Why doesn't Strobel tell his sheep when Klaus Dose made that statement? I'll tell you why ... because it was made way back in 1988! You know, about 24 years ago!
Alfred Russel Wallace, British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist (1823 – 1913) - "There are laws of nature but they are purposeful. Everywhere we look we are confronted by power and intelligence."
@DNAunion "One man's personal opinion, from at least 100 years ago"
Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-founder of the theory of evolution by nature selection with Charles Darwin. So that would mean that the theory of natural selection is also an opinion. He called it "intelligent evolution".
An Article in a 09 addition of New Scientist mag entitled, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying in context, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” This is coming from evolutionary scientists & biologists, not me.
That deals primarily with the root of the tree: the prokaryotes (and simplest eukaryotes). They undergo much horizontal gene transfer. So the root of the tree is not nice and neat, branching pattern but more of a web - it has both vertical and horizontal transmission of genes.
But the tree of life for vertebrates - what most people are interested in (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) - is still quite valid.
@DNAunion Biologist Malcolm S Gordon, The fossils found for fish and amphibians represent only a small, "possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times. There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other."
In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples.
In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.”
Source: Science, Evolution, and Creationism, Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2008, p11
Your quote, like those most Creationists post without giving sources and dates, is outdated. It's from 1999, and so lacks Tiktaalik and other recent finds.
It was also not printed in a strictly scientific journal, but in "Biology and Philosophy".
And, the title that he gave his work was "The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay".
Nature: Muddy tetrapod origins, January 7, 2010, "The fish-tetrapod transition was thus seemingly quite well documented. There was a consensus that the divergence between some elpistostegalians (such as Tiktaalik or Panderichthys) and tetrapods might have occurred during the Givetian, 391-385 Myr ago. Coeval with the earliest fossil tetrapods, trackways dating to the Late Devonian were evidence for their ability to walk or crawl on shores."
"Niedźwiedzki et al however report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachełmie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree."
Here's something more recent - 5 years after your quote - from Malcolm S. Gordon. It is from:
The greatest step in vertebrate history: a paleobiological review of the fish-tetrapod transition, Long JA, Gordon MS., Physiol Biochem Zool. 2004 Sep-Oct;77(5):700-19.
@DNAunion Interesting how the fact of evolution is constantly getting updated and revised. Richard Dawkins ones said, “Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun.” Science will never need to update or revise the fact that the sun is hot however when it comes to evolution science is always changing its story in light of new evidence.
"Recent discoveries of previously unknown fossil forms have dramatically transformed understanding of many aspects of the fish-tetrapod transition. Newer paleobiological approaches have also contributed to changed views of which animals were involved and when, where, and how the transition occurred."
You also appear to be completely ignorant of all the recent studies related to the genetics of pectoral and pelvic fin development in various fishes. Short version is, that it is mostly the same set of executive genes directing the development of pectoral fin and pelvic fins in fish, as direct the development of forelimbs and hindlimbs in terrestrial tetrapods (4 legged land mammals).
We have both the fossil record and the genetics supporting fish->tetrapod.
He is attempting to find fault with evidence for evolution, not provide evidence against it. But he leaves out that reproductions of Miller's exp with revised early-earth conditions have also produced biomolecules. He quotes scientists, but does not bother to explain the context of their comments. And as usual, he proceeds from the assumption that if evolution with its ample supporting evidence is a false model, then Biblical Creation must be correct, despite nonexistant evidence.
@ashokupad "He is attempting to find fault with evidence for evolution, not provide evidence against it."
I could say the same about you. You are attempting to find fault with the evidence for intelligent design, not provide evidence against it. neo-darwinian evolution is just that. An attempt to disprove creation by providing an unproven alternative to it. The majority of the evidence that CAN support evolution also supports creation.
@Copsweet In answer to (2 years late, sorry): "Genuine question to the athiest community,if you acknowledge that life could not have spontaneously generated(correct me if i'm wrong,just seems to be the gist i get from most of the posts) Is there a theory around to give a possible explanation as to how life itself arose/arrived whatever on earth? Genuine question guys,not trying to diss anyone"...
Try a book called 'The Origins of Life' by Maynard Smith and Szathmary.
Strobel: "Skeptics: Can you think of one example of a mutation that has caused a true increase in genetic complexity? Evolution would require billions of them. Can you name just one?"
Skeptic: Yes. Any gene duplication will increase genetic complexity in terms of genome size (i.e. it gets bigger), and if both copies continue to function they can potentially take on different roles, hence increasing complexity. It's a big subject, try typing 'gene duplication' into Google Scholar.
What has this video got to do with Darwin? His theory was about evolution, not the origin of life. Life is a prerequisite for evolution (depending on your definition of life...), and I seem to remember in one of Darwin's letters he said that he didn't want to touch the subject of life's origins. Not sure whether that's because he thought it was too difficult, or because he was a devout Christian. Maybe he just thought it was too political?
@KL8NHAJJ150N "The origin of life has everything to do with Darwin" So what? It hasn't to do with evolution, which is an explanation for how species develop and diversify. Abiogenesis is about how life itself develops. Darwin may have speculated on this but it has nothing to do with evolution. YECSers keep tryint to appeal to philosophy or something to try and make this case. It's nothing but a ploy to have their voices heard- on account of being irrelevant.
@ozowen The theory of evolution rests on assumptions and speculation. If the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to the other theories that are built on this assumption? Just as a skyscraper built without a foundation would collapse, a theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.
No, the Theory of Evolution is based on observations and evidence, tested and tried and true. Its foundation is not Abiogenesis, its foundation is a raft of facts coming from a raft of different sciences and a whole lot of experimentation..
That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution. Theory is the high point in science, not some sort of speculation.
@ozowen No, the Theory of adaptation & mutation is based on observations & evidence, tested, tried & true. This can't be confused with neo-Darwinian evolution, a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection. Adaption and mutations have been observed but bacteria still remains bacteria, a finch still remains and finch, a dog still remains a dog and a human still reamins a human. There are limits to how far a species can adapted.
Er no. Predictions can and are made as to where transitional forms will be located in geo strata and then are found. Geo strata fossil layers speak of species transition. (as does genetics and taxonomy). No rabbits in Pre Cambrian period. No mammals even. Transition is the norm.
@ozowen “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." by paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Henry Gee
@KL8NHAJJ150N Henry Gee's response to the misuse of his quote: "I have become somewhat irked lately at the way that some creationists continue to attribute beliefs to me to which I do not subscribe. For example, creationists of the 'intelligent design' tendency have used my book Deep Time (sold in the US as In Search of Deep Time) to suggest that whereas I don't support their views, my own work somehow legitimises them . . ."
@ozowen I never suggested that Henry Gee thought the theory of evolution was wrong. His comments simply show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.
@KL8NHAJJ150N ... and his comments indicate that, taken out of context as it has been- that what he thought is not being represented. It's a handy thing, ripping a quote out of context and attributing meaning not intended by the writer.
A very YECS thing to do. I believe bearing false witness is a sin.
@KL8NHAJJ150N I have a better idea, how about you do that. You offered the quote- derived as it was from a YECS site and, I just bet, one involved in YECS quote mine activities. How about you do the groundwork behind the quote since you delivered it.
As for false witness. You may not have deliberately done so, but I for one am heartily sick of finding YECS misquotes and deliberate changes to quotes. That activity is false witness.
@ozowen Also, I'm not bearing false witness. I never said his statement provide intelligent design, that would be bearing false witness. I am saying that his comments say the fossil record doesn't prove evolution.
@ozowen No. Because I don't feel I did misquote or change his quote. I quoted him just as he said it, in context. You made the accusation, so you back that accusation up.
Just to be clear- I am not accusing you of this, I am however levelling that accusation at the site(s) you derived it from. You chose to quote him, you place the quote in context and decide that it fits or not.
I dunno how often I have seen, for example some YECS source quoting Darwin re fossils or the eye or aboriginal people with a careful selection that, when placed back in context gives the opposite meaning to the one they inferred. Doesn't stop at Darwin either.
