Who is this arrogant little prick anyway? Is he just grooming himself for lucrative career in the Christian snake oil field? Because no one who didn't grow up in a cave could be as ignorant and stupid as he makes himself out to be. It's just not believable. I suspect it's all a plan to make himself a fortune in the tradition of TV evangelists.
There's also an old video where VGX says in the end: ''I believe in natural selection. I believe in genetic mutation. But I do not believe in evolution.'' *facepalm*
@Janoahable I don't think you're understanding the premise of evolution. If you can't understand it, try not to insult it. Consult the theories, and then assess from there its validity. Don't just dismiss it out of ignorance.
@pantscheese this doesn't make sense what you are saying...lets just say that you are right and that evolution takes place over millions of years...why aren't we witnessing it happen as we speak? we witness the evolution of an apple seed grow into a full grown tree, we witness a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly...this is hapenning in front of our face now...but you don't see fish turn into people...or even fish turning into anything else other than a fish...its simple common sense.
@Janoahable Because that's not Evolution, you dolt, that's simple growing. Seed don't evolve into apple trees, they grow into apple trees. You can't witness evolution, because you can't live that long. I think you're mistaking common sense for uninformed.
@Janoahable let me explain it to you like this. fish did not evolve into people. just like single cells did not evolve into fish. just like amphibians did not just evolve into reptiles. There are things called transitional phases, which are essential to the evolution of life. Look, for examples at the land-crawling fish we have today. Or the flying squirrel. It is plausible to assume that these creatures will evolve in the future into some other form, by natural selection.
@Janoahable now let's take us humans. Evolution has proven that we are apes, and descended from early primates. We did not just evolve from monkeys. However, primates developed color and binocular vision first, over the course of millions of years, because those features were more USEFUL for life in the trees - picking up ripe fruit, seeing where you leap. But even just for these feats, it takes thousands of lifetimes, because evolution happens very slowly and gradually.
@Janoahable if you wish to understand the world around you, not just evolution, but geology, zoology and astronomy, you must get out of your timeframe and understand that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe three times as much, and your life is short and flawed, therefore you cannot expect to see these things for yourself. Unlike religion, where you cannot see things for yourself either and must believe, science offers you real proof, everywhere around you.
@Janoahable but in order for you to understand these things, you must first find the proof, right? Otherwise the subject just bothers you because it's conflicting with your other beliefs. Well, you can go to a museum to see fossils, you can go to a geology museum to see the violent past of earth, you can watch a documentary or, if you have the money, you can go to certain places around our planet and see for yourself. I hope these replies offer you some perspective.
@Janoahable also the examples you gave with the tree and butterfly - that is not evolution, those are natural stages in the life of an apple tree and a butterfly. That itself is not evolution. And evolution does happen every day. Whenever you have sex with your wife in the hopes of conceiving a child, you are plotting for evolution. You pass on your genes to your child, and your child is a completely new creature, with new features, from both you and your wife, combined and original.
@branahawk in the future, if the world warms up, your child might have a better metabolism than others, can tolerate heat better. He may pass on those genes to his children, while the other unrelated children might die of heatstroke. And so forth. Over millions of years, who knows where this might lead? It's all up to our planet, and what it has in store for us. We might have to go back to water, as the whales did - or in the air. But I'll end this here, I have spoken too much.
@branahawk in the future, if the world warms up, your child might have a better metabolism than others, can tolerate heat better. He may pass on those genes to his children, while the other unrelated children might die of heatstroke. And so forth. Over millions of years, who knows where this might lead? It's all up to our planet, and what it has in store for us. We might have to go back to water, as the whales did - or in the air. But I'll end this here, I have spoken too much.
@branahawk right but as i said before humans will forever be humans... it doesn't matter if parents pass on certain traits onto their children and they take these traits along with the traits of thier wives and pass them onto their kids so that the kids have traits that are unlike their parents or grandparents...the point is these are "traits" only...but will remain humans forever. the example that i gave about the catepillar makes complete sense...and we can actually witness it.
@Janoahable i'm sad that you don't understand what I'm saying. You're comparing life stages to evolution, country economics to natural selection. And still can't see the bigger picture and bigger timeframe. Talk about shutting yourself from knowledge. Well, I tried. Maybe one day, when you educate yourself some more, you'll understand. It's impossible to explain biodiversity, genetics and natural selection in even 20 youtube comments and I don't think you'd understand it anyway.
@branahawk i am trying to learn...but its hard to understand you when you don't make any sense...thats all i'm saying...i don't think you know what you yourself is talking about.
@Janoahable how on earth does it not make sense? have you lived in a cave all your life? I've been studying science all my life, don't try to insult me you prick. What in the world don't you understand?
@branahawk (cont)....and just to add to that, there is a country that has used science to create and produce various types of different fruits that were never ever here before by taking some traits and using others and morphing it into a brand new unheard of unseen fruit....but it still forever remains that whatever the outcome: the fruit will remain a fruit.
he has a loose understanding of some of the concepts, im going to finally give him some credit. it looks like hes actually made... well some progress... but that being said he still is a retched excuse for a human being and a terribly stupid one at that
@superhamzah85 Is the sun the source of all light. What a foolish statement. God created light, He actually created light. Then He created the sun which provides does in fact provide light as well but is not the source of all light. Come on now
When something good happens you thank your sky daddy for it, when something bad happens, tell your God to go fuck himself. Be fair at least. :-)
Once you start telling your dumb god to fuck off, and see no reaction, no consequence, life remains exactly as it is, you then accept the reality, that he was never here to begin with. Then you start taking responsibility for yourself, life is then, much better - with no gods.
but u forgot what to do when he does respond, tell mE NOAWWW! now, what would u do if you mocking god and he responds with well dn anything? just like i seen people say shit like this but what would you do if it did happen, some agnostic said he, force his family to follow god as warning.
@superhamzah85 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
remember it used maybe in context of past present and future. so it can be planed before it created
See ur closed minded, you only open to that theres start and finish. u see now that since no start nor end, ill reply later to see what other thinks about it. he prob gonna say im wrong lol. but thats another box -_-
And creationist, come up with their dumb theory by reading one book ignoring all evidence that says otherwise, deny, deny, deny science which would be fine, if they didn't use such things as the internet, OMG science and scientist made the internet if evolution is evil clearly is youtube, so run run creationist, deny all science for the love of God so Evolution can take effect and you can all die off before your 30!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The problem is that he apparently understood evolution, at least to a certain degree, but still kinda fails at realizing that it's what is happening. Also, calling it stupid was a bit stupid.
Why is there such a fuss over this little asshat? he's just a little boy throwing his frustrations on the internet. Why would anyone bother to start a discussion with these kind of self-righteous religious fucktards? They're not going to realize their defeat, let alone admit it. Religion is a conteradiction in itself, defying all things natural substituting it with a delusional fantasy world based on a book written by fanatic sociopath deeply disturbed homophobes. That pretty much wraps it up.
''There IS evidence. It`s just a matter of if you choose to accept it.''
You sir, should never again try to debate. anything. This is so exceptionally stupid that if there was a god, he'd strike you down for severe mental incompetence.
