@5:12 Actually some christian fundamentalist organizations in my country suggest not only that idea, but the idea that things simply cannot be fossilized. The idea that museums spend money on making plastic figures to enlarge the group of disbelievers.
I normally watch pointless creationist videos and crockoduck nominees as if it was comedy. But sometimes it frightens to know, that there is a fairly large group of people with similar outrageous beliefs that are willing fight for their religion.
Evolution isn't about states, or about reaching a "higher level". Evolution is just change. It doesn't necessarily lead to improvement, just to something different.
Long story short. Apes evolved into Australopithecus. An apelike species that could walk upright. Last skeletal remain of species is 3 million years. Starting 2 million years ago the homo specieis(human) started evolution into homo sapiens(modern humans). Why no one believed in evolution is because of the 1 million year gap. Until 2 years ago when they found a new species called Australopithecus Sediba that fits the gap. It is part Australopithecus and part Homo. Proving we evolved from apes.
If humans evolved from apes and as stated, we progress through evolution, but never going backwards to being a more futile species.... Why are apes still in existence? Wouldn't they have been wiped out with the rise of modern humans?
@SplatteredRemnants Apes are our cousins. We are still apes. Asking why there are still apes is like asking why, if Americans came from Europeans, there are still Europeans.
As for why they weren't wiped out, we as a group ceased to compete with them for resources, initially due to geographic separation. As a species, out of all the great apes, the evidence suggests that we were the ones that came closest to extinction.
@SplatteredRemnants Humans are apes. Humans aren't evolved from the other apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons) and monkeys that are alive today. Humans share a common ancestor with the non-human apes and monkeys. This ancestor lived millions of years ago and was much more primitive than any of the primates alive today
All this video demonstrates is evo's huge reliance of speculation and "over a long period of time". Why no abiogenesis evo's? I tell you why, 'cause it didn't happen, you can't force it in a lab, so how did it happen in far worse enviroment. Evo falls over at the very first step.
@TheBanile What a cop out. So what ever belief system you have that incorporates both abiogenesis and evolution requires a huge amount of faith. How conveinient to recognize a gaping whole in the theory of evolution, and simply push it asside and simply say we're not interested in the major flaws of the theory. We're only interested in being able to hide behind "over a long period of time", with abiogenesis we can't hide behind that, so we don't want it in our theory.
@ian9toes Okay, first of all, like I said, don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis, the two theories are not the same. So say abiogenesis is a flaw in evolutionary theory is inherently wrong.
Second of all, abiogensis has been proven to have merit since the Miller-Urey experiment and the many subsequent experiments to replicate the conditions that formed organic molecules have all drawn much the same conclusion. Evolution has been a conclusive scientific theory for over 100 years now.
@TheBanile This is where your world view colapses. Firstly you assume evo is proven based mostly on your own imagination and "over a long period of time", therefore if evo happened then abio must have also happened. But the reality is abio can't even happen in a lab, and has been proven that it couldn't happen, but with blind faith you hope. The only part of "non-living to human" that doesn't need a lot of time, and suprise, suprise, it can't be demonstrated. I do admire your faith.
@ian9toes Evolution and science aren't a 'world view' or a similar system for belief; they are simply the statement of the facts. They are what we observe in reality; something everyone uses.
Abiogenesis has been proven to be very much possible in laboratory setting (did you not read my last reply? Miller-Urey and the subsequent experiments, look them up), and evolution has been set as a scientific theory and the mounds of evidence to prove it has been established for quite some time.
@ian9toes Which part of you is not a chemical reaction? Life is simply chemical reactions. It's true that a full understanding of abiogenesis has not yet been arrived at, but life had a 4 billion year head start on us. And might I recommend that you cease to insert your god into diminishing gaps? It will just eventually be squeezed out of existence.
@ian9toes Ian, out of curiosity, how do you define evolution and abiogenesis? Because it's really obvious everybody in the discussion operates on different definitions of the word, and you're actually holding parallel monologues.
@StrikaAmaru I see evolution as the theory that we are all here by pure chance, leaving God out of the picture. Therefore I see evolution as being required to explain non-life to human beings, and everything in between. I can see how people would remove the "big bang" from evolution, seeing as evolution is only interested living things but leaving out how we came to have living things at all is absurd as far as I'm concerned.
@TheCraziestFox Well, it's more like mixing your lunch with a sample of the earth and fertilizer used to grow the vegetables, point out that the animal from which the meat comes from could not survive on earth and fertilizer, then claiming this is proof of the fact that fields and cattle farms don't exist, and all food is magically created in the supermarket.
@ian9toes Evolution - random mutation with non-random selection. Carriers of bad mutations die, carriers of good mutations thrive.
Abiogenesis - emergence of living creatures from non-living matter.
Since you can't have random mutations for things which aren't alive, you can remove abiogenesis from evo based on the same logic you agreed to remove the Big Bang.
"can't have random mutations for things which aren't alive"
Well, not entirely. Surely evolutionary theory does not model non-life, but equally certainly some of the laws of evolutionary theory can be applied to non-living replicators, including any hypothetical prebiotic replicator.
@XGralgrathor Oh, yes, random mutations with non-random selection can be used to improve all sorts of computer models, as long as you can implement a good definition of "improvement". But this isn't evolution, it's a branch of computer science named genetic algorithms, and I'd rather not conflate those mutations with DNA mutations, which are a little more complex than moving a few bits around.
It's called a 'fitness landscape'. In engineering, the fitness landscape is determined by the properties of the desired solution. In nature, the fitness landscape is determined by just one thing: reproduction.
"this isn't evolution"
The algorithm works the same in nature as it does in computer models: reproductive variation and differential reproductive success.
Well, the mutations in themselves can be quite simple. But indeed, their effects can be quite complex, depending on the complexity of the mechanism by which they are expressed. Gene expression in nature is extremely complex, as opposed to intelligently designed mechanisms to express coded blueprints (eg. programs etc).
maby eery thing maby but i make my research to know if i am fail or another one try to make easy to her self look for the true its to so hard know pefore its to late
@ThePero20111@ThePero20111 link #1 - says there is a God because we label the Universe "creation" (which is about as smart as saying Christians are right because the calendar is measured in years since the birth of Christ), turns Descartes' "i think therefore I am" on its head for no good reason, severe misrepresentation of both the Big Bang and evolution. If the rest of your links are like the first, we are not impressed.
It is true to a certain extent that we did originate from apes but how do you explain how humans came with the ability to speak? Monkeys don't have the same ability to speak as humans do.. This is the missing link that NO scientists have been able to proof. It is this speech gene called FOXP2 that makes us unique and evolution cannot explain this change..
Look at what we've been through and what we are now! We are pathetic life forms! We feel the need to wear clothes! Why? We have buck teeth, and the teeth that we DO have that are sharp, are tiny. We have no claws, no wings and very bad sense of smell and hearing. No wonder we stay in groups of thousands in cities and buildings. We wouldn't even win a fight with a puppy! How do we fix this?
We can write. We can build computers to write on and power them with electricity. Skills like these make us by far the most powerful animals to have ever existed. We simply do not need sharp teeth, claws or big muscles.
Anyways, you won't evolve bigger muscles because you eat meat. Only if these two things somehow correlate in your survival.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
I always love how atheists take our words so literally ... you lot have no concept of context at all. In regards to the "eye evolution" discussion, I would point out the remarkable findings of Dr. Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box") and the concept of "irreducible complexity" - meaning that there are certain bodily systems whose mechanics are so incredibly unique and complex (ie. the human retina) that either the system existed all at once or not at all.
@stridertex The idea of "evolutionary progression", when held up to the actual biochemical mechanics of the human body, is quite absurd and simplistic. But then, it never really was about science or the search for truth, rather, it was about ramrodding an agenda of godlessness so that certain infantile wannabe intellectuals (with serious authority issues) could live as they pleased.
@stridertex Unfortunately, there's alot of false statements in his presentation here. "Peking Man" vanished and no trace of its remains have been seen, leaving only the word of its discoverer to conveniently rely on - leading one to the conclusion that atheists are just as much believers in myth as Theists are. Also, there has never been (for a single animal species) a pure fossil record of unbroken evolutionary progression - which was a major requirement Darwin stipulated himself.
I think you will find that "a pure fossil record of unbroken evolutionary progression" was NEVER a requirement. To expect such is not only unrealistic, but also intellectually dishonest if you know so much about evolution. What matters is NOT that we have a perfectly unbroken progression, but that the incomplete progression we DO have coincides with Evolution's physiological and genetic predictions.
@stridertex And anyone with any scientific knowledge would point you to evolutionary biologist Dr Kenneth Miller, in particular his 2 hour video on evolution which shoots down Behe in flames. You'll find it if you just type 'Ken Miller' in the search box. Is Miller, a Roman Catholic, trying to 'ramrod an agenda of godlessness', or are you just talking bollocks? I leave it to the reader to decide.
@stridertex "whose mechanics are so incredibly unique and complex (ie. the human retina)"
And yet, a lowly crustacean, the mantis shrimp, has the best eyes in the animal kingdom, while humans are several hundred steps below. God must be a Mantis Shrimp!
