I wonder if creationists like this ever feel guilty for all the stupidity and lies they spread. or are they so scientifically illiterate they fool themselves. For once I would like to hear the say. The mimic octopus discovered by scientist who support and use the theory of evolution every day and who find nor contradiction with evolution and who know a hell of a lot more about biology than we do, confuses us.
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. Isaiah 66:4
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 2Timothy 3:13
@BereanBeacon1 So you are basically saying that God is using you as a tool to deceive because you are wicked. I think this is one of the most sensible things you have said. ;-) Main problem is 1 Corinthians 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion and Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. I might take what you said seriously if you actually learned what evolution was so you could criticize it. Have you even read the whole Bible?
@michalchik You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
@BereanBeacon1 My spiritual life is just fine. I see in you someone clinging to a marginal twisted atavistic form of Christianity that most Christians think is nuts. Matthew 7:16 Your fruit is deception and benightedness. You drag people into darkness. Creationists create nothing. Never one break-through innovation, not bit of understanding, not one disease cured, not one new prediction. Just a bunch of post hoc rationalization and lies.
@Dinoenthusiastguy If they were still creationists after seeing the evidence and scientific development since their death I would be impressed. They were not creationists in the sense that these modern ones are. They were not arguing against the findings of science. They were extending the findings of science in ways that had not yet bumped up against the ideas of divine creation. You have to realize that the basic theory of evolution was not complete until the modern synthesis ~1920
@michalchik Define "creationist" please. And creationists are not unscientific - science actually stems from a creationist worldview, it is something the atheists borrowed from us. Linnaeus, Newton, Boyle, and Pasteur were all motivated by their creationism. It is actually the evolutionists who have more faith than creationists. Many professors being fired in universities simply for saying that they should show the evidence for the other side. Now, does this sound like pursuing the truth to you?
@Dinoenthusiastguy No professor has been fired for saying they should show the other side. There are some bad scientists out there that have been fired for incompetence and blamed it on prejudice against creationists. Michael Behe continues to do competent biochemistry and does just fine. There is NO original scientific creationist research. Every creationist argument are the same ones that real scientist raised about evolution, investigated and already answered.
@michalchik "Christians think is nuts." because they are on the broad way, as you are.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15
@BereanBeacon1 You have to prove that the Bible is an authority before you start just giving verses to people. That's what makes everyone else think that we are weird, closed-minded fanatics.
@Dinoenthusiastguy For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
@BereanBeacon1 At the right time, yes. But you have to prove that it's really divine before throwing verses at people. If you do, people will think you're a fanatic. So please, do not give any verses until someone is actually ready and accepts it as God's.
@Dinoenthusiastguy The Bible says all the lost are enemies of God and so we tell as many as we can about the free gift of God. Many will reject and a few will accept.
@BereanBeacon1 Right, but we should be careful, not just carelessly throw around Bible verses, making yourself look like a weirdo and scaring off most people who would have been interested. We should make it as attractive as possible, not make it look bizarre to most people.
@BereanBeacon1 2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 1 Pet 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
@michalchik I understand how you think. Many creationists do ignore the science and just give a lame "but God said he made the earth in six days", and some even go so far as to claim that science is bad. But there is actually evidence against evolution. For instance, we have never actually seen evidence that mutations can add new information, just destroy or change what is already there. Evolution sounds good in general, but when looked at in detail it breaks down.
@Dinoenthusiastguy It is perfectly reasonable for you to question whether there are problems and flaws in evolutionary theory, but you have to start by learning what evolution is and how it relates to the rest of biology. I have helped teach evolutionary biology at the university level and have taken courses in information theory. What you say simply is factually false and it comes from your lack of knowledge not the lack of knowledge of scientists. What is your rigorous definition of infornatio
@michalchik I know evolution inside out. Can you prove what I said is false? Mutations may add a little bit of information, but no more than data corruption in reading a hard disk. If the genetic code was as simple as a few characters added to create a new biological structure, it would be more plausible. Instead, it's a whole language, and commands for building just one cell are extremely long. Do we get computer programs by chance? No. Why should we expect new organs by chance?