@baileyrichard0 In a letter he wrote to a college named Joseph Hooker he speculated and I quote. "All the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present."
@baileyrichard0 But if we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat & electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
@mikebForJesus micro evolution is changes within the population through mutation and natural selection, eventually the changes become so radical that the first specie looks nothing like the current.
Few of the changes are mutational. Reproductive trait shuffling is already present in genomes, particularly during "crossover" of meiosis. Lot of variety already programmed in.
I'm willing to entertain suggestions for mutation-caused changes. I am genuinely interested to know the ratio of mutated vs inherent variety.
Amino acids were produced intelligently, but we don't know conclusively they can arise naturally, and proteins are far more complex. The amino acid combo and 3D folding is critical to protein function.
You're Jewish? What a blessing to be of the race unto whom were committed the oracles of God! (Romans 3:1,2)
It's a sure sign of dishonesty when instead of trying to make your case scientifically, via objective means you make it by trying to convince the most credulous, uneducated people based on cherry picked evidence and your own personal reckonings.
it would much better if christians try to prove dat adam and eve wer real people coz without thr disobedience to god,thr is no original sin,no fall of man and no need for god to send his son to redeem the world,the entire genealogy of jesus dat begins from adam gets ruined and falsified,the entire christian religion is dismantled into pieces by evolutionary theory
Why do creationist continuously refer to Darwin? Our understanding of evolution in the 21st century would totally blow his mind if he saw what we know now. Its not Darwin's anymore. Strobel fails.
What an idiot. Even if evolution was proven to be false tomorrow, it wouldn't say anything about the existence of any god. This guy is a complete moron.
I have to say he is only arguing the start of life which is still up to debate and many scientists agree they dont know only theorize. But evolution is real. Mutations occurs all the time looks at the swine flu and avion flu. The domestic dog. Started as a wolf.
@sunshine9672 im sorry. who do you know that lives over 120 years. the idea of human evolution is five million years. But more recent. lets say dog evolution. Looks at all the breeds of dog. And why do humans have a tailbone? wisdom teeth? could it be from reptilian ancestry?
@yodudespence You should have your coccyx remove and you would probably understand why you have one when sitting. A Darwinian atheistic evolutionary creation is all rooted in old paganism beliefs in witchcraft magic.
@yodudespence Evolution claims that at one point all the breed of dogs came from a rock. Is that better, I don't think so. The tail bone is necessary for the muscles attached to it to perform a function. There is no way the earth is that old. Because evolution can not be observed. They keep making the age of the earth older by the billions, in order to try and justify that new info. does not add onto the genome. I know humans don't live that much any more. I'm going to share some info. with you.
@sunshine9672 fine. that is an empty argument. the very very beginning. who knows. but the argument is if evolution exist at all is the argument. im telling you it is showing up today. there was some recent discover on lizard evolution in california. just one example. some lizards of one species moved into a new area and changed so much that when they bred with their similiar subspecie the offspring could not reproduce. only the new breed could reproduce with its own.
@sunshine9672 chill out not done watching the first one yet. there is one thing he missed. the morals. animals have morals. most do not go after their own. it would be bad for any species existence to murder their own. Morals could simply be an evolutionary development to protect a species. put it this way if we had a society based on murder. What would happen to our population?
This is an example of speciation. It demonstrates already existing potential for genetic variation within a kind - no mutations required. It can be reversed within limitations (ligers, wolphins, etc.). For the most part, it's a one-way road. Wolves could be selectively bred over generations to get chihuahuas, but not the reverse.
No, rather a kind consists of the sum of inherent variability - the existing ability for a "kind" to differentiate within limits (different alleles, not genes) for which mutations are not necessary. Example: Wolves, coyotes, dingos, foxes, chihuahuas and poodles all descend from the dog kind.
To go from a cell to a man WOULD require mutational evolution, but they don't happen frequently enough, in a related manner, or in the right direction for this.
@mikebForJesus Hi MikeB. Just wondering how you believe different alleles come about if not by mutation? Mutation happens a lot, and scientists have been estimating the mutation rate in various species in the last 15 years or so. In one study the number of mutations were directly counted in fruit flies, and came to just under 2 mutations per individual. In another study, 16% of mutations in a virus were shown to be beneficial when the viruses were initially low fitness.
We could assume it's from reptilian ancestry, but it's never been observed. I know the theory includes millions of years, but that puts it out of reach of observation.
@mikebForJesus you know for someone who bases their lif on faith you sure seem to put not even 100th of it to evolution. there is way more evidence to back evolution than creationism. Im not saying god isn't real or jesus. im saying evolution is. and many christians actually believe in evolution. maybe you take the bible too literally. cause ui can tell you this. the earth is not 6000 years old.
I had faith in Jesus, even when I used to accept the possibility of evolution. Evidence not in the textbooks made me reconsider and ultimately reject evolution on both biblical and scientific grounds.
took ya awhile to respond to me. I don't know what evidence you need to accept evolution. How about nylon eating bacteria? was there alot of nylon in the garden of eden?
Sorry - computers goin' mighty slow & some comments are being marked as spam.
Nylon is a hydrocarbon & bacteria can adapt to alternate food sources. A certain generation of Lenski's e-coli switched to citrate from ribose (a trade, vs a gain). I accept that beneficial mutations are theoretically possible, but if they occur, they are grossly outnumbered by harmful ones (about 1000:1).
Another problem with a proposed, mutational mechanism is relatedness. To go from fin to foot requires many, related, hox gene mutations. Probability of just three, related mutations is 1:10^21. Atoms in the universe: 10^80.
Mathematicians tend to reject mutation as a driving mechanism for evolution.
@mikebForJesus Before the advent of modern dentistry and surgical techniques wisdom teeth were a death sentence for a lot of people. A slow agonising one at that. Did god create them that way and why?
@mikebForJesus So were their pathogens before the fall? If God created everything in the creation week were there viruses and bacteria? Before death came into the world did spiders spin webs?
There are good bacteria. I assume all were good at that time.
Same with viruses, which are not really alive. May have served as good, gene transposing molecules. Or are they simply renegade RNA, arising only after the curse? Thorns didn't even exist, so things changed significantly.
@mikebForJesus Wisdom teeth were a fairly common form of infection. Think of all the people around you now who had to get theirs out. They are only diet related in that anthropologists believe they are left over from a time when our ancestors ate coarser foods needing a lot of chewing.
If some societies suffer little malady from them even now, when their diet is a certain composition, I fail to see a "vestigal" argument. Our modern dietary behavior could be causing an affliction that could be largely reversed with a dietary modification.
I'd love to see a study (or even statistical, anecdotal evidence) to determine a relationship, if any. Okinawans eat 80% vegetable diets - their longevity is sky-high; let's check their wisdom teeth stats.
@mikebForJesus It's not about dietary behaviour. Our jaws are too small for these teeth. Can't find numbers on the actual mortality rates but that's beside the point. You have a structure that you insist is intelligently designed. If it is then it's a very poor design. Once again if you want to get an idea of how many people died or had complications from their wisdom teeth look around you. How many people had to get them removed? I had to.
I had mine out as well. But what if since childhood we had eaten 80% vegetables, nuts and hard-stuff in our diet (Garden of Eden-like)? If you like, search on "Live Science Von Cramon-Taubadel Ancient Diet Shift" for a short article discussing it.
@mikebForJesus You have also got to give a reason why these teeth so often develop in jaws that are to small to accommodate them. Anthropology, evolutionary biology and genetics give good explanations for this phenomena.
You may have hit the crux of the problem with jaw size. Some articles are indicating that diet can affect jaw-size development. High veg/chew diets may lead to a bigger jaw as a child develops, allowing room for the extra teeth.
Just because there is a gap in human knowledge does not mean that the gap can be filled in with God. there was a time when no one could explain the cause for lighting, rain, thunder, etc, so they thought God did it. But, now that we know the reason for these things, we have no reason to believe God did it. I think the same will be true of abiogenesis.
@LindseyTorres According to Darwinian atheist theologian Dawkins, Natural Selection did it. ''Designoid objects look designed, so much so that some people – probably, alas, most people – think that they are designed. These people are wrong. . . the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very different.’'
