Apparently theres an intelligent designer: He loves you.. but he has made every disease known to man.. He gave us all immune systems!.. and then there is Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that was designed to destroy the immune system.
But hey, thats our fault because our ancestors ate some bad fruit.
Why are you running from the actual issues? You can always tell when a creationist has been thoroughly debunked because they start calling you a homosexual or a satanist.
Ken Miller's on public assistance. His preachments are rife w/precautions concerning unendorsed knowledge {science}. Must all knowledge be endorsed by government employees? Must all knowledge be sanctified by bureaucrats? YES! If our children are to be "educated" by the govt. then they must be made compliant. Our children must be indoctrinated. In public "schools": dissent is anti-"science"; THEORY = FACT; competition/profit are evil; animals are better than people; people are human resources.
I have nothing to relate, huh? You go through and copy paste mindless rantings about how we are indoctrinating by the government. The government that is overwhelmingly Christian is trying to discount is own religion? Sounds like YOU are the one trying to indoctrinate everyone with religious, creationist beliefs which are, simply put, false. A scientific theory is accepted as scientific fact, actually. Competition and profit are not "evil" according to any economics class I have taken.
Haha, you should stop using a thesaurus when you post.
You dismiss me as inconsequential simply because I don't conform to your lunacy.
psychotically-obscene statements, huh? Whereas, your belief in a talking snake and that the government is trying to discredit it's own religion is perfectly sane? haha
I don't "believe" in the "transmogrification of life-forms" because it is not a belief. I can observe the evidence and see for certain that evolution is possible. You realize that just because you are using a thesaurus to make yourself sound smarter it doesn't ACTUALLY make you smarter right?
Who brought up animal rights? I am not really for them. No, I actually find organizations like PETA disturbing and I am also a frequent hunter.
Homosexual marriage is marriage in the legal sense and not marriage in the eye of your "God." Of course I am for that. Everyone should have the same legal rights. As long as they keep it in their own bedroom, I have no problem with gays getting married. However, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with evolution.
Animals are never thought of as better than people. People are human resources? Kind of like every business has a department of human resources? People are human resources, obviously. In the economic sense labor is a resource, yes, we are human resources.
Creationism has no basis, except in belief. Belief does not give anything (creation) scientific validity.
"Human resources" is a term that didn't exist in the 1970's, indeed my 1977 U.P.I. reporters' dictionary of terms doesn't have it. "Personnel" contains "person." Humans are not resources, they are people. Coal, bauxite & feldspar are resources. "Cash" is some "up-to-date" dictionaries is defined as a synonym for "check" or "bank draft" when clearly a check is but a promise of cash/currency/coin/lucre/dinero/mula/moneda.
What goes into production? Those are your resources. Can you make anything without the labor resource? No. Therefore people are resources in the production sense.
You are woefully ignorant...that is impossible under evolution. A "half fish half bird" would violate the nested hierarchy of evolution. Find one, you prove evolution to be wrong.
"where are the fishes with no eyes and the same fish with eyes?"
Again, find one and prove evolution wrong because evolution does not say that can happen. If they are the same species, they will have the same eyes.
Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. You clearly have no understanding about either. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life itself, while evolution accounts for what happens after life began. Abiogenesis is COMPLETELY separate from evolution.
"where is the half cell and then the second half cell?"
Why would we need half cells to prove evolution? Half cells would be useless.
"where are the monkey brains from monkeys that walk upright and monkey brains that don't?"
Soft tissue doesn't last long before it starts to decay. Millions of years have passes, so we will not find any in all likelihood. However, we do have cranial space analysis from fossils.
Decayed, obviously. We can still look at bones and figure out where muscles would have attached and functioned though.
"WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT A BRAIN CAN MAKE A LEG MUSCLE CHANGE?"
Nowhere. Natural selection makes a leg muscle change in form. The brain can, however, make a muscle contract thus allowing it to change positions. You are simply ignorant.
PROVE IT! just prove it! duplicate evolution today! 58 articles in academia means nothing. you can find 58,000 articles "peer reviewd" on ant penises. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION! PERIOD! there is only SPECULATION! miller's argument defeats itself. IF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED, THEN IT COULD BE RE-CREATED, IMMEDIATE CURE FOR AIDS! i repeat, there is no EVIDENCE of evolution! NONE! miller takes a fossil and then with a magician's flair deduces it MUST BE EVOLUTION! PROVE IT!
Evolution takes millions of years to occur...considering the theory is only about 150 years old there hasn't been enough time to duplicate it yet. We do have examples of rapid evolution, however. The nylon bug, peppered moths, etc. It is, however, tested time and time again. Every new fossil is a test of evolution. Any violation to the established hierarchy and you have just disproved evolution.
Wrong. Just wrong. We cannot manipulate the biological factors that evolved the immune system. We have no environment, other than living people, which could allow the immune system to evolve. One we did get the suitable environment, we only need MILLIONS of years to evolve this new immune system. Curing HIV, which takes over certain immune system cells to replicate and spread, would have nothing to do with simply getting a "new immune system." You should research before you speak.
"i repeat, there is no EVIDENCE of evolution! NONE!"
No, there is evidence. What you mean to say is that, "I will not accept any evidence that contradicts my BELIEF in a 2000+ year old book." Your unscientific dismissal of all evidence that goes against your preconceived notions is unfounded and does not dismiss evolution as a valid scientific fact. It is fine to believe what you want but acknowledge it for what it truly is, a belief.
Natural Selection + 4 Rigid Electromagnetic Laws + Incidental Conditions, is equally circular reasoning; Science cannot demonstrate evidence for the explanation for evolution, for this evidence must be demonstrated separatelly from the phenomena in question, in terms of everyday life, a model, or a computer simulation.
