Added: 4 years ago
From: CapnOrdinary
Views: 14,915
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (492)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • This and many more new findings doesnt only suggest - but gives evidence to that DNA came from space. In this DNA several strings of unknown possible lifeforms. This has happened before - and will happen again! We are a code designed to live where possible. Through time. This is the true revelation of the universe.

  • also, mans interpretation of time will never be right, these scientists can assume and guess how old things are but they will never get it right, they will never know, only God knows how old everything is, again these scientists have no clue exactly or even roughly how old anything is, man is imperfect and should not even attempt to compete with GOd its a lose lose situation. also there is no way to figure how old the arth is by the bible as well, it is impossible, God does not go by time

  • @atabofacid i can answer that for you my friend, have you ever heard of the phone train, you whisper something in someones ear and they pass it to the next person and so on and so on. How it works is at the beginning humans witnessed God and they have passed on to generation to generation, this is because at the beginning they witnessed a God,this is why all nations believe in a God if they didnt God would not exist, neither religion, or the time table, BC and AC are made around God for a reason

  • Funny how a DNA scientist by the name of DR. Francais Collins a atheist studies Human Dna and found that it is statistically and mathematically impossible that a bacteria a genome or any other single celled organism could hold the building blocks to human creation. He is now a christian along with a lot of other scientists, Only a superior being could have created this DNA., Evolution, bibg bang theory are wrong and have to many things that make it that way

  • im confused who said the world and everything was created 8000 years ago?? God does not go by time, man does, God has been here forever God could have created the earth a gazzillion years ago and put humans on it just yesterday, your dna find doesnt mean anything, again, humans were the last to be made by God so of course trees and other animals and bacteria was here before humans, this means nothing,

  • This is one of the problems with ignorance. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is 8000 years old.

  • It's truly a sad day we live in when so many people openly deny God. I pray for you all that you will accept Jesus as your savior before it's eternally to late. However, if you read the Bible it predicts just that for our age that many people will be fooled into believing false teachings and religions. Accept Jesus now while there is still time!

  • I realize that we do not fully understand how the universe came to be. How can you expect us to know this in such a short period of time? Significant scientific advancements have only taken place in the last few hundred years. The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. The universe is 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years old.

    The bible says the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. I’m not sure why Christians get their science from the Flintstones...

  • The newspaper claims that we can now prove the age of DNA despite the unreliability of dating methods ... ehm.. but conmpletely fails to explain why? Just another newspaper that demands bilind faith towards evolution and leads away the uneducated in locig and reason.

  • Why does he stop the story there. Why not give the examples of DNA extracted from sources that are hundreds of millions of years old that has virtually identical DNA to the modern day counterparts.

    "Halobacteria: The Evidence for Longevity" W.D. Grant is but one example

    Maybe because that would falsify Darwinian evolution?

    And there are many old earth creationists like me that believe Adam was not the fist creation. Gen ! & Gen 2 are two separate creation events

  • u must be stupid if u think u got here by chance,, cant blame u tho, the whole world is contaminated by idiots anyway,

  • LMAO,, that is so funny,, Just look at their datin systems, its terribly flawed, llok at their own reports, regarin their datin system, get ur encyclopedias out and look up CARBON 14 RADIOISOTOPE, it will say its UNRELIABLE, nobody was here millions of years ago, evologionists are just clowns,, in the beginnin God created the heavens and the earth,, accordin to writtin hisstory about 5,000 yrs ago,, nobody was around 50million or billion yrs ago,

  • @MrTyrom3 Why arent you muslim, hindu, buddist? I will tell you why, religion is purely geographical! Where you were born dictates which guy in the sky you believe in. Why are muslims or hindus wrong can u answer me that?

  • Your dating methodology is is question. Radio Halos (Mt St. Helens eruption) gave us a starting date in rocks. For the first time Scientists has a "Start" on the clock to date rock to "eroded soil".

    The dating from Radio Halos shocked the Science world. The radio halos are used to measure "old rocks" compared to the new baseline of strata created in one day (600 meters worth). From day one scientists measured the half life of the radio halos. The results do not match with modern dating.

  • The real irony of this article is that DNA is the discovery of the Bible's description of God as creator. At our basic chemical level there is a language to be read.

