Anyone that wants to learn more about Real Science Creation Science then come check out my favorite videows on my Channel You will learn alot. God bless
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God John 3:16-18 (King James Version)
There is only 1 truth and it is in Gods living word The Bible. The Bible clearly tells us that God Created the earth in 6 literal days. Also by checking the geneology you can see the Earth is only approx 6000 years old. How do evolutionists come up with millions and billions of years? By using circular reasoning ALL evolution dating techniques are based on the geologic column that doesnt exist anywere on Earth, but they dont tell You that.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Well,thats not true. The first estimates using relative dating methods came up with a maximum age of around,150,000yrs,which is still a lot older than the YEC want to account form,but it def didnt start out with millions.
The basic problem is that the people who attack evolution have not actually studied it. If they did, they would of course see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age.
"Your problem is that you haven't studied the Bible." You wish. The Bible says that humans are made of dirt. And that snakes and donkeys talk. And that insects have 4 legs. And that bats are birds. And that the earth is flat. And that the sun revolves around the earth. And that Pi = 3 (rather than 3.1416...) And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman. This is a better source of information than the careful collection and examination of data?
And the best part: The original sin argument! OK, consider: Parent has deadly weapon, paints it pretty color and puts it in the center of the room. Tells kids don't touch and then leaves them with sitter known to be bad news. Kids hurt themselves. Who's the parent mad at? The kids! Then throws them out of the house? If the god of the bible were a real parent today it would be jailed on charges of murder, incest, abuse, torture, and willful neglect. Great example to set there!
"They are wrong or they are lying." That's the only truthful thing he's said in any of these videos. Doesn't help his case that he's actually talking about himself and he KNOWS it.
Fun-fact-time, bible-huggers: # The earth is 4.5+ billion years old # Evolution is a fact. # We share a common ancestor with apes. # Creationism isn't science. # The bible has been falsified. # Jesus never existed # Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are heroes. # Jerry "Worm-Food" Fallwell and Kent "Jail-Bird" Hovind are dead and/or lying. # Ted "Crystal-Meth" Haggard is gay. # Sarah "Wasilla-Assembly" Palin is a freakshow And my favourite: # There is no evidence of god.
Fun-fact-time, sonykroket. The earth is 6000 years old. Evolution is fiction. IT'S STILL A THEORY. We share a common ancestor with Adam and Eve. Creationism IS a science. When? I don't remember that. Jesus exists. God is the ultimate hero. Charles Darwin is dead. Plus, he didn't use very good scientific skills. Oooh, not using good rhetoric skills. Again, you're not using good rhetoric skills. You just lost the argument. And my favorite: There is solid evidence of God. The Bible.
"IT'S STILL A THEORY." You need to learn what this means. Gravity and electricity are also theories. Creationism is anti-science. Science says "Let's look at the evidence and see what conclusion it leads us to." Creationism says "Here's our conclusion. Now what evidence can we find to support it?" Jesus is dead. God never existed to start with. And Darwin is a hero.
Good talk. The video and sound track don't match very well. Toward the end of the video the screen goes black, but you can still hear the speaker. Kind of a bummer. Thanks for the effort.
The bible proves the bible once again, sigh. Be nice if there was some other reasonable proof - but sadly not to be. The many methods of earth/universe dating are astronomically wrong - Such a fantastically inept science community we have. Except for young earth creationist jail bird Kent Hovind - who is clearly a genius.
Obviously I can't keep up with the comments here, however, a lot of the questions (and excellent ones too) will be answered later on in other videos - I'll post a list if I can, but I've been on the road.
Also, understand that I am taking this in gradual steps. I am arguing that multiple SV's must be in the population in order for this organism to survive. This doesn't necessarily refute evolution but does challenge the simple idea that natural selection just has to select and the animals take over the population. It's not that easy.
If an animal has 5 offspring and one of those has a beneficial mutation then this one out of the five will be the most likely to survive. If any of the others have harmful mutations they will be less likely to survive.
THe SV is not enough to make it the most likely to survive. Bottom line is that it is a matter chance. Natural selection cannot select until it is assured that this organism lives in competition with others. Less likely and more likely doesn't guarantee that it will or not live. The harmful mutation could live on, and cause a genetic load.
Predators hunting prey is also natural selection, though. Random/artificial selection is not frequent enough to pose a problem for natural selection, and as I said before, random/artificial selection doesn't just target animals with beneficial mutations. It targets all animals, including those with harmful and neutral mutations.
Let me clarify: we have a hypothetical situation. There are 20 animals capable of reproducing, that's ten couples. Each couple has 15 kids. About 1/20 of the kids receive a beneficial mutation (which is about accurate) and 1/10 receive a harmful mutation (I'm not sure how accurate this is). Out of 150, this would make about 7-8 kids with beneficial mutations and 15 with a harmful one, and the rest are neutral.
Now, as you said, only about one in five of the animals survive. Due to natural selection, all the ones with harmful mutations die while the ones with beneficial mutations survive. Out of thirty, this leaves about 7-8 of them with beneficial mutations and the rest neutral. Now, lets say a random disaster kills ten of them (so we end with 20 again) at random. of these ten, 2-3 of the animals with beneficial mutations die, and 7-8 with neutral mutations die.
Now, after all this we are left with 5 animals out of 20 with beneficial mutations that survived, and the rest have neutral mutations. Even with the random selection thrown in it doesn't pose a problem for natural selection. I'm not sure how accurate this situation is, but I think it's pretty accurate.
The chance that it will survive the first generation is 0.2002 and the change that it will survive to the next generation is 0.1347. It gets even less as we go on further. We can also see that the chance of the mutant vs the nonmutant surviving is not very different. It wouldn't help guard against the random effects that destroy it. Basically this organism must be lucky to survive as it's odds are against 5 to 1 and the descendants have to be lucky in order to take over a population.
One thing I see is that most evil-utionists here do not understand their own religion. The defunct idea that a set of mutations and natural selection is evidence and a mechanism is so infantile. Even a child knows that is not evidence humans from a primordial soup over 3.8 billion years. Takes 12 years of brainwashing to get one to BELIEVE in it. Day after day.
My point is that a selective value doesn't ensure that the mutant will survive as many suggest. In fact, it is more than likely that it has failed many times in proceeding.
"My point is that a selective value doesn't ensure that the mutant will survive as many suggest. In fact, it is more than likely that it has failed many times in proceeding"
Yes, it is very likely that many beneficial mutations have been killed off by random/artificial selection, but many more have survived due to natural selection favoring them. Random events are not that frequent.
Natural selection is only allowed to favor them because they survive...which is still by chance. Random events are very frequent. You obviously aren't aware of the many diseases, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc that destroy these creatures.
There may be many random events today but they are much more frequent than they used to be. Diseases- as I said, significantly increased by industrialism, fires- most caused by humans, earthquakes are infrequent in most parts of the Earth and the vast majority are minor anyways.
I would agree then because in the creationist framework, the world was not experiencing such genetic entropy until after the flood. We may both differ as to why this is so but the fact of the matter is that the evidence doesn't tell us why. Minor will still have effects no matter what.
During the time of the split of plate tectonics, earthquakes would be much more frequent than it is now. There are plenty of natural disasters such as the ice age and as you noted, some minor ones. No one said they had to be big disasters. Also keep in mind that animals eat each other...the selective value is not enough to avoid this unless this SV is larger than most mutations but that's doubtful. The solution is to have multiple SV's in a population then there wouldn't be much of a problem.
A man named Sir Ronald Fisher is a mathematician and an expert of the mathematics of evolution. He was actually one of the founders of population genetics. He demonstrated that in order for evolution to occur, it would need to have many positive SVs in order. Why? This is because even positive SVs can be wiped out by random effects. It's all a matter of chance that the mutant will survive.