An excellent post. You took the words right out of my mouth. It seems that all theists have these days is gaps to focus on. They have no direct evidence of any god.
This is Strobel at his best, evidently, basing his arguments on an experiment from half a century ago. If he read modern science journals, he'd realize there are *much* more convincing versions of the Stanley Miller experiment since then.
He's also still touting Behe's bacterial flagellum example, which was scientifically demolished in the Dover, PA court case, many years ago.
Not really. The dover counter argument by Dr. Miller requires pre-adaptation, which requires sequential coincidence - without the screening process of natural selection. Once probabilities go below 1:10^40, mathematicians generally assign them to the impossible.
@hellcoldfire if you're being sincere go watch some AronRa. I can't think of the specific video but he addresses this position and offers plenty of examples. There is a clear fossil record of humans evolving from more "apelike" species if you take the time to look. We didn't descend from modern apes. Both modern apes and humans share an ancestor and evolved down different paths. Also, id make a point to not start claims with "or whatever darwin claims", it implies you dont know his claims.
(cont'd again...) that resembles evolution, that he placed vestigial organs on their bodies, in a manner that resembles evolution, that he placed fossils in the ground in a sequence that resembles evolution, that he made the genome of every plant and animal on earth resemble evolution, and that he made the anatomy of every plant and animal on earth LOOK like it came from a shared common ancestor with other plants and animals. Of course, this hypothesis points to a god deceptive, wicked and weak.
I encourage a look at the physical evidence (no artist renderings included). What have you really seen? The speculation in textbooks appalls me as a student of science.
Have you looked at any of the evidence that seems to strongly suggest that the geo column is conceptual only and that evolution is highly unlikely.
(cont'd...) evidence, coming from six divergent areas of scientific research, all of which converge on evolution; an occurance that can only reasonably exist if evolution is, in fact, true. It is still just a belief, though, as is EVERY LAST BELIEF IN ALL OF SCIENCE, to include, gravity, electronics and the belief that the sun is at the center of the solar system. The only alternate hypothesis is that a supernatural being distributed plant and animal species all around the world in a manner...
Haha! This guy couldn't possibly have a worse understanding of evolution. This is a picture-perfect example of a guy talking out of the side of his neck.
@alexthasy Evolution is a theory that was proposed by Charles Darwin which describes a body of evidence thousands of years in the making. It holds nothing sacred, it doesn't insist that anything is true, it holds no belief or disbelief in the supernatural, it corresponds to no holy book, its proponents hold no meetings, have no creed and worship a collection of different gods. People who understand it know that it is the best description offered so far for millions of independent pieces of...
@RCRhythm You are wrong on that that evolution does not rely on the supernatural. Natural selection is a myth borrowed to Greek paganism and vested as a law of science and would have been given the mandate to lead a single cell through billions of years of magical voodoo evolution turning it in a multitude of exquisitely designed species. She is just one more goddess worshiped through the dead fossils exposed in Darwinian cathedrals and used to promote the evolutionary fairy tale
@RCRhythm I have been brainwashed in evolution just like anyone else. It became the only cult taught in the school system from when I started high school. I wanted to believe in it in order to have a free license on immorality along with the conviction that death would be final. I was not able to look at species as not being intelligently designed to excuse that they could be the result of a Darwinian atheistic evolutionary fluke. There is no evolutionary biology. It is an absurd myth
You were brainwashed because you don't know how to think for yourself. Associating evolution with some sort of license to immorality is pretty good evidence of that.
There is evolutionary biology, and your claims to the contrary spoken in any language you like will amopunt to nothing. Creationism is a dead science and has been disproven.
@ozowen Sure, God sent Darwin as a prophet to unite atheists and theists under the truth of evolution and since. God does not like anyone rejecting the truth so believing in a Darwinian evolutionary creation is now essential to be pleasant in HIS sight. Darwin is the new prophet and natural selection is like the Virgin Mary in the Roman Church
@ozowen You are the one claiming that I am a liar for not believing in a Darwinian evolutionary creation. You also claim believing in God and since God does not care for liars one of us is in trouble.
@alexthasy "You are the one claiming that I am a liar for not believing in a Darwinian evolutionary creation" This is a lie. I claim you are a liar cos you say things like that, cos you accuse scientists of fraud without an ounce of proof, cos you distort peoples' words. You are right, one of us will face judgement for their lies. You are indeed in trouble.
@ozowen You are distorting reality with your Darwinian conjectural bullshit. Seeing through Saint Lucy or the holy relics supporting the absurd land mammals ----> whales evolution should be easy for anyone left with a a minimum ability to think for himself. God will punish me for not believing in an old defrocked protestant priest rewriting of genesis, very funny.
Still failing to respond. You are a liar, a fool and a troll. You never respond. Why not? I pull your logic apart- you jjust repeat the same inane tripe over and opver.
I show your lies- you justify them by saying it's OK to lie about evolution and repeat your lies.
You are a low life, a liar, a fool, an irrational moron and an utter, utter bastard.
@alexthasy My favorite part about arguing with religious people is that in order to make evolution seem absurd, they translate the language to religious terminology. Saint Lucy, the prophet Darwin, Faith of Evolution, etc. I think that is the funniest part of it all.
@thelordmemnoch You don't seem to understand the religiosity of your cult and its reliance on magic to support the miracle of the creation of the species. Darwinism is an inane religious belief masquerading as a science, vesting its main goddess of natural selection as a law of science and using conjectures and pseudo-scientific gibberish to sell the occult atheistic evolutionary journey of a single cell evolving into a multitude of species
@srexob715 Are you Majoratheist or just one more mindless stalker rooting for his great prophet Darwin and your great goddess of natural selection? Saint Lucy mother ape of humanity and the equivalent of the Virgin Mary mother of God in the Roman cult loves sucker like yourself
@thelordmemnoch Darwinian atheist theologians Rev Dawkins pretension that species are designoids that look designed bur are not since they owe their good look to the atheistic myth of a Darwinian natural selection is pretty well redefining the absurd. And all the sheepling say amen to that priest at the top of your cult hierarchy. type designoid on youtube search engine and hear the asinine crap for yourself
@thelordmemnoch Vesting the goddess of natural selection as a law of science and the gospel of Darwin of a voodoo evolutionary creation as a scientific thesis is very deceptive. Darwinism should start calling its preachers priests or reverends
@alexthasy You should really write a book, bro. You have an awesome imagination. You aren't going to convince me that you are serious in what you say as you are an obvious troll, but it's real funny and imaginative stuff. Autograph your first book for me please. Just IM me when you are done writing it.
@thelordmemnoch Being called imaginative by someone believing in fairy tales of land mammals magically, atheistically and orderly altering organs and limbs and evolving into whales upon crossing millions of years and several species is quite ironic. Mind you you were suckered in believing in that phantasmagoric bullshit. Calling unbelievers in your cult TROLL is your best argument in defending your moronic cult you call a science.
@alexthasy Wait, you are the one that believes in talking snakes, talking donkeys, water to wine, unicorns and ghosts and you say science is a fairy tale? This is too rich. You might want to look up the word "cult" as it applies to religion, not to science. Nice try, troll.
@thelordmemnoch Darwinism is just one more cult masquerading as a science and calling on a goddess worshiped in old Greek paganism vesting her as a law of science and having her taking a single cell through a voodoo atheistic creation is an inane, imbecilic fairy tale. Call it science all you want, that bullshit is not even bad science fiction
@alexthasy You really don't know what you're talking about. I feel sorry for adults who cannot seem to grasp the harsh realities of existence and so need to rely on fairy tales for comfort. I'm not sure if you are such a person, but judging by your post, I'd say that you are (although I admit I could be wrong).
@vinegarthomas You should read the fairy tale on land mammals magically altering organs and limbs and turning into whales upon crossing millions of years and numerous species. That atheist voodoo magic is a mind bugger.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. There are xians who believe in evolution. And there are atheists who do not believe in it. In any case, even assuming that evolution is false, this says nothing about a god. Most xians know this but use it as a red herring to focus on because they can put forth no evidence whatsoever of their magical sky daddy.