Anyway, I call a Poe, as no one who wants to be taken seriously says "the remarkable findings of Dr. Behe"
@stridertex Dr. Michael Behe, the man that got slammed down in court for his Irreducibly complexity argument. He has already been slammed down for his false. "An Eye is to complex to evolve as well." Please look up the rebuttals to these arguments, before speaking again, else I will just ignore you.
@stridertex "irreducible complexity" in creationist's context has be shot down time and time again... Just because the whole is missing vital components stop it from performing one activity does NOT mean it can't perform another useful task.
we were made by a creator, it just makes sense. Darwin himself said,
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"
@woboozy Weigh the absurdities against each other. On one hand, you have billions of years of natural trial-and-error evolution selecting for the modern eye. On the other hand, you have an incomprehensible and completely faith-based almighty creator who supposedly wrote an extremely weird and confusing book to get people to subtly believe in him. Well, which one sounds less probable? Unless you care to present an even better theory, I think we're set.
@darkwoodmovies All this evolutionary trial and error actually led to at least 50-100 seperate times of eye-evolution in completely different species at different times. Today we have millions of different eyes, but the evolution of early generations of eyes, the beginning of eyes and onwards, started 50-100 times at least. So eye-evolution isn't as fantastic or rare as some seem to believe or would desperately like to believe,hehe:) )
@woboozy He said it SEEMS absurd. Remember he was putting forth these arguments to an audience entirely weened on creationism. Of course it SEEMS absurd; it is merely an acknowledgment that the theory may come up against people not willing to look past the "absurdity" at the mountains of concurring evidence. Evidently these people still exist such as yourself. This is unfortunate.
@woboozy Go on, finish the quote. Or don't you know the rest? Just parrotting the same old creationist bullshit without an independent thought of your own.
@Misterb0z dude what the fuck? why did you insult him he was just express his opinion! You are one of the guys who represents evolutionists as all being ignorant and closed minded, I also am a creationist i am offended.
@MrProblem1997 Would you like to do the honest thing, then, and find out what the very next sentence is that your creationist friend has left out of their 'quote'?
@woboozy Yet now we know that the eyes have evolved in various species up to as many as 100times at various times in life's evolution on Earth! Isn't the progress of science just fantastic? Isn't it just fantastic how many millions of times more we know about life today than we did 150 years ago? I think all this progress is so fantastic and beautiful that it doesn't just give me goose-bumps, it gives me tears of joy in my eyes! Science is just so close to removing the ugliness of religion now!
@woboozy AH, the christtards' favourite hobby: "Quote mining". If you read the whole quote you see that Darwin says that the eye evolved anyway. You write like that in scientific papers, list pros and cons and show why one is right and the other wrong.: )
@woboozy Your pervert preacher as usual left out the part of the quote where Daewin says the eye evolved anyway, regardless of how strange it seemed to ignorant 1850's christian minds. Hmmm, not very nonest, these preachers and priests..And NEVER let him get you into a room alone with him, hehe. They're naughty boys in other ways than being just liars too, you know!:)
I do not support multi regional or a completely African origin. Just because we've found the most ancient humanoid apes in Africa at this point in time does not mean we can jump to conclusions.
Thats the great thing about evolution, no matter how you say it , its going to make a monkey out of you. As for me and my lot we will stick to the truth that God created us.Now lift you knuckles off the ground and go and have a great day.
@17188669revfredfeelg And just as creationism is asserted from nothing, so shall your ignorant notions disappear into the absurdities of history. Now pull your fingers out of your ears and have a great scientific day. :)
Potsmoker54 completely misunderstands evolution. Showing that humans are descended from other apes proves nothing more than the obvious fact that we are related to our ancestors. It provides not one scrap of evidence that the obvious phylogenetic changes which accompanied this descent were the result of random mutations and survival of the fittest.
@sallyamis "It provides not one scrap of evidence that (the changes) were the result of random mutations and survival of the fittest." Nor does the fact that we see the sun shining in of itself provide evidence that nuclear fusion is taking place, but it is the most reasonable explanation that we have. The same is true of our evolution. We know it happened, and the best explanation is the theory of evolution.
This potted account doesn't come close to explaining how human characteristics may have evolved. Potsmoker54: why don't you address the issues I have raised?
The reason I came to this channel was the hope that, amongst the third-rate brains writing comments on forums such as this, one or two people - maybe even Potsmoker54 himselfr - would demonstrate some ability to address the science rather than simply repeating the dogma.
@sallyamis You're fucking impossible aren't you? Dogma is unprovable, untestable, unrefutable scripture followed by faith alone, and can't be dogma if you understand it with knowledge. Science is nothing but self critical knowledge, testable and provable, and if refuted, get changed or dropped entirely. Why do you think evolution is even being taught in a classroom? Because it has dominated peer reviewed literature for a hundred years, and has made itself an undeniable part of life.
Notice how the evolutionists - for all their bluster and the sense of certainty in their arrogant and usually semi-literate - postings - are unable to explain the only four characteristics which separate us from other species.
At least the creationists have read the Bible. I have the feeling that the evolutionists have read nothing.
Frontal limbs shorter and developed to do handiwork instead of moving about.
Good enough for you? Probably not, I don't know what you are looking for. There are a multitude of characteristics that make us human. I decided to list morphological ones.
Other hominids may have existed in the past, and there is a plausible line of progression over time. But the same is true of cars, computers and many other things.
These are harder questions:
(1) Why are humans naked?
(2) Why do they walk erect?
(3) How did language evolve?
(4) Why do humans have larger brains than other apes?
If you can explain how these characteristics - which are the only ones which separate us from other apes - evolved then you will have achieved something.
@sallyamis I'll try to answer them to my knowledge. (I'm not representing everything who believes in evolution, I'm just answering the questions I "know")
1) Probably climate change
2) Because the forest parts that they were living in turned into a desert in a short amount of time, Apes figured out that it felt better to walk erect, so that was carried on. (We know that the environment changed because of rocks and other geologic evidence)
Why would climate change make us naked? The only other naked mammals I can think of live underground or in the sea (indeed, the idea that we lived in water for a while is the only possible explanation that makes sense).
>>Apes figured out that it felt better to walk erect,
Why? And why don't other mammals do the same? Walking on two legs slows one down - it's a colossal disadvantage.
@sallyamis I'm only a kid and even I know why apes started walking erect. It saves energy, when our ancestors moved out of tree populated areas they had to walk more and more. Walking on two legs gave them an advantage to walk further and save energy.
@sallyamis@sallyamis.....Why? And why don't other mammals do the same? Walking on two legs slows one down - it's a colossal disadvantage ............ wrong, walking on two legs is more of an advantage, contrary to what your opinion might be...... Running is faster on four legs, but guess what, you get farther with less energy consumed by walking.
humans aren't naked...and if they're naked, then so is every other animal. lol
It's not a disadvantage if you develop sweat glands along with it, coupled with the energy saving of two legs means that animal will have tons of endurance (a human can chase most animals to death)
btw, birds are bipedal (two legs) and they're fast runners.
@sallyamis I think we may have had a semi aquatic lifestyle. Not only does it explain our bald skin, it also explains why we walk upright because that helps in walking through water. We're also not the only bipedal mammals. Kangaroos are another bipedal kind of mammal and bonobos and some other primates walk upright when they're carrying things or walking through water. Bipedalism has some advantages. It is good for long distance chasing of prey. Bipedal dinosaurs may have hunted this way too.
4) I'm really not sure, but I bet there's an explanation out there, and you should research it, instead of coming to videos made by popular people who get thousands of comments a day, then act like you've won because no one answered you.
The reason you don't get any replies at all is because you post questions that have been answered before, then, when no one replies in a few hours, you just call us stupid and make a bunch of assertions. Stop this and you'll get answers.
>>The reason you don't get any replies at all is because
No. It's the exact opposite. It's because I'm asking questions which haven't been asked before - at least by the kind of people who lurk on creationist/evolutionist propaganda sites such as this one.
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
@blamerepublicans you said "i don't use drugs" then you said "i don't abuse alcohol" which makes me assume that means u do drink it. alcohol is a drug, so yes u do use drugs
@unfad1ng any substance once circulated in the blood stream altering normal bodily funtions. Ethanol is just as much of a drug as caffeine, cocaine, psyclobin *shrooms* though i think i spelt it wrong, THC, etc
@unfad1ng what about it? medicine is drugs too. thats why they're called drugs. Drugs are drugs. ethanol is one of them, thats the simple point i was making
so its safe to say that we're slowly changing? that in the future humans will certainly not look the way we look today, but they'll still have that human look just different...
how the hell did we come from monkeys lol great imagination lol but anyway and where the hell did we get emotions from huh huh TELL ME THAT n why arent monkeys evolving now
@xDAxROC12x They are evolving now through micro evolution. Macro evolution happens over millions of years while micro evolution occurs gradually but in essence they are the same thing. Watch QualiaSoup on YouTube, he has a information video about evolution. The image located at imgur [dot] com [forward slash] hgiSc.jpg also provides a visual explanation to micro / macro evolution. For information on human emotions start with Wikipedia.
