still don't believe evolution, you'll better understand that which you choose not to believe, and you can build your arguments much better than the crap Hovind spews forth.
and what "crap" is Hovind "spewing forth"? I think that evolution should be taken out of schools and the only ones who should "do some learning about evolution" should be the ones who want to deny God and put their faith in such an illogical theory.
Example: have you ever seen a monkey give birth to a human, or a frog give birth to a monkey?
Paraphrasing because I don't recall exact examples. It is misrepresentation of the theory and only serves to continue ignorance in the people who follow him. No evolutionist would say a monkey gives birth to a human or a frog to a monkey.
Evo says a monkey (or frog) will give birth to a very slightly different monkey (or frog), which may in turn have a very slightly further different monkey (or frog). The ones with differences that make them better will tend to reproduce more. This is called natural selection. Their children also will and so on, and their "difference" will become the new norm. Over long periods of time and isolation the differences add up and different species begin to emerge.
and as far as denying god...apparently the Roman Catholic Pope John_Paul II "denies god" in this manner because was accepting of evolution. It's true, Ben XVI apparently agrees that "Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism." If you're so against this being in school please don't have any children to put in those schools.
what a wonderful, well thought out, reasoned response. You should be in public speaking. My point is that if his goal truly is to convince people that evo is wrong. He could make a much more convincing anti-evo argument if he were to learn just a little about the idea rather than making absurd, and false, claims about what evo teaches.
Furthermore, millions of people manage to believe that evolution and faith in god are not mutually exclusive (including Ken Miller BTW) and that understanding fundamental biology doesn't mean you "deny god".
No. he made a mistake but he is definantley not a bad man. I can kind of see his motives for cheating his taxes. It still was a bold move though. I have to disagree that he doesn't know anything about evolution. He's very knowledgeable about the subject obviously.
"The reason Miller refused another debate was because he has no case"
Idiotic statement. Miller refuses to debate creationists because he would spend more time debunking and disproving their "evidence" then he would presenting his own! Glad you brought up Case for a Creator, it's been thoroughly debunked on YT by scientists.
also, do a search for "critical analysis hovind" and you will see the very same "evidence" you said was supported by fact be ridiculed with real science!
Also, look at this series of vids;
watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY there are NINE parts to it, but they are all relatively short. Kent's evidence is exposed in many of them. Shows how his ideas are based on idiot conjecture and NOT science.
"as far as I can find they are valid and his information is supported by fact"
Ridiculously untrue. Kent has more lies and fallacies in his presentations than ANY I have ever seen. I'd point you to a few examples, but his son had them illegally removed from YouTube, and I suspect will be joining his father in prison soon because of it.
Atheism seems to involve attacking the person and avoiding the arguements. The characteristics of denial. The scientific method fully supports creation and will continue to do so.
Now you said you are a Theistic Evolutionist right? How does it change the info that Hovind presents just because he's in jail? Much of the Bible that you supposivly believe was written by murderers and people who were crooks like tax collectors. Wise up
Check out your vid "Re: Re: Very few scientists support ID/Creationism!" for my challenge I gave you.
man! you are the coolest kid i've ever "met"! i'm going to subscribe to you, just so that i can support you. i love your attitude and awareness. keep on telling it like it is!
You put Dr. Miller's Dr. in quotes? He got his PhD from an accredited university, unlike Mr. Hovind. Give me one of Hovind's arguments. I will show you why it sucks.
"Dr." Dino got his degree from a one-room shack out in Colorado. His thesis is NOT available for public purview, and his work was NEVER submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Dr. Miller got his PhD from an accredited university, his thesis IS available, and his work has been submitted to NUMEROUS peer-reviewed journals.
I don't see why religious people have a problem with Miller, he's a pretty even-handed guy and a Catholic at that.
Well, you don't need to use kent's degree. There are many other scientist with a very well educational degree that doesn't believe in evolution neither.
My point was in response to someone saying that Kent Hovind's degree was somehow superior to Dr. Miller's.
I think you're mistaken about the other scientists. There may be other people with DEGREES (so called "experts") in science fields that disagree with Evolution -- but they are either in the slim minority or they are not scientists [being a scientist requires a strict adherence to the scientific method.]
There really isn't any debate in the science community over Evolution. It's been around for 150 years and NO ONE HAS EVER DISPROVEN IT. There are plenty of ways to falsify evolution, and NONE of them have EVER been found.
Do you know why? Because the scientific community must face a doctrine call Uniformitarianism. People can't disapprove evolution for the same reason people can't disapprove Intelligent Design. Is just just a simple interpretation that is shouldn't be teach in schools.
Evolution is easily disprovable. There a bunch of different ways to falsify Evolution. For example, if you found a modern animal, such as a chickadee, in the pre-Cambrian fossil layer, or if DNA sequences did not match fossil lineages, etc.
Intelligent Design is an idea born from ignorance. It's advocated by the same mindset of people that believed the sound barrier could never be broken, or that humans would never make it into space, etc.
Of course evolution is easily disprovable. DNA has nothing to do against Intelligent design at all. If you want to believe that we all are coming from a Rock (the creator of all organic life) then you really must have a lot more faith than what I do!!! All your statements has nothing to do against creation. Again is just all peoples interpretation and ignorance. Fossil record is the silliest "evidence" I ever heard. Regards.
No one in Evolution has EVER stated that we believe mankind came from a rock. Evolution merely states that all living organisms share a common ancestor.
I'm sorry that you are not intelligent enough to comprehend fossil evidence or understand the theory of evolution correctly.
Nice try, straw man??? I see why you still believe in evolution because you don't understand it enough. Evolutionist scientist think the planet was originally a rock which create volcano activities and water became to be. THEN all that stuff about common ancestor came to be. You need to read more before you post, regards...
If you can prove that those fossils got any babies or they reproduce something else than its kind I'll be glad to see it, don't say the fossil record is genuine. Only a miss interpretation of people is not intelligent enough to comprehend that!!!
If you are talking about evolution with variation within the same kind (I wont argue that) but use those fact to said things change from one kind to another is no science and NOT observable. What my English have to do? If you are talking about The Apocryphal Books that's has NOTHING to do with English language. And I do actually read the bible in any language I need, regards...
People incorrectly believe that mutations can never provide new information.
There have been numerous scientific observations in nature and controlled laboratory experiments that have shown an increase in complexity / genetic information.
Evolution isn't terribly difficult to understand, you just have to not be able to observe reality and not be blinded by faith.
If you're so convinced that creationism is the way to go, show me some evidence to support it.
Evidence for creationism is all around us. We have billions of connections into our bodies that is IMPOSSIBLE for a blind chance to do all that (so simple as that), and when science try to explain all that they just get screw because they can't handle it yet.
At what point does animal "A" become animal "B" then? What kind of transitional fossil would be required?
No one said that blind chance caused evolution; The randomness is the mutations, but natural selection determines which varieties live on.
Show me an instance where there is an impossible amount of complexity? Bacterial flagellum? Blood clotting? Go quote mine Michael Behe all you want, but science has already provided explanations.
1/3- Different mutations for gain or lose of information can produce like cows with 5 legs or pigs with 2 heads, but never a cat into a dog or any other kind of animal. I am not against speciation just against a kind been able to reproduce another kind. Horse, donkey, zebra, mule, they all are different species but the same kind of animal. If animals can produce different kind of animal we should see it happening now.
Fossil record is just an interpretation and an unproven method to assure what really belongs to what. If natural selection works is because it knows what is doing base on the information already have in it to be better adaptive to the environment. You mention Bacterial flagellum? Blood clotting? As many other things I heard from other evolutionist people. Well...what are you all expecting? To be like superman!
3/3- Religiously speaking we are here because we all are sinners and we need to die to reborn again. Then things will be much better there. How in the world the nothing knows we need teeth and a thong to taste and chew the food. How in first instance the nothing knows food exist. How the nothing know we need eyes to see! You have ONLY 2 choices, the nothing did it or God did it. If you believe the nothing did it, let me tell you WOW you have a lot of faith there.
We are all sinners needing to be born again? And you're telling me MY claim is based on faith?
You are presenting a false dichotomy -- disproving evolution (which hasn't been done yet) doesn't prove Creationism.
As for "the nothing" -- you are thinking backwards. Eyes, teeth, food -- these are all things we have now, but aren't necessary for absolute survival. (Jellyfish, for example, have neither eyes nor teeth and survive fine).
The fact that we HAVE evolved an organ to "see" (which is simply an electrochemical process ANYWAYS) or that we HAVE evolved teeth just makes us better suited for the position we currently hold.
If you had two organisms, one with "eyes" and one without, and they lived in an environment that was well-lit, the one with eyes will have a huge advantage, will probably find more food / dodge more predators, and will likely pass on its genes.
You aren't making any sense there. Natural selection is kind of a misleading term. There isn't really an "Active" selection process -- it's passive. If you and I are running from an angry tiger, and I'm slightly faster than you, then I am more likely to survive and eventually pass my (faster) genes on.