    "In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, & the Word was God"

    David wrote of DNA long before it conception, in Psalms 139: 17,18

    How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God? How great is the sum of them. If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand.

  • Unfortunately young earth creationists who take a literal 7 24hr day creation span are missing out on the depth of what the Bible is saying. Of course not every theist is a YEC, but those who are, are pretty stubborn about it. Just as is the atheist who can't account for the fine tuning of this universe has come up with a theory of millions of other (unseen) universes. If our universe won the multiverse lottery, the question remains...who set up the lottery?

  • evolution doesnt disprove god just the bible story.

  • @Shavenhamster Actually your interpretation of the data is in question. As we know Both sides need a measure of faith to believe their point of view.

    I began to doubt Evolution when I attended Dr. Leaky Jr. lectrue on "Lucy". Later Peking Man, Java Man and other "Hominids were found to be forged fakes along with Haekels embryos. Further investigation revealed that the fossil record lacks the transition fossils necessary to prove Darwins Theory.

    There are other models that make more sense.

  • @Shavenhamster Dr. Leaky Jr. told of how the torso was found quite some distance from the lower half of the incomplete skeletal structure. I remember the distance was quite far.

  • how about hanging all religious people becouse they r very dangerous fashists terrorists??

  • How about...and I know this is going to annoy everyone...there is a way through this. What about- to keep the Religious People happy, we say Evolution was invented by a God? That way, the Creationists can grasp toward a scientific middle ground. But that would be expecting a bit too much from closed minded religious evil twats who want to kill everyone who doesn't share their weltenshcaung. Sigh.

  • The article is not written by a scientist, and the newspaper is a tabloid newspaper. I rather find my information a more reliable place.

  • if you read genesis in the bible - you'll notice two creation account in the very first two chapters - could this be the reasoning behind older versus newer bones that have been found (was there two different strains of dna for man? - just a thought (never can rely on only the christian account - always look for the links to all the religions - 2 dna stains are found in many religions)

  • If I'm wrong, we got here by chance and There's no creator, I have nothing to lose. If you're wrong, you have everything to lose. We only live for around 100 years, at best. We get one short life and then eternity. You can't see or know everything, even if you've memorized every book ever written, in every language.

  • And Pascal's wager fails in every way. I can't "believe" something that doesn't convince me, no matter how much you claim your invisible dictator will punish me for not groveling at his invisible feet. Present convincing evidence, and I will believe. Until then, GTFO.

    Also, why is your particular brand of superstition more likely than any other? You should believe in Zeus, maybe he will save you from Hades if you do. Doesn't work, does it now?

  • @CapnOrdinary sorry but there is savior from Hades nor does zeus save. Jesus is only one who saves.

  • @litefogg No one says we got here by chance (and usualy from nothing ) . You have to come to grips with how hell theology evolved .Dont just assume its truth on a gold platter . The same argument is made for you to be a

    Muslim to avoid

    Islamic version of hell .

  • @litefogg first of, NO, if your wrong then your wrong it doesnt mean we are here by chance. yes, if your god is real then we will burn but if allah is real then YOU will burn. either STFU or show some evidence

  • @litefogg

    You have a point.

    i will convert to satanism immediately.

  • @litefogg Pascal's Wager, are you serious?  That's such a vacuous and arrogant argument.

  • lmao..what a joke so he will take mans word over Gods ? lol..mount st Helen proved all scientist and geologist to look stupid.For what they were calling millions of years of erosion and earth turning in the Grand canyon..when mnt st helen blew it made the eact same texure in the rock,clay etc..and it only took 3 days to make a small canyon that soon geologist will tell people it took millions of years to do..3 Days People,and they have found enough water underground to flood the earth 5 X's ovr

  • You really should do your research. Both your claims are on this list:

    talkorigins(DOT)org(SLASH)inde­xcc(SLASH)list(DOT)html

    as claim CD013.1 and CH420, respectively. Post one more claim from that list, and I'll block you.

  • @CapnOrdinary lol...ok that is something people say when they have no answer's..look your own scientist etc have admitted they have to say what the Gov. tells them or they lose their grants and lifestyle..you do some research..try watching "A Jugded Creation" by billy crone.If thats to hard for you then you are just the seed of your father Satan..And don't want to know the truth..Hey see the earth quakes all over the planet,they don't even tell us about many others.Those are the labor pains !

