My question to creationists is this: Since God is beyond time, how do you know he didn't create a universe that was already 16 billion years old and had experienced evolution as part of its creation?
Ive dared every so called expert on earth to prove that one of the Greatest proofs in my book
```
{{ Angels on the Ark by Michael Fazio ]] is the simple fact that the [[ENTIRE GREEN SIDE ]] of the ONE DOLLAR BILL is a perfect Pictograph of the Ark of the Covenant AND TO explain WHY THE United States Mafia would dare to Publish this world wide for 85 years ?
```
I have received ZERO response because that would make every theologian on earth a complete fool & me World Renown ~
This guy is a douche. God is not testable like your little evolution story. This guy could be a high priest of Scientism. Where a body of dumb asses with no common sense tell everyone what life is about. Do you really believe this disconnected loser? Evolution is the theory that needs to prove itself. The bible is what it is, if you would rather trust stupid man and his lust for power and control over God. Go ahead but you'll be sorry.
@Scobo11 If god is not testable, how do you know he exists, emphasis on "know"? Scientism, can you be dumber? I would trust god if he shows himself to me and tell me what he wants. Actually "evolution" is the single most successful theory in science, confirmed by many field of studies. As far as power and control, no one has fought more for that that religious men in the name of their god and religion.
@petion2010 You're pretty stupid. I KNOW because my belief and faith. You seem very bible illiterate so I'm not surprised by your stupidity. "Actually "evolution" is the single most successful theory in science" are you kidding me idiot? What about the theory of gravity? Which can be proven unlike evolution. Just like your post is proof of your idiocy
@Scobo11 You MUST be a troll. If not, you have no right calling anyone an idiot after the ridiculous things you just said. The discovery of evolution gave birth to the field of biology. Everything we know about genetics, which didn't even exist when evolution was first proposed, proves evolution 100%. The fossil record proves evolution 100%. Finding ANY evidence contrary to evolution would win you fame, fortune, and a Nobel Prize. Do you really think science is a conspiracy against God?
@lunarpoetry1015 Do some thought outside of what corporate science teaches you. Evolution of species is not the backbone of these fields of research. The double helix of genes is more proof of an intelligent designer, it's far too complex to happen just by chance. This is the logic of evolution and the big bang theory of bull shit. Here sits a junkyard with metal and garbage, along comes a tornado and hits the junkyard, after low and behold a Boeing 747 sits there totally operational. Silly
@Scobo11 This is simply ridiculous, talking about stawman fallacy. How do you get from the existence of DNA and complexity to and intelligent designer? And why should the intelligent designer be a god and more specifically the Abrahamic god? Why not an advanced alien race or a invisible sky genie. You're comparing a assembling a Boeing 747 to evolution. Go read on evolution first because this type of arguments by creationists/intelligent designer have been refuted.
@Scobo11 Yet, creationists keep making them ad nauseum no matter how many times they've been debunked and proved to be fallacious. It's just willful ignorance.
@Scobo11 "Corporate science"<-I study biology. No corporations. No agendas. Just science.
You have no idea how evolution works. Things don't just happen by random chance. Natural selection is the opposite of random. The Beoing747 argument, which has been rebutted and destroyed time and time again, proves that you don't understand evolution. Nothing "proves" ID. If there was proof, it would be an actual science but there's nothing; no evidence, no experiments, no data, no peer review, NOTHING.
@Scobo11 Actually, I grew up a Christian and know my bible very well. Gravity is not a unifying theory. Evolution is the single and only theory that unify an entire science. No other theory has done that. As a matter of fact, that's pretty much agree upon. Evolution can't be proven, do you even know what evolution is? As a matter of fact, Francis Collins who headed the human genome project, a christian and very accomplished scientist, stated that even if there were no fossils, genetic evidences
@Scobo11 alone proved evolution. You're actually completely ignorant on what evolution is, and frankly with more than a quarter of millions peer review article on the subject, can't figure out why. How about you read on the subject before you say stupidity like, "evolution can't be proven." in spite of biochemistry, genetics, philogenetics, microevolution, macroevolution, molecular evidence, etc. That tells me you simply never make any effort to even learn about evolution form a reputable
@Scobo11 source but getting your story form your Sunday school teacher maybe. You keep talking about god, even if he did exist, am I to believe that you speak to him every day, or do you just text him? By the way, there're many chistians who accept evolution because of the evidence. I'm not an atheist because of science or the theory of evolution. I'm an atheist because after evaluating my beliefs, I found no reason to maintain them and because no one has ever proven the the existence of any god
I remember hearing about ONE paper on ID that was published in a peer reviewed journal and guess what: The editor was fired for circumventing the peer review process and publishing the paper anyway.
@cause4reason Yup. It was Richard Sternberg, who pushed a paper of Stephen C. Meyer into "Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington" Both are (at least now) in pay of the ill-named Discovery Institute.
"Expelled" and "Darwin's Dilemma" tried to make it look like *they* were the victims. Go figure.
praise be to the poop tossing monkey! glory be to the name of the smelly buttlicker that shall clean anothers ass with its mouth!...we MUST praise the almighty invisible missing link, missing information and all of the glowing inconsistencies involved in our religeon! as an athiest, i want to thank santa, the easter bunny, tooth fairy, alah, and i bow to the worship of the missing "monkeyman skull fragment i need to prove evolution! holy be the MM's name! blessed be the turd tosser!
praise be to the poop tossing monkey! glory be to the name of the smelly buttlicker that shall clean anothers ass with its mouth!...we MUST praise the almighty invisible missing link, missing information and all of the glowing inconsistencies involved in our religeon! as an athiest, i want to thank santa, the easter bunny, tooth fairy, alah, and i bow to the worship of the missing "monkeyman skull fragment i need to prove evolution! holy be the MM's name! blessed be the turd tosser!
Can you all please make a trip out here to Oklahoma, and help me with the Bible fundies? Every time I try to explain evolution to anyone in this god-forsaken (oops) state they wanna talk abiogenesis (of course they don't even know what that means),all I get back is the same "something can't come from nothing" rhetoric, and when I reverse the question back to them and say,"well you're telling ME that God came from nothing so how did THAT happen," I get the "well, God is a special case" b.s.!
ProCreationist closed his account. I guess this means we convinced him of the error of his ways. I am glad he knows the truth about evolution, now maybe he can enjoy his life.
I wud like to believe that he's decided to make the most of his one life instead of going through it in a drunken religious delusion although I have my doubts (as I am sure u do).
In my opinion the assholes (ancient versions of Benny Hinn & Jimmy Swaggart) who wrote the bible knew full well what they were perpetrating, which is why there are checks & balances in the bible to make it near impossible for some1 of limited intellectual ability to escape the tentacles of christianity.
ProCreationist got taken to school so many times that I am hoping some of it got through. The last comment I made to him, "So because I lied a man should be whipped and nailed to a peice of wood and tortured to death? And you call me insane?" made him think I hope.
As far as evolution, if a person honestly investigates it, they eventualy realize the truth of it. You can't get too mad at a person who can't see past their lifelong brainwashing.
@ProCreationist "There is no better theory of how everything came to be than a god such as the xian god"
Wha? There's no better theory than a god who killed babies (ex 12:29) enjoyed the pleasing aroma of doves who had their bodies ripped to shreds (lev 1:17) flooded the world killing every1 except for 1 family & 2 of every animal & (the biggie) a god who TORTURES FOREVER those who are unable to suspend rational thought like u are - a selfish immoral xian ass who's pleased w/ the aforementioned.
"You have lied, cheated, stolen, cussed, ect. Do you call those things GOOD? If so, you are insane."
So because I lied a man should be whipped and nailed to a peice of wood and tortured to death? And you call me insane?
Christianity seeks to lower a person's self esteem and then offer a way out. It's a control thing. You are a social animal, good and bad is relative to how you manage your place in society, not to a made up man in the sky. Use your big brain.
If I provided u w/ a phone # to a co or University that does RM Dating so that u cud hear 1sthand what tests they run to confirm their dating is accurate wud that convince u to question ur faith?
OF COURSE NOT :D
U are not looking for the truth, u suffer from CONFIRMATION BIAS, the only reason u have any interest in Evolution & RM Dating is to discredit it w/ bullshit propaganda that was passed on to u by other blindly ignorant christians.
"I'll let you know XD There is no better theory of how everything came to be than a god such as the Christian God. There is no better theory so what's the problem with me believing it?"
In science the word theory is basically defined as a way of explaining what is observed. You are using the word incorrectly.
Nothing points to the christian god, sorry, that is just the way it is. Everything points to a event 13.5 billion years ago. These things can be measured.
"'say that when you see proof of evolution your first thought is how to discredit it, not it's truth. It is obvious in your writings'
Do you look upon the stories of the Bible any differently? Of course I do that"
That is a significant admission. I took the bible at face value for years,tried to live it, then with study, I found that it was obviously not a supernatural work but simply the work of men. Now some parts disgust me. Do more study, you will see.
Yes it is, I was just unsure if you had lied about it.
"I cannot prove there is a Heaven or Hell. No I cannot prove God. Sin exists. It's just a religious term for a bad deed."
