Lee Strobel FAIL - Physics and Astronomy -Team Rebuttal (Part 2)

[ExperimentLife]

I wish I was as smart as you guys .... I'm failing physics : (

[andreirocks1992]

while it's windy

[naomiellison]

LOL! You guys are awesome. I know this guy is full of shit.  He does it with physics/science (knowing the people he is talking to have NO concept of at all), David Barton does it with the Bible and History. I think these guys are probably atheist because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be expounding this stuff if they really believed that there is a hell...cuz that's pretty much where they're going. They're interest is not in the salvation of your soul, it's separating you from your money.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

I know. I was talking about your friends; you want me to prove to you themes a God but you don't believe because you don't think he exists that's all I was saying... and when speciation was first created they did not look at rise of new species

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life If I wanted to prove you do exist to my friends, I am sure there is a method of finding the owner and user of your Youtube account, once that resource is obtained, a further investigation can be used to verify if you do exist.

I doubt that is how speciation was first viewed, but you ignore what speciation is now and what it has discovered. It is the field of the rise of new biological species that we have observed and documented hundreds of times.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

There is the possibility but then again. Do I have parents you can ask? Trying to prove I exist to one of your friends would be rather impossible since you do not have access to those resources. They haven't seen or talked to me does that mean I don't exist? You cannot just rule out there's an intelligence. Speciation is only a way of classifying animals.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life I was not referring to my friends, I was referring to one of your friends. I am sure they could provide enough info about you. If I had this, or any of the other information I mentioned earlier, my friends can at least verify you do exist.

Speciation is not classifying animals, that is taxonomy. Speciation is the rise of new species.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Ok prove I exist..

And I have checked that rubbish of "born with a tail" stuff

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life difficult to do since I do not know your name, but I am sure your birth certificate will be fine, to show that you are not an AI program just responding to me. I can also ask your parents, friends, and everyone who knows you. I can perform several medical tests to prove you are you.

I doubt you looked into anything, but if you did you could not tell me what you just saw, as I recall you could not even tell what the hell speciation is and why it is important.

[r0baa]

@geezus4life dont worry mate. These people are just missing out on real love that Jesus has. They just dont want a god to exist

[Feredir28]

@r0baa "They just dont want a god to exist" ... and I want to believe that I am the king of Persia, but that is bullshit too (just like your god).

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

"lost their tails"

There is no proof humans had tails... you can't lose what you don't have

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life There are tons of proof that humans have tails. We now know the genes responsible for the development of tails in mammals, and all humans have them. Ever heard of atavisms or people being born with tails? What about lanugo, ever heard of that? Check out the Anatomy Atlases medical site.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

I suppose you do not believe you exist either. Well I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't believe anything.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life I do not "believe" I exist, I KNOW I exist. Beliefs are individual's cognitive content held as true. Facts are things that can be objectively proven, like proving my existence, evolution, gravity, atoms, etc that do not rely on beliefs but actual empirical evidence.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

You are ignorant to your own beliefs by stating evolution doesn't have a goal. It does. To keep the species alive and survive to pass along their genes. If it has no goal then why would it happen? Evolution is the process of organisms adapting to their environment to survive. If you disagree with that then idk what you think evolution is. And we have nothing to argue about

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Evolution is not a belief, just like I do not believe in gravity or the earth orbits around the sun, they all can be objectively proven as fact. I was implying evolution has no goal towards new features. Evolution is an unguided process. Biology itself states that life thrives by reproducing. I do not disagree, but more specifically NATURAL SELECTION is the process of organisms adapting to their environment, there are other forces that contribute to evolution that I listed earlier.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

I watched that video. Mosquitos are still mosquitos. Bacteria are still bacteria. I don't use criteria to say humans are more evolved they have been the same since the beginning of life. But looking at your fossils of "human evolution" that's totally false because the recent discovery of the supposedly 400,000 year old teeth that were found, that are the same as modern man, in Israel.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life What you saw in the video was examples of speciation. Is an Aardwolf a wolf?

Humans have not been the same since the beginning of life, that is ridiculous. Humans have been getting taller, lost their tails, developed larger brains, and more.

