I don't like when he talks about man coming from apes, and pointing to the apes we know today. He should really emphasize the "common ancestor" aspect of our comparative evolution with apes.
People saying "be openminded to the existence of God". If u repeatly have tested that each time u drop a stone on u feet and instantly u feel your feet is in pain shall I than be openminded that the pain is might not been caused by the stone? Openmindedness is not been open to every junk info u meet but to b openminded that theory X can b wrong IF enough mounting evindence points out Y is more correct. So far evolution has been tested repeatly and we've accepted it's the stone causing the pain
blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the creator of intelligence. This means think for yourself. If god exists, he would want us to question what we've been told. It would be great if everyone understood this.
You can tell a bad tree by it's fruits and a good tree as well. The Bible has immense prophesies that have and is coming true as we speak. The Bible clearly pointed out that Jesus was coming and He did. the Bible clearly pointed out thousands of years ago that israel will come back to their land and in 1948 they did. Even the arabs say who their ancestral father is--Abraham and so on. The arabs are from Ishmael and Israel is from Isaac-sons of Abraham. You study so much and still you miss.
Everything in the bible you can go visit in the middle east. Just like we have history books in our country that proves where our fathers came from, so the bible says. Your ingnorance of the facts of the Bible is amazing. A person as smart as you are or what so appears, should have been able to clearly see it. Go to the middle east and see for yourself, search the proof of it on the net, or do you deny the nation of Israel and the arabs? NOT trying to attack, sry if it so seems.
Why do you presume i'm ignorant of biblical facts when i havent discussed that at all? I havent responded to your assertions about biblical archaeology because i dont think this an appropriate forum for that subject, anymore than for discussing Persian poetry, currency markets, dog breeding or what have you. A video titled "Darwin in Song" is a good excuse for discussing evolution, not for sidetracking the exchange into unrelated matters.
And no i dont take your remarks as an attack in any way.
By stating evolution as a fact based on nothing but thoughts and endless debates without any scientific proof, is stating that the bible is false. Therefore the bible has to be brought into question as to its history and factual accounts written by sane persons, to remove any doubts about the bible and therefore remove the thoughtless thoughts about evolution.
Evolution is not considered a fact based on mere "thoughts", but on massive interlocking lines of evidence, just like all other science, with which it is intimately interrelated (and "proof" has no role in science). If you dont understand this, then you are not only ignorant of evolution in particular, but of scientific inquiry in general. I dont fault you for that, since no one can be an expert in everything, but i fault you (& others here) for commenting on matters on which you lack knowledge.
As for the Bible being shown to be "false" in the strict sense of factual accuracy, this realization long preceded evolution & even modern science. Christian thinkers themselves, both the patristics & the scholastics (eg Origen to Aquinas), recognized that much scripture was insupportable when taken literally, but they considered this irrelevant to its role as divine revelation. Biblical literalism developed only in recent centuries, & the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, dates from the 19C.
If any of the foregoing is new to you, then i would suggest (at the risk of considerable presumption) that you dont know the history of your own religion & its theology, in which case you should not take others to task for lack of same. And if you insist on a literal interpretation of scripture, you must provide theological justification for this, and identify the extra-biblical source of your confidence that it is proper, since the text itself says nothing about the way it is to be interpreted.
You asked me earlier if i had "studied" the Bible. My honest answer would have to be No, since altho i have READ the book in its entirety in English translation, i cannot qualify as a STUDENT of the Bible, unless i have mastered the original languages & acquired the rich historical knowledge of the cultures in which the texts were composed, which is necessary to interpret their meaning. So i must rely on genuine scholars for my understanding. Are YOU an actual student of the Bible in this sense?
It is simply amazing that you have an extreme belief in something with no proof at all. There is nothing, not one ounce of proof of evolution--maybe there animals and plants that have adapted to their present enviroment, which is in no certaon way evolution. The facts you are basing on is only studies which is still underway. To deny the bible is to deny the Israel nation and the Arabs. Study it, and yes I have studied it on all accounts, whether hebrew, greek, or latin. The Bible is Truth
I have no "belief", extreme or otherwise, "in" evolution, any more than "in" atomism, i simply accept them as the demonstrable facts of the natural world that scientific investigation has convincingly shown them to be. As for "not one once of proof", when are you going to grasp that "proof" is just not an aspect of scientific knowledge? Its never been definitively "proven" that microbes cause disease; there is simply so much evidence for it that its scarcely imaginable that it could be wrong.
However, when we turn from proof to evidence, which is the object of all scientific endeavor, we have not just ounces or pounds, but tons of evidence confirming the factuality of evolution from direct observation of constant speciation, from molecular genetics, biogeography, embryology, comparative anatomy; & from paleontology, we have a richly documented fossil record so extensive & so unfailingly consistent with predicted evolutionary sequences as to establish it beyond any reasonable doubt.
But beyond all the massive & internally consistent evidence, we have known since Mendel that given the particulate nature of heredity, there is simply no way that large-scale evolution CANNOT happen over time when reproducing organisms are subject to selective attrition by their environments; this goes far beyond mere "adaptation." EVOLUTION IS AN INTRINSIC PROPERTY OF LIFE!
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"- geneticist Theodosius Dobzhanky, a devout CHRISTIAN.
I will return later to address your statements re the Bible & its conflicts with science. But i would note that saying "the bible is truth" can only be considered after specifying WHICH kind of truth is involved. The bible (or any other religious text) could be completely true theologically or morally & completely false historically (or vice-versa). Theological or moral truth is obviously beyond the purview of science. But its historical accuracy is in principle amenable to scientific inquiry.
First of all, no I'm not. Second, the bible states in Psalm 103:12, which king David wrote, king of Israel, from the tribe of Juda - HISTORY- it says: "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us."
East never meets west and therefore this verse suggests the world is round--read it. You can go east all you want and never will you reach west unless you turn and walk west. Israel was the name Jacob from where the 12 tribes came from-all in the Bible.
Ahpc2: When you say "no i'm not", i presume you mean you are not a geocentrist, as i inquired. Good! That also means you are not a biblical literalist, since that would necessitate geocentrism. It follows that you neednt be a creationist either, since only a rigidly literal interpretation of scripture requires such a commitment. So this entire pointless debate over evolution can be set aside once and for all, just as all intellectually mature theists have done long since. A welcome relief!
A singularity is the point of the expansion, hence, energy exploding or ripping or whatever you want to call it. Anyways, bottom line is that the Bible is truth and has been proven over and over and over. People witnessed things and wrote it down just like out history books. Jesus is real. The Bible is full of writings that would, if people followed it, make the earth peaceful-why then dispute it. The bible talks about things in the future which is proven true. Jesus loves everyone.
It is nice to know that there someone out there that loves us so much, that he came down to become like us to defeat death. Whether your rich or poor, we are all alike, death happens- however energy is forever. Jesus made sure we can live with him and abolished death forever. History does prove that there was a man named Jesus, who is in the bible. This man, the romans DID crucify. the question is not whether he was real--it is rather did he rise from the dead. Over 500 people saw him after
The big bang doesn't say anything of the sort, the Earth isn't actually round, and the number of people that believe in something doesn't have anything to do with how true it is.
--The bible backs science up and vice versa. The big bang is God saying let there be lIght. The bible is older than all of the books that talk about space and the big bang theory-Bible said it first and now science is saying it--if anything, science has backed the Bible. Check it yourselves-science and the bible says the same thing-no need for fighting.
Ahpc2:The Bible doesnt "back up'"science, even when the two happen to agree, because science pays no heed to religious writings, & the Bible is not and never was a science textbook, despite pigheaded fundamentalists foolishly trying to insist that it is. The Bible wasnt the first sacred literature to describe creation thus, the Genesis account doesnt agree w scientific findings, and the whole thing is taken from Babylonian mythology anyway, during the exile. All which matters -- how, exactly?
"Science and the bible say the same thing-no need for fighting." They dont in fact say the same thing, but why should they? Religion deals with subjective issues of meaning & value, science with objective descriptions of how the material world works. I agree theres no need for fighting, provided believers dont try to impose tests of religious acceptability upon scientific ideas - which is exactly what nitwit fundies have been doing for decades in their ignorant, imbecilic war against evolution.
The Big Bang Theory states that the point of impact, which the entire universe comes from, was a great ball of energy and light, spinning and then bang, it birthed the universe. The bible clearly states that God is light. It also says in Job 38 that God was there when the foundation of the earth was made, as well as how it was fastened, meaning gravity and so forth. In Genesis it also says God said let there be light, before there was the sun and moon. Science explains that there is God and
Okay, yeah, well, then why do the explanations of other religions, older religions, not count? The bible is one of many storybooks written to explain the universe and direct society. Why, besides the fact that you in particular grew up on it, is it more correct than any other religon?
I'm afraid your understanding of the Big Bang model is woefully ill-conceived, but this isnt the proper forum for an accurate explication of it. Suffice to say that there was no "point of impact", no spinning ball of energy, etc. But it really doesnt matter, since your attempts to reconcile Genesis with modern science is also woefully ill-conceived, being based on a completely misguided literalistic approach to an ancient text which was never intended to be taken literally in the first place.
There is a point of impact, prove me wrong. Like when you touch water and a ripple issues from the point, growing wider and wider and slower, so does the universe. The earth is slowing down, the moon is moving away from the earth, the stars are moving, the whole universe is expanding. Reverse it and you have the point of impact, the ball of energy, which no one knows where it came from. Logic reasoning states that and so does the science.
Ahpc2: Again, i dont want to derail this thread, but your understanding of the BB is very naive. There was no explosion into space, but an expansion OF space itself, hence the term "point of impact" is meaningless.There was a singularity at the beginning, not a "ball of energy"; the energy was released BY the expansion. The earth is slowing due to tidal friction from the moon, nothing to do with the expanding universe. But Darwin was not a cosmologist, so why even discuss the topic here?
An expansion can't happen by itself. An expansion can only happen from a cause of action at a point, like a ripple in the water-that is science, proven, not theory. Discussing it here is because you said that the bible does not back up science and yet it does. Have you studied the bible or only science? Again the bible is a history book and does back up science and does say the earth is round. You have taken the words and verses out of context to fit your own way.
As i said, the standard Big Bang model does not attempt to explain how the expansion began from the singularity, just how the new universe developed from that point. General relativity explains everything from (10 minus 43 power) seconds after Time Zero, but breaks down prior to that moment. Re your reference to "that is proven, not theory", you still dont understand the nature of scientific knowledge; neither facts nor theories are ever "proven" in science, because science doesnt DO proof.
Yes, i have studied the Bible, but only in translation, so im not qualified to pass scholarly judgments on it; neither are you if you havent read it in original Hebrew & Aramaic for the Tanakh (OT to Christians), koine Greek for NT. The Tanakh is written as a (loosely) historical narrative about the ancient Hebrews, but that doesnt mean it is intended to be taken literally as a journalistic account of events, much less that it is reliable history. But this is not the place to debate that issue.