@d27slipknot venomfang is not just an idiot, hes actually a pretty sick kid, he even promised that he was going to get himself help, he has not only been humiliated by atheists in arguments, but he has committed charity fraud, is a pathological liar, and was kicked out of his house by his own parents thanks to his deceitful nature and criminal behaviour. he even asked his "fans" to donate 500 bucks a month to him because his "daddy" wouldn't pay for all his stuff anymore, what a creep.
i bet venomfang doesn't even realize that Darwin makes no mention of finches until over 400 pages into "The Origin of Species" and the finch was not used to "create his stupid idea" but rather gain more evidence for its correctness.
Darwin's stupid theory??? 'Theory' is the highest form of human knowledge. A theory has to be falsifiable, i.e. if occasionally things fell 'up' then the theory of gravity would be proven wrong. If just ONE creature could be proved to have spontaneously appeared on Earth, with no fossil or DNA trail then the theory of Evolution would be proved to be false. Better people than this kid have tried and failed. The Theory of Evolution is an astounding leap in humanity's understanding of our world.
If V.F.X. knew anything about Darwin, he would know that the 'finch beak' thing was not thought up by Darwin at the start of the voyage of the Beagle, but rather afterwards after someone pointed out the differences between the individual finches.
Genesis 1:20 says that all life came from the waters.So even the Bible preaches Evolution.I'm a Christian and I believe in Evolution.It doesn't disprove God in any way.
@TheStigmadeign well, th bible says it was created. you know, created, not evolved. because it was "made" in his image. So you got, created, made, etc. It doesnt speak of any specific evolving.
@TheStigmadeign genesis chapter 1 verse 20 states that .""And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life""" First of all, that doesnt say that the life came from the water, it says that life contains lots and varies forms of life. Secondly if you actually read the rest of genesis you see something else, read chapter 1:21 genesis. genesis 1:24, genesis 1:25, genesis 2:7. and chekc out what that says.
@TheStigmadeign The bible saying life came from water doesn't mean it knows abiogenesis, silly. Also, evolution doesn't disprove god, but there still isn't any evidence that god exists.
@gulbirk Which should be evidence enough for you (if you interpret it the way that you do) that the bible is a book full of bullshit, since evolution is a fact.
The THEORY of how it happens is what you're disputing here, but the theory has held up to any and all forms of debate and bashing so far... Yes, even scientific debates.
@TheStigmadeign No, you ARE correct that evolution does not DISPROVE god, but that isn't the point. The point is, do you have ANY proof (outside a self-fulfilling holy book written by bronze-age nomads) that YOUR god exists? Hell, is there ANY proof that ANY god exists? Show us. Seriously, show us. I think not.
@surflat56 If you're an atheist this is the basis of your belief.You believe that out of nothingness a random event occurred.Causing a major complex non designed existence with absolutely no purpose.Which means that you yourself have no purpose which totally defies the laws of physics and biology to begin with.
@TheStigmadeign No, I do NOT believe "that out of nothingness a random event occurred". What I do KNOW is we humans do not know (this is SO crucial) many things YET (YET!). Like the complete origin of the universe. We humans (you included) do NOT know everything or close to everything. But: 1. The human knowledge base grows every minute AND 2. Our NOT knowing something does NOT mean that Allah, Thor, Yayweh, Quetzalcoatl, Jesus, Zues, Buddha, Santa or any other mythological creature IS god! Ya!
@surflat56 If you have 2 Christians and they can even be of 2 different doctrines they still believe in Christ.Then you have 2 atheists.One believes that it is impossible for God to exist and the other believes that it IS possible.See the fallacy in this?The atheists contradict themselves.Especially the atheist that says it is possible that there is a God.The argument contradicts itself therefore it cancels itself out.
@TheStigmadeign I believe that a being that could be considered god could exist, however I believe that this is also hideously unlikely and that there is no evidence for such. Similarly I believe that there could be an invisible dragon in someones garage but without evidence I will not believe it to be so.
@TheStigmadeign christians think they know the answer to everything, i.e. god. if this is your answer to everything how come you have different doctrines regarding your beliefs? atheists on the other hand are humble enough to say that they don't know everything and are therefore free to believe whatever convinces them.
@TheStigmadeign I would like to let you know that your argument about arguments "cancelling out" is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard next to pot can kill you. The reason two Christians will both believe in Christ is because THEY ARE CHRISTIANS! In order to be a christian you need to conform to the idea that Jesus is the son of god yada yada. The reason atheists have different beliefs is because they don,t have to conform to such doctrines and think for themselves, thus many beliefs
@TheStigmadeign Ad the very idea of arguments "canceling out" makes my brain hurt. This isn't mathematics or physics, but free though, though due to such a notion I can assume you can't comprehend the difference. Just because two beliefs from two different people seem to contradict each other does not mean both are null and void. If that were the case then you can just say that every religion cancels itself out in everything other that that there is a God, but he wouldn't even have a name/powers
science being the art of guessing and then doing booooooring experiments to see if there guess is right does not mix with any religion because you cannot run test or experiments on religion. its all down to faith and belief which is not in any scientist personnel dictionary.
@supertoadful 4.)Probability: It states that you can't KNOW the EXACT outcome of a situation. The way you are viewing evolution is in the classic creationist narrow-mindedness. You believe evolution is simply random chance, when in fact is is simply cause and effect; adaptation. No evolutionist is claiming to know EXACTLY HOW EVERYTHING IS and how it originated. We are simply giving logical, rational, sensical ideas that are supported scientifically. A lot more than Creationists have.
@supertoadful Allow me to open your eyes as to how ignorant you are.
1.) Cause and Effect: evolution states that because of environmental changes or any kind of change whatsoever, a species will adapt. the cause is change, the effect is evolution.
2.) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Things tend to fall into chaos. So a single cell organism branching off into billions of species of animals isn't an increase of chaos?
3.) Biogenesis: God creating life contradicts this law too.
“Instead of examining the evidence for and against rival theories, I shall adopt a more armchair approach. My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories”
No offence but natural selection being a fact does not by any means prove darwinian evoution theory. Natural selection is just a fancy way of saying weak life forms often die, leaving strong lifeforms to reproduce. That does not prove that all life in all of its divercity came from a single cell, in fact it is impossible.
@modernrocks Try again. Natural selection does not prefer the strong over the weak. It prefers adaptability. Even Venomfangx understands this, as he explains in this video. The fact is, we know all life evolved from single cell organisms. This is fact. To deny this, is the same as saying the earth is flat. Sorry.
@216trixie No, Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. So in reality weak animals that get eaten by strong animals cant pass on there genes, in nature the strong survive. Thats not evolution. Same as animals with no fur die in freezing conditions, nature doesnt select the weak, the weak just cant take the harshness of the natural world, and how fast conditions change.
@NUTCASE71733 Sperm cells race towards the egg within a woman, and yes they are a single cell... But do you mean to say that this process is proof that all life forms like trees or men or fungus came from a single cell? are you saying sperm proves evolution?
@NUTCASE71733 When did i admit that? Plus what i am saying is not that cells cant duplicate, i am saying that kinds like trees and man do not share a common ancestor, same with whales and fungus do not share a common ancestor, this conflicts with the very silly darwinian evolutionary theory that states all life shares a common ancestor. We know for a fact that all life could not come from the same single cell or a self replicating molecule, its impossible and ridiculous.
