Pull down my pants, bend over and take what ever the religious guys says because his religion is the best in the world according to his "Big Black Leather" covered book that God wrote and dropped on earth. Oh wait: Jesus God only hand delivered religious writings to the Mormons with a golden tablet. DAMN, now I have to sign up with the Mormons because God cared enough to make a recent appearance in the Latter Days. Again, DAMN - So many choices and so much nonsense.
What a bunch of propaganda shit. God doesn't exist, and even if he did exist, no creatures, man or god should be worshiped if they are the kind of being that sends fellow humans to burn for eternity. Thats like hitler times infinity! God is a perfect blend of Kim Jong Il and Hitler. Not worthy of worship in any way. I take hell over worshiping such a fiend.
Half of the put down on science are clearly lies. First off... BAHAHAHAHA! Rocks have never lived and so its not possible to evolve from one! But apes however are alive!
One they do quote dinosaures in the bible but im not sure about the scienc stuff the rock thing i highly dought. Now christians do belive in the faith thing but the works is kind of a lets look good thing. now im not sure if this will cause an argument but why cant people learn to take things like this as a joke instead of people saying oh thats wrong and oh thats wroung both sides should take a break and say why dony we work together to help society!!!!??
@MrXeko9 because Creationism simply relies on a 2,000+ year old book that has been translated and manipulated so many times it doesn't even make sense anymore as their only piece of evidence for these things and then just bullshit the rest.
wow... Christianity isn't based on works? o.O I'm going to need an explanation on what they mean by that because if they are meaning works as in structures or objects then HELL YA Christianity is based on works. Notre Dame, Sithteen Chapel, the Bible, however many books written on the subject.
Why do creationists go on about the missing link? God himself is a missing link. There is no solid evidence to prove he exists, and even the circumstantial evidence is VERY poor.
If they spent more time tying up their own loose ends, they'd see the light, and realise its not god, but an operating table sorounded by highly trained doctors, and an electric light. Both are products of SCIENCE. What has religion done to match this? Yup, thats right; the answer is nothing!
"I blame creationism for the reason why the American school system is so bad."
WHAT??? America had the strongest and most successful education system in the WORLD back in the "bronze age" when the Bible was standard curriculum for all public schools. It wasn't until evolution and other New Age thinking came into the picture that we started downhill. That's just a fact.
@TheOriginalAnalogKid no it didn't...what are you on about...the strongest public school systems were always found in Europe not America, the reason it is going down hill in America is because myth is taught as fact despite alternative evidence based in solid science
but if you put two and two together the first verse mentioned you'll see that they are actually talking about a hipo and a croc as the "leviathan" mentioned, most others actually refer to "dragons" which some say could be dinosaurs but to be honest the likelihood of a dinosaur surviving in today's environment is very, very low.
@GreedyCapybara7 umm, actually what he said was right. can you prove him wrong please. or was that comment just your opinion. because im still waiting for you to correct his wrong data.
@tylerdurden666able there is no difference between micro and macro-evolution, only the time scale is different, in order to have the type of Biology he is talking about a mechanism would have to be present that freezes DNA and thus mutation.
There are systems in -place to prevent large mutations but only work on certain parts of strands and only work for mutations over a certain physical size.
@tylerdurden666able transitional form is missing...this is news to me, which on is missing?
Homo-Habilious, Homo-Erectus, Homo-Aethiophicus, Homo-Boisei, Homo-Robustus A or B, Homo-Africanus, Homo-Afarensis, Homo-Anamesis, Homo-Bathreighazali, Homo-Garhi, Homo-Ramidus, Homo-Blacki, Homo-Gigantus, P.Africanus, P.Heseloni, P.Nyazae(the common ansestor we share with the great apes)
@GreedyCapybara7 i dont want YOU to do anything except site where you get your info from, as long as its coming from scientists who have been agreed upon by the scientific community.
@tylerdurden666able okay...obviously unlike you I paid attention in school, I have legit just been down to the archaeology wing of my Uni, and these are the transitional forms that were given to me and are up for report whenever.
If you are talking about micro and marco-evolution allow me to introduce myself, I am Dr.Benjamin Keath of the University of Queensland Australia, I'm a Biologist
@tylerdurden666able go for it, I would appreciate a private message for the character count, but if you prefer to keep this conversation public then I have no issue with that.
@tylerdurden666able evolution is only mutation, natural selection and gene flow over time, given the age and time scale from which the Earth has had life evolution is the only possibility, there is no difference between micro and marco-evolution, only the direct effects
Again, a creationist arguement that forgets exactly how lucky we are to have any fossils at all. Could one of them at least research the argument they're fighting against?
This is exactly the filth against which I fight. This is no different than indoctrinating suicide bombers for islam- lies to create slaves! Shit pisses me of.
Some very short sighted bloggers here, people should have the right to marry same sex. This is preposterous, we weren't created to love the same sex, its a defect. Won't effect anyone? BULLSHIT! we live in a tightly nit society where one little thing can effect everyone else. That means you marrying the same sex would entice others that some how that is "ok" when it really isn't. As a man of morality, we need to keep marriage between a man and a women. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
@Scattnam Homosexuality & debate about homosexuality isn't a new phenomenon. In fact, as far as we can look back, in all cultures we encounter homosexuality, but not only among humans, also among animals. There is also a direct connection between the amount of sons a mother has & homosexuality. Question only is, where or is there a benefit to a society if there are homosexuals. Up to this point, it seems that homosexuality appears to have no effect on general mankind.
@Scattnam okay, I have to put my foot down here, even though this is old but you really don't have an argument, homosexuality isn't a defect, it is caused at least in part by genes yes, but also by hormones, lifestyle and upbringing, that's like saying that religion is a defect, yes in the long run it is a bad thing for a species but seriously? we have become so much more than this, people like you really tick me off.
more proof that we existed from rocks than "god" creating us ... as for the missing link ... its not missing idiot creationists there are many links homoerectus homohabillis .... the list goes on
@holmlllll the list that goes on is one that continues only the imaginations of so called evolutionary scientists. Modern science now generally acknowledges that homo habillis and homo erectus overlaped each other during their entire population. Therefore no transition between either. While the time frames remain in contention it is at least encouraging to see evolutionists catching up with their own perspective in certain areas.
@Pendu068 Think for themselves made me lol. Since you're so good at studying scientific literature, why don't you go ahead and look for "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli", "Metal bioaccumulation and cellular fractionation in an epigeic earthworm (Lumbricus rubellus)", "The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", and don't forget finches.
@omgwtfbbqxD To some degree then it seems that we are agreed. I 'lol' with the frequency with which the evolutionary believing faithfully speak out in blind faith on a topic they know little about, plus are being easily lead. Hence my reason for joining this thread & my encouragement to them to research objectively & to think for themselves. I would say the same to Christians who wish to enter the debate believing creation on faith alone without their own objective research or understanding.
only experience. and for someone advocating creationism you are very condemning.Grew up in the church and in matters of faith nothing is proven, only trying to point out that the people you trash may not be as misguided as you think, I am never 100% but your words are diluted with condescension and pride. faith defines many but it is your soul or core which guides and governs your actions and words.So if you know your lord why do you act as a fussy child instead of a inheritor of eternal life.
yeah i know how can we believe that over billions years we evolved, its so obvious that an unseen all powerful being that speaks though burning bushes and who words describe things such as talking mules(Numbers Chapter 22:22 ) created us in his image. You would have to be some kind of illogical moron to believe in something an insane as evolution.
@PopBogomil god (yahweh) has always existed and will always exist. He is the beginning and the end. In genesis humans are created in gods/christs image but they were to be the prefect creature, then Adam and eve ate from the tree of good and evil they sinned and humans needed salvation from eternal damnation.
This is horrible, I was forced to go to a private junior high school that actually tried to brainwash the students into "throwing away the falsehoods of science".
It's crazy how people get so hung up on religion that they choose to ignore obvious facts.
@itsjustameme Let's start with Archaeopteryx shall we. I'll let one of your own answer that one. From Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, an evolutionist & author of “The Origin and Evolution of Birds” he says: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur, but it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”.