@vinegarthomas You should read Darwinian atheist theologians Dawkins and Sagan. Even those belonging to the theist sect of Darwin are keeping God out of the process of a Darwinian evolutionary creation. The atheist elite contemporary to Darwin received natural selection as what would put the last nail on the coffin of a creator God.
@thelordmemnoch Be careful on calling him a troll. He will just falsely report you for being a stalker. Its sad that they stoop to that level of the truth hurting them in such a way, but so be it.
@thelordmemnoch Yes, its kind of crazy, huh? Since they believe in things(without evidence), which is called faith, no wonder they are willing to believe in ANYTHING that has no evidence.
@srexob715 Your sucking on oxymoronic bullshit like that of Darwinian atheist theologian Dawkins claim that species are designoids that look intelligently designed but are not since they owe their great look to the myth of a Darwinian natural selection. The conjectural bullshit supporting your occult concept of an atheistic evolutionary creation is laughable.
I don't accuse most scientists of deliberate fraud, but contend that all historical science evidence is interpretive and inferential, influenced strongly by one's chosen worldview.
@mikebForJesus The evidence is against that as well. I suggest you do two things. Check out YECS leader's claims. Check using non-YECS sources. The rate at which they lie, and lie deliberately is why I abandoned YECS so very avidly.
The other thing is to read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins. He headed the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian and very much accepts evolution.
I'll tell ya straight up that there are YECs whose credibility I question, not because I suspect them of deliberate lies, but that they pounce on evidence and loose interpretations prematurely. And even though I am of a YEC worldview, I probably agree with none of them of them on EVERYTHING. I have, however, read some who put forth really good arguments.
Haven't read Collins' book, but am familiar with it's concepts, as well as Collin's position on evolution. Many a Christian do accept a very old universe, and some of them, evolution. I myself used to accept the possibility of theistic evo.
Science got that part wrong, then found a better answer (as science does), but we can still prove the earth is much older then 6000 years old, infallible word of god is infallible?
Its not a possibility, its well accepted fact with evidence to back it up. The bible says a whole bunch of things that even the most extreme Christians do not agree with. Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that other parts of the book are just as likely to be wrong.
Perhaps looking at some of the specific examples would help. The finding of dino soft tissue is a shocker. Known maximum decay rate of collagen is around 10k years.
Is it hard to accept that a science paradigm could be mistaken? It has happened before.
Well, it's not just that they synthesized amino acids, but the racemic mixture is important as well as the steps they took with their equipment that circumvented natural obstacles that would have been in the way.
Additionally, geo evidence shows earth likely never had a low O2 atmosphere.
Christian fundamentalists are funny! Its amazing that people like this still exist! Even children can see through that stuff. It says a lot about how powerful the brain is at believing whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside because, lets face it, you'd have to ignore ALOT, let alone try and attack something that doesnt fit into their worldview! Particularly something like evolution! Fingers in ears, eyes closed 'LALALALALALALALALA!!!!' lol
@jonpy55 It is so obvious that species were invested with the magical ability to add or grow organs and limbs and evolve into subspecies. Darwinism is also the only cultist belief thought in institution of learning.
Will this mother fucker ever stop yapping to try and convince himself that this bullshit is true?
Resenbrink 1 day ago
@Resenbrink Nice argument
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 day ago
Why doesn't Strobel tell his sheep when Klaus Dose made that statement? I'll tell you why ... because it was made way back in 1988! You know, about 24 years ago!
Things have changed, Strobel.
DNAunion 2 days ago
Why is this video referencing Darwin in the title, when it has nothing to do with him or evolution?
Does someone no understand theory, much.
BurazSC2 4 days ago
Alfred Russel Wallace, British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist (1823 – 1913) - "There are laws of nature but they are purposeful. Everywhere we look we are confronted by power and intelligence."
KL8NHAJJ150N 4 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N
One man's personal opinion, from at least 100 years ago.
DNAunion 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DNAunion "One man's personal opinion, from at least 100 years ago"
Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-founder of the theory of evolution by nature selection with Charles Darwin. So that would mean that the theory of natural selection is also an opinion. He called it "intelligent evolution".
KL8NHAJJ150N 2 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N "He called it "intelligent evolution"."
Sorry it wasn't Alfred that called it intelligent evolution. It was Historian Michael Flannery that described his theory as "intelligent evolution".
KL8NHAJJ150N 2 days ago
An Article in a 09 addition of New Scientist mag entitled, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying in context, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” This is coming from evolutionary scientists & biologists, not me.
KL8NHAJJ150N 5 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N
That deals primarily with the root of the tree: the prokaryotes (and simplest eukaryotes). They undergo much horizontal gene transfer. So the root of the tree is not nice and neat, branching pattern but more of a web - it has both vertical and horizontal transmission of genes.
But the tree of life for vertebrates - what most people are interested in (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) - is still quite valid.
DNAunion 2 days ago
@DNAunion Biologist Malcolm S Gordon, The fossils found for fish and amphibians represent only a small, "possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times. There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other."
KL8NHAJJ150N 2 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N (1 of 3)
---------------------
In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples.
DNAunion 2 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N (2 of 3)
In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.”
-----------------------------
DNAunion 2 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N (3 of 3)
Source: Science, Evolution, and Creationism, Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2008, p11
DNAunion 2 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N
Your quote, like those most Creationists post without giving sources and dates, is outdated. It's from 1999, and so lacks Tiktaalik and other recent finds.
It was also not printed in a strictly scientific journal, but in "Biology and Philosophy".
And, the title that he gave his work was "The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay".
DNAunion 2 days ago
@DNAunion (1 of 2)
Nature: Muddy tetrapod origins, January 7, 2010, "The fish-tetrapod transition was thus seemingly quite well documented. There was a consensus that the divergence between some elpistostegalians (such as Tiktaalik or Panderichthys) and tetrapods might have occurred during the Givetian, 391-385 Myr ago. Coeval with the earliest fossil tetrapods, trackways dating to the Late Devonian were evidence for their ability to walk or crawl on shores."
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 day ago
@DNAunion (2 of 3)
"Niedźwiedzki et al however report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachełmie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree."
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 day ago
@DNAunion (3 of 3)
"The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr."
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 day ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N (1 of 2)
Here's something more recent - 5 years after your quote - from Malcolm S. Gordon. It is from:
The greatest step in vertebrate history: a paleobiological review of the fish-tetrapod transition, Long JA, Gordon MS., Physiol Biochem Zool. 2004 Sep-Oct;77(5):700-19.
DNAunion 2 days ago
@DNAunion Interesting how the fact of evolution is constantly getting updated and revised. Richard Dawkins ones said, “Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun.” Science will never need to update or revise the fact that the sun is hot however when it comes to evolution science is always changing its story in light of new evidence.
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 day ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N - It's not exactly interesting, it's simply how science operates.
Resenbrink 2 hours ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N (2 of 2)
"Recent discoveries of previously unknown fossil forms have dramatically transformed understanding of many aspects of the fish-tetrapod transition. Newer paleobiological approaches have also contributed to changed views of which animals were involved and when, where, and how the transition occurred."
DNAunion 2 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N
You also appear to be completely ignorant of all the recent studies related to the genetics of pectoral and pelvic fin development in various fishes. Short version is, that it is mostly the same set of executive genes directing the development of pectoral fin and pelvic fins in fish, as direct the development of forelimbs and hindlimbs in terrestrial tetrapods (4 legged land mammals).
We have both the fossil record and the genetics supporting fish->tetrapod.
DNAunion 2 days ago
@DNAunion Scientist again can't get there story straight.
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 day ago
@DNAunion Natures: evolution-evangelism packet, "The discovery and painstaking analysis of Tiktaalik illuminates the stage before tetrapods evolved."
Paleontology seems to me to not be a perfect, reliable science when it comes to determining origins.