@Dinoenthusiastguy Read up on genetic algorithms and see what they can do. The substrate they work on is far more limited and functionally brittle than protein. Then read up on homeobox mutations and master regulatory switches, gene duplications, frame shift mutations and nylonase, and you will see how bigger changes can happen. Mutation is not how evolution works, it has to be combined with differential selection and reproduction. You might also take a look at the dunning-kruger effect.
@michalchik OK, so maybe mutations can add a bit. But where did the language of DNA come from in the first place? Also consider the proteins needed to read the DNA are programmed by DNA, but the DNA is read by the proteins. Which came first? Also, remember the fruit flies and radiation experiment. How many flies had beneficial mutations? None. And can you explain the origin of sexual reproduction, or reproduction at all?
If you want, I will objectively prove to you that you do not know evolution inside and out. Don't take this as a personal attack, just a reality check. I would place money that you would not even pass basic examine in an introductory evolutionary biology course.
Yes, I could prove your ideas false to any geneticist or information theorist. In fact almost any professional scientist. Could i prove it to you? Maybe, what is the most advance math and science class you have done well in B or better. You are hostile to the idea that you are wrong so you will need a firm grounding in science and math to understand and accept the solidity of such a proof.
This video doesn't really have much to say on why the octopus is a challenge for evolution. It says more on the octopus itself. I think that this should say more about how they supposedly evolved.
@psycotria So, more knowledge will solve the world's problems and if so how is it doing? 2Tiimothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
It's pretty obvious, God showed this octapus the truth the bible preaches with was enough to instill his mimicking abilities so he could live a long life and then get through the gates of heaven.
But really, why would go to the trouble of making something so cool and not want it in his kingdom after it's death. It's fair more interesting than anything a creationist has ever done/said...
I would like to see the the scientific papers suggesting that ONLY social animals evolves intelligence. If it's intelligence is beneficial for it's survival it will spread it's genes. Nothing more to it.
Explain to me how evolution does not break these laws: The Law of Cause and Effect, The First Law of Thermo-dynamics, The Second Law of Thermodynamics ( yes the Earth is a closed system), The Law of Mass Action, The Law of Inertia, The Law of Angular Momen-tum, & The Law of Probability.
@purpleleach1 "the Law of cause and effect" not sure what that is other than a philosophy developed by theology, bohr proposed a theory dealing with atomic particles. Thermodynamics only leads to entropy when the power source is removed, We still have the sun and a radioactive core. I'm not sure how the theory of evolution violates Inertia or angular momentum? The law of Probability supports evolution. Given enough trials every possible outcome will occur.
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. Any belief that this doesn’t apply to both open and closed systems is WRONG! Without some magical mechanism (pixie dust?) with which to beneficially apply the suns energy, the sun as applied within either system invariably causes more entropy, than generation.
@Bereitwilligkeit The earth is not a completely "closed system" it loses energy by black body radiation. Yet the earth gains more energy than it loses from the sun much like a closed sys. Entropy will not increase in one system with out the decreases in another. The sun increases in entropy as the earth decreases in entropy. No magic pixie dust or religious magical nonsense needed. Simply, the careful application of modern mathematics and detailed observation of the natural materialistic world.
God bestowed these creatures with intelligence and camouflage to evade predators to what end? To what end!? He also created the predators that hunt them - that struggle to find their next meal. Can you not see that explanation makes no sense? Does he create these to fight and kill each other for sport? Sounds like an extremely twisted deity.
There's nothing that ever been shown that is a problem for evolution.
@ScottishAtheist Every time a Darwinist is hit by a Creationist point. They revert to argue theology; as you have done. Every time a science journal reports a problem for evolution, they stat off with a disclaimer, about why the problem isn't threat to evolution. Like latest "Scientific American", article. "Wings of Victory" Which discloses that modern bird fossils have been bound for decades, along side Dino fossils. It's because evolution isn't falsifiable! Or scientific!