If you just look at all the proccesses for the daily routine of a cell, and how it is more complex than all the activity of a busy supermarket in a day; from a physics perspective (2 rigid electric laws), cannot even come close to accounting for either of these cases, for these proccesses appear result directed, and seem to be so successful, that it boggles me how anyone can take darwinism or intelligent design seriouslly
Hsd, as an israeli i can assure you that "Owph" (pronounced "OF") means Birds, and NEVER incldues Insects (Harakim), and as a matter of Fact that bible always distincts between the two (for Example in the part where god talks about what kinds of food the jews are allowed to eat and what they arent allowed to eat)
Perhaps the reason he "ignored" this "evidence" is because the evidence proposed by these peer-reviewed papers are flawed. A careful examination of genetic coding and DNA's actual actions in different environments will now show how a immune system could have evolved from nothing.
Many new species have appeared since scientists have been studying evolution (that means, about 150 years). Something that creationist webpages do not tell you.
If you go inside of the smallest particle known, there are smaller particles, and within those are even smaller particles than that, and so and and so forth. And the universe is expanding constantly at a growing rate... Two examples of what might be considered "infinite", as well as the theory of the big bang in which the universe has always and will always exist (infinite)... Who is to say God didn't create things this way, and God has always and will always exist.
Had you bothered to read anything else besides creationist webpages you would know that scientists have witnessed many new species appearing even during the relatively short time they have been studying evolution (that means, about 150 years).
Nobody ignores it. Bacteria have an immune system shuffling system just like we do. Call me when we turn E.Coli into another species of bacteria. it's sad that evolutionists are so hard up for evidence of their theory they have to resort to examples like this.
first part is silly, but ID doesnt ignore evidence is pretty hilarious.. And besides, even if they didnt ignore it, they still have none to back them up. So they lack/ignore evidence.
I've often wondered why the panda or kangaroo are not mentioned in the bible, a sceptical person may come to the conclusion that it's because they hadn't been discovered at the time the bible was written by ordinary men! polar bears anyone? god must have made them too as they couldn't have evolved their winter coats! ...hmm, now I come to think of it not many marsupials mentioned in the bible at all, are bats birds?
also if the "Ark" ran a ground in Turkey, how did all the animals now found in Australia get there? no ice age in the bible so no ice bridge, and obviously there was no land bridge, and how come all the marine animals were not wiped out by the huge influx of fresh water? I just love the geezers who say there were dinosaurs on the ark, there were 10's of 1,000's of different species of dinosaur that can't inter breed if noah to take 2 of every type mammal he had to take 2 of every type dinosaur
" how did all the animals now found in Australia get there?" same way they travel today, and the bible doesn't mention an ice age, but current scientific research says one occured after the flood upset the earth's climatic equilibrium. By the way all land animals were wiped out too, Genesis even reads this.
how could noah fit all 1 billion species onto such a small ark? and apparently he had dinosaurs on it aswell:/ have you seen the size of a dinosaur??:/ its bloody massive yu could fit all animals(2 of each kind) onto the ark, its impossible, and there is no NO evidense what so ever of a world flood
One geezer suggested they took dinosaur eggs on the ark, I had to point out to him I didn't think he would be able to tell the difference between male and female eggs... lol, creationists will always say that whales and dolphins did not need to be on the ark because they could swim it the water, well good luck keeping a whale alive in a salt sea deluged with fresh water!
yep:D if dinosaurs were on the ark one thing, a T-rex maybe, a bracheasaurus possibly......but and argintina saurs! no way it weighed 100 tons and was faaaaaaar bigger than any of the other long neck herbavours, infact it would dwarf the ark itself:/
Can I just point something out here?...... we're disguising Noah's ark here.... lol, maybe we should be disguising is Bugs Bunny would end up at the north pole if he had "turned left at Alberqueque .. :o)
you shuld suggest that, while were wanting other stupid ideads taught along side evolution without going through the normal procedures (research, peer review, scientific consenses, ect) by creatonist logic that idea should be put into a science class purly out of what they call 'fairness':P
generally, any creature hatching out of an egg takes the first moving being as being its mother. Wonder what Noah thought of having all those darling new little children?
Oh! ... I nearly forgot, this is my fave! if all the animals on earth died with the exception of those on the ark, how did kangaroos get to Austrailia from Turkey? (the ark landed on mount arrarat in Turkey) there was no land bridge to cross, and there's no ice age in the bible so no ice bridge either!
Again, you people need to do your research. The bible states that before the flood, there was water created in one location and land created in one location (Pangea). Plus, the kangaroo is a specie, not a kind. Thus, it could have descended from a previous specie not native to what we now call australia.
the flood supposedly happened 4400 years ago, strange how he great pyramids were being built during this period! how could a global flood ome about without one eygption record mentioning it?? what happened di tey miss it? or just not notice it being busy wth the pyramids and all??
The current chronology of ancient Egypt is based upon belief in a billion year-old earth. Chronologies currently used are stretched, and to put it simply, even secular scientists are pressing the need for a revised chronology.
hsd - What is the difference between species and kind? Kind is defined as "a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality". Species is defined as: A single, distinct class of living creature with features that distinguish it from others and can interbreed". I think you're talking through your hat.
Genesis states that these animals were created "by their kind" not their species. The kind is the baraminological term for the parent species of the obervable species of today.
"there is no NO evidense what so ever of a world flood" Wrong. Plate tectonics, rapid erosion, the geological strata, geological dynamics, fossil evidences, all point to the possibility of the Noahic flood stated by the Bible.
fossil evidense actually is evidense against a flood, if a flood happened and all animals were alive, all fossils would be in a random mish mash, we dont see thatanywhere! nowhere in the fossil record have we found a T-rex and a mammoth in the same strata layer
Wrong again bud. The flood wasn't rapid, but it took 40 days and 40 nights of rains and flooding to get it 1.7 miles deep. Since the flood was a forced, gradual catastrophe then we could suspect that 1. Marine animals will be first hit (since the water came from the 'great deep') 2. Land animals next and then 3. Humans who were last and could get to higher ground faster.