Good statements except sin has religious meaning that is different than a bad deed. Finish it though, say that when you see proof of evolution your first thought is how to discredit it, not it's truth. It is obvious in your writings.
"in fact I can prove you are! You have lied, cheated, cussed, broken promises, probly watched porn, ect. All I have to do to is ask your fiends what you've done."
I have done those things, porn too. So what? There is no hell, and no need for a savior. I have not sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. Thing in this life matter, but how you say they do. You are a social animal, you are a member of your species. Get over it.
"so?? that's not illegal. that makes people want to change their ways. that is helping the world see its inperfection and isn't bad!"
It's not illegal, it is rude and offensive. It does not help anything, it inserts a superstition into a person's life that does not need to be there. You need to stop telling people that there is something wrong with them.
" I am trying to infect people with happiness, forgiveness, the spirit of wanting to do good in the community, ect."
No you are not. One of the first things christians tell people is that they are not good enough and are bad by nature, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god." Shut up, that is not me.
There is no evidence for what you say, on top of that you lie about the evidence for evolution. Also, come clean, are you in High School or not?
@ProCreationist "you are completly changing the subject from how screwed up radiometric dating is!"
And u r like some screwball who, after having a roll of film developed by a photolab, receives it back w/ the negatives having been CONTAMINATED, then u run around like some brainless ninny telling every1: "how screwed up C-41 film processing is"
The fact remains which u don't want to face; Uni-s & cos that specialize in RM Dating have successfully tested MILLIONS of specimens over 4+ DECADES.
@ProCreationist "the lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek Mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY while it's skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY."
When you get all your data from creationist sites and don't cross check them for veracity you end up making gross errors like this one and propagating the misinformation.
The original error began with Walter Brown in his book "In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood"
@ProCreationist The fact that all the isotope ratios change in ratio in sync according to depth permits you to LINE THEM UP without knowing where they came from. Give the samples to different labs and they will put them in the same order. The exact same order they were in the undisturbed earth. By your failure of understanding that should be impossible. So how do they do it?
@ProCreationist You can not reject the age of the earth without (in effect) saying there could never have been an atomic bomb.
Our understanding of how atoms fission informs how atom bomb and nuclear power plants are designed made and controlled. Those provide electricity for lights, power for manufacturing cars and radio isotopes are used in medical research extensively and knowledge of the fissile properties of atoms are intrinsic to obtaining proper and accurate information from those.
Ur like some viral disease that's attempting to infect others, however I see here as well u are totally ineffective when it comes to dealing with intelligent people who understand the language of critical thought (cheers to u joestfrancois) who are therefore immune to your sickness.
So either your god didn't 'bless' (wink-wink) u with enough ability in the preacher dept. or else maybe the TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE U HAVE FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS might have something to do with it :D
"e right the religion does include a blood sacrifice but that's not what it's based on! The religion is based on God!"
I did read your post, did you read your bible? The bloody human sacrifice of Jesus is the central theme of you religion. The cannibalism is secondary to the human sacrifice but still an important part. You really should read your bible, it does not allow you you to pick and choose whatever you want to.
"you're right the religion does include a blood sacrifice but that's not what it's based on! The religion is based on God!'
Uh, dude, christianity is pretty much mostly a bloody human sacrifice cult. The religion is pretty much based on human sacrifice. Maybe you need to read your bible, it is all in there.
Did your high school start back up? You must be a senior this year, right?
"radiometric dating has flaws, and by corrected you mean so that they agree with evolution. There are serious problems and kinks in this method, how do you know when you're doing it right?"
No, you have listed without reference what you call flaws. Without references it is just you talking, not science. Thereare no problems. Your ignorance is because you are just quoting lies from creationist sites. Learn a little about what you are trying to tear down.
"m not making this up, this method has screwed up a lot. If that is still enough to convince you that the earth is billions of years old, fine. But don't call it undoubtable evidence because, as I have just demonstrated, it isn't."
You have demonstrated nothing and the flaws have been corrected. You are not making this up - you are quoting "teach the controversy' lies. Your religion is based on bloody human sacrifice, to deny that means you are not a christian.
" the fact that radiometric dating does not work (which it doesn't) doesn't prove God, and I didn't claim that it did! You are just trying to change the subject."
No, you are wrong. You are repeating lies. Radiometric dating and carbon dating does work. There is a good article written by Dr. Roger C. Wiens that speaks to your lies. You represent a bloodthirsty bronze age human sacrifice ritual, that is why you lie about evolution, that is why I mention it.
" I have shown you 16 failures, and there are more. If this isn't good enough for you, I'll go and find more. "
What is your point? Even if your argument about radiometric dating is conceded (and it is not), how does that give any validity to a outdated bloody bronze age human sacrifice ritual? If you are right, does that mean you should pour blood all over everything?
@ProCreationist Sorry I didn't see all comments you typed and gave me no clue about typing them. The thing you talked about show some of the problems with radiometric dating and show why you can't use it on everything like byou seem to want to do. Radiometric dating can be wrong but if used right on a smaple that can be relibly tested it will be right. All you are doing is bringing up are the time to not use radiometric dating.
@ProCreationist "Tell me when radiometric dating has been wrong out side of well understud time you don't use it because the isotops aren't to the normal mix?" That is every thing I asked. You miss quoted me so you are starting off on a wrong idea.
@ProCreationist "how can that be reliable?" Simple, as long as it doesn't change the ratio of isotopes or add metteral, the valum doesn't matter. A one time failur dosn't mean radiometric dating is doen't work at all. What it means is that it was one of knowen flaws it has. If the KBS Tuff had something happen to it it may have made radiometric dating it acurrty impossible.
@ProCreationist Frist thing scientists do is check the data to see it's bad(creastionist data is data) . If it's bad they then throw it out. If the datas good the scientists then see if they can change the theory to fit all the data. If they cant fit the data in to the currnt theory they find a new theory that fits the data.
@ProCreationist Tell me when radiometric dating has been wrong out side of well understud time you don't use it because the isotops aren't to the normal mix? "that's how evolutionists know if they did it right or not, right?" No, it's one of many facts and tests scientists use to test a hypothesis or theory. "If what they find messes with the theory, they assume something went wrong and throw it out." No, they do one of afew things.Because of lack of room i'll do another comment
@ProCreationist Yes to have fossils in them the layer had to un the surface or underwater, but that layer was not rock at that time. "The Geologic column that shows the various layers and how old they are isn't accurate at all." No, the geoloic column shows layers and age to accurate. The metode of dating they used before radiometric was fine for what they needed. Radiometric dating works very well if used right any statement other wise is a lie.
@ProCreationist Don't get me wrong on saying they they don't have to, they can but don't have to show age. Well for one not all the layers are rock, even 100 million year old layers are made from sediment like sand. Second where they are formed is often so deep that erosion can happen (wheathering is a type of erosion so i'm not going to talk about it). Third erosion happen to it for so long that it was trun in to sand or something eles.
@ProCreationist "it looks as though" Stooooooooooooop! right there! What some thing looks like doesn't matter in the least and in fact offten going by what something looks like leads us to a wrong answer. We even have a word for when something looks like something eles and isn't, it's fack. "shouldn't the older one look a little worn?" Not really, that's because many different reasons.
@ProCreationist Then why does he condemn almost everyone who has ever lived, most likely including my parents, me, and my children, to hell? If he is so loving, why did he even make hell? Why did he condemn Adam & Eve for doing wrong when he had (according to the text) not yet made them able to know right from wrong?
@ProCreationist Then why, in every context in the actual Biblical text, does "Heavens" mean a dome of solid material arched over a flat earth? Its possible to say "Expanding bubble of pace-time" in Hebrew, you know. Why doesn't that language appear in the OT?
As far as religion doing good, you are dead wrong. A society is repressive in direct correlation to it's level of religiosity. Afganistan is a good example, or the US if the fundies were in charge. Burn a witch.
"n I let Jesus into my life and the answers to my life that I was once content with started change and now I agree with the Bible"
So your sole source of scientific reference is the christian bible? And the explanation of the "heavens" stretching is such complete crap that you don't even believe it as you write it. Nope, not even close.
"In the Bible it says the universe is expanding, that is a fact. It is expanding and the Bible agrees. Open minded meaning that if you consider the Bible to be true, everything makes sense. You can't take a couple versus and conclude everything is a lie"
The bible does not say the universe is expanding. I have read it more times than you, I know. Open minded means that you start without the answers and accept what can be demonstrated, not what some bronze age nomad said.
", it depends if you are open minded. and what do you mean "nope" about the Bible "
LOL, you can't be serious. You are not open-minded. You look at information ad then try to find ways to twist the bible to explain it, that is the opposite of open minded.
As far as religion doing good, you are dead wrong. A society is repressive in direct correlation to it's level of religiosity. Afganistan is a good example, or the US if the fundies were in charge. Burn a witch.
Yup, he's exactly right. But a creationist would never accept it. They're not allowed to. Any belief system or religion which promotes ignorance is guilty of human abuse. Plain & simple.
" And I use the Bible as a science book and find it's right. It says the universe is expanding, and it is. It says there was a flood, and we find layers of sediments."