I believe in evolution, but I don't understand certain things...
If every animal, including humans, are constantly evolving - we are all transitional... how can we even categorize species, if everything is just transitional to something else.
Are we even Homo Sapiens anymore? Or are we a transitional form to a new species that will live 500'000 years from now? Anyone who understands what I mean?
If we, "Sapiens", evolved from "Erectus" - when did we become Sapiens.. if it's gradual...?!?
take a child for example, it gradually ages, changing, yet we still call it a child up till a certain age or change.
baby -> child -> teenager -> young adult -> adult (just to give an example)
Its like looking at 10 pictures of someones life, at some point you just have to say, hey, he changed so much from the previous picture where he was a child, hes clearly something else now ( an adult for example).
@DragonGuard1337 Yeah... but for like a thousand generations or something.. people walked around being to some degree Erectus and to some degree Sapiens..
I guess we are much different today than the first Sapiens? A little bit different anyway? I just wonder where the future will take us.. I've seen pre-human skulls evolve through the last 7 million years, but where will they be in another 7 million years? It just feels like we're finished evolving now, but I know we can't be.
@aboyborninjune i think the human race wont evolve much anymore, sure, we will get taller, smarter and other small changes as we can already see this today, people are growing larger then their parents and keep gaining more knowledge.
However, i guess we wont see any really dramatic changes anytime soon, simply because humanity doesn't have the need to change.
I honestly think we will sooner see genetic or robotic enhancements by humans then a completely new species of humans evolved by nature.
@aboyborninjune the only reaosn you'd feel like we're done evolving is because you're living in the now, and can't imagine what we could turn into , i mean we can come up with ideas, but we have no clue what we'll end up looking like, so "we stopped evolving" is a safe feeling to think we'll be human forever, aint gonna happen
@aboyborninjune you can compare fossils to the pictures mentioned before, you have say 100 fossils of, lets say a fish to a land creature.
now comparing them to pictures we can say, oh look, up to this point they mainly breath under water (fish can get oxygen from air now as well, you see them gaps for it when they live in a low oxygen environment) but at some point some fish, living in shallow ponds start getting the oxygen mainly from air
@photolitherland Well so many people in here say that and they are not joking - so its hard to tell sometimes when so many people are saying similar things and they are dead serious lol
The bible says that the world is a "circle" and their is a mountain that you can see the whole world from the top of. The biblical earth has a "firmament" over it, floats upon the "deep" waters, and the sun revolves around it. You can find pictures of the ancient Jews' depiction of the flat earth and surrounding firmament, sheol, and deep beneath the earth. Its not the bible's fault though, it only contains recycled stories taken from older religious texts.
Why do creationist say there are zero transitional fossils when scientist say there are hundreds? Is it just willful ignorance? Or do they have some really bad conspiracy?
@BlameRepublicans actually its the other way around - the wicked and evil are not interested in truth - that is why they try to use any weak arguement they can in an attempt to discredit the truth - and thats also why they are slaves to sin - they love sin and would never consider stopping it - the bible says it is an abomination to the wicked to turn from evil. A fool despises correction - and a fool has said in his heart there is no God. The fear of the lord is to depart from evil. Repent
The Bible is immoral. It supports stoning your children to death if they act up and say it's OK to beat your slave so long as he can rise after two days of recovery. I am morally superior to your god and you. Rather than "repenting" I "think". I recommend you do the same.
@BlameRepublicans Breaking the commandments is STILL a death sentence, but now it's on judgement day, those stories were to show us what happens to commandments breakers that refuse to stop. Adulterers were stoned - theives were stoned - witches - murderers - those stories are examples to make a point. I have stopped breaking the commandments that is what repenting is - have U stopped breaking the commandments ? if not then you should not delude yourself into thinking you have superior morals.
So you support murdering a child who fails to listen to his parents? You support slavery? WOW - you are sone sorry, lost individual. Seek help. Yes - I am superior to you and your god as I do not condone the killing of children and slavery.
@BlameRepublicans That symbolizes what happen when you refuse to listen to your parent God - you end up dying for not listening to the warnings and obeying the only path that leads to life. You have to think outside of the physical world a little bit. Disrespecting your parents is breaking the commandments and we know what happens to commandment breakers - the wages of sin is death - it was back then and still is now. If you really are against slavery then quit your job right now ..........
@fernieboy100 according to your own book - that is the WORD OF GOD and can't be changed what so ever. If you can pick and choose where and when your bible is literal and when it's symbolic - you are breaking your god's law. I'm sorry - go to evilbible(dot)com and read the FACTS about the christian bible. It will scare you straight into Atheism.
@KayleLang Have you SEEN the list of transitional fossils ? its pretty bad lol - google it and have a look - I hope you like cartoons because there are tons of " transitional fossil cartoons " gotta wonder where all these supposed transitional fossils are being kept lol - its all a sham but people buy it cuz they dont want to beleive the truth - however the truth will remain wether god haters believe it or not - and everything will turn out exactly as the bible told us it would.
Wikipedia has an article on it. If you are not a scientific illiterate - you can understand that the fossil evidence supporting long term evolution is very compelling. Remember - religious people have a vested interest in LYING to you about Science. Science has brought us into the modern world. Religion has done nothing but retarded us.
@BlameRepublicans pop science is what creationists are against - science has to have solid facts to back it up - today we see a lot of human opinion mixed in with so called science - the fossil record points to creation - that is why the vast amount of fossils found are animals still in existence - a fact they down play - complete animals - no in between animals at all - your " compelling evidence " is complelling - it shows far more evidence for creation than evolution - landslide vistory
There is no longer a debate among Scientists; it was settled about 140 years ago. All that's going on now is a public opinion campaign put on by creationists using pseudo-science to try to disguise their debunked theory. Don’t take my word on it. Literally MILLIONS of professional Scientists have officially REJECTED the failed “intelligent design” argument as NON-SCIENTIFIC. Sorry
@BlameRepublicans And guess what ? most people are heading to destruction - so once you understand that fact then you will understand why most scientists reject any science that supports the bible - its simply because they do not want to change their ways and would rather decide for themselves what is right or wrong so millions of scientists reject God - wow what a startling conclusion you have come to - good work
We all are heading to destruction - it's called "death". Scientists reject or accept things based on how well they withstand testing. Your bible is full of fantasy stories that can not be reproduced under laboratory conditions. THAT is why they're rejected. It's a simple fact that your God is fiction, and we reject it as a childish fantasy. Sorry. I’ll be the first in Church this Sunday the SECOND God or Jesus shows himself in a scientifically verifiable way. Until then - he's BUNK.
US National scientific organizations that support evolution - The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of University Professors, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Psychological Association, American Society of Agronomy, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Botanical Society of America, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, (more)
(cont.) National Association of Biology Teachers, The National Center for Science Education, The National Science Teachers Association, and the United States National Academy of Sciences.
These are just a few US groups. So they're "pop" science? I must ask what your educational qualifications are... to call these people "pop" scientists.....
Kentucky Academy of Science, The Kentucky Paleontological Society, The Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences, International Council of Europe, Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative, Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales, Australian Academy of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Australian Science Teachers Association, Royal Society’s Interacademy Panel
The International Society for Science and Religion, The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Ottawa Centre......so they're all "POP" eh?????????????????????
@fernieboy100 "Yes worldy God hating and God rejecting institutions"
What about all the religious and religiously affiliated organizations that accept the Theory of Evolution? You do know that thousands of Catholic and Protestant schools around the world teach evolution, right? Are you saying they all hate and reject your god?
Could it be possible that you've made your mind about evolution by blindly trusting the wrong people? Could it be possible that your religious leaders have told you lies?
@CloserEnd I dont have any religious leaders - I don't listen to humans and ignore God - that is how I know I am right - God does not lie - You need to understand that Satan has been attacking the church ever since the beginning - and many mainstream churches teach their own doctrines and disobey the bible - disobeying the sabbath and changing it to a sunday is an example of this. Adaptation is real - this is proven fact - but the animal produces after its own kind like the bible says
(cont) many people use the word evolution very loosely & in a way that includes the proven fact of adaptation yet also claims macro-evolution under the same title - yet they are NOT the same thing. Creationists do not have a problem with adaptation - small changes within a species happen but the animal remains the same kind, however we dont go for this theory that whales had legs - or fish came out of water to roam the desert - and saying it happenned over millions of years doesn't work for us
Speciation is a well established fact within the theory of evolution. A popular example is the three-spined stickleback. Once restricted to salt water there is now fresh water species that resulted from geographic isolation over as little as 10,000 generations. This is a Scientific fact. If you care to dispute it – please do so with peer-reviewed science, rahter than just your opinion.
Creationists have answers for which they cherry pick support. Science simply looks for truth.
@fernieboy100 "small changes within a species happen"
Not just "within"! Speciation - meaning a branch of a species evolving into another species - has been observed in multiple occasions, both in nature and lab environment.