"This is because even positive SVs can be wiped out by random effects"
This is true. But negative SVs can also be wiped out by random effects. How frequent are these random effects? You don't see trees falling onto animals much on the discovery channel.
Indeed and I was merely referring to positive SVs because those are what matters in order to get to the grand-scale change. Hunting, disease are also random effects btw. I'll get to your question once I get back from church.
What we are talking about, however, existed before hunting did. disease is not very frequent in the animal kingdom. But the point is that these random events would effect animals with beneficial and harmful mutations at the same rates. It isn't a problem for evolution at all.
Animals hunting each other existed since the beginning. Disease is very frequent and just look at us. Hamsters also have many diseases as I can speak from experience. Dogs are the same way and cats... It is rather frequent. Broken legs can also be a factor. Animals have also been stuck in tar.
Predators hunting prey is natural selection, as the weaker, slower animals get eaten first. Disease is only frequent due to industrialization. Animals living in natural conditions rarely, if ever, suffer from disease. Broken limbs, tar, once again, happen in the same ratios in animals with beneficial and harmful mutations.
Let's suppose that an animal produces around 5 offspring in it's lifetime. Only an average of one out of 5 of these will live to reproduce. So we have a 20 percent possibility that one animal will survive. One's abilities has very little to do with the ability to survive because the SV is only 0.1& which only increases it by around 20.02%.
You're reasoning is flawed because bad mutations are more frequent than good mutations. Neutral mutations can do you no good in assisting you with this problem. Furthermore, we're focusing on the organism with the positive SV and not the negative SV because if the negative SV ends up surviving, it would cause genetic load on the organism. The survival of this mutation in a population is really a game of chance.
"You're reasoning is flawed because bad mutations are more frequent than good mutations. Neutral mutations can do you no good in assisting you with this problem."
Wouldn't this actually be helpful to me? Since beneficial mutations are the least common, they would have less random events killing them off. Furthermore, because of their beneficial mutations they would have a better chance to survive the random events, would they not?
Let's see. No unambiguous, irrefutable, iron clad evidence from homoplogy, paleontology, biology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, chemistry, physics. Just belif in invisible things that defy all natural, known LAWS, and that is fine. But mention God...
I'm afraid the source that you are using is a bit dishonest as well. Sir Ronald Fisher was, essentially, Darwin's successor, and firmly accepted evolution. He also died well over forty years ago.
What are you talking about? Since when did I deny that he was Darwin's successor and that he denied evolution? Never said that he was still alive either...
Haha alright there are some people like that. Well no, I didn't mean to imply that. Due to the problem of random effects, he stated to in order for evolution to occur, it would need to have many positive SVs in order. This however, means he accepted evolution rather than denied it.
Notice how God comes in when discussing evil-utionism. From darwinism (read your religion) to Christianity. So glad I am a former darwinist and atheist. No longer in that small, narrow-minded religious box, no longer ignorant of true science, tainted by folklore and mythology. Darwinism: similar to flat earth teaching and elephants supporting the earth.
In wonder. How many Hindus ar ethere in India? Nearly 100% How many Muslims in Pakistan? Nearly 100%. How many Buddhists in Tibet? Nearly 100% How hard is that when ALL they hear all day is Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism. And in America? K-12 and beyond, 24 hours a day, darwinism the religion, the emperor without clothes.
If there was a bad mutation, then it would have a negative SV which means that it is less likely to survive than the rest of the population. Therefore you'll have a - 0.1% SV. Of course natural selection is argued to select against such mutations in order to increase the number of individuals with positive SVs. As we shall see, things are not so simple as evolutionists argue.
Back to the argument of small changes + time = large changes. We can calculate the phenotype fitness by assigning a selective value (SV). Note that this is not my work and I of course am using a source. The selective value is simply the chance of increased fitness from the normal population in the phenotype. For example, a mutated E. Coli bacteria may by average have a chance of offspring survival that around of 0.1% higher than the rest of the normal population.
If the earth was young, every rock on this planet could be tested to prove it. The fact is that creationists can't come close to proving this. It is a joke. Google "Glenn Morton's story"
You continue saying that over and over and over and over again without ever giving your interpretation of the data. And you clearly did not read Mr.Morton's story if you think he simply doesn't know the difference between data and interpretation.
"The uninformed evolutionists who are posting here don't know the difference between evidence and interpretation."
Instead of just being a jackass and insulting us, why don't you give us your interpretation of retroviruses, the fossil record being EXACTLY as evolution predicts and chromosome #2?
I have asked you on this account and on your other account, give me the Creationist interpretation of retroviruses, chromosome #2 and the fossil record. Please.
The article's argument is that some retroviruses have beneficial uses. This is true, however it doesn't give the retroviruses that don't have uses, or are bad, any positive use.
That is simply a case of genetic entropy and not in any way a positive case for evolution. Rather it is another case that supports genetic entropy...The fact that such bad retroviruses exist and that retroviruses can have beneficial uses makes the creation interpretation acceptable.
The article's argument about useless (and detrimental) retroviruses is that when God made human life shorter, many retroviruses lost their uses(or became harmful), but this is based on an assumption and can not really be taken seriously for that reason. This was a much better argument than I expected, though.
If God's Word is true, then it isn't an assumption so for now, all we can do is take gradual steps. So while there may be an assumption of what God did, we are still justified in believing that the retrovirus most likely degraded. Whether this was done supernaturally or not isn't warranted by the Bible. For the past, the best we can do is make assumptions..but we must make sure its' logical.
But the thing is, God's Word ISN'T true. The Bible is not a science textbook, and cannot be treated as such. And by saying that the Bible is God's word you are making another assumption.
I never said the Bible is a scientific textbook because it works as a historical textbook. We can then look for clues in regards to it. The Bible not being true is another assumption...Tektonics is a website I would suggest you check to confirm the reliability of the Bible. However, it is justified in saying that the original retrovirus was good and it degraded. How this was done cannot be decided by science because it is not testable and repeatable.
The Bible BARELY works as a historical textbook, as the books are STORIES of what was passed on from generation to generation. It does not document events in any sort of clarity, and is usually the only POV of any event, which makes corroboration difficult if not impossible. Studying the Bible is good for studying what people were talking about -2,000 years ago, but not what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Look for Roman texts for that stuff.
I wont' waste my time with your rhetorical assertions. Please educate yourself that the Scripture contains historical events that REALLY did occur. Visit tektonics[DOT]org/lp/nttextcrit.html Name one event in the Bible that historically didn't happen. The Bible works through a historical textbook considering all the genealogies. It also contains specific occurrences of real events. Read the bible for once.
The website you directed us to gives a lot of information on the historical accuracy of the New Testament, but a very, very short section on the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. The historical accuracy of the Bible is irrelevant anyways. Ever hear of historical fiction?
The old testament was a period of many wars and cities had been constantly destroyed. It is only natural for there to be a lot of evidence as there is for the new testament. For the old testament, you'll have to look at other sources. abr.christiananswers[DOT]net/articles/article.html
One must ask how Mark could have thought that he could get his piece of historical fiction past these eyewitnesses. And, finally, how could this fabrication not only be accepted, but serve to motivate the followers of Jesus to the point where they quickly took this "new" Gospel and risked their lives evangelizing the entire Mediterranean world?[Boyd.CSSG, 216]
I have heard of historical fiction but there is a large difference between stories and events that actually took place. For example, the Bible is unlike most historical records by revealing some quite embarrassing moments for the kingdom. Israel would not seek to devalue it's land but rather to give it glory. The Bible would be considered a threat in that regard.
I'm would venture to say that a talking snake didn't tell some lady to eat an apple. For one. But what makes them real? They're only mentioned in one place (the Bible itself) - you can't corroborate the stories with any other written record.