An animal doesn't just start producing a new species randomly. Large changes are the products of many small changes. The cetaceans (whales) are a terrific example of drastic changes over time, and are supported by dozens of transitional fossils. (Make sure you read about it and not just look at the pictures)
Sure I read. But make sure you read the bible and not just science. Again, your statements has nothing to do against creationist. Scientific people are desperate to prove evolution in laboratories and never done it yet an never will, that's why all this debates will keep going. Regards...
The bible has no scientific basis, therefore it has no place in a scientific discussion.
Scientists have been trying to DISPROVE evolution for 150 years and so far no one has been able to. You've got science backwards -- in science, something is postulated and then people try to prove it wrong. It's like carving a sculpture out of stone.
I agree, I don't think the bible should be mix into scientific class because it really goes beyond the scientific explanation can give us yet (as many things surround us science can't explain), neither evolution should be used in science class. Scientists tried to prove evolution wrong but they NEVER prove it right! That's why they stuck in the middle and as long they can't prove God exist in the way they want, then they will be stuck there forever! Evolution it is nothing but faith!
Ok -- proving God exists is *NOT* something Scientists will EVER concern themselves with.
You don't seem to understand how the scientific method works. Charles Darwin hypothesized 150 years ago what we now know as Evolution. In spite of 150 years of attempts to falsify Evolution, it STILL STANDS. When scientists refer to something as a "theory", that's the highest possible standing (above "fact" and separate but equal to "law").
Ok -- Science will NEVER try to prove / disprove God exists, since they deal strictly with the natural world.
Scientists aren't in the business of PROVING things, they try to DISPROVE things. Someone will state an idea attempting to explain something in nature, and then the scientific community tries to disprove it. If it's disproved, the original idea is revised (or discarded). Like I said before, it's like carving a sculpture. Not believing in Evolution is like not believing in Gravity.
Men! Gravity is a fact with unexplainable reasons taking effect over us but evolution is not happening at all, period. YES! Proving God indirectly like spiritual forces still in study of science (science is not only USA & have many areas besides evolution, ok!); just because you didn't heard about it doesn't mean is not happening. A quick example when scientist & doctors weight people right before they die & they notice they lose weight believing in spiritual entities have weight.
Evolution is NOT even a Theory. Evolutionists think that evolution was a fact making it a theory. Honestly you need study different areas of science beside evolution. Actually groups of scientist were selected to study the shroud of Turin & they can't even explain that (you can watch videos on that in the internet). Don't matter how many excuses you try to give me about evolution, is simply not provable!!! It is just pure faith. Is amazing how evolutionist can't get that!
evolutionvscreationism. info/Evolution%20vs.%20Creationism/Select%20Videos. html
Watch videos 2 and 3 -- they're short. Only a few minutes. Evolution IS indeed a theory. Check wiki, check ANYWHERE in the science community. evolution.berkeley. edu has some great information on it.
The shroud has been debunked:
shroud. com/bar.htm#article
It has been dated independently by many different people, and all counts point to within ~100 years of 1200AD. Time ran an article about it.
I already watched them all, but again all that are just assumptions it doesn't mean it happened. Why do you think animals before can do things that animals today can't do? I already sent you a website about scientist against evolution. Gravity is a fact but when they try to explain the reasons of it become a theory base on that fact. People tried to debunk Shroud of Turin fail; they did similar things using hi technology and even so never like the shroud.
I can't prove disprove evolution for the same reason science can't prove disprove God existence or even the bible itself. At least God existence is sooooooo much obviously through his design and evolution is just trying to write a movie script base on the facts. Anyway, I don't think souls have weight at all, just to show you how science tries to prove things besides God using similarities, even so I don't think they will never will like they expect, regards...
They are educated assumptions based on the doggedly persistent nature of evolutionary experiments being confirmed.
There are plenty of ways to falsify evolution -- really SIMPLE ways even. If any ONE of those things was found, evolution would be proved false, and THEN it would take faith to continue believing in it.
Put it this way -- what would it take for you to see Creationism falsified?
Kenn miller falsified Design as many other falsify evolution. How they can falsify Design if they never prove evolution. Let's get to the point, Miller say there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, PLEASE!!! mention to me briefly all the evidence and the best ones for evolution.
If you're asking these questions then you didn't watch the videos.
Design is falsified because the claims they are making (for example: irreducible complexity) are bogus. This is starkly different from Evo, which has yet to be debunked.
Here is a PERFECT response to your question:
religioustolerance. org/ev_disp.htm
It's an article titled "What would it take to disprove Evo?" And will directly address your concerns (it's even written from a skeptics perspective as well)
WHAAAAAT!!! NOW I SUPPOSE TO DISAPPROVE EVOLUTION WHEN THEY NEVER PROVE IT RIGHT??? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!! You are soooo bogus MEN! PERIOD! TELL ME WHAT FACT OR OBSERVATION SCIENCE MADE ABOUT EVOLUTION!!! Evolution need to prove the opposite of the intelligent design not design to disprove evolution!
One (of many) example of evidence in support of Evo:
Chimps (sharing 98% of our DNA) have 48 Chromosomes, Humans have 46. Upon closer examination of our chrom's, we find that two pairs of our chrom's have fused together to form a single pair. (This is proven by those two chrom's having twice as many centromeres and telomeres).
If we DIDN'T find that, it would have been devastating to the notion of common ancestry, as it would mean humans had inexplicably more chrom's than their chimp cousins.
Evolution has been is falsified MANY times but they never took it out BECAUSE evolution doesn't have a replacement theory AND because it doesn't have to be proven, only in people's minds!!! Otherwise they will have to face the creator theory! And some people don't like that idea. Evolution is just sooo busted. If you are not going to give me proves then just quit arguing evolution, regards.
Design has NEVER been falsified! Just because science doesn't understand yet some body part doesn't mean poor design! It means science need to go further than what they know so far!
Design stated the premise: "The bacterial flagellum must have been designed because it cannot function without all of its parts"
This was subsequently disproved when scientists found that from the 1st to 51st component of this organelle, each stage was functional, except it provided a slightly different function. This disproves the I.D. premise.
Similar debunkings have happened with other postulates.
Scientists, unlike creationists, are perfectly content to admit that they don't know an answer yet -- so not having a replacement theory is hardly a reason.
1/3- I encourage you to watch the first video I post in my account (creation evolution debate summary) regarding the Chromosomes on Chimps and Humans just at the beginning of the video & see why that chromosomes assumption is falsify very clearly. Again, watch this video about scientist that disproves evolution & explain why it is not working
Bacterial flagellum? There are so many things science doesn't know about bacteria yet not even creationist. Bacteria still bacteria & never changed over time. Don't give me that poor design when science actually keeps changing ideas over & over.
3/3- Believe me! Is going to be pretty hard science to prove creationist at least they go and question God personally! It don't matter how silly is the idea of evolution I don't think many science will go for creationism because that will mean some rules.
After you watch the video I post in my youtube account about chromosomes, you will see that I still waiting for you to prove me that evolution is truth, otherwise just quick arguing about evolution, regards...
Just curious -- English isn't your native language, right?
I never said evolution was "truth", all I've said is that it is a well-supported scientific theory.
You can stop arguing with me here at anytime. You obviously don't have a science background and are too ignorant to properly debate it. This has just been a series of gainsaying.
My point was that the bacterial flagellum is the poster example of intelligent design's notion of "irreducible complexity". It was summarily disproved by a number of scientists.
Your last statement is both meaningless and a tautology.
Science improves its ideas -- part of the whole idea of not being dogmatic. Crappy ideas are thrown out. Well-supported ideas are kept.
I write quickly & I typo, also speak Spanish. I think you're not reading carefully my statements, I don't think I said evolution was "truth"; all I am doing is ASKING YOU TO GIVE ME A WELL SUPPORT EVOLUTION FACT, OBSERVATION OR IDEA. Do you have any scientific background? If you do it really is a shame because I don't see any strong argument about science neither evolution.
You just sent me sites with complains about mediocre people that doesn't like other people, there are many people that contradicts evolution & NO ONE prove them wrong. You argue about everything as long as you don't give me a well explanation of evolution. You criticize everything but you never actually look why evolution is a well supported idea.
Again!!! YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN! You just told me evolution is a well-supported scientific theory & I still waiting for you to tell me & show me WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory???????????? I am tired asking you the same thing over & over!!!!!!!
Evo is a well-supported theory because what we actually find in nature (facts) support what evolution has theorized.
For example, IF evo were not true, then we would expect to see intermingling of fossils in the geologic column. But we don't -- we see very clear strata and a clear transition of morphologies.
NOVA had a show on the other night called "Judgement Day". It's about the Dover, PA trial of intelligent design. You should check it out.
There ARE many people that disagree with evolution, but generally their arguments are based on a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of science.
One thing I would like to know is what YOUR qualifications are for engaging in this discussion. Do you work in a science field? Did you go to school for it?
You still have yet to answer MY question regarding a specific example of evo being falsified. NOT JUST CONTRADICTED, but actually falsified.