Nope, and no on the caveman crap. The age of an individual is easy to determine from skeletal remains, the changes are easy to see. You are being willfully ignorant now. That is a form of deceit. I don't blame you so much as your superstition. Religion makes people bad.
" They all are in good condition so maybe there was a flood. and yes i am in high school."
There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, do some research and you will find the only people who think there is are people who use the christian bible as a science book.
If you are in HS, why did you put 25 as your age on your channel?
@ProCreationist "does that explain why layers never are the same in more than one place or why there are no erosion marks between them? How is it that you can clearly see different layers? What year did mother nature decide to pack down different colored dirt then the year before?"
Wow, you must still be in high school because you know nothing. You are on the internet, it can be used to find information. Look up "sedimentary rocks." You will see why your statement is stupid.
"We would also expect layers of the earth because water sorts particles into layers, and that's what we find. If the world wide flood is true, God must exist, so that would explain a creator"
We would not expect what you (a high school student) think we should expect. The people who have studied this stuff, (scientists, look the word up) agree there is no evidence for a flood and the layers are laid down slowly over great periods of time. It is not proof of a creator.
So well put....But isn't it obvious the creationists cannot follow any of the methods of science as what they are talking about has nothing to do with it?
lol i guess scientists are god then lol. we will tell you what to believe and you will like it. From the goo to you by way of the zoo lol. None are good no not one
Why doesn't this guy applied the same standard of measurement on the theory of evolution?
Because he will realise that the theory of evolution have zero evidence, therefore it's a fairy tale for grown ups, which they need in order the silenced their conscience.
Yes people, God is real, and the Wrath of God is very real. Jesus Christ is the only Way.
HeLa cells are derived from human cancer lines. Helacyton gartleri started as cancer, but now has 82 chromosomes and can no longer reproduce with human cells. It's its own organism now.
Drosophila underwent speciation in the lab.
Cichlid fishes have formed five new species in the past 4000 years.
I'm humoring you by using your definition of macroevolution. The scientific definition merely involves changes at the phenotypic level.
See, the biggest problem with arguments against evolution is that they originate from fundamental misunderstandings of what evolution really is. Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in populations over time, in layman's terms. The mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift are utilized. Evolution is directed by natural selection, which is a response to selective environmental pressures.
Evolution relies on a fairy tale that the earth is billions of years old, which is NOT.
Evolution relies on misinterpretation of variety of species, telling that all of them share common ancestor, which is not. We all share the same creator, that is all.
@aClockworkBoec Until you've proven your creator, don't even talk about him as if he exists.
Evolution has been observed and is the only logical explanation for numerous facts, including speciation.
Other fact examples are : atavisms (genes for teeth in chicken DNA), vestigial features (Spalax typhlus has useless eyes covered by skin), morphology (compare whale and human hand bones) and transitional fossiles (whale evolution)...
Macroevolution=bacteria evolves into multicellular organism, reptile evolves into mammal, ape evolves into intelligent being
If you can't provide clear evidence that these things are occurring, don't insult my intelligence by babbling about non-existing vestigial features and transitional fossils.
@aClockworkBoec That's not evidence for god. You can find testomonies of any random shit you want, from aliens to lizard people...
If microevolution can happen, it can happen a few times in a row right? If it happens alot of times in a row it becomes macroevolution.
Non existing vestigial features? Tell me, what is the use of eyes covered with skin? Why do you have goosebumps? How often do you use your ear muscles?
You mean that it's needed lots of mutations in a lots of generations? Well, it's been attempted with fruit flies, with radiations and chemicals, but after who knows how many generations, it's proven that mutations are the loss of information, therefore the opposite of evolution.
"eyes covered with skin?"
Genes for eyes are not active, as in blind fish, blind snake... But if you put them in a lit environment, eyes return in a few generations.
@aClockworkBoec Of course it's a loss of information, radiations destroy DNA. Evolution needs change in DNA, not destruction.
Thanks for confirming atavisms. It's the same for legs in whales and dolphins or tails and multiple nipples in humans. Both have been observed to reactivate themselves by accident. This proves that we had ancestors with those characteristics.
@aClockworkBoec The only information on that fruit fly experiment is on a creationist website. Those idiots claim chernobyl would be a good place to witness evolution happen faster. I'm not going to take anything seriously from that bunch of idiots.
Well they found one in China that I'm aware of. But if you want more common atavisms, there's plenty of people with multiple nipples.
It's an atavism. But it's not the best example of atavisms; there are also such things as humans with rudimentary tails, chicken with rudimentary teeth, whales with rudimentary legs, and so on. They're what we would expect to occasionally see if there are organisms with such traits in the ancestry of the modern form.
« Why don't we occasionally see a bacteria evolves into multicellular organism? »
Single celled organisms do not descend from multicellular organisms, so we should not expect single celled organisms to occasionally express multicellular traits (unless they evolve them anew - which we occasionally see them do!). Your brain really stops working as soon as you consider matters related to evolution, doesn't it? It simply says "Yeek, evolution, I don't want to know!" and shuts down.
If the gene is unactivated, it's impossible to be activated because it doesn't have a one good reason for doing that. And even if it's possible (which is not) there would be much much more those cases.
Therefore, evolution is nothing but a fairy tale for grown ups, which they need in order to silenced their conscience. But God is going to judge them, whether they believe it or not.
@aClockworkBoec Oh god. Where did you get those ideas? Do fish, worms or snails have multiple nipples?
It's some ancestor that doesn't exist anymore since it evolved in multiple branches. It was four legged and had up to 6 nipples.
Yes, because each gene knows when to activate itself? It's randomly activated and if it brings benefit to the individuals, the feature comes back. More cases? I just calculated that there are over 200 million cases world wide.
@aClockworkBoec Well, I know someone with a third nipple. Note that they all follow the milk line.
You are doing a petitio principii again. You can't assume your position as right if it's the subject of the debate. You ran out of arguments therefore you are right?
@aClockworkBoec Disorders aren't as organized. For example, people who have 6 fingers often have the 6th finger that is deformed and doesn't fit properly according to the others. On the other hand, the 3rd nipple or if you have more, they always are along the milk line and at a specific distance from each other.
@aClockworkBoec You mean like cynobacteria? The explanation for multicellular organisms is still at the process of hypothesis and it's hard to know how it happened for each type of organism. For example, plants and animals didn't do it at the same time.
But you have to know that eukariotic cells are evidence of evolution. They were formed by a prokariotic cell entering another, forming the nuclei. The remains are two different DNA/RNAs.
@aClockworkBoec Then what is it? It's a PRIMITIVE multicellular organism. God, do you think they just popped out like that with no reason? It's PROGRESSIVE! That's how evolution works.
Trying to ridicule is NOT an appropriate rebutal, thank you. We have DNA in our nuclei AND in our mitochondria. Each one was from a different cell who got together. I don't get what's so hard to understand.
@aClockworkBoec Micro evolution is like dogs staying dogs right? But if they change enough not to be able to reproduce are they still dogs? Well that's speciation.
@aClockworkBoec Well, dogs aren't an example of speciation. That's why I asked you to go and look for examples that actually work. Also take a look at ring species.
Now if you can't accept that don't bother answering. It means you can't understand or don't want to understand science and you're just wasting my time.
@aClockworkBoec I can't believe this. I said SPECIATION not specification. Dogs can interbreed therfore there was no speciation. They are still all the same specie obviously. Ring species prove that lots of microevolution end up making macroevolution. Just look them up.
@aClockworkBoec "Whale need those bones in order to procreate" Whales do not need a pelvis to procreate, genius. So much for your knowledge of science, especially anatomy. In fact there are no mammals that require a pelvis to procreate, as most have a baculum, except for humans, whales and some others. On the other hand, no animal is capable of walking without a pelvis (and some version of bony extremeties, be they legs or flippers). BTW, sharks and many others do fine without a pelvis.
Perhaps they do, to some extent. However, they do not require those bones to have the form of rudimentary legs, attached to a rudimentary pelvis. Least of all do they require that those legs occasionally are expressed in an atavistic form, projecting beyond the torso. Explain, if a whale needs particular bones for procreating, why these bones should have the morphology of legs, including pelvis, if you will?
@XGralgrathor ~Sharks do just fine with claspers, which have no bones at all. Clockwork is just spouting bibliolator nonsense he's picked up from creatard websites, probably Hovind.
Fruit flies were radiated and exposed to various chemicals in order to speed up the mutations, and since the fruit fly have a short life, it's possible to observe new generation every two weeks.
Where is a transition between reptile and mammal?
Intelligence is the ultimate goal of evolution, why are we the only intelligent being?
How can I google it, boy, if I have no idea what the hell you are babbling about. There is any number of experiments on fruit flies, with any number of goals. WHICH ONES ARE YOU REFERRING TO? What where the intended goals of the experiment? What were its methods? What were the results? PROVIDE REFERENCES TO VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATIONS.
Correct. Evolution has no goals. It is simply what happens when autonomous replicators with varying inherited traits compete against one another in a limited environment.