The Bible not being true is no more of an assumption than saying the Koran is not true. The Bible's historical accuracy is irrelevant to it's scientific accuracy. It is an unsafe assumption to make to say that useless and harmful retroviruses once had a use, especially since the VAST majority of them are useless. I doubt that human life being made shorter can make that many retroviruses lose functions.
It seems you're arguing from ignorance here. Merely because the Koran doesn't have evidence gives no justification for us believing that it's false but neither should we believe it's true. Agnosticism is the more honest position. Indeed it is and I acknowledged that the bible isn't a scientific textbook. The historical record is interpreted by YEC's and OEC's so we can't say one view is correct immediately.
I also said that the Bible doesn't say anything about God using supernatural processes to shorten the life span. For all we know, this could be a result form the flood or a natural genetic entropy.
What the hell are you talking about? You said "You have to assume that the Bible is false"(not exact quote) and I replied "That's like saying you have to assume the Koran is false". How is that an argument from ignorance? What does any of this have to do with atheism or agnosticism?
I am saying that we can only assume but doing so doesn't make it true. Notice that I also stated it "seems" not that "you are arguing from ignorance". This is because I don't want to make false accusations. There's no justification for us to believe that the Koran is false and it only stands as an assumption. With evidence however, we would be justified. That's my point.
I am saying that it is NEITHER. Because one cannot be justified in saying that lack of implies that it's a false belief. You must further present evidence against it to be justified. I am talking about being justified here.
I don't understand this comment. Did you mean to say "Because one cannot be justified in saying that lack of EVIDENCE implies that it's a false belief"?
To God in general? Then no but to the God of Christianity then that can easily be done. If this God is a deist, then you really don't have much to worry about anyways. The concern should be what hypothesis is more likely. That's the route I would take
Well, I guess but as far as I know there is no evidence against the God of Christianity. Evolution can co-exist with the Bible- I don't see why not, anyhow.
Exodus 20:11, origin of the week. "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Yeah, Really compatible with "3.8 billion years ago, the earth formed with a primordial Campbell's soup, and life evolved over billions of years." Man, some people are really able to reconcile some far apart things. Evil-utionism kills, ask Dahmer's victims.
And there is still the question of why God would put so many retroviruses in the same place in the human genome as in the ape genome. They have the same function no matter where they are, so why did God do that? He did know it would cause this confusion, didn't he? Is God a deceiver?
How do we know, with great assurance that God didn't have some previous purpose for placing the human genome in the same area as in the ape genome? The similarities are there to give a biotic message by demonstrating it's the work of one designer. Due to the fall however, the genome experienced a case of entropy and was dramatically increased after the flood. If one to examine God's previous creation, no confusion would have arisen.
Hmm good question...can you provide more info in regards to chromosome #2? a link would do just fine if you don't have time to waste which I would understand.
All apes have 48 chromosomes, but humans have 46. If we evolved from a common ancestor then it would be illogical to assume that all species of apes gained a chromosome, and it would be just as illogical for us to lose a chromosome, so the only answer would be a chromosome fusion. When we took a closer look we noticed that our Chromosome #2 was a fusion between the ape chromosomes 2 and 3. Clear evidence of common ancestry.
Riiight...so it's alright for you to make assumptions on what God would or wouldn't do but it's no alright for me to state possibilities. That alone refutes your argument that it's unreasonable. We don't know the specifics but as knowledge progresses, hopefully we can asses that. Is this not how you evolutionists argue for irreducible complexity?
What reason is there for God to put retroviruses in the same place? As I said, it doesn't make a difference where they are, and God knew that it would cause a lot of confusion, and the only reason that I can think of is that God is a deceiver. Is there any other explanation?
Does common descent predict that it would be in the same place? Again, you find it fit to assume that God has no reason to put the retroviruses in the same place. The article that you were presented did a good job in demonstrating how it could be used. Why can't God reuse a design? This is evidence for a common designer. There's no confusion about it.
The evidence also points to a common designer so your question is a matter of interpretation. So God didn't deceive you but evolutionists went with the interpretation of naturalistic standards and ruled God out. They even argued, just as you do what God would and wouldn't due. Darwin sought to remedy the problem of natural evil and therefore distanced God enough to not have any part of creation. He refuted his own conception of God. You didn't answer my question.
It never was a prediction of common descent for their to be retroviruses in the same chromosomes. It merely accommodated the idea by explaining it. Explaining how it happened doesn't mean it was predicted. Common descent doesn't even predict the existence of ERV's. This feature is also not shared by all groups of organisms....You may interpret it as evidence for common descent because of the similarity but the same can be said of common design.
Common descent does predict retroviruses to be in the same place in the genomes of apes and humans, as retroviruses are passed down, so they would be in the same location. It didn't predict the existence of them- why would it? Common design is still an assumption- there is no evidence justifying it.
Then explain this. "Another limitation is that there are no examples of 'shared errors' that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . . Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides 'shared errors." Dr Max
A common designer is an assumption. Your comment is a perfect example of why Creationism isn't science; you reach a conclusion before looking at the evidence, and then twist and contort the evidence to fit your conclusion. I question what God would and wouldn't do with good reason- it seems to me that God is a deceiver if Creationism is true. Darwin's intent was not to get rid of God- he was a Christian when he made his hypotheses.
A common designer is not an assumption as it is warranted by the evidence of remarkable similarity. Common descent is also an interpretation of the similarity. It really is a matter of interpretation.
Also I never stated that Darwin was getting rid of God, but he was getting rid of a particular conception of God acting in the world. I think he was more of a deist but who knows... God isn't deceiving anyone, it is just our interpretations.
Darwin's intent was not to get rid of the Christian concept of God. Not to be rude, but that is a conspiracy theory. If I remember correctly, he kept his hypotheses to himself for several years for fear of people thinking he was trying to disprove God. He was a Christian. He had a degrees in theology, I believe...
But common descent also has other, physical evidence, such as transitional fossils in the fossil record. Then there is also the observable evidence of evolution. What physical and observable evidence is there of a designer?
What transitional fossils are you speaking of? What observable evidence of evolution? The evidence of similarity and diversity is proof of the Biotic message theory.
"Riiight...so it's alright for you to make assumptions on what God would or wouldn't do but it's no alright for me to state possibilities."
Science works on probabilities, not possibilities. But the main problems with your possibilities is the numerous assumptions in them that render them untestable.
Irreducible complexity has been confirmed time after time. That' a ridiculous assertion. Perhaps you're reading too much of Ken miller... A global flood is testable and we can see the genome decreasing due to entropy every day (cancer for example). You also assume it's done by common descent...Let's play this game and see how you can do without working with possibilities.
Furthermore, why expect me to go with testable claims when you're asking a question that is in regards to the past? We cannot test the past...You are making assumptions yourself so the best I can do to answer those questions is give you possible answers that fits with the biblical account
Before this is done, let me confirm your stance and whether I got my facts straight about evolution. For NDT, is given direction by selection to variation that was created by a random process (mutations). Positive variations help an organism to have more surviving offspring. Negative variations reduces the number of surviving offspring thus eventually leading to extinction. Selection is thought of as selecting not on an individual but on a population.
Neutral variations such as eye color do not affect an organisms ability to survive. A good mutation will tend to cause more offspring where as bad mutations will tend to have less offspring. The number of positive mutations will gradually increase (or should) and will eventually take over a population.
Ah, I didn't see this comment before I made my last one. I think you got it about right, although I don't know what you mean about negative mutations causing extinctions- for this, EVERY mutation would have to be negative in the population.
Huh? Positive mutations help the population, as the animal with the positive mutation will survive and have more offspring that will also get the positive mutation. Animals with negative mutations will die off due to natural selection. There are more negative mutations than there are positive mutations, but the VAST majority of mutations are neutral, and unnoticed by the animal.
No, irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted. I've never read Ken Miller- he is a Christian, isn't he? How is a global flood testable? The genome decreasing? What?