The problem is you are mistaking abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution only explains the diversity of life though natural selection, it does not explain life's origens (like Abiogenesis). Enough with the strawman arguments.
@NUTCASE71733 No i am not mistaking abio-genesis with evolution at all, nothing i have said is about origins of life or the first cell. Everything i said is about evolution theory that states all species and different forms of life came from the same first cell(common ancestor). I havent gone into the origins of the cell at all. I am trying to prove to you that trees and man never shared a common ancestor and that macro-evolution is completely impossible, and you havent addressed anything i said
Ok, let me point this out; DNA is information stored in the bodies of living beings. It takes a lot of work to sequence DNA to get information out of it. It has been found that the human genome is 98% identical to a chimp's own genome. the only difference comes from two chromasomes that fused together making 46 instead of 48 like other apes.
Second, bananas and trees are PLANTS. Mushrooms are FUNGI. They are two completely separate branches of organims.
@NUTCASE71733 DNA disproves evolution. DNA is a complex programing langauge of infomation, the infomation must exist before the langauge, and infomation only comes from inteligence.(Books cant make and write themselves) Plants share 50-60% of our dna. Evolution states we are related to all forms of life and we all share a common ancestor ie:the 1st self replicating molecule), plants, germs, men must have come from this molecule if evolution was true. guppy fish has 46 cromosomes, tobacco has 48
@modernrocks As @Aon0 said, experts disagree with you. But it's far more than that: almost the whole humankind disagrees with you too. Creationists are - virtually - an endemic species of the US.
@modernrocks You admit that plants share 50-60% of our DNA, which proves that somewhere along the lines, we shared a common ancestor. If we even shares onle 1% of our DNA with another organism, that proves that, many billions of years ago, we shared a common ancestor. DNA is actually not as complex as you make it out to be. It only has 4 base pairs, plus some acids and sugars to hold them together. Most bacteria have very simple DNA, with not very many genes.
@modernrocks back when all life were eukaryotes there came a time when consumtion was needed. One decided to go with photosynthesis and the other developed a "consume>extract nutrient>expel" system that all moving lifeforms have today... so yes.
@gobbenatoren I never said anything happened to prokaryotes, my biology could be bad, but I'm pretty sure they only formed very simple multicellular organisms.
Next is the issue of man being an animal, which you find offensive for some reason which makes no sense. Here's some underlaying animal features and you tell me if we have them: Do we have cells with a rigid cell wall? Do we have bones, blood, and muscles? Do we need to eat plants and other animals? Do we need to breath oxygen? Do we make more of our own kind via sexual reproduction? Do we die? If yes to all, you have proven to yourself we are animals. Specifically vertebrates and mammals.
@supertoadful education is actually very important if your trying to challenge a scientific theory. Did you ever think that maybe it only seems stupid to you because you don't understand it?
@supertoadful BTW, evolution is both a theory and a fact. The theory of evolution explains how the fact of evolution occurs. That is what a theory does. It models real world processes and this model has been tested and verified time and time again for about 150 years. The fact that I have to explain this to you means that you have no business arguing about this scientific topic.
@supertoadful There is no "law of probability" or biogenesis and evolution does not break any thermodynamics laws, nor does it break the law of causation. I am sure others have corrected you on these fallacious arguments and yet I feel that you are not about to listen to evidence and reason simply because you fear the consequences of your world view being wrong. The truth does not accommodate to our fears.
@supertoadful When you are typing, you are spelling out words, thus he did mean to say 'learn to spell'. Please stop trying to act educated when you clearly aren't.
@supertoadful Jesus Christ! Your spelling, writing and grammar is appalling, but let's ignore that for now. It is not RIDICULOUS to say that humans came from animal because we can see from our genes that we share common ancestry with all life around us today. On the other hand you say God made us from dirt, when there is NO evidence beyond the gospels which you have no reason to trust more than any scientific publication.
@supertoadful You obviously do not know the difference in definition between a 'theory' and a 'scientific theory'. wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
Look at the part about it being 'just a theory'
Oh and humans ARE animals, you didn't know that? Of course we an come from other animals, we adapt to our enviroment how can you explain fossils?
@supertoadful Evolution does not state we came from monkeys. It states we share a common ancestor. Does this make more sense than coming from dirt? Yes.
hey have you guys noticed that if u use science you rarely get non sence and if you use religion, you rarley get non sence too...but, if u use them together you will see that everything makes sence
Technically ... monkeys and other primates are believed to share a common ancestor with human beings, and are not "lesser people". They fill their niche, we (used to) fill ours.
Rocks do not participate in the evolutionary process, because they are non-generational. You're referring to abiogenesis: watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
@supertoadful You dont see the point in trying to dispute my argument because you cant. You dont have a life outside youtube, you're just on other videos debating with people who dont know what they're talkin about. There are no missing links, Im sure you're already well aware of the documented evidence of the evolution of whales, bears, humans and apes, and if you're not aware of the intermediate between fish and amphibians look up tiktaalik. Im done trying to convince you how retarded you are.
Spontaneously occurring life has been observed by the scientific community already, so your argument has little merit. Further, the theory of evolution is not meant to explain the origin of life, and learn how to spell.
Also you say something non-living could never make a watch. Humans don't make watches, machines do. The machines were designed by humans, but that doesn't change the fact it is something non-living making the watch.
Evolution is not a random process. In fact, the process very much mimics intelligence. Natural selection requires selecting, and nature, almost intelligently, does the selecting through exertion of environmental pressures.
You're failing to realise a huge difference between a watch and life. Life involves the self-replication of molecules, watches don't. It's the replication that leads to changes.
Yes, it's a theory that is considered to be fact. They're not mutually exclusive.
Where does science state life only comes from life? I've certainly never come across that statement.
It's true, dogs always have had dogs. Evolution is very compatible with that fact. But it's over countless generations that observable differences arise. If you look at the sun, you cannot see it moving, it appears to be in exactly the same place. But if you look back an hour later, it has moved.
It's like saying a 6 year-old is stupid since he thinks Santa exists. He just doesn't know any better. He has no reason to assume that what he's been told is a lie, in the same way that those people had no reason to assume that what they'd been told from birth was a lie. When I refer to scientists, I'm obviously referring to modern scientists, who have the evidence for both sides of the argument.
Nice work btw on misspelling 5 out of those 7 names.
Intelligence and ignorance are not the same. Someone can be highly intelligent yet still ignorant. The reason those people were creationists (at least supposedly, I'd like to see their writings on the subject), was because there was no alternative theory to compare the creationist theory with at the time. Back then, before Darwin and even well after, we didn't have extensive fossil records, DNA evidence and more.
Tell me, seeing as 99.9% of scientists (479,300 of 480,000 american scientists) believe in evolution as scientific fact, what it is that makes them all wrong. Given their university qualifications and lifetimes of studying the subject, how does your complete lack of scientific qualifications (I assume) make it more likely you are right than they are. Or is it some giant conspiracy by the scientific community to disprove religion? I don't think so.
@supertoadful Instead of making stupid comments on the post I put up 3 days ago, why don't you just respond to the posts I put up last night ripping apart every ridiculous argument that your feeble mind could produce. Or is it as I expect that its way beyond you to respond logically to a refutation of the nonsense you are attempting to spread?
