The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.
This video is claiming that we should not use our own brains to discover the truths of nature but entirely leave it up to the "word of God" (ie: Bible) to tell us everything, and that it is sinful to do otherwise.
This is the EXACT same mentality that kept the world in the dark ages for 1500 years.
When the invisible wizard in the sky decided to make animals, did he use a magic wand or some form of voodoo stick? Or was it just hand gestures with lightning coming out of his finger-tips?
When he did this miracle did he say "Alakazam!" or "Mapichubabu!" or some kind of dramatic incantation to mark the occassion? Or was he just silent the whole time?
Also, does this omnipresent magician dude talk to you inside your head?
Darwin's evolution proves all humans are the same !
@3:08 some truth, Evolution is regarded as a fact.
Then you lie about ''chance'' and the occult.
Evolution theory did not start with Darwin. People know evolution happened, they didn't have a mechanism. Darwin discovered the theory that showed how evolution, the process, happened.
wow have these people ever read a book? none of their scientific stuff is true, and even the parts that are almost true, are so skewed that it cant be taken seriously. Evolution is fact, it happens every day. Religion is the thing that doesnt have any basic foundations. in fact religion isnt a theory and it doesnt even really fit as a hypothesis. people watching this video trying to learn something are going to be disappointed. kent's an idiot and should have been left out. these people are dumb
I think there is some problems with the theory of evolution, and considering that many scientific ideas have been redrawn and rethought out I am going to keep my mind open, but I give this video a 1 star because of the isanely ignorant claims.
why is it that most Christians call the tree the "Tree of Knowledge"? It is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing in the bible says that knowledge is a bad thing, in fact quite the opposite, it continually praises wisdom.
5:06 lactoce tolerance, the ability to eat dairy products.
10% of europeans are imuned to HIV.
people with sicle cells are less likely to get malaria.
5:50 not possible due to the laws of evolution, and also, life did not originate from non organic material, like a rock, evolution does not state that, that isnt even evolution.
6:05 the big bang is not evolution, that is physics you dont have to believe in evolution to believe in the big bang.
so then that camera filming him is satanic, and the computer im watching it with is satanic. and then when they make progress in creationism "science", it is satanic?!?!?!?!
People who believe in evolution often say things like.... "how can you run a mile without taking small steps." to which I ask the question, "how can you watch someone take one step and then assume they are going to run a mile?"
Only problem is that you can't see the footsteps behind the person or in front of the person. You can only assume where they came from or where they are going, which might be hard to do...
Bollocks. I'm sick of fundamentalist views on what should and shouldn't believe, the smartest people on the planet believe in evolution, they even provide us with real proof and still when faced with this proof, fundamentalists condemn it because it wasn't written in a work of science fiction they call 'the bible'.
I can't believe how stupid this video is. Denying mainstream science for vodoo science. This can be more wrong. This is a perfect example of fundamentalist being willing to "lie for Jesus"
No... Its just a piece of b/s like any other creationist video, its just that this one is pathetic even when you stop to consider that it is a creationist vid. If this one was actually good then the number of fundies watching it would be enough to counter the evolutionists watching it (and evolutionists would watch it because they want to get both sides of the story instead of sitting in a little corner with ears and eyes covered; assuming theyre right, which is what fundies do).
This video is not a creationist video, It is a video on the the attitudes of the New Age Humanist Trans Eugenics philosophy which at its heart has the destruction of Christianity and humans for that matter. Even the U.N. backs this up as it has documents on its site saying that GAIA/Earth worship should be put ahead of mans self interests/survival, by force if necessary. Don't believe me, please. Check it out for yourself.
No Problem. Evolutionary theory will never be proven because we cant sit and wait long enough to see a bird turn into a frog or whatever. Animals adapt, they dont change into another animal over time, where are the millions of transistionals we should find ??? Where are the clear cut steps of one or all animals evolutionary processes. They don't exist, only in myth.
@Chumnah Evolution has been proven, seen and documanted in nature and in the lab. ''bird turn into a frog' is a big strawman argument. Evolution says> Dogs make dogs. Apes make apes. That is why humans are still apes. And all apes are still monkeys. And all monkeys are still primates. And all primates are still mammals. And all mammals are still tetrapods.
Single Cell to Man please. LOL and you will be the first ever to do this. Also I'd like the proof and evidence of what was before the single celled organism and its evolutionary steps from chemical to fully functional workable single celled organism.
"Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids."
Science has gone a long was to explaining this (even though it is totally unrelated to evolution).
Let me get thuis straight: you think that an invisible magician in the sky got some clay, moulded it into an animal, then one day said "Ala Kazam!", lightning came out of his fingers, and a squirrel monkey appeared.
"Where where where...?" Chill, Grant, you shoulda peed before we left the house. HUMANS MADE FROM DIRT: Genesis 2:7 the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground Genesis 3:19 "..you return to the ground from which you were made. For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return. Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20 man has no advantage over the beasts... All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man came from the dust of the earth
Well the argument about humans coming from dirt is simply hipocritical because you believe in spontanious generation except from you view it can happen by chance and it is an interseting fact that dust comes from skin.
"Well the argument about humans coming from dirt is simply hipocritical " Look up the word "hypocritical", both the spelling and the definition. The bible says humans are made from dirt. Or that man was made from dirt and woman from his rib. Take your pick. Science tells us that the ocean is the womb of life on earth. As neither of us was there to observe the process, let's look and see what humans are really made of: Hmmm... Nearly all salt water and a few minerals. Sea water.
"...it is an interseting fact that dust comes from skin"
A vanishing fraction of typical household dust is formed of human skin. This is a common, and fallacious, urban myth. The dust that god is alleged to have made Adam from wasn't, of course, household dust at all, and as such would have been more like fine sand, which is fragmented rock, or dry and powdered soil. So, the biblical myth about creation is that man was made from rock and dirt.
I'm fourteen and the reason I said 'I would certaintlly imagine that is because I can admit I may be wrong rather than lying claiming my view is 100% true, people make misinterpretations of what the Bible really says!
SUN REVOLVES AROUND EARTH: The Bible says "The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to his place where it rose." Ecclesiastes 1:5 It says "the sun stood still" and "the shadow of the sun moved back ten degrees" and then it says THAT means the sun went UP by ten degrees. 2 Kings 20:9 - 11 It says "O sun, stand still over Gibeon..." The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. Joshua 10:12, 13 Psalm 19:4-6 describes the sun's circuit.
Creation story sequence: God makes Adam (v7) and then god makes plants (v9) and then god takes Adam and plunks him down in the middle of this "garden." (v15) And God thought he looked a bit lonely so he made EVERY animal (v19) and brought them to Adam to see if he'd like one for a wife. (!) But Adam wasn't satisfied with a mercat or a Komodo dragon (v20) so finally god made Eve (v22) and they all lived... Genesis chapter 2. As opposed to chapter 1. It's a direct contradiction.
@amore101 No, the people with a science backgroung and an education, vote this crap down. Most scientists accept God, all of them accept evolution happened.
and people say evolution is bad because it 'lowers' humans to the level of other animals
I'm glad you pointed that out because saying we are below animals because god for some reason made humans sinful is worse than saying we are animals! Thanks again for that I'll use it whenever someone says evolution lowers the status of humans!
Yes, let me guess you preffer there just happened to be an all might invisable sky daddy who did it , offcourse the one you where taught to believe is real.
Which of the 10,000's of gods is the real one, offcourse you know the one you where told to believe in is it. Evryone one else knows theirs is right and yours is fake.
So you just haoppneed to be lucky enought to be told to believe in the real god, and not a fake? LOL sure you did!
Oh My God! This clown knows nothing of evolutionary theory. Back when this was made, "super bacteria" really did to poorly when introduced back in the non-resistant population, but now they have evolved and are able to withstand the completion from the original bacteria.
Easy - same old crap the religious fanatics have been pulling for millennium. You see, they cannot argue against the truthfulness of evolution - all of their arguments are based on their ignorance of the theory rather then the theory itself.