  • by the way I would like to add that so many arrogant and ignorant people still view GOD as an old man with white long beard. c'mon that's just a metaphor reminding us that GOD existed before life manifested on earth. IF you look at GOD in the Scientific Eye you would perceive GOD as a Great cloud of mixed gases and plasma that is capable of creating organisms and planets with the manipulation of matter. CLEAR!

  • ok with this ancient dna!..It has been proven by scientist that the earth has undergone mass extinction probably two to three times or maybe five over a span of 250 million years or more. with the last know mass extinction around the K-T which was maybe around 65 Ma ago that ended the reign of the dinosaurs and made way to mammals, thus humans. the only reason why the bible is not so vivid is becoz people did not understand the scientific terms to explain things.

  • My theory is mass extinction by asteroids or by solar flares great enough to extinguish life on earth. With the aftermath of such catastrophic events leaves room for creation because there still leaves the possibility that life will thrive because if we break down matter we are all but made of carbon based compounds consisting of other gases. so life would still evolve to best suite its environmental atmosphere.

  • @CapnOrdinary lol, it is amazing that people as dumb as creationist can claim they know ANYTHING yet they claim that they know more then every single scientist on the fucking planet when they dont know the basics

  • UberLogic; evidence is everywhere. It is a fool, who says "There is no God".

  • Evidence is everywhere? Give us an example, please. Just one. One that hasn't already been demonstrated to be pure bunk, that is.

  • It's the same as the evidence that you have for Evolution. There is no moving ether theory. And I'll take my belief to the grave, as you will. We shall find out, then, who is rite.

  • No, we shall not. To find that out would assume that you were right.

    And again, where is your evidence? Present me with one concrete piece of evidence for any deity. Just one. I dare you.

  • @litefogg Creationism isnt a theory .Evolution is a fact and its mechanics are a theory explaing the mechanism .Creatioism comforts you so your off the hook ever having to learn about biology or question your faiths flawed origins .

  • @flyingscience

    Radioisotopes in granite, flagellin and the lack of a single transitional fossil (escecially in the cambrian explosion), raise flags.Maybe when a few more undescovered species of fish die, you may find a carcus; to fit as a transition. Belief in God don't make a person "100% sci illiterate", it only makes them 100% ignored. We all know: Belief in a Creator= mental illness; to all academies and secular humanists. The Creation/Evolution argument is pointless. Thanks, 4 arrogance.

  • @litefogg what evidence? show it or are you scared because you know you have none?

  • In the last 6-8 thousand years of life on earh more people have believed in our God, and we have records dateing back several thousand years to backup our faith. This is just a few geekey scientist with some rocks, and plants, and a few test tubes of watter. Lets see several thoudsand years of recodred facts about our God, vs a few years of poor scientist afraid of looseing their job if they cant come up with some good lies. I trust my faith in God any day. Go dig up some insects. LOL

  • That is living things from before the flood. Your dating methods are wrong. That is circular reasoning to say that DNA found is as old as you think it is. In reality, that is evidence of the biblical flood.

  • Just let them believe they came from rocks, monkeys, aliens or whatever. Their Superior knowledge leaves no room for a Creator. The knees or neck won't bend. Can you picture one of these guys humbling themselves, as a little child? I think not. Can you see the problem in believing in a creator?

  • i only believe in one less god than you do. once you understand why you dont believe in any of the other gods, youll understand why i dont believe in yours.

  • @litefogg can you see the problem of believing in "anything" that "anyone" wants to propose without any evidence

  • Creationists believe that the dating methods are incorrect, and that only 1 ice age occurred, right after Noah's flood. So this article doesn't help to debunk the creation model.

    A 10000 year (or less) earth that endured a global flood, followed by an ice age, would also generate the same results.

    If the dating methods are indeed incorrect, and the food happened, this article debunks nothing.

  • The truth is that beyond about 600 years, carbon dating is not accurate, especially if you can't even date it within at least a 10,000 years. Science has disproved Atheism many times. The thing is scientists come up with many theories to get around it. If you read astronamy books written by atheists, even they admit their theories don't make sense.