@supertoadful I only sent the thing once, a few days ago, I have no idea how it keeps poppin up all over the place. I'm not in the buisness of repeating myself you can be sure of that. And it's not a joke so much as humorous(though accurate) prediction.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
@supertoadful "and if evolution WAS the truth then I think someone would have realized it before Darwin."
..I wonder why no one didn't. Maybe it was the fear of being burnt at the stake?
What Dawkins was saying there was a hypothetical. Even if there wasn't evidence for evolution, it would still be more rational to accept that than to say "Goddunnit" and invoke magic.
@supertoadful Albert Einstein was a physicist. He wasn't a biologist, and never said anything regarding evolution. He certainly didn't think the world was 6,000 years old.
Isaac Newton died more than a century before the Origin of Species was published.
Galileo died more than two centuries before the Origin of Species was published.
Copernicus died more than three centuries before the Origin of Species was published. Millions of people believe in UFOs. Does that make them right?
@supertoadful Please, because you sound at least remotely intelligent having heard of these things, do a little research on evolution and you will find that, A)evolution directly adheres to the law of cause and effect, the cause being genetic variation and selective pressures, and the effect being certain variations being selected over others.
Who is this arrogant little prick anyway? Is he just grooming himself for lucrative career in the Christian snake oil field? Because no one who didn't grow up in a cave could be as ignorant and stupid as he makes himself out to be. It's just not believable. I suspect it's all a plan to make himself a fortune in the tradition of TV evangelists.
carmium 6 days ago
There's also an old video where VGX says in the end: ''I believe in natural selection. I believe in genetic mutation. But I do not believe in evolution.'' *facepalm*
Wasserrauschen 2 weeks ago
who gave this dude a camera, whoever did should be punished.
22monkeymadness 3 weeks ago
This video is stupid!
dannywizz 1 month ago
if evolution is true, why aren't we witnessing fish turn into people as we speak...evolution is bullshit.
Janoahable 1 month ago
@Janoahable I don't think you're understanding the premise of evolution. If you can't understand it, try not to insult it. Consult the theories, and then assess from there its validity. Don't just dismiss it out of ignorance.
mjkr1988 1 month ago
@Janoahable If you think that is an intelligent argument, you're wrong. Evolution takes place over millions of years.
pantscheese 2 weeks ago
@pantscheese this doesn't make sense what you are saying...lets just say that you are right and that evolution takes place over millions of years...why aren't we witnessing it happen as we speak? we witness the evolution of an apple seed grow into a full grown tree, we witness a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly...this is hapenning in front of our face now...but you don't see fish turn into people...or even fish turning into anything else other than a fish...its simple common sense.
Janoahable 1 week ago
@Janoahable Because that's not Evolution, you dolt, that's simple growing. Seed don't evolve into apple trees, they grow into apple trees. You can't witness evolution, because you can't live that long. I think you're mistaking common sense for uninformed.
pantscheese 1 week ago
@pantscheese ok...since you're the smart one, tell me exactly what evolution is.
Janoahable 1 week ago
@Janoahable let me explain it to you like this. fish did not evolve into people. just like single cells did not evolve into fish. just like amphibians did not just evolve into reptiles. There are things called transitional phases, which are essential to the evolution of life. Look, for examples at the land-crawling fish we have today. Or the flying squirrel. It is plausible to assume that these creatures will evolve in the future into some other form, by natural selection.
branahawk 1 week ago
@Janoahable now let's take us humans. Evolution has proven that we are apes, and descended from early primates. We did not just evolve from monkeys. However, primates developed color and binocular vision first, over the course of millions of years, because those features were more USEFUL for life in the trees - picking up ripe fruit, seeing where you leap. But even just for these feats, it takes thousands of lifetimes, because evolution happens very slowly and gradually.
branahawk 1 week ago
@Janoahable if you wish to understand the world around you, not just evolution, but geology, zoology and astronomy, you must get out of your timeframe and understand that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe three times as much, and your life is short and flawed, therefore you cannot expect to see these things for yourself. Unlike religion, where you cannot see things for yourself either and must believe, science offers you real proof, everywhere around you.
branahawk 1 week ago
@Janoahable but in order for you to understand these things, you must first find the proof, right? Otherwise the subject just bothers you because it's conflicting with your other beliefs. Well, you can go to a museum to see fossils, you can go to a geology museum to see the violent past of earth, you can watch a documentary or, if you have the money, you can go to certain places around our planet and see for yourself. I hope these replies offer you some perspective.
branahawk 1 week ago
@Janoahable also the examples you gave with the tree and butterfly - that is not evolution, those are natural stages in the life of an apple tree and a butterfly. That itself is not evolution. And evolution does happen every day. Whenever you have sex with your wife in the hopes of conceiving a child, you are plotting for evolution. You pass on your genes to your child, and your child is a completely new creature, with new features, from both you and your wife, combined and original.
branahawk 1 week ago
@branahawk in the future, if the world warms up, your child might have a better metabolism than others, can tolerate heat better. He may pass on those genes to his children, while the other unrelated children might die of heatstroke. And so forth. Over millions of years, who knows where this might lead? It's all up to our planet, and what it has in store for us. We might have to go back to water, as the whales did - or in the air. But I'll end this here, I have spoken too much.
branahawk 1 week ago
@branahawk in the future, if the world warms up, your child might have a better metabolism than others, can tolerate heat better. He may pass on those genes to his children, while the other unrelated children might die of heatstroke. And so forth. Over millions of years, who knows where this might lead? It's all up to our planet, and what it has in store for us. We might have to go back to water, as the whales did - or in the air. But I'll end this here, I have spoken too much.
branahawk 1 week ago
@branahawk right but as i said before humans will forever be humans... it doesn't matter if parents pass on certain traits onto their children and they take these traits along with the traits of thier wives and pass them onto their kids so that the kids have traits that are unlike their parents or grandparents...the point is these are "traits" only...but will remain humans forever. the example that i gave about the catepillar makes complete sense...and we can actually witness it.
Janoahable 1 week ago
@Janoahable i'm sad that you don't understand what I'm saying. You're comparing life stages to evolution, country economics to natural selection. And still can't see the bigger picture and bigger timeframe. Talk about shutting yourself from knowledge. Well, I tried. Maybe one day, when you educate yourself some more, you'll understand. It's impossible to explain biodiversity, genetics and natural selection in even 20 youtube comments and I don't think you'd understand it anyway.
branahawk 1 week ago
@branahawk maybe if you understood yourself what you are trying to teach, then i would get it...maybe you're not a good teacher.
Janoahable 1 week ago
@Janoahable you can't teach to those who are not willing to learn.
branahawk 1 week ago
@branahawk i am trying to learn...but its hard to understand you when you don't make any sense...thats all i'm saying...i don't think you know what you yourself is talking about.
Janoahable 1 week ago
@Janoahable how on earth does it not make sense? have you lived in a cave all your life? I've been studying science all my life, don't try to insult me you prick. What in the world don't you understand?
branahawk 1 week ago
@branahawk do you believe in a fairy god mother too?