So instead they've fallen back on their usual tactics - trying to demonize the theory and its adherents.
You think they would have learned after Galileo...
Everybody loves to fuck a good hole. Since religious types don't believe in sex, the best they can do to quell the unnatural an satanic desire to have an orgasm is try to find as many holes in evolutionary theory as they can and then try to fuck them as hard as they can.
But they do have very strong evidence. Its called the Bible and it was written by God on his God Computer. His Computer interfaces directly with The Matr... Er, I mean the fabric of space-time. This allows him to perform miracles for those who have the most XP... Er, I mean tithe the most to Pat Robertson. Those who don't believe get dragged and dropped to the Recycle Bi... Er, I mean Hell for an eternity of agony and pitch forks up there asses.
I fail to see why you're brining up these questions - they are irrelevant in any discussion of evolution, as none of them have anything to do with the theory. Regardless...
"world is overpopulated"
Yes and no. With our current technology it is; but we have the technological capacity to overcome that.
Honestly, I don't care. Social darwinism has nothing to do with evol.
"views on Abortion"
I don't like it, but I don't think my dislike of it is grounds to deny it to others.
"Euthanasia...Governments"
I support the legalization of euthanaisa, however it should be regulated such that only the patient (or if they're permanently incapacitated, their legal guardian) can make that decision.
And I think last tally was, and after some careful google searching im sure ill find the updated specifics on this, that roughly 50% of scientists are "Darwinian" evolutionists.
It would be far less then that. While Darwin was right about ab sic concepts, he didn't know a lot of the details (i.e. he didn't know genes existed). Modern scientists (i.e. those who've been scientists since the 1950's) are "new synthesists".
BTW, the "new synthesis" is modern evolutionary theory.
"We don't. Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc are used to date fosils. C14 can only date organic materials, and given its half-life of ~5700 years its useless for anything older then ~90,000YA."
I can show you hundreds of examples of the news and other programs of "carbon-14" being used to "date" stuff, and all the other forms of dating you mentioned all rely on the geologic column made up by a Lawyer, Charles Lyall, in the 1800's. The GC, the way Lyall theorized it, does not exist.
Maybe try reading what I write before you reply - I never said that C14 couldn't be used to date things.
The fact that you can't grasp this rather obvious concept is pretty much proof that not only are you scientifically illiterate, but that you also lack the necessary intellectual capacity to grasp the concept.
Wow, way to prove to everyone here you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Radiodating, C14, Ur-Pb, or any other form, DOES NOT DEPEND on geological substrata.
The simple fact you believe otherwise should be proof to yourself that you are completely clueless as to anything in regards to this subject. Maybe you need to educate yourself a little before you comment on stuff like this...
"Macroevol is simply microevol compounded over multiple generations. Nothing more, so therefore do you believe in macro as well."
Sir - you assumed it happened, you dont "observe" it, as science calls for, we have never got a non dog from a dog, or a non bacteria from a bacteria, you hope it happens, and all the examples of this are very circumstantial.
Actually, we have observed it; both in nature and in the lab. Perhaps you should read a book on the subject - that macroevolutionary events such as speciation occur is a matter of fact - and first observed in 1905.
Maybe you should educate yourself on the matter before you try and dictate what I have, and have not, seen.
You have observed Nothing and you know it. Im not asking when you observed it, but a clear cut example of what species/kind change from one to another would be great.
Hmm, 2000+ reported speciation events. Large morphological changes. 20-30% change in genomic coding. New biochemical pathways. All observed. All BIG changes. All macro.
"as science calls for, we have never got a non dog from a dog"
Actually, evol theory specifically dictates that this will not happen. Like gives rise to like, and whatnot. Maybe you should try and understand the theory before you argue against it.
And you think there is world scientific consensus on that data ?? Hardly. And evo does claim to get non dogs from dods, or non bacteria from bacteria, You want a billion video examples of this.
And if this aint the case, then someones wrong, and its either you or the Discovery channel.
No, it doesn't. Evol specifically states that to get a non-dog from a dog requires multiple generations, each one of which is slightly different from its parent generation. Only over thousands+ of generations do you get the degree of change required to get a non-dog from a dog.
Sorry, I mis-interpreted your comment. Many anti-evols always make the claim "dogs don't give birth to elephants", etc, as if that was some sort of proof against evol. I interpreted your comment as being along those lines.
Dogs can give rise to non-dogs; given sufficient time. But it occurs over many generations, with each generation being slightly different from the preceding generation.
"Dogs can give rise to non-dogs; given sufficient time. But it occurs over many generations, with each generation being slightly different from the preceding generation." - Never Been "Observed" like science demands.. you hope it happens. Just like a Rock formed life billions of years ago.
As I've pointed out to you at least a dozen times, it HAS BEEN OBSREVED. There are over 2000 recorded incidence of speciation in the scientific literature; nearly all of which occurred through such a multi-generational process.
Just because you ignore that data does not mean it doesn't exists.
Gravity is also a theory. you believe there is gravity correct? it is a theory but it is accepted with almost all scientists because of the amount of proof. god is not proven, its not even considered a scientific theory because it cant be tested. yet you still believe in god?
Science is a concept conceived by mans finite brain to describe and attempt to understand his surroundings. How do we even know what the brain perceives is 'reality' ?? There is no spoon.
Scientific Dogma on a theory that is in constant refinement and tuning that you cant get right even after 150yrs plus and the rest.. And got off to a totally false and deceptive beginning.
I believe in micro evolution, loss in information that makes a slight change or adaption.... but not a gain in information.... like the evos imply and rely on. Show me some examples of a gain in information, where NEW DNA instruction sets are made through successive Natural Selection representations.
Also, you didn't explain the c14 equilibrium that Hovind brings up.
Macroevol is simply microevol compounded over multiple generations. Nothing more, so therefore do you believe in macro as well.
"Show me some examples of a gain in information"
Youtube's got some new url filtering, so I cannot post the links in the usual manner. talkorigins dot org has several articles which review this subject, including dozens of examples of what you asked for.
Kings and elite have been into breeding for centuries, No doubt. And the throwbacks from their cross breeding is well documented, but when evo theory started hitting the scene, it was married into eugenics theory/philosophy for them, and they even admit and believe, they are a new "SUB SPECIES". Key philosophers such as Malthus, Marx, Huxley, Sanger, Hitler and the American Eugenisits.....
Which, as I pointed out, ahs absoutly f*ck all to do with evol.
As for the rest of it, none of it has anything to do with evol. Just because some people are too stupid to understand evol, misunderstand what the thoery states, and draw wrong conclusions from the thoeory, has absolutly no bearance on the accurasy or truefulness of the thoery itself.
c14 levels in a decaying fossil are not used for dating ?? Why does science trumpet carbon 14 on the news for "DATES" on fossils and other relics they pull up from the ground ?? ARE THEY WRONG OR DECEPTIVE ACCORDING TO YOU.
"Why does science trumpet carbon 14 on the news for "DATES" on fossils"
We don't. Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc are used to date fosils. C14 can only date organic materials, and given its half-life of ~5700 years its useless for anything older then ~90,000YA.
With piltdown, People never sought to check Dawsons and Teilhards backgrounds, and most of his finds were under lock and key as well so, checking for filing down of certain key areas, which should have been detected with a common microscope quite easily.. Has nothing to do with mass-spec, TL chromatography.
LOL another thing comes to mind Warthog.. You say dating was the reason piltdown was proved a fake eventually, based say on what was said in the Disc vid, but dating has nothing to do with detecting tea stains and carved down bones ? even that clip is deceptive.
"You say dating was the reason piltdown was proved a fake eventually"
It was the final nail in the coffin. Numerous doubts had been raised before then.
"with detecting tea stains"
To *prove* a stain is a tea stain, and not oxidation, requires technology like mass-spec, TL chromatography, etc. None of which existed until after piltdown was proven a fraud.
