In the video you have a frame referring to Tiktaalik starting at 4:50. At 4:57 you mention a link that can be found in the video description. It seems that during the re-posting you neglected to include the link. Just letting you know.
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
mikevaneck1 Regarding "If you took all the water out of the oceans you will notice there is dirt underneath ! the continents are not just floating around." comment, I honestly though you were having a laugh. That was until until I went to your page and saw your "Christian political prisoner Kent Hovind" vid... No. You're serious. Anyway... Please continue to post educted gems such as this... I can unlearn so much from you.
@angusmcpherson Good question- modified fins are not the same as true bony legs- the anatomy is very unique, and conclusive. Although they may appear similar (bat wings and bird wings), when you get a closer look, its unmistakable.
When you compare the bones of lobe finned fish which amphibians came from we see a correspondence and in fact shifts from one form to another. Mudskippers are ray finned fish and their structure is quite different.
If you search for Neil Shubin's for his book "your inner fish" he has all of his diagrams of the bones of the known fish to tetrapod transition avaliable for free. Though you buy that book yourself and see it explained in depth but understandable. Carl Zimmer's book too
Oh, and BTW DonExodus2, the fossil record is predicted by creation. The different animals in different layers were layed down by the global flood, through hydrological sorting. I bet you don't know anything about that though DO YOU? LOL.
@TypicalRepublican so, not even one of the animals or plants are out of place, how did your "hydrological" sorting sort it so perfectly not even fish or sponges, coral, birds or anything was out of place? not even ONE?
Just look it up on creation wiki. One way it works, is that animals of higher intelligence have a tendency to seek higher ground from flood water. Fish aren't as smart as anphibians and anphibians aren't as smart as reptiles and reptiles aren't as smart as people. Since people are the smartest, they seem to appear most recently in the fossil record because they sought higher ground. Theory is sound, unlike your evolutionism.
Several problems with that. For one the layers furthest to the bottom have no life at all. Which is what you would expect.
Flora and fauna are also seen in sucession. For example there are hundreds of millions of years without flowering or vascular plants, just ferns and such. Not a single flower is found. There aren't fossil shark teeth (which are discarded frequently in the precambrian
Cetaceans are again found successively and only starting in one age and continuing on
If you think so then how about you come up with a model of sorting and test it? And by test it I mean synthesize a theory out of several premises and show how it predicts the fossil record.
You can make a video of it and let me know when you're done
This has already been done. Just look it up on creationwiki (hydrological sorting). You won't look, because you don't want it to be true. You need the earth to be 'million and millions' of years old in order for your evolutionism to work.
@TypicalRepublican Hydrological sorting? Nautlius shells float for week after the animal dies. Plant material is bouyant or almost bouyant. Where are they found in your 'flood column'. Larger animals are denser than smaller animals. Bacteria and single celled organisnms would stay suspended in the water for months. Hydrological sorting is for idiots.
Yes, the Tbx4 gene is used for hindlimb production. Cetaceans have a version that is obviously no longer performing the function it does in mammals that still have hindlimbs.
im all for evolution and i doubt god exists. you are educated but some of your arguments are crap. your making the scientific community look bad son. and another thing stop wasting your time trying to prove the bible or any religion wrong. if these people are dumb enough to believe in farcical bullshit let em be, why even converse with them? never argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I wasn't using an argument from authority I was merely trying to define the bounds of what is expert opinion on this subject. I pointed out that even the most extreme diversities of positions are just variants of birds evolving from other amniotes.
I did this because someone made claims that opinion was somehow spilt or contradictory. I posted that to refute the claim. I have never heard anyone say that amniota is polyphyletic
Fuck, even that nortorious contrarian Dr. Alan Feduicca thinks that birds evolved from ancestral amniotes. Here you're saying otherwise. I have never hear a single peep my whole life about amniota being polyphyletic
Nope, sorry. Theorpods had the bird air sac system, just the right arrangement pneumatic bones and now we've found theropod dinosaurs with feathers as well as a half dozen transitional representatives
Really now. What studies are these, where were they published and who did the studies? and before you say you can't post links, you can quote the researcher, journal, date and journal number.
scams/fraud because he used neanderthal man as proof.....neanderthal is a proved and well known hoax. he also used haekel's drawings also know and proven frauds. mr exodus is a fraud too.
But he did not include the one where Haekel used the same pharyngeal stamps which is the one that was considered fraudulent. You know he really only did that out of laziness because making woodcuts is time consuming.
He was an accomplished scientist with an enormous body of work which is why medical schools and all universities use his books ranging from microbiology to zoology to (yes) embryology.
Hahaha, well that's what happens when you uncensor something right at the last minute. Especially when it's such and obvious "fuck you" to the flaggers.
Atavisms are enormous evidence for evolution. Looking at a cross section of any population often produces some sort of atavisms. There was a flash freezing episode at a pond in California. This killed off a bunch of the salamanders there.
When analyzed the population showed several distinct atavisms that went back to the original split between the first amphibians to walk on land and the lineage that would lead to modern amphibians.
@gotohellfast Some atheists I met have been the least intellectual people I know. What a gross generalization. Modern science was founded on the backs of Christian scientists. Please avoide this repeated concept of Christians as creationist fundamentalists. It is pigeonholing.
@gotohellfast Your implication that some of those scientists are no longer alive today is incorrect. Many scientists accurately state that we "simply do not know" when it comes to the issue of a metaphysical God. Scientists are also people, not computers. They compartmentalize their cultural values. The sum of human knowledge is not found in empricism, though it is clearly advanced by its benefits.
@cougarcrossing , "Not knowing" if a metaphysical God (or GOD'S) exist , does not make him (them) more possible. Nor does it mean he (them) is a Christian-Judean God.
I actually had to look up the word "empricism" , I think you meant "empiricism".
I agree , not all science is based on experiments , but it's no argument to assume a supernatural force exists. Excuse my scarce vocabulary , my native language is not English.
@gotohellfast Thank you, I guess :) I'll send you a PM on my transition from atheist to Christian. I made the effort not to preach. So please accept it as a personal reveal for you insight, or disgregard the PM. It is history to me and not an argument, per se. It is likely that my experiences have simply been different than yours.
I watched the whole video, and i didn't see any 'proof' of anything. Atavism have all been debunked, and are a bunch of bullshit. Show me an atavism that creationists can't refute! "Legs on whales" and "the tailbone" and all the other parts have functions. Nephilim free explains this stuff on his videos, but you atheists won't watch it because you don't want to learn that your religion is debunked.
@TypicalRepublican , without the knowledge of evolution , there would still be atheists,wether evolution is true -or not.
Google "Pirahãs" and you will see, that atheism is no religion.
Even a amazonian tribe , living almost in the stone age , has no need for a god , nor the urge to get to know about one.They have no fossil records to prove anything,they are just skeptic and embrace reality.
@TypicalRepublican the legs on whales and tails never got refuted in the first place but try teeth in chickens and tails also hthe transitional fossils
Wrong. I've never met a non-religious person that denied evolution but I've met plent of religious people that accepted evolution (Catholics accept evolution). If one believes denying evolution is required to believe in God ...it must be a painful life.
I'm just saying that though this lineage is well established. Tiktaalik is a tetrapod like fish and acanthostega ... well it's very transitional but it's firmly in the tetrapod clade. Shubin softly proposes the idea that the ability to get onto land to get away from predators and to get to new food sources could have been a strong directional adaptive radiation force. The links between tiktaalik and kin and acanthostega might have been small, short lived populations.
don't think that "de-evolving" was the word you were looking for, I would guess that it would be more accurate to say "evolving into obscurity" or "reducing in size over evolution" or something.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Pinnipeds are animals that have adapted to a double life in water and on land ...tiktaalik is just one of them "
_____
HAha you're a dumbass. Tiktaalik is a flat headed fish and seals are round headed tetrapod mammals.Again, tiktaalik had a backbone derived tail where as seals have true rear limbs as a tail. This isn't even like comparing cats and dogs, more bats and dogs
I say again: seals are extremely anatomically distinct from the clade of tiktaaliic
"Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creatures body, push up fashion."
...transitional does not imply it is the dead middle of two species...tht's kind of obvious...
"Tiktaalik was probably more like the fish of it's time: the devonian sarcopterygians than to say, a frog." - again really really obvious and does not challenge it's current accepted status as a transitional form.
by the sound of things you dont know what a transitional form is.
I'm not challenging how it is representative of that place on that lineage from fish to tetrapods at all. I'm in agreement with Neil shubin on this point. I'm just being conservative in the claims of tiktaalik.
Post it. If you disagree with me then post your evidence. From the evidence I see that Tiktaalik is a flat headed fish that represents the transition between sacropterygians and tetrapods
We're not in disagreement. We never were. All I said was that people were presenting falsehoods about how clades work.
It's only correct to say that it represents a transition. It's not correct to say that tiktaalik was our ancestor. It could have been, but it's more likely an offshoot.
I'm not challenging it's status. I'm using the correct language that paleontologists use when describing these sorts of things.
taking embryonic developmental abnormalities as evidence of human evolution from a lower primates is just sheer ignorance.First of all,there is no well established genetic mechanism to account for the preservation of the structural elements necessary for tail formation in the human genome.
"irst of all,there is no well established genetic mechanism to account for the preservation of the structural elements necessary for tail formation in the human genome."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Get this!If we did evolved from some lower primates each human must inherit something like a freaking horn,wings, tails ,vipers,fins etc.But we don't, because each life had been uniquely designed.Read the old Testament and the book of Enoch,all those giants men and animals were well explained.I think some people who claimed higher intelligence just want to offset what has been revealed already as truth in the HOLY BIBLE,just because they want to declare themselves as a god.
Why would humans inherit wings, horns, tails...? Those traits would've evolved out as time went on, plus, a lot of those traits aren't even in our evolutionary line.
We do see genetic traits from apes, though - or at least traits that we share with apes. Humans develop tails before birth, for example - there's just another piece of genetic code that says, "Dissolve the tail." Why would a designer do this?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
would evolved out?that's freakin' ridiculous!Look at those black people,their curly hairs,it must had been passed on thousands of years ago,even when they marry white people,their offspring always inherit that dominant traits of having a curly hair.Those fins,vipers,tails and horns those are dominant traits of other species,if humans evolved from them,we must have those but we don't!
Tiktaalik didn't have legs it only had forelimbs. It was closer to other fish in it's time. Though today tiktaalik might be closer to ancient amphibians than to say modern teleost actinopterygians.
You'd have to take a zoology of paleontology class to really appreciate and understand that.
The history of life often times is one small lineage branching out into great diversity repeatedly
Modern Amphibans are quite different than the ones right at the beginning of the tetrapod tree
Not possible. Seals and sea lion's "tail" is actually two fused back limbs. Google "pinniped skeleton" Tiktaalik has an extension of the backbone for a tail.
pinnipeds have a round skull with true teeth, taktaalik has a long flat head without teeth.
Pinnipeds are animals that have adapted to a double life in water and on land like seals and sea lions,or crocodiles. ...tiktaalik is just one of them and probably got extinct.And there is no special about him,it is so stupid to consider him as a transitional animal when there are others like him.
we are still dealing with two kinds of people here. one can picture a round earth, using math and science. the other would kill you for defying the belief of a flat earth. atavism at its best.
Ducks, chickens, dogs or cats have all been found with dinos. So why do we need rabbits? Mutation is more of a prediction of the Creation model. The "fall", resulting in errors in the highly complex genetic code. Such errors result in less fitness. Not more. Which is what the Evo model needs.Mice have as much as 93%. Apes as low as 93% by some analysis. Genetic similarities are more indicative of a common designer; who used common codes. See, "convergent similarity and conserved genes!
The Scientific mind came out of Christianity. Before that it was all sorcery, magicians, witches and seers. That would still be the case if Jesus Christ had not lifted the Vail and brought the true light. Now the children of darkness are trying to hijack science's good name and use it to promote their lies. So back to your endless THINKING, of how their is no Creator that we owe our existence too.
false assumptions lead down false paths. galileo, not burned at the stake, would debate with you as to what christians think science is and where it came from.
since you didnt reply you have either left your pc or are ignoring me. so be it. i'll give you a definition for a christian, and for the most part a definition for most religious fanatics.
one who aims humanity in an endless loop of believing in a beginning and an end, repeating history verbatim and never leaving the loop, while always returning to war as the ultimate answer.
I was gone to another universe. A Christian is someone who receives Jesus Christ as their personnel savior. That means, they realize they need to be saved. They see the sinful nature of mankind and mankind's need of redemption. Ultimate, or full redemption is hoped for at the resurrection and restoration of all things. So yes. Man kind has a falling nature, that dooms him to repeat history. IF he refuses to fully receive and live in the ultimate truth. Jesus Christ is that truth.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Darwinists never realize ...
-that the odds of a single, average-sized protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10300.
-the chances of a functional protein forming by chance are 1 in 10950.
-in mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 in 1050 are in practical terms ?impossible?.
-the power station known as the ?mitochondrion? inside the cell, itself no larger than 1/100 millimeters, is far more complex than an oil refinery or hydroelectric station.
You realize that your "Odds" arguments have been discussed many times over, right? Go watch some of Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists series and you just might learn something.
Evolution does not say that the plethora of functional proteins blinked into existence. It's descent with modification. With lots of duplication events.
talatshahgmailcom, those arguments have been refuted over and over again. It´s natural selection and such, not "random chance". There are some good channels that address that Creationist claim.
evolution cannot be right. It is illogical, intolerable of other beliefs and has no place in modern day sience.
I only wish more people would listen to my propsition that we are being bred by the all mighty carrot race, and they are soon to reintroduce themselves to our society and harvest our gooey insides for their nutritious compost.
Just learn the facts! They all point to this outcome!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Buzz, Buzz, Buzz, errors detected in first minute. Evolution is not the only explanation for atavisms! Only a blind adherence to Darwinism would cause such a conclusion. If a single plan for all life was first designed. Then modified down to include all types. Remnants of all
parts could show up in widely different types.
The reuse of parts in very different
species would support creation. Which is the case.
Did you keep listening, or did you stop after that first minute? He said, "Atavisms only display between organisms which are phylogenetically or ancestrally related." He then cited some examples, such as mammals not growing feathers and birds not growing nipples.
According to the materialist view. If they have atavisms, then they are related. "Atavisms proove relationship." If a common designer is true. Atavisms are mearly artifacts of a common plan for all life. Which was modified in the most efficient way. Leaving nubs of unused code. Which can be seen some times durning development.
"Atavisms are mearly artifacts of a common plan for all life."
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
Atavisms do not show a "common plan." In fact, the exact opposite is true. This was explained, and examples were given. Re-read my post, re-watch the video, or do both.
"If a common designer is true. Atavisms are mearly artifacts of a common plan for all life. Which was modified in the most efficient way. Leaving nubs of unused code. Which can be seen some times durning development."
_____________
ID can accomidate just about any data with it's insipidty but in the process of this becomes unfalsifiable and renders itself without any predictive abilities.
Name something that is plausible to exist that would falsify the premise that there is a grand design.
I learned that from debating and listening to Evo's. Evolution can accommodate anything and can't be falsified. So Science in the area of Natural History, is very inept. We mind as well believe the Bible. It is much closer to reality then our endless pondering and making up stories to try and replace the Word of God.
Making up stories to replace the Word of God? Pah! We come up with theories to understand how the universe works. If you aren't interested, go elsewhere and stop using the fruits of scientific knowlege.
Howie47: fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era would do it. Also there were many falsifiable predictions that were shown to be true. If we hadn't discovered genetic mutation, if geological physicists found out that the earth was only a few thousand years old. If DNA analysis of apes and Humans did not share such strong similarity over that of other mammals. The fusion hypothesis not being confirmed in 2005.
Your obstinantly ignorant flat earth dogma is immoral. The earth is round (roughly), orbits the sun, and life on it is in a constant state of change. Face the facts and stop trying to drag the intellectually vulnerable back into the dark ages.
"Does evolution not say that the legs were developed later than the whales and dolphins? "
No, just the opposite. The ancestor to Whales and Dolphins was a land mammal that started to live more and more in the water. This creature had legs, but then lost them over time.
Yes, absolutely. But while all early lifeforms were aquatic, it does not mean that all aquatic creatures represent early lifeforms. The key thing to remember is that dolphins and whales are mammals, and mammals evolved on land.
The evolutionary thread goes like this:
Fish -> Amphibians -> Reptiles -> Mammals -> Dolphins/Whales
This was predicted early on in evolutionary theory because of obvious things, like skeletons and blowholes. DNA and fossils confirm every prediction.
Poodles weren't part of God's creation, and besides 95% of all the fossils that we have found are marine organisms. the remaining 5% is mostly plants, insects and invertebrates. Fossils are only made by rapid burials with sediments taking the place of bones.
Your comment that God created everything as we see it in its present form isn't true. The bible tells us that God created two of every creature able to variate off the information present in it's DNA.
There have been people with extra toes and fingers who are born with these defects. This happens all the time. This example isn't used in your video and shouldn't be because we all know it doen't point towards a common anscestor and neither does your arguments about avatisms.
The Ancestors that we supposedly descended from don't even have tails and their immediate ancestors, the great apes, also don't even have tails. Not evidence of "common descent".
The abnormalities of humans with tails as evidence for common ancestry is absurd. A doctor by the name of Bar-Maor who published a paper titled "Human Embryology&"Teratology", Second Edition", Wiley-Liss, 1996; page 93
says and I quote,
"Projections that contain skeletal elements are caused by a dorsal bending of the coccyx, do not contain more vertebrae than normal, and have nothing to do with 'atavism'".
///The extra nipple is evidence of a mutation causing duplication, not common ancestry. //
Great, source please?
No really, Id love to see the source, as gene duplication would put the nipple exactly where it is, not along the milk lines.
/"Projections that contain skeletal elements are caused by a dorsal bending of the coccyx, do not contain more vertebrae than normal, and have nothing to do with 'atavism'".///
Whether or not you believe in God or not, you are still held accountable to his law. Mock him, challenge him, challenge us if it makes you feel better I have no desire to enter in to a intellectual debate with you. My task which is completed is too simply tell you. That is the beauty of faith and free will. Again, good "luck" with your theories and dependency of mans thoughts. If evolution is in fact true, then you mine as well talk to the the chimps and see what they have to say about it.
If you say so, I'll get my doctrine in science so that we can have a conversation, because clearly nobody is intelligent enough to discuss anything with you. Good luck with that!
///If you say so, I'll get my doctrine in science so that we can have a conversation, because clearly nobody is intelligent enough to discuss anything with you.///
No, but I am not discussing geography or physics with someone who says "the Earth has to be flat, if it was round, all the chinese people would fall off STUPID".
That is certainly your opinion. My opinion is that God made things to adapt and evolve, even intelligently. However, you are leaving out a chief character in the story, his name is Lucifer and he would love nothing more then to cause doubt in our beliefs. In my opinion, some if not most anomaly exist simply to give guys like a "bone" to throw... IG: "why does God let people suffer" or "why does God let people be born with defects." You need to learn to argue both sides of the story.
Does my opinion really matter? I used to be atheist and I grew up in a atheist home. What I came to realize is that you can study this subject 24 hours a day, and you will still only be 99.9 sure that it's the truth. The fact is, I'm not betting my soul and my eternal life, nor those of my family and kids. My daughter is only two, so she has a long way to go before she makes up her own mind. I will definitely encourage her to learn all there is too learn on the subject and make up her mind.
Evolution being true... doesn't dispute God. I very sincerely don't see a conflict between evolution and God. But that's just my view. Consider this quote:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
Truly, a long process of evolution is a far more complex and glorious manifestation of God's will than simply poofing us into existence.
The problem with that quote is that, because a lot of evolutionists don't believe God, don't believe in the other chief character in the Bible, Satan. Here is the example that helped me understand this better. Nuclear technology, but namely nuclear bombs. We have the intellect to split the atom and some great things have been done with it. However, consider that this creation of human intellect could in a matter of minutes end life as we know it. Intellect and pride can be just as dangerous
cont... as it is helpful. Hitler was intelligent and had a lot of smart sounding ideals, however I hope that you and I can both agree that he is an evil man. Our creations (just like His creations) are out of our control. If you are able to put pride aside and accept that intelligence is a gift. That gift can be our downfall, if we allow our pride to get the better of us. That's what it means to live for Jesus, to die to self.
So you're saying that, because intellectual pursuits have lead to disasters in the past, we should totally ignore the evidence for common ancestry? Well, regardless of whether or not somebody accepts evolution, it is not you who decides whether or not they are Christians.
So you believe that evolution is an enabler of atheism? I guess that's true in some cases, but that still doesn't mean that Christians are required to believe in a literal creation. If an individual is a strong believer in God (wholly a legitimately), yet still accepts a long process of evolution, does that mean they are any less of a Christian?
Is it that far of a stretch to say that God is capable of a long process of evolution? I don't think so.
It's the arrogance displayed by this guy that get's me. He truly believes he has it all figured out, and not only that is trying to convince others that their faith is wrong and that evolution is the only possible answer to our origin. The fact is, even as a sold out believer I will never know the absolute truth until I'm dead and sitting with God at a table, breaking bread and asking the hard questions. To live THIS life like you know all the answers is just sad, selfish and fruitless.
"It's the arrogance displayed by this guy that get's me. He truly believes he has it all figured out, and not only that is trying to convince others that their faith is wrong" Ummm... where is he talking about faith and religion? He's discussing biology. Even the Vatican is OK with this. OTOH some of the most arrogant people I've ever met are religious fundamentalists, having grown up in a household of them...
(con't) In my experience, fundamentalists are the ones who think they have "everything all figured out." They think their faith and understanding is the only "correct" way and that everyone who doesn't believe as they do will burn in Hell. They think humans have a God-given entitlement to do as they please to the planet, etc. They try to dismiss all the years of earnest study by biologists just because it doesn't fit their belief system. These vids are just setting the record straight.
Ahh so sure of yourselves, that is the irony. Faith doesn't require evidence or proof, KC and Comfort choose to play at your level and did quite well. The fact is, they don't really care if they win or lose, there is no win or lose when it comes to peoples souls. I say "opinion" because you can study all the data in the world on this matter, and even slightest margin of error invalidates your entire argument. Again, there is no right or wrong or lose but you may believe however you choose.
Just a quick question DonExodus2: You seem to be fully invested into disproving creationism, or proving evolutionism. My question is why? Understand, no matter how much research you've done, or how educated you are, or how correct or wrong you are there is something is undeniable, which is your own opinion. You cannot make an argument with injecting your opinion which despite careful wording. Being so educated on this matter you feel 100% comfortable betting your soul on evolutionism?
Ugh, I think youre confusing evolution with atheism. The Pope even accepts evolution...
//You seem to be fully invested into disproving creationism, or proving evolutionism///
For the same reason I would be invested into curing ignorance if half the country believed the Earth was flat, and wanted to teach it to my kids. There is no difference.
I really don't care what the pope believes, that's between him and God. Curing ignorance? Whose opinion is it that these people are ignorant? Yours? Who are you to say who is ignorant, and who is not? Who are you to anoint yourself with that authority? So to be clear, you're "curing ignorance" because in your opinion, believing in creation is ignorant. So, a person would have to choose between popular science, opinion or scientific theory -or- their own conscious? Faith in men, or God?
It has nothing to do with opinion. Someone who believes the Earth is flat is ignorant. The Earth is round- thats not my opinion, thats simply the way it is.
Welcome to science- its not a democracy, its based on statistics and evidence.
///scientific theory -or- their own conscious? Faith in men, or God? ///
Once again a false dichotomy.
What you are saying is "if you dont believe my personal interpretation of the Bible, you dont believe in God". THAT is opinion.
You may take the Bible out of context any way you wish. "God is a rock" simply means that God is resolved, determined or resilient. Too believe in God is to give him control and stop living for yourself. It's too adopt his morale compass. There are no symbols are magic words, only what's in your heart. The salvation words are very simple. "I confess that I am a sinner. I profess that Jesus died on the cross for my sins and that I will give my whole life to him."
In other words, faith or luck. If you're lucky the Bible is a fraud and when you die nothing happens except decomposition. Are the odds in your favor, what do you think your chances are that you're correct? Luck, or faith? Free will, you believe what you want to believe. Well my friend, we can agree to disagree, either way I will pray that you figure out that your faith in men will return 100% void. Faith, or luck. Good "luck" with that.
For some reason, you cannot seem to grasp this concept: evolution does not equal atheism. Plain and simply. An allegorical Genesis is perfectly compatible with evolution.
This is my last time saying this. You seem to plow right through this fact as if youve never heard it before.
Stop confusing them, I dont feel like repeating myself again.
Don, maybe you should only discuss theology in specifically theological videos? Just a little suggestion, but hear me out.
All this guy has are arguments about which of you is interpreting the bible "better". He's definitely not talking about atavisms, the best thing they can do is try to tie you up in scripture, because they know the evidence is not on their side.
Did you notice the irony in him griping about "opinion", when in reality, science is not opinion, and all he is pushing is his opinion on how the Bible should be interpreted O.o
"Evolution is the only explanation that fully explains all of the evidence."
Not true...HOW did all of these changes take place...where is evolution's explanation for that? All of the "explanations" that you have stated in your video have nothing to do with evolution...rather they have to do with genetics. As species started inhabiting new environments, they would have had to mate with other species in order to produce these changes...there is NO other way these changes could have happened.
There simply is no biological mechanism to make these changes; otherwise every single creature on this planet would be its own species. Furthermore, they're is an incorrect assumption you make - creationism doesn't state that everything was made at the same time, but rather on separate days (which are not necessarily 24 hours each), and that man was made after all of the other species...which completely agrees with the fossil record.
"there is NO other way these changes could have happened."
sorry, you can not mate with other species. The very definition of species is THEY CAN'T MATE. nope. It's small small changes all the way backwards and forwards.
Different species within the same genius can definitely mate...mules and wolf-dogs to name a couple.
"Small changes all the way backwards and fowards" - care to explain that? There are no such changes capable outside of genetic modifications...natural(inter-breeding) or otherwise. Again...there exists no biological mechanism to facilitate these changes.
BTW...the term 'species' has quite an ambiguous definition...it has a lot more meaning than the ability (or lack of) to mate.
Mules are infertile. The small changes in donkeys and the small changes in horses will eventually lead to fewer and fewer viable mule offspring until eventually there will be no more mules forever. They are a superlative example of a transitional species.
"there exists no biological mechanism to facilitate these changes. "
The video wasn't about HOW evolution takes place, it was about PROOF of evolution. If you want to know HOW it takes place, look in a science text book.
They didn't have to make with other species in their new environments because of variation within the species. Some of them had the characteristics to survive, some didn't. Those who did lived on and multiplied, those who didn't died out. The next gen also varied and the ones best with the best chars. lived the longest and had more children.
Human footprints with dinosaur footprints evidence has long been disproved. The footprints both belong to dinosaurs. Evidence?
First, both are same depth therefore made by something of approximately the same weight. Second the man's footprint do not infact share common features with real human feet. Not in the toes nor heel nor ball of the foot, not even in the way they would have formed due to the human way of movement.
The amount of ignorance displayed in these evolution videos' comments page is fucking astonishing. Go read a fucking book, take a biology class, talk to an actual biologist. You'll realize how full of shit you creationists are. Theres no contraversy about it, just the ones you fuckers are creating to spew your own religious agenda. Knock it the fuck off you're singlehandley slowing the production of mankind.
In the video you have a frame referring to Tiktaalik starting at 4:50. At 4:57 you mention a link that can be found in the video description. It seems that during the re-posting you neglected to include the link. Just letting you know.
ThoroughbredofSin 3 months ago in playlist Evolution Explained
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mikevaneck1 Regarding "If you took all the water out of the oceans you will notice there is dirt underneath ! the continents are not just floating around." comment, I honestly though you were having a laugh. That was until until I went to your page and saw your "Christian political prisoner Kent Hovind" vid... No. You're serious. Anyway... Please continue to post educted gems such as this... I can unlearn so much from you.
njwxyz 8 months ago
154 theist can't handle the truth.
2pacmonkeylove 10 months ago
If you took all the water out of the oceans you will notice there is dirt underneath ! the continents are not just floating around.
mikevaneck1 1 year ago
What about the Mudskipper?
angusmcpherson 1 year ago
Excuse me, but you just said that we find whales with legs, but we don't find fish with legs. What about the mudskipper?
Please don't think I am being unfriendly by asking this, I'm just searching for the truth.
angusmcpherson 1 year ago
@angusmcpherson Good question- modified fins are not the same as true bony legs- the anatomy is very unique, and conclusive. Although they may appear similar (bat wings and bird wings), when you get a closer look, its unmistakable.
DonExodus2 1 year ago 4
@angus
When you compare the bones of lobe finned fish which amphibians came from we see a correspondence and in fact shifts from one form to another. Mudskippers are ray finned fish and their structure is quite different.
If you search for Neil Shubin's for his book "your inner fish" he has all of his diagrams of the bones of the known fish to tetrapod transition avaliable for free. Though you buy that book yourself and see it explained in depth but understandable. Carl Zimmer's book too
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Oh, and BTW DonExodus2, the fossil record is predicted by creation. The different animals in different layers were layed down by the global flood, through hydrological sorting. I bet you don't know anything about that though DO YOU? LOL.
TypicalRepublican 1 year ago
@TypicalRepublican so, not even one of the animals or plants are out of place, how did your "hydrological" sorting sort it so perfectly not even fish or sponges, coral, birds or anything was out of place? not even ONE?
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420
Just look it up on creation wiki. One way it works, is that animals of higher intelligence have a tendency to seek higher ground from flood water. Fish aren't as smart as anphibians and anphibians aren't as smart as reptiles and reptiles aren't as smart as people. Since people are the smartest, they seem to appear most recently in the fossil record because they sought higher ground. Theory is sound, unlike your evolutionism.
TypicalRepublican 1 year ago
@TypicalRepublican
Several problems with that. For one the layers furthest to the bottom have no life at all. Which is what you would expect.
Flora and fauna are also seen in sucession. For example there are hundreds of millions of years without flowering or vascular plants, just ferns and such. Not a single flower is found. There aren't fossil shark teeth (which are discarded frequently in the precambrian
Cetaceans are again found successively and only starting in one age and continuing on
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@TypicalRepublican
If you think so then how about you come up with a model of sorting and test it? And by test it I mean synthesize a theory out of several premises and show how it predicts the fossil record.
You can make a video of it and let me know when you're done
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat
This has already been done. Just look it up on creationwiki (hydrological sorting). You won't look, because you don't want it to be true. You need the earth to be 'million and millions' of years old in order for your evolutionism to work.
TypicalRepublican 1 year ago
@TypicalRepublican Hydrological sorting? Nautlius shells float for week after the animal dies. Plant material is bouyant or almost bouyant. Where are they found in your 'flood column'. Larger animals are denser than smaller animals. Bacteria and single celled organisnms would stay suspended in the water for months. Hydrological sorting is for idiots.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago 2
@TerrencePhillip66 Sorry, should have said the creationist model is for idiots.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
no one got nipples!!
it's perverted
(/sarcasm... :s sigh... )
Alvaronnn 1 year ago
whales have leg genes?
Goodchance001 1 year ago
@Goodchance001
Yes, the Tbx4 gene is used for hindlimb production. Cetaceans have a version that is obviously no longer performing the function it does in mammals that still have hindlimbs.
ncbi . nlm . nih . gov/pubmed/17867844
peehead99 1 year ago
im all for evolution and i doubt god exists. you are educated but some of your arguments are crap. your making the scientific community look bad son. and another thing stop wasting your time trying to prove the bible or any religion wrong. if these people are dumb enough to believe in farcical bullshit let em be, why even converse with them? never argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
0100110101001011 2 years ago
dumbass has a b in it, eternalskeptic8
SuperWikiMan 2 years ago
Yeah actually it was you
EternalSkeptic8 (2 weeks ago)
----------------------
PARAPHRASE:
"Birds evolving from reptiles [has] already [been]disproved there are already at least three studies (lung, bone, feather) "
---------------------------
Put up or shut up. What studies? What about bird anatomy refutes that?
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
I wasn't using an argument from authority I was merely trying to define the bounds of what is expert opinion on this subject. I pointed out that even the most extreme diversities of positions are just variants of birds evolving from other amniotes.
I did this because someone made claims that opinion was somehow spilt or contradictory. I posted that to refute the claim. I have never heard anyone say that amniota is polyphyletic
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Fuck, even that nortorious contrarian Dr. Alan Feduicca thinks that birds evolved from ancestral amniotes. Here you're saying otherwise. I have never hear a single peep my whole life about amniota being polyphyletic
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Nope, sorry. Theorpods had the bird air sac system, just the right arrangement pneumatic bones and now we've found theropod dinosaurs with feathers as well as a half dozen transitional representatives
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Simple really. to see if you are willing to back up your own assertions, you made the claim, thus it i up to you to prove it, not me.
Proudtobeacommie 2 years ago
Wasn't directed at you and in no way answers the question.
Proudtobeacommie 2 years ago
Really now. What studies are these, where were they published and who did the studies? and before you say you can't post links, you can quote the researcher, journal, date and journal number.
Proudtobeacommie 2 years ago
....This video was flagged because of drawings of breasts? what the fuck O.o
Proudtobeacommie 2 years ago
i flagged these videos as spam.....for
scams/fraud because he used neanderthal man as proof.....neanderthal is a proved and well known hoax. he also used haekel's drawings also know and proven frauds. mr exodus is a fraud too.
Y0ureNoDaisy 2 years ago
You're thinking piltdown man you stupid motherfucker.Jesus fuckbabies you can't even get that right!
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
@Y0ureNoDaisy
dude, if that legitimately happened to every creationist video that used a debunked argument, there wouldn't be any left on YouTube.
SuperWikiMan 2 years ago
Don, tits or gtfo
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
notice
please FLAG ALL 3 OF THESE VIDEOS AS SPAM.......(SCAMS/FRAUD)
poster uses known and proven frauds as proof of evolution. i.e.
Heakels drawings and Neanderthal man.
don exodus has no morals.
Y0ureNoDaisy 2 years ago
No. you have no morals. the act of false flagging is immoral. It is an attempt at censorship rather than trying to disprove the argument.
He didn't use Heakel's Emybro's other than to show why Creationists are wrong about them being proof.
As for Nenadathal man being a fraud...erm....A. They aren't part of the evolution of homo sapiens. B. Prove it.
Proudtobeacommie 2 years ago
Don did include ONE OF HAEKEL'S DRAWINGS.
But he did not include the one where Haekel used the same pharyngeal stamps which is the one that was considered fraudulent. You know he really only did that out of laziness because making woodcuts is time consuming.
He was an accomplished scientist with an enormous body of work which is why medical schools and all universities use his books ranging from microbiology to zoology to (yes) embryology.
His life's work is so vast.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Hahaha, well that's what happens when you uncensor something right at the last minute. Especially when it's such and obvious "fuck you" to the flaggers.
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
this is definately my fav video from donexodus and so far its my "immediately make creationist shut up" reference
theeyeisblind 2 years ago
Atavisms are enormous evidence for evolution. Looking at a cross section of any population often produces some sort of atavisms. There was a flash freezing episode at a pond in California. This killed off a bunch of the salamanders there.
When analyzed the population showed several distinct atavisms that went back to the original split between the first amphibians to walk on land and the lineage that would lead to modern amphibians.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
I bet , no Christian will actually see the whole video.
They will switch the channel to something less educational like Sponge Bob.
Some of them are still pushing the buttons on their TV remote -but the computer does somehow not respond to it.
gotohellfast 2 years ago 10
@gotohellfast Some atheists I met have been the least intellectual people I know. What a gross generalization. Modern science was founded on the backs of Christian scientists. Please avoide this repeated concept of Christians as creationist fundamentalists. It is pigeonholing.
cougarcrossing 1 year ago
@cougarcrossing "Modern science was founded on the backs of Christian scientists."
If those scientists were alive today , they wouldn't be Christians anymore.
The concept: "Love me or endure eternal torture" was founded by Jesus.
As long as people keep licking the invisible Jesus-butt , humanity is kept hostage by superstition.
Oh,I forgot to mention the invisible Muhammad-butt , the invisible Vishnu-butt , and all the other invisible asses.
gotohellfast 1 year ago
@gotohellfast Your implication that some of those scientists are no longer alive today is incorrect. Many scientists accurately state that we "simply do not know" when it comes to the issue of a metaphysical God. Scientists are also people, not computers. They compartmentalize their cultural values. The sum of human knowledge is not found in empricism, though it is clearly advanced by its benefits.
cougarcrossing 1 year ago
@cougarcrossing , "Not knowing" if a metaphysical God (or GOD'S) exist , does not make him (them) more possible. Nor does it mean he (them) is a Christian-Judean God.
I actually had to look up the word "empricism" , I think you meant "empiricism".
I agree , not all science is based on experiments , but it's no argument to assume a supernatural force exists. Excuse my scarce vocabulary , my native language is not English.
gotohellfast 1 year ago
@gotohellfast Oops.. sorry about the typo!
cougarcrossing 1 year ago
@cougarcrossing Your welcome.
You sound educated,how comes your a Christian?
"poking"
gotohellfast 1 year ago
@gotohellfast Thank you, I guess :) I'll send you a PM on my transition from atheist to Christian. I made the effort not to preach. So please accept it as a personal reveal for you insight, or disgregard the PM. It is history to me and not an argument, per se. It is likely that my experiences have simply been different than yours.
cougarcrossing 1 year ago
@gotohellfast
I watched the whole video, and i didn't see any 'proof' of anything. Atavism have all been debunked, and are a bunch of bullshit. Show me an atavism that creationists can't refute! "Legs on whales" and "the tailbone" and all the other parts have functions. Nephilim free explains this stuff on his videos, but you atheists won't watch it because you don't want to learn that your religion is debunked.
TypicalRepublican 1 year ago
@TypicalRepublican , without the knowledge of evolution , there would still be atheists,wether evolution is true -or not.
Google "Pirahãs" and you will see, that atheism is no religion.
Even a amazonian tribe , living almost in the stone age , has no need for a god , nor the urge to get to know about one.They have no fossil records to prove anything,they are just skeptic and embrace reality.
gotohellfast 1 year ago
@TypicalRepublican the legs on whales and tails never got refuted in the first place but try teeth in chickens and tails also hthe transitional fossils
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@gotohellfast
Wrong. I've never met a non-religious person that denied evolution but I've met plent of religious people that accepted evolution (Catholics accept evolution). If one believes denying evolution is required to believe in God ...it must be a painful life.
billyraybar 5 months ago
Come on Don
I registered an account. I wanna see the tits!
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Your videos are quite good.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago 9
I'm just saying that though this lineage is well established. Tiktaalik is a tetrapod like fish and acanthostega ... well it's very transitional but it's firmly in the tetrapod clade. Shubin softly proposes the idea that the ability to get onto land to get away from predators and to get to new food sources could have been a strong directional adaptive radiation force. The links between tiktaalik and kin and acanthostega might have been small, short lived populations.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
don't think that "de-evolving" was the word you were looking for, I would guess that it would be more accurate to say "evolving into obscurity" or "reducing in size over evolution" or something.
Zetimenvec 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Pinnipeds are animals that have adapted to a double life in water and on land ...tiktaalik is just one of them "
_____
HAha you're a dumbass. Tiktaalik is a flat headed fish and seals are round headed tetrapod mammals.Again, tiktaalik had a backbone derived tail where as seals have true rear limbs as a tail. This isn't even like comparing cats and dogs, more bats and dogs
I say again: seals are extremely anatomically distinct from the clade of tiktaaliic
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
"Tiktaalik is a flat headed fish" -
Wiki extract:
"Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creatures body, push up fashion."
types10001 2 years ago
It's topological morphology isn't that different from mudskippers, and the frogfish has a more impressive limb. So it's arguable.
I took zoology so it's complicated. Tiktaalik was probably more like the fish of it's time: the devonian sarcopterygians than to say, a frog.
At the same time it's rather unlike modern bony fishes.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
...transitional does not imply it is the dead middle of two species...tht's kind of obvious...
"Tiktaalik was probably more like the fish of it's time: the devonian sarcopterygians than to say, a frog." - again really really obvious and does not challenge it's current accepted status as a transitional form.
by the sound of things you dont know what a transitional form is.
types10001 2 years ago
I'm not challenging how it is representative of that place on that lineage from fish to tetrapods at all. I'm in agreement with Neil shubin on this point. I'm just being conservative in the claims of tiktaalik.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
The genetics of animals varies over time.
If you're gonna be wrong, why don't you show people a little respect you cunt.
Malecaust666 2 years ago
? what are you referring to
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
dont make me repost my wiki extract, stop your lies and read
types10001 2 years ago
Post it. If you disagree with me then post your evidence. From the evidence I see that Tiktaalik is a flat headed fish that represents the transition between sacropterygians and tetrapods
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
yes, it is a fish with some partially developed and some fully developed tetrapod features clearly an intermediate form.
types10001 2 years ago
We're not in disagreement. We never were. All I said was that people were presenting falsehoods about how clades work.
It's only correct to say that it represents a transition. It's not correct to say that tiktaalik was our ancestor. It could have been, but it's more likely an offshoot.
I'm not challenging it's status. I'm using the correct language that paleontologists use when describing these sorts of things.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
taking embryonic developmental abnormalities as evidence of human evolution from a lower primates is just sheer ignorance.First of all,there is no well established genetic mechanism to account for the preservation of the structural elements necessary for tail formation in the human genome.
venrowill 2 years ago
"irst of all,there is no well established genetic mechanism to account for the preservation of the structural elements necessary for tail formation in the human genome."
___________
Uhhh..... that's called inheritance
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Get this!If we did evolved from some lower primates each human must inherit something like a freaking horn,wings, tails ,vipers,fins etc.But we don't, because each life had been uniquely designed.Read the old Testament and the book of Enoch,all those giants men and animals were well explained.I think some people who claimed higher intelligence just want to offset what has been revealed already as truth in the HOLY BIBLE,just because they want to declare themselves as a god.
venrowill 2 years ago
Why would humans inherit wings, horns, tails...? Those traits would've evolved out as time went on, plus, a lot of those traits aren't even in our evolutionary line.
We do see genetic traits from apes, though - or at least traits that we share with apes. Humans develop tails before birth, for example - there's just another piece of genetic code that says, "Dissolve the tail." Why would a designer do this?
Xbot1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
would evolved out?that's freakin' ridiculous!Look at those black people,their curly hairs,it must had been passed on thousands of years ago,even when they marry white people,their offspring always inherit that dominant traits of having a curly hair.Those fins,vipers,tails and horns those are dominant traits of other species,if humans evolved from them,we must have those but we don't!
venrowill 2 years ago
I actually dont think that any scientist has claimed that humans have horned ancestors. The rodent-insectovior-primate branched off relatively early.
horned mammals are ungulates which are pretty distant. The data shows that humans and rats are closer that humans and say, elk.
Oh and your bible is not a scientific document. It does't cite data, or have experimental trials or repeatable trials
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Wait, I thought we DID find fish with legs. Or were those transitional specimens considered to be more amphibian than fish?
Indoraptor12 2 years ago
Tictaalik (sp)
FeralCr 2 years ago
You were not there to see it, I guess we will never know. LOL
gregrutz 2 years ago
Tiktaalik didn't have legs it only had forelimbs. It was closer to other fish in it's time. Though today tiktaalik might be closer to ancient amphibians than to say modern teleost actinopterygians.
You'd have to take a zoology of paleontology class to really appreciate and understand that.
The history of life often times is one small lineage branching out into great diversity repeatedly
Modern Amphibans are quite different than the ones right at the beginning of the tetrapod tree
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Tiktaalik is nothing but an ancient bones of a sea lion.
venrowill 2 years ago
Not possible. Seals and sea lion's "tail" is actually two fused back limbs. Google "pinniped skeleton" Tiktaalik has an extension of the backbone for a tail.
pinnipeds have a round skull with true teeth, taktaalik has a long flat head without teeth.
really, they are nothing alike.
So are you willing to admit you're wrong now?
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Pinnipeds are animals that have adapted to a double life in water and on land like seals and sea lions,or crocodiles. ...tiktaalik is just one of them and probably got extinct.And there is no special about him,it is so stupid to consider him as a transitional animal when there are others like him.
venrowill 2 years ago
we are still dealing with two kinds of people here. one can picture a round earth, using math and science. the other would kill you for defying the belief of a flat earth. atavism at its best.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
Ducks, chickens, dogs or cats have all been found with dinos. So why do we need rabbits? Mutation is more of a prediction of the Creation model. The "fall", resulting in errors in the highly complex genetic code. Such errors result in less fitness. Not more. Which is what the Evo model needs.Mice have as much as 93%. Apes as low as 93% by some analysis. Genetic similarities are more indicative of a common designer; who used common codes. See, "convergent similarity and conserved genes!
Howie47 2 years ago
Time is irrelevant. "Hopeful monsters" predicts the possibility of rapid evolution. Fusion hypothesis???
Howie47 2 years ago
Duck, chicken, dog, and cat fossils found in the same rock layers as dinosaurs?
ORLY?
Evidence, please.
Makyui 2 years ago 2
The Scientific mind came out of Christianity. Before that it was all sorcery, magicians, witches and seers. That would still be the case if Jesus Christ had not lifted the Vail and brought the true light. Now the children of darkness are trying to hijack science's good name and use it to promote their lies. So back to your endless THINKING, of how their is no Creator that we owe our existence too.
Howie47 2 years ago
false assumptions lead down false paths. galileo, not burned at the stake, would debate with you as to what christians think science is and where it came from.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
Galileo is a Christian brother. So don't think you can put words in his mouth. He can speak for himself.
Howie47 2 years ago
and your definition for being a christian is what?
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
since you didnt reply you have either left your pc or are ignoring me. so be it. i'll give you a definition for a christian, and for the most part a definition for most religious fanatics.
one who aims humanity in an endless loop of believing in a beginning and an end, repeating history verbatim and never leaving the loop, while always returning to war as the ultimate answer.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
I was gone to another universe. A Christian is someone who receives Jesus Christ as their personnel savior. That means, they realize they need to be saved. They see the sinful nature of mankind and mankind's need of redemption. Ultimate, or full redemption is hoped for at the resurrection and restoration of all things. So yes. Man kind has a falling nature, that dooms him to repeat history. IF he refuses to fully receive and live in the ultimate truth. Jesus Christ is that truth.
Howie47 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwinists never realize ...
-that the odds of a single, average-sized protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10300.
-the chances of a functional protein forming by chance are 1 in 10950.
-in mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 in 1050 are in practical terms ?impossible?.
-the power station known as the ?mitochondrion? inside the cell, itself no larger than 1/100 millimeters, is far more complex than an oil refinery or hydroelectric station.
and so on.. can give 100's of examples ;)
talatshahgmailcom 2 years ago
You realize that your "Odds" arguments have been discussed many times over, right? Go watch some of Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists series and you just might learn something.
Gameplayr8891 2 years ago
Evolution does not say that the plethora of functional proteins blinked into existence. It's descent with modification. With lots of duplication events.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
talatshahgmailcom, those arguments have been refuted over and over again. It´s natural selection and such, not "random chance". There are some good channels that address that Creationist claim.
JohnnyKubark 2 years ago
evolution cannot be right. It is illogical, intolerable of other beliefs and has no place in modern day sience.
I only wish more people would listen to my propsition that we are being bred by the all mighty carrot race, and they are soon to reintroduce themselves to our society and harvest our gooey insides for their nutritious compost.
Just learn the facts! They all point to this outcome!
david3newman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Buzz, Buzz, Buzz, errors detected in first minute. Evolution is not the only explanation for atavisms! Only a blind adherence to Darwinism would cause such a conclusion. If a single plan for all life was first designed. Then modified down to include all types. Remnants of all
parts could show up in widely different types.
The reuse of parts in very different
species would support creation. Which is the case.
Howie47 2 years ago
Did you keep listening, or did you stop after that first minute? He said, "Atavisms only display between organisms which are phylogenetically or ancestrally related." He then cited some examples, such as mammals not growing feathers and birds not growing nipples.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
According to the materialist view. If they have atavisms, then they are related. "Atavisms proove relationship." If a common designer is true. Atavisms are mearly artifacts of a common plan for all life. Which was modified in the most efficient way. Leaving nubs of unused code. Which can be seen some times durning development.
Howie47 2 years ago
"Atavisms are mearly artifacts of a common plan for all life."
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
Atavisms do not show a "common plan." In fact, the exact opposite is true. This was explained, and examples were given. Re-read my post, re-watch the video, or do both.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
"If a common designer is true. Atavisms are mearly artifacts of a common plan for all life. Which was modified in the most efficient way. Leaving nubs of unused code. Which can be seen some times durning development."
_____________
ID can accomidate just about any data with it's insipidty but in the process of this becomes unfalsifiable and renders itself without any predictive abilities.
Name something that is plausible to exist that would falsify the premise that there is a grand design.
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
I learned that from debating and listening to Evo's. Evolution can accommodate anything and can't be falsified. So Science in the area of Natural History, is very inept. We mind as well believe the Bible. It is much closer to reality then our endless pondering and making up stories to try and replace the Word of God.
Howie47 2 years ago
Endless pondering- i.e. THINKING.
Making up stories to replace the Word of God? Pah! We come up with theories to understand how the universe works. If you aren't interested, go elsewhere and stop using the fruits of scientific knowlege.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
Howie47: fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era would do it. Also there were many falsifiable predictions that were shown to be true. If we hadn't discovered genetic mutation, if geological physicists found out that the earth was only a few thousand years old. If DNA analysis of apes and Humans did not share such strong similarity over that of other mammals. The fusion hypothesis not being confirmed in 2005.
QuantumMechanist 2 years ago
Your obstinantly ignorant flat earth dogma is immoral. The earth is round (roughly), orbits the sun, and life on it is in a constant state of change. Face the facts and stop trying to drag the intellectually vulnerable back into the dark ages.
CHAS1422 2 years ago 3
The same with snakes
andreaspeter89 3 years ago
Why do you say that it is an argument for evolution that whales and dolphins can be found with legs....
Does evolution not say that the legs were developed later than the whales and dolphins?
andreaspeter89 3 years ago
"Does evolution not say that the legs were developed later than the whales and dolphins? "
No, just the opposite. The ancestor to Whales and Dolphins was a land mammal that started to live more and more in the water. This creature had legs, but then lost them over time.
quill18 2 years ago
But didn't life, according to evolution, begin in water?
andreaspeter89 2 years ago
Yes, absolutely. But while all early lifeforms were aquatic, it does not mean that all aquatic creatures represent early lifeforms. The key thing to remember is that dolphins and whales are mammals, and mammals evolved on land.
The evolutionary thread goes like this:
Fish -> Amphibians -> Reptiles -> Mammals -> Dolphins/Whales
This was predicted early on in evolutionary theory because of obvious things, like skeletons and blowholes. DNA and fossils confirm every prediction.
quill18 2 years ago 3
The fact you had to censor cartoon nipples is just sad.
Grow up people.
MNICY 3 years ago
Poodles weren't part of God's creation, and besides 95% of all the fossils that we have found are marine organisms. the remaining 5% is mostly plants, insects and invertebrates. Fossils are only made by rapid burials with sediments taking the place of bones.
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
Whew, fortunately we've found a shitload of fossils, and have tens of thousands of animal fossils :)
DonExodus2 3 years ago
Your comment that God created everything as we see it in its present form isn't true. The bible tells us that God created two of every creature able to variate off the information present in it's DNA.
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
There have been people with extra toes and fingers who are born with these defects. This happens all the time. This example isn't used in your video and shouldn't be because we all know it doen't point towards a common anscestor and neither does your arguments about avatisms.
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
The Ancestors that we supposedly descended from don't even have tails and their immediate ancestors, the great apes, also don't even have tails. Not evidence of "common descent".
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
Uh, if you mean (ancient or modern) monkeys, they DO have tails.
MrKrov 3 years ago
The abnormalities of humans with tails as evidence for common ancestry is absurd. A doctor by the name of Bar-Maor who published a paper titled "Human Embryology&"Teratology", Second Edition", Wiley-Liss, 1996; page 93
says and I quote,
"Projections that contain skeletal elements are caused by a dorsal bending of the coccyx, do not contain more vertebrae than normal, and have nothing to do with 'atavism'".
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
Unfortunately for Dr. Maor (who Im sure you took out of context), there are numerous peer reviewed papers stating opposite.
Refute those please, if you even know how to find them.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
The extra nipple is evidence of a mutation causing duplication, not common ancestry.
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
///The extra nipple is evidence of a mutation causing duplication, not common ancestry. //
Great, source please?
No really, Id love to see the source, as gene duplication would put the nipple exactly where it is, not along the milk lines.
/"Projections that contain skeletal elements are caused by a dorsal bending of the coccyx, do not contain more vertebrae than normal, and have nothing to do with 'atavism'".///
DonExodus2 3 years ago
Whether or not you believe in God or not, you are still held accountable to his law. Mock him, challenge him, challenge us if it makes you feel better I have no desire to enter in to a intellectual debate with you. My task which is completed is too simply tell you. That is the beauty of faith and free will. Again, good "luck" with your theories and dependency of mans thoughts. If evolution is in fact true, then you mine as well talk to the the chimps and see what they have to say about it.
ndockett81 3 years ago
Yet again you fail to understand even the most basic facts regarding evolution.
There is no point in discussing anything with you further.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
If you say so, I'll get my doctrine in science so that we can have a conversation, because clearly nobody is intelligent enough to discuss anything with you. Good luck with that!
ndockett81 3 years ago
///If you say so, I'll get my doctrine in science so that we can have a conversation, because clearly nobody is intelligent enough to discuss anything with you.///
No, but I am not discussing geography or physics with someone who says "the Earth has to be flat, if it was round, all the chinese people would fall off STUPID".
That is you.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
That is certainly your opinion. My opinion is that God made things to adapt and evolve, even intelligently. However, you are leaving out a chief character in the story, his name is Lucifer and he would love nothing more then to cause doubt in our beliefs. In my opinion, some if not most anomaly exist simply to give guys like a "bone" to throw... IG: "why does God let people suffer" or "why does God let people be born with defects." You need to learn to argue both sides of the story.
ndockett81 3 years ago
Creationists such as yourself test my faith far more than Lucifer ever has.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
So, you have nothing against evolution?
MisturEff 3 years ago
Does my opinion really matter? I used to be atheist and I grew up in a atheist home. What I came to realize is that you can study this subject 24 hours a day, and you will still only be 99.9 sure that it's the truth. The fact is, I'm not betting my soul and my eternal life, nor those of my family and kids. My daughter is only two, so she has a long way to go before she makes up her own mind. I will definitely encourage her to learn all there is too learn on the subject and make up her mind.
ndockett81 3 years ago
Evolution being true... doesn't dispute God. I very sincerely don't see a conflict between evolution and God. But that's just my view. Consider this quote:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
Truly, a long process of evolution is a far more complex and glorious manifestation of God's will than simply poofing us into existence.
MisturEff 3 years ago
The problem with that quote is that, because a lot of evolutionists don't believe God, don't believe in the other chief character in the Bible, Satan. Here is the example that helped me understand this better. Nuclear technology, but namely nuclear bombs. We have the intellect to split the atom and some great things have been done with it. However, consider that this creation of human intellect could in a matter of minutes end life as we know it. Intellect and pride can be just as dangerous
ndockett81 3 years ago
cont... as it is helpful. Hitler was intelligent and had a lot of smart sounding ideals, however I hope that you and I can both agree that he is an evil man. Our creations (just like His creations) are out of our control. If you are able to put pride aside and accept that intelligence is a gift. That gift can be our downfall, if we allow our pride to get the better of us. That's what it means to live for Jesus, to die to self.
ndockett81 3 years ago
So you're saying that, because intellectual pursuits have lead to disasters in the past, we should totally ignore the evidence for common ancestry? Well, regardless of whether or not somebody accepts evolution, it is not you who decides whether or not they are Christians.
MisturEff 3 years ago
So you believe that evolution is an enabler of atheism? I guess that's true in some cases, but that still doesn't mean that Christians are required to believe in a literal creation. If an individual is a strong believer in God (wholly a legitimately), yet still accepts a long process of evolution, does that mean they are any less of a Christian?
Is it that far of a stretch to say that God is capable of a long process of evolution? I don't think so.
MisturEff 3 years ago
It's the arrogance displayed by this guy that get's me. He truly believes he has it all figured out, and not only that is trying to convince others that their faith is wrong and that evolution is the only possible answer to our origin. The fact is, even as a sold out believer I will never know the absolute truth until I'm dead and sitting with God at a table, breaking bread and asking the hard questions. To live THIS life like you know all the answers is just sad, selfish and fruitless.
ndockett81 3 years ago
"It's the arrogance displayed by this guy that get's me. He truly believes he has it all figured out, and not only that is trying to convince others that their faith is wrong" Ummm... where is he talking about faith and religion? He's discussing biology. Even the Vatican is OK with this. OTOH some of the most arrogant people I've ever met are religious fundamentalists, having grown up in a household of them...
CurbYrDogma 3 years ago
(con't) In my experience, fundamentalists are the ones who think they have "everything all figured out." They think their faith and understanding is the only "correct" way and that everyone who doesn't believe as they do will burn in Hell. They think humans have a God-given entitlement to do as they please to the planet, etc. They try to dismiss all the years of earnest study by biologists just because it doesn't fit their belief system. These vids are just setting the record straight.
CurbYrDogma 3 years ago
CurbYrDogma, I'll add something, I don't know who you are responding to but I think this DonExodus is a theist
Golkarian 2 years ago
I was replying to a previous poster, one whom I surmised to be a literal Fundamentalist. DonExodus' videos are pro-evolution.
CurbYrDogma 2 years ago
Evolution isn't the only possible answer to our origin...
But it is such a testable, functioning and complete answer that it has no contenders at all.
Creationism ISN'T an answer at all.
It isn't in the running, it isn't even vaguely accurate.
So, if I have a choice in science studies evolution has sooo many answers, YECS has a plethora of failed arguements, dumb conjecture and lies.
BTW, I am a Christian. I do not believe YECS is. It's a cult!
ozowen 3 years ago
Ahh so sure of yourselves, that is the irony. Faith doesn't require evidence or proof, KC and Comfort choose to play at your level and did quite well. The fact is, they don't really care if they win or lose, there is no win or lose when it comes to peoples souls. I say "opinion" because you can study all the data in the world on this matter, and even slightest margin of error invalidates your entire argument. Again, there is no right or wrong or lose but you may believe however you choose.
ndockett81 3 years ago
Just a quick question DonExodus2: You seem to be fully invested into disproving creationism, or proving evolutionism. My question is why? Understand, no matter how much research you've done, or how educated you are, or how correct or wrong you are there is something is undeniable, which is your own opinion. You cannot make an argument with injecting your opinion which despite careful wording. Being so educated on this matter you feel 100% comfortable betting your soul on evolutionism?
ndockett81 3 years ago
Ugh, I think youre confusing evolution with atheism. The Pope even accepts evolution...
//You seem to be fully invested into disproving creationism, or proving evolutionism///
For the same reason I would be invested into curing ignorance if half the country believed the Earth was flat, and wanted to teach it to my kids. There is no difference.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
I really don't care what the pope believes, that's between him and God. Curing ignorance? Whose opinion is it that these people are ignorant? Yours? Who are you to say who is ignorant, and who is not? Who are you to anoint yourself with that authority? So to be clear, you're "curing ignorance" because in your opinion, believing in creation is ignorant. So, a person would have to choose between popular science, opinion or scientific theory -or- their own conscious? Faith in men, or God?
ndockett81 3 years ago
It has nothing to do with opinion. Someone who believes the Earth is flat is ignorant. The Earth is round- thats not my opinion, thats simply the way it is.
Welcome to science- its not a democracy, its based on statistics and evidence.
///scientific theory -or- their own conscious? Faith in men, or God? ///
Once again a false dichotomy.
What you are saying is "if you dont believe my personal interpretation of the Bible, you dont believe in God". THAT is opinion.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
The Bible says God is a rock. By your logic, if you dont believe God is a piece of granite sitting in Utah, you're an atheist.
I guess youd just have to choose between popular science, opinion or scientific theory -or- their own conscious? Faith in men, or God?
So, is God sitting in Utah, or are you an atheist?
DonExodus2 3 years ago
You may take the Bible out of context any way you wish. "God is a rock" simply means that God is resolved, determined or resilient. Too believe in God is to give him control and stop living for yourself. It's too adopt his morale compass. There are no symbols are magic words, only what's in your heart. The salvation words are very simple. "I confess that I am a sinner. I profess that Jesus died on the cross for my sins and that I will give my whole life to him."
ndockett81 3 years ago
In other words, faith or luck. If you're lucky the Bible is a fraud and when you die nothing happens except decomposition. Are the odds in your favor, what do you think your chances are that you're correct? Luck, or faith? Free will, you believe what you want to believe. Well my friend, we can agree to disagree, either way I will pray that you figure out that your faith in men will return 100% void. Faith, or luck. Good "luck" with that.
ndockett81 3 years ago
For some reason, you cannot seem to grasp this concept: evolution does not equal atheism. Plain and simply. An allegorical Genesis is perfectly compatible with evolution.
This is my last time saying this. You seem to plow right through this fact as if youve never heard it before.
Stop confusing them, I dont feel like repeating myself again.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
Don, maybe you should only discuss theology in specifically theological videos? Just a little suggestion, but hear me out.
All this guy has are arguments about which of you is interpreting the bible "better". He's definitely not talking about atavisms, the best thing they can do is try to tie you up in scripture, because they know the evidence is not on their side.
He only has theological gripes.
outwardlycombustible 3 years ago
Did you notice the irony in him griping about "opinion", when in reality, science is not opinion, and all he is pushing is his opinion on how the Bible should be interpreted O.o
Irony at its finest.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
YEC are not the greatest when it comes to internal consistency (as you demonstrated with your "God as a Rock" argument.) ;)
outwardlycombustible 3 years ago
some evolutionist cailm that these fishes Livoniana, Acanthostega, Tiktaalik, and Ventastega have legs But I disagree on there conclustion
kut77less 3 years ago
Great, and your qualifications are?
DonExodus2 3 years ago
"Evolution is the only explanation that fully explains all of the evidence."
Not true...HOW did all of these changes take place...where is evolution's explanation for that? All of the "explanations" that you have stated in your video have nothing to do with evolution...rather they have to do with genetics. As species started inhabiting new environments, they would have had to mate with other species in order to produce these changes...there is NO other way these changes could have happened.
Katakato 3 years ago
There simply is no biological mechanism to make these changes; otherwise every single creature on this planet would be its own species. Furthermore, they're is an incorrect assumption you make - creationism doesn't state that everything was made at the same time, but rather on separate days (which are not necessarily 24 hours each), and that man was made after all of the other species...which completely agrees with the fossil record.
Katakato 3 years ago
"there is NO other way these changes could have happened."
sorry, you can not mate with other species. The very definition of species is THEY CAN'T MATE. nope. It's small small changes all the way backwards and forwards.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Different species within the same genius can definitely mate...mules and wolf-dogs to name a couple.
"Small changes all the way backwards and fowards" - care to explain that? There are no such changes capable outside of genetic modifications...natural(inter-breeding) or otherwise. Again...there exists no biological mechanism to facilitate these changes.
BTW...the term 'species' has quite an ambiguous definition...it has a lot more meaning than the ability (or lack of) to mate.
Katakato 3 years ago
Mules are infertile. The small changes in donkeys and the small changes in horses will eventually lead to fewer and fewer viable mule offspring until eventually there will be no more mules forever. They are a superlative example of a transitional species.
"there exists no biological mechanism to facilitate these changes. "
Except mutation. DUH?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
The video wasn't about HOW evolution takes place, it was about PROOF of evolution. If you want to know HOW it takes place, look in a science text book.
They didn't have to make with other species in their new environments because of variation within the species. Some of them had the characteristics to survive, some didn't. Those who did lived on and multiplied, those who didn't died out. The next gen also varied and the ones best with the best chars. lived the longest and had more children.
Nouseforausernam 3 years ago
"have nothing to do with evolution...rather they have to do with genetics"
Um sorry bud but evolution is the foundation of genetics
xlioilx 3 years ago
acording to evolutionists, coal took milions of years to form. Why do we find pieces of gold jewlry in coal?
fordm07 3 years ago
Human footprints with dinosaur footprints evidence has long been disproved. The footprints both belong to dinosaurs. Evidence?
First, both are same depth therefore made by something of approximately the same weight. Second the man's footprint do not infact share common features with real human feet. Not in the toes nor heel nor ball of the foot, not even in the way they would have formed due to the human way of movement.
NyelaniousTour 3 years ago
The amount of ignorance displayed in these evolution videos' comments page is fucking astonishing. Go read a fucking book, take a biology class, talk to an actual biologist. You'll realize how full of shit you creationists are. Theres no contraversy about it, just the ones you fuckers are creating to spew your own religious agenda. Knock it the fuck off you're singlehandley slowing the production of mankind.
zzyzx0788 3 years ago 3
watch?v=Y0oPx5eNoRI&feature=PlayList&p=11166601CA0FB279&index=4
fossil foot prints in 525 million year old rock. completely contradicts the neo darwinian model.
mejc2 3 years ago