Janoahable 1 week ago
@branahawk (cont)....and just to add to that, there is a country that has used science to create and produce various types of different fruits that were never ever here before by taking some traits and using others and morphing it into a brand new unheard of unseen fruit....but it still forever remains that whatever the outcome: the fruit will remain a fruit.
Janoahable 1 week ago
imprettys sure that was just the icing on the cake,
im pretty sure the monkeys give it away XD
jjtheslayer69 1 month ago
Darwin wasn't even inspired by the finches on the Galapagos... in fact, they aren't even finches.
Pirate44444 1 month ago
he has a loose understanding of some of the concepts, im going to finally give him some credit. it looks like hes actually made... well some progress... but that being said he still is a retched excuse for a human being and a terribly stupid one at that
2010paultron 2 months ago
What a muppet...
geyza0711 3 months ago
@geyza0711 That is an insult to Kermit the Frog!
MunkyDrag0n 3 months ago 3
He pwns his ridiculous religious beliefs without having a clue that he's doing it.
Creatards are good for comic relief, if nothing else.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
In fairness he isn't that far off what Darwin actually found.
TheOmegajuice 3 months ago
You have naturally been selected STUPID !
decalco137 4 months ago
God had a stoopid theory whereby he creates daylight on the first day, THEN THE SUN on the fourth day.
LOLZ
superhamzah85 4 months ago
@superhamzah85 Is the sun the source of all light. What a foolish statement. God created light, He actually created light. Then He created the sun which provides does in fact provide light as well but is not the source of all light. Come on now
HeavenBound2323 4 months ago
@HeavenBound2323
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth cannot exist without the sun. It's existance depends on the gravitational pull of a star.
The Bible is wrong in every single line. Sorry...there's Greek myths, Indian myths, and Hebrew myths (Bible).
superhamzah85 4 months ago
You're not interested in the truth, you're interested in maintaining a lie. You're the enemy of truth.
superhamzah85 4 months ago
@HeavenBound2323
When something good happens you thank your sky daddy for it, when something bad happens, tell your God to go fuck himself. Be fair at least. :-)
Once you start telling your dumb god to fuck off, and see no reaction, no consequence, life remains exactly as it is, you then accept the reality, that he was never here to begin with. Then you start taking responsibility for yourself, life is then, much better - with no gods.
superhamzah85 4 months ago
@superhamzah85
but u forgot what to do when he does respond, tell mE NOAWWW! now, what would u do if you mocking god and he responds with well dn anything? just like i seen people say shit like this but what would you do if it did happen, some agnostic said he, force his family to follow god as warning.
soMeRandoM670 4 months ago
@superhamzah85 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
remember it used maybe in context of past present and future. so it can be planed before it created
See ur closed minded, you only open to that theres start and finish. u see now that since no start nor end, ill reply later to see what other thinks about it. he prob gonna say im wrong lol. but thats another box -_-
soMeRandoM670 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soMeRandoM670 You have no evidence for your religion.
superhamzah85 4 months ago
@soMeRandoM670 Maybe you would get more constructive feedback if you tried to use complete sentences.
blarghblarghblargh 3 months ago
Get a girlfriend dude!
funkmonkeyjaz 4 months ago
And creationist, come up with their dumb theory by reading one book ignoring all evidence that says otherwise, deny, deny, deny science which would be fine, if they didn't use such things as the internet, OMG science and scientist made the internet if evolution is evil clearly is youtube, so run run creationist, deny all science for the love of God so Evolution can take effect and you can all die off before your 30!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ASexyChef 5 months ago
From what I can see, VenomFangX explained evolution, while very basically, just fine. What is the problem?
deepfriedcake 5 months ago
@deepfriedcake
The problem is that he apparently understood evolution, at least to a certain degree, but still kinda fails at realizing that it's what is happening. Also, calling it stupid was a bit stupid.
narutofan9999 5 months ago
Why is there such a fuss over this little asshat? he's just a little boy throwing his frustrations on the internet. Why would anyone bother to start a discussion with these kind of self-righteous religious fucktards? They're not going to realize their defeat, let alone admit it. Religion is a conteradiction in itself, defying all things natural substituting it with a delusional fantasy world based on a book written by fanatic sociopath deeply disturbed homophobes. That pretty much wraps it up.
MRinsubordination 5 months ago
@superoadful
''There IS evidence. It`s just a matter of if you choose to accept it.''
You sir, should never again try to debate. anything. This is so exceptionally stupid that if there was a god, he'd strike you down for severe mental incompetence.
MRinsubordination 5 months ago
Epic win VenomfangX got sumthing right lol
Gmandark 5 months ago
20 bucks says he never had sex.
BraniusBalki 5 months ago
@BraniusBalki 100 bucks that neither have you
deepfriedcake 5 months ago
@deepfriedcake The money should go to charity.... I guess you can choose.... we live to give, as the gift is in the giving, live well.
BraniusBalki 4 months ago
You are the prime example that god doesn't exist.
mozgen1983 5 months ago
Coming next week: VenomfangX shows you how to nail jelly to the ceiling.
ThomasTrue 6 months ago 2
I now have no more brain cells left
MeepullStewray 6 months ago
This is one disturbed individual. I've even encountered a few wise Christians who think he's full of shit.
nosajj12345 6 months ago 2
venomfag is your tipical village idiot
d27slipknot 8 months ago
@d27slipknot venomfang is not just an idiot, hes actually a pretty sick kid, he even promised that he was going to get himself help, he has not only been humiliated by atheists in arguments, but he has committed charity fraud, is a pathological liar, and was kicked out of his house by his own parents thanks to his deceitful nature and criminal behaviour. he even asked his "fans" to donate 500 bucks a month to him because his "daddy" wouldn't pay for all his stuff anymore, what a creep.
EmeraldIsleStar 7 months ago
@d27slipknot oh and hes oh so obviously a virgin too.
EmeraldIsleStar 7 months ago
Sustanence!
mauriciohavok 9 months ago
i bet venomfang doesn't even realize that Darwin makes no mention of finches until over 400 pages into "The Origin of Species" and the finch was not used to "create his stupid idea" but rather gain more evidence for its correctness.
matt1523 9 months ago 2
Darwin's stupid theory??? 'Theory' is the highest form of human knowledge. A theory has to be falsifiable, i.e. if occasionally things fell 'up' then the theory of gravity would be proven wrong. If just ONE creature could be proved to have spontaneously appeared on Earth, with no fossil or DNA trail then the theory of Evolution would be proved to be false. Better people than this kid have tried and failed. The Theory of Evolution is an astounding leap in humanity's understanding of our world.
MrRouXRenard 10 months ago 3
If V.F.X. knew anything about Darwin, he would know that the 'finch beak' thing was not thought up by Darwin at the start of the voyage of the Beagle, but rather afterwards after someone pointed out the differences between the individual finches.
stupid creationtards
SilveradoNL 10 months ago 2
loooool
Gordaton 11 months ago
dude take your bible bullshit and shove it up your asshole, no one wants to hear it
stankidge 1 year ago
Genesis 1:20 says that all life came from the waters.So even the Bible preaches Evolution.I'm a Christian and I believe in Evolution.It doesn't disprove God in any way.
TheStigmadeign 1 year ago
@TheStigmadeign well, th bible says it was created. you know, created, not evolved. because it was "made" in his image. So you got, created, made, etc. It doesnt speak of any specific evolving.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk Well then explain WHY Genesis 1:20 says what it says?