Let's just say the the global flood can be tested using some observations in our present world as does old earthers. They do the same with the ice age as well. Who has refuted that the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex? Yes he's a christian.
What observations are those? I wasn't aware there was any observable evidence for the flood. Besides, the geological column refutes the silly notion that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Well the fact that you can refute a global flood means that you can observe the evidence we have no to make such inferences. I also then see why not we can't observe for evidence in support of a global flood. Evolution never has required for all dinosaurs become extinct... The evidence is in CRSQ...
We are discussing different topics so for now, let us just focus on evolution which is my area of knowledge. Is that okay with you? If not, then I apologize but I haven't gathered much knowledge on evidence for a global flood.
Creation Research Society Quarterly is a technical journal for scientific evidence of creation. It's not like AiG where they mainly focus on evangelical purposes.
I love YEC's. They are great for comedy. I posted part one and part two on my blog to give my friends a good laugh. baconeatingatheistjew dot blogspot dot com.
Let me get this straight: I cite good, hard, scientific evidence that the falls are NOT 12,000 years old, and yet you suggest I am "cherry picking?" I'll discuss your "facts" in later videos and we'll see how they stand up to scientific scrutiny.
"Good hard scientific evidence"??!? By showing that a single naturalist over 100 years ago was inaccurate? And what does the age of Niagra Falls have to do with the age of the earth? It is shown now to have very obviously formed during/after the latest Ice Age.
Since science can never prove anything (popper) then the age of the falls can be a fact, but simply an hypothesis. Creationists are being scientific by poking holes in an hypothesis. That is the whole purpose of the scientific method.
The age of the falls is not a hypothesis, it is an estimate. Creationists aren't poking holes in anything, they ignore all the data and make assumption after assumption to make their hypotheses possible (and I'm being generous by calling them hypotheses).
No they aren't. Show evidence to back up your theory that the earth is young for example. The Ark story has been falsified using real science as well. Science can be falsified, I know you must agree with that.
I obviously DID watch the video.... and you're agreeing that one man's inaccuracy ACTUALLY puts a hole in the theory of evolution? Niagra Falls doesn't even have anything to do with the age of the earth! How "further" do you think he went? It wasn't scientific, it was ad hominem!
If you "obviously" did watch the video, you either didn't watch it far enough or didn't pay attention. We are not talking about the theory of evolution...What are you talking about? It was at least one of the evidences for an old earth. Ian Juby discusses this because he's the father of uniformitarism and it's necessary to understand the underlying motivations. Assumptions were made. Also, this is only part 2 of the series!!
Niagra Falls WAS NOT one of the evidences for an old earth. It's evidence of the last ICE AGE. So this whole video is about "Lyell's motivation"? SO WHAT? What does that have to do with the other overwhelming evidence for the age of the earth? BRING ON MORE PARTS. As soon as he's got something of substance to say, I'll refute it in a video. This one was useless.
LOOK AT THE DESCRIPTION. It says that it is arguing from a historical perspective on the frauds involved in the history of old earth which was back then, called science. Can you not realize that this section is simply for that? How ridiculous can you get? You haven't refuted anything but only what you wanted him to present. As I said, he is going to present it in as it goes on. Please shutup for the time-being.
Science is based on evidence. Theories are formulated, if further evidence doesn't fit, the theory is changed or thrown out. Lyell was wrong about constant rates of erosion. Niagara Falls had different rates from 1840-now. It is 12,000 years old.
This has been flagged as spam show
Anyone that wants to learn more about Real Science Creation Science then come check out my favorite videows on my Channel You will learn alot. God bless
coolvideo28 1 year ago
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God John 3:16-18 (King James Version)
coolvideo28 1 year ago
There is only 1 truth and it is in Gods living word The Bible. The Bible clearly tells us that God Created the earth in 6 literal days. Also by checking the geneology you can see the Earth is only approx 6000 years old. How do evolutionists come up with millions and billions of years? By using circular reasoning ALL evolution dating techniques are based on the geologic column that doesnt exist anywere on Earth, but they dont tell You that.
coolvideo28 1 year ago
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:1-5 (King James Version)
coolvideo28 1 year ago
The first geologists determined the earth was millions of years old just by looking at the rocks, before radiometric dating was invented.
I guess the bible is wrong like you say.!!
gregrutz 2 years ago
Well,thats not true. The first estimates using relative dating methods came up with a maximum age of around,150,000yrs,which is still a lot older than the YEC want to account form,but it def didnt start out with millions.
Aaron518 2 years ago
Geologist guessed the earth was 20 million years old, until radiometric dating pushed it to 500 million.
The latest figures put the earth at 4,500 million years old.
gregrutz 2 years ago
He created the heavens and the earth, end of day one. Did the sun set to end the first day? He didn't make the sun yet?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Even christians say, It must be longer days, because it does not make sence.
The earth is millions of years old.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Your problem is that you haven't studied the Bible, otherwise you'd realise that there is plenty to attack.
"Useful taxonomy"??
How do you find apes turning into humans useful taxonomy?
I think its worse for children believing in a lie: that the earth is over a billion years old.
ChokuTsutanai100 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
You wish.
Not all humans. Just Adam. That's how God created Adam.
It never said that animals appeard AFTER man. Man appeared WITH animals.
"What came first, the chicken or the egg?" THEY APPEARED AT THE SAME TIME.
The snake only talked because it was posessed with the Devil.
ChokuTsutanai100 2 years ago
"apes turning into humans"
This alone proves my point.
Nobody who has the most basic understanding of evolution would say such a false and foolish thing.
This is not what evolution says,
this is what ignorant preachers say about evolution.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
It's what Darwin said ...
ChokuTsutanai100 2 years ago
""It's what Darwin said ...""
LOL, stop spewing creationist propaganda, dorkie.
You know nothing so stop embarrassing yourself.
Hath thou no shame, ye bible-muppet?
sonykroket 2 years ago
out of sync :(
MajSmJz 3 years ago
And the best part: The original sin argument! OK, consider: Parent has deadly weapon, paints it pretty color and puts it in the center of the room. Tells kids don't touch and then leaves them with sitter known to be bad news. Kids hurt themselves. Who's the parent mad at? The kids! Then throws them out of the house? If the god of the bible were a real parent today it would be jailed on charges of murder, incest, abuse, torture, and willful neglect. Great example to set there!
magick205 3 years ago
"They are wrong or they are lying." That's the only truthful thing he's said in any of these videos. Doesn't help his case that he's actually talking about himself and he KNOWS it.
magick205 3 years ago
sonykroket 3 years ago
ChokuTsutanai100 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Creationism is NOT anti-science.
I saw somewhere that Christianity IS A THEORY AS WELL. HMM ...
Jesus is still alive.
God always exists.
Our evidence is THE BIBLE.
Darwin is the one that's dead. He's suffering in Hell, now, too.
And Darwin used the wrong kind of science. He took something, one little thing, and made a huge deal over it.
Jesus is the ultimate hero. Do you know anyone else who would take YOUR SINS and die FOR YOU? Even now, He still loves you.
I'll pray for you.
ChokuTsutanai100 2 years ago
""Darwin is the one that's dead. He's suffering in Hell, now, too.
And Darwin used the wrong kind of science. He took something, one little thing, and made a huge deal over it.""
The.....ignorance..........the selfrighteousness........can't.....breathe because.....of...it's.....overwhelming......stench.........*faints*.....
Hahahahaha, my lawd, you really are an idiot.
sonykroket 2 years ago
""I'll pray for you""
Shove your prayers where the sun don't shine, liar for jesus™.
What a moron, eeesh.
sonykroket 2 years ago
""IT'S STILL A THEORY""
Just because you're too dumb to understand the meanings of the word theory doesn't mean your moron of a god exists, dorkie.