This whole flat-earth business is becoming wearisome, but one more time: the Bible does NOT teach that the earth is spherical! Isaiah 40 uses the Hebrew word "chuwg", meaning "circle", not "duwr", meaning "ball", which the writer would certainly have used (as he does in Isaiah 22) if he wanted to describe a sphere. "Hung upon nothing'" can refer to an object of ANY shape; disk, sphere, dodecahedron etc. Never does the text explicitly say the world is a flat disk, but the imagery used IMPLIES it.
"You have taken the words and verses out of context to fit your own way." Well, im not the only one guilty of that (hint). No doubt you'd have said the same to Wilbur Voliva, the foremost American flat-earther, who based his stance firmly in rigid scriptural literalism and chided other fundamentalists for "straining out the gnat of evolution while swallowing the camel of modern astronomy." But HE thought he was being more genuinely faithful to the text than you are with your round-earth heresy!
But even if (contrary to Wilbur Glenn Voliva & his heirs like C. K. Johnson, late editor of "The Plane Truth") we allow sphericity past our scriptural filter, no such allowance can be made on the issue of heliocentrism & all post-Copernican astronomy that follows from it. The Hebrew Bible is quite explicitly & unambiguously geocentric in its worldview. You have not answered my query as to whether you are a committed geocentrist -- as you MUST be or abandon biblical literalism outright!
Knowing how liberal the times is, I'm sure you're also pro "Civil Union". Are you aware that many species mate for life? Geese for instance. And have you ever heard of two Bulls "doing it"? Very hipocrytical.
Lots of birds pair up socially but mate outside their pair as well (if you look at birds' offspring, you'll usually find some offspring that aren't related to the male).
You can also find non-reproductive sex in many animals, including homosexuality. Female bonobos, one of our closest living relatives, are especially known for this.
Hey I replied to you and it's gone. In genesis it says that God created man-male and female and told them to subdue earth, that was the sixth day, then it says he made adam and put him in the garden, then he made eve. Adam and eve had cain and Able first. Cain got banished and married someone in Nod and built a city. Noah put 7 of each clean animal male and female, and two unclean, male and female, not two sets, that is just the song. Hope it helps.
funny that you say read book. I have read 66 books-all in the bible-have you read the bible. have taken the bible and compared it to history. You read books that they just come up with and who could care less about humans. I read the books which teach to care about others. If everyone read the Bible, there would be no WAR only peace. Read the bible, read the bible, many near you. And it didn't come from thin air, many people died making it.
Zeitgeist(the movies). Have you seen them? So................are you going to choose the orange one? or the reddish one? Or are you not going to choose any at all?
roman catholocism a false christianity with a resurrected Jesus. Evolution teaches how humanity has evolved with no Jesus, salvation, eternal life. Give me a little light than no light at all.
fothgt: "Evolution teaches how humanity has evolved with no Jesus, salvation, eternal life. " No, it doesnt -- it teaches nothing whatsoever about such matters, pro or con. Neither does anything else in natural science. What you are protesting is philosophical materialism, which rejects the supernatural, but nothing in evolutionary biology, or any other scientific field, entails a commitment to that or any other philosophical stance. Really!
Thanks for the compliment, kerasea, its appreciated. I may well be a smart guy compared to the resident fundies, but thats an exceedingly undemanding standard to meet, so it hardly qualifies as a boast. Fortunately, there are some other great contributors here just as smart, or smarter, who are carrying the flag for the cause of reason and they deserve a salute also.
And i wish i actually had half the knowledge i appear to have from these posts. ;-)
Well, you're right in a lot of areas... but, come on, the bible DOES preach the idea of man's creation from dirt and woman's creation from man's rib. I understand there's more to it than that, but there's reasoning in the rejection of evolution by those who follow christian ideals. It often DOES go against their beliefs.
Yes, certainly evolution conflicts sharply with biblical literalism, but so does most of modern science - much of physics, chemistry, & medicine and virtually ALL of biology, geology & astronomy contradict it. And Christians who DON'T subscribe to a literal interpretation have no more reason to object to evolution than to any other naturalistic explanation of the material world which they see as created and sustained by God. There is nothing UNIQUE about the concept of evolution in this respect.
OK, it does conflict with most everything of modern science. Which is why it's wrong. You just seem to be trying to find flaw in those who disagree with Darwin outside of their beliefs. "Darwin didn't come up with evolution, so you're stupid for blaming him. Evolution doesn't specifically deny the bible, so you're stupid for agruing." Yeah, okay, Science is right the Bible is wrong, that's my opinion. But the people who disagree with that can rightly disagree with Darwin. It's fair enough.
PPDT: Yes, naturally they can disagree with Darwin on scientific grounds, assuming theyre qualified to do so, but of course theyre NOT so qualified because of their manifest scientific illiteracy, as i keep pointing out. The Bible is erroneous AS A SCIENCE BOOK, but believers shouldnt be defending it on that basis anyway, as any serious theologian could tell them, but fundies are just as ignorant of theology & philosophy as they are of science. Its "fair enough" to confront them with that fact.
The Bible is far more erroneous than a science book. I'm really thinking maybe you should just stop criticizing people on all sides. Those who take the bible for truth can have a problem with Darwin and the beliefs associated with him, and anyone holding most of their beliefs in science can disagree with the bible. You don't have to post tens of thousands of times just to disagree with all of these people. Why don't you go find some forum on this stuff? You have a lot to vent.
OK, PPDT, i confess to excessive loquacity! :-) But this IS a forum where such issues can be discussed, & on YouTube one can reach a lot of folks who would never turn up at, say, the Freethought & Rationalism Board. My argument is with those who take the Bible as LITERAL truth, when it is demonstrably false & antiquated as a science book, but fundies keep foolishly treating it as such, impelling them to this idiotic war against evolution, about which they understand nothing (see their posts).
PPDT: Sorry for the 10,000th post :-(, but i havent actually criticized people "on all sides." In fact, there are several contributors here whose comments i have great respect for, including several of yours. Its great to have company. Cheers!
Sorry to spoil the fun for you, moabedom, but there is a general consensus about this issue, and it is that both are considered true and proven by observation. A good example for observed macroevolution is the study of Enrique Melendez-Hevia (1996), which showed that the Krebs cycle had evolved, while this complex biochemical machine had served as the prime example of irreducible complexity. Many macroevolutionary "leaps" have been explained by scientists the last decennia.
Good point. And if you ask the pope if he thinks the earth is actually round, when clearly it is flat (anyone who has ever walked knows that), or whether those bright lights in the sky at night are actually gigantic fireballs burning off fusion power, and not the eyes of gods staring down at us? preposterous suggestion, huh? oh and the suggestion that all matter is comprised of tiny particles with smaller charged particles orbiting them? fuggedabout it. I've never seen an atom! You are hopeless.
The Pope presides over a false "Christianity" see our TV programs. A "flat" earth? The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. The Bible stated it was "round" over 2,700 years ago in Isaiah 40:22 and earlier than that, the Bible states that the earth hangs" on nothing (Job 26:7). You are not hopeless. Just willfully blind. Refusing to trade in sin and/or peer approval, for eternal truth. We wish you the best!
Yes, of course, Roman Catholicism is a "false" Christianity; and who on this thread possesses the "true" Christianity? Hmmm, let me guess...
But the bible is indeed a flat-earth document at least by implication, if you take it literally (as fundies do, with no theological justification). Google "Flat Earth in the Bible?" by J F Alward for details. And its unambiguously geocentric, beyond dispute; i presume you are a committed geocentrist, as any creationist must be. If not, beware Gods wrath!
I looked at his convoluted inferences as can anyone else reading this. The Bible is very explicit. Flat earth?? The Bible never says that. It states that the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22). It also states that the earth hangs upon nothing (Job: 26:7). Both contained in the Dead sea scrolls and written over 2000 years before Columbus. Believe what you want. Hopefully you will take God's suggestion and search with all your heart for the truth odf His existence. There is overwhelming evidence.
1) I said the OT is a flat-earth document by implication only -- it never explicitly describes the world's shape, but the imagery used at several points is consistent with the common view in early antiquity of a flat disk covered by the heavenly firmament. Isaiah 40:22 uses the term "circle" which could imply a disk or a sphere. But the word "ball" is never employed to refer to the world, tho it appears elsewhere in the text., so the OT definitely does NOT say the earth is round.
it looks like a circle from space. The bible also says in job 26 that the earth hangs on nothing. isaiah 40 says God stretches the universe like a curtain-science just figured that out. Job 26 also says He inscribed a circle on the water between the light and darkness-since evening and morning occur there, the boundary is a circle because the earth is round. So therefore the OT does say the world is round. In job 38, it talks about the foundation of earth, before anyone knew there was.
This is a tiresome & ultimately irrelevant issue, & i noted before that there is ambiguity in the text, as you might expect in writings compiled over a period of 700yrs, during which the Greek idea of a spherical earth spread thru the Mideast. But there are passages that only make sense in a flat-earth context, as listed in the articles by Shadewald & Elert i referred you too. And ALL modern flat-earthers, from Rowbotham onward, have based their stance in a literal interpretation of scripture.
2) Prior to the Greek influence following Alexander's conquest, this assumption of a flat-earth is only to be expected, and since the Bible has multiple authors, its not surprising there is ambiguity in its language. But there is no ambiguity about its geocentrism, hence can i properly assume you are a geocentrist?
3) Online Sources: For a more detailed and informative examination of biblical cosmology, look up "The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology" by Glenn Elert, which covers (as it were) the flat-earth model. For a fascinating and often amusing overview of the history of "Bible-science", see "Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity, and the Flat Earth" by Robert J. Schadewald, who did exhaustive research in this area; the bibliography alone is a treasure.
4) Your reference to "2000 years before Columbus" betokens historical naivete. Columbus had nothing to do with "proving the earth was round." He didnt need to, because all educated people had accepted that fact for centuries. Aristotle had provided solid evidence for sphericity in the 4thC BCE, and the realization is much older than that. Columbus argued instead that the globe was much smaller than common estimates held, making a westward sea voyage to the Indies feasible. He was dead wrong!
5) Of course, this whole silly business about flat-earthism, geocentrism, etc only arises because of fundamentalists' idiotic and shallow insistence on reading scripture in the most reductionist & literalistic fashion possible, which has neither theological nor literary justification. The Bible is replete with scientific, historical & geographic errors, none of which impact the issue of divine origin except for dogmatic literalists whose impoverished imaginations cannot process it any other way.
6) Among the worst features of the Protestant Reformation was the abandonment of the previous fourfold levels of scriptural interpretation -- literal, allegorical, tropological, anagogical -- in favor of a narrowly unidimensional tack which stripped the text of its mythic resonances. Of course, there is no support for this in scripture, since there is no Preface in the front of the Bible telling us how what follows is to be interpreted...cont.