TheStigmadeign 1 year ago
@TheStigmadeign genesis chapter 1 verse 20 states that .""And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life""" First of all, that doesnt say that the life came from the water, it says that life contains lots and varies forms of life. Secondly if you actually read the rest of genesis you see something else, read chapter 1:21 genesis. genesis 1:24, genesis 1:25, genesis 2:7. and chekc out what that says.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@TheStigmadeign The bible saying life came from water doesn't mean it knows abiogenesis, silly. Also, evolution doesn't disprove god, but there still isn't any evidence that god exists.
itarethetroll 1 year ago
@gulbirk Which should be evidence enough for you (if you interpret it the way that you do) that the bible is a book full of bullshit, since evolution is a fact.
The THEORY of how it happens is what you're disputing here, but the theory has held up to any and all forms of debate and bashing so far... Yes, even scientific debates.
Squiglypig 11 months ago
@gulbirk Whoooops, nevermind me, nothing to see here.
Squiglypig 11 months ago
@TheStigmadeign No, you ARE correct that evolution does not DISPROVE god, but that isn't the point. The point is, do you have ANY proof (outside a self-fulfilling holy book written by bronze-age nomads) that YOUR god exists? Hell, is there ANY proof that ANY god exists? Show us. Seriously, show us. I think not.
surflat56 11 months ago
@surflat56 If you're an atheist this is the basis of your belief.You believe that out of nothingness a random event occurred.Causing a major complex non designed existence with absolutely no purpose.Which means that you yourself have no purpose which totally defies the laws of physics and biology to begin with.
TheStigmadeign 11 months ago
@TheStigmadeign No, I do NOT believe "that out of nothingness a random event occurred". What I do KNOW is we humans do not know (this is SO crucial) many things YET (YET!). Like the complete origin of the universe. We humans (you included) do NOT know everything or close to everything. But: 1. The human knowledge base grows every minute AND 2. Our NOT knowing something does NOT mean that Allah, Thor, Yayweh, Quetzalcoatl, Jesus, Zues, Buddha, Santa or any other mythological creature IS god! Ya!
surflat56 11 months ago
@TheStigmadeign
surflat56 11 months ago
@surflat56 If you have 2 Christians and they can even be of 2 different doctrines they still believe in Christ.Then you have 2 atheists.One believes that it is impossible for God to exist and the other believes that it IS possible.See the fallacy in this?The atheists contradict themselves.Especially the atheist that says it is possible that there is a God.The argument contradicts itself therefore it cancels itself out.
TheStigmadeign 11 months ago
@TheStigmadeign I believe that a being that could be considered god could exist, however I believe that this is also hideously unlikely and that there is no evidence for such. Similarly I believe that there could be an invisible dragon in someones garage but without evidence I will not believe it to be so.
Darkstar1484 10 months ago
@TheStigmadeign christians think they know the answer to everything, i.e. god. if this is your answer to everything how come you have different doctrines regarding your beliefs? atheists on the other hand are humble enough to say that they don't know everything and are therefore free to believe whatever convinces them.
yinyangcali 10 months ago 2
@yinyangcali Different doctrines come from different methods of worship.
TheStigmadeign 10 months ago
@TheStigmadeign so who's telling the truth, huh? couldn't it have been more obvious? you're ALL CLAIMING that your very own IS the truth. how's that?
yinyangcali 10 months ago
@TheStigmadeign I would like to let you know that your argument about arguments "cancelling out" is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard next to pot can kill you. The reason two Christians will both believe in Christ is because THEY ARE CHRISTIANS! In order to be a christian you need to conform to the idea that Jesus is the son of god yada yada. The reason atheists have different beliefs is because they don,t have to conform to such doctrines and think for themselves, thus many beliefs
PolishNomad95 9 months ago
@TheStigmadeign Ad the very idea of arguments "canceling out" makes my brain hurt. This isn't mathematics or physics, but free though, though due to such a notion I can assume you can't comprehend the difference. Just because two beliefs from two different people seem to contradict each other does not mean both are null and void. If that were the case then you can just say that every religion cancels itself out in everything other that that there is a God, but he wouldn't even have a name/powers
PolishNomad95 9 months ago
science being the art of guessing and then doing booooooring experiments to see if there guess is right does not mix with any religion because you cannot run test or experiments on religion. its all down to faith and belief which is not in any scientist personnel dictionary.
66vivo 1 year ago
@supertoadful "Creation science" is an oxymoron, moron.
LucasI3434 1 year ago 47
@LucasI3434 Just because Oxen are less intelligent than humans, it doesn't mean they are morons. Still very smart compared to other creatures.
AllegoricalAntgonist 8 months ago
@AllegoricalAntgonist Find me a human with the intelligence of an ox and see if you think it's a moron. I BET you will.
teh1337meister 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supertoadful 4.)Probability: It states that you can't KNOW the EXACT outcome of a situation. The way you are viewing evolution is in the classic creationist narrow-mindedness. You believe evolution is simply random chance, when in fact is is simply cause and effect; adaptation. No evolutionist is claiming to know EXACTLY HOW EVERYTHING IS and how it originated. We are simply giving logical, rational, sensical ideas that are supported scientifically. A lot more than Creationists have.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@supertoadful Allow me to open your eyes as to how ignorant you are.
1.) Cause and Effect: evolution states that because of environmental changes or any kind of change whatsoever, a species will adapt. the cause is change, the effect is evolution.
2.) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Things tend to fall into chaos. So a single cell organism branching off into billions of species of animals isn't an increase of chaos?
3.) Biogenesis: God creating life contradicts this law too.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
So what have we learned today? VenomFangX doesn't know what he's talking about...
njintau 1 year ago 71
@njintau well, maybe that he 'still' doesnt know what hes talking about.
AllegoricalAntgonist 8 months ago
@njintau What do you mean, "today"?
DarkOneRRp 1 month ago
No one wins in a you tube argument.
xXWindG0dXx 1 year ago
lol is the internet atheism religion debate really still going on?
morimoko 1 year ago
@morimoko The creationists just don't get it yet.
HoLOLcaust 10 months ago
this is to venomfangx: the day you die your head will crack open and we will all be able to see all the carbage that is in there.
gulbirk 1 year ago
This means he perfectly understood the Theory of Evolution, not that he admits it's true. Though who knows what he thinks now.
orgixvi3 1 year ago
@supertoadful well its not. And if it was its taken out of context without the first part.
ezelouie 1 year ago
@supertoadful
“Instead of examining the evidence for and against rival theories, I shall adopt a more armchair approach. My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories”
Actual quote from Dawkins
ezelouie 1 year ago
No offence but natural selection being a fact does not by any means prove darwinian evoution theory. Natural selection is just a fancy way of saying weak life forms often die, leaving strong lifeforms to reproduce. That does not prove that all life in all of its divercity came from a single cell, in fact it is impossible.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks thats true
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@modernrocks Try again. Natural selection does not prefer the strong over the weak. It prefers adaptability. Even Venomfangx understands this, as he explains in this video. The fact is, we know all life evolved from single cell organisms. This is fact. To deny this, is the same as saying the earth is flat. Sorry.