Outside the bible there is no evidence of god, bible-kisser.
And you can't prove the bible with the bible, you preaching muppet.
Sony 19:22
""How can ye be so stoo-pid, dooh, hath thou no brain, thy Kent"Jail-Bird"Hovind-groupie?""
Amen, bish.
sonykroket 2 years ago
ChokuTsutanai100 = bible-kisser deluxe
sonykroket 2 years ago
""Creationism IS a science.""
LOL
sonykroket 2 years ago
Good talk. The video and sound track don't match very well. Toward the end of the video the screen goes black, but you can still hear the speaker. Kind of a bummer. Thanks for the effort.
Italiasalbion 4 years ago
Is this a parody?
voxesencial 4 years ago
The bible proves the bible once again, sigh. Be nice if there was some other reasonable proof - but sadly not to be. The many methods of earth/universe dating are astronomically wrong - Such a fantastically inept science community we have. Except for young earth creationist jail bird Kent Hovind - who is clearly a genius.
kalsolarUK 4 years ago
gee wazooloo, you said you care about our souls, yet you won't ever answer a single question? And whats with the cargo vest? Are you on a safari?
joe19912 4 years ago
Obviously I can't keep up with the comments here, however, a lot of the questions (and excellent ones too) will be answered later on in other videos - I'll post a list if I can, but I've been on the road.
wazooloo 4 years ago
Also, understand that I am taking this in gradual steps. I am arguing that multiple SV's must be in the population in order for this organism to survive. This doesn't necessarily refute evolution but does challenge the simple idea that natural selection just has to select and the animals take over the population. It's not that easy.
macguy 4 years ago
If an animal has 5 offspring and one of those has a beneficial mutation then this one out of the five will be the most likely to survive. If any of the others have harmful mutations they will be less likely to survive.
alienspy07 4 years ago
THe SV is not enough to make it the most likely to survive. Bottom line is that it is a matter chance. Natural selection cannot select until it is assured that this organism lives in competition with others. Less likely and more likely doesn't guarantee that it will or not live. The harmful mutation could live on, and cause a genetic load.
macguy 4 years ago
Predators hunting prey is also natural selection, though. Random/artificial selection is not frequent enough to pose a problem for natural selection, and as I said before, random/artificial selection doesn't just target animals with beneficial mutations. It targets all animals, including those with harmful and neutral mutations.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Let me clarify: we have a hypothetical situation. There are 20 animals capable of reproducing, that's ten couples. Each couple has 15 kids. About 1/20 of the kids receive a beneficial mutation (which is about accurate) and 1/10 receive a harmful mutation (I'm not sure how accurate this is). Out of 150, this would make about 7-8 kids with beneficial mutations and 15 with a harmful one, and the rest are neutral.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Now, as you said, only about one in five of the animals survive. Due to natural selection, all the ones with harmful mutations die while the ones with beneficial mutations survive. Out of thirty, this leaves about 7-8 of them with beneficial mutations and the rest neutral. Now, lets say a random disaster kills ten of them (so we end with 20 again) at random. of these ten, 2-3 of the animals with beneficial mutations die, and 7-8 with neutral mutations die.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Now, after all this we are left with 5 animals out of 20 with beneficial mutations that survived, and the rest have neutral mutations. Even with the random selection thrown in it doesn't pose a problem for natural selection. I'm not sure how accurate this situation is, but I think it's pretty accurate.
alienspy07 4 years ago
The chance that it will survive the first generation is 0.2002 and the change that it will survive to the next generation is 0.1347. It gets even less as we go on further. We can also see that the chance of the mutant vs the nonmutant surviving is not very different. It wouldn't help guard against the random effects that destroy it. Basically this organism must be lucky to survive as it's odds are against 5 to 1 and the descendants have to be lucky in order to take over a population.
macguy 4 years ago
One thing I see is that most evil-utionists here do not understand their own religion. The defunct idea that a set of mutations and natural selection is evidence and a mechanism is so infantile. Even a child knows that is not evidence humans from a primordial soup over 3.8 billion years. Takes 12 years of brainwashing to get one to BELIEVE in it. Day after day.
zukester100 4 years ago
My point is that a selective value doesn't ensure that the mutant will survive as many suggest. In fact, it is more than likely that it has failed many times in proceeding.
macguy 4 years ago
"My point is that a selective value doesn't ensure that the mutant will survive as many suggest. In fact, it is more than likely that it has failed many times in proceeding"
Yes, it is very likely that many beneficial mutations have been killed off by random/artificial selection, but many more have survived due to natural selection favoring them. Random events are not that frequent.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Natural selection is only allowed to favor them because they survive...which is still by chance. Random events are very frequent. You obviously aren't aware of the many diseases, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc that destroy these creatures.
macguy 4 years ago
There may be many random events today but they are much more frequent than they used to be. Diseases- as I said, significantly increased by industrialism, fires- most caused by humans, earthquakes are infrequent in most parts of the Earth and the vast majority are minor anyways.
alienspy07 4 years ago
I would agree then because in the creationist framework, the world was not experiencing such genetic entropy until after the flood. We may both differ as to why this is so but the fact of the matter is that the evidence doesn't tell us why. Minor will still have effects no matter what.
macguy 4 years ago
During the time of the split of plate tectonics, earthquakes would be much more frequent than it is now. There are plenty of natural disasters such as the ice age and as you noted, some minor ones. No one said they had to be big disasters. Also keep in mind that animals eat each other...the selective value is not enough to avoid this unless this SV is larger than most mutations but that's doubtful. The solution is to have multiple SV's in a population then there wouldn't be much of a problem.
macguy 4 years ago
A man named Sir Ronald Fisher is a mathematician and an expert of the mathematics of evolution. He was actually one of the founders of population genetics. He demonstrated that in order for evolution to occur, it would need to have many positive SVs in order. Why? This is because even positive SVs can be wiped out by random effects. It's all a matter of chance that the mutant will survive.
macguy 4 years ago
"This is because even positive SVs can be wiped out by random effects"
This is true. But negative SVs can also be wiped out by random effects. How frequent are these random effects? You don't see trees falling onto animals much on the discovery channel.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Indeed and I was merely referring to positive SVs because those are what matters in order to get to the grand-scale change. Hunting, disease are also random effects btw. I'll get to your question once I get back from church.
macguy 4 years ago
What we are talking about, however, existed before hunting did. disease is not very frequent in the animal kingdom. But the point is that these random events would effect animals with beneficial and harmful mutations at the same rates. It isn't a problem for evolution at all.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Animals hunting each other existed since the beginning. Disease is very frequent and just look at us. Hamsters also have many diseases as I can speak from experience. Dogs are the same way and cats... It is rather frequent. Broken legs can also be a factor. Animals have also been stuck in tar.
macguy 4 years ago
Predators hunting prey is natural selection, as the weaker, slower animals get eaten first. Disease is only frequent due to industrialization. Animals living in natural conditions rarely, if ever, suffer from disease. Broken limbs, tar, once again, happen in the same ratios in animals with beneficial and harmful mutations.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Let's suppose that an animal produces around 5 offspring in it's lifetime. Only an average of one out of 5 of these will live to reproduce. So we have a 20 percent possibility that one animal will survive. One's abilities has very little to do with the ability to survive because the SV is only 0.1& which only increases it by around 20.02%.
macguy 4 years ago
You're reasoning is flawed because bad mutations are more frequent than good mutations. Neutral mutations can do you no good in assisting you with this problem. Furthermore, we're focusing on the organism with the positive SV and not the negative SV because if the negative SV ends up surviving, it would cause genetic load on the organism. The survival of this mutation in a population is really a game of chance.
macguy 4 years ago
"You're reasoning is flawed because bad mutations are more frequent than good mutations. Neutral mutations can do you no good in assisting you with this problem."