Founder of UNESCO, evolutionist and Humanist, Julian Huxley wrote of "The Crowded World" in his Evolutionary Humanism (1964), calling for a World Population Policy. Huxley was openly critical of Communist and Roman Catholic attitudes to birth control , population control and overpopulation.
Actually, evolutionary theory clearly demonstrates that any attempts at eugenics will be futile - there is no way to get a "pure" breed; mutation prevents it. And a "pure" breed is bad - a guaranteed way to go extinct.
Once again, you need to learn a little about what you're arguing against - you're just making yourself look dumber & dumber...
You see, it is comments like this that prove to all of us that you, honvid, and the rest of your ilk are completely ignorent of anything in regards to evolution, paleontology, or science in general.
Here's a hint - C14 dating IS NOT, let me repeat that in case you missed it, IS NOT used to date rocks, fossil, or geological strata.
Maybe you should educate yourself before making comments like these - you just look stupid when you make incorrect comments like these
Ok from all that psycho bable, are you denying that piltdown was an orang-o-tang jaw bone or not, as shown in the Discovery Science piece and the Megiddo Piece ??
You mean the accurate description of how science works? As for your question, no, I am not arguing that the jaw was not orangutan - that is exactly what it was. But don't forget - prior to piltdown there were only two known non-human hominids, so there wasn't much to compare to. Hence why it took so long to show piltdown a fraud - it wasn't until multiple hominids were identified, and dating techniques perfected, that we were able to *prove* it a fraud.
The 2 new vids i put up are from a proponent of the Evo theory, good ol Discovery Science, showing the FRAUD and deception used with this whole piltdown story.
Total Fraud and this is mainstream media. I got BBC and a few other that describe the Piltdown event as a hoax and a fraud. Want those too.
Only by a small group of individuals. You see, the thing about science is we cannot, indeed must not, reject a finding because we don't like it. Instead we have to accept *any and all* scientific findings, as they are reported.
So unlike you, we actually demand proof something is incorrect. In the case of piltdown eventually enough proof was found to disprove the original information as it was presented.
Piltdown - not a hoax, but rather a misinterpretation of a fossil. Later corrected BY SCIENTISTS as new data came available. You sure your gonna stand by that ??
"it was a singularity of energy." you can prove this??"
Well, unlike god there is physical evidence for the big bang and the singularity it was derived from - the expantion of the universe, microwave background, etc, all point towards an expanding singularity as the source of the universe.
Piltdown..... TOTAL FRAUD, but led evolutionists astray for 40yrs.... and was just brushed aside when exposed and they moved on, like nothing happened.
Lyall and his geologic column, total fraud, and lastly, why are there still big evo mistakes in the text books. Like even i was taught in the early 90's that the human embryo has gills, and thats total lies. Yet its still promoted.
Last one, Why is it that when ya look back at the pioneers or progenitors of the evo theory, Fraud and lies accompanies them. Piltdown Hoax with Dawson and Theilhard, the multi stage embryo with gills, all proven wrong YET still taught on schools. Lyall and his stupid fraudulent geological column.
Piltdown - not a hoax, but rather a misinterpretation of a fossil. Later corrected BY SCIENTISTS as new data came available.
"multi stage embryo with gills"
Which has no relationship to evol what-so-ever. And completely understandable since gill-like features do form during the formation of many vertebrate embryos.
Not in any school I've heard of. And having been formally trained in embryology I can say with absolute certainty that its not taught at the university level; except where the embryos do, in fact form gills.
"Lyall...fraudulent"
Only in your mind. Of course you've not provided any evidence the geological column is wrong...
"imply that we come from apes or evolved from apes"
Not an implication, its a fact. Physiology, biochemistry, genetics, shared pathogens, fossils, etc all scream that fact at us.
Man the Hubris shown here by you is astonishing....
You assured me at the start of all this that evo is still a theory YET its a total FACT that man came from apes..... Your wrong on this my friend, there is no evidence of that, its all speculation.
There is only no evidence if you choose to ignore the scientific findings of the past 150 years. If you'd ever bothered to read a textbook on the subject you'd be well aware of just how much evidence there is.
But like most creationists you assume that because you're ignorant of that data, that the data itself doesn't exist.
"All your explaining here is micro evolution, or adaption. NOT macro evolution"
Microevol, macroevol and adaption are all the same thing; the only difference between them being time. From an evolutionary point of view there is no difference between them; we simply use those terms to apply scale to the changes.
Stellar evolution is how stars (not their planets) change over time, as they consume their fuel. Planetary evolution is a term you invented, but I see what you're talking about.
Regardless, neither of those have anything to do with biological evolution, aside from providing a planet for it to happen on, and a star for energy.
Look around you. Then consider the first life was a single-celled organism simpler then todays bacteria, and everything you see today is descended from that. That's how "broad" it is.
There is no such thing as a "SIMPLE CELL" they are all complex, and each component relies on each other and could not have come about by successive improvements and changes like the evos theorize.
Sure there is. Comapred to our cells, bacteria are simple. Compared to bacteria the early life was also simple.
"each component relies on each other...evos theorize"
Actually, irreproducible complexity is both predicted and expected by evol - contrary to the claims of IDists. Maybe you should actually read up on this stuff before you try to argue it
Why is it that all of TV (examples: Nat Geo/Discovery) and i can show millions of examples of this, imply that we come from apes or evolved from apes and tie that all into planetary evolution and the magic spark of life on earth and portray it as fact when its not.
How broad a term is that? You ask the lay man what they think evolution is and they will say man came from apes, animals changing from one form to another. Its a buzz word that uses broad brush strokes to describe a whole range of theory's, all which rely on each other to work.
Look around you. Then consider the first life was a single-celled organism simpler then todays bacteria, and everything you see today is descended from that. That's how "broad" it is.
"...to describe a whole range of theory's"
Actually, evolution refers to an observable phenomena. "Evolutionary theory" refers to a single scientific theory which explains what evolution (the phenomena) is, and why/how it occurs.
Why do text books from school still say that billions of years ago the big bang happened, the universe evolved, the galaxies evolved and then planets then earth and life as we know it today, evolved.
1) Because those conclusions are based on firm scientific theories, which in turn are based on strong experimental and observational data.
2) Because the authors are trying to put various scientific theories together in such a way as to describe the formation of the universe, our solar system, our planet, and life, in a manner which is both linear and easy to follow.
Ok, Just quickly (LOL at work)This video/upload was about using evolution for justification for eugenics/genocide/humanism/socialism and all the other isms that kill.....
Tax evasion for the Income tax is a protest against the criminal IRS... Thats all his in jail for. A NON CRIME. And no i will not go away...... Life came from a rock AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH show me one test in the lab that shows proof of concept for this "theory"
"one test in the lab that shows proof of concept "
As for experiments which demonstrate the process scientists think occurred, there are literally thousands of scientific papers to choose from. Rather then providing you with a few select papers, I'll empower you to find the info yourself - search for the following terms:
Yeah, great debating skills..... Attack any strawman weak point... And this whole Kent Hovind is a criminal angle thats posted here is wrong. He was convicted of tax evaision, just like the browns right now in plainfield NH.. Check out my vid response...
You cant have your cake and eat it too. I think it is legitimate to call these evo freaks out and say, well your theory does boil down to spontaneous life from nothing.. Cosmic evolution is just as much part of animal evolution and you cant have one without the other.
Who cares what you think is legitimate? Hell, you're too damn stupid to know the difference between "it's" and "its". You're just another dimwit Creationist who doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Go away.
"I think it is legitimate to call these evo freaks out and say, well your theory does boil down to spontaneous life from nothing"
But when you do all you prove is your own stupidity. Evolution is about how LIFE CHANGES; and has absolutely nothing to do with how life came about. How life arose is a scientific discipline called abiogenesis, and is a completely difference area of research, ruled by separate and different scientific theories and hypothesi.
Desertphile, are you serious, the ammount of dblspeak in your video response is astounding. (you should work for fox) Did you watch the follow up videos how it mentions Fred Hoyle and Michael Behe amongst others that oppose evolution, big bang and the whole chance concept ?