"but the animal remains the same kind"
Ah, but what are these "kinds" you keep babbling about? No such things have ever been properly defined anywhere - not even in your bible. If you know what these "kinds" are, please tell us what they are and what are their boundaries.
CAN YOU PROVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE? If not - why should we allow you to obstruct scientific progress based on YOUR mis-conceptions of the world? What right do you have to do this?
Oh BTW - we see no proof that your Bible was written by anyone other than Bronze Age men. If you follow your Bible, you are following men who died many years ago. Men who often contrdict themselves.
@fernieboy100 "I dont have any religious leaders - I don't listen to humans"
So where did you get the idea that a god exists? From a book written by superstitious bronze-age goat-herders? Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that the bible is just a fairytale? Or do you hear god's voice in your head?
"the animal produces after its own kind"
Funny thing is, this alone proves that the authors of the bible had feeble knowledge of biology - there are no animal "kinds".
@CloserEnd Horses produce horses - big ones - small ones - wild ones - striped ones - you name it but a horse still remains a horse - it does not turn into a whale. Dogs remain dogs - right from the st.bernard all the way down to the chihuaha - but they still produce after their own kind - a dog remains a dog and only produces dogs - it does not turn into a cat lol. Comprende ?
You didn't answer my question. I asked, where are the borders of these "kinds" and how can we identify them. Are wolves dogs? What about bears? What about the common ancestors of both wolves and bears? Moreover, are all insects of the same "kind"? What about lizards? Until you can clearly define what a "kind" means the concept is worthless.
Finally, you do know that humans were classified as (a subspecies of) apes long before Darwin, don't you? Apes produce apes.
en.wikipedia(dot org)/wiki/Speciation If you care to know how evolution works that link I provided you makes it clear. You are 100% wrong, and don't have the facts.
I don't "hate" your god; I simply see no evidence supporting the hypothesis. Science is simply saying - your explanation is not scientific, therefore IS NOT SCIENCE. It's out-side the realm of science and by trying to sneak it into the science class room you (and many others, sadly) are attempting to high-jack the legitimacy of science to prop up your dying faith system. Make no mistake – all religions either grow or die, and yours is dying, thankfully.
“Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the (cont.)
nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees….”
The creation myth is anything but scientific. It's a myth, a campaign of lies against Science. There is no place for it outside of your church.
@BlameRepublicans You need to stop the tired old false dichotomy claiming this is science verses religion that is so old and tired its ridiculous - evolutionists do not have a monopoly on science like they claim - they would have the world think they own all the rights to science but they simply don't - evolution is a waste of tax dollars and every teacher of evolution should be fired so we can work on better things than indoctrinating children into lies and deception - check out lucy - lol
and to think that Lucy passed a peer review says a lot about the whole thing - lucy is depicted as having human hands and feet when those were never found - in fact a very small amount of bones were found but as usual evolutionists jump on their bandwagon and recontruct a half human half ape and put it on display- as a way to promote their version. we have seen many frauds from the evolution camp - they glue bones together that were found in different locations - look at tiktalic - hilarious
@fernieboy100 "lucy is depicted as having human hands and feet when those were never found"
Funny thing is, since then scientists have discovered hand and foot bones of Australopithecus Afarensis (the latest in February this year) that match the earlier reconstruction of Lucy. In other words, they were proven to be right in their predictions.
As for Tiktaalik, its most spectacular feature is its skull, which shows ability to breath both above and under water, and which was found largely intact.
@BlameRepublicans "Funny how Fernie and his God had no come back for you there."
No surprise there, he has already intentionally dodged or straight out ignored a bunch of my earlier questions. Instead, he just keeps repeating stupid creationist claims that have been debunked multiple times. He's so willfully ignorant that I seriously suspect he's a poe. Unless he suddenly starts answering my questions and backing up his claims with actual evidence, I consider this mockery of a "debate" done.
When I first encountered them Pose pissed me off, but then I realized I could use them as "sparring partners" or at least punching bags to perfect my technique. Ferine has already played the "Devil Card" on me. This indicates that he's running low on ammo. Next he will cease to reply directly to my posts, but rather post new comments as replie
Go to a zoo and I'll bet you'll never see an ape give birth to man! Proof God exists!
HessenDragoon 3 days ago
@HessenDragoon You have got to be kidding me, right?
TokyoGeisha21 8 hours ago
I hate the term "missing link". Evolution is not an all or nothing change, it is gradual.
Ilicium 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
00:18 after the egg mountain thingy ,, is the woman holding a dick ?
IvanderHaisley 1 week ago
Comment removed
IvanderHaisley 1 week ago
@5:12 Actually some christian fundamentalist organizations in my country suggest not only that idea, but the idea that things simply cannot be fossilized. The idea that museums spend money on making plastic figures to enlarge the group of disbelievers.
I normally watch pointless creationist videos and crockoduck nominees as if it was comedy. But sometimes it frightens to know, that there is a fairly large group of people with similar outrageous beliefs that are willing fight for their religion.
Oohsnappydude 2 weeks ago
@moocowpunk
"another state"
Evolution isn't about states, or about reaching a "higher level". Evolution is just change. It doesn't necessarily lead to improvement, just to something different.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Long story short. Apes evolved into Australopithecus. An apelike species that could walk upright. Last skeletal remain of species is 3 million years. Starting 2 million years ago the homo specieis(human) started evolution into homo sapiens(modern humans). Why no one believed in evolution is because of the 1 million year gap. Until 2 years ago when they found a new species called Australopithecus Sediba that fits the gap. It is part Australopithecus and part Homo. Proving we evolved from apes.
AdamColeD 4 weeks ago
If humans evolved from apes and as stated, we progress through evolution, but never going backwards to being a more futile species.... Why are apes still in existence? Wouldn't they have been wiped out with the rise of modern humans?
SplatteredRemnants 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants Apes are our cousins. We are still apes. Asking why there are still apes is like asking why, if Americans came from Europeans, there are still Europeans.
As for why they weren't wiped out, we as a group ceased to compete with them for resources, initially due to geographic separation. As a species, out of all the great apes, the evidence suggests that we were the ones that came closest to extinction.
Misterb0z 1 month ago
@SplatteredRemnants Humans are apes. Humans aren't evolved from the other apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons) and monkeys that are alive today. Humans share a common ancestor with the non-human apes and monkeys. This ancestor lived millions of years ago and was much more primitive than any of the primates alive today
badnasan 1 month ago
All this video demonstrates is evo's huge reliance of speculation and "over a long period of time". Why no abiogenesis evo's? I tell you why, 'cause it didn't happen, you can't force it in a lab, so how did it happen in far worse enviroment. Evo falls over at the very first step.
ian9toes 1 month ago
@ian9toes Evolution =/= Abiogenesis. The two are very different scientific theories. Please don't get them confused because it annoys us scientists.
TheBanile 1 month ago
@TheBanile What a cop out. So what ever belief system you have that incorporates both abiogenesis and evolution requires a huge amount of faith. How conveinient to recognize a gaping whole in the theory of evolution, and simply push it asside and simply say we're not interested in the major flaws of the theory. We're only interested in being able to hide behind "over a long period of time", with abiogenesis we can't hide behind that, so we don't want it in our theory.
ian9toes 1 month ago
@ian9toes Okay, first of all, like I said, don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis, the two theories are not the same. So say abiogenesis is a flaw in evolutionary theory is inherently wrong.
Second of all, abiogensis has been proven to have merit since the Miller-Urey experiment and the many subsequent experiments to replicate the conditions that formed organic molecules have all drawn much the same conclusion. Evolution has been a conclusive scientific theory for over 100 years now.
TheBanile 1 month ago
@TheBanile This is where your world view colapses. Firstly you assume evo is proven based mostly on your own imagination and "over a long period of time", therefore if evo happened then abio must have also happened. But the reality is abio can't even happen in a lab, and has been proven that it couldn't happen, but with blind faith you hope. The only part of "non-living to human" that doesn't need a lot of time, and suprise, suprise, it can't be demonstrated. I do admire your faith.
ian9toes 1 month ago
@ian9toes Evolution and science aren't a 'world view' or a similar system for belief; they are simply the statement of the facts. They are what we observe in reality; something everyone uses.
Abiogenesis has been proven to be very much possible in laboratory setting (did you not read my last reply? Miller-Urey and the subsequent experiments, look them up), and evolution has been set as a scientific theory and the mounds of evidence to prove it has been established for quite some time.
TheBanile 1 month ago
@ian9toes Which part of you is not a chemical reaction? Life is simply chemical reactions. It's true that a full understanding of abiogenesis has not yet been arrived at, but life had a 4 billion year head start on us. And might I recommend that you cease to insert your god into diminishing gaps? It will just eventually be squeezed out of existence.
Misterb0z 1 month ago
@ian9toes Ian, out of curiosity, how do you define evolution and abiogenesis? Because it's really obvious everybody in the discussion operates on different definitions of the word, and you're actually holding parallel monologues.
