now the peacock thing lets be real, perfect is just based on the individuals idea of wut perfect is. visually speaking the feathers are not perfectly alligned, some of which are longer than the others, but it is beautiful, bet u didnt know that its used as a mating ritual for a male to get a female ;) basically evolution or adaptation stepped in and said males need to be able to attract females so as to help control our population from exceed wut we can get from the natural resources.
@sume1random Alright nice thanks. What is interesting to see is that you're talking about evolution as a sort of a personal power, a force if you wish deciding that males should be able to attract females. What kinda force is evolution, if it can consider and decide to apply certain changes in de development of human beigns? Where is that force coming from? How do you by the way think about homosexuality from a evolutionary point of view? Rgrds.
@ManuelLogan its not rly a force that decides, but if u notice that in the sense seems to be the case, males being the ones that attract the females because if males in ne given species would be the ones to choose who and when they have sex with and make young then the world would be over populated by some species and others would die out. evolution isnt a personal power, no species can control how they evolve, but this is how they have where males being the ones that attract.
@sume1random also the bombardier beetle doesnt store two chemical compounds but one that "explodes" due to a catalyst with a mixture of oxygen. if u take the two chemical compunds that creationist believe the bombardier beetle actually sprays u get no reaction, not even a bubble from them, therefore under that the bombardier beetle shouldnt even be able to do wut it does.... ne questions?
@sume1random I have one. why leave out the rest? Your'e right, hydroperoxide and quinone, dont explode. they are together in the collection chamber of the bug. But a second chamber, "explosion chamber/vestibule", holds the enzyme/catalyst you speak of. this, with the two mis-represented chemicles, combine to explode. end result? an intricate system of 2 compounds + catalyst = kaboom. so the beetle has to be complete, or else one "accidental mix" of his stuff and he dies.
@ManuelLogan well lets consider homosexuality is in fact not a choice, meaning that its something that has been changed in the dna, who knows how or y it changed but it has. and since ppl who are gay/lesbian cant become attracted to someone of the opposite sex sexually its obvious that its not a choice. no one knows y species evolve the way they do sometimes, mostly to adapt to newer surroundings others its quite strange and yet great.
I dont care to get into a debate on the justification, or right and wrong of wars throughout history.But if you think Christianity teaches a no war at all, pasifest's mentality you are mistaken.
If I put my seiko watch in a bag, pound it into dust, shake the bag for billions of years, I dont care how many millions, or billions of years...when I open that bag, my watch will not somehow miraculously to have formed. And yet this is what they would have you believe.
Design demands a designer.Yet , the only true way for you to know if there is a God, is to seek Him yourself, and simply pray and ask him to prove himself to you.And guess what---He will.
@V67850 u knwo wut u just said is basically a total load of crap right? just wanted to point that out, who in their right mind would believe that over a billion years shaking a broken watch would from planets in a universe... thats just dumb and a watch isnt even made of the entirety of molecules it would take to do such a thing. ppl like u think u can prove something without actually using ur brain but just with faith and thats where u go down hill in ne kind of debate.
Great video! If you research termites and how they digest wood you will see more irrefutable evidence that evolution was a gimic created to steer people from the truth.
Creationists and Intelligent Designers both make one fatal flaw in their arguments. They have a lack of understanding on how long evolution has been working. The most time that anyone can truly understand is about a 100 years. Humans don't live much longer than that. For these people it can be hard to imagine what nature can do given millions of years or more.
@JeremyBomberry If I put my seiko watch in a bag, pound it into dust, shake the bag for billions of years, I dont care how many millions, or billions of years...when I open that bag, my watch will not somehow miraculously have formed. Only fools believe in evolution.
@V67850 Thanks for continuing to make my point for me. No, your watch will not have miraculously formed. That would require "intelligent design" or something. But in "...billions of years..." A planet capable of supporting life can form and life on that planet could evolve and make a watch. You know one's argument is exceptionally weak when one has to resort to name calling.
..." A planet capable of supporting life can form and life on..."
Lets stop right there. A planet capable of supporting complex life alone demands a designer.Also,The complex human is much more complex than that watch---And demands a designer as well.
@V67850 u and ur designer... with that argument then ur saying the complexity of ur designer must in fact have a designer and so on so forth in an endless count of designers.... and no there cant be just a designer that popped outta know where to make all this complexity with a complexity of their own, if that is in fact the case ur designer theory is dumb and ur makin a fool of urself :D
@sume1random I see your point, if there was a designer to our world, (God), then there was a designer for him, and so forth endlessly right? You got the same problem with evolution. There was a vast molecular soup (elements i.e carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc) that combined and mixed and created life in a very basic form etc that then proceeded from there. In a nutshell, that is what evolution believes. So where did the elements, molecules (what ever is the "proper" term), come from?
@atgblue1 they must have been created from previous "smaller bang " theories. and those molecules? "from more mixes before" and on and on and on. I agree there is no empyrical evidence for God, but there is none for evolution. Both evolution and Intelligent design come to a wall, creationists say God just "existed since before time", evolution says the chemicals and neutrons, protons, electrons came from a never-ending history of previous ones.
@atgblue1 and thats the beauty of it science doesnt claim that it knows everything and therefore its right and everything else is wrong, through trial and error scientists have come to this conclusion, but as to where it all originally came from one can only theorize that seeing as how we havnt had recorded history that long and there isnt much of ne way to trace it all back to one specific point. but we do know wut can create life and how things have evolved :)
@sume1random I see what you mean, I see both views as being able to go back only so far, and then both, evolution and intelligent design, believing on faith what neither one can prove as yet.
@atgblue1 well thats the problem, evolution doesnt and was never ment to explain all of the, just that species evolve and change over time, it was never ment to be something to bring us as far back as where molecules come from, for some scientists that is the big bang theory. Unlike creationists, ppl who know evolution know that it is no means an explanation to how everything came to be its an explanation as to y animals are so different and how they got to b the wya they are today.
@sume1random hmmmm that is not the opinion expressed by the evolutionists I have met in person. If you believe that, then even believing in God, I have no problem believing animals adapt to surroundings. (like the variations in species i.e. turtles, finches etc). But as to where life/matter/existing things came from, is where I believe in creation by intelligent design.
@atgblue1 well i have no problem with someone believing in something, and im sorry that u were dealin with idiots, but evolution is in no way able to go ne further back than to the first living organism thats it. Like have said in the past there is really no proof of a "big bang" or of intelligent design (I.E. god), especially since intelligence is how we humans categorize our own amount of knowledge.
@atgblue1 but if i do remember correctly some scientists like eintstein didnt believe in god so to speak, they believed in a higher power but not one of magic and all knowing power, but one that is in fact a scientist that could have created us purposely or accidentally and is learning about everything in the universe like we ourselves r. again no proof of that either but it to me makes more sense then god.
@sume1random I see, and I agree with that, I dont try to empirically prove my God, but I like to point out that other theories cant prove their's any more "empirically" than mine. I believe in God as told about in the Bible, adn that we were indeed created purposefully by Him. I guess that part is where we'll split up. I do like how we've been able to talk without flaming etc.
@atgblue1 well the central concept on ne scientific theory is that ne evidence must all b empirical, or empirically based. each theory has evidence that is based empirically but there isnt enough evidence as of yet to fully support it, thats y many theories change wut they are based upon a little bit because new evidence arises that makes them have to start over or change something in the middle :)
@sume1random here's a question, my God says that everyone is born with an instinct that there is a God. And that is lost or covered up when they choose to not hear His voice. So would you call yourself an agnostic or atheist? and if the the Bible didn't say there was sin, and wrong, and we were to be judged for it, would you be able to believe it and creation by God ?
@atgblue1 nope i wouldnt because it is my firm belief that man created god and in since the dawn of that creation mans twisted ways has destroyed everything god had once stood for granted there are those who live the way the bible says we should but unfortunately man wrote the bible, man lies, and could have lied about god, proof is that man hasnt changed much at all since those times. but thats my view on it. and i too am glad we can have a civil debate on it
@sume1random I kinda got lost on that part. You think god was made by men, and now we have deviated from what god originally symbolized? if men are soo evil (twisted), how could the many men who took part in the writing of the Bible have been able to on their own write perfect laws, perfect justice, unconditional love, etc and agreed on it over several thousand years that the Bible took to be finished? My belief is that only by the same God insiring them could they agree.
@sume1random for example, even in our own history over two or three cultures, there is vast disagreement in events that happened in our recent recorded history. Each gives his viewpoint, biased, some not, etc. The Bible was written by many different classes of men, over many centuries and cultures apart. Yet the scriptures are in 100% harmony with eachother. And speak of love and virtue, Holiness, all that are beyond our ability to imagine because we are as you said, twisted, and evil.
@atgblue1 its quite simple ne one person can write and create a "perfect being" take all the flaws man has and get rid of them and u have a perfect being. its not hard to make a concept of wut god is suppose to be. in the first writing of god a single or group of man came up with the idea and from there built god. years later another man came along and continued the idea of god so on and so forth. ppl have faith and with that faith they can believe in nething
@atgblue1 and a lot of ppl loved the idea of god wanted that idea to continue because it gave man something to hold them back from being unruly, unlawful, so on and so forth. and of course the scriptures we have today are in 100% harmony thats because a long time ago a roman had destroyed man books from the bible that he himself didnt agree with and we have found bits and pieces of some. fact is when u have something that is considered holy and treasured and u want to keep it
@atgblue1 no matter who ends up writing it as long as they want it kept that way then its easy to continue the idea of god, by keeping him all knowing, all powerful, and all loving.
@sume1random would man who is selfish, and evil, thinks of himself, starts wars, steals, etc, why on earth would they logically want to keep something that condemns them from being "unruly"? Each man is condemned by the Bible, by the things he most loves. So why would we on our own want to keep that if indeed there was a time when people were desinging the Bible? And when the bible was formed, each author didn't have the complete edition up till then, the books were put together only after.
@atgblue1 of course its not in full harmony, in the old testament god acted like no other, always punishing and being there, even restarted the world basically, then all of a sudden in the new testament he was loving and didnt punish nemore until it was ur time, kinda ironic when around that time ppl were leaving the teachings and ideas of the old testament then its like oh hey wait dont go listen to the new word of god! he still loves u and wont hurt u.
@sume1random About teh harmony, the Bible gives its reason why God's wrath isn't poured out as fast and soon as it was in the Old testament, its because of Jesus finishing the work, and now we are under His grace for a time until the time is up, and God destroys the world one last time. and if the New testament is preached Biblically (not for money etc) then you will be preached that God's wrath is coming on you, it is not all about love.
@atgblue1 and my biggest thing is y was god always so active with man in the old and new testament, and all of a sudden vanished like he was never here and all thats left are the books?
@sume1random I dont know all the why's etc, I would like for God to be active as He was in the past Biblically, but from what I understand in the Bible, He was like that because they didn't have His word yet. Now we have the blueprints or instructions on life, and serving Him, He wants us to search for Him through that, and we dont need (want yes, not need) His divine revelations like visions etc. this is just my theory though on this last question.
@atgblue1 and not a bad theory at that either! but its still a theory as is my own standing when it comes to that, but where u look at it with faith i look at it in a science perspective :) two different ways of lookin at the same thing with two different conclusions that both make sense. makes u think maybe god isnt rlly a "god" at alll but someone/thing else u know. who is to say we got the concept of god wrong and in actuality is just a being learning just like we r?
@sume1random You mean that god could just be a being learning things like we are? That seems far out. How can God be someone or something else I know? what do you mean with that? I never had a revelation, vision, supernatural experience etc, but I dont believe in "God" as a state of being, or a state of believing, I believe in the real, literal being in heaven.
@atgblue1 they believe that a there is no god as in a being with supernatural power that can make nething out of nothing, they believe in a being that is a scientist and created most of which we c today using science and not mystical/magical powers. to them and to me it makes more sense but it of course like god has a lot of holes and a hell of a lot more questions to ask like who/wut is this being, wuts its capabilities so on and so forth
@sume1random wow, that is far out. is there a name for that belief? about the scientist god? seems to me if one is going to go so far as to believe in a divine being that used scientific methods to formulate creation as we know it, it is because they dont want to accept the belief in a divine Holy God with laws who punishes sin (crimes against the laws). anything to avoid the whole "i'm a sinner" fact, I think.
@atgblue1 no for them scientifically it makes more sense that a there is something out there that is using science to make the universe work, not a god or divine being at all. U c most scientists who work in fields that show them how the universe works (physics, chemistry, ect.) pretty much wouldnt believe in a divine being using holy powers to make everything work, of course there is no proof of ne kind of god/being out there that can do ne of this so its still a theory to them
@sume1random I would like to talk with them. My God of the Bible is quite scientific, as in He didn't just "poof" everything into working order, He knows how it all works, and planned it all. The paths of the sea, the wind, how lightning is made, the migrational habits of animals, all of that He talks about in the psalms and Job. He just also happens to be holy and hate sin which is what we are!
@atgblue1 now see that is one of my biggest problems, we cant be sin, for we r his creations right? sure we can be sinful its part of the freedom he gave us, which contradicts his plan and all. and he did "poof" most of it he said let there be light and there was light. is a good example
@sume1random sorry, my bad in typing, youre'r right. We aren't sin itself, we have chosen to sin, making us evil in His sight and needing repentance and faith. but it dont contradict His plan? His plan was for paradise, we sinned, and ruined it. yet He still makes another way for us to live in a perfect life in Heaven forever as was intended, no suffering etc. He created light, by just calling it into existance, but He does know how He made it to work, (light spectrem etc).
@atgblue1 Well u c God has a plan, he knows everything that will happen, he knew we would "sin" and he knows wut choices we will make, so in the end when u think about it we dont choose to sin for its alrdy been foretold that we will sin. Also god sending his only son down to die for our sins, and then whenever we sin we just believe in jesus and wut he did and we are forgiven is just dumb and puts our own responsibility on someone else and that in and of itself is a sin.
@sume1random God doesn't plan us to sin, He just already knows when we will sin, its still our free-will choice. And it would seem stupid to die for people who are evil, but in that we see God's love towards us, while still sinners, Christ died for us. Where do you get that it is a sin for someone else to die for another person? to say it is a sin you have to have a standard to measure it. By which standard do you measure to say that it is sin for Christ to carry our sins?
@V67850 And only the hellbound call others fools, as according to Jesus who says "any man who says 'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fires of hell."
But hey, it's not like you have faith or morality if you're lieing in the first place, eh?
@crazyinsane500 The Bible says that the person that does not believe is a fool.
Thats what the Bible says about it.You have quoted that scripture out of context. Jesus was speaking to Christians about not calling their BROTHER a fool. That is entirely different, as this means a brother in the faith Psalm 14:1 to atheists: "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."
I love the Darwin quote at 1:40. If you read the rest of his quote - the part that's not shown here - he's basically saying "this SEEMS absurd at first glance, until you study it more". The pathetic distorting of this quote by creationists is so common that if you Google the term "quote mining" it's the first thing that comes up.
You mention common sense, but in this video you show your severe lack of it. You also severely lack knowledge of the process of evolution. Everything you mention in the video has been explained by science. And common sense tells me when I encounter something complicated it does not mean someone must have made it or designed it, it implies that I don't know how it came to be and if I wish to come to discover how it became so complicated I must research it. This method has a very good track record
ok they keep saying this thing couldnt have evolved, why? who isnt to say that it first had the mechanism to spray a less potent poison, and a few had a stronger one so they lived on to keep getting better and better. and billbush logical thinking also says no one makes a perfect design on the first try and also you ASSUME that everything has a designer, if nature is random and changes based on what happens then you dont need a designer
well, im sure youve already watched this one by now and also the video that claims to debunk the tests, but doesnt.. it just cuts off the rest of the explanation and calls it a fail for not blowing himself up.. haha..
'peacock feathers' doesnt seem to have a video on youtube.. but im sure itll be scientifically explainable at an elementary level in no time, if not already..
even if proof does become available, youll just find another creature thats seemingly complex..
It's remerkable that in this day and age Intelligent Design is at all discussed. The only reason must be that Christianity is a strong force in USA. In my country no one would even come up with such an idea, except in childrens books and comics.
is it not possible that the chemicals in the bug all had septate functions and then later became its defense? as for the feathers im not really getting what your trying to say.. patterns form everywhere on earth..its the just the way it is..what is so special about the feathers?
ID is a purely creationist idea. Science calls for hard evidence, theory, testing, and reproducible results.ID is a purely creationist idea. Science calls for hard evidence, theory, testing, and reproducible results. Your Darwin quote is misleading. In the next sentence, Darwin states that the eye's development is no harder to believe than a giraffe's tail developed to swat flies. You should base your belief in truth like your Bible says. ID is bullshit.
@ManuelLogan You infer that the BB is evidence of ID because you do not see how it fits into evolutionary theory. Even if that were true (it isn't) it wouldn't prove ID, only that there must be some alternate explanation. Perhaps the BB just always existed. Or perhaps it just created itself. The evidence supports these ideas just as well as ID. Please watch this video for how the BB could have evolved.
@ManuelLogan If every design has a designer then nature isn't designed. The bombardier beetle isn't more of a perfect "design" than other more complex creatures (which can easily, just like the bombardier beetle, be evolutionarily theorized on.
You can't begin to complain about scientific theories being unproven and in the same sentence compare science to your super fantasy religion! That's just plain stupid, but then I wouldn't expect more from a christian.
Behe's "Irreducible complexity", the "intelligent Design Movement (Creationism = of Pandas ..)", the "Discovery institute" (NOT the Discovery Channel) ... have all been shown for the fraud - the idiocy that they are.
You must be somewahat lonely, Manuel, living in a sensible European country - away from your gullible deluded compatriots in Yankeeland.
@tellnet nice drop of "idiocy" there best way to argue any point, but next time provide a link instead of that it might help.
not trying to nay say your entire arguement but this is big stuff you reduce your charamatical intiligence when you mud sling
also thanks for the referance imma accually look it up any repost of the caim might be helpful because hell finding the original docs on the web, is just a terrible situation.
@ManuelLogan Let's not get the cart before the horse. Before you can claim C you must prove that 1) The beetle was designed and 2) The design of the beetle is perfect. Also, please clearly state your definition of "perfect" in context and inclusively enough to prevent the possibility of any flaw. Note1: Any statements based upon Argument from Ignorance will not be sufficient. Note2: Evolution is not a designer, it is evolution. Finally, if we assume C, define 'God' based on C? Regards
@ManuelLogan really lol not every design has a designer. ever throw a bunch of tacks on the floor and have them coincedentally land in such a way as to form a shape or a picture of some sort. Its the uncertainty of chaos. /watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ
never heard of the peacock feather argument.. maybe ill look for the answer to that one as well.. it never end though.. even if it were to be proven, you guys would just pick another animal that you dont understand and ask us to explain it for you.. the beetle and the eye have already been explained.. and i believe the celtic gods wrote the book of nature.. haha..
@ManuelPagami Alright, I look forward to your explanation of both the beetle and the feathers of the peacock. Alright, well we do have the same first name but not the same vision in this respect. Take care.
Oh, yeah, of corse, the eye is so bloody percekt....Yeah, thats why we become blind so esaly....That why ower sigth gets worse with age.....Thats why so many need to use glasses..And, by the gad dam way; Darwin was a genius, but he had limited knowlige aboat some things, and he clearly did not know or understand how the eye was formed.We have bthis knowlige today, thow. But, that quoting is taken out of contence. I asume ther is an counderArgument for it ;SEEMING; absurd in the highest degree.
Your god-loving retard =s Sorry, but...Im all for the truth....unlike you, not willing to let people vote for or agenst this film, like all other blind god-lovers on YouTube.....
@Aikwood666 You can say what you want but I do not take satan-worshippers seriously, especially when they put his number behind their names. I'm a Godlover, absolutely and the cool thing is, science (especially of the last decade) is supporting it.
@ManuelLogan Thats your loss, not mine. If your willing to forget everything i say , YUST becose i have a ''scary magic number'' behind my accountName, that yust shows how completly retarded you are. I am in fact not a satan-worshiper, you ignorant fool. I do not worship your or ANY gods. The 666-thing is to ceep retards like you away. And it works ;) Ceeps the worst religius away, dosent it? apearantly.
Evidence for evolution is plentiful and "many accept this theory" is an understatement. Over 99% of respected biologists (some of whom are Christians) overwhelmingly consider evolution by natural selection to be the best available theory of speciation.
There are so many false assumptions in these videos that it is impossible to correct them in these comments. Luckily Thunderf00t, Aronra and cdk007 have made numerous detailed videos that address these misconceptions. Give them a look.
lmao... they use the eye and an example not knowing how easy it is to explain via evolution and we can see the process in many animals today... what a terrible video
natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, not synonimous with evolution. darwin thought evolution was true, but natural selection didnt seem to him to be its primary mechanism. why? because he thought the process was too slow.
Also, I'd thank you not to libel Albert Einstein, making him out to be some religious fool.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
I'm too thick headed to understand how something extremely complex could have come about by chance, so I'll just choose to believe that it happened for some intelligent reason, because that's simple enough for me to grasp. Very logical conclusion.
I like how you quote Darwin. Would you mind to quote the rest he said? Like when he explained how the eye DID in fact form by natural selection EVENTHOUGH it SEEMS absurd in the highest possible degree that it did?
He was being intellectually honest. Why on earth would he discredit his own theory? And even if he did, we have looked into it with our advanced scientific knowledge and technology in cells, genes, DNA, wider fossil record etc, and we can confirm he was almost spot on.
Which is why we dont rely heavily on carbon dating. You should look at the long list of scientific dating methods we have. There are quite a lot, and the funny thing is that all of them give a similar answer. They independently back each other up which makes them trustworthy. But if you think that you are more intelligent on biology than all the biologists together please tell me your theory.
Or rather, what is the problem with the theory? I admit that you can actually dismiss one option even if you dont have one yourself. So it would perhaps be more correct and fair to ask what the problems with the theory of evolution are.
The theory doesnt assert that something came from nothing.
No, a banana cannot become a spider, because they are on two completely different branches on the evolutionary tree. Species dont mix. Especially not if they split branches long ago.
What does the process of making a fossil have to do with the theory of evolution? And was your point that therefore life could not have started millions of years ago? If so, I can tell you that fossils can wait for millions of years to be found.
We arent like apes? We are apes. We share face, hair, heart, brain, arms, legs, we sleep, we eat, we reproduce, we breastfeed our babies, we can die, we have emotions, we have a nerve system etc etc etc. I think wee have a lot in common with apes. Not to mention over 90 percent of DNA matching them perfectly.
I must tell you, that you dont know what the theory says. Suggesting that spiders should become bananas.
@Botie2 There are books like that that are written in favor of more logical beginnings. Not all scientists believe in evolution, Dr. Dino is one example.
@Sjarke98 Darwin was wrong. Gospel truth. God made man from dust and woman from his rib. At the same time he created a theme park called "Eden" with a talking snake and a deadly tree, realised he made a mistake and had to kill everything in a flood and started again. This time without the Dinosaurs. Isnt that a better theory than evolution?
now the peacock thing lets be real, perfect is just based on the individuals idea of wut perfect is. visually speaking the feathers are not perfectly alligned, some of which are longer than the others, but it is beautiful, bet u didnt know that its used as a mating ritual for a male to get a female ;) basically evolution or adaptation stepped in and said males need to be able to attract females so as to help control our population from exceed wut we can get from the natural resources.
sume1random 1 month ago
@sume1random Alright nice thanks. What is interesting to see is that you're talking about evolution as a sort of a personal power, a force if you wish deciding that males should be able to attract females. What kinda force is evolution, if it can consider and decide to apply certain changes in de development of human beigns? Where is that force coming from? How do you by the way think about homosexuality from a evolutionary point of view? Rgrds.
ManuelLogan 1 month ago in playlist Mi Creencia (My belief) El Cristianismo
@ManuelLogan its not rly a force that decides, but if u notice that in the sense seems to be the case, males being the ones that attract the females because if males in ne given species would be the ones to choose who and when they have sex with and make young then the world would be over populated by some species and others would die out. evolution isnt a personal power, no species can control how they evolve, but this is how they have where males being the ones that attract.
sume1random 1 month ago
@sume1random also the bombardier beetle doesnt store two chemical compounds but one that "explodes" due to a catalyst with a mixture of oxygen. if u take the two chemical compunds that creationist believe the bombardier beetle actually sprays u get no reaction, not even a bubble from them, therefore under that the bombardier beetle shouldnt even be able to do wut it does.... ne questions?
sume1random 1 month ago
@sume1random I have one. why leave out the rest? Your'e right, hydroperoxide and quinone, dont explode. they are together in the collection chamber of the bug. But a second chamber, "explosion chamber/vestibule", holds the enzyme/catalyst you speak of. this, with the two mis-represented chemicles, combine to explode. end result? an intricate system of 2 compounds + catalyst = kaboom. so the beetle has to be complete, or else one "accidental mix" of his stuff and he dies.
atgblue1 1 month ago
@ManuelLogan well lets consider homosexuality is in fact not a choice, meaning that its something that has been changed in the dna, who knows how or y it changed but it has. and since ppl who are gay/lesbian cant become attracted to someone of the opposite sex sexually its obvious that its not a choice. no one knows y species evolve the way they do sometimes, mostly to adapt to newer surroundings others its quite strange and yet great.
sume1random 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's the name of the song?
ScienceFictionHairdo 1 month ago
I dont care to get into a debate on the justification, or right and wrong of wars throughout history.But if you think Christianity teaches a no war at all, pasifest's mentality you are mistaken.
V67850 1 month ago
Oh wow, I'm sure this video certainly would be in scientific literature because it has genuine proof and not pure inference in it!
Oh wait. . . It also includes a quote taken out of context. . .Well I'm sure this video was made prior to 1900's. . . Oh wait, 2009.
Well then nevermind, this video just outright fails.
crazyinsane500 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If I put my seiko watch in a bag, pound it into dust, shake the bag for billions of years, I dont care how many millions, or billions of years...when I open that bag, my watch will not somehow miraculously to have formed. And yet this is what they would have you believe.
Design demands a designer.Yet , the only true way for you to know if there is a God, is to seek Him yourself, and simply pray and ask him to prove himself to you.And guess what---He will.
V67850 2 months ago
@V67850 u knwo wut u just said is basically a total load of crap right? just wanted to point that out, who in their right mind would believe that over a billion years shaking a broken watch would from planets in a universe... thats just dumb and a watch isnt even made of the entirety of molecules it would take to do such a thing. ppl like u think u can prove something without actually using ur brain but just with faith and thats where u go down hill in ne kind of debate.
sume1random 1 month ago
Great video! If you research termites and how they digest wood you will see more irrefutable evidence that evolution was a gimic created to steer people from the truth.
zachaca 3 months ago
AMEN! God bless you. Atheists and Evolutionists live in total denial but yets I pray for them all in Jesus' name.
gr33nm0rgan 3 months ago
@gr33nm0rgan How cute!
MrOvipare 2 months ago
Great post thanks and God bless
Jehstfan 4 months ago
Creationists and Intelligent Designers both make one fatal flaw in their arguments. They have a lack of understanding on how long evolution has been working. The most time that anyone can truly understand is about a 100 years. Humans don't live much longer than that. For these people it can be hard to imagine what nature can do given millions of years or more.
JeremyBomberry 8 months ago
@JeremyBomberry If I put my seiko watch in a bag, pound it into dust, shake the bag for billions of years, I dont care how many millions, or billions of years...when I open that bag, my watch will not somehow miraculously have formed. Only fools believe in evolution.
V67850 2 months ago
@V67850 Thanks for continuing to make my point for me. No, your watch will not have miraculously formed. That would require "intelligent design" or something. But in "...billions of years..." A planet capable of supporting life can form and life on that planet could evolve and make a watch. You know one's argument is exceptionally weak when one has to resort to name calling.
100100011010010110 2 months ago
@100100011010010110
..." A planet capable of supporting life can form and life on..."
Lets stop right there. A planet capable of supporting complex life alone demands a designer.Also,The complex human is much more complex than that watch---And demands a designer as well.
V67850 1 month ago
@V67850 u and ur designer... with that argument then ur saying the complexity of ur designer must in fact have a designer and so on so forth in an endless count of designers.... and no there cant be just a designer that popped outta know where to make all this complexity with a complexity of their own, if that is in fact the case ur designer theory is dumb and ur makin a fool of urself :D
sume1random 1 month ago
@sume1random I see your point, if there was a designer to our world, (God), then there was a designer for him, and so forth endlessly right? You got the same problem with evolution. There was a vast molecular soup (elements i.e carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc) that combined and mixed and created life in a very basic form etc that then proceeded from there. In a nutshell, that is what evolution believes. So where did the elements, molecules (what ever is the "proper" term), come from?
atgblue1 1 month ago
@atgblue1 they must have been created from previous "smaller bang " theories. and those molecules? "from more mixes before" and on and on and on. I agree there is no empyrical evidence for God, but there is none for evolution. Both evolution and Intelligent design come to a wall, creationists say God just "existed since before time", evolution says the chemicals and neutrons, protons, electrons came from a never-ending history of previous ones.
atgblue1 1 month ago
@atgblue1 and thats the beauty of it science doesnt claim that it knows everything and therefore its right and everything else is wrong, through trial and error scientists have come to this conclusion, but as to where it all originally came from one can only theorize that seeing as how we havnt had recorded history that long and there isnt much of ne way to trace it all back to one specific point. but we do know wut can create life and how things have evolved :)
sume1random 1 month ago
@sume1random I see what you mean, I see both views as being able to go back only so far, and then both, evolution and intelligent design, believing on faith what neither one can prove as yet.
atgblue1 1 month ago
@atgblue1 well thats the problem, evolution doesnt and was never ment to explain all of the, just that species evolve and change over time, it was never ment to be something to bring us as far back as where molecules come from, for some scientists that is the big bang theory. Unlike creationists, ppl who know evolution know that it is no means an explanation to how everything came to be its an explanation as to y animals are so different and how they got to b the wya they are today.
sume1random 1 month ago
@sume1random hmmmm that is not the opinion expressed by the evolutionists I have met in person. If you believe that, then even believing in God, I have no problem believing animals adapt to surroundings. (like the variations in species i.e. turtles, finches etc). But as to where life/matter/existing things came from, is where I believe in creation by intelligent design.
atgblue1 1 month ago
@atgblue1 well i have no problem with someone believing in something, and im sorry that u were dealin with idiots, but evolution is in no way able to go ne further back than to the first living organism thats it. Like have said in the past there is really no proof of a "big bang" or of intelligent design (I.E. god), especially since intelligence is how we humans categorize our own amount of knowledge.
sume1random 1 month ago
@atgblue1 but if i do remember correctly some scientists like eintstein didnt believe in god so to speak, they believed in a higher power but not one of magic and all knowing power, but one that is in fact a scientist that could have created us purposely or accidentally and is learning about everything in the universe like we ourselves r. again no proof of that either but it to me makes more sense then god.
sume1random 1 month ago
@sume1random I see, and I agree with that, I dont try to empirically prove my God, but I like to point out that other theories cant prove their's any more "empirically" than mine. I believe in God as told about in the Bible, adn that we were indeed created purposefully by Him. I guess that part is where we'll split up. I do like how we've been able to talk without flaming etc.
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 well the central concept on ne scientific theory is that ne evidence must all b empirical, or empirically based. each theory has evidence that is based empirically but there isnt enough evidence as of yet to fully support it, thats y many theories change wut they are based upon a little bit because new evidence arises that makes them have to start over or change something in the middle :)
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@sume1random here's a question, my God says that everyone is born with an instinct that there is a God. And that is lost or covered up when they choose to not hear His voice. So would you call yourself an agnostic or atheist? and if the the Bible didn't say there was sin, and wrong, and we were to be judged for it, would you be able to believe it and creation by God ?
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 nope i wouldnt because it is my firm belief that man created god and in since the dawn of that creation mans twisted ways has destroyed everything god had once stood for granted there are those who live the way the bible says we should but unfortunately man wrote the bible, man lies, and could have lied about god, proof is that man hasnt changed much at all since those times. but thats my view on it. and i too am glad we can have a civil debate on it
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@sume1random I kinda got lost on that part. You think god was made by men, and now we have deviated from what god originally symbolized? if men are soo evil (twisted), how could the many men who took part in the writing of the Bible have been able to on their own write perfect laws, perfect justice, unconditional love, etc and agreed on it over several thousand years that the Bible took to be finished? My belief is that only by the same God insiring them could they agree.
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@sume1random for example, even in our own history over two or three cultures, there is vast disagreement in events that happened in our recent recorded history. Each gives his viewpoint, biased, some not, etc. The Bible was written by many different classes of men, over many centuries and cultures apart. Yet the scriptures are in 100% harmony with eachother. And speak of love and virtue, Holiness, all that are beyond our ability to imagine because we are as you said, twisted, and evil.
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 its quite simple ne one person can write and create a "perfect being" take all the flaws man has and get rid of them and u have a perfect being. its not hard to make a concept of wut god is suppose to be. in the first writing of god a single or group of man came up with the idea and from there built god. years later another man came along and continued the idea of god so on and so forth. ppl have faith and with that faith they can believe in nething
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@sume1random so I believe that points to a sole author of the Bible, and one that is above and beyond our own mortal, selfish, sinful minds.
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 and a lot of ppl loved the idea of god wanted that idea to continue because it gave man something to hold them back from being unruly, unlawful, so on and so forth. and of course the scriptures we have today are in 100% harmony thats because a long time ago a roman had destroyed man books from the bible that he himself didnt agree with and we have found bits and pieces of some. fact is when u have something that is considered holy and treasured and u want to keep it
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 no matter who ends up writing it as long as they want it kept that way then its easy to continue the idea of god, by keeping him all knowing, all powerful, and all loving.
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@sume1random would man who is selfish, and evil, thinks of himself, starts wars, steals, etc, why on earth would they logically want to keep something that condemns them from being "unruly"? Each man is condemned by the Bible, by the things he most loves. So why would we on our own want to keep that if indeed there was a time when people were desinging the Bible? And when the bible was formed, each author didn't have the complete edition up till then, the books were put together only after.
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 of course its not in full harmony, in the old testament god acted like no other, always punishing and being there, even restarted the world basically, then all of a sudden in the new testament he was loving and didnt punish nemore until it was ur time, kinda ironic when around that time ppl were leaving the teachings and ideas of the old testament then its like oh hey wait dont go listen to the new word of god! he still loves u and wont hurt u.
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@sume1random About teh harmony, the Bible gives its reason why God's wrath isn't poured out as fast and soon as it was in the Old testament, its because of Jesus finishing the work, and now we are under His grace for a time until the time is up, and God destroys the world one last time. and if the New testament is preached Biblically (not for money etc) then you will be preached that God's wrath is coming on you, it is not all about love.
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 and my biggest thing is y was god always so active with man in the old and new testament, and all of a sudden vanished like he was never here and all thats left are the books?
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@sume1random I dont know all the why's etc, I would like for God to be active as He was in the past Biblically, but from what I understand in the Bible, He was like that because they didn't have His word yet. Now we have the blueprints or instructions on life, and serving Him, He wants us to search for Him through that, and we dont need (want yes, not need) His divine revelations like visions etc. this is just my theory though on this last question.
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 and not a bad theory at that either! but its still a theory as is my own standing when it comes to that, but where u look at it with faith i look at it in a science perspective :) two different ways of lookin at the same thing with two different conclusions that both make sense. makes u think maybe god isnt rlly a "god" at alll but someone/thing else u know. who is to say we got the concept of god wrong and in actuality is just a being learning just like we r?
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@sume1random You mean that god could just be a being learning things like we are? That seems far out. How can God be someone or something else I know? what do you mean with that? I never had a revelation, vision, supernatural experience etc, but I dont believe in "God" as a state of being, or a state of believing, I believe in the real, literal being in heaven.
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 they believe that a there is no god as in a being with supernatural power that can make nething out of nothing, they believe in a being that is a scientist and created most of which we c today using science and not mystical/magical powers. to them and to me it makes more sense but it of course like god has a lot of holes and a hell of a lot more questions to ask like who/wut is this being, wuts its capabilities so on and so forth
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@sume1random wow, that is far out. is there a name for that belief? about the scientist god? seems to me if one is going to go so far as to believe in a divine being that used scientific methods to formulate creation as we know it, it is because they dont want to accept the belief in a divine Holy God with laws who punishes sin (crimes against the laws). anything to avoid the whole "i'm a sinner" fact, I think.
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 no for them scientifically it makes more sense that a there is something out there that is using science to make the universe work, not a god or divine being at all. U c most scientists who work in fields that show them how the universe works (physics, chemistry, ect.) pretty much wouldnt believe in a divine being using holy powers to make everything work, of course there is no proof of ne kind of god/being out there that can do ne of this so its still a theory to them
sume1random 3 weeks ago
@sume1random I would like to talk with them. My God of the Bible is quite scientific, as in He didn't just "poof" everything into working order, He knows how it all works, and planned it all. The paths of the sea, the wind, how lightning is made, the migrational habits of animals, all of that He talks about in the psalms and Job. He just also happens to be holy and hate sin which is what we are!
atgblue1 3 weeks ago
@atgblue1 now see that is one of my biggest problems, we cant be sin, for we r his creations right? sure we can be sinful its part of the freedom he gave us, which contradicts his plan and all. and he did "poof" most of it he said let there be light and there was light. is a good example
sume1random 2 weeks ago
@sume1random sorry, my bad in typing, youre'r right. We aren't sin itself, we have chosen to sin, making us evil in His sight and needing repentance and faith. but it dont contradict His plan? His plan was for paradise, we sinned, and ruined it. yet He still makes another way for us to live in a perfect life in Heaven forever as was intended, no suffering etc. He created light, by just calling it into existance, but He does know how He made it to work, (light spectrem etc).
atgblue1 2 weeks ago
@atgblue1 Well u c God has a plan, he knows everything that will happen, he knew we would "sin" and he knows wut choices we will make, so in the end when u think about it we dont choose to sin for its alrdy been foretold that we will sin. Also god sending his only son down to die for our sins, and then whenever we sin we just believe in jesus and wut he did and we are forgiven is just dumb and puts our own responsibility on someone else and that in and of itself is a sin.
sume1random 2 days ago
@sume1random God doesn't plan us to sin, He just already knows when we will sin, its still our free-will choice. And it would seem stupid to die for people who are evil, but in that we see God's love towards us, while still sinners, Christ died for us. Where do you get that it is a sin for someone else to die for another person? to say it is a sin you have to have a standard to measure it. By which standard do you measure to say that it is sin for Christ to carry our sins?
atgblue1 7 hours ago
@V67850 And only the hellbound call others fools, as according to Jesus who says "any man who says 'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fires of hell."
But hey, it's not like you have faith or morality if you're lieing in the first place, eh?
crazyinsane500 2 months ago
@crazyinsane500 The Bible says that the person that does not believe is a fool.
Thats what the Bible says about it.You have quoted that scripture out of context. Jesus was speaking to Christians about not calling their BROTHER a fool. That is entirely different, as this means a brother in the faith Psalm 14:1 to atheists: "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."
V67850 1 month ago
@V67850 Then I suppose the genocides on behalf of Christianity are justified considering it preaches to only "love thy brother as thyself"
crazyinsane500 1 month ago
I love the Darwin quote at 1:40. If you read the rest of his quote - the part that's not shown here - he's basically saying "this SEEMS absurd at first glance, until you study it more". The pathetic distorting of this quote by creationists is so common that if you Google the term "quote mining" it's the first thing that comes up.
Mickster6988240 10 months ago
Comment removed
hellofraaance 1 year ago
You mention common sense, but in this video you show your severe lack of it. You also severely lack knowledge of the process of evolution. Everything you mention in the video has been explained by science. And common sense tells me when I encounter something complicated it does not mean someone must have made it or designed it, it implies that I don't know how it came to be and if I wish to come to discover how it became so complicated I must research it. This method has a very good track record
hellofraaance 1 year ago
Irreducible complexity is an excuse for the lack of intellect.. Another way to look at it , you're just being lazy.
deepashtray 1 year ago
ok they keep saying this thing couldnt have evolved, why? who isnt to say that it first had the mechanism to spray a less potent poison, and a few had a stronger one so they lived on to keep getting better and better. and billbush logical thinking also says no one makes a perfect design on the first try and also you ASSUME that everything has a designer, if nature is random and changes based on what happens then you dont need a designer
thegreatloser 1 year ago
watch?v=Hi4OdrITkqY
well, im sure youve already watched this one by now and also the video that claims to debunk the tests, but doesnt.. it just cuts off the rest of the explanation and calls it a fail for not blowing himself up.. haha..
'peacock feathers' doesnt seem to have a video on youtube.. but im sure itll be scientifically explainable at an elementary level in no time, if not already..
even if proof does become available, youll just find another creature thats seemingly complex..
ManuelPagami 1 year ago
It's remerkable that in this day and age Intelligent Design is at all discussed. The only reason must be that Christianity is a strong force in USA. In my country no one would even come up with such an idea, except in childrens books and comics.
twitizer 1 year ago
@twitizer And you question why in your country the kids are smarter than you are.
erikthered11 1 year ago
is it not possible that the chemicals in the bug all had septate functions and then later became its defense? as for the feathers im not really getting what your trying to say.. patterns form everywhere on earth..its the just the way it is..what is so special about the feathers?
ihypno 1 year ago
ID is a purely creationist idea. Science calls for hard evidence, theory, testing, and reproducible results.ID is a purely creationist idea. Science calls for hard evidence, theory, testing, and reproducible results. Your Darwin quote is misleading. In the next sentence, Darwin states that the eye's development is no harder to believe than a giraffe's tail developed to swat flies. You should base your belief in truth like your Bible says. ID is bullshit.
malleus30 1 year ago
You are mistaking evidence for inference. There is no evidence for intelligent design.
billybush111 1 year ago
@billybush111 Based on logic thinking I think the Bombardier Beetle is evidence for ID.
A. Every design has a designer
B. The Bombardier beetle is a perfect design
C The Bombardier beetle has a designer
Now the question is who or what is the designer. Is that God, or is that a impersonal power, like evolution? What is your view on this? Regards
ManuelLogan 1 year ago
@ManuelLogan You infer that the BB is evidence of ID because you do not see how it fits into evolutionary theory. Even if that were true (it isn't) it wouldn't prove ID, only that there must be some alternate explanation. Perhaps the BB just always existed. Or perhaps it just created itself. The evidence supports these ideas just as well as ID. Please watch this video for how the BB could have evolved.
/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE
billybush111 1 year ago
@ManuelLogan If every design has a designer then nature isn't designed. The bombardier beetle isn't more of a perfect "design" than other more complex creatures (which can easily, just like the bombardier beetle, be evolutionarily theorized on.
You can't begin to complain about scientific theories being unproven and in the same sentence compare science to your super fantasy religion! That's just plain stupid, but then I wouldn't expect more from a christian.
mremgee 1 year ago
@ManuelLogan
Behe's "Irreducible complexity", the "intelligent Design Movement (Creationism = of Pandas ..)", the "Discovery institute" (NOT the Discovery Channel) ... have all been shown for the fraud - the idiocy that they are.
You must be somewahat lonely, Manuel, living in a sensible European country - away from your gullible deluded compatriots in Yankeeland.
tellnet 1 year ago
@tellnet Lonely I am indeed, just keepin' myself up by drinking a lot of that Irish 'good stuff'.
ManuelLogan 1 year ago
@ManuelLogan
Well then, the Dutch environment must have strenghtened your psyche - you took my admonishment in good humour - Well done.
Enjoy the Guinness !
tellnet 1 year ago
@tellnet nice drop of "idiocy" there best way to argue any point, but next time provide a link instead of that it might help.
not trying to nay say your entire arguement but this is big stuff you reduce your charamatical intiligence when you mud sling
also thanks for the referance imma accually look it up any repost of the caim might be helpful because hell finding the original docs on the web, is just a terrible situation.
Zanderof 3 months ago
@Zanderof
Tyson, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Your spelling and grammar are absolutely atrocious.
Do yourself a favour - use a spell-check before posting - or use Safari (it will check text boxes as you type)
tellnet 3 months ago
@ManuelLogan Let's not get the cart before the horse. Before you can claim C you must prove that 1) The beetle was designed and 2) The design of the beetle is perfect. Also, please clearly state your definition of "perfect" in context and inclusively enough to prevent the possibility of any flaw. Note1: Any statements based upon Argument from Ignorance will not be sufficient. Note2: Evolution is not a designer, it is evolution. Finally, if we assume C, define 'God' based on C? Regards
Athosiphyr 10 months ago
@ManuelLogan See the Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle by cdk007.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@ManuelLogan really lol not every design has a designer. ever throw a bunch of tacks on the floor and have them coincedentally land in such a way as to form a shape or a picture of some sort. Its the uncertainty of chaos. /watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ
stalkingcat123 2 months ago
@billybush111 So we humans aren't a proof ? ;)
JohanLindhe 1 year ago
never heard of the peacock feather argument.. maybe ill look for the answer to that one as well.. it never end though.. even if it were to be proven, you guys would just pick another animal that you dont understand and ask us to explain it for you.. the beetle and the eye have already been explained.. and i believe the celtic gods wrote the book of nature.. haha..
ManuelPagami 1 year ago
@ManuelPagami Alright, I look forward to your explanation of both the beetle and the feathers of the peacock. Alright, well we do have the same first name but not the same vision in this respect. Take care.
ManuelLogan 1 year ago
Oh, yeah, of corse, the eye is so bloody percekt....Yeah, thats why we become blind so esaly....That why ower sigth gets worse with age.....Thats why so many need to use glasses..And, by the gad dam way; Darwin was a genius, but he had limited knowlige aboat some things, and he clearly did not know or understand how the eye was formed.We have bthis knowlige today, thow. But, that quoting is taken out of contence. I asume ther is an counderArgument for it ;SEEMING; absurd in the highest degree.
Aikwood666 1 year ago
Your god-loving retard =s Sorry, but...Im all for the truth....unlike you, not willing to let people vote for or agenst this film, like all other blind god-lovers on YouTube.....
Aikwood666 1 year ago
@Aikwood666 You can say what you want but I do not take satan-worshippers seriously, especially when they put his number behind their names. I'm a Godlover, absolutely and the cool thing is, science (especially of the last decade) is supporting it.
ManuelLogan 1 year ago
@ManuelLogan Thats your loss, not mine. If your willing to forget everything i say , YUST becose i have a ''scary magic number'' behind my accountName, that yust shows how completly retarded you are. I am in fact not a satan-worshiper, you ignorant fool. I do not worship your or ANY gods. The 666-thing is to ceep retards like you away. And it works ;) Ceeps the worst religius away, dosent it? apearantly.
Aikwood666 1 year ago
Evidence for evolution is plentiful and "many accept this theory" is an understatement. Over 99% of respected biologists (some of whom are Christians) overwhelmingly consider evolution by natural selection to be the best available theory of speciation.
There are so many false assumptions in these videos that it is impossible to correct them in these comments. Luckily Thunderf00t, Aronra and cdk007 have made numerous detailed videos that address these misconceptions. Give them a look.
antonc81 1 year ago
@antonc81 Alright thanks, I will.
ManuelLogan 1 year ago
Comment removed
antonc81 1 year ago
lmao... they use the eye and an example not knowing how easy it is to explain via evolution and we can see the process in many animals today... what a terrible video
SkepticMagician 1 year ago
waste of my time
pokenei 1 year ago
@pokenei Thank you. August 12 I will fly to Toronto, Canada, perhaps we can meet and talk about it....
ManuelLogan 1 year ago
@realar
okay i know youre just a troll, but ill bite: why?
Brotkrumen 1 year ago
alright, ignore what i wrote. this video is just retarded...
Brotkrumen 1 year ago
natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, not synonimous with evolution. darwin thought evolution was true, but natural selection didnt seem to him to be its primary mechanism. why? because he thought the process was too slow.
Brotkrumen 1 year ago
Also, I'd thank you not to libel Albert Einstein, making him out to be some religious fool.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
Consider this quote carefully.
DeathsDocent 1 year ago
I'm too thick headed to understand how something extremely complex could have come about by chance, so I'll just choose to believe that it happened for some intelligent reason, because that's simple enough for me to grasp. Very logical conclusion.
DeathsDocent 1 year ago
I like how you quote Darwin. Would you mind to quote the rest he said? Like when he explained how the eye DID in fact form by natural selection EVENTHOUGH it SEEMS absurd in the highest possible degree that it did?
Sjarke98 2 years ago 2
Oh don't give me that.
Darwin discredited his own theory.
realar 2 years ago
He was being intellectually honest. Why on earth would he discredit his own theory? And even if he did, we have looked into it with our advanced scientific knowledge and technology in cells, genes, DNA, wider fossil record etc, and we can confirm he was almost spot on.
Sjarke98 2 years ago
Carbon dating gives false readings.
Furthermore, evolution is insulting to my intelligence.
realar 2 years ago
Which is why we dont rely heavily on carbon dating. You should look at the long list of scientific dating methods we have. There are quite a lot, and the funny thing is that all of them give a similar answer. They independently back each other up which makes them trustworthy. But if you think that you are more intelligent on biology than all the biologists together please tell me your theory.
Sjarke98 2 years ago
Or rather, what is the problem with the theory? I admit that you can actually dismiss one option even if you dont have one yourself. So it would perhaps be more correct and fair to ask what the problems with the theory of evolution are.
Sjarke98 2 years ago
The theory is debunked by NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING.
A banana cannot become a spider.
Fossils don't take millions of years to produce.
We turn to dirt and we aren't mostly like apes we have pieces from other creatures like horses and pigs.
realar 2 years ago
The theory doesnt assert that something came from nothing.
No, a banana cannot become a spider, because they are on two completely different branches on the evolutionary tree. Species dont mix. Especially not if they split branches long ago.
What does the process of making a fossil have to do with the theory of evolution? And was your point that therefore life could not have started millions of years ago? If so, I can tell you that fossils can wait for millions of years to be found.
Sjarke98 2 years ago
What does We turn to dirt mean?
We arent like apes? We are apes. We share face, hair, heart, brain, arms, legs, we sleep, we eat, we reproduce, we breastfeed our babies, we can die, we have emotions, we have a nerve system etc etc etc. I think wee have a lot in common with apes. Not to mention over 90 percent of DNA matching them perfectly.
I must tell you, that you dont know what the theory says. Suggesting that spiders should become bananas.
Sjarke98 2 years ago
@realar Why dont you write a bioligy text book. You seem to have views that differ from mainstream bioligists.
Botie2 1 year ago
@Botie2 There are books like that that are written in favor of more logical beginnings. Not all scientists believe in evolution, Dr. Dino is one example.
realar 1 year ago
I am sure in there are some scientist that would subscribe to creationism, I was talking about the other 99% of scientists.
Botie2 1 year ago
@Botie2 99% is too small, 90 sounds better.
realar 1 year ago
@realar very good. lets make up numbers. id say 94.72942% is more accurate.
Brotkrumen 1 year ago
@Brotkrumen Still evolution is a load of hooey.
realar 1 year ago
@realar Also wondering who debunked the theory? Most scientists have not been told.
Botie2 1 year ago
Thats why carbon dating is just one method used to date things, you should not be insulted because you show no intelligence to insult.
DenninQual 1 year ago
@DenninQual Oh shut up!
realar 1 year ago
@realar lol
DenninQual 1 year ago
No. No he didn't
DenninQual 1 year ago
@Sjarke98 Darwin was wrong. Gospel truth. God made man from dust and woman from his rib. At the same time he created a theme park called "Eden" with a talking snake and a deadly tree, realised he made a mistake and had to kill everything in a flood and started again. This time without the Dinosaurs. Isnt that a better theory than evolution?
Botie2 1 year ago
@Botie2 Thank you!! Yes exponentially, evolution is a big fat joke that makes me laugh.
realar 1 year ago
@Botie2 Not really. :) I hope your comment was meant as a joke. :P
Sjarke98 1 year ago
watch?v=daONxbSR9WE&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div
Your little claim=blown up
Hjernespreng 2 years ago