Where did you get your degree, much less your credibility uploader, a McDonald's happy meal? Get a brain and upload some intelligence before you even attempt to discredit people that can bury you in their educational achievments.
Fossils... We all know how they are formed.. Might I say though that the time span in way off base. How long do you ever see any kind of animal on the side of the road? It's usually gone in only a number of days; between decay and birds of prey and other animals looking for meals. Pan back a so-called 2 million years ago where animals are everywhere. One would just pass up a meal. It would be so unlikely to believe that an animal would just lay there for thousands of years above ground.
I'm confused as to why they think a catastrophic worldwide flood is better explanation for a full skeleton being found. Wouldn't the massive currents that would exist in a deluge large enough to cover mountains positively rip skeletons apart? Why would we expect to find the bones together?
Evolution is in no way possible. So many facts that prove against it.
Psalm 14:1 FULL VERSE! - The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Evolution is in no way possible. So many facts that prove against it.
Psalm 14:1 FULL VERSE! - The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
@AgnosticAntitheist stupid name calling from an ignorant athiest. This is evidence not proof and the lack of something is not proof for evolution for it's a decrease in genetical info and u can't prove spontaneous events of genes popping into an organisms chromosones
@FalconWeenie Yeah right, pretty much all scientists accepts evolution, and evolution is the most accepted theory ever.
do you even know what is evolution?
if you reject evolution, then you must reject the science foundation for it, you also reject reasons, logic. evidence, And you might as well reject gravity, theory of atom, theory of relativity, quantum theory, theory of time. Germ Theory,Theory of The Copenhagen Interpretation. String theory.
@FalconWeenie Show me one that is real and does not proceed from the realm of what do you dont understand about Evolution... I'm a biologist and gladly we can discuse it.
Answers In Genesis is nothing more than an anagram of Erasing Sense Wins. Ken Ham is making millions from erasing sense..... common sense that is at an all time low in the Evangelical Christian world.
@CarajilloDulce do u kno that everything u say doesnt really mean anything???lol
did u kno your chances of excisting , would be that of 0% if christ never excisted...so all u sorry bastards should be thankfull we have religous human instincts, like your instics are to think watever u want..lol
that is why the bible has stood the test of time..and your miserable thoughts will fade away..you better keep your thoughts..lol
"your chances of excisting , would be that of 0% if christ never excisted"
And I am sure you support this claim with evidence?
"we have religous human instincts [...] that is why the bible has stoof the test of time"
I am sorry, but I don't see the logical connection here. Unless you are saying that people believe in the bible because they are programmed to, (rather than because of rational inquiry). In that case I agree with you, although I don't think this is genetic.
@AgnosticAntitheist all im saying just let it be..why why?? do u have so much hate for peoples stupid beliefs?/is that your hiding the fact that your confuse and youd like to think everyones confuse to make yourself feel great i guess.. well if thats the case ,, you kno if you feed of peoples misery good for u.that is why they believe wat they kno..and u believe wat u kno right??
I am confused about some problems, not however the origin of humans. I know beyond any reasonable doubt that humans are the product of evolution by means of natural selection.
As a philosopher, I am interested in the discussion of religious believes. I am currently studying at university to do this for a living some day. I will however not force anyone to discuss these matters with me, unless they are trying to brainwash children or do harm in an other way.
@AgnosticAntitheist harm..why would the hypothesis of God ..be of any discussion?? wats so wrong with a creator??were creators ourselfs in our own minds...we could think of almost anything, and do anything in our minds.the concept of God was created out of love..the concept of God means equality, if one truly loves God that means ..that person loves everybody,because u cant see God..so if u could love without seeing everything would be A ok. dont blame Love for your hate and confusement
@1billion1deaths1 "why would the hypothesis of God ..be of any discussion?? wats so wrong with a creator?"
In philosophical and scientific discourse any hypothesis is open for discussion. Get used to it. If you don't like it, don't go into philosophy or science.
@AgnosticAntitheist its sad but its true..your a hatebreed. you feed off others misery,, only to hide your own for that coulple of seconds u enjoy my misery... your caught in a revolving circle of hate.sadly youll die..and your body will win the battle of mind and matter, but its up to u how strong u build your foundation of love,LOVE will always overcome anything..Love all the atheist!! and if they cant love u back..love them even more..how will the retaliate?
@FrogFantom Now you are asking about charge. Charge is carried by electrons and protons, which are found in every atom. In other words: everything is made up of charged particles, except for neutron stars maybe. This doesn't really have to do with what we are talking about. I think what you might mean is that an electric CURRENT is required. I can't confirm if this really is the case, but either way currents are common in nature. The keyword here is lightning.
"Okay then, I guess my AP chemistry teach (who has a PhD) is wrong because some YouTube "genius" says so."
I am flattered because of the compliment, but about what did I ever say your chemistry teacher is wrong?
I think you are confused about terminology. First you asked about energy. I answered truthfully: all energy around us comes either from the earth (geothermal energy) or from the sun (nuclear fusion, transmitted to earth by electromagnetic waves).
"Amino acids would need a chemical reaction to be able to form into a more complex compound"
Wow, you really are a genius, aren't you.
"Where and what energy provided would be able to react amino acids?"
If energy is required this could come from geothermal energy or nuclear fusion in the sun. But do all chemical reactions need energy input? Don't a lot of them actually release energy?
there are NO answers in genesis. Everything on that website is ridiculous. Why would you believe a bronze age desert creation myth over scientific theory? That's utter stupidity
Kinds of animals,chance yes in there own KIND!!!!..there is a limit that does not mean it evolved,some animals are losing information like the birds in the galapagos..Homochirality,,is a serious problem for evolution..and how amino acids some how came together and made life,that would be a faith based assumption..Miller failed.and proved life cant evolve from simple chemicals or a step by step process.but stubbornly,people still believe evolution as fact,,iam a former atheist..but no longer..
@5tonyvvvv What is a kind? Why should there be a limit to change? Why do we have a gradual fossile record showing a detailed documentation of enormous changes in populations over time? Why does genetic evidence also support this conclusion? What does this have to with Darwinius Massillae? How do you define Information in this context? What does any of this have to do with Abiogenesis? How does Miller succeed in his goal to form aminoacids imply a failure?
@5tonyvvvv And finally: How would a failure of Miller imply an impossibility of the formation of life from simpler chemicals?
I am sorry, but you make no sense at all. You mix up scientific topics, of which NONE have to do with the video you are commenting on. In addition you are unable to use properly defined scientific vocabulary, you bring in completley outdated and irrelevelt experiments, which I would never have brought up and you clearly don't understand the scientific method.
@aaronISyoda It happens when your given false impressions of what said scientific theories and laws by these sleazy lunatics. For some reason people think scientists are saying everything happened 'out of nothing' by chance and that things 'magically appeared' each step of the way in modern science from the big bang/expansion to the current state of the universe and life on earth.
basically fella, you have no idea what you are talking about. Answers in Genesis has all the right facts about the earth and fossils which evolutionists dont have what so ever!!
In this video I clearly demonstrated that they are wrong on Darwinius Massillae. Do you have anything to conter any of the arguments expressed in this video? If not, I don't see the point of your comment. You just stating that Answers in Genesis is right, while Biologists are wrong, doesn't really help the discussion.
You use the un-scientific term "probably." Not sure how that is observable science. Simply stating that Darwinius is distinct from other mammals does not support the theory (unobservable science) that Darwinius Massillae belongs to the primates. A child can scientificly observe that animals reproduce after their own kind as God has written in Genesis. As a building is obvious of a builder so is creation obvious of a Creator. The bible is filled with scientific facts. Repent or perish.
@fourbyfourblazer As a philosophy of science student I am afraid to have to tell you that scientists use the term "probably" all the time, because often you can not be sure of something. Scientists dont tend to state something as definitley true, when they are not sure. But just because you aren't sure doesnt mean you have no clue either. That is why the term "probably" is frequently used in science.
It is relatively easy to classify animals by the structures they show. Carolus Linnaeus did this long before Darwin first suggested his theory of evolution. In a very simmilar manner you can determine that Darwinius Massilae is not a lemur, but a primate, due to its jaw and skeleton.
I wouldn't trust a child to decide on such matters of science. That is why biologists don't tend to ask children on their views, but instead make use of empirical evidence.