It is funny that you should cite a book that contains numerous transitional fossils right after asking me to name just one and saying the such a thing does not exist. I can only regard this as willfully ignorant.
And the fact that people are having a hard time classifying it actually talks in favor of it being a transitional fossil. This is just the kind of problem you would expect for something placed squarely between two species.
@itsjustameme and a lot in the field do not. Some references: Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe, C., Archaeopteryx, the primordial bird: a case of fossil forgery, Christopher Davies, London, 1986.
# Feduccia, A.; cited in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.
# Feduccia, A., The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 2nd Ed., p. 39, 1999.
Respond to this video... # Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 267:2501–2505, 2000.
# Alonso, P.D., Milner, A.C., Ketcham, R.A., Cokson, M.J and Rowe, T.B., The avian nature of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx, Nature 430(7000):666–669, 5 August 2004; Witmer, L.M, Inside the oldest bird brain, perspective, same issue, pp. 619–620.
Respond to this video... # Witmer, L.M., Chatterjee, S., Franzosa, J. and Rowe, T., Nature 425(6961):950–953, 30 October 2003; Unwin, D.M., Smart-winged pterosaurs, perspective, same issue, pp. 910–911.
@itsjustameme Wrong again. I cite evolutionary material to demonstrate that the postulate is not difficult to debunk using their own material. If you interpret that as ignorance then you are desperatly trying to claw back lost credibilty with a nonsense distraction. Call it independent peer review by someone not umbilically welded to the notion of evolution as science fact, but rather one who still able to think for themselves. I know my stuff which is why I engaged you in the first place.
Respond to this video... I encourage you to objectively research the material for yourself rather than simply accept what is shoved down society's throats by the evolution industry. In this YT thread I have tried to limit my replies to using evolutionists own material to demonstrate the level of discord that exists among themselves. Discord that is actively being kept from the education of the greater public. What remains strictly postulated is being taught as fact and that, ,,cont'd
Respond to this video... is called propaganda. When the unwitting evolutionary faithful attack Christians and creation scientists based on no more than their own zealous belief in evolutionary dogma then it's time to speak up to let people know what they have allowed to happen to them and future generations. YT is not conducive to a greater debate on the topic so I encourage you to take some time and be objective in you analysis. In other words don't just accept propaganda. Cheers.
Since you brought it up - it's not just the 98% DNA we share with apes
We can even se exactly where two of the ape chromosomes has fused to become a single human one.
And we can still see the residues of ancient vira in our DNA that we have inherited from our ape ancestors. The chance of those genetic sequences being placed in exactly the same place if we are not related is infinitesimally small.
Not to mention the many now passive genes in our DNA - like the genes for a tail etc.
@itsjustameme the more recent fused chromosomes axiom reminds me of the “junk DNA” mantra that is now falling apart in the science world. At the time ignorant researchers found stretches of DNA for which they saw no purpose & so they quickly proclaimed the DNA as “junk” left over from the evolutionary process. Now, most of the so-called junk has been found to have very specific purpose. The high priests of evolution proclaimed the junk DNA as fact & the faithful congregation believed,,, cont'd
Respond to this video... and followed in blind faith. Now that the so called "junk DNA axion has been debunked you will not find 'science admitting to the erroneous teaching anywhere in text books. While there is much still to discover about what appears to be fused DNA it is reasonable to say that because Humans having 23 chromosome pairs rather than 24 is neither evidence for or against evolution, nor for or against creation. There are millions of differences between,,, cont'd
Respond to this video... human and chimpanzee DNA, making it clear that we are not related. In the Y chromosome alone, chimps have only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa. According to Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.”,,cont'd
@itsjustameme (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.). Natural selection could not possibly have fixed so many mutations into an evolving human population in the five to ten million years during which apes allegedly evolved into humans. (See Haldane’s dilemma has not been solved.) Evolutionists tried to get round this problem by arguing that much of our DNA is junk and was therefore not fixed in the population by natural selection. The scientific problems,,, cont'd
Respond to this video... with evolutionary theory are enormous & fundamental. Most people have no idea that this is true because these kinds of facts are not communicated to the general public in the media or educational institutions. Evolutionists the likes of Professor Ken Miller make the assumption that a fused chromosome proves a link between man & chimps when he could just as easily have assumed a chromosome fusion to have occured in mankind alone. It is a paradigm belief.
@Pendu068 Of course no human is excluded from believe & assumptions. There are too many cases of scientists just believing & not challenging a hypothesis. However, what should not be forgotten is, that not only does evolution work in theory, but also in reality. Our only cognitive problem is only that we humans don't live long enough to realize these changes ourselves. Because of our short life span, we cannot grasp a span of 100 years, 1.000 years, 1.000.000 years etc.
@itsjustameme I think you need to go back and re read all of my earlier replies. All your points are very adeqautely responded to with scientific evidence and fact. I entered this thread to set you right on one point and with each lost argument you tried one more. My point remains consistent and that is that evolution remains no more than a theory and that it is being peddled as fact is wrong.
I'm not the one who has to prove anything. I don't "believe" in evolution. It is not a "belief" I hold that is up for debate. It's scientifically proven theory and you can't quote mine yourself around that. If you had a point you would not be making it to me who has no particular expertise in the field, but at the nobel awards instead.
Furthermore I have neither the time nor inclination to shoot down the 50 or so comments you have left.
@itsjustameme Then we are agreed, evolution is no more than a theory. I question the validity of it as a theory but I will accept that at least now there is one more person who has been made aware that it is NOT fact. You mention that it has been "scientifically proven" which is not the case. Forensic science is a very subjective field but let's not waste any more time on YT over it. At least now you are aware of how the so called theory is being misrepresented as fact in our institutions.
@Pendu068 platypi have reptilian and mammalian genes as well as genes between the two.They also have genes for avian egg proteins. This shows that warm blooded reptiles like synapsids and theropods shared an ancestor and mammals are definitely a branch of reptile through direct descent. Mammals are the descendants of synapsid reptiles and birds are the descendants of theropods. Birds even have dormant genes for reptilian teeth and long tails with some birds still having digits -__-
@itsjustameme otherwise, as of today no missing link has ever been discovered so in reality, both religion and the idea of evolution are speculative. unless you have proof of either two?
@tylerdurden666able even if they never find a missing link as you put it that is irrelevant since we have genetic evidence that clearly points to apes being the parents of humanity. They found the missing link in the genome. It is a link between human chromosome 2 and ape chromosome 13. In humans the two chromosomes are fused together ^_^ The amount of similarity between apes and humans is impossible without direct descent from a common ancestor ;3
@PinkProgram even if they dont find a missing link? thats like saying that you are convicted of murder even though no one ever found the murder weapon, they just assumed since you have hands and fingers that you are able to use a murder weapon so you must be the guy. lol, again, show me where it is science FACT that we evolved from monkeys, otherwise stop giving us your opinion.
@tylerdurden666able I wasn't giving you opinion I was giving you the equivalent of a video tape of the murder as it occurred. There is more than enough genetic evidence to convict apes of giving birth to humans. Humans are apes and apes are monkeys so not only did humans evolve from monkeys you still are monkeys. You haven't stopped being monkeys.
@PinkProgram we are both giving our opinions. however, scientists have not found the smoking gun, which is genetic bridge, or that gap or missing link between us. so, for now, scientists will tell you that humans and monkeys developed along a similar pattern but not exactly the same, nor is there a genetic marker that uniquivocally says we are "monkeys." until they do, you cant say we are monkeys, you can only speculate to say. same for me in regards to god. until we both present evidence
@PinkProgram and i like how you use the word "you" when calling me a monkey, when you are just as big a harry ape as me my friend :) you can tell me you aren't human, but then all your aguments get thrown out the window. so go ahead, prove that im talking to someone clinically insane, debate me on the fact that you too are a monkey human just like me, id like to see what all your atheist friends think of your next argument.
@tylerdurden666able my Host is a monkey ^_^ I am not my Host. My sanity or the sanity of my Host is irrelevant to the cold hard fact that humans are mammals and primates and the amount of similarity between humans and apes is impossible without a common ancestor. Every mark is there in your genome. Take it up with your god for making you look exactly like monkeys at the genetic level. If ape chromosome 13 wasn't hanging off chromosome 2 you might have a case but its there.