StrikaAmaru 1 month ago
@StrikaAmaru I see evolution as the theory that we are all here by pure chance, leaving God out of the picture. Therefore I see evolution as being required to explain non-life to human beings, and everything in between. I can see how people would remove the "big bang" from evolution, seeing as evolution is only interested living things but leaving out how we came to have living things at all is absurd as far as I'm concerned.
ian9toes 1 month ago
@ian9toes
Actually...evolution explains first life to human beings.
Abiogenesis explains life from non-life.
Origins of the universe are somewhere completely different.
What is absurd is your insistence of one explain all theory.
That would be like blending your lunch because you dont want to eat meat and potatoes separately.
TheCraziestFox 1 month ago
@TheCraziestFox Well, it's more like mixing your lunch with a sample of the earth and fertilizer used to grow the vegetables, point out that the animal from which the meat comes from could not survive on earth and fertilizer, then claiming this is proof of the fact that fields and cattle farms don't exist, and all food is magically created in the supermarket.
And I think I drove the metaphor into the ground.
StrikaAmaru 1 month ago
@ian9toes Evolution - random mutation with non-random selection. Carriers of bad mutations die, carriers of good mutations thrive.
Abiogenesis - emergence of living creatures from non-living matter.
Since you can't have random mutations for things which aren't alive, you can remove abiogenesis from evo based on the same logic you agreed to remove the Big Bang.
StrikaAmaru 1 month ago
@StrikaAmaru
"can't have random mutations for things which aren't alive"
Well, not entirely. Surely evolutionary theory does not model non-life, but equally certainly some of the laws of evolutionary theory can be applied to non-living replicators, including any hypothetical prebiotic replicator.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@XGralgrathor Oh, yes, random mutations with non-random selection can be used to improve all sorts of computer models, as long as you can implement a good definition of "improvement". But this isn't evolution, it's a branch of computer science named genetic algorithms, and I'd rather not conflate those mutations with DNA mutations, which are a little more complex than moving a few bits around.
StrikaAmaru 2 weeks ago
@StrikaAmaru
"a good definition of "improvement""
It's called a 'fitness landscape'. In engineering, the fitness landscape is determined by the properties of the desired solution. In nature, the fitness landscape is determined by just one thing: reproduction.
"this isn't evolution"
The algorithm works the same in nature as it does in computer models: reproductive variation and differential reproductive success.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@StrikaAmaru
"little more complex"
Well, the mutations in themselves can be quite simple. But indeed, their effects can be quite complex, depending on the complexity of the mechanism by which they are expressed. Gene expression in nature is extremely complex, as opposed to intelligently designed mechanisms to express coded blueprints (eg. programs etc).
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
Evidence of the existence of true God
watch?v=Vl12NtmqMYQ
watch?v=0xXgsndwxD4&feature=channel_video_title
watch?v=4wV0vV5Hrp0&feature=related
watch?v=BXiNXDDdaK8&feature=related
watch?v=azAOtB65Td0&feature=related
watch?v=RjKGlNVmnqc&feature=related
ThePero20111 1 month ago
@ThePero20111 you fail.
shortman148 1 month ago
@shortman148
maby eery thing maby but i make my research to know if i am fail or another one try to make easy to her self look for the true its to so hard know pefore its to late
ThePero20111 1 month ago
@ThePero20111 @ThePero20111 link #1 - says there is a God because we label the Universe "creation" (which is about as smart as saying Christians are right because the calendar is measured in years since the birth of Christ), turns Descartes' "i think therefore I am" on its head for no good reason, severe misrepresentation of both the Big Bang and evolution. If the rest of your links are like the first, we are not impressed.
StrikaAmaru 1 month ago
@StrikaAmaru
sir you can enter my channel you found video take about evolution and even soul under tabe call proof of existence of God
ThePero20111 1 month ago
@ThePero20111
You: "See my evidence"
Me: "I have seen your 'evidence', it's a long string of philosophical and physical misrepresentation"
You: "See my evidence!"
Me: "I did, that's not what evolution is and your representation of the Big Bang is a frankly ridiculous strawman."
You: "Go see my evidence!"
Me: "I did, and I keep telling you, you don't have any, nor do you have the faintest clue about what them rotten scientists actually claim."
You: "See my evidence!!! Why don't Atheists listen?"
StrikaAmaru 1 month ago
@StrikaAmaru
watch?v=hYlj5BQ30CQ
this link for a american scientist convert to Islam because they belive in islam
you think you have more Knowledge
ThePero20111 1 month ago
@StrikaAmaru You, good sir/madam, are brilliant. Goodness knows the amount of times I've had a complicated paraphrase of that conversation.
TheBanile 1 month ago
@TheBanile Thank you for the compliment, it's both rare and appreciated :)
StrikaAmaru 1 month ago
@StrikaAmaru You're most welcome. You probably need it, with youtube comments being mostly a sea of ridiculousness that it is :P
TheBanile 1 month ago
All the missing links, they're all old men with arthritis.
klutterkicker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is true to a certain extent that we did originate from apes but how do you explain how humans came with the ability to speak? Monkeys don't have the same ability to speak as humans do.. This is the missing link that NO scientists have been able to proof. It is this speech gene called FOXP2 that makes us unique and evolution cannot explain this change..
mikemiamionline 1 month ago
We have neanderthal genes :)
1GTX1 1 month ago
Everything makes alot more sense when a British guy explains it....
xKINGxMOONx 1 month ago
Look at what we've been through and what we are now! We are pathetic life forms! We feel the need to wear clothes! Why? We have buck teeth, and the teeth that we DO have that are sharp, are tiny. We have no claws, no wings and very bad sense of smell and hearing. No wonder we stay in groups of thousands in cities and buildings. We wouldn't even win a fight with a puppy! How do we fix this?
Eat more meat- We would evolve sharper teeth!
Exercise!
Eat fruit and veg!
Get plenty of fresh air!
7246jack 1 month ago
@7246jack
We can write. We can build computers to write on and power them with electricity. Skills like these make us by far the most powerful animals to have ever existed. We simply do not need sharp teeth, claws or big muscles.
Anyways, you won't evolve bigger muscles because you eat meat. Only if these two things somehow correlate in your survival.
Thetarget1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 2 months ago
you sound like a narrator from discovery programs :P
HeAdGrAbZoMbIe 2 months ago
I like turtles.....
304runner 2 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
I always love how atheists take our words so literally ... you lot have no concept of context at all. In regards to the "eye evolution" discussion, I would point out the remarkable findings of Dr. Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box") and the concept of "irreducible complexity" - meaning that there are certain bodily systems whose mechanics are so incredibly unique and complex (ie. the human retina) that either the system existed all at once or not at all.
stridertex 2 months ago
@stridertex The idea of "evolutionary progression", when held up to the actual biochemical mechanics of the human body, is quite absurd and simplistic. But then, it never really was about science or the search for truth, rather, it was about ramrodding an agenda of godlessness so that certain infantile wannabe intellectuals (with serious authority issues) could live as they pleased.
stridertex 2 months ago
@stridertex Unfortunately, there's alot of false statements in his presentation here. "Peking Man" vanished and no trace of its remains have been seen, leaving only the word of its discoverer to conveniently rely on - leading one to the conclusion that atheists are just as much believers in myth as Theists are. Also, there has never been (for a single animal species) a pure fossil record of unbroken evolutionary progression - which was a major requirement Darwin stipulated himself.
stridertex 2 months ago
@stridertex
I think you will find that "a pure fossil record of unbroken evolutionary progression" was NEVER a requirement. To expect such is not only unrealistic, but also intellectually dishonest if you know so much about evolution. What matters is NOT that we have a perfectly unbroken progression, but that the incomplete progression we DO have coincides with Evolution's physiological and genetic predictions.
Kinin4 1 month ago
@stridertex And anyone with any scientific knowledge would point you to evolutionary biologist Dr Kenneth Miller, in particular his 2 hour video on evolution which shoots down Behe in flames. You'll find it if you just type 'Ken Miller' in the search box. Is Miller, a Roman Catholic, trying to 'ramrod an agenda of godlessness', or are you just talking bollocks? I leave it to the reader to decide.
Misterb0z 2 months ago
@stridertex "whose mechanics are so incredibly unique and complex (ie. the human retina)"
And yet, a lowly crustacean, the mantis shrimp, has the best eyes in the animal kingdom, while humans are several hundred steps below. God must be a Mantis Shrimp!
Anyway, I call a Poe, as no one who wants to be taken seriously says "the remarkable findings of Dr. Behe"
danoso0931 2 months ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
@stridertex Dr. Michael Behe, the man that got slammed down in court for his Irreducibly complexity argument. He has already been slammed down for his false. "An Eye is to complex to evolve as well." Please look up the rebuttals to these arguments, before speaking again, else I will just ignore you.
NathanWubs 2 months ago
@stridertex "irreducible complexity" in creationist's context has be shot down time and time again... Just because the whole is missing vital components stop it from performing one activity does NOT mean it can't perform another useful task.
haddukken 2 months ago
is there a video on how the vegetation appeared? like all the food that we eat today?
hbk1995 3 months ago
@hbk1995 Have you searched youtube. If not there is some information on google, its quite interesting.
