@franzsmr Ah, thank you very much for taking the time to. I should have just taken the time to do it myself, but I thought I was mistaken for sure. Anyway, again, thank you. ^^
Anyone who wants to make the assertion, "Science doesn't disprove God." is like saying, "Science doesn't disprove unicorns." Both statements are correct but this does not imply that such beings do exist since that is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies with the religious folk that God does exist, not for scientists to prove he doesn't since one cannot disprove a negative.
@faron27 sense* lol that typo just told me all arguments you have are piss poor based on your lack of education. And darkness does exist without light just an fyi.
There is no such thin as darkness. Light comes in a variety of levels, includeing those that are too low for us to pervieve items in.
Evolution is the ultimate symbiosis, it is the interdenednece of everything upon each other, the influence of everythign on everythign and how those triggers alter the course of existance.
Why do people not understand that Science can NOT test things such as religion, theology, philosphy, art or music.... they can not be tested. You can not gather data on God therefore you can not disprove his excistance. I am a Christian but I am not afraid of evolution nor do I consider the idea false... Darwin said we all came from a common ancestor.... in my OPINION...again.. OPINION... that common ancestor is God.. Things such as DNA are far to complex to happen by "accident"
there were no proves that life began from a commom ancestor, so people believed in divine will and god's creation, until darwin proposed his theory
nowadays there are no proves that simple chemical reactions can create basic life, so people still believe in divine will and god's creation.. wait until someone can prove it, and god disappears
What Miller-Urey proved was that the early Earth had plenty of raw material from which life could have come. To say that life came from nothing is a red herring. The constituent material was there. What will people say when a lab actually achieves something recognizably alive? That it hasn't been done shouldn't trouble anyone and it's not a problem for evolutionary theory which relies on billions of years. We've been at it for mere decades.
@captainzero1969 that's what's always baffled me when people try to discredit ANY theory of abiogenesis by saying "how can you get something out of nothing?!?!?" as if organic molecules and "nothingness" whatever the hell that means are synonymous.
There is no prove that chemical reactions can create basic life. Atheist you guys had one prove you would pay money to post it as advertising at TNT!! Guys please do not keep showing off and get attention and think when you die and meet god would you have a convincing answer. You can lie on us but can you lie on god???
@Albakritube If God is real, if he is, he will send us to hell for thinking rationally and using our potential to seek understanding that was given to use by himself. If thats the reason, so be it.
@Diomenesx No, God will send people who do not think in a rational way. Please do not be so brave with God. Put your finger in the oven check out if you can handle it before writing down these words.
@Albakritube So, in you're understanding, who are people who do not think in a rational way? Surely you do not mean scientist or people who understand evolution as a proven theory? They merely followed natural clues to obtain the solution to a problem. The weight that the solution has pertaining religion and science is another subject.
@Diomenesx check expelled no intelligence allowed for Bin Stein. About evolution it happens of course but not in the way that Darwin said, at Darwin time people did not know anything about cells when you compare it to these days. Every thing that I will say about evolution is already mentioned in Ben's Documentary from people who graduated from, Berkley, Yale ...etc If these will not convince you I will not, man if we have a common gene with the ape where is our common gene with the bacteria!
@Albakritube I have a good idea why but I won't say anything as I still don't have enough knowledge about genetics and therefore I might be wrong. I'll be sure to check out that documentary. You can't deny, however, the overwhelming evidence that has been piling up that strongly backs up Darwin's theory.
@Albakritube I'm afraid your prophets have been proven wrong at every turn. The earth is not flat, it does not rest on pillars, there is no water above the earth, there is no firmament, there is no water under the earth and every other piece of divine knowledge they claimed has been demonstrated to be false. In the face of this evidence we might expect you to be more careful about believing what else they wrote; we see it does not affect you at all... This speaks volumes about you.
@Albakritube we do share dna with bacteria. we don't share very much. amount of DNA shared between two species can show a timeline as to when the species split.
we share a great deal with chimps because we split not so long ago. we share less with fish and plants, but still share a great deal. with bacteria, we don't share much, but alas, we do share something.