@fourbyfourblazer Evolution has been directly observed many times, however it is usually a slow process, which is why we don't observe it all the time. One organism can never give rise to a fundamentally different organism, changes are usually minor. But over several generations these changes can accumulate and a new species is born.
I agree that creation requires a creation (by definition) however I doubt that organisms are a creation. Thus there is no reason I should belieive in a creator.
@jc4ever2 Apparently you also don’t believe spell check. I am uncertain if you believe in education, but I assure you it is a most worth while endeavor. I would highly recommend you try it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you on crack or something?
I am not going to watch all the videos you link me. I have already looked into the fossil record. I have heard what real scientists have to say, and I have heard what creationists have to say. It is clear that the fossilrecord fullfils the predictions of evolution. e.g. Archaeopteryx shows the transition from other dinosauria to avians.
You idiot. The ICA stones were tested and dated by evolutionists and there are many books and articles about them. I might also add that your stupid and Christopher Moncton destroys the mindset that a peer reviewed paper is legitemate upon its conception and most people think its been peer reviewed so theres no reason to look into it like you. Your crack pot idea that life came from non living elements is retarded and so is the evolutionary community. There is not 1 tiny piece of evidenceTHEORY!
If there are so many articles about them name me one.
Peer-review doesn't make it unnecessary to look into something. It makes it POSSIBLE to look into something, because it means that I can access the data scientists got. I have looked into the evidence, that is why I accept evolution aswell as climate change. There is not 1 tiny piece of evidence. Yes there is. Let me give you an example: the seven specimen of Archaeopteryx that have been found in the fossilrecord.
Dr. Gary Parker: From Evolution to Creation (1/6) Look these videos up on youtube my friend and always remember "Organization makes complexity possible"
You see if evolution gets destroyed than alot of scientists are out on theyr ass! They like making lots of money from tax payers and they dont want people to think theres more to life than food sex and shit. Theyr quite happy selling you this trash cus it keeps us dumb and the women horny as well as keeping themselves rich and influenchel. The only reason they havent thrown the THEORY away is because they have nuthing to replace it with besides a CREATOR WITH INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
No. The reason why they haven't abolished the theory of evolution is that there is so much evidence for it. As I have pointed out your buriel stones don't really have anything to do with evolution, so even if they aren't fakes evolution still stands.
Can I remind you again that whether or not dinosaurs lived with humans doesn't say anything about the truth of evolution. In fact WE DO LIVE WITH DINOSAURS. You probably know them as 'birds'. I know that as a creationist you won't agree that birds are dinosaurs. But if evolution is correct they are, and they DO live with humans. So how does this disprove evolution?
If evolution gets "destroyed" scientists would be happy because there has been a major paradigm shift and in order for evolution to be "destroyed" they would have to be much closer to universal truth with this new great theory ... the theory has to fit the criteria for what is science which is why at the time it cannot be replaced with intelligent design.
basickly you canot refute the ICA stones LOOK AT THE DR SWIFT VIDEOS! THERES LIKE 3 OR MORE DIFFERENT SEARIES ON THEM LOL. He eaven looks at one under high powered microscopes to SHOW YOU. My god how you purposly blind yourself to the world around you man!! You REALLY dont want to believe do you? Your like the people that say theres global warming when there clearly is NOT! Look up Lord Christopher Moncton Destroys Global Warming and tell me theres no propaganda in peer-reviewed BS.
If Swift is so confident that his findings are right, why doesn't he publish them in a credited science magazin so that other scientists can check his work?
"Your like the people that say theres global warming when there clearly is NOT!"
Can you PLEASE stop changing the topic. It is really hard to talk about so many things at the same time so I don't want to talk to you about climate change now aswell and stop coming up with conspiracy theories or else I might think you have schizophrenia.
Hahahaha you think peer reviewed papers arent the product of propaganda? Look up on youtube Lord Christopher Moncton of Brenchley Nobel prize winner Destroys Global Warming. Then you can tell me what you think about peer-reviewed papers LOL. And yes child of deception... The Ica stones were dated with verry inacurate euridiom argon methods to be verry verry old and under extream magnification where the lines were carved into them showed natural rock processes going over the cut lines whitch-
Peer reviewed papers allow scientists to publish their results. Once they are published they are subject to scrutiny. That means anyone anywhere can read the article, repeat the experiments and thus test whether the findings were correct. If you can not present such a paper that was subjet to such critical scrutiny your case lacks credibility.
I don't have time to watch videos by people who deny reality. I study REAL science at a university, that takes up enough time.
It is well known that if people and dinosaurs lived together that the THEORY of evolution is destroyed. LOOK INTO PHD DR SWIFT ICA STONES He offered 500,000 dollars to any evolutionist to prove the ICA burial stones were frauds. NOBODY COULD DO IT LOL. Yes some were fakes howeaver they have been found to be certified authentic under verry close scruteny by leading scientists and geologists. haha ha ha ha. Evolution is an utter sham and your left with no saving grace. Once again look up DR SWIFT.
There is one thing I absolutley don't understand about creationists like yourself. We were just now talking about something COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT and now you want to talk to me about metaethics? WTF?
Well anyways: There is no objective morality. I can have my personal opinion of what I think is good or bad or right or wrong. But there is no objectivity to this.
The ICA burial stones are not a fraud and your lying to say that. Yes some people made fakes howeaver the originals showing dinosaurs were not. PHD Dr Swift has vidoe of this.
I think its funny how theres well over 500 living fossils thought to be prehistoric creatures from way in the past and the only difference if any is that today theyr smaller than when god caused the world to flood over. That also fits the bible, God sais Noah lived 900 years or sumthing. Our fossils are bigger because the world was healthier back then and now you cant even drink the water without getting sick YAY! HURRAY FOR FLOURIDE! GO EUGENICISTS FASCIST NAZZIS!
By the way Kent Hovind has pictures in those dinosaurs and the bible videos of dinosaurs that washed up on the shore with the skin still on the rotting bodies LOL!!!!! Yep they didnt evolve in over 65 million years! I might also add that we have fossils of sharks that are 100 feet long and they only groy to abouyt 25 feet today. ONWARD AND UPWARD!!! HOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose all those legends of knights going out to slay the dragons were all fake as well. However those legends span acrost the entyre earth from asia to africa to europe and so on. ICA burial stones is all I halfto say buddy. Debunk that! They offer up $500,000 to any evolutionist who can! LOL good luck with your adventures against the living God of the universe.
Legends of dragons have a simple explanation. People love monster stories. In asia it is also the case that there are large lizards which they call dragons. It is also possible that someone found a fossil of a dinosaur.
Kent Hovind's offer is impossible to fulfill. The way he stated it you basicly have to observe the big bang, which is impossible. And then you still have to prove that God wasn't a part of it. However we still have plenty of other evidence for the big bang theory and evolution.
You might also want to look into the pigmy africans who live near the worlds largest and remote swamp who say they see dinosaurs in theyr 3rd world country. You might also look up the story from native american indians about the thunderbird which was a huge man lizard with wings and a hump on its head constructed like a bat that got struck by lightning and they retreaved it so naming the thunderbird.
I am not sure what myths and legends have to do with reality. Besides the african tribe once answered when asked whether they have actually seen the 'monsters', that you don't really see them. It is just one of their legends, only that you are dumb enough to actually believe it.
Go look up the video I dare you. Another point Id like to add. Ever heard of polystratic fossils? hmmmmmm There is a whale standing on it's tail fin pointing up through thousands of layers said to be thousands and thousands of years old LOL. Your seing what you want to see. Im just observing what has been found which coincides the biblical story of a global flood that gave the world millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.
I have already seen 8 hours of Kent Hovind material, including the one you linked me. It is full of nonesense and has been shown to be wrong by youtube users such as extantdodo. The whale "'standing on it's tail fin' can be explained easily through geology. It would take too long to explain this here. However as I said, user extantdodo has already debunked these claims sufficiently.
So they found a lemur like creature with slight differences LOL nice there it is folks evidence things evolve into other creatures yep! It is so obvious that this theory should be taught as fact but it cant be because fossils dont prove evolution and that is why it is a theory. What isnt a theory are the ICA burial stones depicting people riding and killing dinosaurs. Know what else isnt a theory? The finding of soft tissues and bloodcells still intact in the oldest T-Rex bones ever found!