NathanWubs 2 months ago
the Neanderthal picture at 2:17 looks like vin diesel.
whiterabit09 3 months ago
Will this be re-uploaded after an update that acknowledges the new evidence that we have a certain amount of direct Neanderthal ancestry?
tifforo1 3 months ago
we were made by a creator, it just makes sense. Darwin himself said,
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"
<3
woboozy 4 months ago
@woboozy Weigh the absurdities against each other. On one hand, you have billions of years of natural trial-and-error evolution selecting for the modern eye. On the other hand, you have an incomprehensible and completely faith-based almighty creator who supposedly wrote an extremely weird and confusing book to get people to subtly believe in him. Well, which one sounds less probable? Unless you care to present an even better theory, I think we're set.
darkwoodmovies 3 months ago
@darkwoodmovies All this evolutionary trial and error actually led to at least 50-100 seperate times of eye-evolution in completely different species at different times. Today we have millions of different eyes, but the evolution of early generations of eyes, the beginning of eyes and onwards, started 50-100 times at least. So eye-evolution isn't as fantastic or rare as some seem to believe or would desperately like to believe,hehe:) )
winterstellar 3 months ago
@woboozy He said it SEEMS absurd. Remember he was putting forth these arguments to an audience entirely weened on creationism. Of course it SEEMS absurd; it is merely an acknowledgment that the theory may come up against people not willing to look past the "absurdity" at the mountains of concurring evidence. Evidently these people still exist such as yourself. This is unfortunate.
Paul07791 3 months ago
@woboozy Go on, finish the quote. Or don't you know the rest? Just parrotting the same old creationist bullshit without an independent thought of your own.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z dude what the fuck? why did you insult him he was just express his opinion! You are one of the guys who represents evolutionists as all being ignorant and closed minded, I also am a creationist i am offended.
MrProblem1997 3 months ago
@MrProblem1997 Would you like to do the honest thing, then, and find out what the very next sentence is that your creationist friend has left out of their 'quote'?
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@woboozy Yet now we know that the eyes have evolved in various species up to as many as 100times at various times in life's evolution on Earth! Isn't the progress of science just fantastic? Isn't it just fantastic how many millions of times more we know about life today than we did 150 years ago? I think all this progress is so fantastic and beautiful that it doesn't just give me goose-bumps, it gives me tears of joy in my eyes! Science is just so close to removing the ugliness of religion now!
winterstellar 3 months ago
@winterstellar fuck you too dick head
MrProblem1997 3 months ago
@woboozy AH, the christtards' favourite hobby: "Quote mining". If you read the whole quote you see that Darwin says that the eye evolved anyway. You write like that in scientific papers, list pros and cons and show why one is right and the other wrong.: )
winterstellar 3 months ago
@woboozy Your pervert preacher as usual left out the part of the quote where Daewin says the eye evolved anyway, regardless of how strange it seemed to ignorant 1850's christian minds. Hmmm, not very nonest, these preachers and priests..And NEVER let him get you into a room alone with him, hehe. They're naughty boys in other ways than being just liars too, you know!:)
winterstellar 3 months ago
@winterstellar *honest*. that's what they're not. A typo there- (Perverts are what they usually are, by the way): )
winterstellar 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I do not support multi regional or a completely African origin. Just because we've found the most ancient humanoid apes in Africa at this point in time does not mean we can jump to conclusions.
Luigi84289 4 months ago
Your video has been recommended by a lecturer in UK HE and shared on our edmediashare site.
jiscdigitalmedia 4 months ago in playlist Anthropology
Thats the great thing about evolution, no matter how you say it , its going to make a monkey out of you. As for me and my lot we will stick to the truth that God created us.Now lift you knuckles off the ground and go and have a great day.
17188669revfredfeelg 5 months ago
@17188669revfredfeelg And just as creationism is asserted from nothing, so shall your ignorant notions disappear into the absurdities of history. Now pull your fingers out of your ears and have a great scientific day. :)
TheBanile 4 months ago
I love these reality-based videos. Squirm, creatards, squirm!
ndrthrdr1 5 months ago
Potsmoker54 completely misunderstands evolution. Showing that humans are descended from other apes proves nothing more than the obvious fact that we are related to our ancestors. It provides not one scrap of evidence that the obvious phylogenetic changes which accompanied this descent were the result of random mutations and survival of the fittest.
sallyamis 6 months ago
@sallyamis "It provides not one scrap of evidence that (the changes) were the result of random mutations and survival of the fittest." Nor does the fact that we see the sun shining in of itself provide evidence that nuclear fusion is taking place, but it is the most reasonable explanation that we have. The same is true of our evolution. We know it happened, and the best explanation is the theory of evolution.
Misterb0z 6 months ago
This potted account doesn't come close to explaining how human characteristics may have evolved. Potsmoker54: why don't you address the issues I have raised?
The reason I came to this channel was the hope that, amongst the third-rate brains writing comments on forums such as this, one or two people - maybe even Potsmoker54 himselfr - would demonstrate some ability to address the science rather than simply repeating the dogma.
What a disappointment!
sallyamis 6 months ago
@sallyamis You're fucking impossible aren't you? Dogma is unprovable, untestable, unrefutable scripture followed by faith alone, and can't be dogma if you understand it with knowledge. Science is nothing but self critical knowledge, testable and provable, and if refuted, get changed or dropped entirely. Why do you think evolution is even being taught in a classroom? Because it has dominated peer reviewed literature for a hundred years, and has made itself an undeniable part of life.
b33p3rz 6 months ago
Notice how the evolutionists - for all their bluster and the sense of certainty in their arrogant and usually semi-literate - postings - are unable to explain the only four characteristics which separate us from other species.
At least the creationists have read the Bible. I have the feeling that the evolutionists have read nothing.
sallyamis 6 months ago
@sallyamis What the hell are you on about?
Want four characteristics?
An average larger brain to body mass ratio.
Tendency to walk upright.
Relatively hairless body for an ape.
Frontal limbs shorter and developed to do handiwork instead of moving about.
Good enough for you? Probably not, I don't know what you are looking for. There are a multitude of characteristics that make us human. I decided to list morphological ones.
Hyardacil 5 months ago
@Hyardacil so does that mean someone with down syndrome isn't a human?
Falcondick69 5 months ago
@Falcondick69 What the hell are you on about? All of those characteristics apply to people with the Down syndrome.
goingfortheone1 5 months ago
@Falcondick69 Do research. What is a human anyway? Were all animals.
ironkatia 5 months ago
Other hominids may have existed in the past, and there is a plausible line of progression over time. But the same is true of cars, computers and many other things.
These are harder questions:
(1) Why are humans naked?
(2) Why do they walk erect?
(3) How did language evolve?
(4) Why do humans have larger brains than other apes?
If you can explain how these characteristics - which are the only ones which separate us from other apes - evolved then you will have achieved something.
sallyamis 6 months ago
@sallyamis I'll try to answer them to my knowledge. (I'm not representing everything who believes in evolution, I'm just answering the questions I "know")
1) Probably climate change
2) Because the forest parts that they were living in turned into a desert in a short amount of time, Apes figured out that it felt better to walk erect, so that was carried on. (We know that the environment changed because of rocks and other geologic evidence)
3) I think it has something to do with the brain
Halflifefan54 6 months ago
@Halflifefan54
Why would climate change make us naked? The only other naked mammals I can think of live underground or in the sea (indeed, the idea that we lived in water for a while is the only possible explanation that makes sense).
>>Apes figured out that it felt better to walk erect,
Why? And why don't other mammals do the same? Walking on two legs slows one down - it's a colossal disadvantage.
>>I think it has something to do with the brain
Probably not.
sallyamis 6 months ago
@sallyamis I'm only a kid and even I know why apes started walking erect. It saves energy, when our ancestors moved out of tree populated areas they had to walk more and more. Walking on two legs gave them an advantage to walk further and save energy.
TommyTonic10 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sallyamis @sallyamis.....Why? And why don't other mammals do the same? Walking on two legs slows one down - it's a colossal disadvantage ............ wrong, walking on two legs is more of an advantage, contrary to what your opinion might be...... Running is faster on four legs, but guess what, you get farther with less energy consumed by walking.
Arutha258 6 months ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
@sallyamis
humans aren't naked...and if they're naked, then so is every other animal. lol
It's not a disadvantage if you develop sweat glands along with it, coupled with the energy saving of two legs means that animal will have tons of endurance (a human can chase most animals to death)
btw, birds are bipedal (two legs) and they're fast runners.
noob.
DataSe7en 6 months ago
@sallyamis I think we may have had a semi aquatic lifestyle. Not only does it explain our bald skin, it also explains why we walk upright because that helps in walking through water. We're also not the only bipedal mammals. Kangaroos are another bipedal kind of mammal and bonobos and some other primates walk upright when they're carrying things or walking through water. Bipedalism has some advantages. It is good for long distance chasing of prey. Bipedal dinosaurs may have hunted this way too.
TaiFerret 5 months ago
@sallyamis continued:
4) I'm really not sure, but I bet there's an explanation out there, and you should research it, instead of coming to videos made by popular people who get thousands of comments a day, then act like you've won because no one answered you.