  • @N00bcrunch3r: Carbon-14 dating is a valid method of dating once-living material back till its death 50,000-70,000 years ago, and not 600 years as you postulate.

  • let me correct that, few thousand years.

    If a worldwide flood did in fact take place, it would have sped up the proposed dating process by millions upon millions of years.

  • I assume you are referring to carbon-14 dating. Do you have any facts to back up why a flood would speed up the radioactive decay of C-14?

  • Because magic man dun it. God could speed up the decay of my toenails if he wanted. He'd have a hard time, though, since he's about as real as Pamela Anderson's tits.

  • The DNA is between 450,000 and 1,000,000 years old? That is a very large gap. That is obviously not a very accurate way to test the "age" of the DNA, or anything.

  • OHH the newspaper! Telling us about Al Qaeda behind 911 when evidence shows the US govt fired a crusise missle into the pentagon and detonated thermite charges in both world trade towers.Read the paper sheep, satans secret societies have you in their palms.Science FACT,the leap year, the eaths rotation is slowing.That means it used to go faster its not possible for life to have existed on the eath for MILLIONS of years not suitable to life spinning like that bible says the earth is 6000 yrs old

  • I'm no scientist... and not taking sides, but seriously... how can they date DNA, or anything for that matter?

    Obviously there is some scientific test, but how do they know that test is ever accurate?

  • The Creator of the Universe is the genius NOT man. I don't care what they find, it cannot be trusted. They lied about Jesus and the bible, and all HISTORY.

  • This man is coming to conclusions about what was never said in the Bible. The Word of G-d says "IN THE BEGINNING" G-d created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. And the earth was void and dark, and the Spirit of G-d moved over the waters... When there is no sunlight on a planet, the 'waters' is in a frozen state... This DNA was created IN THAT TIME Period, hence it was found UNDER kilometers of ice... (continued)

  • In the Beginning could have been ANY length of time. The Bible tells us that G-d REPLENISHED the earth. That in modern terms would be called "Terra Forming". The sequence in which He did it is the ONLY way it could be done succesfully. DNA created 'IN the BEGINNING" could have played a part in it or not... Don't think that the earth was created in seven days...it was REPLENISHED in Seven Days. Seven G-dly Days which were 1000 years each.

    G-d bless!

  • G-d instructed Adam when he was made to go and "replenish" the earth. You cannot 'replenish' something that wasn't already there, and for some reason suffered disaster. People should read EVERY word in the Bible and not skim over things, finding what suits them and ignore the rest. They do so at their own peril.

    G-d bless you!

  • And if you watch the video "How DNA destroys Evolution" you will understand that DNA is INTELLIGENT CODE. Who placed it there? Chaos? Is Chaos intelligent? Random events? Are Random events intelligent? Come on people... Atheists believe what they believe because of "Free will". Free will makes us want to be independent, and the thought of answering to a Creator mortifies them.

  • I am with you as far as creation, but..."replenish" when the KJV was wriiten, meant "to fill". There was only one creation, Adam and Eve were the first.

  • Let me just take a deep breath...I just came out of a marathon on another video... LOL...there got my breath back...

    The first thing G-d did was say Let there be Light... The Scriptures tell us that He is the Light of the World...and there is no Darkness in Him... Question...if the world already existed...and it was dark...and G-d creates perfect when He creates...and He found it dark...then by the very act of saying Let there be Light...He replenished it...first with light..

  • then with everything else He placed on it... It was a restoration He did... His Spirit moved over waters that was already there...the planet already existed...He created it some time before...perfect...and something happened that caused it to become dark and void... I believe it was in a frozen state... It is my conclusion, but I think it's a fair assumption...

    G-d bless!

  • The problem with your analysis, as I see it, is this. At the conclusion of creation, God saw all that He had created and said "it was very good." There could have been no catastrophe before this as death and destruction would have come and God called it "very good?" I don't see that as a possiblity. I think verse one is begins the process, and verse two continues it. As I said before, replenish originally meant, "to fill" and has changed over time, as have many old english words. God Bless!

  • Dear friend, then think on this....