@Albakritube we do share with bacteria. not very much though. the amount of dna shared can show you how long ago species split and branched into new species. we share a great deal with chimps because we split so recently. we share a great deal with other mammals and even fish. we share a lot of dna with plants, fruits, and vegetables, but the similarities obviously begin to decrease at this point. our evolution from bacteria was so long ago, we don't share much, but we do share something.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Let Dawkins explain us in evolutionary terms how conversations, music and all other sounds form in the sound-isolated brain; who listens to and enjoys these sounds, who knows their meaning, who reflects on them consciously and who answers back these sounds!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Let Dawkins explain us how all colorful, lively, three-dimensional and perfectly clear images, shortly life itself, can form in the pitch dark human brain and who sees this image in the brain!
So Far you have Presented nothing that Contains any Scientific Merit Or value what so ever.
You have misused the Term Theory, you do not know what Transitional form means, You use the Useless argument of Haeckels embryos and Nebraska man "which was not a Hoax by the way, It was a mistake" are useless to your postion?
You can`t present to me anything which i have not seen other under educated spoon fed Laymen try to use.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway.
Archeological researches unearthed over a hundred million fossils, proving that life forms were created out of nothing. Still, there is not a single transitional fossil supporting the theory of evolution. If Dawkins is sincere in his claim, he should bring a transitional fossil and announce it to the public as "a transitional form!"
"there is not a single transitional fossil supporting the theory of evolution."
How about the entire fossil record? ever looked at it? icthyostega, tictalic and just about ever other creature found ARE transitional forms. Your doing yourself no favors by being Ignorant of these matters.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Even the transitional forms which u mention as well as the others can be counted on the hand. These "forms" can be debated so its not a fact they are transitional forms.
@Cnidarious You are rigth but not right enough .....actually Every animal and plant on earth is a transitional specie on a march through time, changing to our environment in minute increments over the generations
How would they not know what they are talking about, u pathetic excuse for a human being. Im kinda starting to believe your ancestors were monkeys. How do u guys explain the consciousness of the brain? you guys have been known for faking evidence etc.
Really? That isn't hard at all to explain. Our ancestors started to use tools, our brains developed more, then we could speak, that really forced our brains to be developed more.
And that is skipping many steps, and is as simple as I can explain it.
Ohz noz a few scientists faking evidence, like what? Plitdown man? It was found out when scientists examined it. That's about it. Nebraska man was known to be BS by the scientific community instantly.
Julian Huxley, an evolutionist who spent years trying to establish a materialist foundation for consciousness, admits his failure in these terms:
How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nerve tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin, when Aladdin rubbed his lamp
For years, the portrayed the Coelacanth as an intermediate form, and were surprised when it transpired that the creature was still alive today. They came up with an imaginary scenario of equine evolution, although horse fossils dating back 53 million years were identical to horses alive today, but eventually had to confess that this, too, was a fraud.
Didn't say it makes all the evidences fraud, just saying that evolutionists have gone to extremes in lying to prove their theory, this in itself shows how desperate they are. I'm not defending all religions, just mine.
So? I could say the same thing about religion, it means nothing in the end.
People who knowing lie in science are ridiculed out of the scientific community. Look at the Korean scientist and his cloning data, once it was found it was a fraud he fucked his career up as a scientist.
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell. Evolution is a lie and that has not been accepted by the stubborn people you are!!
Hmmm well just ignore the fact the origins of life is abiogensis and nothing to do with evolution.
Now on to destroy what you just said. Once again, first cell would of been extremely simple, and the first organism would of had around 8 or so base pairs or something like that.
And you can't use chance to say what already has happened didn't happen. That's like saying since winning the lottery is so mathematically impossible, no one could of won it.
So what does the most basic " simple" cell consist off?
What you say happened is what you believe, its not what i believe. Comparing the probability of winning the lottery and a formation of a simple cell is just stupidity of highest level.
Your "first simple cell" theory has never been proven, its just that , a theory!!!
That's right abiogensis is still in it's early stages, but it is looking very promising.
And evolution takes place only once life as gotten here. That is why it has nothing to do with abiogensis. The two are only loosely connected. But a god could of placed the first cell and evolution would still be unaffected.