Hsd, First of all, where did the rain come from? Genesis 1:7 states that there was no water above the earth or below. Secondly, and I quote "if it rained for only 40 days and nights... this amount of rain would (according to world renown mathematician John Alan Paulos) equate to 15 FEET per hour... enough to sink a modern aircraft carrier, let alone a hand-made wooden boat with tens of thousands of animals on board" Explain that one, if you can, without resorting to miracles, if possible.
@LoraSinger Most of the water came from within the earth. There is still water coming out of the mid atlantic ridge. The rest came from the canopy of water above the earth. Most of it was not rain, it was water that came from within the earth. The bible CLEARLY says there was water in and above the earth and there is still water in the earth.
@micah1116 - If it had come within the earth, it would have consisted of steam and deadly gases. Check out the current Danish gusher. In any case, if you look at old maps of that time, the earth is portrayed as flat as a plate with a bowl-like canopy above and supported on four pillars in space. The bible story is CLEARLY a legend invented by primitive men.
@Matthew1944 No, not true. The earth is filled with water saturated rock, and there is still water coming out of the mid atlantic ridge, why isn't gas coming out of there?
I agree that most people of that day did consider the earth to be flat, but the bible says the earth is a sphere, not flat, and it floats on nothing. People were killed for saying such a thing back then.
@Matthew1944 So it's a legend that the earth is a sphere and sits on nothing? It's a myth that there are freshwater springs at the bottom of the ocean, it's a myth that the wind is caused by the sun? This is all revealed in the bible. It's a myth that the earth is covered in sedimentary rock which contains trillions of fossilized organisms, mostly marine? And it's a myth that this type of rock only forms under moving water? You've been brainwashed my friend.
@micah1116 - The word for sphere is not used, micah. The word for circle, however, is. A circle is not a sphere. Would you like to read at a site called "creation stories from around the world". Your legend is only one of many, no better and no worse, all inventions of primitive men to explaine their beginnings.
@Matthew1944 The world circle in hebrew means SPHERE. The word in the original hebrew text is indeed sphere. They knew the moon was round too, they would not be that dumb to say the earth was flat and the moon was round.
@micah1116 m then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg) of the earth (Isaiah 40:18-23
He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house. (Isaiah 22:18)
@Matthew1944 2)The Hebrew word used in scripture for "circle" in the verse above is chuwg. If the Bible writer had meant for us to believe that "circle of the earth" meant that the earth was round, the writer would have used the Hebrew word for "ball," which is duwr. The fact that Isaiah didn't use duwr shows that he wasn't trying to tell us the earth was like a ball.
@micah1116 Now exactly where in your bible does it read SPECIFICALLY that the earth is covered in sedimentary rock which contains trillions of fossilized organisms, mostly marine"? If you are aiming at a worldwide flood, you are being entirely foolish. There is no evidence anywhere of a worldwide flood.
@Matthew1944 It doesn't, it says there was a world wide flood. The geologic column is made up of sedimentary layers. Sedimentary rock only forms under moving water. This is basic info you can find at places such as wikipedia. Please explain to me how atleast billions of fish,jellyfish,algae etc get buried in solid rock, when there isn't any water around at all? We shouldn't find a single marine organism if these layers were formed by wind erosion or something of that nature.
@micah1116 Please explain to me how atleast billions of fish,jellyfish,algae etc get buried in solid rock, when there isn't any water around at all?
When a volcano rises and brings parts of the ocean floor up with it, also come the buried marine organisms. This is why you will find such fossils at the tops or up the sides of hills and mountains. Terrain has changed over the billions of years that the earth has been here and water channels and bodies have changed with it.
@Matthew1944 That's lunacy. Your assuming the earth was different long ago and far away billions of years ago of time that doesn't even exist. So your saying volcanoes buried organisms in sedimentary rock? Then how did the land animals get in layers above them in the SAME type of rock? Your relying on the unseen as evidence. Are there volcanoes in the desert? Because we find whale fossils in the desert all the time, not to mention 300 feet trees in alaska beneath the ice.
@micah1116 You are assuming that deserts were always deserts and that bodies of water always remained the same. The earths poles move a few feet every year and those slight changes over millions of years transforms the earth's surfaces. For instance, in a million more years, the North Pole might just be at the same position as Italy and the conditions on the earth's surface would then change to reflect that position.
@Matthew1944 Give me your best evidence the earth is millions of years old, or I'll even say more than 50,000 years old. If you think radiometric dating proves the earth is millions of years old you've got A LOT to learn.
@micah1116 Do you think that carbon dating and radiometric dating are the only dating methods, micah? You had better do a lot of double checking. For starters, where would the 1.5 million year old dinosaurs have been if the earth is less than 50,000 years old? No, I don't have a lot to learn - I you are a creationist listing to creationist garble that isn't science at all. Conservapedia and the creationist wiki sites are junk.
@Matthew1944 Please tell me how you know how old dinosuars are. I'll help you. Tell the age of the fossil by which layer it comes from. Then they tell the age of the layer by which fossils are in them. It's circular reasoning. They pulled the date for those layers from the clear blue sky before there ever even was carbon dating, potassium argon, uranium-lead, etc etc.
@micah1116 Check out "methods of dating fossils" on Google - there are 374,000 sites dealing with it. No data is every"pulled out of the clear blue sky". I am amazed that you are so brain washed that you would believe a myth/ legend without hesitation and yet fight so hard against scientific methods which have proved themselves over and over.