6) .... so fundies must therefore derive their confidence that literalism is the proper approach from some source of knowledge about divine intentions which is external to the text, violating the basic Protestant dictum of Sola Scriptura!
7) So my question to Fundies and other evangelical Christians who keep insisting against all evidence and logic on the literal truth of Genesis (and by extension the rest of scripture): Why are you so certain that God WANTS you to take it literally? And from what infallible extrabiblical source do you derive this certitude?
While I disagree with your false claim that the bible is a flat earth document (the book refers to the earth as being round), I do agree that it is stupid when people try to claim that only their own denomination of Christianity is "real" Christianity, because that is a very un-Christian attitude to has and essentially claims that there were no real Christians before that denom. existed. I myself do not belong to any particular denomination, because I think it's a broken system.
Timstuff: Your observation is astute in exposing the hubris of those who claim to hold the "true", uniquely authorized divine revelation. The astonishing conceit of thinking that God allows all these other poor souls, who are equally his creations, to be misled about his intentions, even to the extent of endangering their salvation, but would never permit ME to be similarly misguided, as i alone have access to his celestial source code! As to the flat-earth issue, see my responses to moabedom.
sirmolio: "I've never seen an atom!'"And you wont because atomism is a lie! It was concocted by the materialist philosopher Democritus to deny the gods! John Dalton revived it because he wanted to promote atheism! Have you ever looked at your hand with a magnifying glass or a microscope? Do you see it dissolving into little separate particles? NO! God made all matter continuous, including our bodies -- otherwise we would see millions of pinholes shining light thru the empty spaces! What a fraud!
Many of the folks who had appendices or tonsils yanked unnecessarily in the last century are/were victims of a false Darwinian ideology. The list of 180 organs alleged to be "vestigial" in 1890 has been virtually reduced to nil by today. Conclusion: Darwinism tragically retarded the many advances that could have been made if macro-evolutionary theory had been recognized as it is - false science.
No, the appendix, the males nipple and many other structures are vestigial organs. It's just that you misunderstand the definition of "vestigial organ". Just because something has a secondary function serving a a node for leukocytes (which many organs serve by default) doesn't mean that its primary function isn't degraded by evolution.
The Appendix, just like nipples on male humans appear to serve one function which they either do poorly or no longer serve.
Research by Brittan shows that inclusion of "indels" in human and chimp sequences reduced the human/chimp homology to 95%. When an entire sequencing comparison is made, the likely homology is almost certainly going to be less than 10%. This would totally rule out our evolution from a common ancestor. Aditionally, "Haldanes Dilemma" indicates that at even 98.5 % the 250,000 beneficial mutations required would be impossible. Science never sees truly beneficial mutations. Never "new information".
Oh Lord, the misinformation never stops, does it?
"Science never sees truly beneficial mutations. Never new information."
Demonstrably false. Beneficial, detrimental & neutral mutations alike have been observed by geneticists for over 80 years.
New information (a term perennially misused by creationists) is constantly being generated by point mutations, insertions, deletions, duplications,etc & those are limited to the germ line. Somatic mutations also add information for selection to act on.
When you combine "deleterious and neutral" mutations, they account for 99.99% of all mutations. Only a handful of known mutations are considered beneficial and each of them is a loss of genetic information. In order for a species to advance, especially say, from reptiles to birds, or reptiles to mammals, gains of new information are required. No gain of genetic information has ever been found. Additionally, mutations occur at the level of nucleotides and therefore could rarely be "selected".
moabedom: I appreciate the fact that youre not a total scientific illiterate, but as the maxim says, "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." No, mutations dont just occur at the level of nucleotides. And species dont "advance." But to address your claims, Google the following:
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection;
Information in the Genome: The Debunking;
No New Information? Rejecting the creationist myth with basic genetics;
Sean Carroll, of the Medical Institute and Laboratory of Molecular Biology at the University of Wisconsin--Madison, wrote in a 2001 edition of Nature: "A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life's history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue.
I suspect you are just manufacturing a controversy here. There is considerable evidence of the presence of not only positive, but neomorphic (new) gene functions. Indeed, the concept of static "harmful" and "beneficial" genes has been brought into question over time.
Haldanes DiIemma has been resolved for many years and I have never seen any significant debate over a disconnect between macro- and micro-evolutionary processes.
Ah, the pleasures of quote-mining! Sean Carroll is a leader in evolutionary developmental biology, and he has complained repeatedly about creationist misuse of his writing. You provide an authentic quote, but ignore what follows in the essay, which argues that the very distinction between micro-& macroevolution is outdated!. These terms are used quite differently by creationists than by scientists; the former use micro-evolution to describe changes within "kinds", a meaningless term in biology.
Did you know: Chromosomes cannot disappear. They CAN fuse together. Apes have 34 pairs of chromosomes, human have 32. Scientists have found the chromosome in the human body that matches what the 33rd and 34th pairs would have fused into. SO guess what all you jesus freaks? We WERE all monkeys at one point. In your face. happy b-day Charles. PS to Ahcp2 you are the reason why i'm afraid for the continuation of our species as a whole... THE BIBLE IS NOT FACTUAL.
Archeology proves the Bible is factual. Much of the history around 800 B.C. is confirmed in the Bible by corresponding history on Stele found in Egypt and elsewhere. As far as fused chromosomes. At some point early in human history (Noah's family of 8 could easily have had a dominant fusion expressed in their genes. This fusion of the chromosomes occurred to give us the 23 pairs we have now. All living humans are descended from those in which the fusion occurred.
thros2000: Im afraid youve gotten your facts wrong, tho that doesnt undercut your primary point. Humans actually have 46 chromosomes, while the other ape species have 48. Its been demonstrated that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes now labeled 2A & 2B (the exact nucleotide segment where this occurred has been identified). Which doesnt mean it was this fusion that caused the speciation event dividing them, it simply happened on our branch after the two lineages split.
Don't believe in evolution? We do it all the time by creating different kinds of dogs, cows, and sheep to suit our needs. Watch and listen carefully to the Westminster Dog Show. Selective breeding = evolution - natural selection.
wrong! We are messed up because people eat mcdonalds too much-lol-look at what we have done to the world-at one time the humans were superior. but look at what breath and eat.
Read the Bible carefully-It says God made man-male and female and told them to subdue earth-THEN he created adam made a garden for him-then he created Eve in the garden-humans were already made-adam and eve had cain and able-cain got banished-he left and married someone-read it carefully in the begining of Genesis
Jesus was a real person-check your history and actually study something for once. The question has neevr been, Did Jesus excist, the question always has been with 95% of the world asking, Is Christ a prophet or is He God. Do your history research bud. Most of the world believe in Jesus, but they argue if he is God or not.
actually there is. There are many books about him that are not in the bible. The jewish people have massive history about their culture and past kings. Jesus is the english name. Jesus and Joshua is the englsih name. YWHW is his name in hebrew. His name is everywhere within their history books. We only have a part of it in the Bible. Also the romans wrote about him using the name Christo or Christi or X. do studies
there is only speculation since there was a rouge jewish prophet at the time also the hindu say that christians are actually worshipers of Krishna its very likly since they have the eaxact same story but it being fact thats highly unlikly
huh? Go to Israel and see the buildings from the Bible. The bible is a history book. Go to a canadian or anyone and say that there history book is false-they will say your retarded. Same goes for the Jews and the arabs. You dening the Bible is arrogance. You're denying something that is factual for the sake of an idea and falsified tests about the gene code. You have not done your studies. By the way Jesus was a real person-check your history! Was he a prophet or God is the real question.
What is your level of education? Does it help you assess this hypothesis:
A cosmic zombie can make you live forever, but only on the condition that you symbolically eat his flesh, and telepathically inform him you accept him as your master, all so that he can remove, from an invisible organ found only in human bodies, called a "soul", the evil force introduced there when a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Any day creationists come up with a absolute proof that God exists and created all of us then I wouldn't be judging other people. OH and btw, thanks to Darwin, most of modern science was developed, he did a lot more then just develop a thesis on the evolution of man.
Also I'll make this clear. You can not fully justify how humans came to be with the theory of evolution, after all it is just a theory. But then again you can not put your full trust into creationism because there is nothing to support it other then what you here from someone else. I don't want to argue this any further then what I have just stated because you can never get anyone to agree on anything. And everyone should just relax, it's the guys 200th birthday.
You think stars/suns are angels who have nothing better to do than stand in the sky and move around exactly the same way to the same places every season? (Constellations)
And you think darkness is made of devils? I think we'd all be dead if it was.
Have you ever heard of a metaphor? Do you even know what a metaphor is? If a poet says love is a rose you don't automatically assume you can achieve love if you buy a rose. Some things aren't meant to be interpreted literally. I think its you who is lacking the brain power in this arguement.
ratholin: "religion is one part willful ignorance two parts make believe." An overly broad generalization when applied to any and all religious practice; but it ABSOLUTELY describes with painful accuracy the strain of religiosity displayed in this forum by the numerous "fundygelicals" whose posts seem utterly intent on justifying every invidious stereotype of "Christers" as woefully ignorant, obdurately irrational, anti-intellectual simpletons.
Well when belief is held above facts that's willful ignorance. When a person starts discussing how a magical being changed their life that's make believe. I don't mind the makebelieve if it held to any sort of logic. But basically "In my head I can picture a creature of infinite power infinite love and great kindness. And that means Yaweh the genocidal desert fairy is real." is just oye brain pain.
you know whats brain pain? How a single celled organism being made from chance is about as likely as a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747.
And yet the 747 is infinitely less complex than an all powerful all knowing omnipresent being. And apparently you're willing to assume that could just poof into existence fully formed without even the benefit of a tornado or a junkyard.
No. I'm merely accepting the possibility of an intelligent designer, which may or may not be comprehendable to man kind, as an alternative to dawrinism. Keep this in mind, Darwin did not know the complexity of the cell while writing The Origin of Species. I am not trying to completely debunk dawrinism. I'm revealing the holes which lie within its doctrine.
Darwinism is the study of the life of charles darwin. You're thinking of Evolution by natural selection which is a science that's evolved over 150 years to include such important concepts not available 150 million years ago as mutation, cell organelles and other wonderful ideas. Further evolution makes no claim on the origin of life only the method of speciation. So asking where the first cell comes from is showing your ignorance of the topic.
"Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with NO connection to the work of Charles Darwin". Many *DARWINISTS* such a Richard Dawkins attempt to explain the first life form on earth but really have no concrete theory as to how it happen. Just thought I'd enlighten you.
No Darwinism incorrectly used is an attempt to turn evolution into a seeming faith. Dawkins is a darwinist because he thoroughly studied the life of darwin. Misuse of terms is always the first part of the creationist shell game. The origin point of life has several dozen nonmagical theories that are weeding each other out through natural selection. Abiogenis is very popular clay theory not so much, panspermia seems to just confuse the issue but may be a valid starting point on earth.