@itsjustameme lol, all you said was we share dna with apes and that we used to have a tail. um, i didn't see any reference to scientific papers. not sure if you got my point, i wanted something thats been written and reviewed by say, anthropologists or geneticists that confirm what you are talking about. because, thats kinda why everyone debates it today, because it hasn't been proven yet. and since we have so much evidence, yet a lack of one important finding, that should say something
Respond to this video..From A.H. Brush,‘On the origin of feathers',Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.]“At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape & sequence, filament formation & structure, feathers are different.”Thus he concludes that feather proteins(φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin & scale proteins(α-keratins).Thus no relationship.
Respond to this video...Furthermore, in 1984 at Eichstätt, Germany, there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution,The International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny group thought it was dinosaur related. Science consensus is that Archaeopteryx fossils are consistent with flying birds.
Respond to this video...As for the horse, Darwinists claim the horse evolved from a four toed fox like creature referred to as ‘Dawn horse’, discovered in 1841by palaeontologists Richard Owen. Owen saw no connection with the horse. Hence the name Hyracotherium i.e. rock badger or Coney. Other evidence debunking horse toe evolution was reported in National Geographic in 1981 after an excavation in Nebraska with the find of thousands of animals in a volcanic eruption that three and ,,,cont'd
Respond to this video... single toes horses existed at the same time. Some are now extinct which is not the equivalent of Darwin's phyletic gradualism. Furthermore on the topic of the horse, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist Nils Heribert-Nillson (not a creationist) stated “The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks” and the famous paleontologist Niles Eldredge (evolutionist and adjunct professor at City if New York University) called the ,,, cont'd
Respond to this video...textbook picture ‘lamentable’ and ‘a classical case of paleontologic museology. The creation science model supports the biblical account that different kinds of creatures were created with lots of genetic information. Natural selection can sort out this pre-existing genetic information, by eliminating creatures not suited to a particular environment. On that basis many different varieties can be produced in varying environments. ,,,,, cont'd
Respond to this video...Note that this sorting process involves a loss of information and extinction of certain species and so is not relevant to big bang-to-man cladogenesis or anagenesis, which requires non-intelligent processes to add new information. On whales: According to ‘Teaching about Evolution’,(pg 18), Evolutiionism believes that they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’ There are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. cont'd
Respond to this video...One of them is to get rid of its pelvis.This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement.
Respond to this video...which is clearly not viable either. Back to my original question; Even respected evolutionary peers are in dispute about their own faith and belief system. as is clearly demonstrated with the following quote by noted evolutionist and whale expert E.J Slijper.‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e.,carnivores and ungulates] & the whales. And yet the misinformation that you so confidently googled, cont'd
@itsjustameme is still being peddled. Why?.. Because of a religious zealous fervor that is desperate to maintain the illusion of credibility. Evolution is an exclusive belief system that can only be addressed by breaching the evolutionary peer review defence barriers. It is not science in the true sense of the word, in as much as science demands observable and reproducable 'empiricle' evidence. At best it could be thought of as a very flawed form of biased forensic science. As for ape to man,,,
@itsjustameme the same principles apply, but before going there I will address, 'Ambulocetus natans' (‘walking whale that swims’); for starters the cute pictures found in journals of this species are artist impressions only and not the real thing. All that has been found of this animal were a small collection of stippled bones with the so called remaining bones being found 5 meters above in different geological strata. The same creature? Another was Basilosaurus, which did appear to, cont'd
Respond to this video... have small hind limbs, but rather than what evolutionism claims to be evidence of a transitional form, they were functional limbs from a unique and specialised species. In support I quote noted evolutionist and whale expert Philip Gingerich, ‘It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper." Also consider the fact that Basilosaurus was 10 times the size of Ambulocetus natans which hardly supports transitional,,, cont'd
Respond to this video...axioms. Also consider that Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so once again hardly transitional. But in further support I quote vertebrate paleontologist & evolutionist Barbara Stahl on this species:"The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales." I think there is sufficent doubt to raise serious question about the credibility,,
Respond to this video... of that evolutionary 'hocus pocus' postulate. Back to the sacred cow of evolution i.e. the 'sacred cow' of ape to man, the exact same principles apply. Apes & mankind are very distinct & specialised species in their own right & apart from what amounts to less than a single box of bones there is no evidence to support transitional forms. Evolutionists deceptively claim the DNA of chimps & humans as ‘98 percent’ similar, & compare this as being ‘only a couple,,,,cont'd
Respond to this video...of spelling errors.’ While the so called 98 percent remains highly debatable, claiming a ‘couple’ of differences is outright deception.. Humans have 3 billion ‘letters’ (base pairs) of DNA information in each cell, so a two percent difference is actually 60 million ‘spelling errors’! Of course, this is not ‘error’ but twenty 500 page books worth of new information that needs to be explained by mutation and selection. There is plenty more information on,,,cont'd
Respond to this video... the question of the very flawed axiom that is evolution. The topic of the human genome and irreversible complextity is way too in depth to discuss here on you tube other than to say there there is plenty of information out there if you care to open you mind to the truth of evolution vs creation science. What I have done here is make a brief effort to reply to your paradigm. I trust you might at least now be curious to learn more about God's creation & science.
@MrMickist if humans have evolved from animals then it's simply another way for god to have made humans. Evolution without god is like a painting without an artist.
@ProIsraelrepublican If there was evolution there was no Original Sin. without Original Sin there's no need for Christ. Without Christ there's no Christianity. Why an all-powerful God would choose such a slow method for creating life when he could create it in a blink? Why would such a God create anything with less powers and intellect than him? If everything has its creator, who created God? If God can exist without creator why can't the universe?
@ProIsraelrepublican You need to do some research man. Evolutionism has its own perspective and paradigm but it is based on unproven axioms and unobservable forensics. There is no scientific evidence supporting the apes to man postulate and plently of scientifc evidence supporting creation. Research creation science sites and journals and you will find all you need to tackle these guys.
The account of creation in Genesis is a very good way to describe the process of evolution to a limited bronze age mind: less complex organisms give way to more complex ones. There is no conflict of science with the Bible because they are discussing different things. The Bible is a document of faith and scientific literature is about reason.
Why force an artificial comparison that does nothing to help us understand the human condition? It is a waste of time.
the dates are accurate it is just that carbon dating would mean +- a few hundred years - this isn't much but argon dating is MORE accurate, micro evolution is how macro-evolution happens(and micro-evolution wouldn't exist if it weren't for MUTATIONS(you forgot about that) - in other words cells are not perfect at coping genes and radiation can, at low levels result in beneficial changes) also people who think that christianity is the true religion without having any proof are fools.
there was a time that science agreed with scripture, yah back in the good old days that if you had a theory that conflicted with scripture you are given 2 choices, repent and denounce, or DIE
I really don't understand why everyone gets so pissed over the creationism/evolution argument. I am a devout christian and believe that animals have evolved but not humans.
@ProIs People get upset when their beliefs are challenged. People don't like to believe they are biodegradable organic material. With all the suffering one goes through in life, people don't want to accept there will not be reward or justice for it. Yet, this is what you have to face if you're going to be scientifically consistent; there is no room for fairy tales, and religious belief is taken on faith and cannot constitute education - to some people, education is important.
@ProIsraelrepublican Why not humans? We're all animals, I believe I came from stardust, not dirt. I mean, we are made of the same things as everything else that is living. Amino acids. I don't think we're special or created by a higher being, but I do think we are related to everything, which is pretty damn cool.
My mother has a friend who had his heart stop for 5 minutes, (struck by lightning believe it or not, no joke) what he told me was that he saw outside of his body and could tell what people were saying as he was rushed to the hospital, what they though even. He said he felt kind of blissful right before he was resuscitated. A few things about him: He is not christian, he believes in evolution, he is an avid atheist, and what he experienced was "enlightenment" He now believes in ideas of Buddhism
Gotta love when people present Strawman Arguments to prove creationism right... in animated form no less. Anyone that has any semblance of intelligence can clearly see this.
Right radiocarbon dating is only good up to 50,000 years because carbon halflife is short. that is why scientists use halflife of uranium and potasium found in surrounding rocks to date the layers containing the fossils. It not just putting random tags.