@Matthew1944 I don't think I've even been to those sites, I have heard of them though. Also your missing the major point. We are supposed to be dealing with emperical evidence here. If you give me a link to talk origins I'm not going to critisize the website and then therefore refuse to look at the claims or evidence, no creationist will. I've been on talk origins hundreds of times looking at their claims and debunking them myself for a couple years now.
@micah1116 Creationists are true believers in a myth and go around and around in circles trying to pull out "facts" to support their belief. Your creation stories (both of the two contradicting ones) are only two out of hundreds. Every civilization has had one and there are dozens just among the North American Indians. Your beliefs belong in the dark ages, Micah.
@micah1116 What about the observations of the natural world in the Quran? Or in the Hindu Vedas? Or the Buddhist scriptures? Why not the historical “Evidences” in the sikh religion? Why not assume the Baha’i religion is the truth?
Heres a thought, Stop using kent hovinds arguments. The mans a criminal and an ass. You should be smarter than that
@micah1116 "but the bible says the earth is a sphere” --> Isaiah 40:22?
22 It is he that sitteth upon the *circle* of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in....
A Circle is not a sphere. A circle is flat. It is 2 demential --> Basic Geometry.
Job 38:13 - earth has edges... It also had corners (rev.)
The last ice age was 10,000 years ago. Current scientific research DOES NOT state that an ice age occurred after a flood. You are getting your information from AIG, right?
They aren't mentioned probably for the same reason as poisenous frogs, sharks, beetles, and others: A waste of time. God got his point thru when he said he created the animal "kinds". Polar bears are the result of speciation and genetic variability from already existing DNA, this is observable.
bats are, but the bible calls bats birds:/ anyone who has even a limited understanding of biology know bats are mammals not birds, so why dont creationists argue against this classifacation aswell?
bird does not just mean flying creature, there are flying squirrels, are these birds? no, bats are mammals, birds lay eggs, emus dont fly eithe do kiwi or ostrich and they are birds! bird does not nessaccarrilly mean 'flying creature' do your research!
in hebrew my name means 'he who is like the lord' doesnt mean its true, i just thin idf biblical scholars are argueing against evolution they should also argue against the idea of a bat not being a bird bt infact a mammal
Good video. It's indeed ridiculous how, after you thoroughly, and in detail, answer an "objection" brought forth by the ID movement as unanswerable, it is simply ignored without any explanation. I guess that when you've ONLY got thoroughly refuted arguments, and aren't willing to entertain the thought that you might be wrong, you've got to simply ignore the refutations. Oh... and it's "empirical", not "impirecal". :)
0:06 - Immune system.
Apparently theres an intelligent designer: He loves you.. but he has made every disease known to man.. He gave us all immune systems!.. and then there is Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that was designed to destroy the immune system.
But hey, thats our fault because our ancestors ate some bad fruit.
ID:1 Science:0
>:) -> Sarcasm
NightHawkBomber001 11 months ago
What... whoa... wait.... creationists ignore evidence?
JDoucette 1 year ago
When denying reality does work, just move the goal posts.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Why are you running from the actual issues? You can always tell when a creationist has been thoroughly debunked because they start calling you a homosexual or a satanist.
Detonator40 2 years ago
Ken Miller's on public assistance. His preachments are rife w/precautions concerning unendorsed knowledge {science}. Must all knowledge be endorsed by government employees? Must all knowledge be sanctified by bureaucrats? YES! If our children are to be "educated" by the govt. then they must be made compliant. Our children must be indoctrinated. In public "schools": dissent is anti-"science"; THEORY = FACT; competition/profit are evil; animals are better than people; people are human resources.
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
Way to go through and post the same message on every Ken Miller page...fact is though, you have little understanding of what you just copy pasted.
Detonator40 2 years ago
You're of no interest as you have nothing to relate.
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
I have nothing to relate, huh? You go through and copy paste mindless rantings about how we are indoctrinating by the government. The government that is overwhelmingly Christian is trying to discount is own religion? Sounds like YOU are the one trying to indoctrinate everyone with religious, creationist beliefs which are, simply put, false. A scientific theory is accepted as scientific fact, actually. Competition and profit are not "evil" according to any economics class I have taken.
Detonator40 2 years ago
You are inconsequential, part of the rabble who debase themselves publicly with psychotically-obscene statements.
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
Haha, you should stop using a thesaurus when you post.
You dismiss me as inconsequential simply because I don't conform to your lunacy.
psychotically-obscene statements, huh? Whereas, your belief in a talking snake and that the government is trying to discredit it's own religion is perfectly sane? haha
Detonator40 2 years ago
You must renounce your religion
because it confounds you.
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
I must renounce what religion? I am an atheist, I don't believe in anything.
Detonator40 2 years ago
You believe in the radical transmogrification of life-forms, animal rights & homosexual "marriage."
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
I don't "believe" in the "transmogrification of life-forms" because it is not a belief. I can observe the evidence and see for certain that evolution is possible. You realize that just because you are using a thesaurus to make yourself sound smarter it doesn't ACTUALLY make you smarter right?
Who brought up animal rights? I am not really for them. No, I actually find organizations like PETA disturbing and I am also a frequent hunter.
Detonator40 2 years ago
Homosexual marriage is marriage in the legal sense and not marriage in the eye of your "God." Of course I am for that. Everyone should have the same legal rights. As long as they keep it in their own bedroom, I have no problem with gays getting married. However, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with evolution.
Detonator40 2 years ago
Your happiness is important. The man of
your dreams may be falling in love with you
now. Can wedding bells be far off?
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
Haha, because I support gay marriage I must be gay, right? How old are you? Grow up.
Detonator40 2 years ago
Your homosexuality defines you. It's who you are so accept it & find the happiness that you crave.
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
Again, grow up. I am not gay and will never be gay. Your ignorance is beyond that of any other human being. Crawl back into your cave, lunatic.
Detonator40 2 years ago
Do not battle your true self. You are a homosexual so deal with it!