I guess quoting the main definition of Darwinism wasn't enough. And "creationist shell game"? Even Scientists with no link to christian fundamentalism, or religion for that matter, will disregard evolution as a possibility. Yes there are many theories as to how the first life form began but there is not nearly enough evidence to confirm it even as a reliable theory. This arguement could go on for hours...
I don't know three off the top of my head but I know David Berlinski is a great example. He is not a biologist; however, his opinions are just as valid.
Not particularly. His theorum of odds doesn't account for natural selection and his opinion that 250 particular proteins are necessary for life were disproven by a biology student. Plus his hatred of evolution is based on the fact he was born a jew in nazi germany. I couldn't think of a less qualified opinion.
I wouldn't say hatred towards evolution just a very strong disagreement. And it is only natural for a scientists to have strong feelings against anything which interferes with their beliefs. Though his opinion has be updated the odds are still in the billions.
In a universe with a trillion trillion stars and more than that amount of planets and billions and billions of those planets in the goldilocks zone and billions of years to get it right I'd take those odds.
You know what? I'm going to go ahead and say you have won this debate. My beliefs haven't changed but the brain hurt is coming. Not to mention the many others who will soon come to attack my comments.
Scientists to have strong feelings against anything which interferes with their beliefs? Excuse me all scientists care about is where the evidence lies. You act like somehow I want to believe I'm related to a tapeworm? I accept it only because the evidence indicates that we are, any good scientist accepts empirical evidence regardless of their beliefs, evolution is supported and your probability argument would be tantamount to making water freezing statistically impossibly unlikely.
Oh wouldn't that be great if we could work directly from empirical sciences which is experienced through our senses while ignoring our inner feelings completely. But guess what? That information will always be interpreted through your own perception. To have a completely bias free perception is impossible. Noone is immune. You may argue oh well if we're looking at set data its concrete. But there's always room for different interpretation. Oh and the more adverbs you use the cooler you are.
You're right, we cannot completely remove any and all bias we have, that's why some people still argue "Tired Light", however, that is also why replication is important within the sciences. No one study is considered paramount. However, regardless of religion, scientists virtually unanimously accept evolution... when any concept is so ubiquitously accepted it usually doesn't indicate some inherent bias, but rather an inherent set of empirical data supporting a concept (a la general relativity)
Killua you're arguing against a comment that wasn't even directed towards you and the arguement doesn't even exist anymore. You're really just shooting at a practice dummy. My probability argument is still a problem many dawrinists face today since it still isn't explained. And honestly? comparing the probably of a cell being created from a chemical reaction and the freezing of water? Shower your comments with as many fancy words as you'd like but children's literature is that way --->
By the way, by "ubiquitous acceptance" I am referring to the scientific and biological community, rather than the general populace.
And excuse my drunken state but what the fuck is wrong with my adverb use? I don't believe my post was incoherent, nor overly verbose, so what are you complaining about?
True, but the alleged bias of the scientific community would only be significantly towards the scientific method on this issue. Theologically, there are both Theist and Atheist Scientists on the side of evolution and if the evidence was being seen from an Atheist bias, then there would be a united Theist front against Evolution (which there isn't). There are Theists on both sides...
Well, as we all know, God never came into existence, (s)he has always existed, just by definition of being eternal. But the world itself cant simply be self-existent and eternal, because a Creation implies a Creator, but a Creator doesnt imply another Super-Creator to account for it, and another Super-Duper Creator behind that, etc, because, well, its just part of a Creator's job description that (s)he just doesnt require explanation.
Besides, infinite regress causes MAJOR Brain Pain. SO THERE!
Squish888: But no one suggests that it did! The fact that you imagine this to be how evolution works demonstrates that you (like countless others) havent the foggiest understanding of it. Natural selection is NOT random chance, it is in fact the exact OPPOSITE of a random process, and produces results totally different from what would "chance" alone would produce. And no one thinks a single-celled organism came about first anyway. That shopworn 747 analogy is completely irrelevant to evolution.
I still think my analogy is relevant to the roots of evolution. Yes Evolution produces results with the guidance of natural selection once the engine is running. A printer prints paper not by chance but yet the printer has already been made. If you can explain how the printer got there and I will give you a great amount of respect.
So the arguement comes down to where does DNA (The machine of life that's burps and hiccups cause both advance and disease) come from? That's a good question and we aren't sure yet but won't it be fun finding out?
well good news on that front. if you can hold on for another 40 years odds are good you'll live hundreds more. Did you see the tests where they made stem cells out of skin cells or grew a lady with tuberculosis a new trachea? With the advance of our knowledge we'll probably be around to see that question answered.
Squish888: A printer is not a self-replicating entity, tho it certainly can reproduce mechanical defects with remarkable efficiency. But since this conceptual obstacle is obviously ubiquitous, i will recommend some quality YouTube videos for understanding the subject.
Potholer54-Origin of Life Made Easy -basic intro; cdk007:The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis, and the remaining four videos in the series. Plus his Evolution of Irreducible Complexity.
Squish: "...tho it certainly can reproduce mechanical defects with remarkable efficiency" haha. I'll get around to watching those.
Yeah, they often elicit reactions from users which are, well, unprintable.
Youll enjoy the videos, but theyre not intended to be the most technically sophisticated arguments. Great jump-off points for further exploration, tho.
The QualiaSoup video doesnt even address abiogenesis, just evolution per se, but its so well-done that im recommending it to everyone i can.
Yes, completely on target, altho belief in a magical being can in fact change peoples lives dramatically, as the whole history of religion makes clear. Believers in long-extinct deities had the same transformative experiences as "born-again" believers testify to today; their error is in assuming that this indicates the objective reality of the being(s) to whom they attribute the experience.
"That means Yaweh the genocidal desert fairy is real." Great line! And a typical example of their "logic."
Thanks I really do have trouble with the dicotomy of faith. People I love and respect believe in god because they believe in love. And that's good. But then if you discuss old testament genocide they'd say it was necessary and good that children and infants were slaughtered to their god. And these are kind moral wouldn't hurt a fly sorts of people not extremists.
let me give you a better example. look up donexodus2 He's a christian and a biologist and of course he accepts evolution. When Pope John Paul the second was shown the facts and evidence by his top science advisors who were all christian he acknowledged evolution. When anyone actually listens to the fact checking after an ID lecture they find the depths of intellectual dishonesty the fundementalist superchurches will go to for fear of losing a single donator.
WHAT HE SAID! YES YES YES! Especially about the exhaustively documented and ethically deplorable intellectual dishonesty of ID proponents (Jonathan Wells in particular -- arrrrgh!).
"If God created the universe with the help of evolution, he would not be God. God doesn't need help because he is God." Of course, God doesnt need help, but thats not whats suggested. An omnipotent deity can create living beings in any way he chooses, and if he does so THRU (not "with the help of") evolution, its just another expression of his infinite power. To think of these as incompatible demonstrates the poor reasoning endemic among fundies. Serious theologians have NO PROBLEM w evolution.
Even without knowledge of evolution we would have good cause to suspect theist claims are false.
ganados0 9 months ago
Obviously this video has been linked to by some creationist site, or been hit by a votebot otherwise there's no explanation for the rating.
LynxChan 1 year ago 5
No one has made a mockery out of religion quite like Darwin did, whom by this single virtue is enough to be praised.
frankystein12 1 year ago 2
I don't like when he talks about man coming from apes, and pointing to the apes we know today. He should really emphasize the "common ancestor" aspect of our comparative evolution with apes.
biglmac 1 year ago 2
i cant wait for 2012 to see all the dumbass's who believe the worlds ending get proving wrong plus all those people who will off themselves
dwaynbob 2 years ago
People saying "be openminded to the existence of God". If u repeatly have tested that each time u drop a stone on u feet and instantly u feel your feet is in pain shall I than be openminded that the pain is might not been caused by the stone? Openmindedness is not been open to every junk info u meet but to b openminded that theory X can b wrong IF enough mounting evindence points out Y is more correct. So far evolution has been tested repeatly and we've accepted it's the stone causing the pain
Baal1985 2 years ago
People seem to be afraid of evolution for some reason...
Anyone who doesn't "believe" or accept evolution, I will say, doesn't know what evolution is, that's always been the case as I've seen it
dummbatz48 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
""""Mathematical proof GOD is and Jesus is the son of GOD!!!
Mister Deeeep 'The Th0ught Pr0v0ker' tells it in his music video...
gOOD nEWS iS fOR sHARING""""
misterdeeeep 2 years ago
That was excellent. I hope "Darwin" comes to Sydney. :)
seamuswarren 2 years ago
blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the creator of intelligence. This means think for yourself. If god exists, he would want us to question what we've been told. It would be great if everyone understood this.
WhoCaresJay 2 years ago 2
You can tell a bad tree by it's fruits and a good tree as well. The Bible has immense prophesies that have and is coming true as we speak. The Bible clearly pointed out that Jesus was coming and He did. the Bible clearly pointed out thousands of years ago that israel will come back to their land and in 1948 they did. Even the arabs say who their ancestral father is--Abraham and so on. The arabs are from Ishmael and Israel is from Isaac-sons of Abraham. You study so much and still you miss.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
then tell us. what is wrong?
deatherton11 2 years ago
what is wrong about what-evolution?
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Everything in the bible you can go visit in the middle east. Just like we have history books in our country that proves where our fathers came from, so the bible says. Your ingnorance of the facts of the Bible is amazing. A person as smart as you are or what so appears, should have been able to clearly see it. Go to the middle east and see for yourself, search the proof of it on the net, or do you deny the nation of Israel and the arabs? NOT trying to attack, sry if it so seems.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Why do you presume i'm ignorant of biblical facts when i havent discussed that at all? I havent responded to your assertions about biblical archaeology because i dont think this an appropriate forum for that subject, anymore than for discussing Persian poetry, currency markets, dog breeding or what have you. A video titled "Darwin in Song" is a good excuse for discussing evolution, not for sidetracking the exchange into unrelated matters.
