Evolution and our Education System

[CISElite]

Video poster is a troll, nothing more.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@CISElite = ignorant evotard

[CISElite]

@evoTARDSareINSANE lol

[PrincesseJen]

For those of you who think there is nothing wrong with the school system, watch "Charlotte Iserbyt: The Miseducation of America"

[gregrutz]

''Our education system is teaching evolutionary theory as fact.'' Yes ! Science won.

[MultiPaulinator]

System of Delusion, huh. This guy has deluded himself to believing that just because something appears in the textbook, means it is being taught as cold, hard fact not just in reference to the history of the science. All of these 'frauds' the creationists bring up seem to exclusively be found in Chapter 1 of the textbooks: the dead white guy chapter. I guess that's as far as their attention span will take them

[synsei1]

How can one be so full of shit !

[moltoallegro19]

"... sayeth the fool". This guy has no idea about what his talking about. Those flaws in the textbooks are the result of the commities chosing what literature the school should use and scientists complain about their choices all the time (but are too often ignored). And also - makroevolution is proveable and if he won't admit that, he's simply ignoring the evidence.

[shivanl]

@moltoallegro19 or you are ignoring the fact that the evolution theory is a philosy and not a fact.. It is a propaganda. The more people believe in the theory, the more people think its the trueth..

[moltoallegro19]

@shivanl Why did you bother responding to a four months old comment when you didn't even have a valid point to make? Basically, what you said was: "I don't believe in evolution! It's all propaganda!". I already know some idiots won't accept modern science and rather stick to the explanations provided by a bronze-age-book. And btw: "The more people believe in the theory, the more people think its the trueth".... WELL DUH!!!!! Idiot! Say something valid to support the credibility of your Bible!

[yovani29]

If evolution is not a proven fact, then how do you explain all the idiots and Neanderthal that exist today, and how do you explain Chinese, White, Blacks, Mexicans, Indians, and Arabs

[shivanl]

@yovani29 idiots an neantherhal that lives today?? We, as the anminals, are addapting ourself to the environment. This is not evolution. If a black male and a chinese female fuck, the can get kids. It is not that a chinese person is a new kind of ape...

[x42brown]

What lies about the peppered moths ""They don't land on tree trunks"" He should look at the population in the wood at the back of my place. If he says that I won't believe anything else he says.

[AntidoteY]

Evolution is clearly a lie! Any rational thinking person knows how obvious it is that an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent deity first mentioned in some Mesopotamian myths just spoke everything into existence and then poofed them out of thin air. Except for man. Man was sculpted out of dust. This is a completely believable explanation for the origin of life.

You Christians have taken this b.s. hook, line, and sinker. Wankers.

[Frizzail420]

wow no wonder the american education system is so poor

[Skymnkey995]

All these intellegent design and creationism thinkers blame eveolution and say "how do you explain this and how do you explain that?" fact is there is a reason for it to be in the text books. to teach the theory of evolution by giving examples. Where is your proof that Intellegent design is true? the only proof you people can come up with is stating frauds.

The theory of evolution has been around for only a little while but it has made huge progress. i always see the same excuse for creationism

[lowendentheogen]

MISINFORMATION SHAME ON YOU

[CoretezTheKiller]

No sir, THIS is propoganda. When a man in a suit claiming to be a scientists points out a couple bad ideas and claims biology is false because of it, THAT is propoganda. It is ridiculous! It's like hearing that St. Jerome was misquoted once and because of that there was no Jesus.

[GodGuided]

When did anyone say biology is false? It is just evolution.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Yes but evolution is the central idea of biology. Saying a scientific theory is false using logic like this is dishonest. Though scientists and most people who are familiar with biology see right through the dishonesty, there are many people who could buy it without investigating evolution properly. It is much easier to watch a flashy YT video than read a scientific journal.

I wonder how people like him can sleep at night

[GodGuided]

God and creation is the true central idea of biology. Creation started it.

Saying that evolution is not real sence there is no proof is completely logical.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Those are your beliefs to have and no one can argue those away. However, evolution is an observable fact and making dishonest arguements like the one he is using will not disprove it.