For people who put faith into such an old book, they really have no faith in modern science.
the teacher is the prideful one here, no answers from him, just babble!
God doesnt want you in hell, be he will send you there because he loves you!
There is evidence of other branches of human evolution, and these people must be very closely related to neanderthals.
dinosaurs in the bible? called dragons, and so are creatures with eight heads and an angel with a thousand eyes and ten arms and a giant fish monster that swallows ships whole
By scientists, it was actually one woman, whose first discovery was proved to be bacteria and the second one only looks like blood, much like the first and she even says that she wont gaurentee them
@raichutoyou They don't have a real arguement, so they preach the same old shit..EVILution, accountability, fear blah-blah-blah! -Like that has anything to with science
@Videogamehistorian00 Schools that let moronic creationist teach this half ass excuse for biology. Creation has as much of a place in a modern school as a 16 mm projector.
I hate creationism and am atheist and Jesus couldn't walk on water or preform miracles. He was a normal person but he was persuasive. Everyone believed in him and he was killed for it. I DARE you to reply to this comment saying how you "believe that I am a fucking negro" because that is what you believed less than 50 years ago so you MUST believe that racism and creationism is true and equal religion and the separation of law and religion is wrong.
@KingWithoutaCause ...You're not serious. The content inside THIS video is pro-creationism. THIS VIDEO is not pro-creationism. It is to help educate those people who have not seen the type of propaganda and misinformation that creationists use to suck in uneducated masses. This video is not intended to give any type of doctrinal lesson.
@AoaDAxMEGAMAN READ THE DESCRIPTION. It says "This is NOT a joke. This is a creationist cartoon that is currently being used to twist young minds with intimidation and coercion." This is a REAL video that was used by creationist.
@AoaDAxMEGAMAN You should learn to spell before you try to make an insult. Lol. I understand your anger, you just realized your mental disability. It's OK.
@KingWithoutaCause I spelled it exactly the way I wanted it to be spelled, thank you. Your obvious oversight of what I am actually saying is not making me angry, in fact. More so disappointed that I would have to explain such a simple concept to you.
And just as a reminder... "You sir, are and idiot".
@AoaDAxMEGAMAN I can't tell if you're trolling or if you have some kind of mental deficiency. I don't want to pick on someone whose mentally challenged. So I'll just help you out. It's supposed to be "You sir, are an idiot."
I love the way how this video portrays anyone who believes in the theory of evolution as a saltationist even though today almost everyone is either in the school of gradualism and/or punctuated equilibrium. This is outright distortion of the facts since saltationism is practically a universally discredited idea of evolution.
Stupid asshole....
orgryteftw 1 day ago
You are incredibly stupid
greenchef6 1 week ago
Why is there so many dislikes? This is hilarious!
davidthmovies 1 week ago
OK what do I gotta do?
Pull down my pants, bend over and take what ever the religious guys says because his religion is the best in the world according to his "Big Black Leather" covered book that God wrote and dropped on earth. Oh wait: Jesus God only hand delivered religious writings to the Mormons with a golden tablet. DAMN, now I have to sign up with the Mormons because God cared enough to make a recent appearance in the Latter Days. Again, DAMN - So many choices and so much nonsense.
DetroitUrbanTV 1 week ago
lol this is fuckin stupid. christian fags need to grow up.
stalker7d7 2 weeks ago
@dahvievanity1995 lol you are on the road to being atheist or atleast non-christian theist
wearestarstuffsagan 2 weeks ago
What a bunch of propaganda shit. God doesn't exist, and even if he did exist, no creatures, man or god should be worshiped if they are the kind of being that sends fellow humans to burn for eternity. Thats like hitler times infinity! God is a perfect blend of Kim Jong Il and Hitler. Not worthy of worship in any way. I take hell over worshiping such a fiend.
justinlloyd3 2 weeks ago 2
Pure ignorance.
migraine516 2 weeks ago
Half of the put down on science are clearly lies. First off... BAHAHAHAHA! Rocks have never lived and so its not possible to evolve from one! But apes however are alive!
DrippingSmiles 3 weeks ago
Just STOP with the Shenanigans.
mrblackout2000 3 weeks ago
Mind rape anyone?
mrblackout2000 3 weeks ago
can we flag this video?
DizzyDisco93 3 weeks ago
o.O the person who made this animation should be slapped -_-
PinkProgram 3 weeks ago
Rocks evolve into rocks, simple as that. I wish Christians knew what the Theory of Abiogenesis was. Abiogenesis =/= Evolution
XxI3ioHazardxX 3 weeks ago
I also love the thing about us evolving from rocks. LMAO.
ZukutoBTD 1 month ago
1) there isn't any difference between microevolution and macroevolution.. macroevolution is just microevolution happening over a long period of time!
2) Archaeopteryx, Australopethicus afarensis, are they not transitional fossils?
3) There isn't any evidence for Jesus so they're being hypocrites.
4) Hell is where the fun is at anyway.
ZukutoBTD 1 month ago
A rock ... realy?
championkoppie 1 month ago
One they do quote dinosaures in the bible but im not sure about the scienc stuff the rock thing i highly dought. Now christians do belive in the faith thing but the works is kind of a lets look good thing. now im not sure if this will cause an argument but why cant people learn to take things like this as a joke instead of people saying oh thats wrong and oh thats wroung both sides should take a break and say why dony we work together to help society!!!!??
MrXeko9 1 month ago
@MrXeko9 because Creationism simply relies on a 2,000+ year old book that has been translated and manipulated so many times it doesn't even make sense anymore as their only piece of evidence for these things and then just bullshit the rest.
GreedyCapybara7 1 month ago
Sigh, i hate when christians quote the bible to prove that is true, or use it in an intellectual discussion.
sporemaster34 1 month ago
wow... Christianity isn't based on works? o.O I'm going to need an explanation on what they mean by that because if they are meaning works as in structures or objects then HELL YA Christianity is based on works. Notre Dame, Sithteen Chapel, the Bible, however many books written on the subject.
TKozlows 1 month ago
@TKozlows What he ment by that was: you don't have to do something physically to become a christian.
alexmoskov 1 month ago
Why do creationists go on about the missing link? God himself is a missing link. There is no solid evidence to prove he exists, and even the circumstantial evidence is VERY poor.
If they spent more time tying up their own loose ends, they'd see the light, and realise its not god, but an operating table sorounded by highly trained doctors, and an electric light. Both are products of SCIENCE. What has religion done to match this? Yup, thats right; the answer is nothing!
DemonLDR 1 month ago
best troll video i've seen all week.
BlazeTheDoja 1 month ago
I blame creationism for the reason why the American school system is so bad. Stow your damn dogma in the bronze age and let society advance, damn it!
CaptainAwesomeoh13 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaptainAwesomeoh13
"I blame creationism for the reason why the American school system is so bad."
WHAT??? America had the strongest and most successful education system in the WORLD back in the "bronze age" when the Bible was standard curriculum for all public schools. It wasn't until evolution and other New Age thinking came into the picture that we started downhill. That's just a fact.
TheOriginalAnalogKid 1 month ago
@TheOriginalAnalogKid no it didn't...what are you on about...the strongest public school systems were always found in Europe not America, the reason it is going down hill in America is because myth is taught as fact despite alternative evidence based in solid science
GreedyCapybara7 1 month ago
not a single thing you just said either about religion or science was right...at all
1.nothing from the Bible was quoted correctly
2.nothing you just said about micro-evolution or macro-evolution was correct
3.nothing you said about fossilization or missing transitional forms was correct
vote up so everyone else can see this
GreedyCapybara7 1 month ago 25
@GreedyCapybara7 they do quote dinos in the bible but if you ment they just qouted it in the wroung spot then never mind
MrXeko9 1 month ago
@MrXeko9 okay...yes they are in the wrong verses
but if you put two and two together the first verse mentioned you'll see that they are actually talking about a hipo and a croc as the "leviathan" mentioned, most others actually refer to "dragons" which some say could be dinosaurs but to be honest the likelihood of a dinosaur surviving in today's environment is very, very low.
GreedyCapybara7 1 month ago
@GreedyCapybara7 did you mean they just had the wrong spot for the dino verses because it does quote in the bible about dinos
MrXeko9 1 month ago
@GreedyCapybara7 umm, actually what he said was right. can you prove him wrong please. or was that comment just your opinion. because im still waiting for you to correct his wrong data.
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able there is no difference between micro and macro-evolution, only the time scale is different, in order to have the type of Biology he is talking about a mechanism would have to be present that freezes DNA and thus mutation.
There are systems in -place to prevent large mutations but only work on certain parts of strands and only work for mutations over a certain physical size.
GreedyCapybara7 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able transitional form is missing...this is news to me, which on is missing?
Homo-Habilious, Homo-Erectus, Homo-Aethiophicus, Homo-Boisei, Homo-Robustus A or B, Homo-Africanus, Homo-Afarensis, Homo-Anamesis, Homo-Bathreighazali, Homo-Garhi, Homo-Ramidus, Homo-Blacki, Homo-Gigantus, P.Africanus, P.Heseloni, P.Nyazae(the common ansestor we share with the great apes)
I can also trace it to a Chimp if you want.
GreedyCapybara7 3 weeks ago
@GreedyCapybara7 i dont want YOU to do anything except site where you get your info from, as long as its coming from scientists who have been agreed upon by the scientific community.
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able okay...obviously unlike you I paid attention in school, I have legit just been down to the archaeology wing of my Uni, and these are the transitional forms that were given to me and are up for report whenever.
If you are talking about micro and marco-evolution allow me to introduce myself, I am Dr.Benjamin Keath of the University of Queensland Australia, I'm a Biologist
GreedyCapybara7 3 weeks ago
@GreedyCapybara7 hello Dr. Benjamin. I have many things to ask you. If you would kindly permit me.
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able go for it, I would appreciate a private message for the character count, but if you prefer to keep this conversation public then I have no issue with that.
GreedyCapybara7 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able btw, for your information I actually only just got my PHD
GreedyCapybara7 3 weeks ago
@GreedyCapybara7 yea yea, i still have questions.
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able okay...go for it
I will answer to my best ability all your questions
GreedyCapybara7 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able evolution is only mutation, natural selection and gene flow over time, given the age and time scale from which the Earth has had life evolution is the only possibility, there is no difference between micro and marco-evolution, only the direct effects
GreedyCapybara7 3 weeks ago
@GreedyCapybara7 you're retarded. I could tell this was a satire in the first 10 seconds.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 3 weeks ago
@GreedyCapybara7 Holy shit! They got a website?! I take that back. Sorry.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 3 weeks ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 there are two types of people in the world
1.those who extrapolate from incomplete data
and
2.Agnostics
GreedyCapybara7 3 weeks ago
Again, a creationist arguement that forgets exactly how lucky we are to have any fossils at all. Could one of them at least research the argument they're fighting against?
RRConghaile 1 month ago
This is exactly the filth against which I fight. This is no different than indoctrinating suicide bombers for islam- lies to create slaves! Shit pisses me of.
TheOmegadusk 1 month ago
why must believers lie?
lahav1 1 month ago
@lahav1 They must do so in order to trust their own believes.
MacRief 1 month ago
@MacRief LIKE!
lahav1 1 month ago
@lahav1 Believers believe in something called a "good lie" - a lie that, ultimately, brings someone to their religion's side is justified for them.
AlexTheUruguayan 1 month ago
More bullshit.
bobbycathey 1 month ago
Atheist ftw
Rickyross2012boss 1 month ago
Some very short sighted bloggers here, people should have the right to marry same sex. This is preposterous, we weren't created to love the same sex, its a defect. Won't effect anyone? BULLSHIT! we live in a tightly nit society where one little thing can effect everyone else. That means you marrying the same sex would entice others that some how that is "ok" when it really isn't. As a man of morality, we need to keep marriage between a man and a women. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Scattnam 1 month ago
@Scattnam I do believe you're in the wrong conversation.
TehJonneh 1 month ago
@Scattnam Homosexuality & debate about homosexuality isn't a new phenomenon. In fact, as far as we can look back, in all cultures we encounter homosexuality, but not only among humans, also among animals. There is also a direct connection between the amount of sons a mother has & homosexuality. Question only is, where or is there a benefit to a society if there are homosexuals. Up to this point, it seems that homosexuality appears to have no effect on general mankind.
GaolisVideoLog 1 month ago
@Scattnam okay, I have to put my foot down here, even though this is old but you really don't have an argument, homosexuality isn't a defect, it is caused at least in part by genes yes, but also by hormones, lifestyle and upbringing, that's like saying that religion is a defect, yes in the long run it is a bad thing for a species but seriously? we have become so much more than this, people like you really tick me off.
GreedyCapybara7 1 month ago
more proof that we existed from rocks than "god" creating us ... as for the missing link ... its not missing idiot creationists there are many links homoerectus homohabillis .... the list goes on
holmlllll 1 month ago
@holmlllll the list that goes on is one that continues only the imaginations of so called evolutionary scientists. Modern science now generally acknowledges that homo habillis and homo erectus overlaped each other during their entire population. Therefore no transition between either. While the time frames remain in contention it is at least encouraging to see evolutionists catching up with their own perspective in certain areas.
Pendu068 1 month ago
@Pendu068 Think for themselves made me lol. Since you're so good at studying scientific literature, why don't you go ahead and look for "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli", "Metal bioaccumulation and cellular fractionation in an epigeic earthworm (Lumbricus rubellus)", "The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", and don't forget finches.
omgwtfbbqxD 1 month ago
@omgwtfbbqxD To some degree then it seems that we are agreed. I 'lol' with the frequency with which the evolutionary believing faithfully speak out in blind faith on a topic they know little about, plus are being easily lead. Hence my reason for joining this thread & my encouragement to them to research objectively & to think for themselves. I would say the same to Christians who wish to enter the debate believing creation on faith alone without their own objective research or understanding.
Pendu068 1 month ago
@SissingPyd you know with that attitude you aren't going to make a whole lot of friends.
ProIsraelrepublican 1 month ago
Child abuse.
SissingPyd 1 month ago
only experience. and for someone advocating creationism you are very condemning.Grew up in the church and in matters of faith nothing is proven, only trying to point out that the people you trash may not be as misguided as you think, I am never 100% but your words are diluted with condescension and pride. faith defines many but it is your soul or core which guides and governs your actions and words.So if you know your lord why do you act as a fussy child instead of a inheritor of eternal life.
schunter20 2 months ago
yeah i know how can we believe that over billions years we evolved, its so obvious that an unseen all powerful being that speaks though burning bushes and who words describe things such as talking mules(Numbers Chapter 22:22 ) created us in his image. You would have to be some kind of illogical moron to believe in something an insane as evolution.
schunter20 2 months ago
@PopBogomil god (yahweh) has always existed and will always exist. He is the beginning and the end. In genesis humans are created in gods/christs image but they were to be the prefect creature, then Adam and eve ate from the tree of good and evil they sinned and humans needed salvation from eternal damnation.
ProIsraelrepublican 2 months ago
@ProIsraelrepublican ... and it came to pass that Yahweh did rape a Jewish minx and Santa Claus saved the fucking world! You retarded halfwit.
Oh and BTW, I’m pro Israel too.
SissingPyd 1 month ago
This is horrible, I was forced to go to a private junior high school that actually tried to brainwash the students into "throwing away the falsehoods of science".
It's crazy how people get so hung up on religion that they choose to ignore obvious facts.
canadababez 2 months ago
We have found lots of missing links. When do we start calling them "found links".
itsjustameme 2 months ago
@itsjustameme Please oh please, name just one. They're not called 'found links' for very good reason. They aren't, that's why.
Pendu068 2 months ago
@Pendu068
What - can't you Google?
Most commonly mentioned are Archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird) and Tiktaalik (fish to land animal).
Horse with toes to horse with hoofs:
Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus,
Land animal to whale:
Ambulocetus Natans, Kutchicetus, Protocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Squalodon, Cetotherium
Ape to man (H is short for Homo):
H. gautengensis, H. ergaster, H. cepranensis, H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis
itsjustameme 2 months ago
@itsjustameme Let's start with Archaeopteryx shall we. I'll let one of your own answer that one. From Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, an evolutionist & author of “The Origin and Evolution of Birds” he says: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur, but it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”.