Yes, I have a scientific background. Just because you don't understand my arguments doesn't mean they aren't strong.
The fossil record/geological column supports evo, as does the succession of DNA, as does various laboratory experiments and pretty much all of modern biology. This is something that is so blatantly obvious to anyone that works with science directly and doesn't just read creationist propaganda.
FWIW, I don't see our discussion making any progress. You clearly don't understand science / scientific method enough to properly discuss this with me and have consistently dodged my requests for both falsification of evo or something that could potentially falsify creationism.
If you want to continue this, I would prefer to do it via email, so we aren't constrained to 500 characters or less per post.
You know why you tried to avoid my question because none of those arguments that support evolution are scientifically prove & testable! All those are just base on assumptions! You know that! I understand pretty well any definition so far because sometimes I used dictionaries thanks to the internet. As long as evolutionist scientists don't try to accept Intelligent design, they'll be always be stuck with the silliest ideas.
Going further, there are so many similarities between humans & other animals & plants, besides humans & chimps! For example the human eyeball similarity is closest to the octopus. The human milk is closest to a jackass. Our cytochrome c is more similar to a sunflower (depend what you want to compare). With DNA you might prove variation WITHIN the same kind of animal; but NOTHING from one kind to a different kind (it is not scientifically proved).
Again, you can't use fossil record to prove nothing but it died. A) There is NO way you can prove if that fossil got any kid. b) You can't prove that they produce something different that its kind. C) What fossil really belong to what. If you mix tall & small humans, monkeys & gorillas then someone will have to looks alike. Evolution is not even a theory (it is blatantly obvious!), If that's the best well supported evolutionist evidence then I don't think we need to keep discussing evolution.
I'm not using fossil record to PROVE anything. The fossil record SUPPORTS evo. If the fossil record were not as it is, it would DISPROVE evo.
A small human does NOT look like a tall monkey, there are significant differences in bone structure. Any paleontologist could tell you that. Evo IS a theory, as stated earlier, for many reasons aside what I've mentioned here.
Everything you just mentioned ALL supports Evo. The human eyeball is more closely similar to the chimp, but the octopus may be the oldest example of an ocular sensor. All of these similarities suggest common ancestor.
Let me ask you this -- if you have an organism, and you make small changes to it, and then small changes to THAT one, and then small changes to THAT one -- eventually you'll end up with an entirely different organism.
As a theory, ID doesn't explain vestigial organs/limbs, it doesn't explain the many inefficiencies found in the so-called "Design", nor does it explain the existence of ERV's and pseudo-genes.
Vestigial limbs, inefficiencies in development, pseudogenes -- all of these things support evolutionary theory due to gradual progression.
You still haven't answered my question about what qualifications you have for arguing with me about this. If you are not in a science field or have not been educated in it, then you really have no business arguing over this because you won't understand the significance of what I'm talking about.
No! Every time evolutionists see something they try to make it fit into evolution "theory". Let explain, I am making a movie (artzoneproductions. com), is some about the planet is going to be naturally destroy & the way it will be happen is making the moon fall into the planet destroying almost everything. Now this is pretty much not possible because the moon is actually leaving the planet, so I am trying to use all logical possible and some laws to make it pretty realistic & believable.
You can use anything surround us to make evolution possible with some imagination (even if it is not truth). About organism there're changes & variation but certainly limits to the variations, there will be a moment that those changes will have to stop or regress. There are huge changes but NEVER capable to change us to a different kind. Sci's evolution is just pure imagination & keeps trying somehow make everything fit into evolution, using nothing but imagination & NOT scientific proves.
You mention pseudogenes but you forgot to mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics. "Vestigial structures" is not an argument for I.D. is just an argument for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Nothing creates itself & everything degrades over time (which is the opposite of evolution). There are so many things that science believed we have as "vestigial structures" & now they are proving the opposite over time.
We & animals share many things in common because God create us with natural components from this planet so we can survive! & evolutionist are try to use that on their own favor.
EDUCATION? All I read from here is just high school knowledge. If they taught you evolution in your school you need to sue them because they just make you all waste looooots of time. Usually when somebody starts attacking other people is because they can't really prove anything distracting the attention in other way. Just go & read the bible because you will really need it, Best regards.
Don't try to redirect here with ad hominem attacks. I asked you a very specific question about YOUR education and what gives YOU the right to debate this, and you have yet to make good on it. Are you a liberal arts major? Have you gone to college at all? I have read the bible; it's entertaining, but not science.
So AGAIN, I ask, what is your educational background and what justification do I have for believing anything out of your mouth? ("i've read the bible" doesn't cut it.)
"Everything degrades over time" is NOT what Entropy is. Entropy (2nd law) is COMMONLY misunderstood. Entropy says that disorder increases in a CLOSED SYSTEM. Simply adding in the radiation from the sun is enough to create an system where disorder can decrease. PLEASE read up on scientific concepts before you go incorrectly citing them again.
Entropy is NOT defined as "everything degrades over time" although this is a common misconception. Entropy is generally defined as "in a CLOSED SYSTEM, disorder increases over time". However, something like the sun's radiation is enough to create an open system and thus decrease disorder. Please read up on your scientific concepts before you go incorrectly citing them. This is one concept that I'm CONSTANTLY correcting YEC's on.
Vestigial structures are not even remotely related to entropy. Vestigial limbs are limbs (such as human tail bones, or the appendix) that we have inherited, but are unnecessary. If we were designed, then there would be no need for vestigial limbs to be created. Whales and cetacean ancestors have vestigial legs as well.
It's not like Darwin got drunk and thought up evolution, and then retroactively tried to fit everything to it (that sounds a bit more like quantum strings). Scientists don't observe things and try to make them fit -- they think "What could falsify evo" and then look for the evidence that would falsify it. And every time, they find the OPPOSITE.
I just got your email. I'm Electrical Eng. (I leave in US) (so I know math, biology and chemistry). I used to believe in evolution, but since I got deeper I just realize it is a very silly idea with no scientific support. You really need to get better in evolution (you're deceived). Hopefully evolution doesn't make chemistry worst! There are several versions of the second law, but they all have the same result. "Entropy is one concept that you're CONSTANTLY correcting?". Let me help.
You really have A LOT OF MISCONCEPTIONS & FALLACIES! "YES!!! The 2nd law said: The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining & disorder increases in a closed system is just one of others. So yes! Things degrade over time and tend to disorder. Just reread your scientific concepts! There is NOOO way you can arrange order from disorder if there is NOT a smart design behind it. There must be something to arrange things.
WHAT! Human tail bones & appendix are vestigial? I really start getting worry about chemistry. If we really got a tail from the ancestor & now we don't because is we no longer need it, quit lying! I which we have one! Appendix is NOT VESTIGIAL!!! It is been proven to be part of the immune system. You can leave without it! Like you can leave without your arms, it doesn't mean you don't need them. Is like if you are missing a finger. You don't need it but the rest of your fingers have to work out.
Nostradamus made lot more predictions than Darwin! It doesn't mean ANYTHING! It is call PURE COINCIDENCE. Science don't need to be worry how to falsify evolution, they need to be worry HOW TO PROVE IT. I don't see any valid argument against I.D. here. Evolution NEVER did anything in advanced of ANYTHING. I am tired you keep using Origin of life with electromagnetism, gravity, astronomy, etc.
Evolution IS NOT SCIENCE! Is NOT observable, testable or demonstrable! Medicine is! Evolution is NOT. Did you get it? I don't have anything against people who believe in evo. It goes against Christianity! You are the one star the argument. You can be sooo technical in language but never able to prove evolution, where is the evidence? I guess Chemistry is so complicated for people that they don't even know what is going on with evo!
You really think that evolution is base on rational thinking? Fictions movies have loot more rational thinking (including Godzilla) than evolution! You want me to consider what if I am wrong; well nothing will happen to us when we die. But you need to consider more the idea if I am right because if I am right is going to be too late for all of you. HOW ABOUT THAT, HU! Regards.
I would rather fight for support of evo and benefit humanity at large, even if it means that ultimately I burn.
Theocratic nations SUFFER developmentally. Anyone in the Arab world will testify to that.
If you are wrong, nothing may happen when you die, but I'm more worried about the fact that the lies you're spreading are affecting everyone else while they live!
Look -- as much as I'm sure everyone else is enjoying this, if you want to continue arguing me, email me. You have my address.
It's pointless to continue this since we are quite literally gainsaying each other. This isn't even an argument anymore since we're not working towards any kind of mutual conclusion.
If Evolution was falsified by someone it would be the most groundbreaking scientific achievement ever. But since you're an electrical engineer I'm sure you're aware of that.