Your are basing this just on teeth? Look at the width of the skull, the foramen magnum, FOXP2 gene, and more. They are different from modern man. Also, your "example" may represent a single group that wandered off from Africa.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

It's not observable. Because if it was we would see animals evolving into different kinds humans should be farther evolved but we haven't changed it can't be observed because it would take a couple million years. We discussed ancient lizards from 13 million years ago being exactly the same. Except in taxonomy so if it takes that long just to change the way they are in taxonomy there is no way all life could have began and diversed so rapidly it would take more time than life has been.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life I provided you earlier with a video of observed speciation, now you are just flat out denying it. Define "kind" go ahead. By what criteria do you use that humans must be further evolved? Evolution does not have a goal, so your comment is baseless + ridiculous. We have seen rapid evolution (evolution does not to work at one speed) but even without that we still have evidence to map out their past. These lizards are not the same, lizards are the most diverse animal

watch?v=qhZeowON8l8

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Natural selection is the process which the animals better adapted to their environment survive and pass on their genes. So the best adapted would be equal to the fittest its not that hard to see the connection. I'm not trying to say my position wins by default but yours is not in any way better than mine

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life what this leaves out is other forces, such as genetic drift, kin and sexual selection, neutral evolution, coevolution and such. Natural selection does say that the ones who do not change physically must perish, making "survival of the fittest" a non-scientific claim, because certain terms for describing biological mechanism differ from those commonly used in the English language.

My position stays within the realm of observable reality and say that it was all done by a magic man.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Adaptation is a fact I do not disagree that everything adapts its how we were created but that does not prove all life has a common ancestor. Natural selection, which Darwin based his evolution on, is survival of the fittest. #6 of your list is a perfect example that there must be some higher person or an absolute authority or else who tells us what's right or wrong morally? Because like I said why would you want to punish me for murder what can you provide to show me its wrong

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life natural selection is not survival of the fittest. Get this through your head -survival of the fittest has nothing to do with evolution. Natural selection, the engine that drives evolution, is adapting to its environment. These adaptions bring about change, which is obvious even to you, but you refuse to acknowledge change like speciation.

Just because evolution does not comment on morals, that does not make your position win by default. There is such a thing as secular morality.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Bacteria is not evolution and multiplying is not even close to evolution so whatever point you were trying to make with that was not made. My argument comes from the side of logic. What good does it do you anyways to convert me to believe in evolution? To believe there's no god and its just survival of the fittest and natural selection? Why is murder a bad thing then? If I need to kill 5 people in order to keep my job and survive why should I be punished for keeping my genes surviving

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life 1. Evolution explains diversity. Bacteria adapting to their environment is a perfect example of evolution.

2. Logic? LOL You used an ad victus to straw man abiogenesis , not evolution.

3. You would be a sane person by accepting reality, like accepting gravity is real.

4. Evolution does not refute god.

5. Survival of the fittest is not evolution, Darwin never proposed it. See #1.

6. Evolution and science says nothing about murder or morals.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

We know that complex machines can not be created by an unintellugent person or by accident. So logically the human body which is far far more complex must be an act of intelligence. Our whole food processing system relies on the fact that evolution doesn't happen. We don't open a jar of peanut butter and see life arise

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life One, design aims towards simplicity, not complexity. You admit the human body is complex, therefore could not be the result of design. Crystal forms are complex, but form under natural forces. Two, the human body includes signs of intelligence (the laryngeal nerve, wisdom teeth, etc). Plus, your conclusion is self refuting, if a complex form requires intelligence, then the source of the intelligence must be equally or more complex, and thus would require a higher designer

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life "We don't open a jar of peanut butter and see life arise" ROFLMAO HAHAHA oh wow, I never thought I would see someone dumb enough to uses a quote from the Hall of Shame.

1. Argumentum ad victus

2. Abiogenesis =//= evolution

3. Note the "expiration date." Even vacuum sealed, pasteurized jars contain minute amounts of bacteria, and given enough time, these bacteria will multiply to the point that they can be seen with the naked eye.