This is evidence, because it fullfills a prediction of the Theory of evolution. There is however much more evidence for evolution, such as evidence from genetics and direct observation.
The burial stones depicting people riding dinosaurs, which Kent Hovind talks about, have turned out to be a fraud. The person selling them said he just wanted to make money from tourists, so he faked them.
The finding of soft tissues in T-Rex bones is a fact and is accepted by scientists, so what?
on a mission to replicate with sum unknown energy source that propelled it into living organism status so full of life and possible information that all matter of life came from it with it's ancestry being the primordal soup of dead crap whitch by the way crap would be infinitly more likely to have potential that the story in this fairytale belief or THEORY LOL.
Life begets life. When in blazes do you suppose that a single living cell whitch I might add has more information than 100 encyclopedia britanicas suddenly sprang out of the earth nevermind the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics
The first cells were by far not as complicated as they are today. The just need to consist of a lipid membrane (which form automaticly in water, we can observe that) and RNA in the middle of the membrane. As I told you before, experiment has shown most steps (if not all, I am not sure) of the process necessary to form RNA under natural conditions to be possible. The first and second laws of thermodynamics don't have anything to do with this. Again: how about you actually read the first law?
The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed and the second that all energy when left to itself breaks down. How did anything come into existance. I can tell you through faith believe what ever this nonsense about atoms magicly creating DNA and yes the belief of no god is called athiesm and it is a religion. dont think that because you chose to believe by faith in sumthing that you canot prove that your approach is scientific.
As a physicist, I suggest to you that you actually read the two laws of thermodynamics. The way you stated them is pretty wrong.
You are rejcting empirical evidence. Experiment has shown most steps towards the formation of DNA to be possible under natural conditions. Atheism is not the belief in no god, but the lack of a belief in a god. Religion is defined as a belief system with some form of belief in something supernatural. Atheism is neither a belief nor the belief in something supernatural
Atheism is defined as a lack of a belief in a god. Religion is a belief system. So by definition atheism can not be a religion, for it is simply a lack of a belief. Atheism is as much a religion as not believing in zeus is. You could just aswell say that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Not teaching religious myths in school is important because you can not have freedom of religion, without having freedom FROM religion.
Kent Hovind does not have an offical PhD. His 'PhD' was given to him by a not credited bible school and his PhD work included common grammar and spelling mistakes. Further Kent Hovind has been shown to be wrong on almost everything he has ever said. (See user extantdodo)
Eugenics. Hitler based his vigor on sutch ideas of darwinism and eugenics. Thats why he had no problem killing millions of people in an attempt to create the pirfect race. Heres an idea. Why dont you have a dirt farm and tell me when DNA and life sprouts out of it all by itself. Thats cute. Dont tell me that is science when you have faith in sumthing you canot prove its called religion and theyr teaching the religion of athiesm in schools. They took God out of school and replaced him with Satan.
Hitler made clear in his book 'mein Kampf' that he was a creationist. Evolution does not justify killing people, for it only states that the fittest (those that are more likely to survive and pass on their genes) are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. It does not say that we should kill anyone. "Why dont you have a dirt farm..." Actually scientists have been able to replicate most steps necessary for forming life under natural conditiosn.
Let me also remind you that non living elements dont give birth to plants or animals, that is a feary tale as clearly as it is. Scientists disproved this theory a long time ago when they did a study on rotten meat to see if it made maggots among other things. I suppose if you found my 5 foot 5 inch fossil around an africans 6 foot 11inch bones theyd be saying that white men ascended into africans and that white man was less evolved. Evolution is the root of rascism and is also the root of...
"Let me also remind you that non living elements dont give birth to plants or animals"
First of all no element can be described as alive. Elements are simply different kinds of atoms with a differing amount of protons in their nucleus.
Secondly no hypothesis I have heard of suggests that life started with plants or animals. No educated biologist would claim that modern africans descended from modern caucasian. Evolution works as a tree, not a letter. This means that we have a common ancestor.
Thats cute. You obviously dont know enough about DNA to talk about it's origins but let me clear away the smoke & mirrors.1 piece of DNA has the information to make the next piece as well as the next piece it will make. It goes full circle within itself. There is also what scientists youlsto call "junk DNA" which we now know is for things like advanced eyesight hightened hearing and smelling. If were magickly getting better all the time howcome were actually getting worse?
I might not know enough about DNA, but the biologists with PhDs who work on the field of abiogenesis most certrainly do. Junk DNA is DNA that doesn't code for a functional RNA or protein product. At the moment it seems like there really is no function at all to some/most of it.
Evolution is not magic. Creation is magic. Further evolution doesn't suggest we are getting better. Science doesn't comment on such moral judgements. Evolution suggests that the genepool of a population gets more adapted to the population's environment. This has been observed many times.
OUR PARENTS! where do you suppose they got it? well as we can see were not getting more genetic information. Were loosing it. understand yet? Adam and Eve had the genetics to make the varieties we see today, not the other way around. Now thats good science. We can test it, observ it and prove it with science so tell me how there being a vast varriety proves that we are the result of rain falling on rocks for millions of years. You think non living elements spawned DNA and all life on earth
"how there being a vast varriety proves that we are the result of rain falling on rocks"
No one said anything about rain falling on rocks. And this most certainly doesn't have anything to variety. Besides, I didn't say variety proves evolution. We have other prove of evolution. e.g. transitional fossils, genetic markers, obeservation, etc. I only said that variety is a prediction of evolution, since evolution is a theory that explains variety.
Let me make this easier for you. If I impregnate my wife and we have a child, half of my genetics and half of hers get lost in the process of making the child. The child will have a hybrid of it's parents genetics. So if the genome is drawing from information we supplied to it where did our information come from?
There are many hypothesese about the origin of life. It is impossible to go back in time to see which one is right, but we can experiment and tell which one is possible or even probable. One hypothesis I particularly like, is that DNA evolved itself from RNA, which was formed in a series of a reactions of which we are now able to replicate most under natural conditions. RNA and DNA of course contain what you might call information, so there you go.
Given that creatures in this world have a verry complex mechanism to prevent mutations in them we can rule out mutations, which result in the loss of DNA and deformations. What I want you to answer is what Dawkins could not answer when posed the question (can you give one example of new genetic information entering into the genome?)
Organisms have mechanisms to prevent mutation because too rapid mutation can have a negative impact. There however still are a lot of mutations. In each human generation there are about 200-300. There also many example were mutations have been benefical. For example a bacteria that got a mutation that made it able to digest nylon.Dawkins wrote an article explaining that he ddn't answer because when that question was asked he realised he let creationists in his house. There he also gave examples.
1. a scientific hypothesis must make predictions about FUTURE discoveries. Variety (even though not to such an extend as today) was already known at the time the 'hypothesis' was formulated.
2. creation doesn't actually imply variety. There could be creation without variety.
What are your thought about the segment on 60 Minutes - "Scientist's Dino Findings Making Waves" (November 15, 2009)?
How is it possible for the organic material Schweitzer found inside the T-rex bones (blood vessels and possibly intact cells) to have survived for 68 million years?
"You seem to be the one making a positive claim here."
Actually, the articles do. And since Creationists (myself included) don't believe the earth is billions of years old, the proof of how organic material can survive for millions of years is squarely on those who believe it is. So you'd better get to it as it looks like you have a lot of explaining to do.
You,Sir, are an idiot. It is obviously you who is making the positive claim when you state preservation is impossible. When scientst discovered that preservation has taken place, they did not need to have a presupposed position that it can be preserved. For example when you see someone do a handstand, you do not at first need to know he can do one, and thus you don't need to make a positive claim. If you however say someone can not do a handstand, that is a positive claim.
Just helped make this discovery: "Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil" (PhysOrg, November 5, 2009). "Scientists have extracted organically preserved muscle tissue from an 18 million years old salamander fossil... According to the University College Dublin geologists, the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood."
Well, for starters, in the article "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 27, 2006), Jeffrey Bada said, "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will WIPE OUT biomolecules."
First, why is her discovery called "dangerous"? Second, doesn't Bada's comment seem to indicate organic material cannot survive for millions of years? The article also mentions Patrick Orr at University College Dublin who...