Pendu068 1 month ago
@Pendu068
It is funny that you should cite a book that contains numerous transitional fossils right after asking me to name just one and saying the such a thing does not exist. I can only regard this as willfully ignorant.
And the fact that people are having a hard time classifying it actually talks in favor of it being a transitional fossil. This is just the kind of problem you would expect for something placed squarely between two species.
(cont)
itsjustameme 1 month ago
(cont)
And a lot of people in the field actually thinks it is closer to dinosaurs than birds.
Chiappe L.M., Witme L.M. (2002). University od California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. ed. Mesozoic birds: above the heads of dinosaurs
Archaeopteryx: An Early Bird - University of California, Berkeley Museum of Paleontology. Retrieved 2006-OCT-18
Holtz, Thomas, Jr. (1995). "Archaeopteryxs Relationship With Modern Birds". Journal of Dinosaur Paleontology. Retrieved 2007-03-01.
itsjustameme 1 month ago
@itsjustameme and a lot in the field do not. Some references: Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe, C., Archaeopteryx, the primordial bird: a case of fossil forgery, Christopher Davies, London, 1986.
# Feduccia, A.; cited in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.
# Feduccia, A., The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 2nd Ed., p. 39, 1999.
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... # Christiansen, P. and Bonde, N., Axial and appendicular pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 267:2501–2505, 2000.
# Alonso, P.D., Milner, A.C., Ketcham, R.A., Cokson, M.J and Rowe, T.B., The avian nature of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx, Nature 430(7000):666–669, 5 August 2004; Witmer, L.M, Inside the oldest bird brain, perspective, same issue, pp. 619–620.
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... # Witmer, L.M., Chatterjee, S., Franzosa, J. and Rowe, T., Nature 425(6961):950–953, 30 October 2003; Unwin, D.M., Smart-winged pterosaurs, perspective, same issue, pp. 910–911.
Pendu068 1 month ago
@itsjustameme Wrong again. I cite evolutionary material to demonstrate that the postulate is not difficult to debunk using their own material. If you interpret that as ignorance then you are desperatly trying to claw back lost credibilty with a nonsense distraction. Call it independent peer review by someone not umbilically welded to the notion of evolution as science fact, but rather one who still able to think for themselves. I know my stuff which is why I engaged you in the first place.
Pendu068 1 month ago
Comment removed
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... I encourage you to objectively research the material for yourself rather than simply accept what is shoved down society's throats by the evolution industry. In this YT thread I have tried to limit my replies to using evolutionists own material to demonstrate the level of discord that exists among themselves. Discord that is actively being kept from the education of the greater public. What remains strictly postulated is being taught as fact and that, ,,cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... is called propaganda. When the unwitting evolutionary faithful attack Christians and creation scientists based on no more than their own zealous belief in evolutionary dogma then it's time to speak up to let people know what they have allowed to happen to them and future generations. YT is not conducive to a greater debate on the topic so I encourage you to take some time and be objective in you analysis. In other words don't just accept propaganda. Cheers.
Pendu068 1 month ago
@Pendu068
Since you brought it up - it's not just the 98% DNA we share with apes
We can even se exactly where two of the ape chromosomes has fused to become a single human one.
And we can still see the residues of ancient vira in our DNA that we have inherited from our ape ancestors. The chance of those genetic sequences being placed in exactly the same place if we are not related is infinitesimally small.
Not to mention the many now passive genes in our DNA - like the genes for a tail etc.
itsjustameme 1 month ago 9
@itsjustameme the more recent fused chromosomes axiom reminds me of the “junk DNA” mantra that is now falling apart in the science world. At the time ignorant researchers found stretches of DNA for which they saw no purpose & so they quickly proclaimed the DNA as “junk” left over from the evolutionary process. Now, most of the so-called junk has been found to have very specific purpose. The high priests of evolution proclaimed the junk DNA as fact & the faithful congregation believed,,, cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... and followed in blind faith. Now that the so called "junk DNA axion has been debunked you will not find 'science admitting to the erroneous teaching anywhere in text books. While there is much still to discover about what appears to be fused DNA it is reasonable to say that because Humans having 23 chromosome pairs rather than 24 is neither evidence for or against evolution, nor for or against creation. There are millions of differences between,,, cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... human and chimpanzee DNA, making it clear that we are not related. In the Y chromosome alone, chimps have only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa. According to Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.”,,cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
@itsjustameme (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.). Natural selection could not possibly have fixed so many mutations into an evolving human population in the five to ten million years during which apes allegedly evolved into humans. (See Haldane’s dilemma has not been solved.) Evolutionists tried to get round this problem by arguing that much of our DNA is junk and was therefore not fixed in the population by natural selection. The scientific problems,,, cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Comment removed
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... with evolutionary theory are enormous & fundamental. Most people have no idea that this is true because these kinds of facts are not communicated to the general public in the media or educational institutions. Evolutionists the likes of Professor Ken Miller make the assumption that a fused chromosome proves a link between man & chimps when he could just as easily have assumed a chromosome fusion to have occured in mankind alone. It is a paradigm belief.
Pendu068 1 month ago
@Pendu068 Of course no human is excluded from believe & assumptions. There are too many cases of scientists just believing & not challenging a hypothesis. However, what should not be forgotten is, that not only does evolution work in theory, but also in reality. Our only cognitive problem is only that we humans don't live long enough to realize these changes ourselves. Because of our short life span, we cannot grasp a span of 100 years, 1.000 years, 1.000.000 years etc.
GaolisVideoLog 1 month ago
@itsjustameme I think you need to go back and re read all of my earlier replies. All your points are very adeqautely responded to with scientific evidence and fact. I entered this thread to set you right on one point and with each lost argument you tried one more. My point remains consistent and that is that evolution remains no more than a theory and that it is being peddled as fact is wrong.
Pendu068 3 weeks ago
@Pendu068
I'm not the one who has to prove anything. I don't "believe" in evolution. It is not a "belief" I hold that is up for debate. It's scientifically proven theory and you can't quote mine yourself around that. If you had a point you would not be making it to me who has no particular expertise in the field, but at the nobel awards instead.
Furthermore I have neither the time nor inclination to shoot down the 50 or so comments you have left.
(cont)
itsjustameme 3 weeks ago
@itsjustameme(cont)
I left the discussion because I was not getting through to you and I got bored with arguing. You have spammed me out of the discussion.
I place you in the same category as scientologists and 9/11 truthers.
itsjustameme 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itsjustameme Then we are agreed, evolution is no more than a theory. I question the validity of it as a theory but I will accept that at least now there is one more person who has been made aware that it is NOT fact. You mention that it has been "scientifically proven" which is not the case. Forensic science is a very subjective field but let's not waste any more time on YT over it. At least now you are aware of how the so called theory is being misrepresented as fact in our institutions.
Pendu068 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Pendu068 3 weeks ago
@Pendu068 platypi have reptilian and mammalian genes as well as genes between the two.They also have genes for avian egg proteins. This shows that warm blooded reptiles like synapsids and theropods shared an ancestor and mammals are definitely a branch of reptile through direct descent. Mammals are the descendants of synapsid reptiles and birds are the descendants of theropods. Birds even have dormant genes for reptilian teeth and long tails with some birds still having digits -__-
PinkProgram 3 weeks ago
@PinkProgram ok so what you are saying is that god made us all with the same material?? well duh lol.
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@itsjustameme id like to see a peer reviewed document that confirms your findings.
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@itsjustameme otherwise, as of today no missing link has ever been discovered so in reality, both religion and the idea of evolution are speculative. unless you have proof of either two?
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able even if they never find a missing link as you put it that is irrelevant since we have genetic evidence that clearly points to apes being the parents of humanity. They found the missing link in the genome. It is a link between human chromosome 2 and ape chromosome 13. In humans the two chromosomes are fused together ^_^ The amount of similarity between apes and humans is impossible without direct descent from a common ancestor ;3
PinkProgram 3 weeks ago
@PinkProgram even if they dont find a missing link? thats like saying that you are convicted of murder even though no one ever found the murder weapon, they just assumed since you have hands and fingers that you are able to use a murder weapon so you must be the guy. lol, again, show me where it is science FACT that we evolved from monkeys, otherwise stop giving us your opinion.