Wouldn't this actually be helpful to me? Since beneficial mutations are the least common, they would have less random events killing them off. Furthermore, because of their beneficial mutations they would have a better chance to survive the random events, would they not?
alienspy07 4 years ago
No... They have to fight against the effects that fight against them which I just argued.
macguy 4 years ago
Let's see. No unambiguous, irrefutable, iron clad evidence from homoplogy, paleontology, biology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, chemistry, physics. Just belif in invisible things that defy all natural, known LAWS, and that is fine. But mention God...
zukester100 4 years ago
I'm afraid the source that you are using is a bit dishonest as well. Sir Ronald Fisher was, essentially, Darwin's successor, and firmly accepted evolution. He also died well over forty years ago.
alienspy07 4 years ago
What are you talking about? Since when did I deny that he was Darwin's successor and that he denied evolution? Never said that he was still alive either...
macguy 4 years ago
You didn't. What I'm saying is that you make it out to look like he disproved evolution when he actually fully accepted it.
By the way, I'm just going to ignore zukester100. He's incredibly annoying.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Haha alright there are some people like that. Well no, I didn't mean to imply that. Due to the problem of random effects, he stated to in order for evolution to occur, it would need to have many positive SVs in order. This however, means he accepted evolution rather than denied it.
macguy 4 years ago
Notice how God comes in when discussing evil-utionism. From darwinism (read your religion) to Christianity. So glad I am a former darwinist and atheist. No longer in that small, narrow-minded religious box, no longer ignorant of true science, tainted by folklore and mythology. Darwinism: similar to flat earth teaching and elephants supporting the earth.
zukester100 4 years ago
In wonder. How many Hindus ar ethere in India? Nearly 100% How many Muslims in Pakistan? Nearly 100%. How many Buddhists in Tibet? Nearly 100% How hard is that when ALL they hear all day is Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism. And in America? K-12 and beyond, 24 hours a day, darwinism the religion, the emperor without clothes.
zukester100 4 years ago
If there was a bad mutation, then it would have a negative SV which means that it is less likely to survive than the rest of the population. Therefore you'll have a - 0.1% SV. Of course natural selection is argued to select against such mutations in order to increase the number of individuals with positive SVs. As we shall see, things are not so simple as evolutionists argue.
macguy 4 years ago
Back to the argument of small changes + time = large changes. We can calculate the phenotype fitness by assigning a selective value (SV). Note that this is not my work and I of course am using a source. The selective value is simply the chance of increased fitness from the normal population in the phenotype. For example, a mutated E. Coli bacteria may by average have a chance of offspring survival that around of 0.1% higher than the rest of the normal population.
macguy 4 years ago
If the earth was young, every rock on this planet could be tested to prove it. The fact is that creationists can't come close to proving this. It is a joke. Google "Glenn Morton's story"
baconeater 4 years ago
isometric dating is completely irrelevant in the creationary paradigm.
SkepticalChristian 4 years ago
Morton doesn't comprehend the difference between data and interpretation of data.
SkepticalChristian 4 years ago
You continue saying that over and over and over and over again without ever giving your interpretation of the data. And you clearly did not read Mr.Morton's story if you think he simply doesn't know the difference between data and interpretation.
alienspy07 4 years ago
The uninformed evolutionists who are posting here don't know the difference between evidence and interpretation.
SkepticalChristian 4 years ago
"The uninformed evolutionists who are posting here don't know the difference between evidence and interpretation."
Instead of just being a jackass and insulting us, why don't you give us your interpretation of retroviruses, the fossil record being EXACTLY as evolution predicts and chromosome #2?
alienspy07 4 years ago
By the way, skepticalchristian, aka allenroyboy, why did you make a second account?
alienspy07 4 years ago
dropping allenroyboy account
SkepticalChristian 4 years ago
I have asked you on this account and on your other account, give me the Creationist interpretation of retroviruses, chromosome #2 and the fossil record. Please.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Probably the best discussion of retroviruses from the creationary position is at:
answersingenesis[dot]org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good
SkepticalChristian 4 years ago
The article's argument is that some retroviruses have beneficial uses. This is true, however it doesn't give the retroviruses that don't have uses, or are bad, any positive use.
alienspy07 4 years ago
That is simply a case of genetic entropy and not in any way a positive case for evolution. Rather it is another case that supports genetic entropy...The fact that such bad retroviruses exist and that retroviruses can have beneficial uses makes the creation interpretation acceptable.
macguy 4 years ago
The article's argument about useless (and detrimental) retroviruses is that when God made human life shorter, many retroviruses lost their uses(or became harmful), but this is based on an assumption and can not really be taken seriously for that reason. This was a much better argument than I expected, though.
alienspy07 4 years ago
If God's Word is true, then it isn't an assumption so for now, all we can do is take gradual steps. So while there may be an assumption of what God did, we are still justified in believing that the retrovirus most likely degraded. Whether this was done supernaturally or not isn't warranted by the Bible. For the past, the best we can do is make assumptions..but we must make sure its' logical.
macguy 4 years ago
But the thing is, God's Word ISN'T true. The Bible is not a science textbook, and cannot be treated as such. And by saying that the Bible is God's word you are making another assumption.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Ian doesn't claim the Bible is a science textbook.
SkepticalChristian 4 years ago
I was talking to the guy responding to me.
alienspy07 4 years ago
I never said the Bible is a scientific textbook because it works as a historical textbook. We can then look for clues in regards to it. The Bible not being true is another assumption...Tektonics is a website I would suggest you check to confirm the reliability of the Bible. However, it is justified in saying that the original retrovirus was good and it degraded. How this was done cannot be decided by science because it is not testable and repeatable.
macguy 4 years ago
The Bible BARELY works as a historical textbook, as the books are STORIES of what was passed on from generation to generation. It does not document events in any sort of clarity, and is usually the only POV of any event, which makes corroboration difficult if not impossible. Studying the Bible is good for studying what people were talking about -2,000 years ago, but not what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Look for Roman texts for that stuff.
akg41470 4 years ago
I wont' waste my time with your rhetorical assertions. Please educate yourself that the Scripture contains historical events that REALLY did occur. Visit tektonics[DOT]org/lp/nttextcrit.html Name one event in the Bible that historically didn't happen. The Bible works through a historical textbook considering all the genealogies. It also contains specific occurrences of real events. Read the bible for once.
macguy 4 years ago
The website you directed us to gives a lot of information on the historical accuracy of the New Testament, but a very, very short section on the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. The historical accuracy of the Bible is irrelevant anyways. Ever hear of historical fiction?
alienspy07 4 years ago
The old testament was a period of many wars and cities had been constantly destroyed. It is only natural for there to be a lot of evidence as there is for the new testament. For the old testament, you'll have to look at other sources. abr.christiananswers[DOT]net/articles/article.html
macguy 4 years ago
One must ask how Mark could have thought that he could get his piece of historical fiction past these eyewitnesses. And, finally, how could this fabrication not only be accepted, but serve to motivate the followers of Jesus to the point where they quickly took this "new" Gospel and risked their lives evangelizing the entire Mediterranean world?[Boyd.CSSG, 216]
macguy 4 years ago
I have heard of historical fiction but there is a large difference between stories and events that actually took place. For example, the Bible is unlike most historical records by revealing some quite embarrassing moments for the kingdom. Israel would not seek to devalue it's land but rather to give it glory. The Bible would be considered a threat in that regard.
macguy 4 years ago
I'm would venture to say that a talking snake didn't tell some lady to eat an apple. For one. But what makes them real? They're only mentioned in one place (the Bible itself) - you can't corroborate the stories with any other written record.