I couldn't care less why some idiot came up with the name dangerous discovery. And, no, his comment doesnt indicate that. It indicates that it is unlikely for this to happen. This is the reason we don't find preserved organic molecules in fossils all the time.
"It indicates that it is unlikely for this to happen. This is the reason we don't find preserved organic molecules in fossils all the time."
The PhysOrg article states, "The scientists claim that their discovery is unequivocal evidence that high-fidelity organic preservation of extremely decay prone soft tissues is MORE COMMON in the fossil record."
Also, what is meant by "extremely decay prone soft tissues"?
1. This video is not about whether or not Ida is significant for human ancestory. It is simply supposed to point out the mistakes in an article by answers in genesis.
2. No real scientist would ever claim Ida is not related to humans since all life on earth is related to each other. The question is whether or not her species is a direct ancestor to humans. Scientists are divided over this question. I have not and will not take sides on this debate.
the 6 point thing near the end really shows the enormous lack of understanding of the world that creationists have... how do they think those species winded up extinct anyways?
This is a really good video AA... I see you continue to bang your head against the wall with these creationists... Surely you must realise that if scientist were to announce tomorrow that they had succeeded in creating life in a jar... [abiogenesis] Creationists would either deny the realization, or just say that is the way God makes life... You can't reason with the unreasonable...
Answers in Genesis, is nonsense website, they even ignore that abiogenesis has been proved in a lab in Manchester UK.
This site is also claiming that no dinosaurs evolved into birds, right or wrong, they have to question why god has used Trex DNA and shared this with turkeys, as well as fossil records.
Scientists thought the furcula was unique to birds. Paleontologists recently confirmed that the bone dates back more than 150 million years to dinosaurs including the Trex and the Velociraptor.
Answers in Genesis, should be flagged by mcafee as 'THIS SITE SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED'! It is full of BS.
Does anyone think how I do, when you search for an article referring to evolution/fossil/genetics etc, you get cretinists sites appear before the article you are searching for? Is this because the likes of google are paid for ranking or is it down to the amount of views?
I was using google SCHOLAR to find an article from a science journal. The first hit in the list was a book written by Kent Hovind. I have no idea why you can even find such bullshit with google scholar... Am I glad when I got a "Research Navigator" account...
Hi, search for John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester Abiogenesis. or John Sutherland Abiogenesis or go to bioedonline 'dot' org and the above.
Another publication has been accepted by nature: - journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013
Another publication: -
Harvard university - Jack Szostak
There are many sources of confirmation on many science/medical sites, I have details published to my channel search for DonExodus2 abiogenesis, and this is another great channel.
oh, so it's just a big conspiracy is it? All those eeeevil scientists working for Satan, conspiring to suck our natural bodily fluids. Way to crack the case, Ark.
I can't believe that I let all that evidence convince me that something other than a magic sky god wishing every thing in to existence was true. Thanks for disproving all that evidence, Ark. Can you tackle that silly Big Bang next?
What is wrong with it being found in 1983? The only thing I can see wrong with it is that it didn't get into the hands of scientists before...
It was manipulated? How do you know? How can you state this as fact?
There was a lot of media coverage on the fossil, which I don't necessarilly think is a bad thing, because it gets people interessted and informed about science. So what is not quite right here? And why haven't you answered the question I now asked you several times?
Anyone who would get information from the Answers in Genesis website is already intellectually bankrupt, and they wouldn't believe anything you say anyway.
It's like deconverting the choir, so to speak.
And the only appropriate response to the likes of Ark1588 would be spelled L - O - L
I am sorry but I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying there is a casual relationship between the discovery of fossils and the discovery of further fossils? If yes why would you think that? And why would it matter?
Where did you get your degree, much less your credibility uploader, a McDonald's happy meal? Get a brain and upload some intelligence before you even attempt to discredit people that can bury you in their educational achievments.
lovingthetruth7 1 month ago
One wouldn't just pass up a meal*
razrowner15 2 months ago
Fossils... We all know how they are formed.. Might I say though that the time span in way off base. How long do you ever see any kind of animal on the side of the road? It's usually gone in only a number of days; between decay and birds of prey and other animals looking for meals. Pan back a so-called 2 million years ago where animals are everywhere. One would just pass up a meal. It would be so unlikely to believe that an animal would just lay there for thousands of years above ground.
razrowner15 2 months ago
@razrowner15 So true!
unknownbutnotalone 1 month ago
I'm confused as to why they think a catastrophic worldwide flood is better explanation for a full skeleton being found. Wouldn't the massive currents that would exist in a deluge large enough to cover mountains positively rip skeletons apart? Why would we expect to find the bones together?
colossus999 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is in no way possible. So many facts that prove against it.
Psalm 14:1 FULL VERSE! - The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Atleast pronounce EVOLUTION! correctly...
FalconWeenie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is in no way possible. So many facts that prove against it.
Psalm 14:1 FULL VERSE! - The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
FalconWeenie 1 year ago
Evolution is in no way possible. So many facts that prove against it.
FalconWeenie 1 year ago
@FalconWeenie
troll detected
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@AgnosticAntitheist No troll.
FalconWeenie 1 year ago
@FalconWeenie csb
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@AgnosticAntitheist stupid name calling from an ignorant athiest. This is evidence not proof and the lack of something is not proof for evolution for it's a decrease in genetical info and u can't prove spontaneous events of genes popping into an organisms chromosones
314violin 3 months ago
@FalconWeenie Yeah right, pretty much all scientists accepts evolution, and evolution is the most accepted theory ever.
do you even know what is evolution?
if you reject evolution, then you must reject the science foundation for it, you also reject reasons, logic. evidence, And you might as well reject gravity, theory of atom, theory of relativity, quantum theory, theory of time. Germ Theory,Theory of The Copenhagen Interpretation. String theory.
hate science, go to church instead.
DoNotLaughAtMe 1 year ago
@DoNotLaughAtMe that reply just gave everyone another reason to reject evolution
TheStyx44 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FalconWeenie
do go on
AlexanderRaccoon 9 months ago
@FalconWeenie Show me one that is real and does not proceed from the realm of what do you dont understand about Evolution... I'm a biologist and gladly we can discuse it.
dinogodx 3 months ago
A easy less complicated approach,,,the Hands of God did make,,,
Have a nice day and keep smiling.
1941pearl 1 year ago
Answers In Genesis is nothing more than an anagram of Erasing Sense Wins. Ken Ham is making millions from erasing sense..... common sense that is at an all time low in the Evangelical Christian world.
CarajilloDulce 1 year ago
@CarajilloDulce do u kno that everything u say doesnt really mean anything???lol
did u kno your chances of excisting , would be that of 0% if christ never excisted...so all u sorry bastards should be thankfull we have religous human instincts, like your instics are to think watever u want..lol
that is why the bible has stood the test of time..and your miserable thoughts will fade away..you better keep your thoughts..lol
1billion1deaths1 1 year ago
@1billion1deaths1
"your chances of excisting , would be that of 0% if christ never excisted"
And I am sure you support this claim with evidence?
"we have religous human instincts [...] that is why the bible has stoof the test of time"
I am sorry, but I don't see the logical connection here. Unless you are saying that people believe in the bible because they are programmed to, (rather than because of rational inquiry). In that case I agree with you, although I don't think this is genetic.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@AgnosticAntitheist all im saying just let it be..why why?? do u have so much hate for peoples stupid beliefs?/is that your hiding the fact that your confuse and youd like to think everyones confuse to make yourself feel great i guess.. well if thats the case ,, you kno if you feed of peoples misery good for u.that is why they believe wat they kno..and u believe wat u kno right??
1billion1deaths1 1 year ago
@1billion1deaths1
I am confused about some problems, not however the origin of humans. I know beyond any reasonable doubt that humans are the product of evolution by means of natural selection.
As a philosopher, I am interested in the discussion of religious believes. I am currently studying at university to do this for a living some day. I will however not force anyone to discuss these matters with me, unless they are trying to brainwash children or do harm in an other way.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@AgnosticAntitheist harm..why would the hypothesis of God ..be of any discussion?? wats so wrong with a creator??were creators ourselfs in our own minds...we could think of almost anything, and do anything in our minds.the concept of God was created out of love..the concept of God means equality, if one truly loves God that means ..that person loves everybody,because u cant see God..so if u could love without seeing everything would be A ok. dont blame Love for your hate and confusement
1billion1deaths1 1 year ago
@1billion1deaths1 "why would the hypothesis of God ..be of any discussion?? wats so wrong with a creator?"