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
Haha, right. You don't even know me. Pretty judgmental for a Christian. Your insufferable ignorance astounds me.
By the way, what happened to your big words? You get dumber all of a sudden?
Detonator40 2 years ago
You've made many allusions to your homosexualism. Why fight what you cannot change?
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
No, actually I have made 0 allusions to homosexuality. Who brought the issue up? Not me, that would be you. God obviously made you gay.
Detonator40 2 years ago
Perhaps you can beat the odds by refraining
from homosex. Maybe, as hope springs
eternal, you can be normal.
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
Haha, 5 year old....
Grow up. Again, just abandon the issues at hand because you know you've been beaten.
Detonator40 2 years ago
Yeah, I read your guys' argument, and you've got no credibility left. Like every other creationist, all you have are ad Hominem attacks.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Animals are never thought of as better than people. People are human resources? Kind of like every business has a department of human resources? People are human resources, obviously. In the economic sense labor is a resource, yes, we are human resources.
Creationism has no basis, except in belief. Belief does not give anything (creation) scientific validity.
Detonator40 2 years ago
People are personnel.
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
per⋅son⋅nel: a body of persons employed in an organization or place of work.
human resources: people, esp. the personnel employed by a given company, institution, or the like.
Personnel and human resources are the same thing. Way to contradict yourself.
Detonator40 2 years ago
"Human resources" is a term that didn't exist in the 1970's, indeed my 1977 U.P.I. reporters' dictionary of terms doesn't have it. "Personnel" contains "person." Humans are not resources, they are people. Coal, bauxite & feldspar are resources. "Cash" is some "up-to-date" dictionaries is defined as a synonym for "check" or "bank draft" when clearly a check is but a promise of cash/currency/coin/lucre/dinero/mula/moneda.
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
You are so naive....
In a business, in an economy, etc...
PEOPLE ARE THE LABOR RESOURCE.
What goes into production? Those are your resources. Can you make anything without the labor resource? No. Therefore people are resources in the production sense.
Detonator40 2 years ago
where are the half fishes half birds?
where are the fishes with no eyes and the same fish with eyes?
where are first cells?
where is the half cell and then the second half cell?
where are the monkey brains from monkeys that walk upright and monkey brains that don't?
IN FACT WHERE ARE ALL THE SOFT TISSUES?
where is the muscle of a half ape half man?
WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT A BRAIN CAN MAKE A LEG MUSCLE CHANGE?
stameyjd 2 years ago
"where are the half fishes half birds?"
You are woefully ignorant...that is impossible under evolution. A "half fish half bird" would violate the nested hierarchy of evolution. Find one, you prove evolution to be wrong.
"where are the fishes with no eyes and the same fish with eyes?"
Again, find one and prove evolution wrong because evolution does not say that can happen. If they are the same species, they will have the same eyes.
Detonator40 2 years ago
"where are first cells?"
Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. You clearly have no understanding about either. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life itself, while evolution accounts for what happens after life began. Abiogenesis is COMPLETELY separate from evolution.
Detonator40 2 years ago
"where is the half cell and then the second half cell?"
Why would we need half cells to prove evolution? Half cells would be useless.
"where are the monkey brains from monkeys that walk upright and monkey brains that don't?"
Soft tissue doesn't last long before it starts to decay. Millions of years have passes, so we will not find any in all likelihood. However, we do have cranial space analysis from fossils.
wiki/Human_evolution
Detonator40 2 years ago
"IN FACT WHERE ARE ALL THE SOFT TISSUES?"
Decayed. You know, cause living matter decays.
"where is the muscle of a half ape half man?"
Decayed, obviously. We can still look at bones and figure out where muscles would have attached and functioned though.
"WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT A BRAIN CAN MAKE A LEG MUSCLE CHANGE?"
Nowhere. Natural selection makes a leg muscle change in form. The brain can, however, make a muscle contract thus allowing it to change positions. You are simply ignorant.
Detonator40 2 years ago
stameyjd 2 years ago
"duplicate evolution today!"
Evolution takes millions of years to occur...considering the theory is only about 150 years old there hasn't been enough time to duplicate it yet. We do have examples of rapid evolution, however. The nylon bug, peppered moths, etc. It is, however, tested time and time again. Every new fossil is a test of evolution. Any violation to the established hierarchy and you have just disproved evolution.
Detonator40 2 years ago
Wrong. Just wrong. We cannot manipulate the biological factors that evolved the immune system. We have no environment, other than living people, which could allow the immune system to evolve. One we did get the suitable environment, we only need MILLIONS of years to evolve this new immune system. Curing HIV, which takes over certain immune system cells to replicate and spread, would have nothing to do with simply getting a "new immune system." You should research before you speak.
Detonator40 2 years ago
"i repeat, there is no EVIDENCE of evolution! NONE!"
No, there is evidence. What you mean to say is that, "I will not accept any evidence that contradicts my BELIEF in a 2000+ year old book." Your unscientific dismissal of all evidence that goes against your preconceived notions is unfounded and does not dismiss evolution as a valid scientific fact. It is fine to believe what you want but acknowledge it for what it truly is, a belief.
Detonator40 2 years ago
fanny
ron28688 3 years ago
Behe got pwned.
Faustuss1 3 years ago 3
Natural Selection + 4 Rigid Electromagnetic Laws + Incidental Conditions, is equally circular reasoning; Science cannot demonstrate evidence for the explanation for evolution, for this evidence must be demonstrated separatelly from the phenomena in question, in terms of everyday life, a model, or a computer simulation.