4. Chuck Missler is not a biologist, he is an idiot

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

When did time start then? How can you be sure that its the right time if there was no time? How can time have been created but not energy or space or matter? You cannot prove that matter us eternal you only assume since we haven't found any instance that creates it other than an intelligent creator. but of course there's no way we can admit the only explanation is God.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Time has no creation. How can their be time before time?

You can prove matter cannot be created, it is one of the many laws that has been tested repeatably for many many years. You are also special pleading that there must be an intelligent designer, how about two designers or an unintelligent one that goofed and produced all this? There is absolutely no way to test or know this, which is why we cannot jump to say 'God did it.' Only those with blind faith believe God did it.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

"matter and energy were always here" I suppose you have always been here too, to know that. If it has always been here then why did it all of a sudden erupt 4 bil. Yrs ago? Why not longer ago or later? If it was always here how come it took so long for it to make a "big bang"

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life we have both been here, at least the matter that builds our bodies. There has not been a single moment when matter has been shown to be created, especially from magic.

Would you prefer a different or earlier time, well sorry the universe does not function solely for your opinions.

What do you mean "it took so long to make" there was no time before the Big Bang, so it did not take long at all. Looking for time before hand is like asking "was it north of the North Pole?"

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

It is not pure fantasy. We know the big band could not have happened because of scientific impossibilities. Like some of Saturn's moons spin backwards. And whirlpool galaxies the rotate the same speed on the inside and in the outside. And not as it seemed to have the inside spinning faster, thus the galaxy should not be able to hold together. And now you have stated a crucial point "matter and energy cannot be created" Where did the matter and energy come from that started it all?

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Your denial of the evidence will not change anything. I just listed how the Big Bang is not impossible, but rather backed up by science.

Wow, I think you really are quoting Hovind directly, no one else makes that argument than him. The "backwards" moons are in no way contrary to the Solar Nebular Model, ever heard of collisions? Plus, solar systems within galaxies have different origins and additional random influences on their orientations.

Matter and energy were always here

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

It is not blind faith. It is blind faith to assume that billions of years ago the universe compiled itself before there was time, space, or matter. Each one had to co exist being eternal. So you have to assume something is eternal and not created. So is it easier to see that there was a intelligence that created everything to be perfectly arranged. Or and explosion? What you have is blind faith. Evolution is a blind crosses

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life it is blind faith, all you have as proof is pure fantasy. Unlike the Big bang, which is supported by theory of relativity, has evidence and successfully predicted CMB, primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

The 1st law says matter and energy cannot be created, and thus needs no help from a creator.

Perfectly arranged, there is much imperfection that this is what we would expect from a universe without a creator.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

The last part of your comment is a statement you clearly didn't think through before you wrote. And I like the way you just say something claiming it as a fact when you do not know me and you assume you know exactly what I think. And exactly as you said that if we could see God as we see an atom it would make him material. But he is not. Just like u think you can see thoughts. You may be able to tell if I'm thinking but you can not tell me what I am thinking

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life oh I choose my words carefully. There is no right method as you claim, only blind faith. You said "We can SEE those things if we look with the right equipment" well the only reason we can "see" these things is because they are material things part of the natural world. If we could see this creator the same way we see atoms, then he must be a material being. Now you contradict yourself claiming he cannot be seen, which only further shows you have no idea what your are defending.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

We can see those thing if we look with the right equipment same as we can see a creator if we look with the right method

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life the right method? As Strobel shows, the "right method" is blatantly misrepresenting science, relying on propaganda and twisted logic, and lack facts and evidence. If you could "see" a creator as we see atoms, then that would mean that the creator is of this material world, but yet we cannot observe it? Not even you know what the right method is, in all of human history there are countless man-made concepts of a creations of the universe, none are consistent or have evidence.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Just because you can not physically see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can not see love you can not see wind and you can not see thoughts. But we do not deny their existence. Your arguments don't work as well as you think. I don't see atoms or bacteria. Prove to me that they exist in your next comment. Don't give me a link to a video prove to me that they exist

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life We can see love (MRI), we can see the wind (wind jets) and we can measure and graph the wind. We can alter thoughts via properties of the brain. Thoughts separate from matter have never been observed. We can observe atoms in an electron microscope, we can test if they exist by electric and magnetic charges, gamma rays help determine their shape, there are even elevation maps of surfaces that show the bumps caused by individual atoms. All these we can observe, but never a creator.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28 even Richard Dawkins says that scientists must constantly keep in mind that although everything looks like its designed its just a result of natural processes. And you are totally bias saying there can't be a creator. Just because you don't see him, and try to stick to only naturalist view.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Richard Dawkins knows that things dont appear designed, since we have no clear definition of what is designed nor can we even scientifically test it. Claiming things are designed is an argument from ignorance.