In philosophical and scientific discourse any hypothesis is open for discussion. Get used to it. If you don't like it, don't go into philosophy or science.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@AgnosticAntitheist wowo simmer down!!! fight that gay feeling
1billion1deaths1 1 year ago
@AgnosticAntitheist its sad but its true..your a hatebreed. you feed off others misery,, only to hide your own for that coulple of seconds u enjoy my misery... your caught in a revolving circle of hate.sadly youll die..and your body will win the battle of mind and matter, but its up to u how strong u build your foundation of love,LOVE will always overcome anything..Love all the atheist!! and if they cant love u back..love them even more..how will the retaliate?
1billion1deaths1 1 year ago
@1billion1deaths1
What kind of drugs are you on?
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@AgnosticAntitheist wat kinda drugs aint I on..that is the true question.
do u kno the drugs your on?? i kno wat im on...do u??
1billion1deaths1 1 year ago
@1billion1deaths1 What can I say to such a response. Bible? True? LOL.
CarajilloDulce 1 year ago
@CarajilloDulce is anything really true?? wat do u think lol
1billion1deaths1 1 year ago
@1billion1deaths1 What do I think?...... I think religious texts should be filed under fiction, literature, or philosophy.
CarajilloDulce 1 year ago
@FrogFantom Now you are asking about charge. Charge is carried by electrons and protons, which are found in every atom. In other words: everything is made up of charged particles, except for neutron stars maybe. This doesn't really have to do with what we are talking about. I think what you might mean is that an electric CURRENT is required. I can't confirm if this really is the case, but either way currents are common in nature. The keyword here is lightning.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@FrogFantom
"Okay then, I guess my AP chemistry teach (who has a PhD) is wrong because some YouTube "genius" says so."
I am flattered because of the compliment, but about what did I ever say your chemistry teacher is wrong?
I think you are confused about terminology. First you asked about energy. I answered truthfully: all energy around us comes either from the earth (geothermal energy) or from the sun (nuclear fusion, transmitted to earth by electromagnetic waves).
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@FrogFantom
"Amino acids would need a chemical reaction to be able to form into a more complex compound"
Wow, you really are a genius, aren't you.
"Where and what energy provided would be able to react amino acids?"
If energy is required this could come from geothermal energy or nuclear fusion in the sun. But do all chemical reactions need energy input? Don't a lot of them actually release energy?
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
there are NO answers in genesis. Everything on that website is ridiculous. Why would you believe a bronze age desert creation myth over scientific theory? That's utter stupidity
aaronISyoda 1 year ago
@aaronISyoda
"Why would you believe a bronze age desert creation myth over scientific theory"
Mostly childhood indoctrination, but it would be ignorant to think that religious delusions are mono-causal.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
Kinds of animals,chance yes in there own KIND!!!!..there is a limit that does not mean it evolved,some animals are losing information like the birds in the galapagos..Homochirality,,is a serious problem for evolution..and how amino acids some how came together and made life,that would be a faith based assumption..Miller failed.and proved life cant evolve from simple chemicals or a step by step process.but stubbornly,people still believe evolution as fact,,iam a former atheist..but no longer..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv What is a kind? Why should there be a limit to change? Why do we have a gradual fossile record showing a detailed documentation of enormous changes in populations over time? Why does genetic evidence also support this conclusion? What does this have to with Darwinius Massillae? How do you define Information in this context? What does any of this have to do with Abiogenesis? How does Miller succeed in his goal to form aminoacids imply a failure?
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv And finally: How would a failure of Miller imply an impossibility of the formation of life from simpler chemicals?
I am sorry, but you make no sense at all. You mix up scientific topics, of which NONE have to do with the video you are commenting on. In addition you are unable to use properly defined scientific vocabulary, you bring in completley outdated and irrelevelt experiments, which I would never have brought up and you clearly don't understand the scientific method.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@aaronISyoda It happens when your given false impressions of what said scientific theories and laws by these sleazy lunatics. For some reason people think scientists are saying everything happened 'out of nothing' by chance and that things 'magically appeared' each step of the way in modern science from the big bang/expansion to the current state of the universe and life on earth.
ganados0 10 months ago
@ganados0 yea true, unfortunately I have to put up with A LOT of those kinds of people living in the US
aaronISyoda 10 months ago
This is what cracks me up:
Darwinius Massillae
They named a fossil after Darwin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, I just find that hilarious.
donotweep 1 year ago
@donotweep
I don't get what is supposed to be so funny about that.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@AgnosticAntitheist It just an ironic funny all wrapped up in itself. It underscores the human
arrogance of it all, that's all. I don't expect everyone to understand the humor
in it.
donotweep 1 year ago
@donotweep Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
donotweep 1 year ago
Comment removed
donotweep 1 year ago
Comment removed
donotweep 1 year ago
basically fella, you have no idea what you are talking about. Answers in Genesis has all the right facts about the earth and fossils which evolutionists dont have what so ever!!
raindown03 1 year ago
@raindown03
In this video I clearly demonstrated that they are wrong on Darwinius Massillae. Do you have anything to conter any of the arguments expressed in this video? If not, I don't see the point of your comment. You just stating that Answers in Genesis is right, while Biologists are wrong, doesn't really help the discussion.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
You use the un-scientific term "probably." Not sure how that is observable science. Simply stating that Darwinius is distinct from other mammals does not support the theory (unobservable science) that Darwinius Massillae belongs to the primates. A child can scientificly observe that animals reproduce after their own kind as God has written in Genesis. As a building is obvious of a builder so is creation obvious of a Creator. The bible is filled with scientific facts. Repent or perish.
fourbyfourblazer 1 year ago
@fourbyfourblazer As a philosophy of science student I am afraid to have to tell you that scientists use the term "probably" all the time, because often you can not be sure of something. Scientists dont tend to state something as definitley true, when they are not sure. But just because you aren't sure doesnt mean you have no clue either. That is why the term "probably" is frequently used in science.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@fourbyfourblazer
It is relatively easy to classify animals by the structures they show. Carolus Linnaeus did this long before Darwin first suggested his theory of evolution. In a very simmilar manner you can determine that Darwinius Massilae is not a lemur, but a primate, due to its jaw and skeleton.
I wouldn't trust a child to decide on such matters of science. That is why biologists don't tend to ask children on their views, but instead make use of empirical evidence.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@fourbyfourblazer Evolution has been directly observed many times, however it is usually a slow process, which is why we don't observe it all the time. One organism can never give rise to a fundamentally different organism, changes are usually minor. But over several generations these changes can accumulate and a new species is born.
I agree that creation requires a creation (by definition) however I doubt that organisms are a creation. Thus there is no reason I should belieive in a creator.
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
I dont believe in evelution
jc4ever2 1 year ago
@jc4ever2 So you are denying reality?
AgnosticAntitheist 1 year ago
@AgnosticAntitheist What, you dont already know the answer?
graphattic 1 year ago
@jc4ever2 I do not believe in evelution either.... I believe in Evolution....
graphattic 1 year ago
@jc4ever2 Apparently you also don’t believe spell check. I am uncertain if you believe in education, but I assure you it is a most worth while endeavor. I would highly recommend you try it.
lilannsul 1 year ago
no shit sherlock... why waste yourself?
jacksawild 1 year ago
anyone else think its funny that mr ham looks like a proto-human caveman?
Lallapalalable 2 years ago
Evolution is would still be perfectly creditable and rational even if there were absolutely no fossil record. Fossils are just a bonus.
MrSpeakeasy29 2 years ago
FOSSILS HAVE DISCREDITED EVOLUTION (PART 1)(1 of 7) watch it.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
@Brophan1ty
problem is that haven't, they've just reinforced evolution.
manhunt48 2 years ago
HAHAHA MAN LIVES WITH BIRDS AND TRICERATOPS AND BRONTOSAURIS HAHAHAHAHA Now that is to funny...
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you on crack or something?