« If you don't know how to google it, how in the world are you going to understand it? »
Stop deceiving yourself, boy. YOU are the one who started talking about experiments with fruit flies. I know of at least a hundred different things that could be tested using fruit flies in an experiment. WHICH ONE ARE YOU REFERRING TO? Show me the documentation.
Google Is Your Friend. Found it. According to communication with Cape University, he was head of the zoology dpt. for almost one whole term, switching to the physiology dpt. after that. Very nice.
The real question is, did he publish any research supporting his beliefs?
What, there are scientific papers and letters on his name on the subject that have not been refuted by later research, and that support his outlandish beliefs?
@aClockworkBoec Video presentations are NOT published research, fool! He made a series of videos, veracity undetermined if not highly questionable from what I've seen of this biblical apologist. He certainly knows fuck-all about biology.
@aClockworkBoec "Where did I said that it is a research??? Where? YOUR WORDS-->"Published research? He made the whole series of video presentations titled "Genesis Conflict" YOUR WORDS!
Marine and green iguanas can't interbreed? Nope---they aren't even found in the same place. Marine Iguanas are only found in the Galapagos, and nowhere else (OH NO!!! NOT THE GALAPAGOS!!!). Green iguanas are found from Mexico through Central America, on the EAST side of the Andes. Too bad, so sad.
They do not. Amblyrhynchus cristatus occasionally interbreeds with sister species from the genus Conolophus, but not with species from the genus Iguana, as they are too far removed genetically - due to the law of evolution: genetic divergence between reproductively isolated populations will always increase, never decrease.
Really? Where? There's about five minutes of irrelevant misrepresentations before he comes to his point - whatever it is - but I'm not seeing any math relating to population genetics.
Are you brain dead? How many times am I going to have to repeat: THERE ARE HUNDREDS SUCH EXPERIMENTS. Each with different goals and different methods, to test different hypotheses.
WHICH ONES DO YOU MEAN? Just provide a reference to a paper or letter already, so that I can see what the hell you're talking about. Can't be that difficult, can it?
Or is it that *you* yourself have no idea what you're on about?
@aClockworkBoec Angelica Zambrano~pure hearsay. Not establishable as factual by any means whatsoever. You are distinctly gullible, and are only interested in dogma and whatever fairy tale, hallucination, or delusion that supports the dogma of your cult of idolatry.
@aClockworkBoec It happened far away and long time ago, nobody has seen it, nobody has proved it.Like the birth of the Nazarene? You weren't there to see it, so he doesn't exist---see hw inane the argument sounds? Thank you Kent Hovind.
@aClockworkBoec "Watch the testimony of Angelica Zambrano" Personal testimony is uncorroborated hearsay, and worthless. Since there is no such thing as a 'kind', you are SOL there. According to your fiction, chimpanzees and bonobos are the same kind, yet cannot interbreed due to erythroblastosis. Green Iguanas and marine iguanas are supposedly the same kind, but cannot interbreed. Macroevolution demonstrated. We await your admission you were wrong.
@aClockworkBoec "Look at those girl's eyes,etc" You really understand almost nothing about science do ypu? As a mental health practitioner for 40 years, I have seen both psychopaths who could convincingly lie to the pope, and deluded people who are convinced their television is implanting thoughts in their brain--and seriously believe it. No sale! Artificial insemination??? Just how do you get natural interbreeding that way? BTW--It's been tried with cattle and Bison-->doesn't work.
My question to creationists is this: Since God is beyond time, how do you know he didn't create a universe that was already 16 billion years old and had experienced evolution as part of its creation?
Becvar80 1 day ago
Religion poisons the mind. START THINKING!!!!
Thinkdeep420 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with her in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.
needgod.com
if you are interested in abortion or thinking of having one watch 180 movie
standingontruth1 2 months ago in playlist Can science and religion coexist?
Sophism at its finest
AlainSta60 2 months ago
The bible doesn't mention anything about youtube so therefore youtube doesn't exist.
lukebccb 2 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Go on kill a Creationist today. You know it makes sense
jontibloom 3 months ago
Ive dared every so called expert on earth to prove that one of the Greatest proofs in my book
```
{{ Angels on the Ark by Michael Fazio ]] is the simple fact that the [[ENTIRE GREEN SIDE ]] of the ONE DOLLAR BILL is a perfect Pictograph of the Ark of the Covenant AND TO explain WHY THE United States Mafia would dare to Publish this world wide for 85 years ?
```
I have received ZERO response because that would make every theologian on earth a complete fool & me World Renown ~
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 3 months ago
This guy is a douche. God is not testable like your little evolution story. This guy could be a high priest of Scientism. Where a body of dumb asses with no common sense tell everyone what life is about. Do you really believe this disconnected loser? Evolution is the theory that needs to prove itself. The bible is what it is, if you would rather trust stupid man and his lust for power and control over God. Go ahead but you'll be sorry.
Scobo11 3 months ago
@Scobo11 If god is not testable, how do you know he exists, emphasis on "know"? Scientism, can you be dumber? I would trust god if he shows himself to me and tell me what he wants. Actually "evolution" is the single most successful theory in science, confirmed by many field of studies. As far as power and control, no one has fought more for that that religious men in the name of their god and religion.
petion2010 3 months ago
@petion2010 You're pretty stupid. I KNOW because my belief and faith. You seem very bible illiterate so I'm not surprised by your stupidity. "Actually "evolution" is the single most successful theory in science" are you kidding me idiot? What about the theory of gravity? Which can be proven unlike evolution. Just like your post is proof of your idiocy
Scobo11 3 months ago
@Scobo11 You MUST be a troll. If not, you have no right calling anyone an idiot after the ridiculous things you just said. The discovery of evolution gave birth to the field of biology. Everything we know about genetics, which didn't even exist when evolution was first proposed, proves evolution 100%. The fossil record proves evolution 100%. Finding ANY evidence contrary to evolution would win you fame, fortune, and a Nobel Prize. Do you really think science is a conspiracy against God?
lunarpoetry1015 3 months ago
@lunarpoetry1015 Do some thought outside of what corporate science teaches you. Evolution of species is not the backbone of these fields of research. The double helix of genes is more proof of an intelligent designer, it's far too complex to happen just by chance. This is the logic of evolution and the big bang theory of bull shit. Here sits a junkyard with metal and garbage, along comes a tornado and hits the junkyard, after low and behold a Boeing 747 sits there totally operational. Silly
Scobo11 3 months ago
@Scobo11 This is simply ridiculous, talking about stawman fallacy. How do you get from the existence of DNA and complexity to and intelligent designer? And why should the intelligent designer be a god and more specifically the Abrahamic god? Why not an advanced alien race or a invisible sky genie. You're comparing a assembling a Boeing 747 to evolution. Go read on evolution first because this type of arguments by creationists/intelligent designer have been refuted.
petion2010 3 months ago
@Scobo11 Yet, creationists keep making them ad nauseum no matter how many times they've been debunked and proved to be fallacious. It's just willful ignorance.
petion2010 3 months ago 2
@Scobo11 "Corporate science"<-I study biology. No corporations. No agendas. Just science.
You have no idea how evolution works. Things don't just happen by random chance. Natural selection is the opposite of random. The Beoing747 argument, which has been rebutted and destroyed time and time again, proves that you don't understand evolution. Nothing "proves" ID. If there was proof, it would be an actual science but there's nothing; no evidence, no experiments, no data, no peer review, NOTHING.
lunarpoetry1015 3 months ago 3
@Scobo11 Actually, I grew up a Christian and know my bible very well. Gravity is not a unifying theory. Evolution is the single and only theory that unify an entire science. No other theory has done that. As a matter of fact, that's pretty much agree upon. Evolution can't be proven, do you even know what evolution is? As a matter of fact, Francis Collins who headed the human genome project, a christian and very accomplished scientist, stated that even if there were no fossils, genetic evidences
petion2010 3 months ago
@Scobo11 alone proved evolution. You're actually completely ignorant on what evolution is, and frankly with more than a quarter of millions peer review article on the subject, can't figure out why. How about you read on the subject before you say stupidity like, "evolution can't be proven." in spite of biochemistry, genetics, philogenetics, microevolution, macroevolution, molecular evidence, etc. That tells me you simply never make any effort to even learn about evolution form a reputable
petion2010 3 months ago
@Scobo11 source but getting your story form your Sunday school teacher maybe. You keep talking about god, even if he did exist, am I to believe that you speak to him every day, or do you just text him? By the way, there're many chistians who accept evolution because of the evidence. I'm not an atheist because of science or the theory of evolution. I'm an atheist because after evaluating my beliefs, I found no reason to maintain them and because no one has ever proven the the existence of any god
petion2010 3 months ago
I remember hearing about ONE paper on ID that was published in a peer reviewed journal and guess what: The editor was fired for circumventing the peer review process and publishing the paper anyway.
cause4reason 4 months ago
@cause4reason Yup. It was Richard Sternberg, who pushed a paper of Stephen C. Meyer into "Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington" Both are (at least now) in pay of the ill-named Discovery Institute.
"Expelled" and "Darwin's Dilemma" tried to make it look like *they* were the victims. Go figure.