    Right now would you STILL consider our planet as 'it is very good"? We started off with a perfect planet...and we messed it up... History repeats itself... Again G-d will come back...DESTROY the works of Darkness as He did in the beginning when He first said "Let there be Light" ...and again after He made a new Heaven and New Earth from what is left after the total destruction....He will look at it and say.."It is very good"...

    G-d bless!

  • No, Our planet is not very good now, and has not been since Adam sinned. That's why God saw it as very good before that. Nothing bad had happened yet.

    The rest of you r reply I totally agree with!

    Be Blessed, my friend!

  • Dear Friend,

    I when we stand before Him one day, you can ask Him about the rest yourself... As it is...as long as you know Yeshua, and you have a REAL relationship with Him...as long as you repented and returned from your sin...and as long as you do not deny Him before men... then you have gone over from death into Life, and He will know you when He returns!

    G-d bless you too!!!

  • Amen, my friend!

  • I ain't afraid of your god

    I am afraid of what you do in the name of your god

    Holly Near

  • Don't mistake me for a Muslim please....

    Fearing the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacov is the beginning of wisdom... He doesn't need me to do anything... You will fear Him PERSONALLY soon enough... See EVERY knee will bow (that includes yours) when He comes back to Judge us all... The time of Grace in which you can accept Him as your Lord and Saviour is running out fast... Only fools rush in where even angels fear to tread...

    G-d have mercy!

  • ultrapilot12,

    Here's my question: Why would God create something he knew would become bad and corrupt?

  • Angels were all created with free will then... And Lucifer was created the most beautiful of His Creation at that time... PERFECT as Covering Cherub...

    This was a lesson for all of them, that when G-d creates you PERFECT for ONE JOB...and YOU try to be more than what you were created for, you only destroy that perfection... This was the ultimate lesson that Perfection is it's own limit... A lesson all angels had to learn...

    G-d bless!

  • GodHasNOMother has answered exactly as I would. Free will. Do you want to have people love you because they want to, or because you can make them obey and love you?

  • Why would you plant a field if you knew there would be weeds in the crop.Because you are after the harvest...

  • man made the earth corrupt, not god. And if you're asking about suffering, it is like a test of faith.

  • ah, a test of faith.

    It would really take a lot of faith to continue to believe something in the face of insurmountable evidence.

    And why would god want man to make the earth corrupt?

    he is omnipotent, so he could have created man perfect.

    And he is omniscient, so he already knew man would make the earth corrupt.

    So he wanted the earth to be corrupt?

    I think I'll convert to Hinduism or Islam instead. They sound much more reasonable.

  • GodHasNOMother:

    Here's a question: Why would God wait till about 6000 years ago to intervene with mankind? Before that, was he just sitting back and watching us like a child observing ants?

  • Because in His eyes it's only short one day of a week?

    G-d bless!

  • Nydelig oversættelse.. :-)

  • The people who believe in the story of creation will not take this seriously. They'll just deny that the dating methods are legitimate.

    Personally, I've given up on the religious nuts.

  • me too.. :/

  • Just pray they don't give up on you

  • This is spam. Spam is unwelcome. You were blocked because of spam.

  • *farts*

  • *blocks*

  • jmdnarri, Yes it's hard to understand why people in the 21st century still believe in talking snakes and the creations of the world in 6 days around 6,000 years ago... but that is the power of religion to brainwash and own the weak minded!

  • It's archetypes my little brother..... God is Faith for me..... I am a Christian and God is my Faith.

  • S1nn1ngSh4d0wS, If you want to believe in the Invisible Sky Daddy, that is your look out. I know loads of kids who believe in Santa Clause... but that does not make him real!

    The problem is that you and your fellow faithful idiots won't stop messing around with politics and education.

    So for now I'm wholly against theist organizations who push their bullshit upon the rest of us!

  • You must be retarded.... Don't you understand what I just said you screwed up retard? God is Faith...... WHAT THE HECK DOES FAITH MEAN TO YOU? UR MOM? I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I CALL MY FAITH GOD..... GOD IS NOT AN ENTITY BUT GOD IS FAITH......Do digata ni kazana ho akeruzou so shut up

  • S1nn1ngSh4d0wS, Yours is the kind of irrational and delusional response I have come to expect from Theists.