akg41470 4 years ago
The Bible not being true is no more of an assumption than saying the Koran is not true. The Bible's historical accuracy is irrelevant to it's scientific accuracy. It is an unsafe assumption to make to say that useless and harmful retroviruses once had a use, especially since the VAST majority of them are useless. I doubt that human life being made shorter can make that many retroviruses lose functions.
alienspy07 4 years ago
It seems you're arguing from ignorance here. Merely because the Koran doesn't have evidence gives no justification for us believing that it's false but neither should we believe it's true. Agnosticism is the more honest position. Indeed it is and I acknowledged that the bible isn't a scientific textbook. The historical record is interpreted by YEC's and OEC's so we can't say one view is correct immediately.
macguy 4 years ago
I also said that the Bible doesn't say anything about God using supernatural processes to shorten the life span. For all we know, this could be a result form the flood or a natural genetic entropy.
macguy 4 years ago
What the hell are you talking about? You said "You have to assume that the Bible is false"(not exact quote) and I replied "That's like saying you have to assume the Koran is false". How is that an argument from ignorance? What does any of this have to do with atheism or agnosticism?
alienspy07 4 years ago
I am saying that we can only assume but doing so doesn't make it true. Notice that I also stated it "seems" not that "you are arguing from ignorance". This is because I don't want to make false accusations. There's no justification for us to believe that the Koran is false and it only stands as an assumption. With evidence however, we would be justified. That's my point.
macguy 4 years ago
All things are false by default. That's why it's "innocent until proven guilty" and not "guilty until proven innocent".
alienspy07 4 years ago
I am saying that it is NEITHER. Because one cannot be justified in saying that lack of implies that it's a false belief. You must further present evidence against it to be justified. I am talking about being justified here.
macguy 4 years ago
I don't understand this comment. Did you mean to say "Because one cannot be justified in saying that lack of EVIDENCE implies that it's a false belief"?
alienspy07 4 years ago
One is not justified in arguing that lack of evidence implies a false belief is what I meant.
macguy 4 years ago
Well, as Christopher Hitchens says: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
alienspy07 4 years ago
It can be dismissed but cannot be said to be false unless one has evidence to the contrary.
macguy 4 years ago
I see your point, but there can't really be evidence to suggest the contrary to the God hypothesis, can there be?
alienspy07 4 years ago
To God in general? Then no but to the God of Christianity then that can easily be done. If this God is a deist, then you really don't have much to worry about anyways. The concern should be what hypothesis is more likely. That's the route I would take
macguy 4 years ago
Well, I guess but as far as I know there is no evidence against the God of Christianity. Evolution can co-exist with the Bible- I don't see why not, anyhow.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Exodus 20:11, origin of the week. "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Yeah, Really compatible with "3.8 billion years ago, the earth formed with a primordial Campbell's soup, and life evolved over billions of years." Man, some people are really able to reconcile some far apart things. Evil-utionism kills, ask Dahmer's victims.
zukester100 4 years ago
And there is still the question of why God would put so many retroviruses in the same place in the human genome as in the ape genome. They have the same function no matter where they are, so why did God do that? He did know it would cause this confusion, didn't he? Is God a deceiver?
alienspy07 4 years ago
And even so, chromosome #2, the fossil record and a lot more evidence for evolution still remains.
alienspy07 4 years ago
How do we know, with great assurance that God didn't have some previous purpose for placing the human genome in the same area as in the ape genome? The similarities are there to give a biotic message by demonstrating it's the work of one designer. Due to the fall however, the genome experienced a case of entropy and was dramatically increased after the flood. If one to examine God's previous creation, no confusion would have arisen.
macguy 4 years ago
Hmm good question...can you provide more info in regards to chromosome #2? a link would do just fine if you don't have time to waste which I would understand.
macguy 4 years ago
All apes have 48 chromosomes, but humans have 46. If we evolved from a common ancestor then it would be illogical to assume that all species of apes gained a chromosome, and it would be just as illogical for us to lose a chromosome, so the only answer would be a chromosome fusion. When we took a closer look we noticed that our Chromosome #2 was a fusion between the ape chromosomes 2 and 3. Clear evidence of common ancestry.
alienspy07 4 years ago
"How do we know that God didn't have some previous purpose for placing the human genome in the same area as in the ape genome?"
Another assumption
"The similarities are there to give a biotic message by demonstrating it's the work of one designer."
Another assumption.
"Due to the fall however, the genome experienced a case of entropy and was dramatically increased after the flood"
And there's ANOTHER assumption. You do understand why I can't take Creationism seriously now, don't you?
alienspy07 4 years ago
Riiight...so it's alright for you to make assumptions on what God would or wouldn't do but it's no alright for me to state possibilities. That alone refutes your argument that it's unreasonable. We don't know the specifics but as knowledge progresses, hopefully we can asses that. Is this not how you evolutionists argue for irreducible complexity?
macguy 4 years ago
What reason is there for God to put retroviruses in the same place? As I said, it doesn't make a difference where they are, and God knew that it would cause a lot of confusion, and the only reason that I can think of is that God is a deceiver. Is there any other explanation?
alienspy07 4 years ago
Does common descent predict that it would be in the same place? Again, you find it fit to assume that God has no reason to put the retroviruses in the same place. The article that you were presented did a good job in demonstrating how it could be used. Why can't God reuse a design? This is evidence for a common designer. There's no confusion about it.
macguy 4 years ago
"Does common descent predict that it would be in the same place?"
Yes, retroviruses are passed down.
"Why can't God reuse a design?"
I never said he can't. Why would God make all the evidence point directly to evolution and common descent?
alienspy07 4 years ago
The evidence also points to a common designer so your question is a matter of interpretation. So God didn't deceive you but evolutionists went with the interpretation of naturalistic standards and ruled God out. They even argued, just as you do what God would and wouldn't due. Darwin sought to remedy the problem of natural evil and therefore distanced God enough to not have any part of creation. He refuted his own conception of God. You didn't answer my question.
macguy 4 years ago
It never was a prediction of common descent for their to be retroviruses in the same chromosomes. It merely accommodated the idea by explaining it. Explaining how it happened doesn't mean it was predicted. Common descent doesn't even predict the existence of ERV's. This feature is also not shared by all groups of organisms....You may interpret it as evidence for common descent because of the similarity but the same can be said of common design.
macguy 4 years ago
Common descent does predict retroviruses to be in the same place in the genomes of apes and humans, as retroviruses are passed down, so they would be in the same location. It didn't predict the existence of them- why would it? Common design is still an assumption- there is no evidence justifying it.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Then explain this. "Another limitation is that there are no examples of 'shared errors' that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . . Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides 'shared errors." Dr Max
macguy 4 years ago
To be honest... I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Can you give a link to the full (what I assume is an) article about this?
alienspy07 4 years ago
A common designer is an assumption. Your comment is a perfect example of why Creationism isn't science; you reach a conclusion before looking at the evidence, and then twist and contort the evidence to fit your conclusion. I question what God would and wouldn't do with good reason- it seems to me that God is a deceiver if Creationism is true. Darwin's intent was not to get rid of God- he was a Christian when he made his hypotheses.
alienspy07 4 years ago
A common designer is not an assumption as it is warranted by the evidence of remarkable similarity. Common descent is also an interpretation of the similarity. It really is a matter of interpretation.
macguy 4 years ago
Also I never stated that Darwin was getting rid of God, but he was getting rid of a particular conception of God acting in the world. I think he was more of a deist but who knows... God isn't deceiving anyone, it is just our interpretations.
macguy 4 years ago
Darwin's intent was not to get rid of the Christian concept of God. Not to be rude, but that is a conspiracy theory. If I remember correctly, he kept his hypotheses to himself for several years for fear of people thinking he was trying to disprove God. He was a Christian. He had a degrees in theology, I believe...
alienspy07 4 years ago
Again, I am saying he was getting rid of God's action in the world. He made God like a deist...
macguy 4 years ago
Why can't Christianity co-exist with evolution?
alienspy07 4 years ago
But common descent also has other, physical evidence, such as transitional fossils in the fossil record. Then there is also the observable evidence of evolution. What physical and observable evidence is there of a designer?
alienspy07 4 years ago
What transitional fossils are you speaking of? What observable evidence of evolution? The evidence of similarity and diversity is proof of the Biotic message theory.
macguy 4 years ago
Sorry for giving URLs, but...