216trixie 1 year ago
@216trixie No, Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. So in reality weak animals that get eaten by strong animals cant pass on there genes, in nature the strong survive. Thats not evolution. Same as animals with no fur die in freezing conditions, nature doesnt select the weak, the weak just cant take the harshness of the natural world, and how fast conditions change.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks
Sperm cells are single cells. Look what they do.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733 Sperm cells race towards the egg within a woman, and yes they are a single cell... But do you mean to say that this process is proof that all life forms like trees or men or fungus came from a single cell? are you saying sperm proves evolution?
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks
Not in itself, but the fact you admit a single cell can become multicelluler ultimately trashes your previous statement.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733 When did i admit that? Plus what i am saying is not that cells cant duplicate, i am saying that kinds like trees and man do not share a common ancestor, same with whales and fungus do not share a common ancestor, this conflicts with the very silly darwinian evolutionary theory that states all life shares a common ancestor. We know for a fact that all life could not come from the same single cell or a self replicating molecule, its impossible and ridiculous.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks
The problem is you are mistaking abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution only explains the diversity of life though natural selection, it does not explain life's origens (like Abiogenesis). Enough with the strawman arguments.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733 No i am not mistaking abio-genesis with evolution at all, nothing i have said is about origins of life or the first cell. Everything i said is about evolution theory that states all species and different forms of life came from the same first cell(common ancestor). I havent gone into the origins of the cell at all. I am trying to prove to you that trees and man never shared a common ancestor and that macro-evolution is completely impossible, and you havent addressed anything i said
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks
Ok, let me point this out; DNA is information stored in the bodies of living beings. It takes a lot of work to sequence DNA to get information out of it. It has been found that the human genome is 98% identical to a chimp's own genome. the only difference comes from two chromasomes that fused together making 46 instead of 48 like other apes.
Second, bananas and trees are PLANTS. Mushrooms are FUNGI. They are two completely separate branches of organims.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@NUTCASE71733 DNA disproves evolution. DNA is a complex programing langauge of infomation, the infomation must exist before the langauge, and infomation only comes from inteligence.(Books cant make and write themselves) Plants share 50-60% of our dna. Evolution states we are related to all forms of life and we all share a common ancestor ie:the 1st self replicating molecule), plants, germs, men must have come from this molecule if evolution was true. guppy fish has 46 cromosomes, tobacco has 48
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks
The worlds experts disagree with you.
The biologists disagree with you.
The information theorists disagree with you.
The mathematicians disagree with you.
Just saying, I'm siding with the experts.
Aon0 1 year ago
Comment removed
kraj0t 1 year ago
@modernrocks As @Aon0 said, experts disagree with you. But it's far more than that: almost the whole humankind disagrees with you too. Creationists are - virtually - an endemic species of the US.
kraj0t 1 year ago
@modernrocks You admit that plants share 50-60% of our DNA, which proves that somewhere along the lines, we shared a common ancestor. If we even shares onle 1% of our DNA with another organism, that proves that, many billions of years ago, we shared a common ancestor. DNA is actually not as complex as you make it out to be. It only has 4 base pairs, plus some acids and sugars to hold them together. Most bacteria have very simple DNA, with not very many genes.
PatrioticEagle50 1 year ago
@PatrioticEagle50 do you honestly think that at some point plants and man were one? do you think man evolved from plants?
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks
Do you think that's what evolution says?
Aon0 1 year ago
@modernrocks back when all life were eukaryotes there came a time when consumtion was needed. One decided to go with photosynthesis and the other developed a "consume>extract nutrient>expel" system that all moving lifeforms have today... so yes.
chesterdjester 1 year ago
@chesterdjester "when all life were eukaryotes" what happened to the prokaryotes?
gobbenatoren 1 year ago
@gobbenatoren I never said anything happened to prokaryotes, my biology could be bad, but I'm pretty sure they only formed very simple multicellular organisms.
chesterdjester 1 year ago
@modernrocks no i think we both evolved from simple unicellular organism
lonewolfM16 1 year ago
Next is the issue of man being an animal, which you find offensive for some reason which makes no sense. Here's some underlaying animal features and you tell me if we have them: Do we have cells with a rigid cell wall? Do we have bones, blood, and muscles? Do we need to eat plants and other animals? Do we need to breath oxygen? Do we make more of our own kind via sexual reproduction? Do we die? If yes to all, you have proven to yourself we are animals. Specifically vertebrates and mammals.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@supertoadful "I`m done debating with you, because you just don`t want to except that God made you."
maybe some ppl are not dumb.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
you cheater i love you
thefantasticjames 1 year ago
Am I the only person who has wondered if Shawn would look like Guy Fawkes if he grew out his face hair?
shrikechan 1 year ago
@supertoadful Bananas and Peanut Butter are not examples of evidence
vargulf19 1 year ago
very high spirited but not that well educated and not that good at argueing
MrAwesomesauce101 1 year ago
@supertoadful yours is also a belief as well.....with no evidence.
shaosokaos 1 year ago
@supertoadful education is actually very important if your trying to challenge a scientific theory. Did you ever think that maybe it only seems stupid to you because you don't understand it?
stubk22 1 year ago
@supertoadful eduacated? sence? Oh please, don't make excuses for the fact that you don't know how to spell.
kubush 1 year ago
@supertoadful BTW, evolution is both a theory and a fact. The theory of evolution explains how the fact of evolution occurs. That is what a theory does. It models real world processes and this model has been tested and verified time and time again for about 150 years. The fact that I have to explain this to you means that you have no business arguing about this scientific topic.
kubush 1 year ago
@supertoadful There is no "law of probability" or biogenesis and evolution does not break any thermodynamics laws, nor does it break the law of causation. I am sure others have corrected you on these fallacious arguments and yet I feel that you are not about to listen to evidence and reason simply because you fear the consequences of your world view being wrong. The truth does not accommodate to our fears.
kubush 1 year ago
@supertoadful When you are typing, you are spelling out words, thus he did mean to say 'learn to spell'. Please stop trying to act educated when you clearly aren't.
kubush 1 year ago
@supertoadful Jesus Christ! Your spelling, writing and grammar is appalling, but let's ignore that for now. It is not RIDICULOUS to say that humans came from animal because we can see from our genes that we share common ancestry with all life around us today. On the other hand you say God made us from dirt, when there is NO evidence beyond the gospels which you have no reason to trust more than any scientific publication.
notsodirtyharry 1 year ago
@supertoadful You obviously do not know the difference in definition between a 'theory' and a 'scientific theory'. wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
Look at the part about it being 'just a theory'
Oh and humans ARE animals, you didn't know that? Of course we an come from other animals, we adapt to our enviroment how can you explain fossils?
kly45 1 year ago
@supertoadful Evolution does not state we came from monkeys. It states we share a common ancestor. Does this make more sense than coming from dirt? Yes.
Evolution is also FACT
kly45 1 year ago
*Whisles in astoundment* I came here expecting to get Rick-rolled.
Necro12511 1 year ago
hey have you guys noticed that if u use science you rarely get non sence and if you use religion, you rarley get non sence too...but, if u use them together you will see that everything makes sence
MrHappypaper 1 year ago
@MrHappypaper
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be working out for you.