I only side with the ones who have this thing called: evidence. There is no evidence for a creator, as we have shown in our rebuttal videos here. I cant see Zeus, Odin, or pink unicorns, but we do not go around thinking they exist or were responsible for creating the universe.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Our atmosphere is way more life sustaining than it was millions or billions of yrs ago. Any evidence can be taken either way it just depends what side you are pushing for. The big bang theory lacks severely as an explanation. Just about anything you see as evidence for evolution can also be taken for intelligent design. It's just a matter of what side you're on

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life The atmosphere may sustain more life now, but was not unsustainable for life back then. Evidence is not taken either way, unlike Intelligent Design, Evolution does not rely on propaganda. Evolution and science is not biased, while creationists state outright that they accept only what they already assume, without provided a shred of data to support them. Intelligent Design has zero evidence, all its foundation rests upon a supernatural untestable, unpredictable, and religious basis.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

It was not an incantation. If you see it as "magic" then fine but I also see spontaneous life from a prebiotic soup to be magic as well. Which can only happen in someone's imagination. I'm not doubting that we see bacteria gain immunities or anything else. But to assume it all began in a soup or even father to say it began after a point of energy exploded that was not even bigger than this dot _._ into all we see today. The logic just isn't there

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life It is not imagination if we can see it and test it. We have shown that molecules could assemble themselves, proteins can form (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999) and we see discover them in space. In 1969 near Australia, we found amino acids on a meteorite. Bearing in mind, the atmosphere was not the same as ours billions of years ago.

Wrong, your logic is not there yet. The Big Bang is supported by something called: evidence. Something your position lacks dearly.

[Brian72677]

If his argument fails then why does it take a Whole Team to refute ONE man.

[Feredir28]

@Brian72677 it doesn't. My cousin can refute this man while in a drug induced coma. The reason why we did this in teams was for the following: fun, larger audience = more viewers, and more subscribers.

The number of refuters does not give any credibility to the opposition. Strobel's arguments still rely on misrepresentations of science and logic.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

My point with that is everything we use to survive is not based on random undirected events. If something needs to be done we don't just wait around for it to evolve we try to doc the problem but why should we try and find a cure for cancer and all these other diseases because according to you and some scientists eventually we will just evolve an immunity to it so why waist our time now trying to find a cure when it hasn't evolved yet?

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life //not based on random undirected events// agreed, natural selection is not random. Whether or not evolution will develop a stronger immunity (which we cannot be certain of), that does not excuse us from being helpful and caring to our fellow humans. We have eradicated smallpox and saved countless of lives. We create better medicine to save more. To do nothing, if that is what you are implying, is rather lazy and heartless.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Taxonomy is just classifying and biogeography just claims where the animals are from... all decided by people.. isn't it funny how the methods were based off the theory not the theory off the methods. Seems backwards to me.. and not once had I ever said "magic did it" name me one thing since the existence of "homo sapiens" that was developed to help our survival that wasn't an act of intelligence. Because that all evolution is, is just trying to keep the species surviving.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Taxonomy and zoology puts us in the category of primates. Biogeography is not the opinions of scientists, scientific results are tested. This removes subjectivity from the table.

Your position says a being spoke things into existence, and they were good. A spoken word, an incantation (i.e. MAGIC).