Evo goes against the book of Genesis, and can exist in perfect harmony with the remainder of the Bible. There are plenty of other things in the bible that people ignore, so why not the creation myth?
what exactly is a "kind"? is it a species? a genus, order, class, family, or kingdom?
perhaps we could look to the bible for the answer. God told noah to bring 2 of each kind, one and its MATE. now, 2 animals that can breed and produce offspring are the same species. since spciation has been observed, animals can change between kinds. you sir, phail
Cont. So..Yeshua could create time, space, matter & energy & this vast beyond imagining universe with all of its laws of nature, ..and you can believe that if you want, but don't you dare believe that He could also create animal & plant life fully formed? Evolution is based on the illogical, even the absurd. It is a system where speculations are presented as evidence piled on logical fallacies, where dissenters are ridiculed - or worse. Come out of the matrix.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
Cont. For ex. in Nature Magazine a scientist says "Even if all the data [!!} points to an intelligent designer such an hypothesis is excluded...since it's not natural." Gee, I thought science was the search for truth whereverer it leads. Miller also said on a Colbert show, here in a YT clip, that as an RC he believes Yeshua, aka Jesus, "Created all that is seen and unseen" Then he holds workshops on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design." So Yeshua was stupid when He designed all this? Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
Cont. He tells us Tiktaalik "is as good as it gets" for a transitional form. He's right about that. The fossil is 100% But o, yeal it has "characteristics" of a tetrapod. But it's 100% fish & again there is 0 evidence its descendants were ever anything but Tiktaaliks. Period. We're also told that those horrible creationists want to consider not just the natural but the supernatural in their search for truth. But they think its find to redefine science as "natural" only. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
Instead of worrying about Hovind, why not analyze the things Miller is saying? He "refutes" Behe's intelligent design argument with a mousetrap by mangling a trap & telling us to believe (as usual with no evidence) that it still kills mice, even when it has been demolished to mostly just a spring. Like most all evolutionists he also asks us to "believe" that "transitional" forms had descendants that led to such & such animals when there is 0 evidence for what their progeny were like. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
As usual ken miller and richard dawkins refuse to debate kent hovind, because his arguements are so weak. Yeah right. If they are so wise, then they should collect their $250,000. Don't make fun of the offer, just present the evidence. Ken Miller is a bozo and many of his claims have indeed been refuted, yes even chromosome 2.
micah1116 2 years ago
you can't win the 250,000 by proving evolution. go read the challenge. you need to prove abiogenesis, wat happend before the big bang.
and after proving all that you need to prove that beyond any doubt that this is the only way that this could have occured. which can never be proven.
cheetmeister 2 years ago
@cheetmeister
Abiogenesis has been tested in the lab. Look it up. The big bang has been tested in the lab as well, albiet by accident. Fortunately it was too small to have any impact when it happened. Look it up.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
"The New York Times" is only good for playing fetch, shooing flies, lining bird cages & kitty litter boxes, wrapping fish guts & starting fires.
ParadiseOnLand 2 years ago
@ParadiseOnLand
You mistake the bible for the New York Times.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 : Your gripe is with Mom & Dad.
ParadiseOnLand 9 months ago
@ParadiseOnLand
Your statement is a non-sequiter, therefore you have no argument.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 : You want to punish your parents for their alleged failures. You have tattoos or you're contemplating tattoos...
ParadiseOnLand 9 months ago
@ParadiseOnLand
Agan, non-sequiter. I love my parents, and even though they're christian they're clearly more intelligent than you. And I don't have-or ever want-tatoos. Even if I did, how does that make me a bad person? A lot of people have tatoos of crosses with "Jesus" written on a banner. How can that be considered evil by your definition? It makes no sense.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 : Check your spelling. Have an adult proof-read.
ParadiseOnLand 9 months ago
@ParadiseOnLand
Get your head examined. Then again you'd have to see an "evil athiest scientist" to do it lol.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 : Your personal problems ARE important. Perhaps things aren't as bad as you believe them to be. Talk with your parents. Make them listen.
ParadiseOnLand 9 months ago
@ParadiseOnLand
The only problem I got are creationists wanting to fuck up everyone's lives. And my parents hate you guys, even though they're christians too. As am I.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 : Yes, that's quite a problem. In a couple of years you'll be driving an automobile and dating a football player.
ParadiseOnLand 9 months ago
@ParadiseOnLand
Has nothing to do with what I said, so I win.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 : And you also used the F-word...spelled it right and everything.
ParadiseOnLand 9 months ago
Everyone backs down to Hovind because the people who stepped up got reamed. Watch the debates on youtube. You be the judge!
gavinmajors 2 years ago
It's been so long since I've seen a serious Hovind defender. Those professors lose because they lack the ability to debate. Not because they are wrong. Have you ever seen the videos where the college student calls Kent and totally crushes him? It's because he has skill in debate.
Kabane52 2 years ago
A student calls Kent and crushes him? LOL! Are you kidding me. I've watched that entire debate. It was made to (look) like he owned him but if you've seen the whole thing it isn't. Kent ruins the student in just the first response about peer reviewed journals and the kid dodges it completely. If you understand the structure of debate usually one person has time to speak and the other defends. This was completely out of order, the student interrupts Kent the (entire) time. Purely unreasonable
KingKumaForever 2 years ago
No, I'm not kidding you. Even if he lost the point on peer reviewed journals, he won almost every single other point. Kent interrupts him as well. I know the structure of debate very well, I've been in forensics for three years. The problem is that on Kent's radio show, it is informal debate, not formal debate with structured speeches. I should have said that the college kid had skill in argumentation and quick thinking, which most professors, no offense to them, simply do not have.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
He won because he wouldn't allow Kent to speak. Go back and watch it again. Every time Kent brings up an objection to his claims, he jumps in again and interrupts. Kent himself even asks when he's going to be able to speak.
That entire conversation wasn't a real debate. It was only a discussion. Real debates are carried out in front of an audience and table of judges where each person gets time to speak on both sides. That entire discussion was far from it.
KingKumaForever 2 years ago
I know what real debates are. I am in forensics. I do formal policy and LD debating. No, that was not a formal debate, clearly. But in its loosest form, a debate is simply an argument. Let's not get into semantic arguments. Both of them speak over each other.
Kabane52 2 years ago
Exactly, so saying that the supposed (skilled) student crushed Kent in a debate is (also) a very loosed term...
Wouldn't you say?
In other words we could (equally) conclude that Kent just lost an argument (in which he had no stake in) and not an (actual) debate.
KingKumaForever 2 years ago
@KingKumaForever Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins etc. don't debate because they know they will be publicly humilated. They make their scientifically false statements and assumptions in videos but down have the marbles to do it in public where there can be an instant rebuttal offered.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116
Try looking up a video called "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design". While not a debate, e totally trashes the concept. Deal with the fact America has the establishment clause in the constitution.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@micah1116 Once I saw someone make a scientifically false statement about new born stars, claiming that because we couldn't see them in a certain light spectrum we couldn't know they were being made. This completely ignored the fact that we could see the effects of the star formation and see the star in different spectra of light. I think the video was called "Newborn Stars?" That same guy also says Islam was created by Catholics.
Still researching cetaceans, good stuff!
TheMathLife 7 months ago
@TheMathLife One time I saw a troll, oh wait. I didn't ignore anything, the article blatantly stated they could not see the stars, and made no mention on anything else. And if you would actually listen, I told you I don't have any views about islam anymore, I could really care less who created it. It's obvious to anyone the quaran is nothing but distorted biblical text, that's the only way you will get the common themes and stories.
micah1116 7 months ago
@micah1116 you are right about stars formation and islam....themathlife is obviously ignorant .....especially when it comes to science and history....
giska1000 7 months ago
@TheMathLife Tell you what, you've been saying for weeks you want to debate me, how about you do it instead of trolling and finding every video I comment on? I'll give you a link to a place you can come and debate me in. If you have time to find every video I comment on, then surely you have the time to have a discussion with me.
micah1116 7 months ago
@TheMathLife i think that you are completel wrong kid....yes you are,micah1116 is correct about both,star formation and islam being created by catholics..if you studied history (including histricity of religions) you would know tht it was catholics i.e muhammads wife khadija and catholic monk waraqa who told muhammad that he is prophet...later waraqa together with nestorian local sect in arabian peninsula taught muhammad and everything he wrote in quarn was mixing of their teachings.....
giska1000 7 months ago
@giska1000 As demonstrated by your awful grammar and spelling, you sir are extremely under educated. To know the origins of Islam you need not go to conspiracy theory websites, rather just read the Quran and Hadiths. Though that would be a truly intellectual endeavor, and I feel you are probably more comfortable lost in the wilderness of your own ignorance. Take care now.
TheMathLife 7 months ago
@TheMathLife judging by your comment...yu re an extremly....blind little child...yre you??why dont you at least try to check on my channel and see if i am from usa or uk??i unfortunatelly for you dont know english like you do because my natives are greek and serbian,and beside them i also speak german,italian,spanish and russian because we need these languages here in europe...especially german...AND i also speak latin and hebrew(because of philosophy,history and biomedicine)...
giska1000 7 months ago
@TheMathLife now..id ont know if you are some ,,psychic,, ...or maybe prophet...or just an lunatic wo thinks he knows me...but...i ll suggest you to stop making claims and describing people without knowing them first....so...your last part of comment ...NO...i am not lost in the wilderness..i was once an atheist...who studied science and then after came to know that there is a Creator..i...like every european i.e sceptic...went to study which one could be...so...yeah...beside BSc and MSc in....
giska1000 7 months ago
@TheMathLife ...in biology,microbiology,biochemistry and genetics...i also own diplomas in philosophy and history...(yeah it includes historicity of religions)...so i studied as you know...beside other religions ...islam too..:)))...i read quran and hadith and whole historicity of islam and how it started...thats why i can clearly see that you newer even knew name of muhammads wife in first place,and you definitely dont know who is waraqa...actually..is there anything you know about islam???
giska1000 7 months ago
@giska1000 lol @ you.