Aon0 1 year ago
@Aon0 well it really does, try it and you'll see
MrHappypaper 1 year ago
@MrHappypaper
The rational and the irrational don't mix too well. Pick one and stick with it.
Aon0 1 year ago
@Aon0 yes it does lol ok dont try it if u dont want to but im just saying that it does
MrHappypaper 1 year ago
@MrHappypaper
The irrational makes sense to you?
Aon0 1 year ago
@Aon0 its not irrationallol in the peanut butte and jelley, two things thats seem could never mix well but, at the end fit very well
MrHappypaper 1 year ago
@MrHappypaper
The rational is dependant on the entire system being rational. Compromise that and you just end up with the irrational.
If any step in a rational decision process is irrational then the entire process is irrational.
Aon0 1 year ago
@Aon0 wait,are you sure?
MrHappypaper 1 year ago
@MrHappypaper
As sure as one can be, yes. It's pretty simple logic.
Aon0 1 year ago
@Aon0 haha okay if you say so....
MrHappypaper 1 year ago
@supertoadful
I encourage you to grow a brain and stop mindlessly repeating old creationist lies. Don't you have any self respect?
Aon0 1 year ago
You meant "accept" not "except".
Technically ... monkeys and other primates are believed to share a common ancestor with human beings, and are not "lesser people". They fill their niche, we (used to) fill ours.
Rocks do not participate in the evolutionary process, because they are non-generational. You're referring to abiogenesis: watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
ShallowThoughts 1 year ago
@supertoadful You dont see the point in trying to dispute my argument because you cant. You dont have a life outside youtube, you're just on other videos debating with people who dont know what they're talkin about. There are no missing links, Im sure you're already well aware of the documented evidence of the evolution of whales, bears, humans and apes, and if you're not aware of the intermediate between fish and amphibians look up tiktaalik. Im done trying to convince you how retarded you are.
dirtyd365 1 year ago
@supertoadful
Spontaneously occurring life has been observed by the scientific community already, so your argument has little merit. Further, the theory of evolution is not meant to explain the origin of life, and learn how to spell.
Galardenta 1 year ago
@supertoadful
Because it's nonsense.
Watches are man-made, designed objects.
Life is the product of the blind, unguided process of natural selection.
Complexity does not imply design. Designed objects are often simple, and complex objects can be natural.
Aon0 1 year ago
@supertoadful
You still don't know what a scientific theory is?
Aon0 1 year ago
micro evolution + time = nature's hopeful inevitability which cannot be verified though accepted as reality nonetheless
metero1337 1 year ago
@supertoadful
Also you say something non-living could never make a watch. Humans don't make watches, machines do. The machines were designed by humans, but that doesn't change the fact it is something non-living making the watch.
TheMojomo 1 year ago
@supertoadful
Evolution is not a random process. In fact, the process very much mimics intelligence. Natural selection requires selecting, and nature, almost intelligently, does the selecting through exertion of environmental pressures.
You're failing to realise a huge difference between a watch and life. Life involves the self-replication of molecules, watches don't. It's the replication that leads to changes.
TheMojomo 1 year ago
@supertoadful
Yes, it's a theory that is considered to be fact. They're not mutually exclusive.
Where does science state life only comes from life? I've certainly never come across that statement.
It's true, dogs always have had dogs. Evolution is very compatible with that fact. But it's over countless generations that observable differences arise. If you look at the sun, you cannot see it moving, it appears to be in exactly the same place. But if you look back an hour later, it has moved.
TheMojomo 1 year ago
@supertoadful
Then tell me why today the scientific community considers it fact?
TheMojomo 1 year ago
@supertoadful
700 out of 480,000 (in the U.S.) doesn't to me seem like "plenty".
Btw I'm gonna ask you what it is exactly you think evolution is because I have a feeling your definition is one that I won't agree with either.
TheMojomo 1 year ago
@supertoadful
It's like saying a 6 year-old is stupid since he thinks Santa exists. He just doesn't know any better. He has no reason to assume that what he's been told is a lie, in the same way that those people had no reason to assume that what they'd been told from birth was a lie. When I refer to scientists, I'm obviously referring to modern scientists, who have the evidence for both sides of the argument.
Nice work btw on misspelling 5 out of those 7 names.
TheMojomo 1 year ago
@supertoadful
Intelligence and ignorance are not the same. Someone can be highly intelligent yet still ignorant. The reason those people were creationists (at least supposedly, I'd like to see their writings on the subject), was because there was no alternative theory to compare the creationist theory with at the time. Back then, before Darwin and even well after, we didn't have extensive fossil records, DNA evidence and more.
TheMojomo 1 year ago
@supertoadful
Tell me, seeing as 99.9% of scientists (479,300 of 480,000 american scientists) believe in evolution as scientific fact, what it is that makes them all wrong. Given their university qualifications and lifetimes of studying the subject, how does your complete lack of scientific qualifications (I assume) make it more likely you are right than they are. Or is it some giant conspiracy by the scientific community to disprove religion? I don't think so.
TheMojomo 1 year ago
@supertoadful Instead of making stupid comments on the post I put up 3 days ago, why don't you just respond to the posts I put up last night ripping apart every ridiculous argument that your feeble mind could produce. Or is it as I expect that its way beyond you to respond logically to a refutation of the nonsense you are attempting to spread?
dirtyd365 1 year ago
@supertoadful I only sent the thing once, a few days ago, I have no idea how it keeps poppin up all over the place. I'm not in the buisness of repeating myself you can be sure of that. And it's not a joke so much as humorous(though accurate) prediction.
dirtyd365 1 year ago
It appears you guys are trying to classify science in the same category as religion.
STOP IT !
pchtermino 1 year ago
@supertoadful
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
- Albert Einstein
Aon0 1 year ago
@supertoadful
"Even if". English comprehension fail.
Aon0 1 year ago
@supertoadful "and if evolution WAS the truth then I think someone would have realized it before Darwin."
..I wonder why no one didn't. Maybe it was the fear of being burnt at the stake?
What Dawkins was saying there was a hypothetical. Even if there wasn't evidence for evolution, it would still be more rational to accept that than to say "Goddunnit" and invoke magic.
mstachife 1 year ago
@supertoadful
"But just by the fact of believing in intelligent design they wouldn`t believe in evolution."
They didn't know about evolution. And belief in God have nothing to do with evolution.
"And god made the world with age so to Einstein it would appear that the world was million of years old. "
Einstein was somewhat of an Agnostic/Deist. He was against the idea of a personal God. ..You believe the world is 6,000 years old?
mstachife 1 year ago
@supertoadful Albert Einstein was a physicist. He wasn't a biologist, and never said anything regarding evolution. He certainly didn't think the world was 6,000 years old.
Isaac Newton died more than a century before the Origin of Species was published.
Galileo died more than two centuries before the Origin of Species was published.
Copernicus died more than three centuries before the Origin of Species was published. Millions of people believe in UFOs. Does that make them right?
mstachife 1 year ago
@supertoadful Please, because you sound at least remotely intelligent having heard of these things, do a little research on evolution and you will find that, A)evolution directly adheres to the law of cause and effect, the cause being genetic variation and selective pressures, and the effect being certain variations being selected over others.
dirtyd365 1 year ago