We are homo sapiens. Over the many years, we have developed tolerance to dairy from the Norse, we have developed better speech, increase in brain size, and more.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Ok if you think genetics is all the proof you need to prove evolution then just go on ahead and keep living in your imaginary perfect world

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life genetics, as important as it is, is a fraction of the proof for common descent. Taxonomy provides evidence to place us in the category of primates (you can thank a creationist for that). Biogeography, atavisms, and ontogeny prove common descent. What genetics does it can help us map and trace back our lineages and see the various changes that manifested in us.

The evidence favors my side mate, the only thing your imaginary world can provide is "it was all done by magic."

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Well that video did not do that great of a job. He just talked about how a neuron could have evolved but wasn't that great. The brain has many neurons with very specific connections so nice try. But just the other day they found in Israel what is believed to be the oldest human fossils ever discovered. Which they (not creation scientists) say could up root the theory of evolution because this would prove humans didn't evolve from ape like animals in Africa

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Coelenterates have an even simpler nervous system consisting of a nerve net and nothing even close to a brain. This fossil may be a Neanderthal, but even if it is not and it is as old as estimated, so what? All it shows is that our species may have generated around an area close to Africa. We still have genetics that proves we have a common ancestor with other primates. Nobody found a fossil rabbit in the PreCambrian, if they did then that would destroy evolution overall.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

The question was the first. Not once you have one. Where did the very first brain or eye come from and where did the information come from that the first forms of life did not poses

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life no the question included 'how' in it. The earliest life forms with a brain is being studied in paleoneurology. This video does a excellent job of explaining the origin of the brain.

watch?v=6RbPQG9WTZM

This video also touches on where the information came from, but as I already established that information can increase, but implying information can be found anywhere such as rocks.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

So you can explain to me how the first eyeball was formed from a single celled organism? Because that was one of our first ancestors. And lungs or a heart. Maybe a brain? How is that just a variable

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Each of those can and has been explained. For the eye, its starts with a photosensitive cell and aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve. We see such all types of eyes in the animal kingdom, each showing us the stages to making eyes as great as ours or the octopus. Brains come in many different sizes. There are innumerable intermediate forms of brains between humans and brainless animals; gradual evolution of the brain presents no challenge.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

What I'm saying is its not new its the same thing whether the glass is one big piece or a million tiny pieces its still glass. You can't brake a piece of glass and get copper out of it. And that's what would have had to happen for evolution to work

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life wrong again mate. What I am saying that a different formation can create new information. Any arrangement implies information, thus if you shatter glass you have a new arrangement. Bearing in mind, information is just a "label" and you can find information not just in DNA but also in rocks or the precise arrangement of atoms in a pebble.

Evolution does not allow something to become completely different. Our ancestors were vertebrates, and we are still vertebrates now.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

In the case of your glass example. Braking glass into tiny pieces would not serve as an example for new information its still glass which is the same thing you started with. And you can say heating sand will make glass which we could see with nature but you can't take iron or steal and make it the same as sand would

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Same material, but with new arrangement forms new information. What do you mean about the iron and steel? Steel is an alloy of iron with less carbon, a loss of certain material. Nothing in abiogenesis or evolution needs to assemble itself, nor they do not exclude outside influences. In abiogenesis added material from comets can generate amino acids, this was shown in Australia. In evolution information from the environment is communicated to genomes via natural selection

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

And we have no idea where the information in DNA came from by only natural means things can't process without the information

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Look around you let's use you're logic. "we have never seen animals created by magic" we have never seen animals created out of soup either. We have never seen an explosion create an entire universe. But we have seen things like a computer that are not nearly as complicated as the human brain, but no person on earth would believe the first computer was made by putting a random piece of metal on another. And micro machines we can only dream of making that work so perfectly.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Nobody claims that animals came from a soup either. Animal is not the same domain as simple life forms. We have seen and tested the components of life form naturally. We have tested the Big bang and we have seen events that could compare very close to the creation of the universe. The human brain has over 100,000 years of evolutionary build up and modifications, computers have only been around for ~100 years and you think we should have computers as complicated as our brains by now?

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

You make me laugh every time you say something. Evolution is no fact except to those who don't care to look at the problems with it

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life A fact is defined as an observable phenomenon. We have seen evolution and speciation in action many times.