@ScottishAtheist Just to prove how wrong you are, search "scientific American magizine". The july 2010 issue will come up on that site. Click on the "Winged Victory" story. "Compared with the spectacularly preserved dinosaur skeletons in the museum’s collections, this tiny wing—its delicate bones jumbled and crushed—is decidedly unglamorous. But it offers a strong hint that a widely held view of bird evolution is wrong." Ducks & Chickens have also been found with dinosaurs!
@Howie47 You'll have to forgive me, I did not see that article - I don't have a subscription so I can't read it in full, and I suspect neither have you.
It's interesting, you have a selective reading ability. You happily cherry pick phrases like "bird evolution wrong" but ignore the REASONS why it was found to be wrong.
Molecular genetic evidence based on mutation rates pushes the time back that birds evolved by over 40 million years than previously thought. It DOES NOT mean evolution is wrong.
This is a little misleading. Octopi have been known for decades now to represent the most intelligent clade of invertebrates known to man. Even if this particular octopi shows them to be even more intelligent than we previously thought, this in no way violates the nested hierarchy of descent.
just had to drop by and lmao at you ridiculous title
JonnyLikesPie 1 week ago
Lol what is this madness!
GunFactory09 3 months ago
I wonder if creationists like this ever feel guilty for all the stupidity and lies they spread. or are they so scientifically illiterate they fool themselves. For once I would like to hear the say. The mimic octopus discovered by scientist who support and use the theory of evolution every day and who find nor contradiction with evolution and who know a hell of a lot more about biology than we do, confuses us.
michalchik 8 months ago
@michalchik Evolution:
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. Isaiah 66:4
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 2Timothy 3:13
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 So you are basically saying that God is using you as a tool to deceive because you are wicked. I think this is one of the most sensible things you have said. ;-) Main problem is 1 Corinthians 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion and Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. I might take what you said seriously if you actually learned what evolution was so you could criticize it. Have you even read the whole Bible?
michalchik 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michalchik You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 My spiritual life is just fine. I see in you someone clinging to a marginal twisted atavistic form of Christianity that most Christians think is nuts. Matthew 7:16 Your fruit is deception and benightedness. You drag people into darkness. Creationists create nothing. Never one break-through innovation, not bit of understanding, not one disease cured, not one new prediction. Just a bunch of post hoc rationalization and lies.
michalchik 8 months ago
@michalchik I would beg to differ. Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, and Robert Boyle were all creationists, among others.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy If they were still creationists after seeing the evidence and scientific development since their death I would be impressed. They were not creationists in the sense that these modern ones are. They were not arguing against the findings of science. They were extending the findings of science in ways that had not yet bumped up against the ideas of divine creation. You have to realize that the basic theory of evolution was not complete until the modern synthesis ~1920
michalchik 8 months ago
@michalchik Define "creationist" please. And creationists are not unscientific - science actually stems from a creationist worldview, it is something the atheists borrowed from us. Linnaeus, Newton, Boyle, and Pasteur were all motivated by their creationism. It is actually the evolutionists who have more faith than creationists. Many professors being fired in universities simply for saying that they should show the evidence for the other side. Now, does this sound like pursuing the truth to you?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy No professor has been fired for saying they should show the other side. There are some bad scientists out there that have been fired for incompetence and blamed it on prejudice against creationists. Michael Behe continues to do competent biochemistry and does just fine. There is NO original scientific creationist research. Every creationist argument are the same ones that real scientist raised about evolution, investigated and already answered.
michalchik 8 months ago
@michalchik "Christians think is nuts." because they are on the broad way, as you are.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 You have to prove that the Bible is an authority before you start just giving verses to people. That's what makes everyone else think that we are weird, closed-minded fanatics.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 At the right time, yes. But you have to prove that it's really divine before throwing verses at people. If you do, people will think you're a fanatic. So please, do not give any verses until someone is actually ready and accepts it as God's.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy The Bible says all the lost are enemies of God and so we tell as many as we can about the free gift of God. Many will reject and a few will accept.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Right, but we should be careful, not just carelessly throw around Bible verses, making yourself look like a weirdo and scaring off most people who would have been interested. We should make it as attractive as possible, not make it look bizarre to most people.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 1 Pet 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
michalchik 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michalchik I believe these verses applies to you.