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able I wasn't giving you opinion I was giving you the equivalent of a video tape of the murder as it occurred. There is more than enough genetic evidence to convict apes of giving birth to humans. Humans are apes and apes are monkeys so not only did humans evolve from monkeys you still are monkeys. You haven't stopped being monkeys.
PinkProgram 3 weeks ago
@PinkProgram we are both giving our opinions. however, scientists have not found the smoking gun, which is genetic bridge, or that gap or missing link between us. so, for now, scientists will tell you that humans and monkeys developed along a similar pattern but not exactly the same, nor is there a genetic marker that uniquivocally says we are "monkeys." until they do, you cant say we are monkeys, you can only speculate to say. same for me in regards to god. until we both present evidence
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@PinkProgram and i like how you use the word "you" when calling me a monkey, when you are just as big a harry ape as me my friend :) you can tell me you aren't human, but then all your aguments get thrown out the window. so go ahead, prove that im talking to someone clinically insane, debate me on the fact that you too are a monkey human just like me, id like to see what all your atheist friends think of your next argument.
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able my Host is a monkey ^_^ I am not my Host. My sanity or the sanity of my Host is irrelevant to the cold hard fact that humans are mammals and primates and the amount of similarity between humans and apes is impossible without a common ancestor. Every mark is there in your genome. Take it up with your god for making you look exactly like monkeys at the genetic level. If ape chromosome 13 wasn't hanging off chromosome 2 you might have a case but its there.
PinkProgram 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able
If you look further down in the comments I actually mentioned several.
itsjustameme 3 weeks ago
@itsjustameme lol, all you said was we share dna with apes and that we used to have a tail. um, i didn't see any reference to scientific papers. not sure if you got my point, i wanted something thats been written and reviewed by say, anthropologists or geneticists that confirm what you are talking about. because, thats kinda why everyone debates it today, because it hasn't been proven yet. and since we have so much evidence, yet a lack of one important finding, that should say something
tylerdurden666able 3 weeks ago
@tylerdurden666able
It it possible that I was referring to one of my other comments then?
I'll repost it just for you.
(cont)
itsjustameme 3 weeks ago
@itsjustameme
Most commonly mentioned are Archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird) and Tiktaalik (fish to land animal).
Horse with toes to horse with hoofs:
Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus,
Land animal to whale:
Ambulocetus Natans, Kutchicetus, Protocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Squalodon, Cetotherium
Ape to man (H is short for Homo):
H. gautengensis, H. ergaster, H. cepranensis, H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis
itsjustameme 3 weeks ago
Respond to this video..From A.H. Brush,‘On the origin of feathers',Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.]“At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape & sequence, filament formation & structure, feathers are different.”Thus he concludes that feather proteins(φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin & scale proteins(α-keratins).Thus no relationship.
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video...Furthermore, in 1984 at Eichstätt, Germany, there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution,The International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny group thought it was dinosaur related. Science consensus is that Archaeopteryx fossils are consistent with flying birds.
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video...As for the horse, Darwinists claim the horse evolved from a four toed fox like creature referred to as ‘Dawn horse’, discovered in 1841by palaeontologists Richard Owen. Owen saw no connection with the horse. Hence the name Hyracotherium i.e. rock badger or Coney. Other evidence debunking horse toe evolution was reported in National Geographic in 1981 after an excavation in Nebraska with the find of thousands of animals in a volcanic eruption that three and ,,,cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... single toes horses existed at the same time. Some are now extinct which is not the equivalent of Darwin's phyletic gradualism. Furthermore on the topic of the horse, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist Nils Heribert-Nillson (not a creationist) stated “The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks” and the famous paleontologist Niles Eldredge (evolutionist and adjunct professor at City if New York University) called the ,,, cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video...textbook picture ‘lamentable’ and ‘a classical case of paleontologic museology. The creation science model supports the biblical account that different kinds of creatures were created with lots of genetic information. Natural selection can sort out this pre-existing genetic information, by eliminating creatures not suited to a particular environment. On that basis many different varieties can be produced in varying environments. ,,,,, cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video...Note that this sorting process involves a loss of information and extinction of certain species and so is not relevant to big bang-to-man cladogenesis or anagenesis, which requires non-intelligent processes to add new information. On whales: According to ‘Teaching about Evolution’,(pg 18), Evolutiionism believes that they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’ There are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video...One of them is to get rid of its pelvis.This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement.
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video...which is clearly not viable either. Back to my original question; Even respected evolutionary peers are in dispute about their own faith and belief system. as is clearly demonstrated with the following quote by noted evolutionist and whale expert E.J Slijper.‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e.,carnivores and ungulates] & the whales. And yet the misinformation that you so confidently googled, cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
@itsjustameme is still being peddled. Why?.. Because of a religious zealous fervor that is desperate to maintain the illusion of credibility. Evolution is an exclusive belief system that can only be addressed by breaching the evolutionary peer review defence barriers. It is not science in the true sense of the word, in as much as science demands observable and reproducable 'empiricle' evidence. At best it could be thought of as a very flawed form of biased forensic science. As for ape to man,,,
Pendu068 1 month ago
@itsjustameme the same principles apply, but before going there I will address, 'Ambulocetus natans' (‘walking whale that swims’); for starters the cute pictures found in journals of this species are artist impressions only and not the real thing. All that has been found of this animal were a small collection of stippled bones with the so called remaining bones being found 5 meters above in different geological strata. The same creature? Another was Basilosaurus, which did appear to, cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... have small hind limbs, but rather than what evolutionism claims to be evidence of a transitional form, they were functional limbs from a unique and specialised species. In support I quote noted evolutionist and whale expert Philip Gingerich, ‘It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper." Also consider the fact that Basilosaurus was 10 times the size of Ambulocetus natans which hardly supports transitional,,, cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video...axioms. Also consider that Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so once again hardly transitional. But in further support I quote vertebrate paleontologist & evolutionist Barbara Stahl on this species:"The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales." I think there is sufficent doubt to raise serious question about the credibility,,
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... of that evolutionary 'hocus pocus' postulate. Back to the sacred cow of evolution i.e. the 'sacred cow' of ape to man, the exact same principles apply. Apes & mankind are very distinct & specialised species in their own right & apart from what amounts to less than a single box of bones there is no evidence to support transitional forms. Evolutionists deceptively claim the DNA of chimps & humans as ‘98 percent’ similar, & compare this as being ‘only a couple,,,,cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video...of spelling errors.’ While the so called 98 percent remains highly debatable, claiming a ‘couple’ of differences is outright deception.. Humans have 3 billion ‘letters’ (base pairs) of DNA information in each cell, so a two percent difference is actually 60 million ‘spelling errors’! Of course, this is not ‘error’ but twenty 500 page books worth of new information that needs to be explained by mutation and selection. There is plenty more information on,,,cont'd
Pendu068 1 month ago
Respond to this video... the question of the very flawed axiom that is evolution. The topic of the human genome and irreversible complextity is way too in depth to discuss here on you tube other than to say there there is plenty of information out there if you care to open you mind to the truth of evolution vs creation science. What I have done here is make a brief effort to reply to your paradigm. I trust you might at least now be curious to learn more about God's creation & science.
Pendu068 1 month ago
@MrMickist if humans have evolved from animals then it's simply another way for god to have made humans. Evolution without god is like a painting without an artist.
ProIsraelrepublican 2 months ago
@ProIsraelrepublican If there was evolution there was no Original Sin. without Original Sin there's no need for Christ. Without Christ there's no Christianity. Why an all-powerful God would choose such a slow method for creating life when he could create it in a blink? Why would such a God create anything with less powers and intellect than him? If everything has its creator, who created God? If God can exist without creator why can't the universe?
PopBogomil 2 months ago
@ProIsraelrepublican You need to do some research man. Evolutionism has its own perspective and paradigm but it is based on unproven axioms and unobservable forensics. There is no scientific evidence supporting the apes to man postulate and plently of scientifc evidence supporting creation. Research creation science sites and journals and you will find all you need to tackle these guys.