GodMechanism 3 years ago
And you're saying that it hasn't been tested thoroughly?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
If you just look at all the proccesses for the daily routine of a cell, and how it is more complex than all the activity of a busy supermarket in a day; from a physics perspective (2 rigid electric laws), cannot even come close to accounting for either of these cases, for these proccesses appear result directed, and seem to be so successful, that it boggles me how anyone can take darwinism or intelligent design seriouslly
GodMechanism 2 years ago
Interesting. And would you give us with a summary of your alternative to both evolution and ID?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Hsd, as an israeli i can assure you that "Owph" (pronounced "OF") means Birds, and NEVER incldues Insects (Harakim), and as a matter of Fact that bible always distincts between the two (for Example in the part where god talks about what kinds of food the jews are allowed to eat and what they arent allowed to eat)
1ceDagg3r 4 years ago
Check out the debate between Dawkins and Lenox on the existence of God found on google videos. It is very good!
ANewMan17 4 years ago
Perhaps the reason he "ignored" this "evidence" is because the evidence proposed by these peer-reviewed papers are flawed. A careful examination of genetic coding and DNA's actual actions in different environments will now show how a immune system could have evolved from nothing.
hsd0006 4 years ago
Many new species have appeared since scientists have been studying evolution (that means, about 150 years). Something that creationist webpages do not tell you.
Hobu123 4 years ago
umm how exactly does evidence of immune system gene shuffling provide evidence for macroevolutionary phenotype novelty?
RTyp06 4 years ago
If you go inside of the smallest particle known, there are smaller particles, and within those are even smaller particles than that, and so and and so forth. And the universe is expanding constantly at a growing rate... Two examples of what might be considered "infinite", as well as the theory of the big bang in which the universe has always and will always exist (infinite)... Who is to say God didn't create things this way, and God has always and will always exist.
irhex 4 years ago
Had you bothered to read anything else besides creationist webpages you would know that scientists have witnessed many new species appearing even during the relatively short time they have been studying evolution (that means, about 150 years).
Hobu123 4 years ago
That was answer to RTyp06
Hobu123 4 years ago
How can anyone ignore the last few decades where we've very effectively created resistant bacteria by abusing antibiotics?
It just doesnt seem that complicated to me.
fldz 4 years ago
Nobody ignores it. Bacteria have an immune system shuffling system just like we do. Call me when we turn E.Coli into another species of bacteria. it's sad that evolutionists are so hard up for evidence of their theory they have to resort to examples like this.
RTyp06 4 years ago
It's "empirical" not "imperical". ID doesn't ignore evidence.
femtoguts 4 years ago
lmao.....
Cwhambone 4 years ago
Yeah it's so funny that someone would mispell "empirical" and make such a dishonest assertion about intelligent design. lmao
femtoguts 4 years ago
first part is silly, but ID doesnt ignore evidence is pretty hilarious.. And besides, even if they didnt ignore it, they still have none to back them up. So they lack/ignore evidence.
Cwhambone 4 years ago
What you want to be true, and what is actually true, are two different things.
femtoguts 4 years ago
I've often wondered why the panda or kangaroo are not mentioned in the bible, a sceptical person may come to the conclusion that it's because they hadn't been discovered at the time the bible was written by ordinary men! polar bears anyone? god must have made them too as they couldn't have evolved their winter coats! ...hmm, now I come to think of it not many marsupials mentioned in the bible at all, are bats birds?
JoshuaTrio 4 years ago
josh i also wonder why they ended up on diffrent and the correct contienents
hollowpoint84 4 years ago
also if the "Ark" ran a ground in Turkey, how did all the animals now found in Australia get there? no ice age in the bible so no ice bridge, and obviously there was no land bridge, and how come all the marine animals were not wiped out by the huge influx of fresh water? I just love the geezers who say there were dinosaurs on the ark, there were 10's of 1,000's of different species of dinosaur that can't inter breed if noah to take 2 of every type mammal he had to take 2 of every type dinosaur
JoshuaTrio 4 years ago
" how did all the animals now found in Australia get there?" same way they travel today, and the bible doesn't mention an ice age, but current scientific research says one occured after the flood upset the earth's climatic equilibrium. By the way all land animals were wiped out too, Genesis even reads this.
hsd0006 4 years ago
how could noah fit all 1 billion species onto such a small ark? and apparently he had dinosaurs on it aswell:/ have you seen the size of a dinosaur??:/ its bloody massive yu could fit all animals(2 of each kind) onto the ark, its impossible, and there is no NO evidense what so ever of a world flood
Erech01 4 years ago
One geezer suggested they took dinosaur eggs on the ark, I had to point out to him I didn't think he would be able to tell the difference between male and female eggs... lol, creationists will always say that whales and dolphins did not need to be on the ark because they could swim it the water, well good luck keeping a whale alive in a salt sea deluged with fresh water!
hughjarrse 4 years ago
yep:D if dinosaurs were on the ark one thing, a T-rex maybe, a bracheasaurus possibly......but and argintina saurs! no way it weighed 100 tons and was faaaaaaar bigger than any of the other long neck herbavours, infact it would dwarf the ark itself:/
Erech01 4 years ago
Can I just point something out here?...... we're disguising Noah's ark here.... lol, maybe we should be disguising is Bugs Bunny would end up at the north pole if he had "turned left at Alberqueque .. :o)
hughjarrse 4 years ago
you shuld suggest that, while were wanting other stupid ideads taught along side evolution without going through the normal procedures (research, peer review, scientific consenses, ect) by creatonist logic that idea should be put into a science class purly out of what they call 'fairness':P
Erech01 4 years ago
Right along side several hundered other creation stories from around the world, dont you think? In "fairness", of course.
LoraSinger 4 years ago
generally, any creature hatching out of an egg takes the first moving being as being its mother. Wonder what Noah thought of having all those darling new little children?