Just curious, what would you accept as prof of evolution? Maybe I can help your understanding a bit.

[GodGuided]

Those are not beliefs it is fact look it up, creationist created pritty much all sciences.

I would like to see a dog or any animal give birth to a completely new animal. There are no transistional fossils so it had to happen fast, so lets have a monkey give birth to a human. That would seel the deal.

What you accept as proof God, maybe i can help.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Interesting as that may be to see, it won't happen. Evolution does not work that way. Saying there are no transitional fossils is a bit false, we have discovered many.

Interesting you say evolution should happen fast, there is growing evidence that in times of extreme environmental pressure, mutation speeds up through relocation of transposons. Look up Barbara Mclintock if you want to learn more about it ;)

[GodGuided]

None of this is fact, and widely disputed.

[CoretezTheKiller]

To the God question, which is irrelevant in this discussion, my answer is none. I don't need proof, I have faith.

Now, regarding evolution, what exactly is not proven? Again, I realize I have little hope of convincing you, but I am curious.

Mutations do occur, these are observed. Natural selection occurs, this is observed. Speciation occurs, this is observed. Creation of new genes, alleles, enzymes occurs, this has been observed. Are all these observations false?

[GodGuided]

Natural selection is not evolution it selects what dies and what lives, does not create anything.

Speciation i assume is like a wolf and dog are different species yet they are able to interbreed and are obviously the same, still dog. Micro-evolution is real, macro is not. It jumps in on micros truth and assumes millions of years things happen, not seen. mutation occur, can you name one that helped the mutating creature, or turned it into a new creature?

[CoretezTheKiller]

You have gotten natural selection spot-on ;).

I think your understanding of mutation is a little sketchy though. If you want an example of a mutation that is observed all the time which helps the creature, look at viruses. Their mutation helps hide them from the variable regions of our antibodies... on the flipside, our immune system certainly would not be very effective without constant mutation of our antibodies in order to combat these viruses

[GodGuided]

The viruses are still viruses, and the lose information not gain any. They lose the ablitiy to attach to an antibody, it is like loseing you legs and being happy about not getting athelts foot any more.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Ok, right on, I think your knowledge of mutation is a little limited. You refer to mutation as loss when it is nothing more than change. If viruses "lost a leg" every flu season, their wouldn't be enough DNA left to do much.

Do a little research on basic virology, and definitely some immunology, this is a fascinating topic as well. I think you will be very suprised about how exactly our B-cells work with regards to mutation.

[GodGuided]

Now you think mutations happen to every virus cell. Only some mutate, the ones that lose leg die off cause they can't fend with the un-mutated virus.

I know some mutations are nuetral, this still does not help evolution at all. If you stay the same or go backwards, your never going to go from a single cell, to a fish, to a monkey.

[CoretezTheKiller]

This is actually the exact opposite of what occurs in viruses. It is the unmutated ones which die off (well, do not infect, they are not alive, no cells). This is why you cannot catch the same cold twice, you already have the antibodies for it. It is only in the mutated ones we must start from scratch and muster an immune response.

Again, check this out a bit, you would probably think it was kind of cool. Or, ask your doctor, he knows what's up ;)

[GodGuided]

Yea they tell me a virus changed to a virus, this proves evolution.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Yes, but a different virus. They mutate to survive. They are an extreme example, but every creature on Earth does much the same. Look at the mutations we have had in the last few millenia. We are taller, we have different skin color depending on where our ancestors migrated, we are able to consume what our ancestors could not (ex. milk for those who have the gene for lactose tolerance). Make no mistake, this process is happening in us as well as all other creatures; we are not immune.

[GodGuided]

We are actually shorter. Some Americans are taller, we have better food then the rest of the world, we have growth hormons in our milk and food, people on strait growth hormon and steriods.

They mutate to survive eh? PLEASE SHOW ME ONE THAT LIVES THROW THE ANTI_BODY THEN CAN COMPETE WITH THE ORIGINAL VIRUS?

[CoretezTheKiller]

Haha good point about the height thing this likely has a LOT to do with it. The other two examples are legit though, they are well documented.