And no i dont take your remarks as an attack in any way.
owlcowl 2 years ago
By stating evolution as a fact based on nothing but thoughts and endless debates without any scientific proof, is stating that the bible is false. Therefore the bible has to be brought into question as to its history and factual accounts written by sane persons, to remove any doubts about the bible and therefore remove the thoughtless thoughts about evolution.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Evolution is not considered a fact based on mere "thoughts", but on massive interlocking lines of evidence, just like all other science, with which it is intimately interrelated (and "proof" has no role in science). If you dont understand this, then you are not only ignorant of evolution in particular, but of scientific inquiry in general. I dont fault you for that, since no one can be an expert in everything, but i fault you (& others here) for commenting on matters on which you lack knowledge.
owlcowl 2 years ago
As for the Bible being shown to be "false" in the strict sense of factual accuracy, this realization long preceded evolution & even modern science. Christian thinkers themselves, both the patristics & the scholastics (eg Origen to Aquinas), recognized that much scripture was insupportable when taken literally, but they considered this irrelevant to its role as divine revelation. Biblical literalism developed only in recent centuries, & the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, dates from the 19C.
owlcowl 2 years ago 3
If any of the foregoing is new to you, then i would suggest (at the risk of considerable presumption) that you dont know the history of your own religion & its theology, in which case you should not take others to task for lack of same. And if you insist on a literal interpretation of scripture, you must provide theological justification for this, and identify the extra-biblical source of your confidence that it is proper, since the text itself says nothing about the way it is to be interpreted.
owlcowl 2 years ago 5
You asked me earlier if i had "studied" the Bible. My honest answer would have to be No, since altho i have READ the book in its entirety in English translation, i cannot qualify as a STUDENT of the Bible, unless i have mastered the original languages & acquired the rich historical knowledge of the cultures in which the texts were composed, which is necessary to interpret their meaning. So i must rely on genuine scholars for my understanding. Are YOU an actual student of the Bible in this sense?
owlcowl 2 years ago
It is simply amazing that you have an extreme belief in something with no proof at all. There is nothing, not one ounce of proof of evolution--maybe there animals and plants that have adapted to their present enviroment, which is in no certaon way evolution. The facts you are basing on is only studies which is still underway. To deny the bible is to deny the Israel nation and the Arabs. Study it, and yes I have studied it on all accounts, whether hebrew, greek, or latin. The Bible is Truth
Ahpc2 2 years ago
I have no "belief", extreme or otherwise, "in" evolution, any more than "in" atomism, i simply accept them as the demonstrable facts of the natural world that scientific investigation has convincingly shown them to be. As for "not one once of proof", when are you going to grasp that "proof" is just not an aspect of scientific knowledge? Its never been definitively "proven" that microbes cause disease; there is simply so much evidence for it that its scarcely imaginable that it could be wrong.
owlcowl 2 years ago 7
However, when we turn from proof to evidence, which is the object of all scientific endeavor, we have not just ounces or pounds, but tons of evidence confirming the factuality of evolution from direct observation of constant speciation, from molecular genetics, biogeography, embryology, comparative anatomy; & from paleontology, we have a richly documented fossil record so extensive & so unfailingly consistent with predicted evolutionary sequences as to establish it beyond any reasonable doubt.
owlcowl 2 years ago 2
But beyond all the massive & internally consistent evidence, we have known since Mendel that given the particulate nature of heredity, there is simply no way that large-scale evolution CANNOT happen over time when reproducing organisms are subject to selective attrition by their environments; this goes far beyond mere "adaptation." EVOLUTION IS AN INTRINSIC PROPERTY OF LIFE!
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"- geneticist Theodosius Dobzhanky, a devout CHRISTIAN.
owlcowl 2 years ago
I will return later to address your statements re the Bible & its conflicts with science. But i would note that saying "the bible is truth" can only be considered after specifying WHICH kind of truth is involved. The bible (or any other religious text) could be completely true theologically or morally & completely false historically (or vice-versa). Theological or moral truth is obviously beyond the purview of science. But its historical accuracy is in principle amenable to scientific inquiry.
owlcowl 2 years ago
First of all, no I'm not. Second, the bible states in Psalm 103:12, which king David wrote, king of Israel, from the tribe of Juda - HISTORY- it says: "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us."
East never meets west and therefore this verse suggests the world is round--read it. You can go east all you want and never will you reach west unless you turn and walk west. Israel was the name Jacob from where the 12 tribes came from-all in the Bible.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Ahpc2: When you say "no i'm not", i presume you mean you are not a geocentrist, as i inquired. Good! That also means you are not a biblical literalist, since that would necessitate geocentrism. It follows that you neednt be a creationist either, since only a rigidly literal interpretation of scripture requires such a commitment. So this entire pointless debate over evolution can be set aside once and for all, just as all intellectually mature theists have done long since. A welcome relief!
owlcowl 2 years ago
A singularity is the point of the expansion, hence, energy exploding or ripping or whatever you want to call it. Anyways, bottom line is that the Bible is truth and has been proven over and over and over. People witnessed things and wrote it down just like out history books. Jesus is real. The Bible is full of writings that would, if people followed it, make the earth peaceful-why then dispute it. The bible talks about things in the future which is proven true. Jesus loves everyone.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
It is nice to know that there someone out there that loves us so much, that he came down to become like us to defeat death. Whether your rich or poor, we are all alike, death happens- however energy is forever. Jesus made sure we can live with him and abolished death forever. History does prove that there was a man named Jesus, who is in the bible. This man, the romans DID crucify. the question is not whether he was real--it is rather did he rise from the dead. Over 500 people saw him after
Ahpc2 2 years ago
This was incredible!! I pretty much watched it twice.. haha you know in case I missed something ;) Loved it!
chick7489 2 years ago
The big bang doesn't say anything of the sort, the Earth isn't actually round, and the number of people that believe in something doesn't have anything to do with how true it is.
Mind-numbingly stupid comments there.
nithyan1 2 years ago
--The bible backs science up and vice versa. The big bang is God saying let there be lIght. The bible is older than all of the books that talk about space and the big bang theory-Bible said it first and now science is saying it--if anything, science has backed the Bible. Check it yourselves-science and the bible says the same thing-no need for fighting.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Ahpc2:The Bible doesnt "back up'"science, even when the two happen to agree, because science pays no heed to religious writings, & the Bible is not and never was a science textbook, despite pigheaded fundamentalists foolishly trying to insist that it is. The Bible wasnt the first sacred literature to describe creation thus, the Genesis account doesnt agree w scientific findings, and the whole thing is taken from Babylonian mythology anyway, during the exile. All which matters -- how, exactly?
owlcowl 2 years ago
"Science and the bible say the same thing-no need for fighting." They dont in fact say the same thing, but why should they? Religion deals with subjective issues of meaning & value, science with objective descriptions of how the material world works. I agree theres no need for fighting, provided believers dont try to impose tests of religious acceptability upon scientific ideas - which is exactly what nitwit fundies have been doing for decades in their ignorant, imbecilic war against evolution.
owlcowl 2 years ago
The Big Bang Theory states that the point of impact, which the entire universe comes from, was a great ball of energy and light, spinning and then bang, it birthed the universe. The bible clearly states that God is light. It also says in Job 38 that God was there when the foundation of the earth was made, as well as how it was fastened, meaning gravity and so forth. In Genesis it also says God said let there be light, before there was the sun and moon. Science explains that there is God and
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Okay, yeah, well, then why do the explanations of other religions, older religions, not count? The bible is one of many storybooks written to explain the universe and direct society. Why, besides the fact that you in particular grew up on it, is it more correct than any other religon?
PostrsPostDeepsToons 2 years ago 2
I'm afraid your understanding of the Big Bang model is woefully ill-conceived, but this isnt the proper forum for an accurate explication of it. Suffice to say that there was no "point of impact", no spinning ball of energy, etc. But it really doesnt matter, since your attempts to reconcile Genesis with modern science is also woefully ill-conceived, being based on a completely misguided literalistic approach to an ancient text which was never intended to be taken literally in the first place.
owlcowl 2 years ago
There is a point of impact, prove me wrong. Like when you touch water and a ripple issues from the point, growing wider and wider and slower, so does the universe. The earth is slowing down, the moon is moving away from the earth, the stars are moving, the whole universe is expanding. Reverse it and you have the point of impact, the ball of energy, which no one knows where it came from. Logic reasoning states that and so does the science.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Ahpc2: Again, i dont want to derail this thread, but your understanding of the BB is very naive. There was no explosion into space, but an expansion OF space itself, hence the term "point of impact" is meaningless.There was a singularity at the beginning, not a "ball of energy"; the energy was released BY the expansion. The earth is slowing due to tidal friction from the moon, nothing to do with the expanding universe. But Darwin was not a cosmologist, so why even discuss the topic here?
owlcowl 2 years ago
An expansion can't happen by itself. An expansion can only happen from a cause of action at a point, like a ripple in the water-that is science, proven, not theory. Discussing it here is because you said that the bible does not back up science and yet it does. Have you studied the bible or only science? Again the bible is a history book and does back up science and does say the earth is round. You have taken the words and verses out of context to fit your own way.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
As i said, the standard Big Bang model does not attempt to explain how the expansion began from the singularity, just how the new universe developed from that point. General relativity explains everything from (10 minus 43 power) seconds after Time Zero, but breaks down prior to that moment. Re your reference to "that is proven, not theory", you still dont understand the nature of scientific knowledge; neither facts nor theories are ever "proven" in science, because science doesnt DO proof.
owlcowl 2 years ago
Yes, i have studied the Bible, but only in translation, so im not qualified to pass scholarly judgments on it; neither are you if you havent read it in original Hebrew & Aramaic for the Tanakh (OT to Christians), koine Greek for NT. The Tanakh is written as a (loosely) historical narrative about the ancient Hebrews, but that doesnt mean it is intended to be taken literally as a journalistic account of events, much less that it is reliable history. But this is not the place to debate that issue.
owlcowl 2 years ago
This whole flat-earth business is becoming wearisome, but one more time: the Bible does NOT teach that the earth is spherical! Isaiah 40 uses the Hebrew word "chuwg", meaning "circle", not "duwr", meaning "ball", which the writer would certainly have used (as he does in Isaiah 22) if he wanted to describe a sphere. "Hung upon nothing'" can refer to an object of ANY shape; disk, sphere, dodecahedron etc. Never does the text explicitly say the world is a flat disk, but the imagery used IMPLIES it.
owlcowl 2 years ago
"You have taken the words and verses out of context to fit your own way." Well, im not the only one guilty of that (hint). No doubt you'd have said the same to Wilbur Voliva, the foremost American flat-earther, who based his stance firmly in rigid scriptural literalism and chided other fundamentalists for "straining out the gnat of evolution while swallowing the camel of modern astronomy." But HE thought he was being more genuinely faithful to the text than you are with your round-earth heresy!
owlcowl 2 years ago
But even if (contrary to Wilbur Glenn Voliva & his heirs like C. K. Johnson, late editor of "The Plane Truth") we allow sphericity past our scriptural filter, no such allowance can be made on the issue of heliocentrism & all post-Copernican astronomy that follows from it. The Hebrew Bible is quite explicitly & unambiguously geocentric in its worldview. You have not answered my query as to whether you are a committed geocentrist -- as you MUST be or abandon biblical literalism outright!
owlcowl 2 years ago
Wow! Darwin in theater? I would totally go see that!
Say is Wallace going to get his cut? Although I commonly refer to him as the beetle dude I want to hear a song for him.
Yaveyta 2 years ago
hey that was too funny when you guys did that... what made you guys wanna do something like that haha ... well you made me luahg hahaha lol
Chick6517 2 years ago
why is this video 2.5 stars? man, people don't know how to appreciate.
tam705618 2 years ago
Knowing how liberal the times is, I'm sure you're also pro "Civil Union". Are you aware that many species mate for life? Geese for instance. And have you ever heard of two Bulls "doing it"? Very hipocrytical.