LoraSinger 4 years ago 3
Oh! ... I nearly forgot, this is my fave! if all the animals on earth died with the exception of those on the ark, how did kangaroos get to Austrailia from Turkey? (the ark landed on mount arrarat in Turkey) there was no land bridge to cross, and there's no ice age in the bible so no ice bridge either!
hughjarrse 4 years ago
Again, you people need to do your research. The bible states that before the flood, there was water created in one location and land created in one location (Pangea). Plus, the kangaroo is a specie, not a kind. Thus, it could have descended from a previous specie not native to what we now call australia.
hsd0006 4 years ago
the flood supposedly happened 4400 years ago, strange how he great pyramids were being built during this period! how could a global flood ome about without one eygption record mentioning it?? what happened di tey miss it? or just not notice it being busy wth the pyramids and all??
Erech01 4 years ago 3
The current chronology of ancient Egypt is based upon belief in a billion year-old earth. Chronologies currently used are stretched, and to put it simply, even secular scientists are pressing the need for a revised chronology.
hsd0006 4 years ago
hsd - What is the difference between species and kind? Kind is defined as "a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality". Species is defined as: A single, distinct class of living creature with features that distinguish it from others and can interbreed". I think you're talking through your hat.
LoraSinger 4 years ago
Genesis states that these animals were created "by their kind" not their species. The kind is the baraminological term for the parent species of the obervable species of today.
hsd0006 4 years ago
"there is no NO evidense what so ever of a world flood" Wrong. Plate tectonics, rapid erosion, the geological strata, geological dynamics, fossil evidences, all point to the possibility of the Noahic flood stated by the Bible.
hsd0006 4 years ago
fossil evidense actually is evidense against a flood, if a flood happened and all animals were alive, all fossils would be in a random mish mash, we dont see thatanywhere! nowhere in the fossil record have we found a T-rex and a mammoth in the same strata layer
Erech01 4 years ago 2
Wrong again bud. The flood wasn't rapid, but it took 40 days and 40 nights of rains and flooding to get it 1.7 miles deep. Since the flood was a forced, gradual catastrophe then we could suspect that 1. Marine animals will be first hit (since the water came from the 'great deep') 2. Land animals next and then 3. Humans who were last and could get to higher ground faster.
hsd0006 4 years ago
Hsd, First of all, where did the rain come from? Genesis 1:7 states that there was no water above the earth or below. Secondly, and I quote "if it rained for only 40 days and nights... this amount of rain would (according to world renown mathematician John Alan Paulos) equate to 15 FEET per hour... enough to sink a modern aircraft carrier, let alone a hand-made wooden boat with tens of thousands of animals on board" Explain that one, if you can, without resorting to miracles, if possible.
LoraSinger 4 years ago 9
@LoraSinger Most of the water came from within the earth. There is still water coming out of the mid atlantic ridge. The rest came from the canopy of water above the earth. Most of it was not rain, it was water that came from within the earth. The bible CLEARLY says there was water in and above the earth and there is still water in the earth.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 - If it had come within the earth, it would have consisted of steam and deadly gases. Check out the current Danish gusher. In any case, if you look at old maps of that time, the earth is portrayed as flat as a plate with a bowl-like canopy above and supported on four pillars in space. The bible story is CLEARLY a legend invented by primitive men.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 No, not true. The earth is filled with water saturated rock, and there is still water coming out of the mid atlantic ridge, why isn't gas coming out of there?
I agree that most people of that day did consider the earth to be flat, but the bible says the earth is a sphere, not flat, and it floats on nothing. People were killed for saying such a thing back then.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 It's a legend, Micah, no different than the Indian legend of the giant turtle coming out of the ground with the first people on its back.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 So it's a legend that the earth is a sphere and sits on nothing? It's a myth that there are freshwater springs at the bottom of the ocean, it's a myth that the wind is caused by the sun? This is all revealed in the bible. It's a myth that the earth is covered in sedimentary rock which contains trillions of fossilized organisms, mostly marine? And it's a myth that this type of rock only forms under moving water? You've been brainwashed my friend.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 - The word for sphere is not used, micah. The word for circle, however, is. A circle is not a sphere. Would you like to read at a site called "creation stories from around the world". Your legend is only one of many, no better and no worse, all inventions of primitive men to explaine their beginnings.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 The world circle in hebrew means SPHERE. The word in the original hebrew text is indeed sphere. They knew the moon was round too, they would not be that dumb to say the earth was flat and the moon was round.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 m then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg) of the earth (Isaiah 40:18-23
He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house. (Isaiah 22:18)
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 2)The Hebrew word used in scripture for "circle" in the verse above is chuwg. If the Bible writer had meant for us to believe that "circle of the earth" meant that the earth was round, the writer would have used the Hebrew word for "ball," which is duwr. The fact that Isaiah didn't use duwr shows that he wasn't trying to tell us the earth was like a ball.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@micah1116 Now exactly where in your bible does it read SPECIFICALLY that the earth is covered in sedimentary rock which contains trillions of fossilized organisms, mostly marine"? If you are aiming at a worldwide flood, you are being entirely foolish. There is no evidence anywhere of a worldwide flood.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 It doesn't, it says there was a world wide flood. The geologic column is made up of sedimentary layers. Sedimentary rock only forms under moving water. This is basic info you can find at places such as wikipedia. Please explain to me how atleast billions of fish,jellyfish,algae etc get buried in solid rock, when there isn't any water around at all? We shouldn't find a single marine organism if these layers were formed by wind erosion or something of that nature.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 Please explain to me how atleast billions of fish,jellyfish,algae etc get buried in solid rock, when there isn't any water around at all?