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 day ago
He is attempting to find fault with evidence for evolution, not provide evidence against it. But he leaves out that reproductions of Miller's exp with revised early-earth conditions have also produced biomolecules. He quotes scientists, but does not bother to explain the context of their comments. And as usual, he proceeds from the assumption that if evolution with its ample supporting evidence is a false model, then Biblical Creation must be correct, despite nonexistant evidence.
ashokupad 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ashokupad "He is attempting to find fault with evidence for evolution, not provide evidence against it."
I could say the same about you. You are attempting to find fault with the evidence for intelligent design, not provide evidence against it. neo-darwinian evolution is just that. An attempt to disprove creation by providing an unproven alternative to it. The majority of the evidence that CAN support evolution also supports creation.
KL8NHAJJ150N 5 days ago
@alexthasy You can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not the one true God.
gregrutz 6 days ago
Evolution is not about the origin of life, what an IDiot.
gregrutz 6 days ago
It's more likely there's evidence against the existence of Lee Strobel
GLANL 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Copsweet In answer to (2 years late, sorry): "Genuine question to the athiest community,if you acknowledge that life could not have spontaneously generated(correct me if i'm wrong,just seems to be the gist i get from most of the posts) Is there a theory around to give a possible explanation as to how life itself arose/arrived whatever on earth? Genuine question guys,not trying to diss anyone"...
Try a book called 'The Origins of Life' by Maynard Smith and Szathmary.
baileyrichard0 2 weeks ago
Strobel: "Skeptics: Can you think of one example of a mutation that has caused a true increase in genetic complexity? Evolution would require billions of them. Can you name just one?"
Skeptic: Yes. Any gene duplication will increase genetic complexity in terms of genome size (i.e. it gets bigger), and if both copies continue to function they can potentially take on different roles, hence increasing complexity. It's a big subject, try typing 'gene duplication' into Google Scholar.
baileyrichard0 2 weeks ago
What has this video got to do with Darwin? His theory was about evolution, not the origin of life. Life is a prerequisite for evolution (depending on your definition of life...), and I seem to remember in one of Darwin's letters he said that he didn't want to touch the subject of life's origins. Not sure whether that's because he thought it was too difficult, or because he was a devout Christian. Maybe he just thought it was too political?
baileyrichard0 2 weeks ago
@baileyrichard0 The origin of life has everything to do with Darwin. He did touch on the subject of life's origins from none living chemical matter.
KL8NHAJJ150N 2 weeks ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N "The origin of life has everything to do with Darwin" So what? It hasn't to do with evolution, which is an explanation for how species develop and diversify. Abiogenesis is about how life itself develops. Darwin may have speculated on this but it has nothing to do with evolution. YECSers keep tryint to appeal to philosophy or something to try and make this case. It's nothing but a ploy to have their voices heard- on account of being irrelevant.
ozowen 1 week ago
@ozowen The theory of evolution rests on assumptions and speculation. If the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to the other theories that are built on this assumption? Just as a skyscraper built without a foundation would collapse, a theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 week ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N
No, the Theory of Evolution is based on observations and evidence, tested and tried and true. Its foundation is not Abiogenesis, its foundation is a raft of facts coming from a raft of different sciences and a whole lot of experimentation..
That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution. Theory is the high point in science, not some sort of speculation.
ozowen 6 days ago
@ozowen No, the Theory of adaptation & mutation is based on observations & evidence, tested, tried & true. This can't be confused with neo-Darwinian evolution, a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection. Adaption and mutations have been observed but bacteria still remains bacteria, a finch still remains and finch, a dog still remains a dog and a human still reamins a human. There are limits to how far a species can adapted.
KL8NHAJJ150N 6 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N
Er no. Predictions can and are made as to where transitional forms will be located in geo strata and then are found. Geo strata fossil layers speak of species transition. (as does genetics and taxonomy). No rabbits in Pre Cambrian period. No mammals even. Transition is the norm.
Special Creation has zero evidence.
ozowen 6 days ago
@ozowen “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." by paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Henry Gee
KL8NHAJJ150N 6 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N Henry Gee's response to the misuse of his quote: "I have become somewhat irked lately at the way that some creationists continue to attribute beliefs to me to which I do not subscribe. For example, creationists of the 'intelligent design' tendency have used my book Deep Time (sold in the US as In Search of Deep Time) to suggest that whereas I don't support their views, my own work somehow legitimises them . . ."
ozowen 6 days ago
@ozowen I never suggested that Henry Gee thought the theory of evolution was wrong. His comments simply show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.
KL8NHAJJ150N 6 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N ... and his comments indicate that, taken out of context as it has been- that what he thought is not being represented. It's a handy thing, ripping a quote out of context and attributing meaning not intended by the writer.
A very YECS thing to do. I believe bearing false witness is a sin.
ozowen 6 days ago
@ozowen If it has been taken out of context reveal to me what he really ment by his statement.
KL8NHAJJ150N 6 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N I have a better idea, how about you do that. You offered the quote- derived as it was from a YECS site and, I just bet, one involved in YECS quote mine activities. How about you do the groundwork behind the quote since you delivered it.
As for false witness. You may not have deliberately done so, but I for one am heartily sick of finding YECS misquotes and deliberate changes to quotes. That activity is false witness.
ozowen 6 days ago
@ozowen BTW. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist. Again your making untrue assumptions about me.
KL8NHAJJ150N 6 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N
Yup, I note you appear to be an ID'er. Makes little difference. ID has been fairly influenced by the YECS agenda and a lot of their techniques.
ozowen 6 days ago
@ozowen Also, I'm not bearing false witness. I never said his statement provide intelligent design, that would be bearing false witness. I am saying that his comments say the fossil record doesn't prove evolution.
KL8NHAJJ150N 6 days ago
@ozowen No. Because I don't feel I did misquote or change his quote. I quoted him just as he said it, in context. You made the accusation, so you back that accusation up.
KL8NHAJJ150N 6 days ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N
Just to be clear- I am not accusing you of this, I am however levelling that accusation at the site(s) you derived it from. You chose to quote him, you place the quote in context and decide that it fits or not.
I dunno how often I have seen, for example some YECS source quoting Darwin re fossils or the eye or aboriginal people with a careful selection that, when placed back in context gives the opposite meaning to the one they inferred. Doesn't stop at Darwin either.
ozowen 6 days ago
@baileyrichard0 In a letter he wrote to a college named Joseph Hooker he speculated and I quote. "All the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present."
KL8NHAJJ150N 2 weeks ago
@baileyrichard0 But if we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat & electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
KL8NHAJJ150N 2 weeks ago
Macro evolution is just micro evolution with more time applied, pretty simple concept to grasp.
dominatorN4 2 weeks ago
@dominatorN4
Hi Dom,
Example of micro evolution?
mikebForJesus 2 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus micro evolution is changes within the population through mutation and natural selection, eventually the changes become so radical that the first specie looks nothing like the current.
dominatorN4 2 weeks ago
@dominatorN4
Few of the changes are mutational. Reproductive trait shuffling is already present in genomes, particularly during "crossover" of meiosis. Lot of variety already programmed in.
I'm willing to entertain suggestions for mutation-caused changes. I am genuinely interested to know the ratio of mutated vs inherent variety.
mikebForJesus 2 weeks ago
amino acids..... life comes from non-life....
MrJonasimage 3 weeks ago
@thejewishagnostic
Amino acids were produced intelligently, but we don't know conclusively they can arise naturally, and proteins are far more complex. The amino acid combo and 3D folding is critical to protein function.
You're Jewish? What a blessing to be of the race unto whom were committed the oracles of God! (Romans 3:1,2)
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
yodudespence 3 weeks ago
It's a sure sign of dishonesty when instead of trying to make your case scientifically, via objective means you make it by trying to convince the most credulous, uneducated people based on cherry picked evidence and your own personal reckonings.
rogan71 3 weeks ago
Who's this Strobel bloke?
kafkazinho 3 weeks ago
what's the evidence he promised?