TomFynn 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
praise be to the poop tossing monkey! glory be to the name of the smelly buttlicker that shall clean anothers ass with its mouth!...we MUST praise the almighty invisible missing link, missing information and all of the glowing inconsistencies involved in our religeon! as an athiest, i want to thank santa, the easter bunny, tooth fairy, alah, and i bow to the worship of the missing "monkeyman skull fragment i need to prove evolution! holy be the MM's name! blessed be the turd tosser!
solinari399 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
praise be to the poop tossing monkey! glory be to the name of the smelly buttlicker that shall clean anothers ass with its mouth!...we MUST praise the almighty invisible missing link, missing information and all of the glowing inconsistencies involved in our religeon! as an athiest, i want to thank santa, the easter bunny, tooth fairy, alah, and i bow to the worship of the missing "monkeyman skull fragment i need to prove evolution! holy be the MM's name! blessed be the turd tosser!
solinari399 4 months ago
Good video
xephyr1000 4 months ago
Can you all please make a trip out here to Oklahoma, and help me with the Bible fundies? Every time I try to explain evolution to anyone in this god-forsaken (oops) state they wanna talk abiogenesis (of course they don't even know what that means),all I get back is the same "something can't come from nothing" rhetoric, and when I reverse the question back to them and say,"well you're telling ME that God came from nothing so how did THAT happen," I get the "well, God is a special case" b.s.!
ragzy02 5 months ago
ProCreationist closed his account. I guess this means we convinced him of the error of his ways. I am glad he knows the truth about evolution, now maybe he can enjoy his life.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@joestfrancois
I wud like to believe that he's decided to make the most of his one life instead of going through it in a drunken religious delusion although I have my doubts (as I am sure u do).
In my opinion the assholes (ancient versions of Benny Hinn & Jimmy Swaggart) who wrote the bible knew full well what they were perpetrating, which is why there are checks & balances in the bible to make it near impossible for some1 of limited intellectual ability to escape the tentacles of christianity.
atrumira 5 months ago
@atrumira
ProCreationist got taken to school so many times that I am hoping some of it got through. The last comment I made to him, "So because I lied a man should be whipped and nailed to a peice of wood and tortured to death? And you call me insane?" made him think I hope.
As far as evolution, if a person honestly investigates it, they eventualy realize the truth of it. You can't get too mad at a person who can't see past their lifelong brainwashing.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@joestfrancois "So because I lied a man should be whipped and nailed to a piece of wood and tortured to death? And you call me insane?"
Your candle burns brightly.
atrumira 5 months ago
@ProCreationist "There is no better theory of how everything came to be than a god such as the xian god"
Wha? There's no better theory than a god who killed babies (ex 12:29) enjoyed the pleasing aroma of doves who had their bodies ripped to shreds (lev 1:17) flooded the world killing every1 except for 1 family & 2 of every animal & (the biggie) a god who TORTURES FOREVER those who are unable to suspend rational thought like u are - a selfish immoral xian ass who's pleased w/ the aforementioned.
atrumira 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"You have lied, cheated, stolen, cussed, ect. Do you call those things GOOD? If so, you are insane."
So because I lied a man should be whipped and nailed to a peice of wood and tortured to death? And you call me insane?
Christianity seeks to lower a person's self esteem and then offer a way out. It's a control thing. You are a social animal, good and bad is relative to how you manage your place in society, not to a made up man in the sky. Use your big brain.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@joestfrancois
piece
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist "how do u know what is a correct date?"
If I provided u w/ a phone # to a co or University that does RM Dating so that u cud hear 1sthand what tests they run to confirm their dating is accurate wud that convince u to question ur faith?
OF COURSE NOT :D
U are not looking for the truth, u suffer from CONFIRMATION BIAS, the only reason u have any interest in Evolution & RM Dating is to discredit it w/ bullshit propaganda that was passed on to u by other blindly ignorant christians.
atrumira 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"I'll let you know XD There is no better theory of how everything came to be than a god such as the Christian God. There is no better theory so what's the problem with me believing it?"
In science the word theory is basically defined as a way of explaining what is observed. You are using the word incorrectly.
Nothing points to the christian god, sorry, that is just the way it is. Everything points to a event 13.5 billion years ago. These things can be measured.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"'say that when you see proof of evolution your first thought is how to discredit it, not it's truth. It is obvious in your writings'
Do you look upon the stories of the Bible any differently? Of course I do that"
That is a significant admission. I took the bible at face value for years,tried to live it, then with study, I found that it was obviously not a supernatural work but simply the work of men. Now some parts disgust me. Do more study, you will see.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"The fact that I am in High School is irrelevant"
Yes it is, I was just unsure if you had lied about it.
"I cannot prove there is a Heaven or Hell. No I cannot prove God. Sin exists. It's just a religious term for a bad deed."
Good statements except sin has religious meaning that is different than a bad deed. Finish it though, say that when you see proof of evolution your first thought is how to discredit it, not it's truth. It is obvious in your writings.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"in fact I can prove you are! You have lied, cheated, cussed, broken promises, probly watched porn, ect. All I have to do to is ask your fiends what you've done."
I have done those things, porn too. So what? There is no hell, and no need for a savior. I have not sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. Thing in this life matter, but how you say they do. You are a social animal, you are a member of your species. Get over it.
SO ANSWER, ARE YOU IN HIGH SCHOOL?
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"so?? that's not illegal. that makes people want to change their ways. that is helping the world see its inperfection and isn't bad!"
It's not illegal, it is rude and offensive. It does not help anything, it inserts a superstition into a person's life that does not need to be there. You need to stop telling people that there is something wrong with them.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
" I am trying to infect people with happiness, forgiveness, the spirit of wanting to do good in the community, ect."
No you are not. One of the first things christians tell people is that they are not good enough and are bad by nature, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god." Shut up, that is not me.
There is no evidence for what you say, on top of that you lie about the evidence for evolution. Also, come clean, are you in High School or not?
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist "you are completly changing the subject from how screwed up radiometric dating is!"
And u r like some screwball who, after having a roll of film developed by a photolab, receives it back w/ the negatives having been CONTAMINATED, then u run around like some brainless ninny telling every1: "how screwed up C-41 film processing is"
The fact remains which u don't want to face; Uni-s & cos that specialize in RM Dating have successfully tested MILLIONS of specimens over 4+ DECADES.
atrumira 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProCreationist "the lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek Mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY while it's skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY."
When you get all your data from creationist sites and don't cross check them for veracity you end up making gross errors like this one and propagating the misinformation.
The original error began with Walter Brown in his book "In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood"
ExtantFrodo2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProCreationist "I would rather have morals than evidence any day"
he says as if they were mutually exclusive.
ExtantFrodo2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProCreationist The fact that all the isotope ratios change in ratio in sync according to depth permits you to LINE THEM UP without knowing where they came from. Give the samples to different labs and they will put them in the same order. The exact same order they were in the undisturbed earth. By your failure of understanding that should be impossible. So how do they do it?
ExtantFrodo2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProCreationist You can not reject the age of the earth without (in effect) saying there could never have been an atomic bomb.
Our understanding of how atoms fission informs how atom bomb and nuclear power plants are designed made and controlled. Those provide electricity for lights, power for manufacturing cars and radio isotopes are used in medical research extensively and knowledge of the fissile properties of atoms are intrinsic to obtaining proper and accurate information from those.
ExtantFrodo2 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
Ur like some viral disease that's attempting to infect others, however I see here as well u are totally ineffective when it comes to dealing with intelligent people who understand the language of critical thought (cheers to u joestfrancois) who are therefore immune to your sickness.
So either your god didn't 'bless' (wink-wink) u with enough ability in the preacher dept. or else maybe the TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE U HAVE FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS might have something to do with it :D
atrumira 5 months ago
@atrumira
"(cheers to u joestfrancois) "
Cheers to you atrumira. Hugs.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"e right the religion does include a blood sacrifice but that's not what it's based on! The religion is based on God!"
I did read your post, did you read your bible? The bloody human sacrifice of Jesus is the central theme of you religion. The cannibalism is secondary to the human sacrifice but still an important part. You really should read your bible, it does not allow you you to pick and choose whatever you want to.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"you're right the religion does include a blood sacrifice but that's not what it's based on! The religion is based on God!'
Uh, dude, christianity is pretty much mostly a bloody human sacrifice cult. The religion is pretty much based on human sacrifice. Maybe you need to read your bible, it is all in there.
Did your high school start back up? You must be a senior this year, right?
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"radiometric dating has flaws, and by corrected you mean so that they agree with evolution. There are serious problems and kinks in this method, how do you know when you're doing it right?"
No, you have listed without reference what you call flaws. Without references it is just you talking, not science. Thereare no problems. Your ignorance is because you are just quoting lies from creationist sites. Learn a little about what you are trying to tear down.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"m not making this up, this method has screwed up a lot. If that is still enough to convince you that the earth is billions of years old, fine. But don't call it undoubtable evidence because, as I have just demonstrated, it isn't."