Pendu068 2 months ago
This is appalling
KevJC79 2 months ago
The account of creation in Genesis is a very good way to describe the process of evolution to a limited bronze age mind: less complex organisms give way to more complex ones. There is no conflict of science with the Bible because they are discussing different things. The Bible is a document of faith and scientific literature is about reason.
Why force an artificial comparison that does nothing to help us understand the human condition? It is a waste of time.
agoraemily 2 months ago
This is stupid..so many facts are wrong
Departure08 2 months ago
The Missing Link has been found all over the world ( Mostly Africa) they have found skeletons of human elvolution and different variations of a human
Kevinrocksat69 2 months ago
Lol this is retarded!
IdidnotFartedIswear 2 months ago
the dates are accurate it is just that carbon dating would mean +- a few hundred years - this isn't much but argon dating is MORE accurate, micro evolution is how macro-evolution happens(and micro-evolution wouldn't exist if it weren't for MUTATIONS(you forgot about that) - in other words cells are not perfect at coping genes and radiation can, at low levels result in beneficial changes) also people who think that christianity is the true religion without having any proof are fools.
doombybbr 2 months ago
there was a time that science agreed with scripture, yah back in the good old days that if you had a theory that conflicted with scripture you are given 2 choices, repent and denounce, or DIE
CapQuacer 2 months ago 8
This is fucking ridiculous...
vibgyor33 2 months ago
What the hell? A B C and D believe one way, E believes another, therefore E is correct? WTF kind of logic is that.
Thanatos71185 2 months ago
what do you mean fast becoming the laughing stock of the world? America is the Laughing stock of the world
Mattcs188 2 months ago
I really don't understand why everyone gets so pissed over the creationism/evolution argument. I am a devout christian and believe that animals have evolved but not humans.
ProIsraelrepublican 2 months ago
@ProIs People get upset when their beliefs are challenged. People don't like to believe they are biodegradable organic material. With all the suffering one goes through in life, people don't want to accept there will not be reward or justice for it. Yet, this is what you have to face if you're going to be scientifically consistent; there is no room for fairy tales, and religious belief is taken on faith and cannot constitute education - to some people, education is important.
Rarae192 2 months ago
@ProIsraelrepublican Why not humans? We're all animals, I believe I came from stardust, not dirt. I mean, we are made of the same things as everything else that is living. Amino acids. I don't think we're special or created by a higher being, but I do think we are related to everything, which is pretty damn cool.
MrMickist 2 months ago
My mother has a friend who had his heart stop for 5 minutes, (struck by lightning believe it or not, no joke) what he told me was that he saw outside of his body and could tell what people were saying as he was rushed to the hospital, what they though even. He said he felt kind of blissful right before he was resuscitated. A few things about him: He is not christian, he believes in evolution, he is an avid atheist, and what he experienced was "enlightenment" He now believes in ideas of Buddhism
mof4k1999 2 months ago
@mof4k1999 for a second i thought you were going to say he follows Christianity.
gato123452 2 months ago
@gato123452 Lol
mof4k1999 2 months ago
Faith is the plague of the human mind.
EliteDoomer 2 months ago
Gotta love when people present Strawman Arguments to prove creationism right... in animated form no less. Anyone that has any semblance of intelligence can clearly see this.
kyoukan91 2 months ago
america is fast becoming the laughing stock of the world
tony671 2 months ago
666 kill jesus
bakersk8r41 2 months ago
ROFLMFAO!
Memoria777 2 months ago
What a load of shit. wow
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
Right radiocarbon dating is only good up to 50,000 years because carbon halflife is short. that is why scientists use halflife of uranium and potasium found in surrounding rocks to date the layers containing the fossils. It not just putting random tags.
For people who put faith into such an old book, they really have no faith in modern science.
the teacher is the prideful one here, no answers from him, just babble!
God doesnt want you in hell, be he will send you there because he loves you!
Gr4yW0rld 2 months ago
There is evidence of other branches of human evolution, and these people must be very closely related to neanderthals.
dinosaurs in the bible? called dragons, and so are creatures with eight heads and an angel with a thousand eyes and ten arms and a giant fish monster that swallows ships whole
By scientists, it was actually one woman, whose first discovery was proved to be bacteria and the second one only looks like blood, much like the first and she even says that she wont gaurentee them
Gr4yW0rld 2 months ago
there are different breeds of dogs, due to human selection and us playing god, but they are all originally wolves.
Macro evolution is true by the observation of mutations, there is your extra genetic information.
how the hell are you comparing evolution from a primate so evolution from a rock? Rocks are not any where near alive.
the missing link is missing because evidence of old life is actually very rare due to it needing very special conditions to be preserved,
Gr4yW0rld 2 months ago
FTW Rationlists
milkyway531 2 months ago
Can they make an argument WITHOUT fear?
raichutoyou 2 months ago
@raichutoyou They don't have a real arguement, so they preach the same old shit..EVILution, accountability, fear blah-blah-blah! -Like that has anything to with science
Lennon4ever1 2 months ago
The more important question here though is, what school still has 16mm projectors?
Videogamehistorian00 2 months ago 12
@Videogamehistorian00 christian schools that spend all there money on making these shitty films
sirbestnameever 2 months ago
@Videogamehistorian00 projectors dont evolve! lol
CHARLESHARDIN96 2 months ago
@Videogamehistorian00 christian schools :D
DiamondChrome42 2 months ago
@Videogamehistorian00 my old school.
Ttoxcs 2 months ago
@Videogamehistorian00 Schools that let moronic creationist teach this half ass excuse for biology. Creation has as much of a place in a modern school as a 16 mm projector.
Richardisdorky 3 weeks ago
It's sad because I can see too many young impressionable children falling for this crap.
toogood75 2 months ago
I hate creationism and am atheist and Jesus couldn't walk on water or preform miracles. He was a normal person but he was persuasive. Everyone believed in him and he was killed for it. I DARE you to reply to this comment saying how you "believe that I am a fucking negro" because that is what you believed less than 50 years ago so you MUST believe that racism and creationism is true and equal religion and the separation of law and religion is wrong.
wolfstar124 2 months ago
It's sad that most people who watch this video think it is pro-creationism. Read the description people.
AoaDAxMEGAMAN 2 months ago
@AoaDAxMEGAMAN This is pro-creationism. The first sentence says "This is NOT a joke." This is a real video of off GodTube.
KingWithoutaCause 2 months ago
@KingWithoutaCause ...You're not serious. The content inside THIS video is pro-creationism. THIS VIDEO is not pro-creationism. It is to help educate those people who have not seen the type of propaganda and misinformation that creationists use to suck in uneducated masses. This video is not intended to give any type of doctrinal lesson.
AoaDAxMEGAMAN 2 months ago
@AoaDAxMEGAMAN READ THE DESCRIPTION. It says "This is NOT a joke. This is a creationist cartoon that is currently being used to twist young minds with intimidation and coercion." This is a REAL video that was used by creationist.
KingWithoutaCause 2 months ago
@KingWithoutaCause You sir are and idiot.
AoaDAxMEGAMAN 2 months ago
@AoaDAxMEGAMAN You should learn to spell before you try to make an insult. Lol. I understand your anger, you just realized your mental disability. It's OK.
KingWithoutaCause 2 months ago
@KingWithoutaCause I spelled it exactly the way I wanted it to be spelled, thank you. Your obvious oversight of what I am actually saying is not making me angry, in fact. More so disappointed that I would have to explain such a simple concept to you.
And just as a reminder... "You sir, are and idiot".
AoaDAxMEGAMAN 2 months ago
@AoaDAxMEGAMAN I can't tell if you're trolling or if you have some kind of mental deficiency. I don't want to pick on someone whose mentally challenged. So I'll just help you out. It's supposed to be "You sir, are an idiot."
KingWithoutaCause 2 months ago
I love the way how this video portrays anyone who believes in the theory of evolution as a saltationist even though today almost everyone is either in the school of gradualism and/or punctuated equilibrium. This is outright distortion of the facts since saltationism is practically a universally discredited idea of evolution.
vacuity27 2 months ago