I am not going to watch all the videos you link me. I have already looked into the fossil record. I have heard what real scientists have to say, and I have heard what creationists have to say. It is clear that the fossilrecord fullfils the predictions of evolution. e.g. Archaeopteryx shows the transition from other dinosauria to avians.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
You idiot. The ICA stones were tested and dated by evolutionists and there are many books and articles about them. I might also add that your stupid and Christopher Moncton destroys the mindset that a peer reviewed paper is legitemate upon its conception and most people think its been peer reviewed so theres no reason to look into it like you. Your crack pot idea that life came from non living elements is retarded and so is the evolutionary community. There is not 1 tiny piece of evidenceTHEORY!
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
If there are so many articles about them name me one.
Peer-review doesn't make it unnecessary to look into something. It makes it POSSIBLE to look into something, because it means that I can access the data scientists got. I have looked into the evidence, that is why I accept evolution aswell as climate change. There is not 1 tiny piece of evidence. Yes there is. Let me give you an example: the seven specimen of Archaeopteryx that have been found in the fossilrecord.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
who's an "evolutionist" if you mean someone in the field of evolutionary biology why would they be dating rocks?
1aaronaaron1 2 years ago
Dr. Gary Parker: From Evolution to Creation (1/6) Look these videos up on youtube my friend and always remember "Organization makes complexity possible"
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
You see if evolution gets destroyed than alot of scientists are out on theyr ass! They like making lots of money from tax payers and they dont want people to think theres more to life than food sex and shit. Theyr quite happy selling you this trash cus it keeps us dumb and the women horny as well as keeping themselves rich and influenchel. The only reason they havent thrown the THEORY away is because they have nuthing to replace it with besides a CREATOR WITH INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
No. The reason why they haven't abolished the theory of evolution is that there is so much evidence for it. As I have pointed out your buriel stones don't really have anything to do with evolution, so even if they aren't fakes evolution still stands.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Can I remind you again that whether or not dinosaurs lived with humans doesn't say anything about the truth of evolution. In fact WE DO LIVE WITH DINOSAURS. You probably know them as 'birds'. I know that as a creationist you won't agree that birds are dinosaurs. But if evolution is correct they are, and they DO live with humans. So how does this disprove evolution?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
If evolution gets "destroyed" scientists would be happy because there has been a major paradigm shift and in order for evolution to be "destroyed" they would have to be much closer to universal truth with this new great theory ... the theory has to fit the criteria for what is science which is why at the time it cannot be replaced with intelligent design.
1aaronaaron1 2 years ago
@Brophan1ty
you say theory like you're making some kind of point, which makes me think you don't actually understand what a scientific theory is.
pyr666 1 year ago
basickly you canot refute the ICA stones LOOK AT THE DR SWIFT VIDEOS! THERES LIKE 3 OR MORE DIFFERENT SEARIES ON THEM LOL. He eaven looks at one under high powered microscopes to SHOW YOU. My god how you purposly blind yourself to the world around you man!! You REALLY dont want to believe do you? Your like the people that say theres global warming when there clearly is NOT! Look up Lord Christopher Moncton Destroys Global Warming and tell me theres no propaganda in peer-reviewed BS.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
If Swift is so confident that his findings are right, why doesn't he publish them in a credited science magazin so that other scientists can check his work?
"Your like the people that say theres global warming when there clearly is NOT!"
Can you PLEASE stop changing the topic. It is really hard to talk about so many things at the same time so I don't want to talk to you about climate change now aswell and stop coming up with conspiracy theories or else I might think you have schizophrenia.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Hahahaha you think peer reviewed papers arent the product of propaganda? Look up on youtube Lord Christopher Moncton of Brenchley Nobel prize winner Destroys Global Warming. Then you can tell me what you think about peer-reviewed papers LOL. And yes child of deception... The Ica stones were dated with verry inacurate euridiom argon methods to be verry verry old and under extream magnification where the lines were carved into them showed natural rock processes going over the cut lines whitch-
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
Peer reviewed papers allow scientists to publish their results. Once they are published they are subject to scrutiny. That means anyone anywhere can read the article, repeat the experiments and thus test whether the findings were correct. If you can not present such a paper that was subjet to such critical scrutiny your case lacks credibility.
I don't have time to watch videos by people who deny reality. I study REAL science at a university, that takes up enough time.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
It is well known that if people and dinosaurs lived together that the THEORY of evolution is destroyed. LOOK INTO PHD DR SWIFT ICA STONES He offered 500,000 dollars to any evolutionist to prove the ICA burial stones were frauds. NOBODY COULD DO IT LOL. Yes some were fakes howeaver they have been found to be certified authentic under verry close scruteny by leading scientists and geologists. haha ha ha ha. Evolution is an utter sham and your left with no saving grace. Once again look up DR SWIFT.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
"It is well known that if people and dinosaurs lived together that the THEORY of evolution is destroyed"
You should tell biologists that. Because infact dinosaurs DO live together with humans. My brother has pet ones.
"they have been found to be certified authentic under verry close scruteny by leading scientists and geologists"
So where are the peer-reviewed papers on this? And what does this have to do with evolution?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
answer
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
I halfto ask... How do you decide what is right and what is wrong? Who decides what right and wrong are? In your opinion what is the
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
There is one thing I absolutley don't understand about creationists like yourself. We were just now talking about something COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT and now you want to talk to me about metaethics? WTF?
Well anyways: There is no objective morality. I can have my personal opinion of what I think is good or bad or right or wrong. But there is no objectivity to this.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
The ICA burial stones are not a fraud and your lying to say that. Yes some people made fakes howeaver the originals showing dinosaurs were not. PHD Dr Swift has vidoe of this.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
A farmer admited that he made the stones. What exactly is your reason for thinking the originals weren't faked, too?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
I think its funny how theres well over 500 living fossils thought to be prehistoric creatures from way in the past and the only difference if any is that today theyr smaller than when god caused the world to flood over. That also fits the bible, God sais Noah lived 900 years or sumthing. Our fossils are bigger because the world was healthier back then and now you cant even drink the water without getting sick YAY! HURRAY FOR FLOURIDE! GO EUGENICISTS FASCIST NAZZIS!
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
"the only difference if any is that today theyr smaller"
No, it's really not the only difference. Please provide evidence for your claim.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
By the way Kent Hovind has pictures in those dinosaurs and the bible videos of dinosaurs that washed up on the shore with the skin still on the rotting bodies LOL!!!!! Yep they didnt evolve in over 65 million years! I might also add that we have fossils of sharks that are 100 feet long and they only groy to abouyt 25 feet today. ONWARD AND UPWARD!!! HOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
"Kent Hovind has pictures in those dinasaurs"
No, Kent Hovind has pictures of something, which zoologists say is probably a shark.
"we have fossils of sharks that are 100 feet long"
So what? What does that have to do with anything?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
I suppose all those legends of knights going out to slay the dragons were all fake as well. However those legends span acrost the entyre earth from asia to africa to europe and so on. ICA burial stones is all I halfto say buddy. Debunk that! They offer up $500,000 to any evolutionist who can! LOL good luck with your adventures against the living God of the universe.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
Legends of dragons have a simple explanation. People love monster stories. In asia it is also the case that there are large lizards which they call dragons. It is also possible that someone found a fossil of a dinosaur.
Kent Hovind's offer is impossible to fulfill. The way he stated it you basicly have to observe the big bang, which is impossible. And then you still have to prove that God wasn't a part of it. However we still have plenty of other evidence for the big bang theory and evolution.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
You might also want to look into the pigmy africans who live near the worlds largest and remote swamp who say they see dinosaurs in theyr 3rd world country. You might also look up the story from native american indians about the thunderbird which was a huge man lizard with wings and a hump on its head constructed like a bat that got struck by lightning and they retreaved it so naming the thunderbird.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
I am not sure what myths and legends have to do with reality. Besides the african tribe once answered when asked whether they have actually seen the 'monsters', that you don't really see them. It is just one of their legends, only that you are dumb enough to actually believe it.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Go look up the video I dare you. Another point Id like to add. Ever heard of polystratic fossils? hmmmmmm There is a whale standing on it's tail fin pointing up through thousands of layers said to be thousands and thousands of years old LOL. Your seing what you want to see. Im just observing what has been found which coincides the biblical story of a global flood that gave the world millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
I have already seen 8 hours of Kent Hovind material, including the one you linked me. It is full of nonesense and has been shown to be wrong by youtube users such as extantdodo. The whale "'standing on it's tail fin' can be explained easily through geology. It would take too long to explain this here. However as I said, user extantdodo has already debunked these claims sufficiently.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
You know what the best part is? Those things cant last even 1million years! HAHAHahahahahaLMFAO. All I halfto say is ICA
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
"Those things cant last even 1million years!"