There are no problems with evolution, it has past every test for 150 years. All the fields of taxonomy, paleontology, biogeography, atavisms, genetics, geography, etc. not onlu support evolution, they confirm evolution in great detail.

How about looking at the problems of your position: the fact that we have never seen or proven animals being created by magic.

[geezus4life]

I know ken miller is not an apologist I was saying you are getting you're arguments from him. I am not talking about the word cosmos I am talking about universe (uni-versa). Scientists used to believe the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth. And soon evolution will be added to that list of theories that had to be changed once we had actual information about it

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Scientists never once believed the earth was flat, this is a common creationist lie to smear science. Eratosthenes proved the earth was round, but the ones continuing to spread the flat earth were the religious (and they still do today). Sailors would go of traveling, and when the past the horizon and should have fallen of the face of the earth, they were back for dinner.

Only in your fantasy will evolution ever be discarded. Evolution is a fact that we can test and observe.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Oh ok as in single rotate? No Kent hovind doesn't talk about the name of the universe. But if you can get all your arguments from ken miller. I have not quoted any apologetic speakers during this argument. You don't believe we are in the year 2010 A.D. but C.E. don't you? And and that B.C. actually has an E. In it?

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life the proper meaning of the universe is all of existence (cosmos) but from the greek translation means in motion/rotation/change. Kent Hovind was the origin of this argument.

Ken Miller is not an apologist, he is among the many scientists who correct the misrepresentations of pseudoscientists.

If I went by a time scale, I say we are in the earth year of 4.55 billion. There are many different calenders today, but I use the academic CE model.

[geezus4life]

Gosh and that Uni meaning single not imo sorry I was using my phone to type that and it auto "corrected" my words

[geezus4life]

That would be googling not giggling ha

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

I tried giggling it but I only found drawings not fossils.

Please explain your many different explanations of how life began. And universe is two words, Imo(meaning single) and Verse(meaning spoken sentence) together = single spoken sentence. Which gives clear reference to the bible's explanation that God spoke the world into existence.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Giggle, google, whatever. It sounds like baby talk to me, like Bebo.

Sure I can explain, I will send you a PM and we will continue this discussion there.

I recognize your line of reasoning. You got that from Kent Hovind didn't you? Well you are not the first person to fall for that old one. "verse" in universe is from vertere, which is “to rotate or turn."

Based on your method, you can make watermelon mean a gourd made of water.

[geezus4life]

And please give me a link or URL for fossils of Steropodon

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life I cannot provide a link in the comments section, but a simple independent google search will assist you just fine.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

How did life arise in the "soup"? it has yet to be proven how. It has only been proposed how it could have formed.100% of scientists say science is constantly changing so how can you be so sure evolution is true and won't change within the future?

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life there are many explanations for how life began, each with its own independent evidence to support them. We do not know exactly which one is responsible, or if they all played a part, making life that much more possible to flourish. What evidence we dont have is this: life being created by magic

Science is a constant search for truth, and the one way it operates is trying to disprove things. We observe evolution in action, just like gravity and atoms.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Ok let's get in to the important things then. Where did the universe come from? Do you believe it had a beginning or is it eternal? If you don't believe it had a beginning then you have no knowledge of the topic you claim and if it did have a beginning where did it come from?

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life //Where did the universe come from?//

Not from a magical being in a supernatural realm, because no such thing has ever been provided with a shred of evidence. Do you know what the universe means?

watch?v=UprgjJFAzLo

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

Well we could go back and forth all day but we both know I'm not gonna change your mind and you won't change mine so I'm just gonna have to say if evolution were true its obvious I'm further evolved than you because I can clearly see there is a divine entity that your mind can not comprehend

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Had enough? Your no different than those who run when facts are presented before their eyes because you would rather believe in a fairy tale than accept truth.

What we can conclude from this discussion is your denial of reality will remain and continue to rob you of your common sense. What you claim to "see" is only a self-deception framed by a delusion. What you "see" is no more credible than what a Hindu or a Scientologist sees, or even that of someone who believes in a flat earth

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

What about the platyous? What is it evolving into and what did it evolve from? What fossils do we have showing any creature evolving into a platypus

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life Evolution is not guided. We do not need fossils to prove evolution, we can map the platypus's ancestry with other animals through genetics. We have fossils, such as Steropodon galmani, but even if we did not have any fossils that would not disprove evolution. You would be ignoring the thousands of other fossils we have found. Most people do not know how rich the fossil record is.