Transitionals:
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CC/CC200(dot)html
Observed speciation:
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/faq-speciation(dot)html
Sorry, this took me a while to find.
alienspy07 4 years ago
It's alright. Hmm, well I guess I will read those links then but I don't know if I want to respond to everything =P
macguy 4 years ago
Irreducible complexity is non-existent.
"Riiight...so it's alright for you to make assumptions on what God would or wouldn't do but it's no alright for me to state possibilities."
Science works on probabilities, not possibilities. But the main problems with your possibilities is the numerous assumptions in them that render them untestable.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Irreducible complexity has been confirmed time after time. That' a ridiculous assertion. Perhaps you're reading too much of Ken miller... A global flood is testable and we can see the genome decreasing due to entropy every day (cancer for example). You also assume it's done by common descent...Let's play this game and see how you can do without working with possibilities.
macguy 4 years ago
Furthermore, why expect me to go with testable claims when you're asking a question that is in regards to the past? We cannot test the past...You are making assumptions yourself so the best I can do to answer those questions is give you possible answers that fits with the biblical account
macguy 4 years ago
We can't test the past, but we most certainly can test evolution. Evolution is happening now, not just in the past.
alienspy07 4 years ago
No sane creationist denies that evolution occurs. Evolution to the grand-scale is however un-observable.
macguy 4 years ago
Small changes add up. There exists no barrier to prevent micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution. Can you provide one?
alienspy07 4 years ago
Before this is done, let me confirm your stance and whether I got my facts straight about evolution. For NDT, is given direction by selection to variation that was created by a random process (mutations). Positive variations help an organism to have more surviving offspring. Negative variations reduces the number of surviving offspring thus eventually leading to extinction. Selection is thought of as selecting not on an individual but on a population.
macguy 4 years ago
Neutral variations such as eye color do not affect an organisms ability to survive. A good mutation will tend to cause more offspring where as bad mutations will tend to have less offspring. The number of positive mutations will gradually increase (or should) and will eventually take over a population.
macguy 4 years ago
Ah, I didn't see this comment before I made my last one. I think you got it about right, although I don't know what you mean about negative mutations causing extinctions- for this, EVERY mutation would have to be negative in the population.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Huh? Positive mutations help the population, as the animal with the positive mutation will survive and have more offspring that will also get the positive mutation. Animals with negative mutations will die off due to natural selection. There are more negative mutations than there are positive mutations, but the VAST majority of mutations are neutral, and unnoticed by the animal.
alienspy07 4 years ago
What? You're just agreeing with what I said....
macguy 4 years ago
No, irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted. I've never read Ken Miller- he is a Christian, isn't he? How is a global flood testable? The genome decreasing? What?
alienspy07 4 years ago
Let's just say the the global flood can be tested using some observations in our present world as does old earthers. They do the same with the ice age as well. Who has refuted that the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex? Yes he's a christian.
macguy 4 years ago
Define irreducible complexity for me, please(I know what it is, I have a reason for this).
alienspy07 4 years ago
What observations are those? I wasn't aware there was any observable evidence for the flood. Besides, the geological column refutes the silly notion that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Well the fact that you can refute a global flood means that you can observe the evidence we have no to make such inferences. I also then see why not we can't observe for evidence in support of a global flood. Evolution never has required for all dinosaurs become extinct... The evidence is in CRSQ...
macguy 4 years ago
We are discussing different topics so for now, let us just focus on evolution which is my area of knowledge. Is that okay with you? If not, then I apologize but I haven't gathered much knowledge on evidence for a global flood.
macguy 4 years ago
alrighty then. But what is CRSQ?
alienspy07 4 years ago
Creation Research Society Quarterly is a technical journal for scientific evidence of creation. It's not like AiG where they mainly focus on evangelical purposes.
macguy 4 years ago
I love YEC's. They are great for comedy. I posted part one and part two on my blog to give my friends a good laugh. baconeatingatheistjew dot blogspot dot com.
The link is available on my channel page.
baconeater 4 years ago
That's fascinating...
macguy 4 years ago
I know the erosion rate was faster. Science agrees. But geologists agree that the Falls itself is 12,000 years old, not 6,000.
It is discouraging to see you cherry pick science. The earth is 4.6 billion years old. It is a fact.
baconeater 4 years ago
Let me get this straight: I cite good, hard, scientific evidence that the falls are NOT 12,000 years old, and yet you suggest I am "cherry picking?" I'll discuss your "facts" in later videos and we'll see how they stand up to scientific scrutiny.
wazooloo 4 years ago
"Good hard scientific evidence"??!? By showing that a single naturalist over 100 years ago was inaccurate? And what does the age of Niagra Falls have to do with the age of the earth? It is shown now to have very obviously formed during/after the latest Ice Age.
akg41470 4 years ago
You obviously didn't watch the video...Yes he did show that this naturalist was inaccurate but went further with his calculations.
macguy 4 years ago
It is a known fact that the falls is 12000 years old.
That is not questioned anymore. Except by creationist cretins who only poke holes in science, and have no science to back them up.
baconeater 4 years ago
Since science can never prove anything (popper) then the age of the falls can be a fact, but simply an hypothesis. Creationists are being scientific by poking holes in an hypothesis. That is the whole purpose of the scientific method.
SkepticalChristian 4 years ago
The age of the falls is not a hypothesis, it is an estimate. Creationists aren't poking holes in anything, they ignore all the data and make assumption after assumption to make their hypotheses possible (and I'm being generous by calling them hypotheses).
alienspy07 4 years ago
No they aren't. Show evidence to back up your theory that the earth is young for example. The Ark story has been falsified using real science as well. Science can be falsified, I know you must agree with that.
baconeater 4 years ago
I obviously DID watch the video.... and you're agreeing that one man's inaccuracy ACTUALLY puts a hole in the theory of evolution? Niagra Falls doesn't even have anything to do with the age of the earth! How "further" do you think he went? It wasn't scientific, it was ad hominem!
akg41470 4 years ago
If you "obviously" did watch the video, you either didn't watch it far enough or didn't pay attention. We are not talking about the theory of evolution...What are you talking about? It was at least one of the evidences for an old earth. Ian Juby discusses this because he's the father of uniformitarism and it's necessary to understand the underlying motivations. Assumptions were made. Also, this is only part 2 of the series!!
macguy 4 years ago
Niagra Falls WAS NOT one of the evidences for an old earth. It's evidence of the last ICE AGE. So this whole video is about "Lyell's motivation"? SO WHAT? What does that have to do with the other overwhelming evidence for the age of the earth? BRING ON MORE PARTS. As soon as he's got something of substance to say, I'll refute it in a video. This one was useless.
akg41470 4 years ago
LOOK AT THE DESCRIPTION. It says that it is arguing from a historical perspective on the frauds involved in the history of old earth which was back then, called science. Can you not realize that this section is simply for that? How ridiculous can you get? You haven't refuted anything but only what you wanted him to present. As I said, he is going to present it in as it goes on. Please shutup for the time-being.
macguy 4 years ago
All geologists today know the falls is 12,000 year old.
You are lying for Jesus.
baconeater 4 years ago
Science is based on evidence. Theories are formulated, if further evidence doesn't fit, the theory is changed or thrown out. Lyell was wrong about constant rates of erosion. Niagara Falls had different rates from 1840-now. It is 12,000 years old.
baconeater 4 years ago