MOTOPETE159 2 years ago
Lots of birds pair up socially but mate outside their pair as well (if you look at birds' offspring, you'll usually find some offspring that aren't related to the male).
You can also find non-reproductive sex in many animals, including homosexuality. Female bonobos, one of our closest living relatives, are especially known for this.
Hope that clears things up for you!
canadiangirl85 2 years ago 2
I had reponded to Candiangirl and it was removed, why? I just responded to her again, but the first time it was deleted. This forum is rigged!
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Hey I replied to you and it's gone. In genesis it says that God created man-male and female and told them to subdue earth, that was the sixth day, then it says he made adam and put him in the garden, then he made eve. Adam and eve had cain and Able first. Cain got banished and married someone in Nod and built a city. Noah put 7 of each clean animal male and female, and two unclean, male and female, not two sets, that is just the song. Hope it helps.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Thanks for your reply :) I respectfully disagree that 14 animals of each species could repopulate the earth, although it's better than 2!
What's a clean and unclean animal?
canadiangirl85 2 years ago
funny that you say read book. I have read 66 books-all in the bible-have you read the bible. have taken the bible and compared it to history. You read books that they just come up with and who could care less about humans. I read the books which teach to care about others. If everyone read the Bible, there would be no WAR only peace. Read the bible, read the bible, many near you. And it didn't come from thin air, many people died making it.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
This guy set the scientific community back a hundred years.
combatsambonyc 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Zeitgeist(the movies). Have you seen them? So................are you going to choose the orange one? or the reddish one? Or are you not going to choose any at all?
itrainsinoctober 2 years ago
roman catholocism a false christianity with a resurrected Jesus. Evolution teaches how humanity has evolved with no Jesus, salvation, eternal life. Give me a little light than no light at all.
fothgt 2 years ago
fothgt: "Evolution teaches how humanity has evolved with no Jesus, salvation, eternal life. " No, it doesnt -- it teaches nothing whatsoever about such matters, pro or con. Neither does anything else in natural science. What you are protesting is philosophical materialism, which rejects the supernatural, but nothing in evolutionary biology, or any other scientific field, entails a commitment to that or any other philosophical stance. Really!
owlcowl 2 years ago
owlcowl, you are one smart guy or girl. I wish I had half the knowledge you have.
Made for interesting reading.
kerasea 2 years ago
Comment removed
owlcowl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for the compliment, kerasea, its appreciated. I may well be a smart guy compared to the resident fundies, but thats an exceedingly undemanding standard to meet, so it hardly qualifies as a boast. Fortunately, there are some other great contributors here just as smart, or smarter, who are carrying the flag for the cause of reason and they deserve a salute also.
And i wish i actually had half the knowledge i appear to have from these posts. ;-)
owlcowl 2 years ago
Well, you're right in a lot of areas... but, come on, the bible DOES preach the idea of man's creation from dirt and woman's creation from man's rib. I understand there's more to it than that, but there's reasoning in the rejection of evolution by those who follow christian ideals. It often DOES go against their beliefs.
PostrsPostDeepsToons 2 years ago
Yes, certainly evolution conflicts sharply with biblical literalism, but so does most of modern science - much of physics, chemistry, & medicine and virtually ALL of biology, geology & astronomy contradict it. And Christians who DON'T subscribe to a literal interpretation have no more reason to object to evolution than to any other naturalistic explanation of the material world which they see as created and sustained by God. There is nothing UNIQUE about the concept of evolution in this respect.
owlcowl 2 years ago
OK, it does conflict with most everything of modern science. Which is why it's wrong. You just seem to be trying to find flaw in those who disagree with Darwin outside of their beliefs. "Darwin didn't come up with evolution, so you're stupid for blaming him. Evolution doesn't specifically deny the bible, so you're stupid for agruing." Yeah, okay, Science is right the Bible is wrong, that's my opinion. But the people who disagree with that can rightly disagree with Darwin. It's fair enough.
PostrsPostDeepsToons 2 years ago
PPDT: Yes, naturally they can disagree with Darwin on scientific grounds, assuming theyre qualified to do so, but of course theyre NOT so qualified because of their manifest scientific illiteracy, as i keep pointing out. The Bible is erroneous AS A SCIENCE BOOK, but believers shouldnt be defending it on that basis anyway, as any serious theologian could tell them, but fundies are just as ignorant of theology & philosophy as they are of science. Its "fair enough" to confront them with that fact.
owlcowl 2 years ago
The Bible is far more erroneous than a science book. I'm really thinking maybe you should just stop criticizing people on all sides. Those who take the bible for truth can have a problem with Darwin and the beliefs associated with him, and anyone holding most of their beliefs in science can disagree with the bible. You don't have to post tens of thousands of times just to disagree with all of these people. Why don't you go find some forum on this stuff? You have a lot to vent.
PostrsPostDeepsToons 2 years ago
OK, PPDT, i confess to excessive loquacity! :-) But this IS a forum where such issues can be discussed, & on YouTube one can reach a lot of folks who would never turn up at, say, the Freethought & Rationalism Board. My argument is with those who take the Bible as LITERAL truth, when it is demonstrably false & antiquated as a science book, but fundies keep foolishly treating it as such, impelling them to this idiotic war against evolution, about which they understand nothing (see their posts).
owlcowl 2 years ago
PPDT: Sorry for the 10,000th post :-(, but i havent actually criticized people "on all sides." In fact, there are several contributors here whose comments i have great respect for, including several of yours. Its great to have company. Cheers!
owlcowl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry to spoil the fun for you, moabedom, but there is a general consensus about this issue, and it is that both are considered true and proven by observation. A good example for observed macroevolution is the study of Enrique Melendez-Hevia (1996), which showed that the Krebs cycle had evolved, while this complex biochemical machine had served as the prime example of irreducible complexity. Many macroevolutionary "leaps" have been explained by scientists the last decennia.
agnat86 2 years ago
Good point. And if you ask the pope if he thinks the earth is actually round, when clearly it is flat (anyone who has ever walked knows that), or whether those bright lights in the sky at night are actually gigantic fireballs burning off fusion power, and not the eyes of gods staring down at us? preposterous suggestion, huh? oh and the suggestion that all matter is comprised of tiny particles with smaller charged particles orbiting them? fuggedabout it. I've never seen an atom! You are hopeless.
sirmolio 2 years ago
The Pope presides over a false "Christianity" see our TV programs. A "flat" earth? The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. The Bible stated it was "round" over 2,700 years ago in Isaiah 40:22 and earlier than that, the Bible states that the earth hangs" on nothing (Job 26:7). You are not hopeless. Just willfully blind. Refusing to trade in sin and/or peer approval, for eternal truth. We wish you the best!
moabedom 2 years ago
Yes, of course, Roman Catholicism is a "false" Christianity; and who on this thread possesses the "true" Christianity? Hmmm, let me guess...
But the bible is indeed a flat-earth document at least by implication, if you take it literally (as fundies do, with no theological justification). Google "Flat Earth in the Bible?" by J F Alward for details. And its unambiguously geocentric, beyond dispute; i presume you are a committed geocentrist, as any creationist must be. If not, beware Gods wrath!
owlcowl 2 years ago
I looked at his convoluted inferences as can anyone else reading this. The Bible is very explicit. Flat earth?? The Bible never says that. It states that the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22). It also states that the earth hangs upon nothing (Job: 26:7). Both contained in the Dead sea scrolls and written over 2000 years before Columbus. Believe what you want. Hopefully you will take God's suggestion and search with all your heart for the truth odf His existence. There is overwhelming evidence.
moabedom 2 years ago
1) I said the OT is a flat-earth document by implication only -- it never explicitly describes the world's shape, but the imagery used at several points is consistent with the common view in early antiquity of a flat disk covered by the heavenly firmament. Isaiah 40:22 uses the term "circle" which could imply a disk or a sphere. But the word "ball" is never employed to refer to the world, tho it appears elsewhere in the text., so the OT definitely does NOT say the earth is round.
owlcowl 2 years ago
it looks like a circle from space. The bible also says in job 26 that the earth hangs on nothing. isaiah 40 says God stretches the universe like a curtain-science just figured that out. Job 26 also says He inscribed a circle on the water between the light and darkness-since evening and morning occur there, the boundary is a circle because the earth is round. So therefore the OT does say the world is round. In job 38, it talks about the foundation of earth, before anyone knew there was.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
This is a tiresome & ultimately irrelevant issue, & i noted before that there is ambiguity in the text, as you might expect in writings compiled over a period of 700yrs, during which the Greek idea of a spherical earth spread thru the Mideast. But there are passages that only make sense in a flat-earth context, as listed in the articles by Shadewald & Elert i referred you too. And ALL modern flat-earthers, from Rowbotham onward, have based their stance in a literal interpretation of scripture.
owlcowl 2 years ago
2) Prior to the Greek influence following Alexander's conquest, this assumption of a flat-earth is only to be expected, and since the Bible has multiple authors, its not surprising there is ambiguity in its language. But there is no ambiguity about its geocentrism, hence can i properly assume you are a geocentrist?
owlcowl 2 years ago
3) Online Sources: For a more detailed and informative examination of biblical cosmology, look up "The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology" by Glenn Elert, which covers (as it were) the flat-earth model. For a fascinating and often amusing overview of the history of "Bible-science", see "Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity, and the Flat Earth" by Robert J. Schadewald, who did exhaustive research in this area; the bibliography alone is a treasure.
owlcowl 2 years ago
4) Your reference to "2000 years before Columbus" betokens historical naivete. Columbus had nothing to do with "proving the earth was round." He didnt need to, because all educated people had accepted that fact for centuries. Aristotle had provided solid evidence for sphericity in the 4thC BCE, and the realization is much older than that. Columbus argued instead that the globe was much smaller than common estimates held, making a westward sea voyage to the Indies feasible. He was dead wrong!
owlcowl 2 years ago
5) Of course, this whole silly business about flat-earthism, geocentrism, etc only arises because of fundamentalists' idiotic and shallow insistence on reading scripture in the most reductionist & literalistic fashion possible, which has neither theological nor literary justification. The Bible is replete with scientific, historical & geographic errors, none of which impact the issue of divine origin except for dogmatic literalists whose impoverished imaginations cannot process it any other way.
owlcowl 2 years ago
6) Among the worst features of the Protestant Reformation was the abandonment of the previous fourfold levels of scriptural interpretation -- literal, allegorical, tropological, anagogical -- in favor of a narrowly unidimensional tack which stripped the text of its mythic resonances. Of course, there is no support for this in scripture, since there is no Preface in the front of the Bible telling us how what follows is to be interpreted...cont.
owlcowl 2 years ago
6) .... so fundies must therefore derive their confidence that literalism is the proper approach from some source of knowledge about divine intentions which is external to the text, violating the basic Protestant dictum of Sola Scriptura!
owlcowl 2 years ago
7) So my question to Fundies and other evangelical Christians who keep insisting against all evidence and logic on the literal truth of Genesis (and by extension the rest of scripture): Why are you so certain that God WANTS you to take it literally? And from what infallible extrabiblical source do you derive this certitude?
owlcowl 2 years ago
While I disagree with your false claim that the bible is a flat earth document (the book refers to the earth as being round), I do agree that it is stupid when people try to claim that only their own denomination of Christianity is "real" Christianity, because that is a very un-Christian attitude to has and essentially claims that there were no real Christians before that denom. existed. I myself do not belong to any particular denomination, because I think it's a broken system.