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Revelation 3:15,16
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@michalchik I understand how you think. Many creationists do ignore the science and just give a lame "but God said he made the earth in six days", and some even go so far as to claim that science is bad. But there is actually evidence against evolution. For instance, we have never actually seen evidence that mutations can add new information, just destroy or change what is already there. Evolution sounds good in general, but when looked at in detail it breaks down.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy It is perfectly reasonable for you to question whether there are problems and flaws in evolutionary theory, but you have to start by learning what evolution is and how it relates to the rest of biology. I have helped teach evolutionary biology at the university level and have taken courses in information theory. What you say simply is factually false and it comes from your lack of knowledge not the lack of knowledge of scientists. What is your rigorous definition of infornatio
michalchik 8 months ago
@michalchik I know evolution inside out. Can you prove what I said is false? Mutations may add a little bit of information, but no more than data corruption in reading a hard disk. If the genetic code was as simple as a few characters added to create a new biological structure, it would be more plausible. Instead, it's a whole language, and commands for building just one cell are extremely long. Do we get computer programs by chance? No. Why should we expect new organs by chance?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
@Dinoenthusiastguy Read up on genetic algorithms and see what they can do. The substrate they work on is far more limited and functionally brittle than protein. Then read up on homeobox mutations and master regulatory switches, gene duplications, frame shift mutations and nylonase, and you will see how bigger changes can happen. Mutation is not how evolution works, it has to be combined with differential selection and reproduction. You might also take a look at the dunning-kruger effect.
michalchik 8 months ago
@michalchik OK, so maybe mutations can add a bit. But where did the language of DNA come from in the first place? Also consider the proteins needed to read the DNA are programmed by DNA, but the DNA is read by the proteins. Which came first? Also, remember the fruit flies and radiation experiment. How many flies had beneficial mutations? None. And can you explain the origin of sexual reproduction, or reproduction at all?
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
If you want, I will objectively prove to you that you do not know evolution inside and out. Don't take this as a personal attack, just a reality check. I would place money that you would not even pass basic examine in an introductory evolutionary biology course.
michalchik 8 months ago
Yes, I could prove your ideas false to any geneticist or information theorist. In fact almost any professional scientist. Could i prove it to you? Maybe, what is the most advance math and science class you have done well in B or better. You are hostile to the idea that you are wrong so you will need a firm grounding in science and math to understand and accept the solidity of such a proof.
michalchik 8 months ago
@michalchik I'm just starting high school, and I have an A in Science 10 and Earth Science 11. I haven't had any biology though.
Dinoenthusiastguy 8 months ago
LOL, Serious Voice "According to evolution such intelligence only develops social creatures". Everyone all together now say "strawman argument".
michalchik 8 months ago
This video doesn't really have much to say on why the octopus is a challenge for evolution. It says more on the octopus itself. I think that this should say more about how they supposedly evolved.
Dinoenthusiastguy 9 months ago
Where is it required that to evolve intelligence necessitates social as opposed to solitary habits?
Just because something is currently unknown doesn't mean god did it. Perhaps the current state of knowledge is the true unknown here.
The conclusion doesn't make the leap over the giant chasm in logic at the end.
psycotria 11 months ago
@psycotria So, more knowledge will solve the world's problems and if so how is it doing? 2Tiimothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
Creation Moments lol...so how is this evidence of God's truth?
gotitans999 1 year ago
@gotitans999
It's pretty obvious, God showed this octapus the truth the bible preaches with was enough to instill his mimicking abilities so he could live a long life and then get through the gates of heaven.
But really, why would go to the trouble of making something so cool and not want it in his kingdom after it's death. It's fair more interesting than anything a creationist has ever done/said...
Parabol0086 11 months ago
"Intelligence of this nature" and say, human intelligence, are very, very different.