Really wouldn't be hard to just look up videos about abiogensis. The simple cell is nothing, and I mean nothing, like a modern one.
According to Darwins theory of evolution, there is an imaginary first cell which came into being from the chance combination of inanimate substances. And according to Darwinism, everything began with this first cell. It is this imaginary first cell that, according to Darwinism, is the origin of all life, butterflies, birds, lions, deer and finally human beings who produce technologies, found civilizations, trains, travel into space and study the cells they possess in the laboratory.
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.
many educated people are in error in this regard. For example, in some articles dealing with the theory of evolution, one can read such statements as, "Combining and boiling such organic matter as amino acids or proteins produce life." This is probably the superstition that the Miller experiment left in the minds of some
The truth is, such a thing has never been observed. As explained above, the Miller Experiment, which tried to explain the formation of amino acids, let alone the origin of life, is now shown to be outmoded and invalid. It has suffered the same fate as Jan Baptista van Helmont's so-called proof for abiogenesis on the basis of maggots in meat or Athanasius Kircher's experiment.
the "miller experiment" has nothing to with abiogenesis!!, u sure about that? life from no life!!. They used that as proof for a long time until proven invalid.Milled tried to make Proteins, and proteins are made up of amino acids, and we know that Miller attempted to produce amino acids in his experiment [but it turned out that the environment he made was not the earthly environment in which he claimed that abiogenesis occurred.
>> it has been observed many times that with the right chemicals and electricity you can create basic life
Well no, we haven't quite gotten that far yet. Strikefighter's credulousness is obviously ridiculous and his facts are woefully flawed, not to mention he's being incredibly dishonest, but he's right about one thing.. We have not reproduced abiogenesis in the lab. What we have done is reproduce individual processes that may have been involved in abiogenesis.
You're talking about the Miller-Urey experiments in the 1950's. They produced amino acids and other organic compounds which was a breakthrough at the time. However they never produced simple life, nor was that ever their goal.
Dozens of labs have worked on origin-of-life research since then, expanding on the prebiotic synthesis of aminos, nucleotides and peptides to infer how the first self-replicating cells may have formed and how the first genomes evolved.
(cont..) For instance we've gained an understanding of how cell walls most likely formed. Scientists have also demonstrated the evolution of RNA replicases (self-catalyzing ribozymes); chemicals believed to be the precursors to modern protein-based replicases and other polymerases. And of course we've demonstrated the abiotic production of virtually every chemical constituent to life. So we know it CAN happen, and probably DID happen, but are still formulating a cohesive theory explaining how.
This is not creating, it is a chemical reaction. If you react Na + Cl ------ NaCl (Salt) Creating means making something from nothing!!! Science will never be able to do that because chemical reactions needs material, energy ( things that are have been created already)
@Albakritube creation does NOT mean something from nothing (unless you're talking about the biblical story of creation". "nothing" does not exist. the act of creation is just the reordering of old information into something new.
@mightyafrowhitey, First I am Muslim, and I believe in the old Bibal not the one that exists these days. This is your understanding of creation. The only one who can create is God and that is why one of his names is the creator. Yes for anybody else there is no creation. Man please just set outside early in the morning and think about how are we living every second, how many things do we need to stay alive. So we have lungs then we find O2, we have eyes then we find a reflecting light...etc
"professors and academics are idiots and don't know what they are talking about?. i rest my case. "
Okay strikefighter.
So according to you, Those with the Highest levels of education which have Placed Millions of man hours in the field and in laboratories
are all wrong?
And somehow you can Topple all modern science with a Youtube comment? How very foolish. Its impossible for you to be correct. You don`t even know what a theory is.
so you have read it? you say All of it it !! .Thats just proved you haven't read it and don't know what your talking about. Practice what you said in your last sentence.
If every person who held an argument or debate with someone and did not know what they were talking about or researched it, they FAIL!!!!. Reading a novel and a book of science is two different things. You cant just read the title or contents and have great understanding of it. I t seems its been a while since you have studied anything.
I have the entire field of genetics to back evolution up, also evolution has more evidence backing it up then even gravity does. ERVs, paternal and maternal genetic markers, genetic patterns, vestigal organs, fossils, etc.