TheMathLife 7 months ago
@Kabane52 Why don't you use YOUR skill & debate & defend anyting whatsoever that Ken Miller has said using actual data and not "millions of years ago...could have...might have...probably....characteristics of....similar homology...." logical fallacies & "The Dover Court said so." And btw in the Dover Court we had a politcally appointed non scieince trained judge dictaing to people what science is & what it is not - with no constituional right to do so! "Science" abdicated to the state.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
Right, like those 200,000 peer-reviewed papers that he and his cronies published on Creation.
Oh wait- they were on EVOLUTION!
pyropakman 2 years ago
it's because you are a coward
RoadKillTube 3 years ago
Dr. Miller's a classy dude to take the time to respond to individual e-mails from people.
Mattyouarebeingglib 3 years ago
gay mother fuker
GeorgeKatehis 3 years ago
what a well thought out, non judgmental, completely topical comment.... :S
eddygoombah 3 years ago
are you ? how nice ;)
mattpbent 3 years ago
id like to see miller vs hovindxD
Erech01 4 years ago 3
Thats like watching a war with china vs. lebanon. Hovind being lebanon of course.
knightoftheroundvaan 3 years ago
how about miller & dawkins vs. hovind and ham:P even more pwnage:P
Erech01 3 years ago
furndop is getting annoying now-.-
Erech01 3 years ago
ofcourse to watch on youtube, or to watch it myself:P that would be amusing
Erech01 3 years ago
Hovind's arguments are total crap, and through them you see that he has no basic understanding of evolution. He really should do some learning about evolution as should you. In the end, even if you still don't believe evolution, you'll better understand that which you choose not to believe, and you can build your arguments much better than the crap Hovind spews forth.
9045732 4 years ago 2
and what "crap" is Hovind "spewing forth"? I think that evolution should be taken out of schools and the only ones who should "do some learning about evolution" should be the ones who want to deny God and put their faith in such an illogical theory.
xXTheRatXx 4 years ago
Example: have you ever seen a monkey give birth to a human, or a frog give birth to a monkey?
Paraphrasing because I don't recall exact examples. It is misrepresentation of the theory and only serves to continue ignorance in the people who follow him. No evolutionist would say a monkey gives birth to a human or a frog to a monkey.
9045732 4 years ago
Evo says a monkey (or frog) will give birth to a very slightly different monkey (or frog), which may in turn have a very slightly further different monkey (or frog). The ones with differences that make them better will tend to reproduce more. This is called natural selection. Their children also will and so on, and their "difference" will become the new norm. Over long periods of time and isolation the differences add up and different species begin to emerge.
9045732 4 years ago
and as far as denying god...apparently the Roman Catholic Pope John_Paul II "denies god" in this manner because was accepting of evolution. It's true, Ben XVI apparently agrees that "Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism." If you're so against this being in school please don't have any children to put in those schools.
9045732 4 years ago
You are astoundingly stupid.
YouPrick 4 years ago
what a wonderful, well thought out, reasoned response. You should be in public speaking. My point is that if his goal truly is to convince people that evo is wrong. He could make a much more convincing anti-evo argument if he were to learn just a little about the idea rather than making absurd, and false, claims about what evo teaches.
9045732 4 years ago
Furthermore, millions of people manage to believe that evolution and faith in god are not mutually exclusive (including Ken Miller BTW) and that understanding fundamental biology doesn't mean you "deny god".
9045732 4 years ago
But then I forget that Hovind's true goal is to make money, exploit believers and take their money. As evidenced by his recent arrest and conviction.
9045732 4 years ago
No. he made a mistake but he is definantley not a bad man. I can kind of see his motives for cheating his taxes. It still was a bold move though. I have to disagree that he doesn't know anything about evolution. He's very knowledgeable about the subject obviously.
xXTheRatXx 4 years ago
Go to thunderf00t channel and watch
Why people laugh at creationists
He blows hovind away.
knightoftheroundvaan 3 years ago
'He blows hovind away. '
along with the whole creationist/ID crusade:P
Erech01 3 years ago
That's your opinion. I think I'm pretty smart. You don't even know me so I'll take my opinion over yours.
xXTheRatXx 4 years ago
"The reason Miller refused another debate was because he has no case"
Idiotic statement. Miller refuses to debate creationists because he would spend more time debunking and disproving their "evidence" then he would presenting his own! Glad you brought up Case for a Creator, it's been thoroughly debunked on YT by scientists.
lennyhipp 4 years ago
see watch?v=uH3i4a6HSGs
and watch?v=bFm8uCZ6Uoc
also, do a search for "critical analysis hovind" and you will see the very same "evidence" you said was supported by fact be ridiculed with real science!
Also, look at this series of vids;
watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY there are NINE parts to it, but they are all relatively short. Kent's evidence is exposed in many of them. Shows how his ideas are based on idiot conjecture and NOT science.
lennyhipp 4 years ago
"as far as I can find they are valid and his information is supported by fact"
Ridiculously untrue. Kent has more lies and fallacies in his presentations than ANY I have ever seen. I'd point you to a few examples, but his son had them illegally removed from YouTube, and I suspect will be joining his father in prison soon because of it.
lennyhipp 4 years ago
Atheism seems to involve attacking the person and avoiding the arguements. The characteristics of denial. The scientific method fully supports creation and will continue to do so.
warriorprince1010 4 years ago
Thanks for the update :)
therealsmack 4 years ago
I am still trying to figure out if you are a chic or a dude.
spoofmaloof 4 years ago
poor kid... lol
PoliticalCapp02 4 years ago
Really important and relevant comment.
Nice work.
peterhent 4 years ago
dude
spoofmaloof 4 years ago
Now you said you are a Theistic Evolutionist right? How does it change the info that Hovind presents just because he's in jail? Much of the Bible that you supposivly believe was written by murderers and people who were crooks like tax collectors. Wise up
Check out your vid "Re: Re: Very few scientists support ID/Creationism!" for my challenge I gave you.
WatchGuy7 4 years ago
ahahahahahahahaha!! please!
marklethanarkle 4 years ago
man! you are the coolest kid i've ever "met"! i'm going to subscribe to you, just so that i can support you. i love your attitude and awareness. keep on telling it like it is!
marklethanarkle 4 years ago
It definitely looks like "Dr." Ken Miller is afraid of Dr. Kent Hovind!
fernandop1 4 years ago
You put Dr. Miller's Dr. in quotes? He got his PhD from an accredited university, unlike Mr. Hovind. Give me one of Hovind's arguments. I will show you why it sucks.
Kabane52 4 years ago
Well listen to these scientist and biologist guys with Ph.D. and let see who sucks more (watch for the space on the DOT):
video.google. com/videoplay?docid=6659285782452089140&hl=en
Hope you like it, enjoy.
fernandop1 4 years ago
"Dr." Dino got his degree from a one-room shack out in Colorado. His thesis is NOT available for public purview, and his work was NEVER submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Dr. Miller got his PhD from an accredited university, his thesis IS available, and his work has been submitted to NUMEROUS peer-reviewed journals.
I don't see why religious people have a problem with Miller, he's a pretty even-handed guy and a Catholic at that.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Well, you don't need to use kent's degree. There are many other scientist with a very well educational degree that doesn't believe in evolution neither.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
My point was in response to someone saying that Kent Hovind's degree was somehow superior to Dr. Miller's.
I think you're mistaken about the other scientists. There may be other people with DEGREES (so called "experts") in science fields that disagree with Evolution -- but they are either in the slim minority or they are not scientists [being a scientist requires a strict adherence to the scientific method.]
elecmahm 4 years ago
There really isn't any debate in the science community over Evolution. It's been around for 150 years and NO ONE HAS EVER DISPROVEN IT. There are plenty of ways to falsify evolution, and NONE of them have EVER been found.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Do you know why? Because the scientific community must face a doctrine call Uniformitarianism. People can't disapprove evolution for the same reason people can't disapprove Intelligent Design. Is just just a simple interpretation that is shouldn't be teach in schools.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Evolution is easily disprovable. There a bunch of different ways to falsify Evolution. For example, if you found a modern animal, such as a chickadee, in the pre-Cambrian fossil layer, or if DNA sequences did not match fossil lineages, etc.