You may want to look closer at Behe's beliefs - he doesn't believe what you want him to. He believes in the big bang, that the earth formed from acreating matter, and even that life has evolved. His only disagreement with scientific dogma is that he thinks a creator guided the whole process.
Do we come from a rock ??? billions of years ago ??
Like is there any detailed charts or scientific detailing of the nothing that made the big bang to the nothing that made the rock(earth) to make ME today ??
The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
ROFL
This video is claiming that we should not use our own brains to discover the truths of nature but entirely leave it up to the "word of God" (ie: Bible) to tell us everything, and that it is sinful to do otherwise.
This is the EXACT same mentality that kept the world in the dark ages for 1500 years.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
Question for all the creationists:
When the invisible wizard in the sky decided to make animals, did he use a magic wand or some form of voodoo stick? Or was it just hand gestures with lightning coming out of his finger-tips?
When he did this miracle did he say "Alakazam!" or "Mapichubabu!" or some kind of dramatic incantation to mark the occassion? Or was he just silent the whole time?
Also, does this omnipresent magician dude talk to you inside your head?
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 invisible wizard? lol are you talking to christians or hindus?
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
New Age Humanist Trans Eugenics philosophy
.
What does that mean in secular English?
Darwin's evolution proves all humans are the same !
@3:08 some truth, Evolution is regarded as a fact.
Then you lie about ''chance'' and the occult.
Evolution theory did not start with Darwin. People know evolution happened, they didn't have a mechanism. Darwin discovered the theory that showed how evolution, the process, happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
wow have these people ever read a book? none of their scientific stuff is true, and even the parts that are almost true, are so skewed that it cant be taken seriously. Evolution is fact, it happens every day. Religion is the thing that doesnt have any basic foundations. in fact religion isnt a theory and it doesnt even really fit as a hypothesis. people watching this video trying to learn something are going to be disappointed. kent's an idiot and should have been left out. these people are dumb
soundmindwar 1 year ago
@soundmindwar quit calling evolution a fact when evolution is only A HISTORICAL SCIENCE (idiot)
OldaurGold 2 months ago
hey! he's mentioning words like "divine" and "in the beginning" and "revelations" in regular non-religious speech! let's hear what he has to say.
Jefferson High is our rival.
mixmedia101 1 year ago
Kent Hovind is used as reference in this video. 'Nuf said.
chantervz 1 year ago 2
Evolution says>>> and then they fuck it up !
gregrutz 1 year ago
I think there is some problems with the theory of evolution, and considering that many scientific ideas have been redrawn and rethought out I am going to keep my mind open, but I give this video a 1 star because of the isanely ignorant claims.
delbert0504 2 years ago
all were true
dillondoty 2 years ago
why is it that most Christians call the tree the "Tree of Knowledge"? It is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing in the bible says that knowledge is a bad thing, in fact quite the opposite, it continually praises wisdom.
delbert0504 2 years ago
6:22 it was an expansion of space time. this book is a GENERAL middleschool text book from 1997.
-the earth was not formed in the big bang, it was formed from dust circling the sun
-it was not "rained on" we believe the water came from many asteroid impacts over time.
the fact that something is complex is not evidence for a creator, NewYork is very complex, but still, was not made by one man, or rulled by one.
exugoareo 2 years ago 2
5:06 lactoce tolerance, the ability to eat dairy products.
10% of europeans are imuned to HIV.
people with sicle cells are less likely to get malaria.
5:50 not possible due to the laws of evolution, and also, life did not originate from non organic material, like a rock, evolution does not state that, that isnt even evolution.
6:05 the big bang is not evolution, that is physics you dont have to believe in evolution to believe in the big bang.
exugoareo 2 years ago 2
WAIT, hovind is responsible for most of the progress in creation "science", that means he MAKES progress, there for Hent Hovind is SATAN!!!!!!!!
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#/0 !!!!!!!!!!!
exugoareo 2 years ago
4:05
so progress is satanic?
so then that camera filming him is satanic, and the computer im watching it with is satanic. and then when they make progress in creationism "science", it is satanic?!?!?!?!
exugoareo 2 years ago
what a load of shite
markwhelton1 2 years ago
People who believe in evolution often say things like.... "how can you run a mile without taking small steps." to which I ask the question, "how can you watch someone take one step and then assume they are going to run a mile?"
kerwinmatt 2 years ago
then i ask you: how can you watch someone with one mile of footstepsa behind him and then assume he did not walk a mile by taking small steps
Muvlonion 2 years ago
Only problem is that you can't see the footsteps behind the person or in front of the person. You can only assume where they came from or where they are going, which might be hard to do...
kerwinmatt 2 years ago
I just read the Amazon previews of Ray Comfort's new book
You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think.
Have a look; you won't believe your eyes!
Comfort thinks that according to evolution,
man and woman evolved separately but simultaneously,
water evolved just in time for them to drink it,
and that gravity evolved just in time to hold them to the earth!
It's really the most astounding drivel I've ever seen.
Have a look!
Better yet, write a review!
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Yup! VFX is Hovind's one and only favourite lover!
Perrine234 2 years ago
Bollocks. I'm sick of fundamentalist views on what should and shouldn't believe, the smartest people on the planet believe in evolution, they even provide us with real proof and still when faced with this proof, fundamentalists condemn it because it wasn't written in a work of science fiction they call 'the bible'.
theenforcer57 2 years ago
Has it ever occurred to Dr. Hovind to wonder why he can (presumably) consume milk products?
Calligraphist 3 years ago
I can't believe how stupid this video is. Denying mainstream science for vodoo science. This can be more wrong. This is a perfect example of fundamentalist being willing to "lie for Jesus"
Cuffsmaster 3 years ago
Kent Hovind didn't even bother to check his facts on Egyptian mythology so I really doubt anything else he says.
kenwen4 3 years ago
I know this is a good creationist video because of the atheists giving it a low rating. Thank you chumnah!!!!
amore101 3 years ago
@amore101
LOL!
No... Its just a piece of b/s like any other creationist video, its just that this one is pathetic even when you stop to consider that it is a creationist vid. If this one was actually good then the number of fundies watching it would be enough to counter the evolutionists watching it (and evolutionists would watch it because they want to get both sides of the story instead of sitting in a little corner with ears and eyes covered; assuming theyre right, which is what fundies do).
caveantnumeri 3 years ago
This video is not a creationist video, It is a video on the the attitudes of the New Age Humanist Trans Eugenics philosophy which at its heart has the destruction of Christianity and humans for that matter. Even the U.N. backs this up as it has documents on its site saying that GAIA/Earth worship should be put ahead of mans self interests/survival, by force if necessary. Don't believe me, please. Check it out for yourself.
Chumnah 2 years ago
No Problem. Evolutionary theory will never be proven because we cant sit and wait long enough to see a bird turn into a frog or whatever. Animals adapt, they dont change into another animal over time, where are the millions of transistionals we should find ??? Where are the clear cut steps of one or all animals evolutionary processes. They don't exist, only in myth.
Chumnah 2 years ago
@Chumnah No, a bird will never turn into a frog, the would violate the Law of Evolution. They found all the transistional fossils.
gregrutz 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Chumnah
"where are the millions of transistionals we should find"
There are many thousands of transitonal fossils showing very clearly the steps of evolution.
Name an evolutionary step and I will list the fossils proving it.
Just because you put your head under a pillow and deny something exists doesn't change the fact that they do.
Do some research instead of living in ignorance, you might surprise yourself.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234
Single Cell to Man please. LOL and you will be the first ever to do this. Also I'd like the proof and evidence of what was before the single celled organism and its evolutionary steps from chemical to fully functional workable single celled organism.
Another case of Santa Syndrome.
Chumnah 1 year ago
"Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids."
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 stop getting into atheist talk idiot
OldaurGold 2 months ago
@Chumnah
Science has gone a long was to explaining this (even though it is totally unrelated to evolution).