JaredHutcheson1 1 year ago
I would like to see the the scientific papers suggesting that ONLY social animals evolves intelligence. If it's intelligence is beneficial for it's survival it will spread it's genes. Nothing more to it.
lobban2 1 year ago
Explain to me how evolution does not break these laws: The Law of Cause and Effect, The First Law of Thermo-dynamics, The Second Law of Thermodynamics ( yes the Earth is a closed system), The Law of Mass Action, The Law of Inertia, The Law of Angular Momen-tum, & The Law of Probability.
purpleleach1 1 year ago
@purpleleach1 "the Law of cause and effect" not sure what that is other than a philosophy developed by theology, bohr proposed a theory dealing with atomic particles. Thermodynamics only leads to entropy when the power source is removed, We still have the sun and a radioactive core. I'm not sure how the theory of evolution violates Inertia or angular momentum? The law of Probability supports evolution. Given enough trials every possible outcome will occur.
mildhotfire 1 year ago
@mildhotfire ENTROPY DEFINED
noun Physics
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. Any belief that this doesn’t apply to both open and closed systems is WRONG! Without some magical mechanism (pixie dust?) with which to beneficially apply the suns energy, the sun as applied within either system invariably causes more entropy, than generation.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit The earth is not a completely "closed system" it loses energy by black body radiation. Yet the earth gains more energy than it loses from the sun much like a closed sys. Entropy will not increase in one system with out the decreases in another. The sun increases in entropy as the earth decreases in entropy. No magic pixie dust or religious magical nonsense needed. Simply, the careful application of modern mathematics and detailed observation of the natural materialistic world.
mildhotfire 1 year ago
God bestowed these creatures with intelligence and camouflage to evade predators to what end? To what end!? He also created the predators that hunt them - that struggle to find their next meal. Can you not see that explanation makes no sense? Does he create these to fight and kill each other for sport? Sounds like an extremely twisted deity.
There's nothing that ever been shown that is a problem for evolution.
ScottishAtheist 1 year ago
@ScottishAtheist Every time a Darwinist is hit by a Creationist point. They revert to argue theology; as you have done. Every time a science journal reports a problem for evolution, they stat off with a disclaimer, about why the problem isn't threat to evolution. Like latest "Scientific American", article. "Wings of Victory" Which discloses that modern bird fossils have been bound for decades, along side Dino fossils. It's because evolution isn't falsifiable! Or scientific!
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 Why shouldn't theology matter when discussing the Creation? Sorry Howie but my questions are the result of a curious mind.
This is the pattern Creation moments videos follow:
Discuss an interesting recent scientific discovery or dredge up some old science on A, B or C.
Scientists are baffled or got something wrong.
Those silly scientists are baffled because the only answer is God did it™ No why, no how.
Evolution is falsifiable and modern birds have not been found alongside dinosaurs.
ScottishAtheist 1 year ago
@ScottishAtheist Just to prove how wrong you are, search "scientific American magizine". The july 2010 issue will come up on that site. Click on the "Winged Victory" story. "Compared with the spectacularly preserved dinosaur skeletons in the museum’s collections, this tiny wing—its delicate bones jumbled and crushed—is decidedly unglamorous. But it offers a strong hint that a widely held view of bird evolution is wrong." Ducks & Chickens have also been found with dinosaurs!
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 You'll have to forgive me, I did not see that article - I don't have a subscription so I can't read it in full, and I suspect neither have you.
It's interesting, you have a selective reading ability. You happily cherry pick phrases like "bird evolution wrong" but ignore the REASONS why it was found to be wrong.
Molecular genetic evidence based on mutation rates pushes the time back that birds evolved by over 40 million years than previously thought. It DOES NOT mean evolution is wrong.
ScottishAtheist 1 year ago
hey check out vid "transformer owl", its totally hilarious, scared owl pretends being eagle or hawk.
KnowledgeAddicted 1 year ago
This is a little misleading. Octopi have been known for decades now to represent the most intelligent clade of invertebrates known to man. Even if this particular octopi shows them to be even more intelligent than we previously thought, this in no way violates the nested hierarchy of descent.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago 2