Meskiagkasher 3 weeks ago
it would much better if christians try to prove dat adam and eve wer real people coz without thr disobedience to god,thr is no original sin,no fall of man and no need for god to send his son to redeem the world,the entire genealogy of jesus dat begins from adam gets ruined and falsified,the entire christian religion is dismantled into pieces by evolutionary theory
thescorpionking2020 3 weeks ago
the same old 'argument of ignorance' zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
doktorotter 1 month ago
Why do creationist continuously refer to Darwin? Our understanding of evolution in the 21st century would totally blow his mind if he saw what we know now. Its not Darwin's anymore. Strobel fails.
vas13xtq 1 month ago
I feel brain cells dying when I watch creationist and and Bible-thumpers....
ghastin1 1 month ago
I killed the dislike button...... and my mouse.
DarkMind95 1 month ago
What an idiot. Even if evolution was proven to be false tomorrow, it wouldn't say anything about the existence of any god. This guy is a complete moron.
vinegarthomas 1 month ago
I have to say he is only arguing the start of life which is still up to debate and many scientists agree they dont know only theorize. But evolution is real. Mutations occurs all the time looks at the swine flu and avion flu. The domestic dog. Started as a wolf.
yodudespence 1 month ago
@yodudespence mutations do not add information to the genome. It has never been observed.
sunshine9672 1 month ago
@sunshine9672 im sorry. who do you know that lives over 120 years. the idea of human evolution is five million years. But more recent. lets say dog evolution. Looks at all the breeds of dog. And why do humans have a tailbone? wisdom teeth? could it be from reptilian ancestry?
yodudespence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yodudespence You should have your coccyx remove and you would probably understand why you have one when sitting. A Darwinian atheistic evolutionary creation is all rooted in old paganism beliefs in witchcraft magic.
alexthasy 1 month ago
@yodudespence Evolution claims that at one point all the breed of dogs came from a rock. Is that better, I don't think so. The tail bone is necessary for the muscles attached to it to perform a function. There is no way the earth is that old. Because evolution can not be observed. They keep making the age of the earth older by the billions, in order to try and justify that new info. does not add onto the genome. I know humans don't live that much any more. I'm going to share some info. with you.
sunshine9672 1 month ago
@sunshine9672 fine. that is an empty argument. the very very beginning. who knows. but the argument is if evolution exist at all is the argument. im telling you it is showing up today. there was some recent discover on lizard evolution in california. just one example. some lizards of one species moved into a new area and changed so much that when they bred with their similiar subspecie the offspring could not reproduce. only the new breed could reproduce with its own.
yodudespence 1 month ago
@yodudespence I sent you a lot of info. I guess you did not look at it.
sunshine9672 1 month ago
@sunshine9672 chill out not done watching the first one yet. there is one thing he missed. the morals. animals have morals. most do not go after their own. it would be bad for any species existence to murder their own. Morals could simply be an evolutionary development to protect a species. put it this way if we had a society based on murder. What would happen to our population?
yodudespence 1 month ago
@yodudespence animals operate on instinct. They are not evil. People are.
sunshine9672 2 weeks ago
@yodudespence
This is an example of speciation. It demonstrates already existing potential for genetic variation within a kind - no mutations required. It can be reversed within limitations (ligers, wolphins, etc.). For the most part, it's a one-way road. Wolves could be selectively bred over generations to get chihuahuas, but not the reverse.
Key is "within a kind".
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus so what we evolved from could be within a kind?
yodudespence 3 weeks ago
@yodudespence
No, rather a kind consists of the sum of inherent variability - the existing ability for a "kind" to differentiate within limits (different alleles, not genes) for which mutations are not necessary. Example: Wolves, coyotes, dingos, foxes, chihuahuas and poodles all descend from the dog kind.
To go from a cell to a man WOULD require mutational evolution, but they don't happen frequently enough, in a related manner, or in the right direction for this.
mikebForJesus 2 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus Hi MikeB. Just wondering how you believe different alleles come about if not by mutation? Mutation happens a lot, and scientists have been estimating the mutation rate in various species in the last 15 years or so. In one study the number of mutations were directly counted in fruit flies, and came to just under 2 mutations per individual. In another study, 16% of mutations in a virus were shown to be beneficial when the viruses were initially low fitness.
baileyrichard0 2 weeks ago
@yodudespence
We could assume it's from reptilian ancestry, but it's never been observed. I know the theory includes millions of years, but that puts it out of reach of observation.
mikebForJesus 1 month ago
@mikebForJesus you know for someone who bases their lif on faith you sure seem to put not even 100th of it to evolution. there is way more evidence to back evolution than creationism. Im not saying god isn't real or jesus. im saying evolution is. and many christians actually believe in evolution. maybe you take the bible too literally. cause ui can tell you this. the earth is not 6000 years old.
yodudespence 1 month ago
@yodudespence
I had faith in Jesus, even when I used to accept the possibility of evolution. Evidence not in the textbooks made me reconsider and ultimately reject evolution on both biblical and scientific grounds.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
took ya awhile to respond to me. I don't know what evidence you need to accept evolution. How about nylon eating bacteria? was there alot of nylon in the garden of eden?
yodudespence 3 weeks ago
@yodudespence
Sorry - computers goin' mighty slow & some comments are being marked as spam.
Nylon is a hydrocarbon & bacteria can adapt to alternate food sources. A certain generation of Lenski's e-coli switched to citrate from ribose (a trade, vs a gain). I accept that beneficial mutations are theoretically possible, but if they occur, they are grossly outnumbered by harmful ones (about 1000:1).
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus can you name a few harmful mutations?
yodudespence 3 weeks ago
@yodudespence
Down Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, color blindness, sickle-cell anemia.
Search on "genetic disorders" for more.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
@yodudespence,
Another problem with a proposed, mutational mechanism is relatedness. To go from fin to foot requires many, related, hox gene mutations. Probability of just three, related mutations is 1:10^21. Atoms in the universe: 10^80.
Mathematicians tend to reject mutation as a driving mechanism for evolution.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
@yodudespence
Apparently, wisdom teeth are functional, with few problems in societies with sufficient vegetable diet content.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus Before the advent of modern dentistry and surgical techniques wisdom teeth were a death sentence for a lot of people. A slow agonising one at that. Did god create them that way and why?
ptango101 3 weeks ago
@ptango101
What was the frequency of occurrence? Was it diet-related?
No, God did not create them that way, He cursed creation that way after our sin - thorns, thistles, hard work, painful childbirth, suffering.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus So were their pathogens before the fall? If God created everything in the creation week were there viruses and bacteria? Before death came into the world did spiders spin webs?
ptango101 3 weeks ago
@ptango101
There are good bacteria. I assume all were good at that time.
Same with viruses, which are not really alive. May have served as good, gene transposing molecules. Or are they simply renegade RNA, arising only after the curse? Thorns didn't even exist, so things changed significantly.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus So are you saying that the bad bacteria came later? Does that mean Adam didn't have an immune system?
ptango101 3 weeks ago
@ptango101
No, it means he didn't have a belly button. I'm kidding. I could only speculate.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus Wisdom teeth were a fairly common form of infection. Think of all the people around you now who had to get theirs out. They are only diet related in that anthropologists believe they are left over from a time when our ancestors ate coarser foods needing a lot of chewing.
ptango101 3 weeks ago
@ptango101
How common?
If some societies suffer little malady from them even now, when their diet is a certain composition, I fail to see a "vestigal" argument. Our modern dietary behavior could be causing an affliction that could be largely reversed with a dietary modification.