Why couldn't they, given the right conditions?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
So they found a lemur like creature with slight differences LOL nice there it is folks evidence things evolve into other creatures yep! It is so obvious that this theory should be taught as fact but it cant be because fossils dont prove evolution and that is why it is a theory. What isnt a theory are the ICA burial stones depicting people riding and killing dinosaurs. Know what else isnt a theory? The finding of soft tissues and bloodcells still intact in the oldest T-Rex bones ever found!
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
This is evidence, because it fullfills a prediction of the Theory of evolution. There is however much more evidence for evolution, such as evidence from genetics and direct observation.
The burial stones depicting people riding dinosaurs, which Kent Hovind talks about, have turned out to be a fraud. The person selling them said he just wanted to make money from tourists, so he faked them.
The finding of soft tissues in T-Rex bones is a fact and is accepted by scientists, so what?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
on a mission to replicate with sum unknown energy source that propelled it into living organism status so full of life and possible information that all matter of life came from it with it's ancestry being the primordal soup of dead crap whitch by the way crap would be infinitly more likely to have potential that the story in this fairytale belief or THEORY LOL.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
Life begets life. When in blazes do you suppose that a single living cell whitch I might add has more information than 100 encyclopedia britanicas suddenly sprang out of the earth nevermind the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
The first cells were by far not as complicated as they are today. The just need to consist of a lipid membrane (which form automaticly in water, we can observe that) and RNA in the middle of the membrane. As I told you before, experiment has shown most steps (if not all, I am not sure) of the process necessary to form RNA under natural conditions to be possible. The first and second laws of thermodynamics don't have anything to do with this. Again: how about you actually read the first law?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
RNA world subsurface origin hypothesis...
1aaronaaron1 2 years ago
The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed and the second that all energy when left to itself breaks down. How did anything come into existance. I can tell you through faith believe what ever this nonsense about atoms magicly creating DNA and yes the belief of no god is called athiesm and it is a religion. dont think that because you chose to believe by faith in sumthing that you canot prove that your approach is scientific.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
As a physicist, I suggest to you that you actually read the two laws of thermodynamics. The way you stated them is pretty wrong.
You are rejcting empirical evidence. Experiment has shown most steps towards the formation of DNA to be possible under natural conditions. Atheism is not the belief in no god, but the lack of a belief in a god. Religion is defined as a belief system with some form of belief in something supernatural. Atheism is neither a belief nor the belief in something supernatural
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
I want you to look up on youtube Dr. Kent Hovind Dinosaurs and the Bible. You just might learn sumthing.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
Atheism is defined as a lack of a belief in a god. Religion is a belief system. So by definition atheism can not be a religion, for it is simply a lack of a belief. Atheism is as much a religion as not believing in zeus is. You could just aswell say that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Not teaching religious myths in school is important because you can not have freedom of religion, without having freedom FROM religion.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Kent Hovind does not have an offical PhD. His 'PhD' was given to him by a not credited bible school and his PhD work included common grammar and spelling mistakes. Further Kent Hovind has been shown to be wrong on almost everything he has ever said. (See user extantdodo)
Unlike Kent Hovind I actually am a scientist.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Eugenics. Hitler based his vigor on sutch ideas of darwinism and eugenics. Thats why he had no problem killing millions of people in an attempt to create the pirfect race. Heres an idea. Why dont you have a dirt farm and tell me when DNA and life sprouts out of it all by itself. Thats cute. Dont tell me that is science when you have faith in sumthing you canot prove its called religion and theyr teaching the religion of athiesm in schools. They took God out of school and replaced him with Satan.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
Hitler made clear in his book 'mein Kampf' that he was a creationist. Evolution does not justify killing people, for it only states that the fittest (those that are more likely to survive and pass on their genes) are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. It does not say that we should kill anyone. "Why dont you have a dirt farm..." Actually scientists have been able to replicate most steps necessary for forming life under natural conditiosn.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Let me also remind you that non living elements dont give birth to plants or animals, that is a feary tale as clearly as it is. Scientists disproved this theory a long time ago when they did a study on rotten meat to see if it made maggots among other things. I suppose if you found my 5 foot 5 inch fossil around an africans 6 foot 11inch bones theyd be saying that white men ascended into africans and that white man was less evolved. Evolution is the root of rascism and is also the root of...
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
"Let me also remind you that non living elements dont give birth to plants or animals"
First of all no element can be described as alive. Elements are simply different kinds of atoms with a differing amount of protons in their nucleus.
Secondly no hypothesis I have heard of suggests that life started with plants or animals. No educated biologist would claim that modern africans descended from modern caucasian. Evolution works as a tree, not a letter. This means that we have a common ancestor.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Evolution can only cause racism when it is misunderstood. So actually you are causing racism, because you spread misinformation about evolution.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Thats cute. You obviously dont know enough about DNA to talk about it's origins but let me clear away the smoke & mirrors.1 piece of DNA has the information to make the next piece as well as the next piece it will make. It goes full circle within itself. There is also what scientists youlsto call "junk DNA" which we now know is for things like advanced eyesight hightened hearing and smelling. If were magickly getting better all the time howcome were actually getting worse?
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
I might not know enough about DNA, but the biologists with PhDs who work on the field of abiogenesis most certrainly do. Junk DNA is DNA that doesn't code for a functional RNA or protein product. At the moment it seems like there really is no function at all to some/most of it.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Evolution is not magic. Creation is magic. Further evolution doesn't suggest we are getting better. Science doesn't comment on such moral judgements. Evolution suggests that the genepool of a population gets more adapted to the population's environment. This has been observed many times.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
OUR PARENTS! where do you suppose they got it? well as we can see were not getting more genetic information. Were loosing it. understand yet? Adam and Eve had the genetics to make the varieties we see today, not the other way around. Now thats good science. We can test it, observ it and prove it with science so tell me how there being a vast varriety proves that we are the result of rain falling on rocks for millions of years. You think non living elements spawned DNA and all life on earth
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
"We can test it, observ it and prove it" How?
"how there being a vast varriety proves that we are the result of rain falling on rocks"
No one said anything about rain falling on rocks. And this most certainly doesn't have anything to variety. Besides, I didn't say variety proves evolution. We have other prove of evolution. e.g. transitional fossils, genetic markers, obeservation, etc. I only said that variety is a prediction of evolution, since evolution is a theory that explains variety.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
"You think non living elements spawned DNA and all life on earth."
Yes, I do.
Do you think magic spawned DNA and all life on earth?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Let me make this easier for you. If I impregnate my wife and we have a child, half of my genetics and half of hers get lost in the process of making the child. The child will have a hybrid of it's parents genetics. So if the genome is drawing from information we supplied to it where did our information come from?
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
"where did our information come from?"
There are many hypothesese about the origin of life. It is impossible to go back in time to see which one is right, but we can experiment and tell which one is possible or even probable. One hypothesis I particularly like, is that DNA evolved itself from RNA, which was formed in a series of a reactions of which we are now able to replicate most under natural conditions. RNA and DNA of course contain what you might call information, so there you go.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Given that creatures in this world have a verry complex mechanism to prevent mutations in them we can rule out mutations, which result in the loss of DNA and deformations. What I want you to answer is what Dawkins could not answer when posed the question (can you give one example of new genetic information entering into the genome?)
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
Organisms have mechanisms to prevent mutation because too rapid mutation can have a negative impact. There however still are a lot of mutations. In each human generation there are about 200-300. There also many example were mutations have been benefical. For example a bacteria that got a mutation that made it able to digest nylon.Dawkins wrote an article explaining that he ddn't answer because when that question was asked he realised he let creationists in his house. There he also gave examples.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
1. a scientific hypothesis must make predictions about FUTURE discoveries. Variety (even though not to such an extend as today) was already known at the time the 'hypothesis' was formulated.
2. creation doesn't actually imply variety. There could be creation without variety.
3. evolution also predicts variety
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
That doesn't answer either one of my questions.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
"Variety is evidence for creation" How so?