Timstuff 2 years ago
Comment removed
owlcowl 2 years ago
Timstuff: Your observation is astute in exposing the hubris of those who claim to hold the "true", uniquely authorized divine revelation. The astonishing conceit of thinking that God allows all these other poor souls, who are equally his creations, to be misled about his intentions, even to the extent of endangering their salvation, but would never permit ME to be similarly misguided, as i alone have access to his celestial source code! As to the flat-earth issue, see my responses to moabedom.
owlcowl 2 years ago
sirmolio: "I've never seen an atom!'"And you wont because atomism is a lie! It was concocted by the materialist philosopher Democritus to deny the gods! John Dalton revived it because he wanted to promote atheism! Have you ever looked at your hand with a magnifying glass or a microscope? Do you see it dissolving into little separate particles? NO! God made all matter continuous, including our bodies -- otherwise we would see millions of pinholes shining light thru the empty spaces! What a fraud!
owlcowl 2 years ago
Many of the folks who had appendices or tonsils yanked unnecessarily in the last century are/were victims of a false Darwinian ideology. The list of 180 organs alleged to be "vestigial" in 1890 has been virtually reduced to nil by today. Conclusion: Darwinism tragically retarded the many advances that could have been made if macro-evolutionary theory had been recognized as it is - false science.
moabedom 2 years ago
lol
sirmolio 2 years ago
No, the appendix, the males nipple and many other structures are vestigial organs. It's just that you misunderstand the definition of "vestigial organ". Just because something has a secondary function serving a a node for leukocytes (which many organs serve by default) doesn't mean that its primary function isn't degraded by evolution.
The Appendix, just like nipples on male humans appear to serve one function which they either do poorly or no longer serve.
Common Descent remains strong.
JackOfFlames 2 years ago
Research by Brittan shows that inclusion of "indels" in human and chimp sequences reduced the human/chimp homology to 95%. When an entire sequencing comparison is made, the likely homology is almost certainly going to be less than 10%. This would totally rule out our evolution from a common ancestor. Aditionally, "Haldanes Dilemma" indicates that at even 98.5 % the 250,000 beneficial mutations required would be impossible. Science never sees truly beneficial mutations. Never "new information".
moabedom 2 years ago
lol
sirmolio 2 years ago
Oh Lord, the misinformation never stops, does it?
"Science never sees truly beneficial mutations. Never new information."
Demonstrably false. Beneficial, detrimental & neutral mutations alike have been observed by geneticists for over 80 years.
New information (a term perennially misused by creationists) is constantly being generated by point mutations, insertions, deletions, duplications,etc & those are limited to the germ line. Somatic mutations also add information for selection to act on.
owlcowl 2 years ago
When you combine "deleterious and neutral" mutations, they account for 99.99% of all mutations. Only a handful of known mutations are considered beneficial and each of them is a loss of genetic information. In order for a species to advance, especially say, from reptiles to birds, or reptiles to mammals, gains of new information are required. No gain of genetic information has ever been found. Additionally, mutations occur at the level of nucleotides and therefore could rarely be "selected".
moabedom 2 years ago
moabedom: I appreciate the fact that youre not a total scientific illiterate, but as the maxim says, "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." No, mutations dont just occur at the level of nucleotides. And species dont "advance." But to address your claims, Google the following:
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection;
Information in the Genome: The Debunking;
No New Information? Rejecting the creationist myth with basic genetics;
Evolution and Information:The Nylon Bug
owlcowl 2 years ago
Sean Carroll, of the Medical Institute and Laboratory of Molecular Biology at the University of Wisconsin--Madison, wrote in a 2001 edition of Nature: "A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life's history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue.
moabedom 2 years ago
I suspect you are just manufacturing a controversy here. There is considerable evidence of the presence of not only positive, but neomorphic (new) gene functions. Indeed, the concept of static "harmful" and "beneficial" genes has been brought into question over time.
Haldanes DiIemma has been resolved for many years and I have never seen any significant debate over a disconnect between macro- and micro-evolutionary processes.
JackOfFlames 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
agnat86 2 years ago
Ah, the pleasures of quote-mining! Sean Carroll is a leader in evolutionary developmental biology, and he has complained repeatedly about creationist misuse of his writing. You provide an authentic quote, but ignore what follows in the essay, which argues that the very distinction between micro-& macroevolution is outdated!. These terms are used quite differently by creationists than by scientists; the former use micro-evolution to describe changes within "kinds", a meaningless term in biology.
owlcowl 2 years ago
Did you know: Chromosomes cannot disappear. They CAN fuse together. Apes have 34 pairs of chromosomes, human have 32. Scientists have found the chromosome in the human body that matches what the 33rd and 34th pairs would have fused into. SO guess what all you jesus freaks? We WERE all monkeys at one point. In your face. happy b-day Charles. PS to Ahcp2 you are the reason why i'm afraid for the continuation of our species as a whole... THE BIBLE IS NOT FACTUAL.
thros2000 2 years ago
Archeology proves the Bible is factual. Much of the history around 800 B.C. is confirmed in the Bible by corresponding history on Stele found in Egypt and elsewhere. As far as fused chromosomes. At some point early in human history (Noah's family of 8 could easily have had a dominant fusion expressed in their genes. This fusion of the chromosomes occurred to give us the 23 pairs we have now. All living humans are descended from those in which the fusion occurred.
moabedom 2 years ago
lol
sirmolio 2 years ago
thros2000: Im afraid youve gotten your facts wrong, tho that doesnt undercut your primary point. Humans actually have 46 chromosomes, while the other ape species have 48. Its been demonstrated that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes now labeled 2A & 2B (the exact nucleotide segment where this occurred has been identified). Which doesnt mean it was this fusion that caused the speciation event dividing them, it simply happened on our branch after the two lineages split.
owlcowl 2 years ago
Don't believe in evolution? We do it all the time by creating different kinds of dogs, cows, and sheep to suit our needs. Watch and listen carefully to the Westminster Dog Show. Selective breeding = evolution - natural selection.
rbrown3rd 2 years ago
wrong! We are messed up because people eat mcdonalds too much-lol-look at what we have done to the world-at one time the humans were superior. but look at what breath and eat.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Read the Bible carefully-It says God made man-male and female and told them to subdue earth-THEN he created adam made a garden for him-then he created Eve in the garden-humans were already made-adam and eve had cain and able-cain got banished-he left and married someone-read it carefully in the begining of Genesis
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Jesus was a real person-check your history and actually study something for once. The question has neevr been, Did Jesus excist, the question always has been with 95% of the world asking, Is Christ a prophet or is He God. Do your history research bud. Most of the world believe in Jesus, but they argue if he is God or not.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
There is no source outside of the bible that mentions Jesus.
Pilate was a real person though. There are Roman records of him.
ad3543 2 years ago
actually there is. There are many books about him that are not in the bible. The jewish people have massive history about their culture and past kings. Jesus is the english name. Jesus and Joshua is the englsih name. YWHW is his name in hebrew. His name is everywhere within their history books. We only have a part of it in the Bible. Also the romans wrote about him using the name Christo or Christi or X. do studies
Ahpc2 2 years ago
"Jesus was a real person"
there is only speculation since there was a rouge jewish prophet at the time also the hindu say that christians are actually worshipers of Krishna its very likly since they have the eaxact same story but it being fact thats highly unlikly
xlioilx 2 years ago
huh? Go to Israel and see the buildings from the Bible. The bible is a history book. Go to a canadian or anyone and say that there history book is false-they will say your retarded. Same goes for the Jews and the arabs. You dening the Bible is arrogance. You're denying something that is factual for the sake of an idea and falsified tests about the gene code. You have not done your studies. By the way Jesus was a real person-check your history! Was he a prophet or God is the real question.
Ahpc2 2 years ago
Darwin was a complete moron, and so are his followers. Evolution is a lie....
demotl 2 years ago
So... you're a creationist: great, good for you.
What is your level of education? Does it help you assess this hypothesis:
A cosmic zombie can make you live forever, but only on the condition that you symbolically eat his flesh, and telepathically inform him you accept him as your master, all so that he can remove, from an invisible organ found only in human bodies, called a "soul", the evil force introduced there when a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
tripleVeeVee 2 years ago
Any day creationists come up with a absolute proof that God exists and created all of us then I wouldn't be judging other people. OH and btw, thanks to Darwin, most of modern science was developed, he did a lot more then just develop a thesis on the evolution of man.
6Jiraiya9 2 years ago
Also I'll make this clear. You can not fully justify how humans came to be with the theory of evolution, after all it is just a theory. But then again you can not put your full trust into creationism because there is nothing to support it other then what you here from someone else. I don't want to argue this any further then what I have just stated because you can never get anyone to agree on anything. And everyone should just relax, it's the guys 200th birthday.
6Jiraiya9 2 years ago
check that site: sourceradix com
victorchuepinche 2 years ago
check that site: sourceradix com
victorchuepinche 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is so stupid...
But i love my mom deeply...
And i don't want to take any chances.
Sorry.
If you do not copy and paste this onto 10 videos your mom will die in 4 hours
Gurrdawg 2 years ago
Killua is right: just because we're related to pigs/gorillas, doesn't mean are parents are them, it just means we have similarities... get a brain.
uJustGot0wned 2 years ago
You think stars/suns are angels who have nothing better to do than stand in the sky and move around exactly the same way to the same places every season? (Constellations)
And you think darkness is made of devils? I think we'd all be dead if it was.
uJustGot0wned 2 years ago
Have you ever heard of a metaphor? Do you even know what a metaphor is? If a poet says love is a rose you don't automatically assume you can achieve love if you buy a rose. Some things aren't meant to be interpreted literally. I think its you who is lacking the brain power in this arguement.
Squish888 2 years ago
just awesome...i love it!
goldyguitar 2 years ago
Great! Thank you. Please have him give me a call. I have some tough questions I want to ask of "him."
ps. He'll know my number.
TSM8088 2 years ago
This video has been attacked by creationist votebots. Please vote up to counter this votebot activity.
baudiirocz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We love your video. Thats why we featured it today on POPTUB. Stop by our channel and check it out!
POPTUB 2 years ago
ratholin: "religion is one part willful ignorance two parts make believe." An overly broad generalization when applied to any and all religious practice; but it ABSOLUTELY describes with painful accuracy the strain of religiosity displayed in this forum by the numerous "fundygelicals" whose posts seem utterly intent on justifying every invidious stereotype of "Christers" as woefully ignorant, obdurately irrational, anti-intellectual simpletons.