You have demonstrated nothing and the flaws have been corrected. You are not making this up - you are quoting "teach the controversy' lies. Your religion is based on bloody human sacrifice, to deny that means you are not a christian.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
" the fact that radiometric dating does not work (which it doesn't) doesn't prove God, and I didn't claim that it did! You are just trying to change the subject."
No, you are wrong. You are repeating lies. Radiometric dating and carbon dating does work. There is a good article written by Dr. Roger C. Wiens that speaks to your lies. You represent a bloodthirsty bronze age human sacrifice ritual, that is why you lie about evolution, that is why I mention it.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProCreationist
"in 1983 a guy said, 'I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."
In 1964 a guy said that that all religions were false because they contradicted each other and they couldn't all be right.
Are you aware of how stupid you sound?
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
" I have shown you 16 failures, and there are more. If this isn't good enough for you, I'll go and find more. "
What is your point? Even if your argument about radiometric dating is conceded (and it is not), how does that give any validity to a outdated bloody bronze age human sacrifice ritual? If you are right, does that mean you should pour blood all over everything?
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist Sorry I didn't see all comments you typed and gave me no clue about typing them. The thing you talked about show some of the problems with radiometric dating and show why you can't use it on everything like byou seem to want to do. Radiometric dating can be wrong but if used right on a smaple that can be relibly tested it will be right. All you are doing is bringing up are the time to not use radiometric dating.
kokofan50 5 months ago
@ProCreationist "Tell me when radiometric dating has been wrong out side of well understud time you don't use it because the isotops aren't to the normal mix?" That is every thing I asked. You miss quoted me so you are starting off on a wrong idea.
kokofan50 5 months ago
@ProCreationist "how can that be reliable?" Simple, as long as it doesn't change the ratio of isotopes or add metteral, the valum doesn't matter. A one time failur dosn't mean radiometric dating is doen't work at all. What it means is that it was one of knowen flaws it has. If the KBS Tuff had something happen to it it may have made radiometric dating it acurrty impossible.
kokofan50 5 months ago
@ProCreationist Frist thing scientists do is check the data to see it's bad(creastionist data is data) . If it's bad they then throw it out. If the datas good the scientists then see if they can change the theory to fit all the data. If they cant fit the data in to the currnt theory they find a new theory that fits the data.
kokofan50 5 months ago
@ProCreationist Tell me when radiometric dating has been wrong out side of well understud time you don't use it because the isotops aren't to the normal mix? "that's how evolutionists know if they did it right or not, right?" No, it's one of many facts and tests scientists use to test a hypothesis or theory. "If what they find messes with the theory, they assume something went wrong and throw it out." No, they do one of afew things.Because of lack of room i'll do another comment
kokofan50 5 months ago
@ProCreationist Yes to have fossils in them the layer had to un the surface or underwater, but that layer was not rock at that time. "The Geologic column that shows the various layers and how old they are isn't accurate at all." No, the geoloic column shows layers and age to accurate. The metode of dating they used before radiometric was fine for what they needed. Radiometric dating works very well if used right any statement other wise is a lie.
kokofan50 5 months ago
@ProCreationist Don't get me wrong on saying they they don't have to, they can but don't have to show age. Well for one not all the layers are rock, even 100 million year old layers are made from sediment like sand. Second where they are formed is often so deep that erosion can happen (wheathering is a type of erosion so i'm not going to talk about it). Third erosion happen to it for so long that it was trun in to sand or something eles.
kokofan50 5 months ago
@ProCreationist "it looks as though" Stooooooooooooop! right there! What some thing looks like doesn't matter in the least and in fact offten going by what something looks like leads us to a wrong answer. We even have a word for when something looks like something eles and isn't, it's fack. "shouldn't the older one look a little worn?" Not really, that's because many different reasons.
kokofan50 5 months ago
@ProCreationist "Peace, Love and Forgiveness." Then why did he invent hell? The concept of hell is the polar opposite to those three words.
SarahB360 5 months ago
@ProCreationist Then why does he condemn almost everyone who has ever lived, most likely including my parents, me, and my children, to hell? If he is so loving, why did he even make hell? Why did he condemn Adam & Eve for doing wrong when he had (according to the text) not yet made them able to know right from wrong?
HConstantine 5 months ago
@ProCreationist Then why, in every context in the actual Biblical text, does "Heavens" mean a dome of solid material arched over a flat earth? Its possible to say "Expanding bubble of pace-time" in Hebrew, you know. Why doesn't that language appear in the OT?
HConstantine 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
As far as religion doing good, you are dead wrong. A society is repressive in direct correlation to it's level of religiosity. Afganistan is a good example, or the US if the fundies were in charge. Burn a witch.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProCreationist
"n I let Jesus into my life and the answers to my life that I was once content with started change and now I agree with the Bible"
So your sole source of scientific reference is the christian bible? And the explanation of the "heavens" stretching is such complete crap that you don't even believe it as you write it. Nope, not even close.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
"In the Bible it says the universe is expanding, that is a fact. It is expanding and the Bible agrees. Open minded meaning that if you consider the Bible to be true, everything makes sense. You can't take a couple versus and conclude everything is a lie"
The bible does not say the universe is expanding. I have read it more times than you, I know. Open minded means that you start without the answers and accept what can be demonstrated, not what some bronze age nomad said.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
", it depends if you are open minded. and what do you mean "nope" about the Bible "
LOL, you can't be serious. You are not open-minded. You look at information ad then try to find ways to twist the bible to explain it, that is the opposite of open minded.
As far as religion doing good, you are dead wrong. A society is repressive in direct correlation to it's level of religiosity. Afganistan is a good example, or the US if the fundies were in charge. Burn a witch.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
Yup, he's exactly right. But a creationist would never accept it. They're not allowed to. Any belief system or religion which promotes ignorance is guilty of human abuse. Plain & simple.
dave474c 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
" And I use the Bible as a science book and find it's right. It says the universe is expanding, and it is. It says there was a flood, and we find layers of sediments."
Nope, and no on the caveman crap. The age of an individual is easy to determine from skeletal remains, the changes are easy to see. You are being willfully ignorant now. That is a form of deceit. I don't blame you so much as your superstition. Religion makes people bad.
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist
" They all are in good condition so maybe there was a flood. and yes i am in high school."
There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, do some research and you will find the only people who think there is are people who use the christian bible as a science book.
If you are in HS, why did you put 25 as your age on your channel?
joestfrancois 5 months ago
@ProCreationist "does that explain why layers never are the same in more than one place or why there are no erosion marks between them? How is it that you can clearly see different layers? What year did mother nature decide to pack down different colored dirt then the year before?"
Wow, you must still be in high school because you know nothing. You are on the internet, it can be used to find information. Look up "sedimentary rocks." You will see why your statement is stupid.
joestfrancois 6 months ago
@ProCreationist
"We would also expect layers of the earth because water sorts particles into layers, and that's what we find. If the world wide flood is true, God must exist, so that would explain a creator"
We would not expect what you (a high school student) think we should expect. The people who have studied this stuff, (scientists, look the word up) agree there is no evidence for a flood and the layers are laid down slowly over great periods of time. It is not proof of a creator.
joestfrancois 6 months ago
So well put....But isn't it obvious the creationists cannot follow any of the methods of science as what they are talking about has nothing to do with it?
amiyaiitkgp 6 months ago
@ProCreationist
Exactly, my friend, exactly.
aClockworkBoec 6 months ago
lol i guess scientists are god then lol. we will tell you what to believe and you will like it. From the goo to you by way of the zoo lol. None are good no not one
greeneyesangel69 8 months ago
Why doesn't this guy applied the same standard of measurement on the theory of evolution?
Because he will realise that the theory of evolution have zero evidence, therefore it's a fairy tale for grown ups, which they need in order the silenced their conscience.
Yes people, God is real, and the Wrath of God is very real. Jesus Christ is the only Way.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec
"Yes people, God is real, and the Wrath of God is very real."
I would think that something real would have a shred of evidence.
Evolution has a towering pile of evidence. Ignoring it is dishonest. Isn't bearing false witness a cardinal sin?
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@TheZooCrew
"towering pile of evidence" for microevolution do NOT prove macroevolution.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec
1) You likely don't know the actual definitions of either term
2) Both have been observed many times
3) They utilize the same mechanisms. There's no inherent boundary.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@TheZooCrew
Well, teach me. Give me a empirical example of macroevolution.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec
Here's an easy one: Helacyton gartleri.
HeLa cells are derived from human cancer lines. Helacyton gartleri started as cancer, but now has 82 chromosomes and can no longer reproduce with human cells. It's its own organism now.
Drosophila underwent speciation in the lab.
Cichlid fishes have formed five new species in the past 4000 years.
I'm humoring you by using your definition of macroevolution. The scientific definition merely involves changes at the phenotypic level.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@TheZooCrew
cancer evolved into... a cancer?
"no longer reproduce with human cells"
But why? Is it because original host has died?
Cichlid fishes evolved into... a fishes?
Interesting...
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec
I see you're going the route of using biblical "kinds," which only has a definition du jour and is entirely meaningless.
Helacyton gartleri is now an amoeba-like protist, not a cancer.