The mutated virus that survives the immune system? This is the one that will make you sick next time you catch it. Again, I would research this if I were you, you have the entirely wrong idea about virology... on the other hand, the books teaching the doctors and scientists are full of lies so nevermind. Damn those textbooks and their lies!!!!lol

[GodGuided]

The mutated virus wont get you agian, once it goes back into the "wild" with the rest of the original virus it dies out.

It would be a new mutation when you get sick, but the same thing happens to the virus, and it never becomes anything other then a virus.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Once again, please read up on some virology, you lack a bit of understanding. You are right though, as I was saying it IS a mutation in the surface proteins of the virus that allows them to evade our immune memory. How does our immune system deal with this? Mutation. Rearrangement of genes in the variable region of our B-cell antibodies.

There is so much more to the interaction between the evolution of our immune systems and viruses, definitely worth a glance ;)

[CoretezTheKiller]

You can ask me these questions all you like, but I must go for now. All of this information is out there in peer-reviewed scientific journals and despite some exagerations such as the examples given here, biology textbooks are good places to look as well.

Look and ye shall find ;) If you have anymore questions though, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to help

[GodGuided]

The text books are full of lies that have been proven wrong ahundred years ago. And saying mutations is evolution is a huge jump into faith, that is why evolution is the most pointless religion out there.

You haven't answered any question so i wont be going to you about what i allready know is wrong.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Full of lies? From what authority can you make this statement? I mean, in this video, this theology prof refers to a couple exagerations. It is like having a Bible with a picture of Jesus in it. We don't know what he looked like, but he certainly was not the fair skinned bearded man we see, does that mean the Bible is full of lies?

Evolution is not religion, religion does not change wheras evolution changes with new info. Darwin would be shocked if he read the theory nowadays

[GodGuided]

Darwin also said that the human eye would disprove his theory, among other things no evolutionist brings up.

The Bible does not say Jesus looks like the long haired hippy you see today. So there still no lies in the Bible, just a fake painting that has nothing to do with the Bible, other then someone saying it is Jesus.

Evolution requires a belief that there someday be proof, and a blind faith that the universe and life just randomly happened with out being able to prove it...more assumptions.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Actually, if you read that particular passage (the whole passage) what he said was that though it seems foolish that the eye evolved, this is where the evidence points.

By the evidence, I mean besides the mutation and selection we see now, we have an entire fossil record documenting the process including transitional forms (many of which have found niches and close relatives still live today), and the DNA evidence which is the nail in the coffin.

[GodGuided]

Show me the DNA evidence, specaily the DNA that lasted for "millions" of years.

The fossil record proves nothing, like to see you go to court to prove one fossil turned into this other fossil "millions" of years ago.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Ok, let me try to explain the DNA evidence. I'm no expert I can assure you, but I know a little bit. First of all, are you familiar with DNA testing? Like paternity tests and all that?

[GodGuided]

Yes, that you have 23 pairs of chromosons from each parent. I know that all humans are 99% simular in DNA, and that very 1% is 3 million base pairs. Just in case you bring up chimps being 98% close to humans, that would be 6 million base pairs.

And we have 46 chromos and chimps have 48 chromos, but tabaco plant also hase 48 chromos, just incase your going down those paths.

[CoretezTheKiller]

No, chromosomes have nothing to do with DNA tests, though there is some important evidence here too. In one of our chromosomes there is evidence of a fusion. The exact position is known and the chromosomes fused are found separately in apes.

As for the DNA evidence, I use it as an example of the scientific method, but morphology, embryology, molecular biology all work the same way- we can make predictions and verify them based on evolutionary theory....

[GodGuided]

The so called fusion like you said LOOKS like it. Evolutionist keep jumping the gun and assumeing everything. You can't prove that the chromosomes were ever apart, or that they are fused, just apears that way, or it could have been made that way.

[CoretezTheKiller]

No, it is. We know what fusion looks like, we see it all the time. Even the most jaded creationist cannot deny this.

Neanderthals... they are definietly not human. In addition to the morphology differences you just mentioned, mitochondrial DNA has been sequenced revealing they are very much NOT human.