  • Izen shite no shouniboriyu kodoku..... just shut up pinche cabron

  • S1nn1ngSh4d0wS, Oh Manko Desu ne!

  • what the heck does that mean?

  • love hearing danish names, damn my curse for loving language and being so very bad at learning it!!!!

  • The basic problem is that NONE of the people who attack evolution have actually studied it. If they did, they would of course see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age.
  • agreed.

  • @flyingscience What a arrogant comment. I did study it, I critizise evolution and i am a biologist and been working with the subject for 20 years.

    Mayby you didn't read the critics???

  • @krullll Obviously my statement isnt literal (but its close ) . Lets look at the stats .About 95% of the US public is sci illiterate .Amongst creationists its nearly 100% sci illiterate .Amongst Earth sci / biological scientists who have studied evo less than 1% dissagree . Amongst all catagories of sci only 5% dissagree .

  • @krull If you really are a creationist scientist you are in that whooping small group of 0.14 percent that DONT accept evolution despite your education . Most people keep their religious bias they where born into but very few do who have attended college as a science student .

  • The thing is this doesnt disprove the bible because the bible doesnt tell us how long ago the earth was created that is jsut a guess that creatonists make with no evidence to back it up i am a Christian and it sadens me that creationists still believe that the earth is 6000 years old when the is so much evidence against it.

  • It saddens me that people still take Genesis as factual instead of symbolic, when there is so much evidence against it.

  • jmdnarri... to be more accurate..

    The predicted deflection of light by gravity using Newton's theory is only half the deflection actually observed. General relativity is in closer agreement with the observations. This is not the only mistake in Newtons Laws!

    My original point was that Science is prepared to accept where it is wrong, or not quite correct and come up with better theories and solutions... UNLIKE Theists and their stupid holy books of dogma!

  • I find this article to have an odd lead-in. Perhaps they'll run another: "Danish Historical Records Destroy Hamlet!"

    Only if you completely mis-read and mis-understand Hamlet would you make such a statement. The biblical creation myth is a piece of ancient Near Eastern literature, not a description of the origins of life. Why start the piece with the ridiculous belief of the less than one percent (i.e. "millions") of Christians who hold this view, which is aberrant even within Christianity?

  • Thanks for the video... I can't believe how many ignorance creationist still exist with all of the proof out there.

    There are more and more creationist groups popping up with more and more lies to brainwash these idiots.... Like the idiotic like that the sun is expanding and the sun would engulf the Earth... except stars fluctuate in size, not only grow or shrink.

  • thanks for sharing t'was wonderful

  • ThePerrynator, On the other hand if your question was so stupid as to ask how you can date a layer of an Ice core then you are really dumb.

    Ice cores like rings on trees build up year on year, with layers. The layers look differ because of different deposits in Summer and Winter. Count the layers and you have years.

    If you can't count the layers then you have to use radio carbon dating, but since you are too dumb to understand the above, radioactive isotopes will be beyond you.

  • you can't prove that the layers are years. they are periods of hot and cold. so how can you prove that it didn't get warm enough to melt the snow multiple times each year? and carbon dating has been proven to be flawed multiple times in history.

  • ThePerrynator, ONE WORD... MORON!

    Yes you can prove that they were years .... 100%

  • This is because Danish people are roughly twice as smart as Americans on average.

  • Comment removed

  • you can't determine the age of DNA.

  • ThePerrynator, You can determine the age of the layer of the ice core it came from!

  • how?

  • Well, it's simple really if around 45% of Americans (maybe more) believe in creationism, and almost no Danish people do, then At least half the Americans must be more stupid than the Danish... Savy?

  • ThePerrynator, No... you don't fail to see the logic...

    You just want Evolution to be wrong because it flies in the face of your beliefs... PERIOD!

  • "it's called the THEORY of evolution, not the law of evolution."

    Try and look up the definitions of those two terms as used in science. Then come back and apologise for that stupid remark. Any other response from you now than an apology for that stupid remark will result in you being blocked.

  • i cannot apologize for that. a law is something that is consistently observed in nature. do we see abiogenesis occuring in nature? a theory is something that has not been proven true. that would be a theorem.

    and i think you should take a closer look into scripture because the earth was not created in seven; it was created in six.