Let me get thuis straight: you think that an invisible magician in the sky got some clay, moulded it into an animal, then one day said "Ala Kazam!", lightning came out of his fingers, and a squirrel monkey appeared.
You belong in a mental hospital.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@Chumnah
I will say it again: name an evolutionary step and I will show you the transitionary fossils.
Common, I dare you.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
The Bible says that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes and donkeys talk.
And that insects have 4 legs.
And that bats are birds.
And that the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that Pi = 3 (rather than 3.1416...)
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
This is a better source of information
than the careful collection and examination of data?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Where where where where where where?
grantapuslafsalot 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Well the argument about humans coming from dirt is simply hipocritical because you believe in spontanious generation except from you view it can happen by chance and it is an interseting fact that dust comes from skin.
grantapuslafsalot 2 years ago 3
FLAT EARTH IN THE BIBLE:
Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a CIRCLE (Hebrew CHUWG).
(DURE is Old Hebrew for "sphere", but Isaiah used CHUWG)
Daniel 4:10-11a tree that is as tall as the heavens
can be seen from everywhere on the earth
Matthew 4:8 has Jesus viewing the whole earth from a tall mountain.
Revelation 1:7 says every eye will see Jesus coming in the clouds.
Daniel, Matthew, and Revelation all require a flat earth.
Well, either flat or bowl-shaped.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
"...it is an interseting fact that dust comes from skin"
A vanishing fraction of typical household dust is formed of human skin. This is a common, and fallacious, urban myth. The dust that god is alleged to have made Adam from wasn't, of course, household dust at all, and as such would have been more like fine sand, which is fragmented rock, or dry and powdered soil. So, the biblical myth about creation is that man was made from rock and dirt.
stalwartatheist 2 years ago
@grantapuslafsalot No, skin come from dust, read your bible.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@grantapuslafsalot ''humans coming from dirt'',
You are talking about creationism, right?
Abiogenesis is not spontanious generation.
Only bible packers think, poof, all came from nothing.
gregrutz 1 year ago
TALKING SNAKE: "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
Genesis 3:1 - 6
TALKING DONKEY:
The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?"
"No," he said.
Numbers 22:28 - 30
INSECTS HAVE 4 LEGS
Leviticus 11:20-23
"every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four;
the locust..the beetle..and the grasshopper"
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
If a dog said ''I'm hungry'' does it literally speak, I normally tell by the way it acts.
grantapuslafsalot 2 years ago
"If a dog said ''I'm hungry'' does it literally speak"
Yes, if it LITERALLY said those words with intent and understanding, that would be speech.
In the examples which I *quoted* and *documented*
the animals actually did speak.
I challenge the truth of this record.
Now you can either demonstrate that I am misquoting or misinterpreting the text,
or that donkeys and snakes actually use human speech.
Either will do.
Otherwise, it's a lie in the Bible.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Animals have signs of showing people things without even speaking by the way.
grantapuslafsalot 2 years ago
BATS ARE BIRDS
Leviticus 11:13-19
"among the birds; the eagle, the owl, the bat"
Pi = 3 rather than 3.1415...
1 Kings 7:23
Circumference of 30 cubits,
diameter of 10 cubits,
therefore Pi = 3.00 rather than 3.1415...
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
I would certaintly imagine that 6000 years ago bats may have been defined as birds.
grantapuslafsalot 2 years ago
"I would certainly imagine that ..."
Grant, I know you're just 12,
so let me explain how adult discussion works:
I offered some assertions about what the Bible says.
If you think I'm wrong you could offer evidence or documentation to refute me.
Or you could courteously ask me for MY evidence.
I gave mine, though your courtesy was lacking.
Now you should either show that the Bile does NOT say these things
or else show that these things are true.
Your imagination is neither relevant nor evidence.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
I'm fourteen and the reason I said 'I would certaintlly imagine that is because I can admit I may be wrong rather than lying claiming my view is 100% true, people make misinterpretations of what the Bible really says!
grantapuslafsalot 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
@amore101 No, the people with a science backgroung and an education, vote this crap down. Most scientists accept God, all of them accept evolution happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Ah hate to point out god made humans sinfull, animals dont sin, only humans!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
xD
and people say evolution is bad because it 'lowers' humans to the level of other animals
I'm glad you pointed that out because saying we are below animals because god for some reason made humans sinful is worse than saying we are animals! Thanks again for that I'll use it whenever someone says evolution lowers the status of humans!
xD
caveantnumeri 3 years ago
We need to understand that we have divine origins, and we shall return to the divine state after we leave this body.
Evolutionism is so dangerous because it takes away our divine nature and says we are only animals. What a sad belief system.
NephiRises 4 years ago
Where are the facts that support us having divine origins?
Also science, or any scientific theory, have anything to do with any form of a belief system.
Goto wikipedia and read the article on scientific method.
Shevar83 4 years ago
How do we have laws of science in the first place? You think this complex universe just happened to be built this way from chance?
dontopentildd 3 years ago
Yes, let me guess you preffer there just happened to be an all might invisable sky daddy who did it , offcourse the one you where taught to believe is real.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
MOFUCCA WIKI
amore101 3 years ago
Which of the 10,000's of gods is the real one, offcourse you know the one you where told to believe in is it. Evryone one else knows theirs is right and yours is fake.
So you just haoppneed to be lucky enought to be told to believe in the real god, and not a fake? LOL sure you did!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago 4
If you are wrong just remeber this:
Zeus will not allow you to have eternal bliss in Elysium
Vishnu will not give you liberation from Samsara
Jehova/Yaweh/Allah will make you suffer in hell for eternity
Pluto will keep you in the gloomy underworld
Thor will never let you enter Valhalla
Buddha will not let you achieve enlightenment
The Four Armed Elephant, person, thing, will..... I actually have no clue what he is going to do, but it can't be good.
xD, post this elsewhere. LOL
caveantnumeri 3 years ago
True, but christianas KNOW their pretend god is the real one so they are not worried (Not rational)
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
its right there !
Chumnah 4 years ago
part 2 ????
WhiteHandHunter 4 years ago
Oh My God! This clown knows nothing of evolutionary theory. Back when this was made, "super bacteria" really did to poorly when introduced back in the non-resistant population, but now they have evolved and are able to withstand the completion from the original bacteria.
This myth is totally busted!
FlowCell 4 years ago
what the hell was this video about?
badmudda 4 years ago
Easy - same old crap the religious fanatics have been pulling for millennium. You see, they cannot argue against the truthfulness of evolution - all of their arguments are based on their ignorance of the theory rather then the theory itself.
So instead they've fallen back on their usual tactics - trying to demonize the theory and its adherents.
You think they would have learned after Galileo...
Warthaug 4 years ago
ive noticed they try to poke holes in evolution,rather than try to find some actual evidence for creation
badmudda 4 years ago
Of course. Finding "holes" in something real is a lot easier then finding evidence for something that did not occur.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Hence the name Holy books. That's all to it, they just got too many holes in them.
ariakokoschka 4 years ago
Everybody loves to fuck a good hole. Since religious types don't believe in sex, the best they can do to quell the unnatural an satanic desire to have an orgasm is try to find as many holes in evolutionary theory as they can and then try to fuck them as hard as they can.
FlowCell 4 years ago
But they do have very strong evidence. Its called the Bible and it was written by God on his God Computer. His Computer interfaces directly with The Matr... Er, I mean the fabric of space-time. This allows him to perform miracles for those who have the most XP... Er, I mean tithe the most to Pat Robertson. Those who don't believe get dragged and dropped to the Recycle Bi... Er, I mean Hell for an eternity of agony and pitch forks up there asses.
FlowCell 4 years ago
"world is overpopulated"
Yes and no. With our current technology it is; but we have the technological capacity to overcome that.
So benevolent genocide like the UN calls for in its own policy papers, thats the kinda technology you are talking about here ??
"man made climate change is real"
Yes, without reservation. ----
LOL, You should watch the "Great Global Warming Swindle" and get a second opinion..