The entire fossil record explains speciation that leads to diversification of every taxonomic group.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@TheZooCrew
Kinds are groups that are reproduce itself in nature, it isn't so hard to figure it out.
"amoeba-like protist"
Well, release it into the wild, and see how long will it survive.
"fossil record"??? Well, many animals and plants from "fossil record" are still with us. Why is that? They forgot to evolve?
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec
"Kinds are groups that are reproduce itself in nature, it isn't so hard to figure it out."
That's meaningless in taxonomy.
"Well, release it into the wild, and see how long will it survive."
Probably quite well, and this is also meaningless. The veracity of a species is not dependent on it's survivability in "the wild."
"Well, many animals and plants from "fossil record" are still with us. "
Not that many. Evolution doesn't require physical change, either. Look at sharks.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@TheZooCrew
"Evolution doesn't require physical change"
Whaaat???!!!
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec
See, the biggest problem with arguments against evolution is that they originate from fundamental misunderstandings of what evolution really is. Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in populations over time, in layman's terms. The mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift are utilized. Evolution is directed by natural selection, which is a response to selective environmental pressures.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@TheZooCrew
Evolution relies on a fairy tale that the earth is billions of years old, which is NOT.
Evolution relies on misinterpretation of variety of species, telling that all of them share common ancestor, which is not. We all share the same creator, that is all.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aClockworkBoec
"We all share the same creator, that is all."
DonExodus2 has a marvelous video detailing exactly why this argument is faulty.
"Evolution relies on a fairy tale that the earth is billions of years old, which is NOT."
If you're going to sit there and senselessly slander every legitimate geochronologist and physicist on the planet, then we're done here.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Until you've proven your creator, don't even talk about him as if he exists.
Evolution has been observed and is the only logical explanation for numerous facts, including speciation.
Other fact examples are : atavisms (genes for teeth in chicken DNA), vestigial features (Spalax typhlus has useless eyes covered by skin), morphology (compare whale and human hand bones) and transitional fossiles (whale evolution)...
What more do you want?
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
Watch the testimony of Angelica Zambrano.
Microevolution=variations of the same kind
Macroevolution=bacteria evolves into multicellular organism, reptile evolves into mammal, ape evolves into intelligent being
If you can't provide clear evidence that these things are occurring, don't insult my intelligence by babbling about non-existing vestigial features and transitional fossils.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec That's not evidence for god. You can find testomonies of any random shit you want, from aliens to lizard people...
If microevolution can happen, it can happen a few times in a row right? If it happens alot of times in a row it becomes macroevolution.
Non existing vestigial features? Tell me, what is the use of eyes covered with skin? Why do you have goosebumps? How often do you use your ear muscles?
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
"alot of times in a row"
You mean that it's needed lots of mutations in a lots of generations? Well, it's been attempted with fruit flies, with radiations and chemicals, but after who knows how many generations, it's proven that mutations are the loss of information, therefore the opposite of evolution.
"eyes covered with skin?"
Genes for eyes are not active, as in blind fish, blind snake... But if you put them in a lit environment, eyes return in a few generations.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Of course it's a loss of information, radiations destroy DNA. Evolution needs change in DNA, not destruction.
Thanks for confirming atavisms. It's the same for legs in whales and dolphins or tails and multiple nipples in humans. Both have been observed to reactivate themselves by accident. This proves that we had ancestors with those characteristics.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
"radiations destroy DNA"
Oh really??? You think that those scientists didn't have knowledge abou this?
The only change in DNA is variations, that's a fact. But evolution by definition is lots of random mutations.
"legs in whales"???
Whale need those bones in order to procreate.
Why do you have brain? Dispose it, when obviously don't use it.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Show me the article about those fruit flies please, and not from a creationist website.
Just type "atavism dolphin" in google image, you'll see a dolphin with back limbs. You can also have fun looking for other atavisms.
Ad hominems are useless and won't work with me.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
Type "fruit flies radiation experiments" in google.
Atavistic dolphin? Really? How many?
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec The only information on that fruit fly experiment is on a creationist website. Those idiots claim chernobyl would be a good place to witness evolution happen faster. I'm not going to take anything seriously from that bunch of idiots.
Well they found one in China that I'm aware of. But if you want more common atavisms, there's plenty of people with multiple nipples.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
multiple nipples???
How is that evolution?
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
« How is that evolution? »
It's an atavism. But it's not the best example of atavisms; there are also such things as humans with rudimentary tails, chicken with rudimentary teeth, whales with rudimentary legs, and so on. They're what we would expect to occasionally see if there are organisms with such traits in the ancestry of the modern form.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
"we would expect to occasionally see"???
Really??? Why don't we occasionally see a bacteria evolves into multicellular organism?
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aClockworkBoec Why don't we occasionally see a bacteria evolves into multicellular organism? Youmean like this:
Evolution of a Unicellular Organism into a Multicellular Species
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Give it up, idolator.
pontecanis 8 months ago
« "we would expect to occasionally see"? »
Indeed, Such phenomena are what we would expect to occasionally see if there are organisms with such traits in the ancestry of the modern form.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« Why don't we occasionally see a bacteria evolves into multicellular organism? »
Single celled organisms do not descend from multicellular organisms, so we should not expect single celled organisms to occasionally express multicellular traits (unless they evolve them anew - which we occasionally see them do!). Your brain really stops working as soon as you consider matters related to evolution, doesn't it? It simply says "Yeek, evolution, I don't want to know!" and shuts down.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec It's evidence for evolution. An ancestor had up to 6 nipples. He evolves into us but the genes still stay there, unactivated.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
Which ancestor is that? Fish? Worm? Snail?
If the gene is unactivated, it's impossible to be activated because it doesn't have a one good reason for doing that. And even if it's possible (which is not) there would be much much more those cases.
Therefore, evolution is nothing but a fairy tale for grown ups, which they need in order to silenced their conscience. But God is going to judge them, whether they believe it or not.
Jesus Christ is the only Way.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Oh god. Where did you get those ideas? Do fish, worms or snails have multiple nipples?
It's some ancestor that doesn't exist anymore since it evolved in multiple branches. It was four legged and had up to 6 nipples.
Yes, because each gene knows when to activate itself? It's randomly activated and if it brings benefit to the individuals, the feature comes back. More cases? I just calculated that there are over 200 million cases world wide.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
"200 million cases world wide."???????
Well, you can believe in that fairy tale, if you like.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Well, I know someone with a third nipple. Note that they all follow the milk line.
You are doing a petitio principii again. You can't assume your position as right if it's the subject of the debate. You ran out of arguments therefore you are right?
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
"third nipple" is a genetic disorder. There are numerous genetic disorders that don't have a parallel in animal kingdom.
If you want to prove evolution, show me that a bacteria evolves into a multicellular organism.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Disorders aren't as organized. For example, people who have 6 fingers often have the 6th finger that is deformed and doesn't fit properly according to the others. On the other hand, the 3rd nipple or if you have more, they always are along the milk line and at a specific distance from each other.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
Type "3rd nipple" in google images.
"always are along the milk line and at a specific distance from each other."
Really???????
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec I wonder if we get the same images on google. There is an obvious pattern.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec You mean like cynobacteria? The explanation for multicellular organisms is still at the process of hypothesis and it's hard to know how it happened for each type of organism. For example, plants and animals didn't do it at the same time.
But you have to know that eukariotic cells are evidence of evolution. They were formed by a prokariotic cell entering another, forming the nuclei. The remains are two different DNA/RNAs.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
Cyanobacteria?
For the last time, a colony of a same species of bacteria is NOT an multicellular organism!
"eukariotic cells are evidence of evolution"???
Maybe the O2 is evidence of evolution??? Hmmm...
Scroll down!
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Then what is it? It's a PRIMITIVE multicellular organism. God, do you think they just popped out like that with no reason? It's PROGRESSIVE! That's how evolution works.
Trying to ridicule is NOT an appropriate rebutal, thank you. We have DNA in our nuclei AND in our mitochondria. Each one was from a different cell who got together. I don't get what's so hard to understand.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
"It's PROGRESSIVE!"
Then show me progress!
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Google examples of speciation.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
Specification???
Specification or microevolution or variations is very well tested and observed.
Macroevolution = fairy tale
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Micro evolution is like dogs staying dogs right? But if they change enough not to be able to reproduce are they still dogs? Well that's speciation.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
Chihuahua and Great Dane are able to interbreed.
Any kind of dog is able to interbreed with any kind of dog.
Wolf and any kind of dog are able to interbreed.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Well, dogs aren't an example of speciation. That's why I asked you to go and look for examples that actually work. Also take a look at ring species.
Now if you can't accept that don't bother answering. It means you can't understand or don't want to understand science and you're just wasting my time.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule
Dogs aren't an example of specification??? Ring species???