  • As you wish. Blocked.

    Here's a hint: Newton's laws of motion? Turned out to not be accurate.

    Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution describes and explains that fact. Just as gravity is a fact, and the theory of gravity (or rather, relativity) describes and explains that fact.

    And so on.

    Oh, and abiogenesis is not evolution.

    Also, I am well aware of the Genesis accounts, this video primarily consists of me quoting (or rather, translating) a newspaper article.

  • "a law is something that is consistently observed in nature. do we see abiogenesis occuring in nature?"

    Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution may not be a law, but natural selection IS, and the theory of evolution describes the effect of this law in nature.

    "a theory is something that has not been proven true. that would be a theorem."

    A theory is an explanation for a series of facts, and no theory can ever be proven, because proof aplies only to facts. (cont...)

  • Evolution is a theory, a consistent explanation of a series of proven facts based on natural law, period.

  • CapnOrdinary, yes and an extremely good and well proven theory it is..

    May I remind you that Newtons Laws were not exactly correct and they were called Laws!

  • UM correction.... Newton observed how gravity operates on earth, matter attracts matter, that is entirely correct and is a law. The METHOOD BY WHICH GRAVITY WORKS is still a theory and the current theory is unarguably flawed.

    Twisting of the facts such as yours, are the reason the uneducated public are vunerable to the propeganda of "Creationism"

  • jmdnarri, you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about... Newtons Laws predicted the movement of objects in relation to each other, yes with gravity... but his predictions, according to his laws don't quite work.. Einsteins relativity theories predicted the movement of objects in relation to each other, far more accurately...

    I agree that gravity is still not fully understood and that creationists are ... twits!

  • My bad, I see your point. what was a law turned out to be incorrect.

  • jmdnarri, It's no problem, I can see how you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick with an earlier comment.. and to be honest I have made the same mistake a few times myself! :)

    The main one is to do with the way light should behave under extreme gravity, I'm not sure which root law that belongs to..

  • LOL I have read so manny wacky creationists comments, trying to show that science is "defending the status quo" I just jumped on your 'Newton's Laws were wrong' in the wrong context.

    Honestly I do not know squat about Newtons laws/ predictions as applying to light and gravity. My understanding of Newton pretty much stops with what is held as correct.

    Thank You

  • jmdnarri,

    Well I too was quite surprised when I heard that relativity proved some of Newtons laws to be inaccurate (not wrong). There was some famous experiment done a few years ago using and eclipse of the Sun, where the light from a star behind the sun could be observed to be bent by the gravitational pull of the Sun. It proved relativity to be spot on and Newton to be inaccurate, but when you consider what Newton figured out in his time, it's amazing!

  • ThePerrynator, of course you can... Just age the bone you got it from and you are done... idiot!

  • Loved it! Thanks for sharing.

    I wish our newspapers were as awesome as Danish papers.

  • and to say what ? you find all this stuff but NO HUMAN DNA !!!!!! God did created the earth before he made humans go read Gen.

  • When you learn to speak a human language, I may unblock you (although probably not). Until then, bye bye.

  • I did some research in the movie "Sixth Day" with Schwarsenegger And in that movie they say that god made landbased animals and man on the sixth day. So i guess you need to go and read gen.

    So the paper totally destroys all weird opinions crationism have.

  • the paper itself proves nothing but the fact that people think they can prove how old something is without being around back then. we have no solid scientific proof that the DNA in question is as old as they say.

  • comfirmed what I already knew. how stupid r u when u live by the rules of a book written by man but claimed created by 'god' I believe in a flyin spaghetti monster (does that make it true?......)

  • I found the article you are talking of and as an American, please don't put me in the Creation Category, these fools are at best "Brain Dead". Thanks for putting this up, maybe others will do a search with Google "Oldest DNA Found" to read many articles about the real age of the world and of life.

    "Man Made god" not, "god Made Man"

    Save the world, send religion and god back to the Bronze Age never to return to infect Rational people...

  • I don't know I don't believe any word that scientists say about world being very very old like 1.000.000 years. 1 million come on think about we are talking about years. 2000 years passed seance Jesus. How much stuff changed. Now imagine 1.000.000 years passes people still fight with swords. I don't know if world was 1 million years old we would be Very very damn advanced. The world would be fully polluted and it will come to the end. Bible is right, why do they want to prove it wrong?

  • You're an idiot. The world is older than the human species by far. If you could think straight, you wouldn't try to make such ridiculous points.

  • Calm down you cocksucker. They say there was caveman's and shit damn long ago. Humans where never dumb. Its your stupid scientists that think they can tell what happened damn long ago. they cant tell shit. They are just guessing. I mean they used to say world was flat or its a moving turtle. Fucking assholes that lie people for the money. Next thing we know their gonna say Huge trees are Bigfoots, so shut up they don't know shit what their saying.

  • Lalune: You do realise that you're saying this on a global communications network established between digitalised machines composed primarily of advanced nanopolymers, semi-conductors, etc., put together by robots in giant factories and transported to wherever you are (may it be far away from me) by ships constructed out of hundreds of tonnes of steel plating, yet capable of floating on the ocean...

    And scientists are "fucking assholes that lie (...) for money". Right.

    Piss off, pissant.

  • Man they can take that gigantic robots ships or what the hell ever it is and shove it up their ass. That robots are programed by that stupid scientists that think their some kind of a god. They are noting but bunch of crazy fools. So nice try asshole. Desperate fags that want to prove bible wrong. They don't have facts they don't have shit. They just fart a story out of their Robot asses. So shut the fuck up you geeky bastard. How much research did you do to come out with that bullshit anyways?

  • That's it, I'm calling Poe's Law on your ass. Nobody in real life is that stupid.

  • Call Poe's Law? lol wow look who's talking. That's the stupidest shit I have ever heard.

  • Ha. You didn't bother looking that up before answering, did you now?

  • dude get a life

  • "dude get a life"

    I'll take that as a no, then.

  • Poe's Law states: "Without a smiling winky or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to make a parody of fundamentalism that someone will not mistake for the real thing."

    CapnOrdinary is trying to say that you sound so stupid that he can't tell whether or not you are joking.

  • ok firstable I don't sound cuz i'm typing not talking you idiot. Why don't you go and call that Poe's low shit on yourself your 4 eyed freak. Stupid Nerd. Get a life!

  • nobody is that stupid? "i noe dat da eerth wuz bilt by GOD bout 6 thosand yeers ago..." sound familiar?

  • "sound familiar?"

    Yeah, I know.... But still, this is just so over the top idiotic, I'm not buying it.

  • lol man what the hell is your deal. your not buying it keep it to yourself. Nobody cares what you buy or take. Your just another Douche Bag that wants an attention. Go ask your girlfriend dammit. We are not interested. Oh and once again GET A LIFE!

  • Proved? Once and for all? The trouble wtih the argument is that radiometric dating methods are assumed to be reliable. The logicil thread is coherent and does lead one to believe that life existed millions of years ago, but if the dating methods are in question, one is too hasty to reach the aforementioned conclusion; it still rests on assumptions not unlike believing the bible to be reliable and literal. The reasoning is enjoyable, the snobbery is not.

  • There're a few points to address here.

    First of all, radiometric datings are not "assumed" to be reliable, they have been shown repeatedly to be so. Every single example cited by creationists to oppose that have been shown to simply be examples of incorrect usage of the methods.

    Second, disproving a literal interpretation of the bible requires no more than a modest degree of education in any one of these: History, archaeology, geology.

  • There is also the problem of rate of deterioration, It is constant, somewhat today (which is why every sample evaluation needs to be calibrated), but we don't know that was true in the past. Also, there is no real proof that the amount of carbon deterioration was the same in the past. So let's just say for the heck of it that a sample shows 2 parts carbon. We assume that it deteriorated from a higher level, but this need not be the case. I'll continue once more...

  • The problems with radiometric dating of any sort, be it radiocarbon, rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon,uranium-lead, rhenum-osmium, argon-argon, etc., seem to me, is not merely the often criticized original amount of, say carbon in whatever is being dated, but also the quality of the carbon ingested.

    So, if I were to eat an ear of corn, that grew upon some old carbon which it naturally would absorb as nutrients, I would be ingesting carbon of a much older time.