The reason you don't get any replies at all is because you post questions that have been answered before, then, when no one replies in a few hours, you just call us stupid and make a bunch of assertions. Stop this and you'll get answers.
Halflifefan54 6 months ago
@Halflifefan54 @Halflifefan54 >>ou just call us stupid and make a bunch of assertions
Your answers to my previous question back up that assumption.
sallyamis 6 months ago
@Halflifefan54
>>The reason you don't get any replies at all is because
No. It's the exact opposite. It's because I'm asking questions which haven't been asked before - at least by the kind of people who lurk on creationist/evolutionist propaganda sites such as this one.
sallyamis 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 7 months ago
@blamerepublicans you said "i don't use drugs" then you said "i don't abuse alcohol" which makes me assume that means u do drink it. alcohol is a drug, so yes u do use drugs
cabot2jville2010 7 months ago
@cabot2jville2010
depends on how you categorize the term
unfad1ng 7 months ago
@unfad1ng any substance once circulated in the blood stream altering normal bodily funtions. Ethanol is just as much of a drug as caffeine, cocaine, psyclobin *shrooms* though i think i spelt it wrong, THC, etc
cabot2jville2010 7 months ago
@cabot2jville2010
What about medicine?
unfad1ng 7 months ago
@unfad1ng what about it? medicine is drugs too. thats why they're called drugs. Drugs are drugs. ethanol is one of them, thats the simple point i was making
cabot2jville2010 7 months ago
@cabot2jville2010
"what about it?"
- well, evolution can only occur when there is sufficient selective pressures to give members of a population a survivability advantage.
- human society eliminates most selective pressures through modern medicine and and tend to take care of people through welfare .etc
We've basically created an artificial ecological niche and shouldnt really expect much evolutionary change (if any).
types10000 7 months ago
so its safe to say that we're slowly changing? that in the future humans will certainly not look the way we look today, but they'll still have that human look just different...
helloadios12 7 months ago
how the hell did we come from monkeys lol great imagination lol but anyway and where the hell did we get emotions from huh huh TELL ME THAT n why arent monkeys evolving now
xDAxROC12x 7 months ago
@xDAxROC12x i was actually going to anwser this, but then i realised you are either trolling or mentally retarded.
Either way not worth the time.
Try watching the videos again (if you even watched them at all) from the first one, he explains evolution quite clearly.
DragonGuard1337 7 months ago
@xDAxROC12x They are evolving now through micro evolution. Macro evolution happens over millions of years while micro evolution occurs gradually but in essence they are the same thing. Watch QualiaSoup on YouTube, he has a information video about evolution. The image located at imgur [dot] com [forward slash] hgiSc.jpg also provides a visual explanation to micro / macro evolution. For information on human emotions start with Wikipedia.
ncapo6545 7 months ago
I believe in evolution, but I don't understand certain things...
If every animal, including humans, are constantly evolving - we are all transitional... how can we even categorize species, if everything is just transitional to something else.
Are we even Homo Sapiens anymore? Or are we a transitional form to a new species that will live 500'000 years from now? Anyone who understands what I mean?
If we, "Sapiens", evolved from "Erectus" - when did we become Sapiens.. if it's gradual...?!?
aboyborninjune 7 months ago
@aboyborninjune that works like this:
take a child for example, it gradually ages, changing, yet we still call it a child up till a certain age or change.
baby -> child -> teenager -> young adult -> adult (just to give an example)
Its like looking at 10 pictures of someones life, at some point you just have to say, hey, he changed so much from the previous picture where he was a child, hes clearly something else now ( an adult for example).
DragonGuard1337 7 months ago
@DragonGuard1337 Yeah... but for like a thousand generations or something.. people walked around being to some degree Erectus and to some degree Sapiens..
I guess we are much different today than the first Sapiens? A little bit different anyway? I just wonder where the future will take us.. I've seen pre-human skulls evolve through the last 7 million years, but where will they be in another 7 million years? It just feels like we're finished evolving now, but I know we can't be.
aboyborninjune 7 months ago
@aboyborninjune i think the human race wont evolve much anymore, sure, we will get taller, smarter and other small changes as we can already see this today, people are growing larger then their parents and keep gaining more knowledge.
However, i guess we wont see any really dramatic changes anytime soon, simply because humanity doesn't have the need to change.
I honestly think we will sooner see genetic or robotic enhancements by humans then a completely new species of humans evolved by nature.
DragonGuard1337 7 months ago
@aboyborninjune the only reaosn you'd feel like we're done evolving is because you're living in the now, and can't imagine what we could turn into , i mean we can come up with ideas, but we have no clue what we'll end up looking like, so "we stopped evolving" is a safe feeling to think we'll be human forever, aint gonna happen
cabot2jville2010 7 months ago
@aboyborninjune you can compare fossils to the pictures mentioned before, you have say 100 fossils of, lets say a fish to a land creature.
now comparing them to pictures we can say, oh look, up to this point they mainly breath under water (fish can get oxygen from air now as well, you see them gaps for it when they live in a low oxygen environment) but at some point some fish, living in shallow ponds start getting the oxygen mainly from air
DragonGuard1337 7 months ago
@photolitherland Well so many people in here say that and they are not joking - so its hard to tell sometimes when so many people are saying similar things and they are dead serious lol
fernieboy100 8 months ago
Funny how the only people who still try to claim Human Macro-evoution is false are people who lack scientific education. Hum. I wonder why?
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@photolitherland don't understand symbolism hey
fernieboy100 8 months ago
haha... the title makes a penis 8--
dameowmixman 8 months ago
Thank you for this video.
Maybe now, I'll have a bit of leverage to convince some family members to visit the Human Origins exhibit.
federationcaptain 8 months ago
Great video.You have an awesome voice.
Flood was here.
MrVault43 8 months ago
some day creatonists (sorry if spelled wrong) will be extinc and the rational and logical humans wills flourish. nice video i subd.
johauHAU 8 months ago
Sorry, buddy. Accidentally hit the dislike button. Didn't mean to.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
The bible says that the world is a "circle" and their is a mountain that you can see the whole world from the top of. The biblical earth has a "firmament" over it, floats upon the "deep" waters, and the sun revolves around it. You can find pictures of the ancient Jews' depiction of the flat earth and surrounding firmament, sheol, and deep beneath the earth. Its not the bible's fault though, it only contains recycled stories taken from older religious texts.
WxsOnline 8 months ago
Why do creationist say there are zero transitional fossils when scientist say there are hundreds? Is it just willful ignorance? Or do they have some really bad conspiracy?
KayleLang 9 months ago
@KayleLang Creationists aren't interested in truth. They're interested in being correct. They are slaves to their cult theories.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlameRepublicans "Creationists aren't interested in truth. They're interested in being correct. They are slaves to their cult theories."
Close. They are actually only interested in being SEEN as being correct. Image is everything.
Stevarious 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans actually its the other way around - the wicked and evil are not interested in truth - that is why they try to use any weak arguement they can in an attempt to discredit the truth - and thats also why they are slaves to sin - they love sin and would never consider stopping it - the bible says it is an abomination to the wicked to turn from evil. A fool despises correction - and a fool has said in his heart there is no God. The fear of the lord is to depart from evil. Repent
fernieboy100 8 months ago
The Bible is immoral. It supports stoning your children to death if they act up and say it's OK to beat your slave so long as he can rise after two days of recovery. I am morally superior to your god and you. Rather than "repenting" I "think". I recommend you do the same.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans Breaking the commandments is STILL a death sentence, but now it's on judgement day, those stories were to show us what happens to commandments breakers that refuse to stop. Adulterers were stoned - theives were stoned - witches - murderers - those stories are examples to make a point. I have stopped breaking the commandments that is what repenting is - have U stopped breaking the commandments ? if not then you should not delude yourself into thinking you have superior morals.
fernieboy100 8 months ago
So you support murdering a child who fails to listen to his parents? You support slavery? WOW - you are sone sorry, lost individual. Seek help. Yes - I am superior to you and your god as I do not condone the killing of children and slavery.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans That symbolizes what happen when you refuse to listen to your parent God - you end up dying for not listening to the warnings and obeying the only path that leads to life. You have to think outside of the physical world a little bit. Disrespecting your parents is breaking the commandments and we know what happens to commandment breakers - the wages of sin is death - it was back then and still is now. If you really are against slavery then quit your job right now ..........
fernieboy100 8 months ago
@fernieboy100 according to your own book - that is the WORD OF GOD and can't be changed what so ever. If you can pick and choose where and when your bible is literal and when it's symbolic - you are breaking your god's law. I'm sorry - go to evilbible(dot)com and read the FACTS about the christian bible. It will scare you straight into Atheism.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@KayleLang Have you SEEN the list of transitional fossils ? its pretty bad lol - google it and have a look - I hope you like cartoons because there are tons of " transitional fossil cartoons " gotta wonder where all these supposed transitional fossils are being kept lol - its all a sham but people buy it cuz they dont want to beleive the truth - however the truth will remain wether god haters believe it or not - and everything will turn out exactly as the bible told us it would.