Accept what??? Wasting your time??? But we had such a nice chat.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec I can't believe this. I said SPECIATION not specification. Dogs can interbreed therfore there was no speciation. They are still all the same specie obviously. Ring species prove that lots of microevolution end up making macroevolution. Just look them up.
ivanlagrossemoule 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec "Whale need those bones in order to procreate" Whales do not need a pelvis to procreate, genius. So much for your knowledge of science, especially anatomy. In fact there are no mammals that require a pelvis to procreate, as most have a baculum, except for humans, whales and some others. On the other hand, no animal is capable of walking without a pelvis (and some version of bony extremeties, be they legs or flippers). BTW, sharks and many others do fine without a pelvis.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis
I am not talking about pelvis, you poor misguided soul.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
« Whale need those bones in order to procreate »
Perhaps they do, to some extent. However, they do not require those bones to have the form of rudimentary legs, attached to a rudimentary pelvis. Least of all do they require that those legs occasionally are expressed in an atavistic form, projecting beyond the torso. Explain, if a whale needs particular bones for procreating, why these bones should have the morphology of legs, including pelvis, if you will?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor ~Sharks do just fine with claspers, which have no bones at all. Clockwork is just spouting bibliolator nonsense he's picked up from creatard websites, probably Hovind.
pontecanis 8 months ago
« it's been attempted with fruit flies »
WHAT has been attempted with fruit flies, specifically?
BE SPECIFIC, and PROVIDE REFERENCES to VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATION on the subject.
Show us that you understand what it is that scientists have been trying to do with fruitflies.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« bacteria evolves into multicellular organism »
Which is observed.
« reptile evolves into mammal »
Which is inferred from the available data.
« ape evolves into intelligent being »
We ARE apes.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
You are an idiot.
Fruit flies were radiated and exposed to various chemicals in order to speed up the mutations, and since the fruit fly have a short life, it's possible to observe new generation every two weeks.
Where is a transition between reptile and mammal?
Intelligence is the ultimate goal of evolution, why are we the only intelligent being?
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
« Fruit flies were radiated and exposed to various chemicals in order to speed up the mutations »
REFERENCES TO VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATION.
I want to read WHAT the scientists were hoping to demonstrate, HOW they did it and WHAT exactly the results were. You are providing none of this.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« Where is a transition between reptile and mammal? »
Raranimus dashankouensis, Liu et al., 2009
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« Intelligence is the ultimate goal of evolution »
No. Evolution has no goals.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
References? Google it.
Raranimus dashankouensis??? I am looking at the bones, and I have no idea what is this. This is your transitional species? Pitiful.
Evolution has no goals???!!!
Why do you feel hunger and pain?
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
« Google it. »
How can I google it, boy, if I have no idea what the hell you are babbling about. There is any number of experiments on fruit flies, with any number of goals. WHICH ONES ARE YOU REFERRING TO? What where the intended goals of the experiment? What were its methods? What were the results? PROVIDE REFERENCES TO VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATIONS.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« Evolution has no goals? »
Correct. Evolution has no goals. It is simply what happens when autonomous replicators with varying inherited traits compete against one another in a limited environment.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Your fairy tale is mathematical impossibility.
If you don't know how to google it, how in the world are you going to understand it?
Here is an eyeopener for you:
/watch?v=znAFVL28HpQ
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
« Your fairy tale is mathematical impossibility »
Really? Then show me that math, boy.
« If you don't know how to google it, how in the world are you going to understand it? »
Stop deceiving yourself, boy. YOU are the one who started talking about experiments with fruit flies. I know of at least a hundred different things that could be tested using fruit flies in an experiment. WHICH ONE ARE YOU REFERRING TO? Show me the documentation.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« Here is an eyeopener for you »
Walter Veith? Are you fucking kidding me? If you don't want to be serious, then go bore somebody else.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
He was a professor of genetics and head of zoology department.
Math is in the video, old man!
Type fruit flies radiation experiments.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
« He was a professor of genetics and head of zoology department »
I'll just have to take your word for it, because I can find no references to any zoology departments at the university he's claimed to have worked.
I do know a W. Veith who got his name writing about - not zoology - nutrition and health. Is this the Walter Veith you mean?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Type "Walter J Veith" in google.
There is also his personal testimony on youtube, type "Walter J. Veith Testimony".
Video about evolution is in 6 parts, watch all.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
« Type "Walter J Veith" in google »
Google Is Your Friend. Found it. According to communication with Cape University, he was head of the zoology dpt. for almost one whole term, switching to the physiology dpt. after that. Very nice.
The real question is, did he publish any research supporting his beliefs?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor He did publish supporting his beliefs--all of its HIV/AIDS denialism, I'm afrraid. No research was involved, of course.
pontecanis 8 months ago
« He did publish supporting his beliefs »
What, there are scientific papers and letters on his name on the subject that have not been refuted by later research, and that support his outlandish beliefs?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Published research?
He made the whole series of video presentations titled "Genesis Conflict".
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Video presentations are NOT published research, fool! He made a series of videos, veracity undetermined if not highly questionable from what I've seen of this biblical apologist. He certainly knows fuck-all about biology.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis
Where did I said that it is a research??? Where?
"highly questionable" you say?
Marine and green iguanas can't interbreed???
Well, you are stupid enough to believe that.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec "Where did I said that it is a research??? Where? YOUR WORDS-->"Published research? He made the whole series of video presentations titled "Genesis Conflict" YOUR WORDS!
Marine and green iguanas can't interbreed? Nope---they aren't even found in the same place. Marine Iguanas are only found in the Galapagos, and nowhere else (OH NO!!! NOT THE GALAPAGOS!!!). Green iguanas are found from Mexico through Central America, on the EAST side of the Andes. Too bad, so sad.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis
And from that you concluded that research=video presentations?
Everyone can publish some made up "research", but it takes a real courage to make a series of video presentations.
Maybe you don't know, but there is something that is called "artificial insemination"!
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
« Marine and green iguanas can't interbreed? »
They do not. Amblyrhynchus cristatus occasionally interbreeds with sister species from the genus Conolophus, but not with species from the genus Iguana, as they are too far removed genetically - due to the law of evolution: genetic divergence between reproductively isolated populations will always increase, never decrease.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Yes they can interbreed, by using artificial insemination.
Verifiable research you want? Show me that a bacteria evolves into multicellular organism.
By the way, here is another eyeopener for you, watch all parts:
/watch?v=Ec8lpcA5hls
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
« Yes they can interbreed, by using artificial insemination. »
Really? REFERENCE.
« Show me that a bacteria evolves into multicellular organism. »
Already done that. And yes, a colony organism is a multicellular organism - or at least an intermediary between single celled and multicellular.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« here is another eyeopener »
Eyeopener? It certainly contains nothing new or remotely scientific. I mean, come on, Berlinski? Who are you going to throw in next, Behe? Dembski?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« He made the whole series of video presentations »
That's nice. No verifiable research then? No publications in a format amenable to experimental or observational replication and verification?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« Math is in the video »
Really? Where? There's about five minutes of irrelevant misrepresentations before he comes to his point - whatever it is - but I'm not seeing any math relating to population genetics.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
« Type fruit flies radiation experiments. »
Are you brain dead? How many times am I going to have to repeat: THERE ARE HUNDREDS SUCH EXPERIMENTS. Each with different goals and different methods, to test different hypotheses.
WHICH ONES DO YOU MEAN? Just provide a reference to a paper or letter already, so that I can see what the hell you're talking about. Can't be that difficult, can it?
Or is it that *you* yourself have no idea what you're on about?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Angelica Zambrano~pure hearsay. Not establishable as factual by any means whatsoever. You are distinctly gullible, and are only interested in dogma and whatever fairy tale, hallucination, or delusion that supports the dogma of your cult of idolatry.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis
"fairy tale, hallucination, or delusion"
Exactly what the theory of evolution is. It happened far away and long time ago, nobody has seen it, nobody has proved it.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aClockworkBoec It happened far away and long time ago, nobody has seen it, nobody has proved it.Like the birth of the Nazarene? You weren't there to see it, so he doesn't exist---see hw inane the argument sounds? Thank you Kent Hovind.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec "Watch the testimony of Angelica Zambrano" Personal testimony is uncorroborated hearsay, and worthless. Since there is no such thing as a 'kind', you are SOL there. According to your fiction, chimpanzees and bonobos are the same kind, yet cannot interbreed due to erythroblastosis. Green Iguanas and marine iguanas are supposedly the same kind, but cannot interbreed. Macroevolution demonstrated. We await your admission you were wrong.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis
Look at those girl's eyes, and decide whether she is telling the truth.
Actually those iguanas can interbreed by using artificial insemination, the same is for those apes.
Show me a clear evidence that a bacteria evolves into multicellular organism.
Come on man, you believe that man evolved from a rock! Give me some evidence, not some weird interpretation of natural processes.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago
@aClockworkBoec "Look at those girl's eyes,etc" You really understand almost nothing about science do ypu? As a mental health practitioner for 40 years, I have seen both psychopaths who could convincingly lie to the pope, and deluded people who are convinced their television is implanting thoughts in their brain--and seriously believe it. No sale! Artificial insemination??? Just how do you get natural interbreeding that way? BTW--It's been tried with cattle and Bison-->doesn't work.
pontecanis 8 months ago
@pontecanis
"It's been tried with cattle and Bison-->doesn't work."
Actually, it does work.
aClockworkBoec 8 months ago