Chumnah 4 years ago
"I named 2 animals - drosophila & rock wallaby"
yeah and you still have a fly and a rock wallaby, these are not examples of evolution, this is quite silly.
Chumnah 4 years ago
Questions for Warthog.
1. Do you think the world is overpopulated ?
2. Do you think man made climate change is real ?
3. Do you think its ok for business and industry, even government to base their philosophies and strategies on social dariwnist principles.
4. What are your views on Abortion. Right or Wrong or just a choice ?
5. And lastly, Euthanasia ! Is it all right if the Governments regulate and administer this practice ?
Pretty straight forward.
Chumnah 4 years ago
I fail to see why you're brining up these questions - they are irrelevant in any discussion of evolution, as none of them have anything to do with the theory. Regardless...
"world is overpopulated"
Yes and no. With our current technology it is; but we have the technological capacity to overcome that.
"man made climate change is real"
Yes, without reservation.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Cont.
"social dariwnist principles"
Honestly, I don't care. Social darwinism has nothing to do with evol.
"views on Abortion"
I don't like it, but I don't think my dislike of it is grounds to deny it to others.
"Euthanasia...Governments"
I support the legalization of euthanaisa, however it should be regulated such that only the patient (or if they're permanently incapacitated, their legal guardian) can make that decision.
Warthaug 4 years ago
And I think last tally was, and after some careful google searching im sure ill find the updated specifics on this, that roughly 50% of scientists are "Darwinian" evolutionists.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"50% of scientists are "Darwinian" evolutionists"
It would be far less then that. While Darwin was right about ab sic concepts, he didn't know a lot of the details (i.e. he didn't know genes existed). Modern scientists (i.e. those who've been scientists since the 1950's) are "new synthesists".
BTW, the "new synthesis" is modern evolutionary theory.
Warthaug 4 years ago
BTW I am trying to reply to ya individual statements, with the reply button under the comments, but they just don't want to work.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"We don't. Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc are used to date fosils. C14 can only date organic materials, and given its half-life of ~5700 years its useless for anything older then ~90,000YA."
I can show you hundreds of examples of the news and other programs of "carbon-14" being used to "date" stuff, and all the other forms of dating you mentioned all rely on the geologic column made up by a Lawyer, Charles Lyall, in the 1800's. The GC, the way Lyall theorized it, does not exist.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"I can show you hundreds"
Maybe try reading what I write before you reply - I never said that C14 couldn't be used to date things.
The fact that you can't grasp this rather obvious concept is pretty much proof that not only are you scientifically illiterate, but that you also lack the necessary intellectual capacity to grasp the concept.
Warthaug 4 years ago
"all the other forms...rely...geologic...Lyall"
Wow, way to prove to everyone here you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Radiodating, C14, Ur-Pb, or any other form, DOES NOT DEPEND on geological substrata.
The simple fact you believe otherwise should be proof to yourself that you are completely clueless as to anything in regards to this subject. Maybe you need to educate yourself a little before you comment on stuff like this...
Warthaug 4 years ago
I got a vid for you on that one LOL !!
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Macroevol is simply microevol compounded over multiple generations. Nothing more, so therefore do you believe in macro as well."
Sir - you assumed it happened, you dont "observe" it, as science calls for, we have never got a non dog from a dog, or a non bacteria from a bacteria, you hope it happens, and all the examples of this are very circumstantial.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"you assumed it happened, you dont "observe" it"
Actually, we have observed it; both in nature and in the lab. Perhaps you should read a book on the subject - that macroevolutionary events such as speciation occur is a matter of fact - and first observed in 1905.
Maybe you should educate yourself on the matter before you try and dictate what I have, and have not, seen.
Warthaug 4 years ago
You have observed Nothing and you know it. Im not asking when you observed it, but a clear cut example of what species/kind change from one to another would be great.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"You have observed Nothing and you know it"
Hmm, 2000+ reported speciation events. Large morphological changes. 20-30% change in genomic coding. New biochemical pathways. All observed. All BIG changes. All macro.
Examples in next post
Warthaug 4 years ago
Examples:
1) Nylon metabolism (nylon did not exist on earth until 1930's)
2) O lamarckians -> O gigas (first observed speciation, 1905, in plants)
3) Speciation of D. paulistorum (first recorded animal speciation, 1960's)
4) ERV-mediated speciation of Rock Wallebeys (ongoing, at least 11 new species formed so far)
the list goes on, and on, and on, and on....
Warthaug 4 years ago
Ok i hit the reply under each,, and it just comments anywhere ? I DUNNO..
Ok?
1st Nylons are organic ??
2nd You still have a plant. - you have not mentioned specific plants.
3rd. specific animal please.
4th. And you still ended up with a rock wallaby, that can bring forth right ? Man. Please.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Organic" simply means "contains carbon", so yes, nylon is organic.
I mentioned two plants specifically - O lamarckians and O gigas; O gigas evolved from O lam
I named 2 animals - drosophila & rock walleby
Warthaug 4 years ago
"as science calls for, we have never got a non dog from a dog"
Actually, evol theory specifically dictates that this will not happen. Like gives rise to like, and whatnot. Maybe you should try and understand the theory before you argue against it.
As for the evidence for large scale change, well:
1) We've seen it happen
2) We've got fossils
3) We've got genetics
Hardly "circumstantial"
Warthaug 4 years ago
And you think there is world scientific consensus on that data ?? Hardly. And evo does claim to get non dogs from dods, or non bacteria from bacteria, You want a billion video examples of this.
And if this aint the case, then someones wrong, and its either you or the Discovery channel.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"And evo does claim to get non dogs from dods"
No, it doesn't. Evol specifically states that to get a non-dog from a dog requires multiple generations, each one of which is slightly different from its parent generation. Only over thousands+ of generations do you get the degree of change required to get a non-dog from a dog.
Warthaug 4 years ago
A billion examples of text books and Discovery channel all saying this.
Common Ancestor anyone ??
Chumnah 4 years ago
"A billion examples..."
Sorry, I mis-interpreted your comment. Many anti-evols always make the claim "dogs don't give birth to elephants", etc, as if that was some sort of proof against evol. I interpreted your comment as being along those lines.
Dogs can give rise to non-dogs; given sufficient time. But it occurs over many generations, with each generation being slightly different from the preceding generation.
Warthaug 4 years ago
"Dogs can give rise to non-dogs; given sufficient time. But it occurs over many generations, with each generation being slightly different from the preceding generation." - Never Been "Observed" like science demands.. you hope it happens. Just like a Rock formed life billions of years ago.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Never Been "Observed" like science demands"
As I've pointed out to you at least a dozen times, it HAS BEEN OBSREVED. There are over 2000 recorded incidence of speciation in the scientific literature; nearly all of which occurred through such a multi-generational process.
Just because you ignore that data does not mean it doesn't exists.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Has god ever been "Observed"? micro evolution has been observed. macro is just micro over a long period of time.
Clovions 4 years ago
I got plenty more where this came from.
Seems like Im talking to eugenisists more and more here.
Evo is not proven, its a theory. Yet you guys are damn sure this has happened.
Chumnah 4 years ago
Gravity is also a theory. you believe there is gravity correct? it is a theory but it is accepted with almost all scientists because of the amount of proof. god is not proven, its not even considered a scientific theory because it cant be tested. yet you still believe in god?
Clovions 4 years ago
Science is a concept conceived by mans finite brain to describe and attempt to understand his surroundings. How do we even know what the brain perceives is 'reality' ?? There is no spoon.
Chumnah 4 years ago
Well if god is out of our finite brain then how can you even conveive that he exists?
Clovions 4 years ago
Go read the New Testament my friend.
There is still hope for you.
Chumnah 4 years ago
How do you know that the new testament really is the word of god? and not a work of the devil to make you believe in a false god?
Clovions 4 years ago
"And you think there is world scientific consensus on that data"
What data? Why don't you reply properly - i.e, to my individual posts. That way I can thread your replies and actually see what you're referring to.
All you need to do is hit the "reply" link below my messages...
That said, everything I've said before has been scientific dogma for decades...