Intelligent Design is an idea born from ignorance. It's advocated by the same mindset of people that believed the sound barrier could never be broken, or that humans would never make it into space, etc.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Of course evolution is easily disprovable. DNA has nothing to do against Intelligent design at all. If you want to believe that we all are coming from a Rock (the creator of all organic life) then you really must have a lot more faith than what I do!!! All your statements has nothing to do against creation. Again is just all peoples interpretation and ignorance. Fossil record is the silliest "evidence" I ever heard. Regards.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Nice try, straw man.
No one in Evolution has EVER stated that we believe mankind came from a rock. Evolution merely states that all living organisms share a common ancestor.
I'm sorry that you are not intelligent enough to comprehend fossil evidence or understand the theory of evolution correctly.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Nice try, straw man??? I see why you still believe in evolution because you don't understand it enough. Evolutionist scientist think the planet was originally a rock which create volcano activities and water became to be. THEN all that stuff about common ancestor came to be. You need to read more before you post, regards...
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
If you can prove that those fossils got any babies or they reproduce something else than its kind I'll be glad to see it, don't say the fossil record is genuine. Only a miss interpretation of people is not intelligent enough to comprehend that!!!
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
evolution sounds so stuppid not even evolutionists want to addmit they believe they come from rocks LMAO.Keep fighting the good fight HushAndLearn.
bluevaines 4 years ago
HushAndLearn:
You're confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis. Evolution is a proven theory that specifies descent with modification.
It's entirely reasonable to believe that a God created DNA and that life spawned from it.
Judging by your poor use of the English language I'd say that you probably don't read many books that aren't in the bible.
(Bluevaines: you aren't much better)
elecmahm 4 years ago
If you are talking about evolution with variation within the same kind (I wont argue that) but use those fact to said things change from one kind to another is no science and NOT observable. What my English have to do? If you are talking about The Apocryphal Books that's has NOTHING to do with English language. And I do actually read the bible in any language I need, regards...
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
People incorrectly believe that mutations can never provide new information.
There have been numerous scientific observations in nature and controlled laboratory experiments that have shown an increase in complexity / genetic information.
Evolution isn't terribly difficult to understand, you just have to not be able to observe reality and not be blinded by faith.
If you're so convinced that creationism is the way to go, show me some evidence to support it.
elecmahm 4 years ago
I know about mutations and they all still into the same kind of animal. Watch this video regarding all that (watch for spaces):
video.google. com/videoplay?docid=6659285782452089140
Evidence for creationism is all around us. We have billions of connections into our bodies that is IMPOSSIBLE for a blind chance to do all that (so simple as that), and when science try to explain all that they just get screw because they can't handle it yet.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
At what point does animal "A" become animal "B" then? What kind of transitional fossil would be required?
No one said that blind chance caused evolution; The randomness is the mutations, but natural selection determines which varieties live on.
Show me an instance where there is an impossible amount of complexity? Bacterial flagellum? Blood clotting? Go quote mine Michael Behe all you want, but science has already provided explanations.
elecmahm 4 years ago
1/3- Different mutations for gain or lose of information can produce like cows with 5 legs or pigs with 2 heads, but never a cat into a dog or any other kind of animal. I am not against speciation just against a kind been able to reproduce another kind. Horse, donkey, zebra, mule, they all are different species but the same kind of animal. If animals can produce different kind of animal we should see it happening now.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Fossil record is just an interpretation and an unproven method to assure what really belongs to what. If natural selection works is because it knows what is doing base on the information already have in it to be better adaptive to the environment. You mention Bacterial flagellum? Blood clotting? As many other things I heard from other evolutionist people. Well...what are you all expecting? To be like superman!
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
3/3- Religiously speaking we are here because we all are sinners and we need to die to reborn again. Then things will be much better there. How in the world the nothing knows we need teeth and a thong to taste and chew the food. How in first instance the nothing knows food exist. How the nothing know we need eyes to see! You have ONLY 2 choices, the nothing did it or God did it. If you believe the nothing did it, let me tell you WOW you have a lot of faith there.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
We are all sinners needing to be born again? And you're telling me MY claim is based on faith?
You are presenting a false dichotomy -- disproving evolution (which hasn't been done yet) doesn't prove Creationism.
As for "the nothing" -- you are thinking backwards. Eyes, teeth, food -- these are all things we have now, but aren't necessary for absolute survival. (Jellyfish, for example, have neither eyes nor teeth and survive fine).
elecmahm 4 years ago
The fact that we HAVE evolved an organ to "see" (which is simply an electrochemical process ANYWAYS) or that we HAVE evolved teeth just makes us better suited for the position we currently hold.
If you had two organisms, one with "eyes" and one without, and they lived in an environment that was well-lit, the one with eyes will have a huge advantage, will probably find more food / dodge more predators, and will likely pass on its genes.
elecmahm 4 years ago
You aren't making any sense there. Natural selection is kind of a misleading term. There isn't really an "Active" selection process -- it's passive. If you and I are running from an angry tiger, and I'm slightly faster than you, then I am more likely to survive and eventually pass my (faster) genes on.
elecmahm 4 years ago
An animal doesn't just start producing a new species randomly. Large changes are the products of many small changes. The cetaceans (whales) are a terrific example of drastic changes over time, and are supported by dozens of transitional fossils. (Make sure you read about it and not just look at the pictures)
elecmahm 4 years ago
Sure I read. But make sure you read the bible and not just science. Again, your statements has nothing to do against creationist. Scientific people are desperate to prove evolution in laboratories and never done it yet an never will, that's why all this debates will keep going. Regards...
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
The bible has no scientific basis, therefore it has no place in a scientific discussion.
Scientists have been trying to DISPROVE evolution for 150 years and so far no one has been able to. You've got science backwards -- in science, something is postulated and then people try to prove it wrong. It's like carving a sculpture out of stone.
elecmahm 4 years ago
I agree, I don't think the bible should be mix into scientific class because it really goes beyond the scientific explanation can give us yet (as many things surround us science can't explain), neither evolution should be used in science class. Scientists tried to prove evolution wrong but they NEVER prove it right! That's why they stuck in the middle and as long they can't prove God exist in the way they want, then they will be stuck there forever! Evolution it is nothing but faith!
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Ok -- proving God exists is *NOT* something Scientists will EVER concern themselves with.
You don't seem to understand how the scientific method works. Charles Darwin hypothesized 150 years ago what we now know as Evolution. In spite of 150 years of attempts to falsify Evolution, it STILL STANDS. When scientists refer to something as a "theory", that's the highest possible standing (above "fact" and separate but equal to "law").
elecmahm 4 years ago
Ok -- Science will NEVER try to prove / disprove God exists, since they deal strictly with the natural world.
Scientists aren't in the business of PROVING things, they try to DISPROVE things. Someone will state an idea attempting to explain something in nature, and then the scientific community tries to disprove it. If it's disproved, the original idea is revised (or discarded). Like I said before, it's like carving a sculpture. Not believing in Evolution is like not believing in Gravity.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Men! Gravity is a fact with unexplainable reasons taking effect over us but evolution is not happening at all, period. YES! Proving God indirectly like spiritual forces still in study of science (science is not only USA & have many areas besides evolution, ok!); just because you didn't heard about it doesn't mean is not happening. A quick example when scientist & doctors weight people right before they die & they notice they lose weight believing in spiritual entities have weight.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago 2
Evolution is NOT even a Theory. Evolutionists think that evolution was a fact making it a theory. Honestly you need study different areas of science beside evolution. Actually groups of scientist were selected to study the shroud of Turin & they can't even explain that (you can watch videos on that in the internet). Don't matter how many excuses you try to give me about evolution, is simply not provable!!! It is just pure faith. Is amazing how evolutionist can't get that!
HushAndLearn 4 years ago 2
evolutionvscreationism. info/Evolution%20vs.%20Creationism/Select%20Videos. html
Watch videos 2 and 3 -- they're short. Only a few minutes. Evolution IS indeed a theory. Check wiki, check ANYWHERE in the science community. evolution.berkeley. edu has some great information on it.
The shroud has been debunked:
shroud. com/bar.htm#article
It has been dated independently by many different people, and all counts point to within ~100 years of 1200AD. Time ran an article about it.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Gender has nothing to do with it.
The proof of God is NOT scientific because there can be no way to prove disprove it through natural means. It is not experimentally testable.
The alleged "21g of weight" lost at death is a sham.
It WAS actually performed by a doctor, but the results did not support the hypothesis. Check out: snopes. com/religion/soulweight.asp
elecmahm 4 years ago
Furthermore -- you need to get your scientific terminology straight. Gravity has a THEORY that explains it, and a LAW that describes it.
You say that evolution isn't happening at all? Then disprove it. You'll probably win the Nobel prize for your work!