fernieboy100 8 months ago
Wikipedia has an article on it. If you are not a scientific illiterate - you can understand that the fossil evidence supporting long term evolution is very compelling. Remember - religious people have a vested interest in LYING to you about Science. Science has brought us into the modern world. Religion has done nothing but retarded us.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans pop science is what creationists are against - science has to have solid facts to back it up - today we see a lot of human opinion mixed in with so called science - the fossil record points to creation - that is why the vast amount of fossils found are animals still in existence - a fact they down play - complete animals - no in between animals at all - your " compelling evidence " is complelling - it shows far more evidence for creation than evolution - landslide vistory
fernieboy100 8 months ago
There is no longer a debate among Scientists; it was settled about 140 years ago. All that's going on now is a public opinion campaign put on by creationists using pseudo-science to try to disguise their debunked theory. Don’t take my word on it. Literally MILLIONS of professional Scientists have officially REJECTED the failed “intelligent design” argument as NON-SCIENTIFIC. Sorry
en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans And guess what ? most people are heading to destruction - so once you understand that fact then you will understand why most scientists reject any science that supports the bible - its simply because they do not want to change their ways and would rather decide for themselves what is right or wrong so millions of scientists reject God - wow what a startling conclusion you have come to - good work
fernieboy100 8 months ago
We all are heading to destruction - it's called "death". Scientists reject or accept things based on how well they withstand testing. Your bible is full of fantasy stories that can not be reproduced under laboratory conditions. THAT is why they're rejected. It's a simple fact that your God is fiction, and we reject it as a childish fantasy. Sorry. I’ll be the first in Church this Sunday the SECOND God or Jesus shows himself in a scientifically verifiable way. Until then - he's BUNK.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
A simple test - just two questions, please answer it honestly and clearly - Do you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior?
If "yes" - test is concluded. If "no" - question 2. Do you know who or what is responsible for our existence? I look forward to your reply.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
US National scientific organizations that support evolution - The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of University Professors, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Psychological Association, American Society of Agronomy, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Botanical Society of America, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, (more)
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
(cont.) National Association of Biology Teachers, The National Center for Science Education, The National Science Teachers Association, and the United States National Academy of Sciences.
These are just a few US groups. So they're "pop" science? I must ask what your educational qualifications are... to call these people "pop" scientists.....
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
State university and Foreign bodies -
Kentucky Academy of Science, The Kentucky Paleontological Society, The Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences, International Council of Europe, Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative, Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales, Australian Academy of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Australian Science Teachers Association, Royal Society’s Interacademy Panel
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
The International Society for Science and Religion, The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Ottawa Centre......so they're all "POP" eh?????????????????????
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans Yes worldy God hating and God rejecting institutions - I could have given you a bigger list than that,. You don't get this do you
fernieboy100 8 months ago
@fernieboy100 "Yes worldy God hating and God rejecting institutions"
What about all the religious and religiously affiliated organizations that accept the Theory of Evolution? You do know that thousands of Catholic and Protestant schools around the world teach evolution, right? Are you saying they all hate and reject your god?
Could it be possible that you've made your mind about evolution by blindly trusting the wrong people? Could it be possible that your religious leaders have told you lies?
CloserEnd 8 months ago
@CloserEnd I dont have any religious leaders - I don't listen to humans and ignore God - that is how I know I am right - God does not lie - You need to understand that Satan has been attacking the church ever since the beginning - and many mainstream churches teach their own doctrines and disobey the bible - disobeying the sabbath and changing it to a sunday is an example of this. Adaptation is real - this is proven fact - but the animal produces after its own kind like the bible says
fernieboy100 8 months ago
(cont) many people use the word evolution very loosely & in a way that includes the proven fact of adaptation yet also claims macro-evolution under the same title - yet they are NOT the same thing. Creationists do not have a problem with adaptation - small changes within a species happen but the animal remains the same kind, however we dont go for this theory that whales had legs - or fish came out of water to roam the desert - and saying it happenned over millions of years doesn't work for us
fernieboy100 8 months ago
Speciation is a well established fact within the theory of evolution. A popular example is the three-spined stickleback. Once restricted to salt water there is now fresh water species that resulted from geographic isolation over as little as 10,000 generations. This is a Scientific fact. If you care to dispute it – please do so with peer-reviewed science, rahter than just your opinion.
Creationists have answers for which they cherry pick support. Science simply looks for truth.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@fernieboy100 "small changes within a species happen"
Not just "within"! Speciation - meaning a branch of a species evolving into another species - has been observed in multiple occasions, both in nature and lab environment.
"but the animal remains the same kind"
Ah, but what are these "kinds" you keep babbling about? No such things have ever been properly defined anywhere - not even in your bible. If you know what these "kinds" are, please tell us what they are and what are their boundaries.
CloserEnd 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CAN YOU PROVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE? If not - why should we allow you to obstruct scientific progress based on YOUR mis-conceptions of the world? What right do you have to do this?
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
Oh BTW - we see no proof that your Bible was written by anyone other than Bronze Age men. If you follow your Bible, you are following men who died many years ago. Men who often contrdict themselves.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@fernieboy100 "I dont have any religious leaders - I don't listen to humans"
So where did you get the idea that a god exists? From a book written by superstitious bronze-age goat-herders? Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that the bible is just a fairytale? Or do you hear god's voice in your head?
"the animal produces after its own kind"
Funny thing is, this alone proves that the authors of the bible had feeble knowledge of biology - there are no animal "kinds".
CloserEnd 8 months ago
@CloserEnd Horses produce horses - big ones - small ones - wild ones - striped ones - you name it but a horse still remains a horse - it does not turn into a whale. Dogs remain dogs - right from the st.bernard all the way down to the chihuaha - but they still produce after their own kind - a dog remains a dog and only produces dogs - it does not turn into a cat lol. Comprende ?
fernieboy100 8 months ago
@fernieboy100 "Dogs remain dogs"
You didn't answer my question. I asked, where are the borders of these "kinds" and how can we identify them. Are wolves dogs? What about bears? What about the common ancestors of both wolves and bears? Moreover, are all insects of the same "kind"? What about lizards? Until you can clearly define what a "kind" means the concept is worthless.
Finally, you do know that humans were classified as (a subspecies of) apes long before Darwin, don't you? Apes produce apes.
CloserEnd 8 months ago
en.wikipedia(dot org)/wiki/Speciation If you care to know how evolution works that link I provided you makes it clear. You are 100% wrong, and don't have the facts.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
I don't "hate" your god; I simply see no evidence supporting the hypothesis. Science is simply saying - your explanation is not scientific, therefore IS NOT SCIENCE. It's out-side the realm of science and by trying to sneak it into the science class room you (and many others, sadly) are attempting to high-jack the legitimacy of science to prop up your dying faith system. Make no mistake – all religions either grow or die, and yours is dying, thankfully.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
From Kitzmiller v. Dover -
“Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the (cont.)
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees….”
The creation myth is anything but scientific. It's a myth, a campaign of lies against Science. There is no place for it outside of your church.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans You need to stop the tired old false dichotomy claiming this is science verses religion that is so old and tired its ridiculous - evolutionists do not have a monopoly on science like they claim - they would have the world think they own all the rights to science but they simply don't - evolution is a waste of tax dollars and every teacher of evolution should be fired so we can work on better things than indoctrinating children into lies and deception - check out lucy - lol
fernieboy100 8 months ago
and to think that Lucy passed a peer review says a lot about the whole thing - lucy is depicted as having human hands and feet when those were never found - in fact a very small amount of bones were found but as usual evolutionists jump on their bandwagon and recontruct a half human half ape and put it on display- as a way to promote their version. we have seen many frauds from the evolution camp - they glue bones together that were found in different locations - look at tiktalic - hilarious
fernieboy100 8 months ago
@fernieboy100 "lucy is depicted as having human hands and feet when those were never found"
Funny thing is, since then scientists have discovered hand and foot bones of Australopithecus Afarensis (the latest in February this year) that match the earlier reconstruction of Lucy. In other words, they were proven to be right in their predictions.
As for Tiktaalik, its most spectacular feature is its skull, which shows ability to breath both above and under water, and which was found largely intact.
CloserEnd 8 months ago
Funny how Fernie and his God had no come back for you there.
BlameRepublicans 8 months ago
@BlameRepublicans "Funny how Fernie and his God had no come back for you there."
No surprise there, he has already intentionally dodged or straight out ignored a bunch of my earlier questions. Instead, he just keeps repeating stupid creationist claims that have been debunked multiple times. He's so willfully ignorant that I seriously suspect he's a poe. Unless he suddenly starts answering my questions and backing up his claims with actual evidence, I consider this mockery of a "debate" done.
CloserEnd 8 months ago
When I first encountered them Pose pissed me off, but then I realized I could use them as "sparring partners" or at least punching bags to perfect my technique. Ferine has already played the "Devil Card" on me. This indicates that he's running low on ammo. Next he will cease to reply directly to my posts, but rather post new comments as replie