Warthaug 4 years ago
Scientific Dogma on a theory that is in constant refinement and tuning that you cant get right even after 150yrs plus and the rest.. And got off to a totally false and deceptive beginning.
Chumnah 4 years ago
Last one from my infantile mind ok.....
I believe in micro evolution, loss in information that makes a slight change or adaption.... but not a gain in information.... like the evos imply and rely on. Show me some examples of a gain in information, where NEW DNA instruction sets are made through successive Natural Selection representations.
Also, you didn't explain the c14 equilibrium that Hovind brings up.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"I believe in micro evolution"
Macroevol is simply microevol compounded over multiple generations. Nothing more, so therefore do you believe in macro as well.
"Show me some examples of a gain in information"
Youtube's got some new url filtering, so I cannot post the links in the usual manner. talkorigins dot org has several articles which review this subject, including dozens of examples of what you asked for.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Ok the perfect man theory with Eugenics.
Kings and elite have been into breeding for centuries, No doubt. And the throwbacks from their cross breeding is well documented, but when evo theory started hitting the scene, it was married into eugenics theory/philosophy for them, and they even admit and believe, they are a new "SUB SPECIES". Key philosophers such as Malthus, Marx, Huxley, Sanger, Hitler and the American Eugenisits.....
Chumnah 4 years ago
"the perfect man theory with Eugenics"
Which, as I pointed out, ahs absoutly f*ck all to do with evol.
As for the rest of it, none of it has anything to do with evol. Just because some people are too stupid to understand evol, misunderstand what the thoery states, and draw wrong conclusions from the thoeory, has absolutly no bearance on the accurasy or truefulness of the thoery itself.
Warthaug 4 years ago
c14 levels in a decaying fossil are not used for dating ?? Why does science trumpet carbon 14 on the news for "DATES" on fossils and other relics they pull up from the ground ?? ARE THEY WRONG OR DECEPTIVE ACCORDING TO YOU.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Why does science trumpet carbon 14 on the news for "DATES" on fossils"
We don't. Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc are used to date fosils. C14 can only date organic materials, and given its half-life of ~5700 years its useless for anything older then ~90,000YA.
Warthaug 4 years ago
With piltdown, People never sought to check Dawsons and Teilhards backgrounds, and most of his finds were under lock and key as well so, checking for filing down of certain key areas, which should have been detected with a common microscope quite easily.. Has nothing to do with mass-spec, TL chromatography.
Chumnah 4 years ago
LOL another thing comes to mind Warthog.. You say dating was the reason piltdown was proved a fake eventually, based say on what was said in the Disc vid, but dating has nothing to do with detecting tea stains and carved down bones ? even that clip is deceptive.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"You say dating was the reason piltdown was proved a fake eventually"
It was the final nail in the coffin. Numerous doubts had been raised before then.
"with detecting tea stains"
To *prove* a stain is a tea stain, and not oxidation, requires technology like mass-spec, TL chromatography, etc. None of which existed until after piltdown was proven a fraud.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Founder of UNESCO, evolutionist and Humanist, Julian Huxley wrote of "The Crowded World" in his Evolutionary Humanism (1964), calling for a World Population Policy. Huxley was openly critical of Communist and Roman Catholic attitudes to birth control , population control and overpopulation.
Chumnah 4 years ago
Hows about petrified trees in the upright position going through multiple sediment layers?? even upside down ones ?? LOL.
Besides, these vids are about how EVO is tied into Eugenics.. And that is undenyable
Chumnah 4 years ago
"petrified trees"
Try reading a book - its no mystery.
"EVO is tied into Eugenics"
Actually, evolutionary theory clearly demonstrates that any attempts at eugenics will be futile - there is no way to get a "pure" breed; mutation prevents it. And a "pure" breed is bad - a guaranteed way to go extinct.
Once again, you need to learn a little about what you're arguing against - you're just making yourself look dumber & dumber...
Warthaug 4 years ago
Explain the Carbon 14 equilibrium conundrum that Hovind brings up in the new vids i posted.......
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Carbon 14"
You see, it is comments like this that prove to all of us that you, honvid, and the rest of your ilk are completely ignorent of anything in regards to evolution, paleontology, or science in general.
Here's a hint - C14 dating IS NOT, let me repeat that in case you missed it, IS NOT used to date rocks, fossil, or geological strata.
Maybe you should educate yourself before making comments like these - you just look stupid when you make incorrect comments like these
Warthaug 4 years ago
Dating techniques that all rely on the circular reasoning of the geologic column and the fossil record.
"The fossils date the rocks,, But the rocks date the fossils more accurately" Dude, just listen to yaself.
Hydrological sorting anyone ??
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Dating techniques that all rely on the circular reasoning of the geologic column and the fossil record"
Wow, way to prove that you have no clue.
"Dude, just listen to yaself"
I didn't say those words; maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension.
"Hydrological sorting anyone"
Perhaps you can explain how "hydrological sorting" lead to strata during "the flood", whereas modern floods do not...
Warthaug 4 years ago
Ok from all that psycho bable, are you denying that piltdown was an orang-o-tang jaw bone or not, as shown in the Discovery Science piece and the Megiddo Piece ??
A straight answer here will suffice.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"psycho bable"
You mean the accurate description of how science works? As for your question, no, I am not arguing that the jaw was not orangutan - that is exactly what it was. But don't forget - prior to piltdown there were only two known non-human hominids, so there wasn't much to compare to. Hence why it took so long to show piltdown a fraud - it wasn't until multiple hominids were identified, and dating techniques perfected, that we were able to *prove* it a fraud.
Warthaug 4 years ago
The 2 new vids i put up are from a proponent of the Evo theory, good ol Discovery Science, showing the FRAUD and deception used with this whole piltdown story.
Total Fraud and this is mainstream media. I got BBC and a few other that describe the Piltdown event as a hoax and a fraud. Want those too.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Total Fraud"
Only by a small group of individuals. You see, the thing about science is we cannot, indeed must not, reject a finding because we don't like it. Instead we have to accept *any and all* scientific findings, as they are reported.
So unlike you, we actually demand proof something is incorrect. In the case of piltdown eventually enough proof was found to disprove the original information as it was presented.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Piltdown - not a hoax, but rather a misinterpretation of a fossil. Later corrected BY SCIENTISTS as new data came available. You sure your gonna stand by that ??
Check out this then........
Chumnah 4 years ago
"it was a singularity of energy." you can prove this??
Just like I can prove god exists.............
Its a religion my friend..... get over it .
Chumnah 4 years ago
"it was a singularity of energy." you can prove this??"
Well, unlike god there is physical evidence for the big bang and the singularity it was derived from - the expantion of the universe, microwave background, etc, all point towards an expanding singularity as the source of the universe.
Now, what physical evidence is there for god?
Warthaug 4 years ago
Piltdown..... TOTAL FRAUD, but led evolutionists astray for 40yrs.... and was just brushed aside when exposed and they moved on, like nothing happened.
Lyall and his geologic column, total fraud, and lastly, why are there still big evo mistakes in the text books. Like even i was taught in the early 90's that the human embryo has gills, and thats total lies. Yet its still promoted.
Chumnah 4 years ago
Last one, Why is it that when ya look back at the pioneers or progenitors of the evo theory, Fraud and lies accompanies them. Piltdown Hoax with Dawson and Theilhard, the multi stage embryo with gills, all proven wrong YET still taught on schools. Lyall and his stupid fraudulent geological column.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Fraud and lies accompanies them"
Bull, as we're about to see.
Piltdown - not a hoax, but rather a misinterpretation of a fossil. Later corrected BY SCIENTISTS as new data came available.
"multi stage embryo with gills"
Which has no relationship to evol what-so-ever. And completely understandable since gill-like features do form during the formation of many vertebrate embryos.
cont.
Warthaug 4 years ago
cont.
"still taught on schools"
Not in any school I've heard of. And having been formally trained in embryology I can say with absolute certainty that its not taught at the university level; except where the embryos do, in fact form gills.