And yes, I'm very well aware that there are many aspects of science outside of Evo. My major in college was chem.
elecmahm 4 years ago
I already watched them all, but again all that are just assumptions it doesn't mean it happened. Why do you think animals before can do things that animals today can't do? I already sent you a website about scientist against evolution. Gravity is a fact but when they try to explain the reasons of it become a theory base on that fact. People tried to debunk Shroud of Turin fail; they did similar things using hi technology and even so never like the shroud.
youtube. com/watch?v=aecIISVNF4k
HushAndLearn 4 years ago 2
I can't prove disprove evolution for the same reason science can't prove disprove God existence or even the bible itself. At least God existence is sooooooo much obviously through his design and evolution is just trying to write a movie script base on the facts. Anyway, I don't think souls have weight at all, just to show you how science tries to prove things besides God using similarities, even so I don't think they will never will like they expect, regards...
HushAndLearn 4 years ago 2
WRONG.
Science can't prove/disprove God because God is SUPERNATURAL (i.e. above the laws of nature). Science deals strictly with the natural.
There are plenty of ways to falsify Evo. There are NO ways to experimentally falsify God. Ergo, they are separate categories.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Int. Design is somewhat testable, and has been falsified (by Miller and others) a number of times.
If Evolution is trying to write a movie script based on facts, then Creationism is trying to reconcile facts to fit their movie script.
Given that facts are observations of nature, I would side with the camp that observes facts rather than those that would try to change them.
Show me an example of God's existence being "sooo much obviously" through design.
elecmahm 4 years ago
They are educated assumptions based on the doggedly persistent nature of evolutionary experiments being confirmed.
There are plenty of ways to falsify evolution -- really SIMPLE ways even. If any ONE of those things was found, evolution would be proved false, and THEN it would take faith to continue believing in it.
Put it this way -- what would it take for you to see Creationism falsified?
elecmahm 4 years ago
Kenn miller falsified Design as many other falsify evolution. How they can falsify Design if they never prove evolution. Let's get to the point, Miller say there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, PLEASE!!! mention to me briefly all the evidence and the best ones for evolution.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
If you're asking these questions then you didn't watch the videos.
Design is falsified because the claims they are making (for example: irreducible complexity) are bogus. This is starkly different from Evo, which has yet to be debunked.
Here is a PERFECT response to your question:
religioustolerance. org/ev_disp.htm
It's an article titled "What would it take to disprove Evo?" And will directly address your concerns (it's even written from a skeptics perspective as well)
elecmahm 4 years ago
WHAAAAAT!!! NOW I SUPPOSE TO DISAPPROVE EVOLUTION WHEN THEY NEVER PROVE IT RIGHT??? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!! You are soooo bogus MEN! PERIOD! TELL ME WHAT FACT OR OBSERVATION SCIENCE MADE ABOUT EVOLUTION!!! Evolution need to prove the opposite of the intelligent design not design to disprove evolution!
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
You're not getting this...
Evolution was postulated over a century ago. People have since been trying to disprove it, unsuccessfully.
In science, you state a claim and then attempt to disprove it -- it only takes one legitimate falsification to disprove something.
I.D. (which is actually an assertion, not a theory) has not made a claim that has withstood experimentation.
elecmahm 4 years ago
One (of many) example of evidence in support of Evo:
Chimps (sharing 98% of our DNA) have 48 Chromosomes, Humans have 46. Upon closer examination of our chrom's, we find that two pairs of our chrom's have fused together to form a single pair. (This is proven by those two chrom's having twice as many centromeres and telomeres).
If we DIDN'T find that, it would have been devastating to the notion of common ancestry, as it would mean humans had inexplicably more chrom's than their chimp cousins.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Evolution has been is falsified MANY times but they never took it out BECAUSE evolution doesn't have a replacement theory AND because it doesn't have to be proven, only in people's minds!!! Otherwise they will have to face the creator theory! And some people don't like that idea. Evolution is just sooo busted. If you are not going to give me proves then just quit arguing evolution, regards.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Design has NEVER been falsified! Just because science doesn't understand yet some body part doesn't mean poor design! It means science need to go further than what they know so far!
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Design stated the premise: "The bacterial flagellum must have been designed because it cannot function without all of its parts"
This was subsequently disproved when scientists found that from the 1st to 51st component of this organelle, each stage was functional, except it provided a slightly different function. This disproves the I.D. premise.
Similar debunkings have happened with other postulates.
elecmahm 4 years ago
When has Evo been falsified? Cite *ONE* time.
Scientists, unlike creationists, are perfectly content to admit that they don't know an answer yet -- so not having a replacement theory is hardly a reason.
elecmahm 4 years ago
1/3- I encourage you to watch the first video I post in my account (creation evolution debate summary) regarding the Chromosomes on Chimps and Humans just at the beginning of the video & see why that chromosomes assumption is falsify very clearly. Again, watch this video about scientist that disproves evolution & explain why it is not working
video.google. com/videoplay?docid=6659285782452089140
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
2/3- Also this watch this one too
video.google. com/videoplay?docid=27959090499961310&q=incredible+creatures+that+defy+evolution&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
As many others! But watch them! take your time!
Bacterial flagellum? There are so many things science doesn't know about bacteria yet not even creationist. Bacteria still bacteria & never changed over time. Don't give me that poor design when science actually keeps changing ideas over & over.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
3/3- Believe me! Is going to be pretty hard science to prove creationist at least they go and question God personally! It don't matter how silly is the idea of evolution I don't think many science will go for creationism because that will mean some rules.
After you watch the video I post in my youtube account about chromosomes, you will see that I still waiting for you to prove me that evolution is truth, otherwise just quick arguing about evolution, regards...
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Just curious -- English isn't your native language, right?
I never said evolution was "truth", all I've said is that it is a well-supported scientific theory.
You can stop arguing with me here at anytime. You obviously don't have a science background and are too ignorant to properly debate it. This has just been a series of gainsaying.
elecmahm 4 years ago
You're changing the argument.
My point was that the bacterial flagellum is the poster example of intelligent design's notion of "irreducible complexity". It was summarily disproved by a number of scientists.
Your last statement is both meaningless and a tautology.
Science improves its ideas -- part of the whole idea of not being dogmatic. Crappy ideas are thrown out. Well-supported ideas are kept.
elecmahm 4 years ago
"Icons of Evolution" was debunked here:
natcenscied. org/icons/icon3homology. html
and here...
aigbusted.blogspot. com/2007/09/icons-of-evolution. html
and here...
ncseweb. org/icons/
He (Jonathan Wells) is pretty deceitful about the issues. Almost as bad as AiG.
elecmahm 4 years ago
I write quickly & I typo, also speak Spanish. I think you're not reading carefully my statements, I don't think I said evolution was "truth"; all I am doing is ASKING YOU TO GIVE ME A WELL SUPPORT EVOLUTION FACT, OBSERVATION OR IDEA. Do you have any scientific background? If you do it really is a shame because I don't see any strong argument about science neither evolution.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
You just sent me sites with complains about mediocre people that doesn't like other people, there are many people that contradicts evolution & NO ONE prove them wrong. You argue about everything as long as you don't give me a well explanation of evolution. You criticize everything but you never actually look why evolution is a well supported idea.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Again!!! YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN! You just told me evolution is a well-supported scientific theory & I still waiting for you to tell me & show me WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory???????????? I am tired asking you the same thing over & over!!!!!!!
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Evo is a well-supported theory because what we actually find in nature (facts) support what evolution has theorized.
For example, IF evo were not true, then we would expect to see intermingling of fossils in the geologic column. But we don't -- we see very clear strata and a clear transition of morphologies.
NOVA had a show on the other night called "Judgement Day". It's about the Dover, PA trial of intelligent design. You should check it out.
elecmahm 4 years ago
There ARE many people that disagree with evolution, but generally their arguments are based on a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of science.
One thing I would like to know is what YOUR qualifications are for engaging in this discussion. Do you work in a science field? Did you go to school for it?
You still have yet to answer MY question regarding a specific example of evo being falsified. NOT JUST CONTRADICTED, but actually falsified.
elecmahm 4 years ago
I don't think that I said that you said evolution is truth!
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Yes, I have a scientific background. Just because you don't understand my arguments doesn't mean they aren't strong.
The fossil record/geological column supports evo, as does the succession of DNA, as does various laboratory experiments and pretty much all of modern biology. This is something that is so blatantly obvious to anyone that works with science directly and doesn't just read creationist propaganda.
elecmahm 4 years ago
FWIW, I don't see our discussion making any progress. You clearly don't understand science / scientific method enough to properly discuss this with me and have consistently dodged my requests for both falsification of evo or something that could potentially falsify creationism.
If you want to continue this, I would prefer to do it via email, so we aren't constrained to 500 characters or less per post.
elecmahm 4 years ago
You know why you tried to avoid my question because none of those arguments that support evolution are scientifically prove & testable! All those are just base on assumptions! You know that! I understand pretty well any definition so far because sometimes I used dictionaries thanks to the internet. As long as evolutionist scientists don't try to accept Intelligent design, they'll be always be stuck with the silliest ideas.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Going further, there are so many similarities between humans & other animals & plants, besides humans & chimps! For example the human eyeball similarity is closest to the octopus. The human milk is closest to a jackass. Our cytochrome c is more similar to a sunflower (depend what you want to compare). With DNA you might prove variation WITHIN the same kind of animal; but NOTHING from one kind to a different kind (it is not scientifically proved).