[geezus4life]

@feredir28 By "kind" I krab feline, or k9. As he explained in the video it would be impossible for a dog to give birth to a cat or vise versa. If they did evolve from the same ancestor they should have the same genes right? Or have they lost that information in the dna? And his argument about "more information" isn't what creationists argue. It's NEW information not more of the same kind of information. Evolution has some good ideas but in a whole it can't stand up to its claims.

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life You will have to better define "kind" ever seen an Aardwolf ? "As he explained" as he has shown was his abysmal knowledge of science. It looks like a dog, but it is more related to cats. Evolution does not say that a dog would just give birth to a cat, that would disprove evolution. This is better explained in this video:

watch?v=pNrt90MJL08

Evolution can make NEW information, as shown by DonExodus.

watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0

[geezus4life]

Feredir28 I can't get the link to work. So I can't really say anything about that. But, the species are still in their same generic kind. But what about the universe slowly decaying (entropy) eventually it will stop so ways the point of trying to evolve for no reason

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life look up MicroEvolution vs MacroEvolution by cdk007.

I dare you to define the word "kind."

The 2nd law says so such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increase in order. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection.

[geezus4life]

@Feredir28

By evolution I am not talking about micro "evolution" the other theories like macro and cosmic evolution can't and haven't been observed. Why don't we see it happening? Because it takes millions of years for one species to change to another? Why then do we have lizard fossils for example that have been dated older than 10 million years but they are still the same as they were "millions" of years ago

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life we have observed macro evolution, its called speciation. Macro evolution is evolution above the species level, which is when a species become genetically separated that they can no longer reproduce because they are no longer the same specie. We have observed new species arise many times. This video should give a few examples:

watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

There is no such thing as cosmic evolution, there is only biological evolution.

The lizards are not the same, they differ in taxonomy.

[geezus4life]

Wow.

It's funny how atheists don't believe in God because they can't see him yet they believe stupid theories such as the big bang theory and the evolution theory which are still theories because there is no way to prove those claims. Because they were both once in a never chance. And are not science because they can not use the scientific method to test the theories.. well they can and have and failed every time. Major Fail

[Feredir28]

@geezus4life the only failure here is you. Atheists dont accept any of those by default. You show you dont even know what a theory is. Do you accept the earth orbits around the sun? well, that is just a theory too. All theories have been tested, otherwise they would not be theories. The reason why we do accept those theories is because they have been tested. Evolution is a fact that has been observed and documented hundreds of times, and has past every test thrown at it for the past 150 years.

[supersmash43]

I find creationists obnxious. They usually censor their comments. What a bunch of dishonest douchebags.

[Spencer7631]

@supersmash43 lol there is soo much science against atheism. You just can't absorb it lol

[Feredir28]

@Spencer7631 Science does not comment on the supernatural, nor can science ever prove the supernatural. Therefore, the only science against atheism is in your imagination.

In fact, science shows us how everything can come to be without the need of a deity, so science really hurts theism more than atheism.

[SPACKlick]

I really like these collaberations

[mattygersh]

... while its windy!

hahahaha

[ebaltrace]

The Christian believes the only choices are Creation and the Big Bang. Even though Creation has tremendous problems, he accepts Creation because he believes that the universe started from nothing. But he forgets that until 70 years ago, we did not know that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. Fission and Fusion proved that. We discovered Newton's Laws are not laws but only work in a special case, but not in atomic particle accelerators. Science rules.

Ebal the Atheist

[ebaltrace]

The goldylocks argument is false. We know that where there is no oxygen anerobic bacteria thrive. At the bottom of the ocean where there is tremendous pressure, intense heat, and no light, life thrives. The Christian believes God made life to fit the universe he made. The Scientist knows that life evolved to fit the universe that existed.

Ebal the Atheist

[DeletedDelusion]

Brilliant refutation!