"Lyall...fraudulent"
Only in your mind. Of course you've not provided any evidence the geological column is wrong...
Warthaug 4 years ago
"imply that we come from apes or evolved from apes"
Not an implication, its a fact. Physiology, biochemistry, genetics, shared pathogens, fossils, etc all scream that fact at us.
Man the Hubris shown here by you is astonishing....
You assured me at the start of all this that evo is still a theory YET its a total FACT that man came from apes..... Your wrong on this my friend, there is no evidence of that, its all speculation.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"apes...there is no evidence..."
There is only no evidence if you choose to ignore the scientific findings of the past 150 years. If you'd ever bothered to read a textbook on the subject you'd be well aware of just how much evidence there is.
But like most creationists you assume that because you're ignorant of that data, that the data itself doesn't exist.
Warthaug 4 years ago
So to be clear here, a dot of compressed nothing exploded and thats how we have the universe ??
A simplistic layman's version of the big bang right ?
Uni Verse = Single verse LOL !!
Chumnah 4 years ago
"So to be clear here, a dot of compressed nothing"
Actually, it was a singularity of energy. Hardly "nothing"; within that singularity was the entirety of the mass and energy of our universe.
uni = one, verse = totality or whole.
Warthaug 4 years ago
All your explaining here is micro evolution, or adaption. NOT macro evolution,, which does not exist nor has it been observed.
Planetary evolution or Stellar evolution is the theory on how all our planets formed around the sun today after the so called Big Bang.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"All your explaining here is micro evolution, or adaption. NOT macro evolution"
Microevol, macroevol and adaption are all the same thing; the only difference between them being time. From an evolutionary point of view there is no difference between them; we simply use those terms to apply scale to the changes.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Stellar evolution is how stars (not their planets) change over time, as they consume their fuel. Planetary evolution is a term you invented, but I see what you're talking about.
Regardless, neither of those have anything to do with biological evolution, aside from providing a planet for it to happen on, and a star for energy.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Look around you. Then consider the first life was a single-celled organism simpler then todays bacteria, and everything you see today is descended from that. That's how "broad" it is.
There is no such thing as a "SIMPLE CELL" they are all complex, and each component relies on each other and could not have come about by successive improvements and changes like the evos theorize.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"There is no such thing as a "SIMPLE CELL""
Sure there is. Comapred to our cells, bacteria are simple. Compared to bacteria the early life was also simple.
"each component relies on each other...evos theorize"
Actually, irreproducible complexity is both predicted and expected by evol - contrary to the claims of IDists. Maybe you should actually read up on this stuff before you try to argue it
Warthaug 4 years ago
Why is it that all of TV (examples: Nat Geo/Discovery) and i can show millions of examples of this, imply that we come from apes or evolved from apes and tie that all into planetary evolution and the magic spark of life on earth and portray it as fact when its not.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"imply that we come from apes or evolved from apes"
Not an implication, its a fact. Physiology, biochemistry, genetics, shared pathogens, fossils, etc all scream that fact at us.
"tie that all into planetary evolution"
WTF is planetary evol? You making up your own words now?
Warthaug 4 years ago
"Evolution is about how LIFE CHANGES"
How broad a term is that? You ask the lay man what they think evolution is and they will say man came from apes, animals changing from one form to another. Its a buzz word that uses broad brush strokes to describe a whole range of theory's, all which rely on each other to work.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"How broad a term is that?"
Look around you. Then consider the first life was a single-celled organism simpler then todays bacteria, and everything you see today is descended from that. That's how "broad" it is.
"...to describe a whole range of theory's"
Actually, evolution refers to an observable phenomena. "Evolutionary theory" refers to a single scientific theory which explains what evolution (the phenomena) is, and why/how it occurs.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Why do text books from school still say that billions of years ago the big bang happened, the universe evolved, the galaxies evolved and then planets then earth and life as we know it today, evolved.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Why do text books from school still say..."
1) Because those conclusions are based on firm scientific theories, which in turn are based on strong experimental and observational data.
2) Because the authors are trying to put various scientific theories together in such a way as to describe the formation of the universe, our solar system, our planet, and life, in a manner which is both linear and easy to follow.
Warthaug 4 years ago
But yeah i will look into what ya posted... Thanks
Chumnah 4 years ago
Ok, Just quickly (LOL at work)This video/upload was about using evolution for justification for eugenics/genocide/humanism/socialism and all the other isms that kill.....
Chumnah 4 years ago
And please don't use Roman Catholicism as an example of Christian killing and tyranny, Because RCism is just pagan god worship.
Darwin started out a Christian and ended up a pagan death merchant and a plagiarists.
Chumnah 4 years ago
Tax evasion for the Income tax is a protest against the criminal IRS... Thats all his in jail for. A NON CRIME. And no i will not go away...... Life came from a rock AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH show me one test in the lab that shows proof of concept for this "theory"
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Life came from a rock AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH show me one test in the lab that shows proof of concept for this "theory""
No scientist has ever proposed that life came from a rock. Maybe before challenging the science, you could at least try understanding it first.
Otherwise you end up looking just like you did above - silly.
Warthaug 4 years ago
"one test in the lab that shows proof of concept "
As for experiments which demonstrate the process scientists think occurred, there are literally thousands of scientific papers to choose from. Rather then providing you with a few select papers, I'll empower you to find the info yourself - search for the following terms:
abiogenesis
RNA world
hypercycle
protobiont
autocatalytic set
proteinoid
Warthaug 4 years ago
Yeah, great debating skills..... Attack any strawman weak point... And this whole Kent Hovind is a criminal angle thats posted here is wrong. He was convicted of tax evaision, just like the browns right now in plainfield NH.. Check out my vid response...
Chumnah 4 years ago
Kent Hovind is a young earth creationist, which means he believes the world was created in 6 days 7000 years ago.
He's been charged with assault and battery, felony accounts of personal tax fraud, and using his so called non-profit organizations to evade taxes.
Ignorance is bliss, maybe I should lobotomize myself so I can experience the bliss you're enjoying.
Intranetusa 4 years ago
You cant have your cake and eat it too. I think it is legitimate to call these evo freaks out and say, well your theory does boil down to spontaneous life from nothing.. Cosmic evolution is just as much part of animal evolution and you cant have one without the other.
Chumnah 4 years ago
"I think it is legitimate"
Who cares what you think is legitimate? Hell, you're too damn stupid to know the difference between "it's" and "its". You're just another dimwit Creationist who doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Go away.
SecularNATION 4 years ago
"I think it is legitimate to call these evo freaks out and say, well your theory does boil down to spontaneous life from nothing"
But when you do all you prove is your own stupidity. Evolution is about how LIFE CHANGES; and has absolutely nothing to do with how life came about. How life arose is a scientific discipline called abiogenesis, and is a completely difference area of research, ruled by separate and different scientific theories and hypothesi.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Desertphile, are you serious, the ammount of dblspeak in your video response is astounding. (you should work for fox) Did you watch the follow up videos how it mentions Fred Hoyle and Michael Behe amongst others that oppose evolution, big bang and the whole chance concept ?
Chumnah 4 years ago
"how it mentions Fred Hoyle and Michael Behe"
You may want to look closer at Behe's beliefs - he doesn't believe what you want him to. He believes in the big bang, that the earth formed from acreating matter, and even that life has evolved. His only disagreement with scientific dogma is that he thinks a creator guided the whole process.
Warthaug 4 years ago
Do we come from a rock ??? billions of years ago ??
Like is there any detailed charts or scientific detailing of the nothing that made the big bang to the nothing that made the rock(earth) to make ME today ??
Justification for Genocide is it not ?
Chumnah 4 years ago
"Do we come from a rock ??? billions of years ago ?? "
You rejected my reply video: the answer is in there.
Desertphile 4 years ago
Wow, so much ignorance demonstrated in a mere 10 minutes! If I didn't know better I'd swear this was a sarcastic play on creationist beliefs.
Unfortunately, it is not.
You'd think that creationists