I'd love to see a study (or even statistical, anecdotal evidence) to determine a relationship, if any. Okinawans eat 80% vegetable diets - their longevity is sky-high; let's check their wisdom teeth stats.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
My bad - spelled "vestigial" vs vestigal
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus It's not about dietary behaviour. Our jaws are too small for these teeth. Can't find numbers on the actual mortality rates but that's beside the point. You have a structure that you insist is intelligently designed. If it is then it's a very poor design. Once again if you want to get an idea of how many people died or had complications from their wisdom teeth look around you. How many people had to get them removed? I had to.
ptango101 3 weeks ago
@ptango101
I had mine out as well. But what if since childhood we had eaten 80% vegetables, nuts and hard-stuff in our diet (Garden of Eden-like)? If you like, search on "Live Science Von Cramon-Taubadel Ancient Diet Shift" for a short article discussing it.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikebForJesus "Okinawans eat 80% vegetable diets - their longevity is sky-high; let's check their wisdom teeth stats."????? Can you say red herring
ptango101 3 weeks ago
@mikebForJesus You have also got to give a reason why these teeth so often develop in jaws that are to small to accommodate them. Anthropology, evolutionary biology and genetics give good explanations for this phenomena.
ptango101 3 weeks ago
@ptango101
[jaw size...wisdom teeth]
You may have hit the crux of the problem with jaw size. Some articles are indicating that diet can affect jaw-size development. High veg/chew diets may lead to a bigger jaw as a child develops, allowing room for the extra teeth.
mikebForJesus 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
dongwonderful16 1 month ago
Just because there is a gap in human knowledge does not mean that the gap can be filled in with God. there was a time when no one could explain the cause for lighting, rain, thunder, etc, so they thought God did it. But, now that we know the reason for these things, we have no reason to believe God did it. I think the same will be true of abiogenesis.
LindseyTorres 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LindseyTorres According to Darwinian atheist theologian Dawkins, Natural Selection did it. ''Designoid objects look designed, so much so that some people – probably, alas, most people – think that they are designed. These people are wrong. . . the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very different.’'
alexthasy 1 month ago
@LindseyTorres
An excellent post. You took the words right out of my mouth. It seems that all theists have these days is gaps to focus on. They have no direct evidence of any god.
vinegarthomas 1 month ago
So beacuse we cant explain it with todays evidence, god did it? that is som shady logic...
ebm93nor 2 months ago
This is Strobel at his best, evidently, basing his arguments on an experiment from half a century ago. If he read modern science journals, he'd realize there are *much* more convincing versions of the Stanley Miller experiment since then.
He's also still touting Behe's bacterial flagellum example, which was scientifically demolished in the Dover, PA court case, many years ago.
Sad.
paulinator61 2 months ago
@paulinator61
[Behe's example demolished]
Not really. The dover counter argument by Dr. Miller requires pre-adaptation, which requires sequential coincidence - without the screening process of natural selection. Once probabilities go below 1:10^40, mathematicians generally assign them to the impossible.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
Yup he convinced me, you can't explain the origin of the first cell, so Allan must of done it. Hes arguing for Allan isn't he??
truckcompany 2 months ago
Question: If humans are result of million years of evolution from monkeys(or whatever darwin claims)
Why can't we find the fossils of in-between ape and human species why do we only find fossils of complete species either a human or a monkey?
I'm sorry but if you claim science is always correct then science also requires proofs not theoretical data.
Another anti-darwin theory believer
hellcoldfire 2 months ago
@hellcoldfire if you're being sincere go watch some AronRa. I can't think of the specific video but he addresses this position and offers plenty of examples. There is a clear fossil record of humans evolving from more "apelike" species if you take the time to look. We didn't descend from modern apes. Both modern apes and humans share an ancestor and evolved down different paths. Also, id make a point to not start claims with "or whatever darwin claims", it implies you dont know his claims.
RisqueRooster 2 months ago
(cont'd again...) that resembles evolution, that he placed vestigial organs on their bodies, in a manner that resembles evolution, that he placed fossils in the ground in a sequence that resembles evolution, that he made the genome of every plant and animal on earth resemble evolution, and that he made the anatomy of every plant and animal on earth LOOK like it came from a shared common ancestor with other plants and animals. Of course, this hypothesis points to a god deceptive, wicked and weak.
RCRhythm 2 months ago
@RCRhythm
Hi RC,
I encourage a look at the physical evidence (no artist renderings included). What have you really seen? The speculation in textbooks appalls me as a student of science.
Have you looked at any of the evidence that seems to strongly suggest that the geo column is conceptual only and that evolution is highly unlikely.
mikebForJesus 1 month ago
(cont'd...) evidence, coming from six divergent areas of scientific research, all of which converge on evolution; an occurance that can only reasonably exist if evolution is, in fact, true. It is still just a belief, though, as is EVERY LAST BELIEF IN ALL OF SCIENCE, to include, gravity, electronics and the belief that the sun is at the center of the solar system. The only alternate hypothesis is that a supernatural being distributed plant and animal species all around the world in a manner...
RCRhythm 2 months ago
Haha! This guy couldn't possibly have a worse understanding of evolution. This is a picture-perfect example of a guy talking out of the side of his neck.
RCRhythm 2 months ago
@RCRhythm Evolution cannot be understood. Like any other religious belief relying on the mythical, It needs believing in
alexthasy 2 months ago
@alexthasy Evolution is a theory that was proposed by Charles Darwin which describes a body of evidence thousands of years in the making. It holds nothing sacred, it doesn't insist that anything is true, it holds no belief or disbelief in the supernatural, it corresponds to no holy book, its proponents hold no meetings, have no creed and worship a collection of different gods. People who understand it know that it is the best description offered so far for millions of independent pieces of...
RCRhythm 2 months ago
@RCRhythm You are wrong on that that evolution does not rely on the supernatural. Natural selection is a myth borrowed to Greek paganism and vested as a law of science and would have been given the mandate to lead a single cell through billions of years of magical voodoo evolution turning it in a multitude of exquisitely designed species. She is just one more goddess worshiped through the dead fossils exposed in Darwinian cathedrals and used to promote the evolutionary fairy tale
alexthasy 2 months ago
@alexthasy Yeah, you very obviously haven't taken so much as the junior-high section of an evolutionary biology class.
Thanks for making the rest of the world absorb your ignorance.
RCRhythm 2 months ago
@RCRhythm I have been brainwashed in evolution just like anyone else. It became the only cult taught in the school system from when I started high school. I wanted to believe in it in order to have a free license on immorality along with the conviction that death would be final. I was not able to look at species as not being intelligently designed to excuse that they could be the result of a Darwinian atheistic evolutionary fluke. There is no evolutionary biology. It is an absurd myth
alexthasy 2 months ago
@alexthasy
You were brainwashed because you don't know how to think for yourself. Associating evolution with some sort of license to immorality is pretty good evidence of that.
There is evolutionary biology, and your claims to the contrary spoken in any language you like will amopunt to nothing. Creationism is a dead science and has been disproven.
Sucks to be a loser before you start.
ozowen 2 months ago
@ozowen Sure, God sent Darwin as a prophet to unite atheists and theists under the truth of evolution and since. God does not like anyone rejecting the truth so believing in a Darwinian evolutionary creation is now essential to be pleasant in HIS sight. Darwin is the new prophet and natural selection is like the Virgin Mary in the Roman Church
alexthasy 2 months ago
@alexthasy
That was a new low in the kind of mindless, ranting, irrational and drooling drivel you trot out.
Thank you for that, I had a great chuckle.
ozowen 2 months ago
@ozowen You are the one claiming that I am a liar for not believing in a Darwinian evolutionary creation. You also claim believing in God and since God does not care for liars one of us is in trouble.
alexthasy 2 months ago
@alexthasy "You are the one claiming that I am a liar for not believing in a Darwinian evolutionary creation" This is a lie. I claim you are a liar cos you say things like that, cos you accuse scientists of fraud without an ounce of proof, cos you distort peoples' words. You are right, one of us will face judgement for their lies. You are indeed in trouble.
ozowen 2 months ago
@ozowen You are distorting reality with your Darwinian conjectural bullshit. Seeing through Saint Lucy or the holy relics supporting the absurd land mammals ----> whales evolution should be easy for anyone left with a a minimum ability to think for himself. God will punish me for not believing in an old defrocked protestant priest rewriting of genesis, very funny.
alexthasy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexthasy
Still failing to respond. You are a liar, a fool and a troll. You never respond. Why not? I pull your logic apart- you jjust repeat the same inane tripe over and opver.
I show your lies- you justify them by saying it's OK to lie about evolution and repeat your lies.