Great job witnessing for the faith, guys!
owlcowl 2 years ago
Well when belief is held above facts that's willful ignorance. When a person starts discussing how a magical being changed their life that's make believe. I don't mind the makebelieve if it held to any sort of logic. But basically "In my head I can picture a creature of infinite power infinite love and great kindness. And that means Yaweh the genocidal desert fairy is real." is just oye brain pain.
ratholin 2 years ago 2
you know whats brain pain? How a single celled organism being made from chance is about as likely as a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747.
Squish888 2 years ago
And yet the 747 is infinitely less complex than an all powerful all knowing omnipresent being. And apparently you're willing to assume that could just poof into existence fully formed without even the benefit of a tornado or a junkyard.
ratholin 2 years ago
No. I'm merely accepting the possibility of an intelligent designer, which may or may not be comprehendable to man kind, as an alternative to dawrinism. Keep this in mind, Darwin did not know the complexity of the cell while writing The Origin of Species. I am not trying to completely debunk dawrinism. I'm revealing the holes which lie within its doctrine.
Squish888 2 years ago
Darwinism is the study of the life of charles darwin. You're thinking of Evolution by natural selection which is a science that's evolved over 150 years to include such important concepts not available 150 million years ago as mutation, cell organelles and other wonderful ideas. Further evolution makes no claim on the origin of life only the method of speciation. So asking where the first cell comes from is showing your ignorance of the topic.
ratholin 2 years ago
"Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with NO connection to the work of Charles Darwin". Many *DARWINISTS* such a Richard Dawkins attempt to explain the first life form on earth but really have no concrete theory as to how it happen. Just thought I'd enlighten you.
Squish888 2 years ago
No Darwinism incorrectly used is an attempt to turn evolution into a seeming faith. Dawkins is a darwinist because he thoroughly studied the life of darwin. Misuse of terms is always the first part of the creationist shell game. The origin point of life has several dozen nonmagical theories that are weeding each other out through natural selection. Abiogenis is very popular clay theory not so much, panspermia seems to just confuse the issue but may be a valid starting point on earth.
ratholin 2 years ago
I guess quoting the main definition of Darwinism wasn't enough. And "creationist shell game"? Even Scientists with no link to christian fundamentalism, or religion for that matter, will disregard evolution as a possibility. Yes there are many theories as to how the first life form began but there is not nearly enough evidence to confirm it even as a reliable theory. This arguement could go on for hours...
Squish888 2 years ago
Name three scientists in the field of biology with no connection to the abrahamic or hindu faiths that disavow evolution.
ratholin 2 years ago
I don't know three off the top of my head but I know David Berlinski is a great example. He is not a biologist; however, his opinions are just as valid.
Squish888 2 years ago
Not particularly. His theorum of odds doesn't account for natural selection and his opinion that 250 particular proteins are necessary for life were disproven by a biology student. Plus his hatred of evolution is based on the fact he was born a jew in nazi germany. I couldn't think of a less qualified opinion.
ratholin 2 years ago 2
I wouldn't say hatred towards evolution just a very strong disagreement. And it is only natural for a scientists to have strong feelings against anything which interferes with their beliefs. Though his opinion has be updated the odds are still in the billions.
Squish888 2 years ago
In a universe with a trillion trillion stars and more than that amount of planets and billions and billions of those planets in the goldilocks zone and billions of years to get it right I'd take those odds.
ratholin 2 years ago
You know what? I'm going to go ahead and say you have won this debate. My beliefs haven't changed but the brain hurt is coming. Not to mention the many others who will soon come to attack my comments.
Squish888 2 years ago
You were fun to debate with and if it turns out seeded transpermia is the answer I'll buy you a beer.
ratholin 2 years ago
haha well thanks.
Squish888 2 years ago
Scientists to have strong feelings against anything which interferes with their beliefs? Excuse me all scientists care about is where the evidence lies. You act like somehow I want to believe I'm related to a tapeworm? I accept it only because the evidence indicates that we are, any good scientist accepts empirical evidence regardless of their beliefs, evolution is supported and your probability argument would be tantamount to making water freezing statistically impossibly unlikely.
Killua2001 2 years ago
Oh wouldn't that be great if we could work directly from empirical sciences which is experienced through our senses while ignoring our inner feelings completely. But guess what? That information will always be interpreted through your own perception. To have a completely bias free perception is impossible. Noone is immune. You may argue oh well if we're looking at set data its concrete. But there's always room for different interpretation. Oh and the more adverbs you use the cooler you are.
Squish888 2 years ago
You're right, we cannot completely remove any and all bias we have, that's why some people still argue "Tired Light", however, that is also why replication is important within the sciences. No one study is considered paramount. However, regardless of religion, scientists virtually unanimously accept evolution... when any concept is so ubiquitously accepted it usually doesn't indicate some inherent bias, but rather an inherent set of empirical data supporting a concept (a la general relativity)
Killua2001 2 years ago
Killua you're arguing against a comment that wasn't even directed towards you and the arguement doesn't even exist anymore. You're really just shooting at a practice dummy. My probability argument is still a problem many dawrinists face today since it still isn't explained. And honestly? comparing the probably of a cell being created from a chemical reaction and the freezing of water? Shower your comments with as many fancy words as you'd like but children's literature is that way --->
Squish888 2 years ago
By the way, by "ubiquitous acceptance" I am referring to the scientific and biological community, rather than the general populace.
And excuse my drunken state but what the fuck is wrong with my adverb use? I don't believe my post was incoherent, nor overly verbose, so what are you complaining about?
Killua2001 2 years ago
Well i'm just so shockingly surprisingly astonishingly dumbfounded that you would say such a thing!
Squish888 2 years ago
True, but the alleged bias of the scientific community would only be significantly towards the scientific method on this issue. Theologically, there are both Theist and Atheist Scientists on the side of evolution and if the evidence was being seen from an Atheist bias, then there would be a united Theist front against Evolution (which there isn't). There are Theists on both sides...
JackOfFlames 2 years ago
*as
Squish888 2 years ago
Well, as we all know, God never came into existence, (s)he has always existed, just by definition of being eternal. But the world itself cant simply be self-existent and eternal, because a Creation implies a Creator, but a Creator doesnt imply another Super-Creator to account for it, and another Super-Duper Creator behind that, etc, because, well, its just part of a Creator's job description that (s)he just doesnt require explanation.
Besides, infinite regress causes MAJOR Brain Pain. SO THERE!
owlcowl 2 years ago
Squish888: But no one suggests that it did! The fact that you imagine this to be how evolution works demonstrates that you (like countless others) havent the foggiest understanding of it. Natural selection is NOT random chance, it is in fact the exact OPPOSITE of a random process, and produces results totally different from what would "chance" alone would produce. And no one thinks a single-celled organism came about first anyway. That shopworn 747 analogy is completely irrelevant to evolution.
owlcowl 2 years ago
I still think my analogy is relevant to the roots of evolution. Yes Evolution produces results with the guidance of natural selection once the engine is running. A printer prints paper not by chance but yet the printer has already been made. If you can explain how the printer got there and I will give you a great amount of respect.
Squish888 2 years ago
So the arguement comes down to where does DNA (The machine of life that's burps and hiccups cause both advance and disease) come from? That's a good question and we aren't sure yet but won't it be fun finding out?
ratholin 2 years ago
Yes. Maybe in a few hundred years we will find out who is right.
Squish888 2 years ago
well good news on that front. if you can hold on for another 40 years odds are good you'll live hundreds more. Did you see the tests where they made stem cells out of skin cells or grew a lady with tuberculosis a new trachea? With the advance of our knowledge we'll probably be around to see that question answered.
ratholin 2 years ago
Squish888: A printer is not a self-replicating entity, tho it certainly can reproduce mechanical defects with remarkable efficiency. But since this conceptual obstacle is obviously ubiquitous, i will recommend some quality YouTube videos for understanding the subject.
Potholer54-Origin of Life Made Easy -basic intro; cdk007:The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis, and the remaining four videos in the series. Plus his Evolution of Irreducible Complexity.
And QualiaSoup's elegantly simple "Evolution."
owlcowl 2 years ago
"...tho it certainly can reproduce mechanical defects with remarkable efficiency" haha. I'll get around to watching those.
Squish888 2 years ago
Squish: "...tho it certainly can reproduce mechanical defects with remarkable efficiency" haha. I'll get around to watching those.
Yeah, they often elicit reactions from users which are, well, unprintable.
Youll enjoy the videos, but theyre not intended to be the most technically sophisticated arguments. Great jump-off points for further exploration, tho.
The QualiaSoup video doesnt even address abiogenesis, just evolution per se, but its so well-done that im recommending it to everyone i can.
owlcowl 2 years ago
Yes, completely on target, altho belief in a magical being can in fact change peoples lives dramatically, as the whole history of religion makes clear. Believers in long-extinct deities had the same transformative experiences as "born-again" believers testify to today; their error is in assuming that this indicates the objective reality of the being(s) to whom they attribute the experience.
"That means Yaweh the genocidal desert fairy is real." Great line! And a typical example of their "logic."
owlcowl 2 years ago
Thanks I really do have trouble with the dicotomy of faith. People I love and respect believe in god because they believe in love. And that's good. But then if you discuss old testament genocide they'd say it was necessary and good that children and infants were slaughtered to their god. And these are kind moral wouldn't hurt a fly sorts of people not extremists.
ratholin 2 years ago 2
Oh and Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who calls himself a dawrinist because his beliefs run along the same baseline as Dawrin.
Squish888 2 years ago
let me give you a better example. look up donexodus2 He's a christian and a biologist and of course he accepts evolution. When Pope John Paul the second was shown the facts and evidence by his top science advisors who were all christian he acknowledged evolution. When anyone actually listens to the fact checking after an ID lecture they find the depths of intellectual dishonesty the fundementalist superchurches will go to for fear of losing a single donator.
ratholin 2 years ago 2
WHAT HE SAID! YES YES YES! Especially about the exhaustively documented and ethically deplorable intellectual dishonesty of ID proponents (Jonathan Wells in particular -- arrrrgh!).
owlcowl 2 years ago
Kent Hovind... Ted Haggard... Yeah, them ID freaks are a crazy bunch!
TheFifthApes 2 years ago
Well done, Great performance ! - Thanks for posting !
b0dhran 2 years ago
What a STUD!!!! This dude has gotten so many knobbers I bet
merrjame12 2 years ago
"If God created the universe with the help of evolution, he would not be God. God doesn't need help because he is God." Of course, God doesnt need help, but thats not whats suggested. An omnipotent deity can create living beings in any way he chooses, and if he does so THRU (not "with the help of") evolution, its just another expression of his infinite power. To think of these as incompatible demonstrates the poor reasoning endemic among fundies. Serious theologians have NO PROBLEM w evolution.
owlcowl 2 years ago
"I