When a volcano rises and brings parts of the ocean floor up with it, also come the buried marine organisms. This is why you will find such fossils at the tops or up the sides of hills and mountains. Terrain has changed over the billions of years that the earth has been here and water channels and bodies have changed with it.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 That's lunacy. Your assuming the earth was different long ago and far away billions of years ago of time that doesn't even exist. So your saying volcanoes buried organisms in sedimentary rock? Then how did the land animals get in layers above them in the SAME type of rock? Your relying on the unseen as evidence. Are there volcanoes in the desert? Because we find whale fossils in the desert all the time, not to mention 300 feet trees in alaska beneath the ice.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 You are assuming that deserts were always deserts and that bodies of water always remained the same. The earths poles move a few feet every year and those slight changes over millions of years transforms the earth's surfaces. For instance, in a million more years, the North Pole might just be at the same position as Italy and the conditions on the earth's surface would then change to reflect that position.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 Give me your best evidence the earth is millions of years old, or I'll even say more than 50,000 years old. If you think radiometric dating proves the earth is millions of years old you've got A LOT to learn.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 Do you think that carbon dating and radiometric dating are the only dating methods, micah? You had better do a lot of double checking. For starters, where would the 1.5 million year old dinosaurs have been if the earth is less than 50,000 years old? No, I don't have a lot to learn - I you are a creationist listing to creationist garble that isn't science at all. Conservapedia and the creationist wiki sites are junk.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@Matthew1944 Please tell me how you know how old dinosuars are. I'll help you. Tell the age of the fossil by which layer it comes from. Then they tell the age of the layer by which fossils are in them. It's circular reasoning. They pulled the date for those layers from the clear blue sky before there ever even was carbon dating, potassium argon, uranium-lead, etc etc.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 Check out "methods of dating fossils" on Google - there are 374,000 sites dealing with it. No data is every"pulled out of the clear blue sky". I am amazed that you are so brain washed that you would believe a myth/ legend without hesitation and yet fight so hard against scientific methods which have proved themselves over and over.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@micah1116 Idiocy: Ignoring evidence, Assuming conspiracy, Calling things circular reasoning because you disagree.
NightHawkBomber001 11 months ago
@Matthew1944 I don't think I've even been to those sites, I have heard of them though. Also your missing the major point. We are supposed to be dealing with emperical evidence here. If you give me a link to talk origins I'm not going to critisize the website and then therefore refuse to look at the claims or evidence, no creationist will. I've been on talk origins hundreds of times looking at their claims and debunking them myself for a couple years now.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 Creationists are true believers in a myth and go around and around in circles trying to pull out "facts" to support their belief. Your creation stories (both of the two contradicting ones) are only two out of hundreds. Every civilization has had one and there are dozens just among the North American Indians. Your beliefs belong in the dark ages, Micah.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@micah1116 Why don't you give this a read, Micah. Its short and to the point.
pubsDOTusgsDOTgov/gip/geotime/ageDOThtml
Matthew1944 1 year ago
@micah1116 What about the observations of the natural world in the Quran? Or in the Hindu Vedas? Or the Buddhist scriptures? Why not the historical “Evidences” in the sikh religion? Why not assume the Baha’i religion is the truth?
Heres a thought, Stop using kent hovinds arguments. The mans a criminal and an ass. You should be smarter than that
NightHawkBomber001 11 months ago
@micah1116 "Why isn't gas coming out of there?" Check out the volcano in Denmark - there is plenty of gas and ash coming out of there.
Matthew1944 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@micah1116 "but the bible says the earth is a sphere” --> Isaiah 40:22?
22 It is he that sitteth upon the *circle* of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in....
A Circle is not a sphere. A circle is flat. It is 2 demential --> Basic Geometry.
Job 38:13 - earth has edges... It also had corners (rev.)
Bible: Earth is a flat disc (circle)
NightHawkBomber001 11 months ago
The last ice age was 10,000 years ago. Current scientific research DOES NOT state that an ice age occurred after a flood. You are getting your information from AIG, right?
LoraSinger 4 years ago 4
They aren't mentioned probably for the same reason as poisenous frogs, sharks, beetles, and others: A waste of time. God got his point thru when he said he created the animal "kinds". Polar bears are the result of speciation and genetic variability from already existing DNA, this is observable.
hsd0006 4 years ago
bats are, but the bible calls bats birds:/ anyone who has even a limited understanding of biology know bats are mammals not birds, so why dont creationists argue against this classifacation aswell?
Erech01 4 years ago
The biblical word used for "bird" fits a more modern english translation of a flying creature. Do your research.
hsd0006 4 years ago
bird does not just mean flying creature, there are flying squirrels, are these birds? no, bats are mammals, birds lay eggs, emus dont fly eithe do kiwi or ostrich and they are birds! bird does not nessaccarrilly mean 'flying creature' do your research!
Erech01 4 years ago
My research is valid: The Hebrew word used was 'Owph, meaning "owner of a wing". This hebrew word covered insects, mammals, and birds.
hsd0006 4 years ago
thats hebrew......bird doesnt nessaccarily mean flying creature,
Erech01 4 years ago
it is a well known fact that bats are the only true flying mammal
check wikipedia and i qoute
Bats are the only truly flying mammals. Only with active flight have the resources of the aerial habitat been successfully exploited.
Erech01 4 years ago
I don't dispute this at all. Again though, note the biblical word "'Owph" is used when describing these animals.
hsd0006 4 years ago
in hebrew my name means 'he who is like the lord' doesnt mean its true, i just thin idf biblical scholars are argueing against evolution they should also argue against the idea of a bat not being a bird bt infact a mammal
Erech01 4 years ago
Then why does bat remain under the bird category in the present day INFALLIBLE King James version of the bible?
LoraSinger 4 years ago 4
Good video. It's indeed ridiculous how, after you thoroughly, and in detail, answer an "objection" brought forth by the ID movement as unanswerable, it is simply ignored without any explanation. I guess that when you've ONLY got thoroughly refuted arguments, and aren't willing to entertain the thought that you might be wrong, you've got to simply ignore the refutations. Oh... and it's "empirical", not "impirecal". :)
MightyTiny 5 years ago