"creation explains everything far more scientifically" how so?
back up your claims
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
I don't think anyone is claiming that variety is evidence for evolution. Evolution is a theory that EXPLAINS variety... You are an idiot.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
What are your thought about the segment on 60 Minutes - "Scientist's Dino Findings Making Waves" (November 15, 2009)?
How is it possible for the organic material Schweitzer found inside the T-rex bones (blood vessels and possibly intact cells) to have survived for 68 million years?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Tell me why it should not be possible first. You seem to be the one making a positive claim here.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
3 of 3
"You seem to be the one making a positive claim here."
Actually, the articles do. And since Creationists (myself included) don't believe the earth is billions of years old, the proof of how organic material can survive for millions of years is squarely on those who believe it is. So you'd better get to it as it looks like you have a lot of explaining to do.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
You,Sir, are an idiot. It is obviously you who is making the positive claim when you state preservation is impossible. When scientst discovered that preservation has taken place, they did not need to have a presupposed position that it can be preserved. For example when you see someone do a handstand, you do not at first need to know he can do one, and thus you don't need to make a positive claim. If you however say someone can not do a handstand, that is a positive claim.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
2 of 3
Just helped make this discovery: "Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil" (PhysOrg, November 5, 2009). "Scientists have extracted organically preserved muscle tissue from an 18 million years old salamander fossil... According to the University College Dublin geologists, the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood."
Blood?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
If you want to know what blood is, go to the kitchen, take a knife, and cut your arms. That's right. That is blood. Any more questions?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
1 of 3
Well, for starters, in the article "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery" (Discover, April 27, 2006), Jeffrey Bada said, "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will WIPE OUT biomolecules."
First, why is her discovery called "dangerous"? Second, doesn't Bada's comment seem to indicate organic material cannot survive for millions of years? The article also mentions Patrick Orr at University College Dublin who...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
I couldn't care less why some idiot came up with the name dangerous discovery. And, no, his comment doesnt indicate that. It indicates that it is unlikely for this to happen. This is the reason we don't find preserved organic molecules in fossils all the time.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
"It indicates that it is unlikely for this to happen. This is the reason we don't find preserved organic molecules in fossils all the time."
The PhysOrg article states, "The scientists claim that their discovery is unequivocal evidence that high-fidelity organic preservation of extremely decay prone soft tissues is MORE COMMON in the fossil record."
Also, what is meant by "extremely decay prone soft tissues"?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
They probably mean: "more common than previously thought."
Why are you asking me this? I suggest you take a biology class or something.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Do you facebook? Look me up, Wyatt A Sprague. I like to discuss things with people who have a different worldview than myself.
gasolineandlighters 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I don't use facebook. We can discuss anything you want here.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
For agnosticantitheist- where does YOUR basis for morals come from chief???
gasolineandlighters 2 years ago
The same where yours come from: Human's evolutionary history and especialy kin selection.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
AgnosticAntitheist you have been shown to support a complete hoax when will you be secreting this video?
Google:
'Eighth wonder' Ida is not related to humans, claim scientists, guardian
hume1947 2 years ago
1. This video is not about whether or not Ida is significant for human ancestory. It is simply supposed to point out the mistakes in an article by answers in genesis.
2. No real scientist would ever claim Ida is not related to humans since all life on earth is related to each other. The question is whether or not her species is a direct ancestor to humans. Scientists are divided over this question. I have not and will not take sides on this debate.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
the 6 point thing near the end really shows the enormous lack of understanding of the world that creationists have... how do they think those species winded up extinct anyways?
dapanzy 2 years ago
This is a really good video AA... I see you continue to bang your head against the wall with these creationists... Surely you must realise that if scientist were to announce tomorrow that they had succeeded in creating life in a jar... [abiogenesis] Creationists would either deny the realization, or just say that is the way God makes life... You can't reason with the unreasonable...
^..^
TheWildAssCopyCat 2 years ago
Answers in Genesis, is nonsense website, they even ignore that abiogenesis has been proved in a lab in Manchester UK.
This site is also claiming that no dinosaurs evolved into birds, right or wrong, they have to question why god has used Trex DNA and shared this with turkeys, as well as fossil records.
Scientists thought the furcula was unique to birds. Paleontologists recently confirmed that the bone dates back more than 150 million years to dinosaurs including the Trex and the Velociraptor.
LozTheAtheist 2 years ago
Answers in Genesis, should be flagged by mcafee as 'THIS SITE SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED'! It is full of BS.
Does anyone think how I do, when you search for an article referring to evolution/fossil/genetics etc, you get cretinists sites appear before the article you are searching for? Is this because the likes of google are paid for ranking or is it down to the amount of views?
LozTheAtheist 2 years ago
I was using google SCHOLAR to find an article from a science journal. The first hit in the list was a book written by Kent Hovind. I have no idea why you can even find such bullshit with google scholar... Am I glad when I got a "Research Navigator" account...
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
LOL! I tested google Scholar and I got the same result, I guess googles scientific credibility was badly corrupted by this creationists retards.
emancoy 2 years ago
If you think abiogenesis has been proved in Manchester (where i/m from btw) or anywhere else you are plain bonkers .
ark1588 2 years ago
Hi, search for John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester Abiogenesis. or John Sutherland Abiogenesis or go to bioedonline 'dot' org and the above.
Another publication has been accepted by nature: - journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013
Another publication: -
Harvard university - Jack Szostak
There are many sources of confirmation on many science/medical sites, I have details published to my channel search for DonExodus2 abiogenesis, and this is another great channel.
LozTheAtheist 2 years ago
i do not think Sutherland has demonstrated Abio .
he has done some interesting work on organic chemistry .
to take it further requires some rather implausible assumptions .
ark1588 2 years ago
great video. Shame so few people have seen it.
oh, and Ark1588...you're and idiot.
ryjinannon 2 years ago
this fossil was discovered in 1983 .
it was 'manipuated' by various people ,and after a milion dollar purchase recently was launched on the public with considerable spin .
something not quite right here ?
ark1588 2 years ago
oh, so it's just a big conspiracy is it? All those eeeevil scientists working for Satan, conspiring to suck our natural bodily fluids. Way to crack the case, Ark.
I can't believe that I let all that evidence convince me that something other than a magic sky god wishing every thing in to existence was true. Thanks for disproving all that evidence, Ark. Can you tackle that silly Big Bang next?
ryjinannon 2 years ago
as a useful comment from you , i am feeling generous today so it's 0 out of 10 .
fing someone else to discuss
your 'sky gods' and 'big bangs' .
ark1588 2 years ago
What is wrong with it being found in 1983? The only thing I can see wrong with it is that it didn't get into the hands of scientists before...
It was manipulated? How do you know? How can you state this as fact?
There was a lot of media coverage on the fossil, which I don't necessarilly think is a bad thing, because it gets people interessted and informed about science. So what is not quite right here? And why haven't you answered the question I now asked you several times?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
i got my info from wiki .
there are differing views about the significance of the fossil not just AIG .
i do not support AIG but sometimes the way supporters of ET go over the top ,leaves them open to criticism from sources such as they .
arguments about ET are all over the internet as i'm sure you know.
there are many difficult questions for ET theory to overcome .
i remain unconvinced .
ark1588 2 years ago
Wiki is not a reason why you would need to know the exact ancestor species and dircet daughter species. It might give a reason, if so please name it.
"i remain unconvinced"
... despite the facts.
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
Good video, but sort of a waste of time.
Anyone who would get information from the Answers in Genesis website is already intellectually bankrupt, and they wouldn't believe anything you say anyway.
It's like deconverting the choir, so to speak.
And the only appropriate response to the likes of Ark1588 would be spelled L - O - L
I admire your diligence though, that's for sure.
jrparri 2 years ago
any missing links/transitional fossils seem to cause new missing links/transitional fossils .
non-creationists seem to be clutching at straws everytime something like this shows up .
ark1588 2 years ago
I am sorry but I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying there is a casual relationship between the discovery of fossils and the discovery of further fossils? If yes why would you think that? And why would it matter?
AgnosticAntitheist 2 years ago
i think there are not enough 'transitional' fossils to draw positive conclusions .
eg .where are fossils of creatures between flying and not flying ?etc
ark1588 2 years ago