There is no jumping the gun, there is just gathering evidence. At this point, scientists know evolution happened and continues to happen. Do some research and you will see ;)

[GodGuided]

have done research and everything you have said has either been refuted, like NO NEANDERTHALS, or proves a common designer and for some reason is assumed to prove evolution.

You look at a chimp and a human and your mind goes wild, and you take your imagination as truth that just needs to be proved. It is insanity.

[CoretezTheKiller]

haha, I think it is you who are jumping the gun a bit with that comment.

Where I ask has this been refuted? Who has performed the mtDNA test? The only ones who I have seen claim this are con-men, not scientists, and they offer no evidence. Simply saying something is refuted and not backing it up with evidence does not make it true.

[GodGuided]

And simpley saying something is fact with out backing it up is not true.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Ok, how a scientific theory works is you must be able to make correct predictions based on it. I use DNA predictions because it is similar to what we do in paternity testing, etc and it is known as solid proof.

Now, of our DNA, about 5% codes for protein. The rest is non-coding DNA. This is how we determine relatedness. Again, I am no expert, but in the genetic testing I have done, I used minisatellites which are regions of repeating bp's that differ in amount depending on relatedness

[CoretezTheKiller]

So long-story short, the more closely related your non-coding DNA, the more related you are. Using this knowledge we make predictions like- we are more related to neanderthals than chimps, we test it and find it correct. Using this method, just like every other field of biology, we are able to make a web of life based on their evolution. This combined with embryology, MCbio, etc, the fossil record make the same web of life.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Look at retroviral DNA. When a retrovirus integrates itself into DNA of our germ cells, we pass on that DNA to our children, they do the same etc. We find the same retroviral DNA in the same positions in our most related evolutionary cousins. Retroviral DNA in our genome is another really interesting topic worth reading.

Sorry if I flooded your inbox dude, but even with the super-short version, there is a lot to this which is why it takes study. Hope it helps a bit. Cheers!

[GodGuided]

So we store this info in the same place a chimp does. This shows a common designer, not evolution.

There are no neaderthals. Please show me the fossils that have to been proven to be old HUMAN men. They had arthitous, that is why our DNA matches.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Yes, but it is not just "info storage" it is the pattern that emerges from non-coding DNA that builds the same evolutionary tree as all other independent disciplines of biology. I stress again, this is non-coding DNA, not genes. This pattern emerges from mutation in this DNA and those more related have DNA sequences that look the same. It is the same principle as a paternity test, if you don't accept this, this means you reject DNA as evidence for anything (paternity, court, etc).

[GodGuided]

I don't deny this, this is actually great news. It shows a common designer, and a code He uses.

Still no proof of evolution just assumeing alot. It would be like looking at my DNA and yours, and then saying we have the same mother and father. That would be a huge jump in logic and a giant leap of faith.

[CoretezTheKiller]

No, looking at certain sequences in my DNA and yours would reveal many things. Many similarities because we are related as humans, but differences too as we come from different parents, ancestors. Do you understand so far? Now this same method is used to form these evolutionary trees. Doctors use it to look at unknown pathogens. Zoologists use it to test where animals came from.

My original point was biology is built on evolution and it rings true no matter which field you look at.

[GodGuided]

Yea i get what your saying, but apparently you don't get how it is foolish.

Check out this vid, it talks about origins useing biology.

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=yO3EVp­C5b70

[CoretezTheKiller]

Exactly. This is why scientists must conduct these DNA tests and produce evidence and be reviewed before something becomes published. Saying something is foolish when you clearly have little knowledge of biology does not convince me, nor anyone else.

The video didn't work, could you send it again? But only if it is actually worth watching and not by someone with no knowledge of biology. As I have said, if you don't have knowledge you are not in a position to make claims.

[GodGuided]

You don't need to know alot about biology to know when something is 98% the same, but that 2% makes a 6 million base pair differance is alot of information. And that proves a common design code, in no way proves evolution.

You say the same arguement every evolutionist say, " i am smarter, i know more, your stupid so listen to me" when you clearly lack common sance.

You have to change (dot) to . "that period" to work.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Haha, I did that first, still does not work, maybe it was removed?

Please listen when I say yet again it is not the amount, it is the PATTERN that arises.

I am not trying to say "I am smarter" I am trying to let you know that if you have limited understanding it is hard for you to judge something. This entire conversation I have treated you as an intelligent person capable of doing your own research, and I still recommend you do so. Research is NOT videos by con-men, but journals and papers.

[GodGuided]

It is not videos by "conmen" it is journals and papers by "conmen" i get ya.

[CoretezTheKiller]

You still don't get it, and I'm afraid you never will if the videos you sent are your only source of information.

Evolution provides understanding of biology which is what saves lives. Without understanding, treatment is impossible, Ever wonder why those who deal with biology on a daily basis (ex. doctors, scientists) accept evolution? Because it is a critical tool and modern medicine needs it.

[GodGuided]

LOL evolution has nothing to do with medicine. Show me a medicine that came about from the use of evolution.

That is as bad as in 1963 America said we need to teach "evolution" the russians are better at getting into space. LOL evolution is not need for rockets, and is not need to make new medicine discoveries. You sir are either really brain washed, hate God, or really think it is funny to try to get people to believe stupid things.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Wow is right....

Listen bud, I'm in the middle of a PM to you, in response to those vids you sent, we can continue the discussion there if you like but I don't think it is going anywhere.

[GodGuided]

That would be great, you can stop makeing a fool of yourself infront of everybody.

LOL i know it wont go anywhere, your faith is strong in you belief in evolution, that you will blindly follow with out proof.

The only thing you got is a virus mutated loss info and became a virus, this means we came from apes. INSANITY.

[Frizzail420]

Look up aids

[CoretezTheKiller]

For example, we were talking about the flu earlier. Insights in evolution are a method used to track mutation and redesign vaccines in response.

If a pathogen is unidentified, we use the evolutionary webs created by genetic testing to find where it fits and how it can be most effectively treated.

[GodGuided]

WOW that proves evolution, you convined me with out a doubt now.

[delasalledropout]

Dude, remember the saying. "there is no point arguing with an ignorant man"

[CoretezTheKiller]

I am just trying to give you a bit of insight but it does not really matter if you take it or leave it.

You can deny it all you want but those who matter; the doctors, the epidemiologists, the research scientists, they are the ones who accept evolution and use it as a tool to help save lives and truly do God's work.

[GodGuided]

No i will take it, no i wont deny it, i will take away the assumptions lies and faith, and put it true facts.

How has evolution saved anyones life? Biology would still be around with out evolution, heck a creationist started the field of biology. So what has evolution done to save a life? You are saying things with out backing it up, this is not truth remember?

[bombersjacket]

Well apparently you're generalizing madly like so many youtube atheists do. What makes you think "those who matter" can't be Christians. I'm a college student of a top 20 university in the US, who personally knows and have known respected doctors, professors, and scientists who have personal faith in God. Just because they don't blatantly speak about their personal faith in public like the evangelicals doesn't mean there must be no educated Christian.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Huh?

I don't recall trashing Christians in any way, I don't know for a fact but I guarantee a small majority of the people I was referring to (scientists, etc) are Christian, just as I am, I would never do that.

So you took from me defending established scientific theory; one which many Christians accept, to calling me an atheist? Please take your own advice and don't generalize

[GodGuided]

God has everything to do with the discussion.

[CoretezTheKiller]

Proof of God? I'm not sure God can be proven scientifically in the way evolution can. That is defiitely not to say God does not exist. I believe the "evidence" for God is in the human spirit, which can't really be observed in a microscope like strains of mutating bacteria. This is where faith comes in, a critical component of anyone's spirit

[GodGuided]

you did not answer what it would take for you to believe there is a God, please do?

All the things you have brought up have been proven wrong and falty, does not prove evolution.

[LoricaLady]

Thanks for posting this. I was certainly taught the peppered moths were examples of evolution, and was taught ontology recapitulates phylongeny as fact many decades after it was publically confessed to be a fraud.

[bonaypants]

he mixed it up, the black moths were favored after the industrial revolution.

stupid.

what you were taught was corect, the faud it the new testiment put together by constantine in order to control rome.

what a fraud

[LoricaLady]

bonaypants - I will not be responding to your posts, except this one time, because I believe verbal abuse should be ignored

and avoided amap.

I will pray for you, however, to know the truth.

[levonet33]

EXCELLENT POINT,

[itouchyourpod]

This guy JOBE MARTIN is a lying selfserving conman. He has no right to dispute a valid scientific theory. the more i listen to his lies, the more my ears burn. Think about it, His "educating" is based on things he can not ever really know, his masters of theology is a shame and a fraud (it's like a masters of smurflogy). Yet he disputes a scientific theory he himself says he doesn't fully understand. Forgot about biologist or anyone that has training in evolution, lets ask the dentist.

[NaturalPhenomenon15]

No one takes him seriously any way.

[NaturalPhenomenon15]

Did he also just say that Biston betularia do not go on tree trunks!?

During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001-2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs

Someone tell him to stop lying for Jesus.

[oneENEMY]

Pretty sure that "experiment" turned out to be a scam buddy

[NaturalPhenomenon15]

Did he also just say that Biston betularia do not go on tree trunks!?

During an experiment in Cambridge over the seven years 2001-2007 Majerus noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths, and of the 135 moths examined over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch, 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side, and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs

This one? no, he is lying.

[starmaster40]

But isn't that the point of science to dispute ides? At one time it was a scientifically absolute truth that the world was flat. Science is all about asking questions.

[bachfiend]

Evolution is both theory and fact. The fossils in the geological strata can be seen to change (that's all evolution means). As Ken Miller pointed out, if evolution hadn't occurred, it would have meant that god created a whole planet of different species, then allowed them to go extinct, and then recreated them almost exactly the same. The theory of evolution is about the mechanism; natural selection. It's only evolution that can produce complex structures, that are obviously jury-rigged.

[sirnlawson]

Someone who knows the meanings of the words!

Fact - A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.

Theory - A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and facts, and can be used to make testable predictions.

Evolution is genetic change over generations - it happens. This is fact.

Evolutionary theory means the mechanisms by which evolution happens. THESE are debated.

[WTU208]

Evolution is a fraud.

There are no common ancestors, there are no fossils. WAKE UP

[AThagoras]

This video is a load of bunk. If you want to learn about science, talk to real scientists, not creationists spreading lies and misinformation.

Wath DonExodus2's excellent videos if you want to understand real science. ... Or watch this one if you prefer to be lied to and deceived.

[Riverfrog72]

Why does everyone sink as low as throwing insults back and forth. Why does a someone with a different theory for how we got here make you so mad. Why doesn't anyone consider that they might be wrong and look at it from each others viewpoint. that's what I try to do.

If your throwing insults arround you are usually loosing your argument and grasping for straws. It's like getting mad at the wind for blowing your house of knowledge down. If it was built solid it would stand forever.

[AThagoras]

How do people sink so low as to repeat the same lies after they have been conclusively proven wrong numerous times?

By undermining science education, creationism is hurting children by keeping them ignorant of real science. In today's society it is increasingly important to have a strong grasp of science.

This video is not science. It is religion pretending to be science. I do not like deception.

[AThagoras]

"It's like getting mad at the wind for blowing your house of knowledge down. If it was built solid it would stand forever."

Science is all about trying to disprove theories. If evolution is not true it should be extremely easy to disprove it. If anyone has solid evidence against it, it would be easy to publish a paper on it. That's how science works. It hasn't happened despite 150 years of trying.

Instead, creationists produce phony science videos like this one to deceive people.

[AThagoras]

"Why doesn't anyone consider that they might be wrong and look at it from each others viewpoint. that's what I try to do."

I do too, but to decide which point of view is correct, I look for facts and evidence.

Evolution is supported by many thousands of facts. E.g. the evidence from ERVs is so strong on its own that it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that all chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor.

[SpicyHam]

This is stupidity. idiots.

[fabbio8888]

WOW! That was very clever: "we have a system of delusion". So the system offer a first layer of "illusion", then it will offer another layer, of "delusion", for anyone wanting to know what this "science" is, discouraging interest in gathering knowledge of real systems adopted by "science".

Maya had priests exploiting eclipses to fake a huge knowledge, so our science does.

[nomineZERO]

Micro evolution does exist and they still don't believe in macro evolution... Which is the same... IDIOTS...

[AgApE010]

really? Micro and macro evolution is the same?

Micro-evolution = Changes WITHIN a species, like the finches that Darwin observed that had different sized beaks. Yet they still started and ended as finches.

Macro-evolution = Change from one kind of animal to another kind, i.e. apes into man, reptiles into birds, etc. No evidence or observation for this theory.

Yet evolutionists say "given millions of years, macro-evolution WILL happen". That's NOT science. That's a faith-based belief.

[nomineZERO]

No micro and micro is just a strawman made by creationists... So macro evolution is unproovable.

It's just like 1 metter and 1 km are units for messing the length from A to B and in fact you can also measure a house in km but you'll get something like 0,010 km. Same as in micro and macro evolution...

And yeah the difference between a donkey and a horse is greater then the diference between a chiuaua and a doberman right? (sarcasm)

[nomineZERO]

but in fact donkey aren't horses, but both chiuaua and doberman are both dogs... So much about micro evolution...

[AgApE010]

Donkeys and horses have a common ancestry, but its a horse, not some other animal that evolved into a horse. And if you're referring to the "evolution of the horse" theory that is one of the weakest arguments for macro-evolution i've heard. Just because horses, tapirs, rhinos have hoofed feet, and odd number of toes on each foot, and similar tooth structure, evolutionists take that to mean they all have a common ancestor! :/ That just means they have the same designer, God, not common ancestry

[nomineZERO]

Hah, lol... an idiot you are... You don't know what's the main proof of evolution... Probably you never heard of DNA, but you also listen to that idiot Kent Hovind, the dumbest man I've ever seen, so I don't wonder you're so dumb to.

We and the crocodiles share a common ancestor, but long long back in time when the first "fish" came on land. Octopus and spider? Well maybe but damn far back somewhere in the devonian period or even earlyer. But your arguments are still dumb, as you

[nomineZERO]

have not the slightest idea of what evolution is being based on. The best proofs regarding fosils are stil reptiles -> Theropod dinosaurs -> archeopteryx -> and birds.

Oh and your beloved Kent Hovind also said:

a tri horned cameleon that lives today is actually a triceratops that got smaller cause of increased gravity which is dumb.

Also he said that you can cover the earth with a single drop of water... well wrong again, as in one small drop of water you don't have enough olecules to

[AgApE010]

i know about DNA:

Dr. Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA, said he is convinced that life COULD NOT have evolved on this planet from non-life. He goes on to say, and i quote, "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle. So many are the conditions which would have to have been satisfied for it to occur any other way".

Dr Shapiro, who is a world class expert on the chemistry of DNA and also an evolutionist, said it is impossible for DNA to form by random process.

[nomineZERO]

Francis Crick was a croock just as the othe man who discovered the DNA as they stole the discovery to the woman who were they working with. Actually she deseved the nobel prize, and the other two had no idea what it was.

Maybe it's imposible to be formed by random process but the fact is that EV is NOT a random process. Still there is actually no lower DNA species than one celled organisms, but there are RNA beings which are evolutionarry older than DNA. And in fact those are EV experts

[AgApE010]

Archaeopteryx was proven to be a perching bird. If it truly was a transitional, where are the fossils of it developing into a dinosaur? One would expect to find a series of transitionals of the creature leading up to its completion of a reptile. After all, a bird didnt just lay an egg and in a few generations produce a raptor. Therefore even the precious "feathered dinosaur" isn't considered empirical evidence by any intellectually honest scientist, evolutionist or otherwise.

[nomineZERO]

"Archaeopteryx was..." Another proof you don't know about evolution... Archeopteryx is no ancestor of raptors... That's a dumb statement. Search google pics for skeletons of smal theropods like raptors, caelophysis, galimimus and archeopteryx and so on. Those skeletons are almost the same. What more transitional forms do you want?

Oh right, you're listening to Kent Hovind, he had similar stupid statements about the bird evolution.

Oh and you meant to say that the feathered

[AgApE010]

i see you seem to be very unlearned in your own theory and beliefs. Now i dont say that to anger you or belittle you, but because there's no point on my part to give truth to a person who will only misinterpret it due to their lack of understanding on the subject, as i see you doing with Kent Hovind's words. Therefore im ending this conversation and encourage you to open-mindedly learn more about creation science before passing judgement on it. Good day to you friend.

[nomineZERO]

LOL... You said that raptors evolved from birds, that Kent Hovind is prooving the bible right with science, that micro and Macro evolution are totaly diferent, that all dogs are just dogs, that donkeys are just horses. That horse evolution is based only on the hooves, that all the proofs for ev have been disprooved (for creationists maybe). You don't know the DNA proof of evolution.

And you're saying that I'm unlearned.

But in fact after all you've heard you just don't want to come out

[nomineZERO]

stupid and ignorant. So you try to piss off upright and all proud of your "knowledge" which is based on Kent Hovinds lies...

Ok, I won't stop you, piss off :P

But you do know that what I'm talking is actually the truth.

[nomineZERO]

dinosaur isn't considered empirical evidence by Young earth creationists... :P

[nomineZERO]

cover the world...

He also said that you can't get higher elements in the periodic system... Well the stars do and atom bombs actually function on the nuclear fusion.

Not to forget the ice comet that was sent by god to create the flood.

And many many other stupid statements, which only idiots like you can believe. And then you come saying that evolution is based on faith.

Oh and again: 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4 and so on. And in some time you can get any number like that... Is that to hard

[nomineZERO]

Here, I've found that comment today, I hope you'll understand it:

Now there's far greater evidence for Evolution than in Darwin's day. We've even produced it in a lab (See: Lenski E coli experiment). If you accept "microevolution" than rejecting "macroevolution is untenable. I'll dumb it down for you. 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, etc. Macroevolution simply is saying that following this sequence long enough you can reach very high numbers.

[AgApE010]

the E Coli bacteria experiment started off as bacteria and ended as bacteria, not a new kind of organism. It was just another example of micro-evolution, change WITHIN a species. Again, there is no evidence or observance of macro-evolution. There is no fossils, no reason whatsoever to even consider it.

Again, you believe by faith, not science, that given enough time (millions of years) micro-evolution will turn into macro-evolution.

[AgApE010]

Octopus and spiders both have eight legs. Does that mean they share a common ancestry just because thay have the same number of legs?

We have bones in our wrists that are similar to that of a crocodile's, so evolutionists say that we have a common ancestry. What?! That's an extremely weak argument, not evidence for macro-evolution at all. That's evidence that we have the same Designer and Creator who used some of the same designs in His creatures.

[Skymnkey995]

u no its funny how these people try to make science look as if it was nothing but fiction

[dingorex]

Ernst Haekel's drawings and the peppered moth examples are deceptive lies. Why are they still in the textbooks? Judge the merits, not the perceived tenor that goes against evolutionary-group think.

[Stunt36]

Dr.Jobe Martin is a very intelligent man...im glad sum of the eevlution scientists come out with the truth and arent complete liers...yes those lies are still in the textbooks, i just got done taking biology and i tell my teacher about it...you know what she does? she hates me and lowers my grade twice saying i didnt do all my work...those are the evolutionists i know, they cant explain sumthing so they get u back in sum way...christians are more honost mr. joe six pack!

[d3p3ch3mod3]

Not to mention that he says only macroevolution has not been observed.. BUT delusion being propagated to Joe Six Pack? I AM Joe Six Pack and evolution as presented in high school text books was actually misrepresented by my teacher who was a creationist, to make it seem silly. I won't go into details, except to say that the brainwashing of our students is definitely a problem that has nothing to do with which side is right, but with who is being more honest.

[d3p3ch3mod3]

I really have to commend you. I'm an atheist and think evolution might be a valid theory but I could not spot an inacurracy in this video. That's really something coming from creationists :D