You are a low life, a liar, a fool, an irrational moron and an utter, utter bastard.
ozowen 2 months ago
@alexthasy My favorite part about arguing with religious people is that in order to make evolution seem absurd, they translate the language to religious terminology. Saint Lucy, the prophet Darwin, Faith of Evolution, etc. I think that is the funniest part of it all.
thelordmemnoch 2 months ago
@thelordmemnoch You don't seem to understand the religiosity of your cult and its reliance on magic to support the miracle of the creation of the species. Darwinism is an inane religious belief masquerading as a science, vesting its main goddess of natural selection as a law of science and using conjectures and pseudo-scientific gibberish to sell the occult atheistic evolutionary journey of a single cell evolving into a multitude of species
alexthasy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexthasy TROLL! WHAHHA
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Are you Majoratheist or just one more mindless stalker rooting for his great prophet Darwin and your great goddess of natural selection? Saint Lucy mother ape of humanity and the equivalent of the Virgin Mary mother of God in the Roman cult loves sucker like yourself
alexthasy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexthasy Ah, you are a troll. Nobody can be this stupid.
thelordmemnoch 2 months ago
@thelordmemnoch Darwinian atheist theologians Rev Dawkins pretension that species are designoids that look designed bur are not since they owe their good look to the atheistic myth of a Darwinian natural selection is pretty well redefining the absurd. And all the sheepling say amen to that priest at the top of your cult hierarchy. type designoid on youtube search engine and hear the asinine crap for yourself
alexthasy 2 months ago
@alexthasy "Atheist theologians" Ha ha ha.
thelordmemnoch 2 months ago
@thelordmemnoch Vesting the goddess of natural selection as a law of science and the gospel of Darwin of a voodoo evolutionary creation as a scientific thesis is very deceptive. Darwinism should start calling its preachers priests or reverends
alexthasy 1 month ago
@alexthasy You should really write a book, bro. You have an awesome imagination. You aren't going to convince me that you are serious in what you say as you are an obvious troll, but it's real funny and imaginative stuff. Autograph your first book for me please. Just IM me when you are done writing it.
thelordmemnoch 1 month ago
@thelordmemnoch Being called imaginative by someone believing in fairy tales of land mammals magically, atheistically and orderly altering organs and limbs and evolving into whales upon crossing millions of years and several species is quite ironic. Mind you you were suckered in believing in that phantasmagoric bullshit. Calling unbelievers in your cult TROLL is your best argument in defending your moronic cult you call a science.
alexthasy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexthasy TROLL! WHAHAHAH
srexob715 1 month ago
@alexthasy Wait, you are the one that believes in talking snakes, talking donkeys, water to wine, unicorns and ghosts and you say science is a fairy tale? This is too rich. You might want to look up the word "cult" as it applies to religion, not to science. Nice try, troll.
thelordmemnoch 1 month ago
@thelordmemnoch Darwinism is just one more cult masquerading as a science and calling on a goddess worshiped in old Greek paganism vesting her as a law of science and having her taking a single cell through a voodoo atheistic creation is an inane, imbecilic fairy tale. Call it science all you want, that bullshit is not even bad science fiction
alexthasy 1 month ago
@alexthasy You really don't know what you're talking about. I feel sorry for adults who cannot seem to grasp the harsh realities of existence and so need to rely on fairy tales for comfort. I'm not sure if you are such a person, but judging by your post, I'd say that you are (although I admit I could be wrong).
vinegarthomas 1 month ago
@vinegarthomas You should read the fairy tale on land mammals magically altering organs and limbs and turning into whales upon crossing millions of years and numerous species. That atheist voodoo magic is a mind bugger.
alexthasy 1 month ago
@alexthasy
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. There are xians who believe in evolution. And there are atheists who do not believe in it. In any case, even assuming that evolution is false, this says nothing about a god. Most xians know this but use it as a red herring to focus on because they can put forth no evidence whatsoever of their magical sky daddy.
vinegarthomas 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vinegarthomas You should read Darwinian atheist theologians Dawkins and Sagan. Even those belonging to the theist sect of Darwin are keeping God out of the process of a Darwinian evolutionary creation. The atheist elite contemporary to Darwin received natural selection as what would put the last nail on the coffin of a creator God.
alexthasy 1 month ago
@thelordmemnoch Be careful on calling him a troll. He will just falsely report you for being a stalker. Its sad that they stoop to that level of the truth hurting them in such a way, but so be it.
srexob715 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexthasy TROLL! WHAAHAH
srexob715 2 months ago
Comment removed
alexthasy 1 month ago
@thelordmemnoch Yes, its kind of crazy, huh? Since they believe in things(without evidence), which is called faith, no wonder they are willing to believe in ANYTHING that has no evidence.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Your sucking on oxymoronic bullshit like that of Darwinian atheist theologian Dawkins claim that species are designoids that look intelligently designed but are not since they owe their great look to the myth of a Darwinian natural selection. The conjectural bullshit supporting your occult concept of an atheistic evolutionary creation is laughable.
alexthasy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexthasy TROLL! WHAHAHA
srexob715 2 months ago
@ozowen
I don't accuse most scientists of deliberate fraud, but contend that all historical science evidence is interpretive and inferential, influenced strongly by one's chosen worldview.
mikebForJesus 2 months ago
@mikebForJesus The evidence is against that as well. I suggest you do two things. Check out YECS leader's claims. Check using non-YECS sources. The rate at which they lie, and lie deliberately is why I abandoned YECS so very avidly.
The other thing is to read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins. He headed the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian and very much accepts evolution.
ozowen 2 months ago
@ozowen
I'll tell ya straight up that there are YECs whose credibility I question, not because I suspect them of deliberate lies, but that they pounce on evidence and loose interpretations prematurely. And even though I am of a YEC worldview, I probably agree with none of them of them on EVERYTHING. I have, however, read some who put forth really good arguments.
mikebForJesus 1 month ago
@ozowen
Haven't read Collins' book, but am familiar with it's concepts, as well as Collin's position on evolution. Many a Christian do accept a very old universe, and some of them, evolution. I myself used to accept the possibility of theistic evo.
mikebForJesus 1 month ago
@alexthasy Again, you obviously know nothing about evolution.
Enjoy your ignorance!
RCRhythm 2 months ago
@RCRhythm I am missing an awful lot by not believing that I am not an ape grown smart.
I will die not believing in Darwin.
alexthasy 2 months ago
@alexthasy "I am not an ape grown smart." Certainly not a human grown smart.
ozowen 2 months ago
Science got that part wrong, then found a better answer (as science does), but we can still prove the earth is much older then 6000 years old, infallible word of god is infallible?
buttzbuttz11 2 months ago
@buttzbuttz11
"...earth is much older than 6kya..."
I used to accept that possibility.
mikebForJesus 1 month ago
@mikebForJesus
Its not a possibility, its well accepted fact with evidence to back it up. The bible says a whole bunch of things that even the most extreme Christians do not agree with. Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that other parts of the book are just as likely to be wrong.
buttzbuttz11 4 weeks ago
@buttzbuttz11
Perhaps looking at some of the specific examples would help. The finding of dino soft tissue is a shocker. Known maximum decay rate of collagen is around 10k years.
Is it hard to accept that a science paradigm could be mistaken? It has happened before.
mikebForJesus 3 weeks ago
Darth Vader's light saber
hwr36 2 months ago
I love the way he wasn't amazingly impressed that they were able to produce amino acids! I know I am! Science at it's best!
maskofsan1ty 3 months ago
@maskofsan1ty
Well, it's not just that they synthesized amino acids, but the racemic mixture is important as well as the steps they took with their equipment that circumvented natural obstacles that would have been in the way.
Additionally, geo evidence shows earth likely never had a low O2 atmosphere.
mikebForJesus 1 month ago
Christian fundamentalists are funny! Its amazing that people like this still exist! Even children can see through that stuff. It says a lot about how powerful the brain is at believing whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside because, lets face it, you'd have to ignore ALOT, let alone try and attack something that doesnt fit into their worldview! Particularly something like evolution! Fingers in ears, eyes closed 'LALALALALALALALALA!!!!' lol
jonpy55 3 months ago
@jonpy55 It is so obvious that species were invested with the magical ability to add or grow organs and limbs and evolve into subspecies. Darwinism is also the only cultist belief thought in institution of learning.
alexthasy 3 months ago