Creationism's evidence? A book written over a thousand years ago.
Darwinism does not exist. Otherwise you will have to call me a Einsteinist, Newtonian, and on and on.
Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species. The fossils you refer to were Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design.
There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs.Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."
Feather's would not be "half-developed." They would smaller. And eyes? There are examples of really simple eyes, all the way to complex ones all over in nature. So once again with the lying. And arteries, etc would not be half-developed as well.
Leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing? WHAT? More lying. That leg would never turn into a wing, that wing would be stub.
Wow, your entire "argument" is based on lies and ignorance. You fail horribly.
All "true" mutations are harmful? I could of sworn lying is a sin, is it not? As that is exactly what you are doing. Most mutations are neutral, period.
And once again with the lying, ""All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. "
More BS. I could list the fossils found proving you and him wrong, but I know you will just call them hoaxes, fakes, etc. Deluded minds then to do that.
I think you really need to do more study on this subject. Only a moron could believe that without a designer things so complex could be made. Do u know the complexity of just a simple cell?. You and all the world together couldnt make it. Most mutations cause harm, thats a FACT!!!!!!!!. Richard Dawkins is slowly changing his mind, id advise you to do the same.
. . . Such devices could not have been put together by chance. And of course, no sensible scientist ever said they could. (From Richard Dawkins Explains His Latest Book,
You rightly say that random mutation is NOT a good explanation for the evolution of giraffes' necks or, indeed, of anything else! (From Richard Dawkins: Frequently Asked Questions, it is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work.
or any unintentional process like natural selection to produce rational designs, organs, structures in living things is impossible. Natural selection has never been observed to form a new organ from scratch or to transform one structure into another.
and you compare the body to? dvd player? ferrari?, give me a break. Its more logical than atoms which have no life coming together to form complex structures.
I bet your one of these guys who thinks that if you left a heap of metal , plastic etc somewhere and was able to come back to it millions and millions of years later , there in front of you would be a lamborghini gallardo, LOL
Hmmm no that example would proof of creation.I would expect there to be nothing recognizable left after all that time. Atomic theory and the law of thermodynamics says so.
Really, there must be a gene for intellect. That or your upbringing sucked.
Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine:
One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order
rofl, you have just proven how much of a idiot you are if you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a problem for evolution.
Just shows how you know nothing of what you are talking about.
And really look up what the most simple cell would of been. It's components are really basic. And on a planetary scale, it was going to happen.
And evolutionist can't prove natural selection? Sure just ignore things like nylon eating bacteria. It's easy to say they can't when you ignore the evidence.
J. H. Rush works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado:
In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.
G. P. Stavropoulos: Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the Second Law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language
Prof. Ilya Prigogine, known for his research into thermodynamics at the Université Libre de Belgique:
There is another question, which has plagued us for more than a century: What significance does the evolution of a living being have in the world described by thermodynamics, a world of ever-increasing disorder?
U may not accept what i say but i suppose you know more than these experts. Need i say more?
LOL at your comment. In order for the cell to survive, all the basic components of the cell, each performing many vital functions, have to be intact. If the cell came into existence by evolution, then millions of its components had to simultaneously exist in the same place and they had to come together in a particular order and plan. Since this is utterly implausible, such a structure has no explanation other than "creation."
Not the first simple cell, if you going to be a idiotic and think the first cells would be like modern ones, then you are retarded, and not just deluded.
Go have and have a look at the most basic structure of the cell and you will see for your self that is contains some very complex components. How can you even think such a structure came by chance? All the components would of had to come together simultaneously for the cell to function!!
English mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in one of his interviews published in Nature magazine November 12, 1981. Even an evolutionist himself, Hoyle said that the odds that higher life forms might have emerged in this way was comparable to the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials in it. This means that it is not possible for the cell to come into being by coincidence and therefore, it must definitely have been "created"
Fred hoyle was not a "evolutionist. " He was a creationist who was a stubborn fuck who couldn't understand that the universe was NOT, in steady state.
And his chance calculation means nothing. No matter how unlikely something happened, you can't do the chances AFTER the event happened. It happened, doesn't matter how unlikely it was.
Looks like you getting angry, shows how weak you are. