@2TWISTEDBALLS The unfortunate thing is that for that to happen the genes in our arms would need to change to become wings. No chance of us having functional wings like Gabriel in X-Men. In reality a human with wings would lose use of his or her hands like how birds lost their forelimbs when their dinosaur ancestors evolved. Same story with bats. It seems that vertebrate animals that fly have to sacrifice their arms and hands to become wings.
the thing is, us humans arent made to be immortal, not just physicaly but psychologically. after the first few hundred years anyone would just go insane from the mental fatigue of living in such a depressing, dull, repulsive world.
ugh i hate how theists talk about god in the third person, if they believe in him so much why don't they ask him to make a FUCKING youtube account. it really makes me sick to see people have their intelligence stunted so badly by such a flawed idea.
@bananasquads yea io agree if they drop the bibles and start working on fixing this planet i think we would of evolved by now :P (i know that not how it works justing using that as a metaphore)the world WILL be destroyed one day we need to go somewhear eles that can support life if not the hum,an race is screwed im not waiting for the rapture if there even is one i wouldnt want to go i would rather be imortal and help this place /=
Heres to all the "know it all's" in Darwinism and fundamental Christians, your all full crazy ideas, We can learn nothing from neither of you ! "I HAVE SPOKEN ! "
if humans were once monkeys than the dna would be some part of the same and there isnt any god either thats not logical there is one power the wish power
i think next is we start to lose more hair and muscle mass,for instance black people or natives are the less evolved people on earth they are usally stronger then white or asians becuse they still rely on muscle power.
@Omega3chimp There is no such thing as "Less evolved." Every speices has been evolving since the begining of life. It is imposible for one speices to be more evolved then the next.
@Omega3chimp haha this fucking guy. i once thought that too. whats next is our skin color turns whitter and our heads get larger and we lose all our hair and our eyes become gigantic.... hey what do you know we evolve into ufos
Flavobacterium- found to be eating nylon, which was not invented until the late thirties. The bacteria evolved and were able to feed off of this new synthetic material. Nylon is new stuff. This is an observed account for evolution. Evolution is also observed constantly in labs where new vaccines are trying to be created. Because the bacteria evolve too quickly and become resistant to new antibiotics, new medicine must keep up. FACT
I have read a couple of his books and I have found flaws in them aswell. Go ahead and Google "richard dawkins flaws" or something and u can find out for urself.
3. Its amazing how many animals have a form of communication. If you pay attention, many animals comunicate through body language. The first human language most likely came around the time when our species began to lose the majority of the hair on our bodies--due to the development of sweat glands. If you notice dogs--they don't possess sweat glands-- you'll see that they have to cool down by panting. You know, the tongue sticking-out thing. This is their way of keeping cool.
So when humans developed sweat glands, we no longer needed to use our mouths to cool down. With this we can now piece the puzzle. We were now able to use our voices as a form of communication. first with the grunt hi grunt, then with time we developed a more efficient way of communicating. Its all very complicated, yet simple really.
That doesn't answer my question. Think about it logically on how we developed hundreds of different languages. Like english and chinese. The Bible sais something about that God split the languages at the tower of Babel. At least it has an explanation.
I've heard this argument many times. Apparently, "god" was trying to stop humanity from reaching "heaven" via the tower of babel... Really?
If one could build a tower tall enough, he would find only a gasping death as he reaches altitudes above 20,000 feet.
2 perfect examples of linguistic evolution are american english and mexican spanish.
People from england speak english, so do americans, yet most americans have no idea what a bloke is, because the language changed, as in EVOLVED. Wake up.
So, why did god feel he needed to confuse the languages to stop the tower that wouldn't have worked anyway.
Languages don't just appear all of the sudden. English, french, german, italian and spanish are all derived from latin which is derived from greek which is derived from sanskrit and so on and so forth. God had nothing to do with it. Languages separated and changed over time because of slangs and dialects. The Tower of Babel is bullshit. Thats the point I was making.
@Psychentist I thought about this, and it would make sense if only it hadn't been for one thing: God confused the languages because He told them to spread around the world, but instead they gathered in one place and built a tower in case another flood would come (even though God said that will never happen again). So He confused the languages in order to make them spread from eachother.
2: This is what the theory of natural selection is all about. Let's do a little experiment
Assume that, if you are a God-loving individual, then you live a long happy life. You are more likely to get married, and pass God along to your children so they can live long, happy lives, and the cycle can continue.
Assume that the opposite is true: God-hating individuals die young. They have less of a chance to find a mate, and pass along their beliefs to their children, Cycle is broken, they die off.
@DecemberControversy Correction: that it occurs is a fact. However, that theory STILL has questions and difficulties to answer, like how evolution exactly took place. Just because you like to reapeat fact all the time doesnt make it true. Even those who advocate for that theory might also energically dissent from what other have of evolution.
Even Abiogenesis does not say life arose from nothing. It says life arose from organic molecules that were present in large quantities on Earth, as "prebiotic soup". Once you had primitive life arising from the molecules following the laws of thermodynamics, Evolution took over and diversified it.
"If humans descended from the ape, then why the ape still exist?.> > > **Think about it**. Cheers." that's like saying "Americans descended from Europeans, then why do Europeans still exist?"
no, i'll explain why this is wrong with an example that's equally wrong. If iron ships exist and they are ships, why are there still wooden ships? well, it's not because something is better in one area, that the other thing cannot exist. Iron is stonger but wood is lighter (i think :p). they have strong points in different fields.
our ancestors lived in different fields, and with addaption to the different eviroment, the got different strong points, creating diverse species.
Man you running this,lol hahaha i was reading that conversation with that dumbass
"ohnnymathews1" I am a atheist and man i hate these fucking religious people they all a bunch if dumb asses with no knowledge of any kind and always think they are right even thought they don't really know the subject.
Good luck finding the missing link Manhunt 48, I hear they found a new incomplete skeleton for you to analyze. I've enjoyed the debate, Ill be praying for you. If you ever want to hear from God again, send me an email Ill translate for you. All the questions you can't figure out, I'm sure he'd be glad to aleviate those frustrations. Don't wait to late though, I'td be a shame to spend your life in the dark needlesly.
"Good luck finding the missing link" ur about 70 years behind on ur palaeontology, there's been loads found.
", I hear they found a new incomplete skeleton for you to analyze." incomplete?!?!, have even seen it? its almost perfectly preserved, they can even analyse its stomach content.
"I bet the milk thing is simple satire used to avoid discussing spirituality" Not really, it was an experiment, praying to milk produces the same results as praying to god.
"hahahaha you're the missing link dude hahahahaha" oh haha, you haven't got any basis for an argument and clearly don't know what your on about so you have to resort to insults.
really?. . . then your IQ clearly can be above 50 and not worth anyones time if you can't even realize when you substitute any argument for calling someone 'the missing link'. . .
oh...about prayer and doctors. My sister is a nurse practicioner, and the reason she wants to help people is because of the love that God has shown her. Also, my Aunt was a Schizophrenic, Doctors could only treat her symptoms. Finally we prayed for her, and she is better. You can argue untill your blue cheeked, but you cant take away the truth found within God EXPERIENCES. If you stoped eliminating God as a possibility, you would "see" him, and you too would defend his principals.
"Also, my Aunt was a Schizophrenic, Doctors could only treat her symptoms. Finally we prayed for her, and she is better. " with that logic then people who just drop dead for no reason is proof against.
" If you stoped eliminating God as a possibility, you would "see" him" problem is i did believe in him until i was told to actually read the bible.
youve never believed in him, only known a little bit about him and tried to use that tiny bit of knowledge for your own purposes. Knowing him and knowing about him are two different worlds. Also, the case of My Aunt isn't an example of logic, it's a case of experience with concrete results experienced in a real (not theological) time frame.
"youve never believed in him," so the first 16 years of my life never actually happened then? are you trying to say you know about my life?
"only known a little bit about him and tried to use that tiny bit of knowledge for your own purposes" it was only when i tried learning more which shown to me what a load BS it really is.
"about faith: the definition I gave came from the bible" yeh heres a tip, get your definitions from a dictionary. . . the bible says atheists are working the devil LOl.
surely you havent developed a "double standard" regarding "life evaluation?" Dude, you stereotype non naturalists with a passion...you know all of our motivations...all of our thoughts...rationality..and intentions. If you get anymore powerfull...youll be like God yourself.
even better: if you eliminate the correct answer (God) as a possibility, youll be offended by the correct answer whenever its presented. and...youll never have the right answer. Man it's great knowing the person who has the complete truth!
" if you eliminate the correct answer (God) as a possibility" just look at history. . . people blamed god for everything, the tides, earthquakes, the sun rising and setting, life cycles. . . litereally everything. as time went on all of them have been shown to be of natural causes.
Simply us admitting we don't know about something doesn't mean " god did it", that's the god of the gaps argument and only retards our ability to learn.
"Simply us admitting we don't know about something doesn't mean " god did it" Dude..thats an "either or" fallacy [aka..false delimma]. you only have a solitary choice when analyzing possibilities under this fallacy. (acording to you) a non naturalistic approach to the scientific unknown is "God did it." Though you disagree with every non-naturalistic theory in existence, you know that DEVELOPED theories do EXIST, and there is much more to them than "God did it."
"youll be offended by the correct answer whenever its presented." know your saying you know what i'll do?. . . lol
If the answer appears and against all the evidence and odds that the naturalistic world view is wrong then i will happy because knowledge would of been gained.
"Man it's great knowing the person who has the complete truth!" it's just a shame he only exists in your head.
Heres another one: my niece had a fused skull that fused too soon. Her skull would have burst as she grew, without a painful surgery that left her skull open for months. We came together as a family and prayed, and then the fused skull cap was nolonger fused. Explain? Well, you can't, not with naturalism, because your presuppositions disallow any belief of unseen activity (unless the activity is creatures evolving over billions of years in the past).
"We came together as a family and prayed, and then the fused skull cap was nolonger fused. Explain?" shit happens, if you pray for money and you end up finding £20 on the street doesnt mean god did it. putting god there just replaces one unknown with another.
okay then, explain why perfectly healthy people just drop dead?
"no one can ever prove it, until not it just a f______theory."
A theory is a model that explains a scientific phenomenon. Theories make testable predictions, and those tests, experiments, can falsify a theory.
A number of tests have been levelled against evolution, and it's passed them all. If you don't believe evolution, you can test it too.The fact that evolution survives as a theory doesn't discount it, it makes it more likely to be true.
"that's a theory dude lol" Can you not even understand the scientific definition of 'theory' when some even explains it to you ?
read my last 2 comments again and please don't reply until you have understood.
In science a theory describes a phenomenon.
Evolution is true.
Yes its a theory, Just like cell theory, just like gravity, just like atomic thoery, just like relativity. . . if you have a problem with evolution then gotta have the same problem with gravity and deny it.
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, letter to Mr bentham admits, When we decend into details we can prove that no one species has changed ( i.e. We cannot prove that a single species has changed); nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the ground work of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not.
from darwin himself Lie ya way out of this evolve ppl
manhunt you guys are quoting DARWIN and now are you belittling him
/ Darwin i refer to
in 150 years nothing is new & if evo;lv was corect proof would be all over no need to look in a microscope to find 1 little speck of hope then trrow a world wide party ROFL im amazed at your zeel to run fro the Living GOD
"you guys are quoting DARWIN and now are you belittling him" NO, we bearly ever quote him, we only do that when you people try to quote mine him. I'm belittling him, he's the father of all modern biology, simply theres been 150 year of discovery since his time so what said had been made obsolete and been updated.
"in 150 years nothing is new" have you never heard of DNA?!?!?!, it says exactly what evolution predicts. not to mention the thousands of fossils that have been found.
"if evo;lv was corect proof would be all over" IT is it's everywhere. Every single field of science that could have anything to say on evolution just so happens to match perfectly with everything it says. Any experiments done agree with evolution and add to the mountains of evidence proving it correct.
"look in a microscope to find 1 little speck of hope then trrow a world wide party " You know anything they've done do you?, and yet you think your word overrules 99.8% of scientists. LOL
"im amazed at your zeel to run fro the Living GOD" I'm not running from anything, just no body has been able to give any evidence for it, and they just make wild claims with no evidence that aren't even internally consistent.
"my brothers IQ is a world record manhunt48 his name is JESUS he created the universe" this is where you need to prove it.
What give you the ability to know what made the universe? which eludes scientists and that only seems to be backed up by a bronze age book.
"He exists because he interacs with me, now that I accepted him. Time with Him is proof in itself." Again, if anyone were to say that about any other religion you would call them crazy or a devil worshipper.
definition of theory(scientific): "theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon."
here, I asked and God gave me something to tell you: "Please don't naturalize me away, I know far more than you realize and I love you. If youve lost hope in me, don't worry, you can find it again. There are many people with great ideas, great endeavors behind them, but what does it amount to? If youd lay down your hate, seek me out and see me as even a possibility, you'd be surprised at what you would find."
So you only selectively accept the principals that the former (literally)Clergy drop out theorized? Theres a difference between futher developing a concept, and throwing away foundational understandings.
have you ever seen a mutation that caused a gain of information in an animal's genome? A mutation causes a reduction of genetic material, this reduction brings about the trait change. This is Fact, not theory, in light of this, heres a theory: After billions of years of mutations, "upper level animals" would diminish into single celled organisms due to the massive loss of genetic material. Is a proposal like this unsientific, or do you ask questions to eliminate misconceptions and get answers?
"have you ever seen a mutation that caused a gain of information in an animal's genome?" yes, the TRIM5 to TRIM5-CypA mutation in monkeys which protects cells from infection of retroviruses like HIV.
" A mutation causes a reduction of genetic material, this reduction brings about the trait change. This is Fact" No thats simply creationist propaganda.
does it [theories] describe concrete phenomenon within observable time frames, or postulate POSSIBILITIES OF PROCESS that MAY have resulted in the empirical world?
Show me a case (link web adress, etc..) with a species transition specimin that is "crystal." I don't want to see a whale with warts for legs, show me a crystal "transition" between species, complete and unquestionable (emphasis: COMPLETE). Sampling error is frowned upon in the scientific community...isn't it? This would greatly help me embrace the Naturalistic religion. Try to stay focused now...show a transition!
"Show me a case (link web adress, etc..) with a species transition specimin that is "crystal." You seem to of totally missed the point.
I was simply saying crystals are some of the most ordered objects known to man, but they're formed by a completely natural process but you people have no problem with crystallization.
Crystals simple show the creationist argument of " design requires a designer" to be completely false.
I never once said it formed by natural selection lol.
"crystal" is used within this context as a slang adjective synonomous in meaning to clear, complete, etc (ie: the "lucy" remains aren't "Crystal." ) Show me a "Crystal" example of a transpecies transition, that doesn't require filling in the (evolutionary) blanks with naturalistic faith.
It's propoganda? Why is it proven through "concrete" testing(empirical evidence). If the "TRIM5 to TRIM5-CypA " is as you say, isn't that an anomaly? If this is A SOLITARY case of genetic gain, what about the millions of other populations that experience mutations? The burden of proof is on your hands my friend.
"It's propoganda?" Yes, lies from the discovery institute which have been revealed to be so by people who actually know something about the subject. that's the same discovery institute who wouldn't defend intelligent design under oath.
"If the "TRIM5 to TRIM5-CypA " is as you say, isn't that an anomaly?" well any mutation is, but why does that matter?, it developed and now part of the species therefore showing your idea of "no information has ever been added by a mutation" to be false.
"what about the millions of other populations that experience mutations?" what about them?, your argument has been shown to be false don't try moving on to something else because you don't like what you see, you people always try this.
"The burden of proof is on your hands my friend." the person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. so you need to provide some with your god.
here...let me help you with decyphering context. If you are discussing mutations, you have the liberty to discuss diferent dimensions of mutation, and it's processes. If one was to say, "oh, well I think Richard Dawkins stinks!" that would be avoiding the topic. I don't believe that just took place my friend. And no, the argument isnt "shown to be false" simply because you say: "it's been shown to be false." Your one anomaly within an anomaly example proves nothing.
"And no, the argument isnt "shown to be false" simply because you say:" Did you even read the article i link ?, or do any of your own searchs?
That mutation improved the survivability of the species of monkey. Your argument was that no mutation adds anything good to the organism. which if you read the article will show your false.
"Your one anomaly within an anomaly example proves nothing." any mutation is an anomaly within reason. but that's not the point.
your great at pulling "snippets" from a response , "quoting" it (like you will this one) while ignoring the rest of the paragraph. Let me rephrase (if you'll alow it) or is rephrasing a question an act of "side stepping?"...Its hard to know in this forum. Is genetic material gained or reduced(regarding a genome )during mutation in99.999999999999999 percent of all observed cases? you need a lot of mutation fuel to run your evolution machine. This issue is important.
"your great at pulling "snippets" from a response , "quoting" it (like you will this one)" Yes i do, otherwise if i just go on talking you wont know what i'm refering to.
"Is genetic material gained or reduced(regarding a genome )during mutation in99.999999999999999 percent of all observed cases?" NO, sometimes there is a gain or a reduction, mutation simply means change. . . often it just changes whats already there but there are mutations which increase genetic material.
"you need a lot of mutation fuel to run your evolution machine. This issue is important." yes, there's over 3.5 billion years of it.
"so I've proven my case " what case? you haven't made one at all.
"you'd naturalize it all away" Well if science has already explained things then yes. . . all i can do is show you this. Ignorance of the information and facts does not mean they aren't there and does not mean it must be magic.
"This would greatly help me embrace the Naturalistic religion" problem is, that its not a religion, we don't worship anything, we dont take anything on faith, or go to a building on Sundays to compare clothes.
we simply accept what the evidence tells us. So if you want us to believe in god then simply show the evidence for one.
You have much in common with the Church that ails you. You pack your brain with knowledge of nature, explained by examining nature. All in hopes to find meaning to your life and life in general. They pack their brains with knowledge about God in hopes to find meaning to life. You ponder over how life was established and progresses, they do likewise. You accept second hand knowledge as a standard, the church-likewise. Faith: placing trust in what is proposed, though not emperical.
"u have much in common with the Church that ails u" Really? we don't worship anything magical, we don't need faith because of evidence, we don't go to a shed to compare clothing on weekends. so no we're not.
"u accept second hand knowledge as a standard, the church-likewise." i can go & look at the results of experiments, i can see the evidence which backs up what science says, everyday we use tools that are products of science, the church just makes claims with no foundation in them.
I can pray to God, see specific results regarding the prayer. In real time, the spirit of God brings things of the physical world to my attention, and relates to me regarding the matter. I worship God and the unseen "presence" of Gods spirit radiates [literally] through every pore in my body. I see in my son a unique personality and core spirituality that is unrelated and unexplained by evolution, it shows me God's ability to create uniqueness. I hear god speak and I write it down.
"I can pray to God, see specific results regarding the prayer." Hehe yeh i thought that as well. then i tried something and prayed to a bottle of milk. . . guess what. . . exactly the same results.
"I see in my son a unique personality and core spirituality that is unrelated and unexplained by evolution" really, how is it unexplained by evolution?
really, I bet the milk thing is simple satire used to avoid discussing spirituality, because it isn't familiar ground with you, it makes you feel uncomfortable. Satire and sarcasm is the cheapest way out of this disagreement, the most youll get is a few snickers from the group that shares your presupositions. I don't take your philosophy seriously either, I just learned to cease the sarcasm after junior high.
"God could send you a brand new red corvett on your driveway, delivered from the sky and you would naturalize it all away." LOL thats a rather typical comment from one of you.
IF there was no reasonable explanation for the appearance of the car, and there was evidence that it was some magic dude then of course anyone would accept it. but that wouldn't prove its the magic dude that you follow.
Obviously, your 'faith' requires you to deny what every biologist knows is quite true. All of modern biology is based on it and it's premises are being used on a daily basis to fight disease, promote health, and make very REAL applications. I know that is difficult for you to believe, but the model known as evolution is the VERY REAL backbone of biology. If you don't believe it, pray instead of going to the Dr next time.
You have much in common with the Church that ails you. You pack your brain with knowledge of nature, explained by examining nature. All in hopes to find meaning to your life and life in general. They pack their brains with knowledge about God in hopes to find meaning to life. You ponder over how life was established and progresses, they do likewise. You accept second hand knowledge as a standard, the church-likewise. Faith: placing trust in what is proposed, though not emperical.
In the end, Evolution just plain does not work. It's a novel theory, there is some science to it, but in the end it just does not work, period. DNA does NOT restructure according to an organism's learned habits/lifestyle. If evolution was so rock solid, it wouldn't be changing all the time every time it runs into a kink. The King James Bible was translated in 1611 and hasn't changed since. Try reading it once.
The Bible says the earth is flat. And that the sun revolves around the earth. And that humans are made of dirt. And that snakes and donkeys talk. And that insects have 4 legs. And that bats are birds. And that Pi = 3 rather than 3.1416... And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman. The bible tells me so. But I don't believe it. Is this a better source of factual information that the careful collection and study of evidence?
so the earth is billions of years old....humanity never could have possibly seen a brontosaurus? What the heck is the pictograph of at the Kachina Bridge? Did the indians draw an interpretive representation of an elongated poodle? Clearly it couldn't have been a brontasourus? Well, that would compromise the evolutionary catalyst of "billions of years." We cant have that now! you could naturalize this truth to, if you wish.
the reason the bible dosnt change is because it is "gods word" and even if it makes no sence at all you cant change it because that would mean your going against your own relegion.
but thats what scientists do they propose a theory then smash it into bits untill it either fails or is proven true. we have been smashing evolution for over 100 years and its still goin pretty strongly.
it's called PEER REVIEW. when multiple scientists all come to the same conclusion by different means. it's a pretty standard method for ascertaining FACTS from fiction.
creationist "scientists" are the ones trying to fit reality around their preconceived beliefs. they fudge numbers, stretch facts, ignore the majority of supporting evidence to single out anything that seems to be in conflict. they will "prove" something they want to see is true.
Understand that there are peer-reviewed journals which attack Darwinain evolution as well. Don't make the assumption the evolution as spoken about in "Origin of Species" is the only model. There are MANY problems Darwin's ideals run into. Also note there is a number of well respected, world renown scientists who are harsh critics of Darwin.
The original theory was postulated a century and a half ago. MANY revisions have been made, yet the basic concept of natural selection still holds true. The majority of college educated (and I'm not referring to those diploma mills, such as the ones Hovind subscribed to) scientists still supports the modern evolutionary theory. There may be disagreement over minor points, but the only ones disputing the entire theory are creationist scientists, using "facts" based on rubbish.
I agree that creationists are often the only ones disputing evolution as a whole. But I personally, as well as a population among biologists dispute natural selection through random mutations. Admitidely, it is the far most widely taught theory in colleges but mathmaticians have been laughing at it for quite awhile. Dawkins dissapoints me in his "God Dellusion" book, using decieving and incorrect models to explain away the problems which associate themselves to random mutuations.
i'm sitting here in my public library reading books as i type this. i have a book called "Hominid Fossils" with over 700 documented transitional fossils, from early Austrolopithicus Transaalansis dated 2,000,000 years ago, to Homo Erectus.
Education is a great thing, you should look into it, instead of buying into creationist brainwashing bull$h!t.
I wan't to ask you something, why would a highly educated scientist want to lie about a founding? If he would know it's not genuine why would he lie? You know the first bones and bone parts of other human species were found in the beginning of the industrialisation when people started blow up rocks etc to build railways and mine. Bones were found from them, the boned were studied and found much over 6000 years old which is what the bible tells as the age of the earth.
And you obviously don't know what a scientific theory means. It's the highest grade of evidence that science can produce. A theory can be either proven or not proven. Evolution is proven. A theory can't be made into a fact even if it would be proven.
This is a common error people make, they think that a theory can't be proven but it can, and evolution is.
Scientists know what they are doing, they got the highest IQ's in the world and are very highly educated. An old book written by jews isn't.
How can a theory be proven? Can you give an example?
Before you blow up at me, I should mention I'm a total "believer" in Science (I hate that word) and Reason, but I'm not sure how you would PROVE a theory.
Certainly doing experiment after experiment, which rely on a particularly theory directly or indirectly, and having things continually work as expected is supportive of the theory, but I'm not sure how you would ever prove a theory correct conclusively.
Well I wouldn't say as good as proven. There's a strength in something being directly observable that simply can't be matched by any other level of surity.
But that doesn't mean a Scientific Theory is worthless. That's a false dichotomy, at best. The Theory of Evolution offers a naturalistic explanation for many phenomena in the world. It has been supported by mountains of evidence across multiple disciplines in Science, and is heavily relied upon today.
A theory can be reinforced by supporting evidence. there is evidence for gravity, so thus we have the 'theory of gravity'. there is evidence for time and space, so thus we have the 'theory of relativity'.
a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Ehhehe, sorry I was just laughing so much that I was about to fall from my chair.
I'm really sorry to break your little bubble.
There has been found a lot of human bones from over 10 000 years ago. One of the most famous mummies which has survivived for 3.2 million is an Australopithecus called Lucy who was found in Ethiopia in the 70's.
dont think we evolved in the last 30 years lol..
MrWaddefak 5 months ago
so, we had television sets before books?
9t5Gina2k7 9 months ago 5
@9t5Gina2k7 I think it's supposed to be a monitor and a laptop
AluminumCyclops 5 months ago
thanks not.
gregrutz 11 months ago
history does repeat it self so maybe we might turn back into monkeys
osiris3yhn 11 months ago
There actually isn't that many REAL (not fake) fossil remains for this LOL I believe its closer to like... eh 2
LampPlaceThing 1 year ago
aaahhhhhhhh why didnt we grow wings or a sting or change colour. That would have been SWEEEEEET!!
2TWISTEDBALLS 1 year ago
@2TWISTEDBALLS The unfortunate thing is that for that to happen the genes in our arms would need to change to become wings. No chance of us having functional wings like Gabriel in X-Men. In reality a human with wings would lose use of his or her hands like how birds lost their forelimbs when their dinosaur ancestors evolved. Same story with bats. It seems that vertebrate animals that fly have to sacrifice their arms and hands to become wings.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733 thanks
2TWISTEDBALLS 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733
Your nick fits perfect with your comment lol
hudfadz 8 months ago
the thing is, us humans arent made to be immortal, not just physicaly but psychologically. after the first few hundred years anyone would just go insane from the mental fatigue of living in such a depressing, dull, repulsive world.
bananasquads 1 year ago
What's next?
Clothes!
Echofromsomewere1 1 year ago
ugh i hate how theists talk about god in the third person, if they believe in him so much why don't they ask him to make a FUCKING youtube account. it really makes me sick to see people have their intelligence stunted so badly by such a flawed idea.
bananasquads 1 year ago
@bananasquads yea io agree if they drop the bibles and start working on fixing this planet i think we would of evolved by now :P (i know that not how it works justing using that as a metaphore)the world WILL be destroyed one day we need to go somewhear eles that can support life if not the hum,an race is screwed im not waiting for the rapture if there even is one i wouldnt want to go i would rather be imortal and help this place /=
tjinga2u1 1 year ago
lol
MaryStewart 1 year ago
Heres to all the "know it all's" in Darwinism and fundamental Christians, your all full crazy ideas, We can learn nothing from neither of you ! "I HAVE SPOKEN ! "
TheAlliswell 1 year ago
if humans were once monkeys than the dna would be some part of the same and there isnt any god either thats not logical there is one power the wish power
pivotkidvideos 2 years ago
i think next is we start to lose more hair and muscle mass,for instance black people or natives are the less evolved people on earth they are usally stronger then white or asians becuse they still rely on muscle power.
Omega3chimp 2 years ago
@Omega3chimp that is probably the single most racist remark ive ever read on youtube video comments. how has no one called out on this yet?
GerbilorGTFO 1 year ago
@Omega3chimp There is no such thing as "Less evolved." Every speices has been evolving since the begining of life. It is imposible for one speices to be more evolved then the next.
DragonGreenFire 1 year ago
@Omega3chimp haha this fucking guy. i once thought that too. whats next is our skin color turns whitter and our heads get larger and we lose all our hair and our eyes become gigantic.... hey what do you know we evolve into ufos
osiris3yhn 11 months ago
Creationist say we came for nothing, evolution says we came from what was here.
gregrutz 2 years ago
What about the Big Bang theory? Was it here?
avoeloos 2 years ago
your question makes no sense. Perhaps you ought to learn to ask the right questions first.
SikhiArt 2 years ago
no its not that it makes no sense...its that life is to complex than we came from monkys theory.
So you learn te READ a question before you poste a comment:-))
avoeloos 2 years ago
You're right life is more complex than just coming from monkeys... this is why we have evolution.
Look up evolution and read about it then ask questions.
SikhiArt 2 years ago
I did ...thats why i am asking those questions ;-P
avoeloos 2 years ago
well, your questions appear as though you have not. So you might want to review it once more.
SikhiArt 2 years ago
i did and it raises more questions than answers.
avoeloos 2 years ago
How would you know? You're questions reek of ignorance of not only evolution but also of the scientific method and science itself.
SikhiArt 2 years ago
ignorance?? I am ignorance bcuz i ask questions you can't aswer or you dont understand??
Why dont you explain to me what evolution is and how it works.
avoeloos 2 years ago
"ignorance?? I am ignorance bcuz i ask questions you can't aswer or you dont understand??"
You are ignorant for making such a comment. You dont understand what you are being told and it seems as if you dont want to understand.
SikhiArt 2 years ago
Yes the Big Bang Theory was here. Read it on a lavatory door once.
DuTriDu 2 years ago
I did..and its bullshit.
Its just a THEORY not a FACT come on men:-))
avoeloos 2 years ago
what's just a theory?
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
Evolution theory.
avoeloos 2 years ago
so you disregard it as a fact because its "just a theory"?
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
Yes sir.
and what do you think.
avoeloos 2 years ago
I think that gravity is just a theory...lets forget about it being a "fact". Let me ask: are you a creationist?
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
no i am not. are you?
avoeloos 2 years ago
hmm...lets just go home happy accepting that evolution is a theory/fact k...
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
ok.
But evolution is still just a theory not a fact.
avoeloos 2 years ago
well it is a fact, just like gravity.
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
It is not proven because it has not been observed yet. So it is not a fact yet for like millions of years now on.
TheChilledNorwegian 2 years ago
Flavobacterium- found to be eating nylon, which was not invented until the late thirties. The bacteria evolved and were able to feed off of this new synthetic material. Nylon is new stuff. This is an observed account for evolution. Evolution is also observed constantly in labs where new vaccines are trying to be created. Because the bacteria evolve too quickly and become resistant to new antibiotics, new medicine must keep up. FACT
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
Evolution is rather a hypothesis, because "theory" actually has a deeper meaning.
TheChilledNorwegian 2 years ago
Evolution is a fact. Read Richard Dawkins books.
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
I have read a couple of his books and I have found flaws in them aswell. Go ahead and Google "richard dawkins flaws" or something and u can find out for urself.
TheChilledNorwegian 2 years ago
Name three flaws.
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
1. How did we evolve from non-living "stuff" to living organism? Scientists have failed to explain this.
2. Why did some the first living organisms evolve, while others didn't? Some one else made an attempt at answering this, but he/she failed.
3. How did we develop languages if we started off with just grunts? "Grunt grunt "hi" grunt grunt"
TheChilledNorwegian 2 years ago
3. Its amazing how many animals have a form of communication. If you pay attention, many animals comunicate through body language. The first human language most likely came around the time when our species began to lose the majority of the hair on our bodies--due to the development of sweat glands. If you notice dogs--they don't possess sweat glands-- you'll see that they have to cool down by panting. You know, the tongue sticking-out thing. This is their way of keeping cool.
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
3. continued...
So when humans developed sweat glands, we no longer needed to use our mouths to cool down. With this we can now piece the puzzle. We were now able to use our voices as a form of communication. first with the grunt hi grunt, then with time we developed a more efficient way of communicating. Its all very complicated, yet simple really.
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
That doesn't answer my question. Think about it logically on how we developed hundreds of different languages. Like english and chinese. The Bible sais something about that God split the languages at the tower of Babel. At least it has an explanation.
TheChilledNorwegian 2 years ago
"Come let Us go down there and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech"
Genesis 11:7
Seems like God is a bully here. Okay...this seems like a cruel joke to me.
"Hey look at all the people down there trying to build their own city, lets confuse them so that they can't communicate with one another"
Really? Some explanation this is.
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
I've heard this argument many times. Apparently, "god" was trying to stop humanity from reaching "heaven" via the tower of babel... Really?
If one could build a tower tall enough, he would find only a gasping death as he reaches altitudes above 20,000 feet.
2 perfect examples of linguistic evolution are american english and mexican spanish.
People from england speak english, so do americans, yet most americans have no idea what a bloke is, because the language changed, as in EVOLVED. Wake up.
Psychentist 2 years ago
@Psychentist Well thankyou for trying, but I didn't understand your point.
TheChilledNorwegian 2 years ago
So, why did god feel he needed to confuse the languages to stop the tower that wouldn't have worked anyway.
Languages don't just appear all of the sudden. English, french, german, italian and spanish are all derived from latin which is derived from greek which is derived from sanskrit and so on and so forth. God had nothing to do with it. Languages separated and changed over time because of slangs and dialects. The Tower of Babel is bullshit. Thats the point I was making.
Psychentist 2 years ago
@Psychentist I thought about this, and it would make sense if only it hadn't been for one thing: God confused the languages because He told them to spread around the world, but instead they gathered in one place and built a tower in case another flood would come (even though God said that will never happen again). So He confused the languages in order to make them spread from eachother.
TheChilledNorwegian 2 years ago
2: This is what the theory of natural selection is all about. Let's do a little experiment
Assume that, if you are a God-loving individual, then you live a long happy life. You are more likely to get married, and pass God along to your children so they can live long, happy lives, and the cycle can continue.
Assume that the opposite is true: God-hating individuals die young. They have less of a chance to find a mate, and pass along their beliefs to their children, Cycle is broken, they die off.
ShiningRayde 2 years ago
@ShiningRayde Huh? Is that meant to be AGAINST what I said or FOR what I said? Or is it just ""throwing around an idea""?
TheChilledNorwegian 2 years ago
@DecemberControversy Correction: that it occurs is a fact. However, that theory STILL has questions and difficulties to answer, like how evolution exactly took place. Just because you like to reapeat fact all the time doesnt make it true. Even those who advocate for that theory might also energically dissent from what other have of evolution.
HEC01 1 year ago
-hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
-"a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"
DecemberControversy 2 years ago
@DecemberControversy a hypothesis in which some certainty may took place
HEC01 1 year ago
Even Abiogenesis does not say life arose from nothing. It says life arose from organic molecules that were present in large quantities on Earth, as "prebiotic soup". Once you had primitive life arising from the molecules following the laws of thermodynamics, Evolution took over and diversified it.
Avoelos hopefully that answers your question.
SikhiArt 2 years ago
If humans descended from the ape, then why the ape still exist?.> > > **Think about it**. Cheers.
avoeloos 2 years ago
avoeloos
"If humans descended from the ape, then why the ape still exist?.> > > **Think about it**. Cheers." that's like saying "Americans descended from Europeans, then why do Europeans still exist?"
manhunt48 2 years ago
yes could be...but am I right?
avoeloos 2 years ago
no, i'll explain why this is wrong with an example that's equally wrong. If iron ships exist and they are ships, why are there still wooden ships? well, it's not because something is better in one area, that the other thing cannot exist. Iron is stonger but wood is lighter (i think :p). they have strong points in different fields.
our ancestors lived in different fields, and with addaption to the different eviroment, the got different strong points, creating diverse species.
Tutterkop 2 years ago
Man you running this,lol hahaha i was reading that conversation with that dumbass
"ohnnymathews1" I am a atheist and man i hate these fucking religious people they all a bunch if dumb asses with no knowledge of any kind and always think they are right even thought they don't really know the subject.
hruiz33 2 years ago
We didn't evolve from modern apes, we came from a common ancestor. The apes have evolved as long as we have, till today.
We are a type of ape.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Where did the ape come from?
avoeloos 2 years ago
apes evolved from the first mammals
gregrutz 2 years ago
Where did they come from?
avoeloos 2 years ago
Their mom and dad.
Study evolution for the rest of the story, it explains where you came from.
gregrutz 2 years ago
And were did their mom and dad come from?
I did...but Evolution theory raises more questions than answers. :-)
avoeloos 2 years ago
Evolution answers the questions, or do you believe 'poof' we came from nothing.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Hahah not really..but Evolution says we came from nothing.
avoeloos 2 years ago
Evolution is about how things evolved, not where they came from.
Darwin wrote - Origin of Species,
not Origin of Life.
Only bible people group things that don't fit the bible story and call it 'General Evolution'.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Good luck finding the missing link Manhunt 48, I hear they found a new incomplete skeleton for you to analyze. I've enjoyed the debate, Ill be praying for you. If you ever want to hear from God again, send me an email Ill translate for you. All the questions you can't figure out, I'm sure he'd be glad to aleviate those frustrations. Don't wait to late though, I'td be a shame to spend your life in the dark needlesly.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"Good luck finding the missing link" ur about 70 years behind on ur palaeontology, there's been loads found.
", I hear they found a new incomplete skeleton for you to analyze." incomplete?!?!, have even seen it? its almost perfectly preserved, they can even analyse its stomach content.
"I bet the milk thing is simple satire used to avoid discussing spirituality" Not really, it was an experiment, praying to milk produces the same results as praying to god.
manhunt48 2 years ago
hahahaha you're the missing link dude hahahahaha
whiteknightrey 2 years ago
"hahahaha you're the missing link dude hahahahaha" oh haha, you haven't got any basis for an argument and clearly don't know what your on about so you have to resort to insults.
Well done.
manhunt48 2 years ago
that's no insult dude.hahahaha
whiteknightrey 2 years ago
really?. . . then your IQ clearly can be above 50 and not worth anyones time if you can't even realize when you substitute any argument for calling someone 'the missing link'. . .
bye.
manhunt48 2 years ago
sorry but i've an above average.i.q.dude.
whiteknightrey 2 years ago
Really? , and yet you have is insults to through at people.. . .
manhunt48 2 years ago
oh i'm so sorry for being such a rude person dude.i will never bother you again.
whiteknightrey 2 years ago
oh...about prayer and doctors. My sister is a nurse practicioner, and the reason she wants to help people is because of the love that God has shown her. Also, my Aunt was a Schizophrenic, Doctors could only treat her symptoms. Finally we prayed for her, and she is better. You can argue untill your blue cheeked, but you cant take away the truth found within God EXPERIENCES. If you stoped eliminating God as a possibility, you would "see" him, and you too would defend his principals.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"Also, my Aunt was a Schizophrenic, Doctors could only treat her symptoms. Finally we prayed for her, and she is better. " with that logic then people who just drop dead for no reason is proof against.
" If you stoped eliminating God as a possibility, you would "see" him" problem is i did believe in him until i was told to actually read the bible.
manhunt48 2 years ago
youve never believed in him, only known a little bit about him and tried to use that tiny bit of knowledge for your own purposes. Knowing him and knowing about him are two different worlds. Also, the case of My Aunt isn't an example of logic, it's a case of experience with concrete results experienced in a real (not theological) time frame.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"youve never believed in him," so the first 16 years of my life never actually happened then? are you trying to say you know about my life?
"only known a little bit about him and tried to use that tiny bit of knowledge for your own purposes" it was only when i tried learning more which shown to me what a load BS it really is.
"about faith: the definition I gave came from the bible" yeh heres a tip, get your definitions from a dictionary. . . the bible says atheists are working the devil LOl.
manhunt48 2 years ago
I assume you know the details of my life as well?
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"I assume you know the details of my life as well?" no i don't. the difference between us is that i'm not acting as if i do.
manhunt48 2 years ago
surely you havent developed a "double standard" regarding "life evaluation?" Dude, you stereotype non naturalists with a passion...you know all of our motivations...all of our thoughts...rationality..and intentions. If you get anymore powerfull...youll be like God yourself.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
even better: if you eliminate the correct answer (God) as a possibility, youll be offended by the correct answer whenever its presented. and...youll never have the right answer. Man it's great knowing the person who has the complete truth!
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
" if you eliminate the correct answer (God) as a possibility" just look at history. . . people blamed god for everything, the tides, earthquakes, the sun rising and setting, life cycles. . . litereally everything. as time went on all of them have been shown to be of natural causes.
Simply us admitting we don't know about something doesn't mean " god did it", that's the god of the gaps argument and only retards our ability to learn.
manhunt48 2 years ago
"Simply us admitting we don't know about something doesn't mean " god did it" Dude..thats an "either or" fallacy [aka..false delimma]. you only have a solitary choice when analyzing possibilities under this fallacy. (acording to you) a non naturalistic approach to the scientific unknown is "God did it." Though you disagree with every non-naturalistic theory in existence, you know that DEVELOPED theories do EXIST, and there is much more to them than "God did it."
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"youll be offended by the correct answer whenever its presented." know your saying you know what i'll do?. . . lol
If the answer appears and against all the evidence and odds that the naturalistic world view is wrong then i will happy because knowledge would of been gained.
"Man it's great knowing the person who has the complete truth!" it's just a shame he only exists in your head.
manhunt48 2 years ago
Heres another one: my niece had a fused skull that fused too soon. Her skull would have burst as she grew, without a painful surgery that left her skull open for months. We came together as a family and prayed, and then the fused skull cap was nolonger fused. Explain? Well, you can't, not with naturalism, because your presuppositions disallow any belief of unseen activity (unless the activity is creatures evolving over billions of years in the past).
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"We came together as a family and prayed, and then the fused skull cap was nolonger fused. Explain?" shit happens, if you pray for money and you end up finding £20 on the street doesnt mean god did it. putting god there just replaces one unknown with another.
okay then, explain why perfectly healthy people just drop dead?
manhunt48 2 years ago
my brothers IQ is a world record manhunt48
his name is JESUS he created the universe
valu777 2 years ago 2
no one can ever prove it, until not it just a f______theory.
whiteknightrey 2 years ago
whiteknightrey
"no one can ever prove it, until not it just a f______theory."
A theory is a model that explains a scientific phenomenon. Theories make testable predictions, and those tests, experiments, can falsify a theory.
A number of tests have been levelled against evolution, and it's passed them all. If you don't believe evolution, you can test it too.The fact that evolution survives as a theory doesn't discount it, it makes it more likely to be true.
manhunt48 2 years ago
that's a theory dude lol
whiteknightrey 2 years ago
whiteknightrey
"that's a theory dude lol" Can you not even understand the scientific definition of 'theory' when some even explains it to you ?
read my last 2 comments again and please don't reply until you have understood.
In science a theory describes a phenomenon.
Evolution is true.
Yes its a theory, Just like cell theory, just like gravity, just like atomic thoery, just like relativity. . . if you have a problem with evolution then gotta have the same problem with gravity and deny it.
manhunt48 2 years ago
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, letter to Mr bentham admits, When we decend into details we can prove that no one species has changed ( i.e. We cannot prove that a single species has changed); nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the ground work of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not.
from darwin himself Lie ya way out of this evolve ppl
valu777 2 years ago
So the only way you can try to argue your way out of it is to use a letter from 150 years ago and ignore all the research done since ?
WoW, Do you actually think that what Darwin said 150 years ago on the subject has any effect what what's been discovered since?
Well at least you didn't quote mine him about the eye.
Google observed instances of speciation, there are thousands of pages full of results.
i doubt you will, you people never go & do research where things don't agree with you.
manhunt48 2 years ago
manhunt you guys are quoting DARWIN and now are you belittling him
/ Darwin i refer to
in 150 years nothing is new & if evo;lv was corect proof would be all over no need to look in a microscope to find 1 little speck of hope then trrow a world wide party ROFL im amazed at your zeel to run fro the Living GOD
valu777 2 years ago
"you guys are quoting DARWIN and now are you belittling him" NO, we bearly ever quote him, we only do that when you people try to quote mine him. I'm belittling him, he's the father of all modern biology, simply theres been 150 year of discovery since his time so what said had been made obsolete and been updated.
"in 150 years nothing is new" have you never heard of DNA?!?!?!, it says exactly what evolution predicts. not to mention the thousands of fossils that have been found.
manhunt48 2 years ago
"if evo;lv was corect proof would be all over" IT is it's everywhere. Every single field of science that could have anything to say on evolution just so happens to match perfectly with everything it says. Any experiments done agree with evolution and add to the mountains of evidence proving it correct.
"look in a microscope to find 1 little speck of hope then trrow a world wide party " You know anything they've done do you?, and yet you think your word overrules 99.8% of scientists. LOL
manhunt48 2 years ago
"im amazed at your zeel to run fro the Living GOD" I'm not running from anything, just no body has been able to give any evidence for it, and they just make wild claims with no evidence that aren't even internally consistent.
"my brothers IQ is a world record manhunt48 his name is JESUS he created the universe" this is where you need to prove it.
What give you the ability to know what made the universe? which eludes scientists and that only seems to be backed up by a bronze age book.
manhunt48 2 years ago
manhunt because he lives inside me and i have tasterd the power of the ages to come amd his pure love all over me
answerd prayer and many other great things I know him and thats the way not a religon
valu777 2 years ago
So basically what your saying is " he exists, because i say so"
i think this over.
manhunt48 2 years ago
more along the lines with: He exists because he interacs with me, now that I accepted him. Time with Him is proof in itself.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"He exists because he interacs with me, now that I accepted him. Time with Him is proof in itself." Again, if anyone were to say that about any other religion you would call them crazy or a devil worshipper.
definition of theory(scientific): "theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon."
manhunt48 2 years ago
here, I asked and God gave me something to tell you: "Please don't naturalize me away, I know far more than you realize and I love you. If youve lost hope in me, don't worry, you can find it again. There are many people with great ideas, great endeavors behind them, but what does it amount to? If youd lay down your hate, seek me out and see me as even a possibility, you'd be surprised at what you would find."
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"here, I asked and God gave me something to tell you" well god came to me in a dream and told me he doesn't exist.
Hearing voices isn't proof of anything, if someone from any other religion said they heard voices you would call them crazy.
Really , well i looked up the definition of from several sources and they all come back as.
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"
"The body of dogma of a religion"
"strong belief in something, esp. without proof"
manhunt48 2 years ago
So you only selectively accept the principals that the former (literally)Clergy drop out theorized? Theres a difference between futher developing a concept, and throwing away foundational understandings.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
hey..about faith: the definition I gave came from the bible, not like minded atheists.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
have you ever seen a mutation that caused a gain of information in an animal's genome? A mutation causes a reduction of genetic material, this reduction brings about the trait change. This is Fact, not theory, in light of this, heres a theory: After billions of years of mutations, "upper level animals" would diminish into single celled organisms due to the massive loss of genetic material. Is a proposal like this unsientific, or do you ask questions to eliminate misconceptions and get answers?
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"have you ever seen a mutation that caused a gain of information in an animal's genome?" yes, the TRIM5 to TRIM5-CypA mutation in monkeys which protects cells from infection of retroviruses like HIV.
" A mutation causes a reduction of genetic material, this reduction brings about the trait change. This is Fact" No thats simply creationist propaganda.
manhunt48 2 years ago
well, according to Richard Dawkins, there arent any.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
does it [theories] describe concrete phenomenon within observable time frames, or postulate POSSIBILITIES OF PROCESS that MAY have resulted in the empirical world?
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"that's a theory dude lol"
Why do the dumbest people act the most smug?
Leehofooks 2 years ago 3
Show me a case (link web adress, etc..) with a species transition specimin that is "crystal." I don't want to see a whale with warts for legs, show me a crystal "transition" between species, complete and unquestionable (emphasis: COMPLETE). Sampling error is frowned upon in the scientific community...isn't it? This would greatly help me embrace the Naturalistic religion. Try to stay focused now...show a transition!
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"Show me a case (link web adress, etc..) with a species transition specimin that is "crystal." You seem to of totally missed the point.
I was simply saying crystals are some of the most ordered objects known to man, but they're formed by a completely natural process but you people have no problem with crystallization.
Crystals simple show the creationist argument of " design requires a designer" to be completely false.
I never once said it formed by natural selection lol.
manhunt48 2 years ago
"crystal" is used within this context as a slang adjective synonomous in meaning to clear, complete, etc (ie: the "lucy" remains aren't "Crystal." ) Show me a "Crystal" example of a transpecies transition, that doesn't require filling in the (evolutionary) blanks with naturalistic faith.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
RE: loss of genetic material in mutations
It's propoganda? Why is it proven through "concrete" testing(empirical evidence). If the "TRIM5 to TRIM5-CypA " is as you say, isn't that an anomaly? If this is A SOLITARY case of genetic gain, what about the millions of other populations that experience mutations? The burden of proof is on your hands my friend.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"It's propoganda?" Yes, lies from the discovery institute which have been revealed to be so by people who actually know something about the subject. that's the same discovery institute who wouldn't defend intelligent design under oath.
"If the "TRIM5 to TRIM5-CypA " is as you say, isn't that an anomaly?" well any mutation is, but why does that matter?, it developed and now part of the species therefore showing your idea of "no information has ever been added by a mutation" to be false.
manhunt48 2 years ago
"what about the millions of other populations that experience mutations?" what about them?, your argument has been shown to be false don't try moving on to something else because you don't like what you see, you people always try this.
"The burden of proof is on your hands my friend." the person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. so you need to provide some with your god.
plospathogens[dot]org/article/info:doi/10[dot]1371/journal[dot]ppat[dot]1000003
manhunt48 2 years ago
here...let me help you with decyphering context. If you are discussing mutations, you have the liberty to discuss diferent dimensions of mutation, and it's processes. If one was to say, "oh, well I think Richard Dawkins stinks!" that would be avoiding the topic. I don't believe that just took place my friend. And no, the argument isnt "shown to be false" simply because you say: "it's been shown to be false." Your one anomaly within an anomaly example proves nothing.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"And no, the argument isnt "shown to be false" simply because you say:" Did you even read the article i link ?, or do any of your own searchs?
That mutation improved the survivability of the species of monkey. Your argument was that no mutation adds anything good to the organism. which if you read the article will show your false.
"Your one anomaly within an anomaly example proves nothing." any mutation is an anomaly within reason. but that's not the point.
manhunt48 2 years ago
your great at pulling "snippets" from a response , "quoting" it (like you will this one) while ignoring the rest of the paragraph. Let me rephrase (if you'll alow it) or is rephrasing a question an act of "side stepping?"...Its hard to know in this forum. Is genetic material gained or reduced(regarding a genome )during mutation in99.999999999999999 percent of all observed cases? you need a lot of mutation fuel to run your evolution machine. This issue is important.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"your great at pulling "snippets" from a response , "quoting" it (like you will this one)" Yes i do, otherwise if i just go on talking you wont know what i'm refering to.
"Is genetic material gained or reduced(regarding a genome )during mutation in99.999999999999999 percent of all observed cases?" NO, sometimes there is a gain or a reduction, mutation simply means change. . . often it just changes whats already there but there are mutations which increase genetic material.
manhunt48 2 years ago
"you need a lot of mutation fuel to run your evolution machine. This issue is important." yes, there's over 3.5 billion years of it.
"so I've proven my case " what case? you haven't made one at all.
"you'd naturalize it all away" Well if science has already explained things then yes. . . all i can do is show you this. Ignorance of the information and facts does not mean they aren't there and does not mean it must be magic.
manhunt48 2 years ago
"This would greatly help me embrace the Naturalistic religion" problem is, that its not a religion, we don't worship anything, we dont take anything on faith, or go to a building on Sundays to compare clothes.
we simply accept what the evidence tells us. So if you want us to believe in god then simply show the evidence for one.
manhunt48 2 years ago
You have much in common with the Church that ails you. You pack your brain with knowledge of nature, explained by examining nature. All in hopes to find meaning to your life and life in general. They pack their brains with knowledge about God in hopes to find meaning to life. You ponder over how life was established and progresses, they do likewise. You accept second hand knowledge as a standard, the church-likewise. Faith: placing trust in what is proposed, though not emperical.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
Faith: placing trust in what is proposed, though not emperical (scientific definition). Crossrefference "evolution."
non naturalistic definition: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The nonnaturalistic definition entails evidence and substance...maybe you could revamp your perspective regarding the etymology of the word "faith."
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"u have much in common with the Church that ails u" Really? we don't worship anything magical, we don't need faith because of evidence, we don't go to a shed to compare clothing on weekends. so no we're not.
"u accept second hand knowledge as a standard, the church-likewise." i can go & look at the results of experiments, i can see the evidence which backs up what science says, everyday we use tools that are products of science, the church just makes claims with no foundation in them.
manhunt48 2 years ago
I can pray to God, see specific results regarding the prayer. In real time, the spirit of God brings things of the physical world to my attention, and relates to me regarding the matter. I worship God and the unseen "presence" of Gods spirit radiates [literally] through every pore in my body. I see in my son a unique personality and core spirituality that is unrelated and unexplained by evolution, it shows me God's ability to create uniqueness. I hear god speak and I write it down.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"I can pray to God, see specific results regarding the prayer." Hehe yeh i thought that as well. then i tried something and prayed to a bottle of milk. . . guess what. . . exactly the same results.
"I see in my son a unique personality and core spirituality that is unrelated and unexplained by evolution" really, how is it unexplained by evolution?
manhunt48 2 years ago
really, I bet the milk thing is simple satire used to avoid discussing spirituality, because it isn't familiar ground with you, it makes you feel uncomfortable. Satire and sarcasm is the cheapest way out of this disagreement, the most youll get is a few snickers from the group that shares your presupositions. I don't take your philosophy seriously either, I just learned to cease the sarcasm after junior high.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
God could send you a brand new red corvett on your driveway, delivered from the sky and you would naturalize it all away.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"God could send you a brand new red corvett on your driveway, delivered from the sky and you would naturalize it all away." LOL thats a rather typical comment from one of you.
IF there was no reasonable explanation for the appearance of the car, and there was evidence that it was some magic dude then of course anyone would accept it. but that wouldn't prove its the magic dude that you follow.
manhunt48 2 years ago
so I've proven my case , you'd naturalize it all away. lol...thats a typical response I'd expect from one of you.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
Obviously, your 'faith' requires you to deny what every biologist knows is quite true. All of modern biology is based on it and it's premises are being used on a daily basis to fight disease, promote health, and make very REAL applications. I know that is difficult for you to believe, but the model known as evolution is the VERY REAL backbone of biology. If you don't believe it, pray instead of going to the Dr next time.
manhunt48 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have much in common with the Church that ails you. You pack your brain with knowledge of nature, explained by examining nature. All in hopes to find meaning to your life and life in general. They pack their brains with knowledge about God in hopes to find meaning to life. You ponder over how life was established and progresses, they do likewise. You accept second hand knowledge as a standard, the church-likewise. Faith: placing trust in what is proposed, though not emperical.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
In the end, Evolution just plain does not work. It's a novel theory, there is some science to it, but in the end it just does not work, period. DNA does NOT restructure according to an organism's learned habits/lifestyle. If evolution was so rock solid, it wouldn't be changing all the time every time it runs into a kink. The King James Bible was translated in 1611 and hasn't changed since. Try reading it once.
11JollyRoger11 3 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
so the earth is billions of years old....humanity never could have possibly seen a brontosaurus? What the heck is the pictograph of at the Kachina Bridge? Did the indians draw an interpretive representation of an elongated poodle? Clearly it couldn't have been a brontasourus? Well, that would compromise the evolutionary catalyst of "billions of years." We cant have that now! you could naturalize this truth to, if you wish.
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
"so the earth is billions of years old...."
I just showed that your Bible is not true.
Why side-step that and start a new hare?
Because you do what you can do, I guess.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
the reason the bible dosnt change is because it is "gods word" and even if it makes no sence at all you cant change it because that would mean your going against your own relegion.
but thats what scientists do they propose a theory then smash it into bits untill it either fails or is proven true. we have been smashing evolution for over 100 years and its still goin pretty strongly.
bigblakblob2 2 years ago
or is it a busted and battered machine that people rely on because they cant "think" of other possibilities?
Johnnymathews1 2 years ago
You have an evidence from God existence ? So why to ignore the possibility that Darwin was true?
EMMAYEYE 3 years ago
it's called PEER REVIEW. when multiple scientists all come to the same conclusion by different means. it's a pretty standard method for ascertaining FACTS from fiction.
creationist "scientists" are the ones trying to fit reality around their preconceived beliefs. they fudge numbers, stretch facts, ignore the majority of supporting evidence to single out anything that seems to be in conflict. they will "prove" something they want to see is true.
EricZombie 3 years ago
Understand that there are peer-reviewed journals which attack Darwinain evolution as well. Don't make the assumption the evolution as spoken about in "Origin of Species" is the only model. There are MANY problems Darwin's ideals run into. Also note there is a number of well respected, world renown scientists who are harsh critics of Darwin.
cagefite007 3 years ago
The original theory was postulated a century and a half ago. MANY revisions have been made, yet the basic concept of natural selection still holds true. The majority of college educated (and I'm not referring to those diploma mills, such as the ones Hovind subscribed to) scientists still supports the modern evolutionary theory. There may be disagreement over minor points, but the only ones disputing the entire theory are creationist scientists, using "facts" based on rubbish.
EricZombie 3 years ago
I agree that creationists are often the only ones disputing evolution as a whole. But I personally, as well as a population among biologists dispute natural selection through random mutations. Admitidely, it is the far most widely taught theory in colleges but mathmaticians have been laughing at it for quite awhile. Dawkins dissapoints me in his "God Dellusion" book, using decieving and incorrect models to explain away the problems which associate themselves to random mutuations.
cagefite007 3 years ago
i'm sitting here in my public library reading books as i type this. i have a book called "Hominid Fossils" with over 700 documented transitional fossils, from early Austrolopithicus Transaalansis dated 2,000,000 years ago, to Homo Erectus.
Education is a great thing, you should look into it, instead of buying into creationist brainwashing bull$h!t.
EricZombie 3 years ago
I wan't to ask you something, why would a highly educated scientist want to lie about a founding? If he would know it's not genuine why would he lie? You know the first bones and bone parts of other human species were found in the beginning of the industrialisation when people started blow up rocks etc to build railways and mine. Bones were found from them, the boned were studied and found much over 6000 years old which is what the bible tells as the age of the earth.
SternMann93 3 years ago
And you obviously don't know what a scientific theory means. It's the highest grade of evidence that science can produce. A theory can be either proven or not proven. Evolution is proven. A theory can't be made into a fact even if it would be proven.
This is a common error people make, they think that a theory can't be proven but it can, and evolution is.
Scientists know what they are doing, they got the highest IQ's in the world and are very highly educated. An old book written by jews isn't.
SternMann93 3 years ago
SternMann,
How can a theory be proven? Can you give an example?
Before you blow up at me, I should mention I'm a total "believer" in Science (I hate that word) and Reason, but I'm not sure how you would PROVE a theory.
Certainly doing experiment after experiment, which rely on a particularly theory directly or indirectly, and having things continually work as expected is supportive of the theory, but I'm not sure how you would ever prove a theory correct conclusively.
CharBroiled04 3 years ago
Yea, I'm sorry, I have to correct my last comment. True, when a theory is made it cannot be turned into a fact afterwards.
But as you propably know evolution is "as good as" proven, atleast it's supported by most evidence from many different branches in science.
SternMann93 3 years ago
Well I wouldn't say as good as proven. There's a strength in something being directly observable that simply can't be matched by any other level of surity.
But that doesn't mean a Scientific Theory is worthless. That's a false dichotomy, at best. The Theory of Evolution offers a naturalistic explanation for many phenomena in the world. It has been supported by mountains of evidence across multiple disciplines in Science, and is heavily relied upon today.
CharBroiled04 3 years ago
A theory can be reinforced by supporting evidence. there is evidence for gravity, so thus we have the 'theory of gravity'. there is evidence for time and space, so thus we have the 'theory of relativity'.
a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
EricZombie 3 years ago
Ehhehe, sorry I was just laughing so much that I was about to fall from my chair.
I'm really sorry to break your little bubble.
There has been found a lot of human bones from over 10 000 years ago. One of the most famous mummies which has survivived for 3.2 million is an Australopithecus called Lucy who was found in Ethiopia in the 70's.
SternMann93 3 years ago