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Again, you can't use fossil record to prove nothing but it died. A) There is NO way you can prove if that fossil got any kid. b) You can't prove that they produce something different that its kind. C) What fossil really belong to what. If you mix tall & small humans, monkeys & gorillas then someone will have to looks alike. Evolution is not even a theory (it is blatantly obvious!), If that's the best well supported evolutionist evidence then I don't think we need to keep discussing evolution.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
I'm not using fossil record to PROVE anything. The fossil record SUPPORTS evo. If the fossil record were not as it is, it would DISPROVE evo.
A small human does NOT look like a tall monkey, there are significant differences in bone structure. Any paleontologist could tell you that. Evo IS a theory, as stated earlier, for many reasons aside what I've mentioned here.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Everything you just mentioned ALL supports Evo. The human eyeball is more closely similar to the chimp, but the octopus may be the oldest example of an ocular sensor. All of these similarities suggest common ancestor.
Let me ask you this -- if you have an organism, and you make small changes to it, and then small changes to THAT one, and then small changes to THAT one -- eventually you'll end up with an entirely different organism.
elecmahm 4 years ago
As a theory, ID doesn't explain vestigial organs/limbs, it doesn't explain the many inefficiencies found in the so-called "Design", nor does it explain the existence of ERV's and pseudo-genes.
Vestigial limbs, inefficiencies in development, pseudogenes -- all of these things support evolutionary theory due to gradual progression.
elecmahm 4 years ago
This is why I say you don't understand what I'm talking about.
Sci's say: "If evo were true, we would expect to find a geological succession of animals" and we do.
"If evo were true, we would expect to find all animals sharing the same DNA components" and we do.
Have you ever heard of pseudogenes? They're genes that have no functional purpose whatsoever, and humans and other organisms have many of them.
elecmahm 4 years ago
You still haven't answered my question about what qualifications you have for arguing with me about this. If you are not in a science field or have not been educated in it, then you really have no business arguing over this because you won't understand the significance of what I'm talking about.
elecmahm 4 years ago
No! Every time evolutionists see something they try to make it fit into evolution "theory". Let explain, I am making a movie (artzoneproductions. com), is some about the planet is going to be naturally destroy & the way it will be happen is making the moon fall into the planet destroying almost everything. Now this is pretty much not possible because the moon is actually leaving the planet, so I am trying to use all logical possible and some laws to make it pretty realistic & believable.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
You can use anything surround us to make evolution possible with some imagination (even if it is not truth). About organism there're changes & variation but certainly limits to the variations, there will be a moment that those changes will have to stop or regress. There are huge changes but NEVER capable to change us to a different kind. Sci's evolution is just pure imagination & keeps trying somehow make everything fit into evolution, using nothing but imagination & NOT scientific proves.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
You mention pseudogenes but you forgot to mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics. "Vestigial structures" is not an argument for I.D. is just an argument for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Nothing creates itself & everything degrades over time (which is the opposite of evolution). There are so many things that science believed we have as "vestigial structures" & now they are proving the opposite over time.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
We & animals share many things in common because God create us with natural components from this planet so we can survive! & evolutionist are try to use that on their own favor.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
EDUCATION? All I read from here is just high school knowledge. If they taught you evolution in your school you need to sue them because they just make you all waste looooots of time. Usually when somebody starts attacking other people is because they can't really prove anything distracting the attention in other way. Just go & read the bible because you will really need it, Best regards.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Don't try to redirect here with ad hominem attacks. I asked you a very specific question about YOUR education and what gives YOU the right to debate this, and you have yet to make good on it. Are you a liberal arts major? Have you gone to college at all? I have read the bible; it's entertaining, but not science.
So AGAIN, I ask, what is your educational background and what justification do I have for believing anything out of your mouth? ("i've read the bible" doesn't cut it.)
elecmahm 4 years ago
"Everything degrades over time" is NOT what Entropy is. Entropy (2nd law) is COMMONLY misunderstood. Entropy says that disorder increases in a CLOSED SYSTEM. Simply adding in the radiation from the sun is enough to create an system where disorder can decrease. PLEASE read up on scientific concepts before you go incorrectly citing them again.
elecmahm 4 years ago
Entropy is NOT defined as "everything degrades over time" although this is a common misconception. Entropy is generally defined as "in a CLOSED SYSTEM, disorder increases over time". However, something like the sun's radiation is enough to create an open system and thus decrease disorder. Please read up on your scientific concepts before you go incorrectly citing them. This is one concept that I'm CONSTANTLY correcting YEC's on.
elecmahm 4 years ago
(pardon that duplicate comment)
Vestigial structures are not even remotely related to entropy. Vestigial limbs are limbs (such as human tail bones, or the appendix) that we have inherited, but are unnecessary. If we were designed, then there would be no need for vestigial limbs to be created. Whales and cetacean ancestors have vestigial legs as well.
elecmahm 4 years ago
It's not like Darwin got drunk and thought up evolution, and then retroactively tried to fit everything to it (that sounds a bit more like quantum strings). Scientists don't observe things and try to make them fit -- they think "What could falsify evo" and then look for the evidence that would falsify it. And every time, they find the OPPOSITE.
elecmahm 4 years ago
I just got your email. I'm Electrical Eng. (I leave in US) (so I know math, biology and chemistry). I used to believe in evolution, but since I got deeper I just realize it is a very silly idea with no scientific support. You really need to get better in evolution (you're deceived). Hopefully evolution doesn't make chemistry worst! There are several versions of the second law, but they all have the same result. "Entropy is one concept that you're CONSTANTLY correcting?". Let me help.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
You really have A LOT OF MISCONCEPTIONS & FALLACIES! "YES!!! The 2nd law said: The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining & disorder increases in a closed system is just one of others. So yes! Things degrade over time and tend to disorder. Just reread your scientific concepts! There is NOOO way you can arrange order from disorder if there is NOT a smart design behind it. There must be something to arrange things.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
WHAT! Human tail bones & appendix are vestigial? I really start getting worry about chemistry. If we really got a tail from the ancestor & now we don't because is we no longer need it, quit lying! I which we have one! Appendix is NOT VESTIGIAL!!! It is been proven to be part of the immune system. You can leave without it! Like you can leave without your arms, it doesn't mean you don't need them. Is like if you are missing a finger. You don't need it but the rest of your fingers have to work out.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Nostradamus made lot more predictions than Darwin! It doesn't mean ANYTHING! It is call PURE COINCIDENCE. Science don't need to be worry how to falsify evolution, they need to be worry HOW TO PROVE IT. I don't see any valid argument against I.D. here. Evolution NEVER did anything in advanced of ANYTHING. I am tired you keep using Origin of life with electromagnetism, gravity, astronomy, etc.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
Evolution IS NOT SCIENCE! Is NOT observable, testable or demonstrable! Medicine is! Evolution is NOT. Did you get it? I don't have anything against people who believe in evo. It goes against Christianity! You are the one star the argument. You can be sooo technical in language but never able to prove evolution, where is the evidence? I guess Chemistry is so complicated for people that they don't even know what is going on with evo!
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
You really think that evolution is base on rational thinking? Fictions movies have loot more rational thinking (including Godzilla) than evolution! You want me to consider what if I am wrong; well nothing will happen to us when we die. But you need to consider more the idea if I am right because if I am right is going to be too late for all of you. HOW ABOUT THAT, HU! Regards.
HushAndLearn 4 years ago
That's called Pascal's Wager.
I would rather fight for support of evo and benefit humanity at large, even if it means that ultimately I burn.
Theocratic nations SUFFER developmentally. Anyone in the Arab world will testify to that.
If you are wrong, nothing may happen when you die, but I'm more worried about the fact that the lies you're spreading are affecting everyone else while they live!
elecmahm 4 years ago
Look -- as much as I'm sure everyone else is enjoying this, if you want to continue arguing me, email me. You have my address.
It's pointless to continue this since we are quite literally gainsaying each other. This isn't even an argument anymore since we're not working towards any kind of mutual conclusion.
elecmahm 4 years ago
(gainsay everything you just said)
If Evolution was falsified by someone it would be the most groundbreaking scientific achievement ever. But since you're an electrical engineer I'm sure you're aware of that.
Evo goes against the book of Genesis, and can exist in perfect harmony with the remainder of the Bible. There are plenty of other things in the bible that people ignore, so why not the creation myth?
elecmahm 4 years ago
"evolution is not science"
changing allele frequencies in populations has been observed. evolution is FACT.
migkillertwo 4 years ago 9
I agree, it is a fact. Evolution within the same kind of animal is a fact, speciation is a fact. Micro evolution is a Fact. Regards...
HushAndLearn 4 years ago 4
what exactly is a "kind"? is it a species? a genus, order, class, family, or kingdom?
perhaps we could look to the bible for the answer. God told noah to bring 2 of each kind, one and its MATE. now, 2 animals that can breed and produce offspring are the same species. since spciation has been observed, animals can change between kinds. you sir, phail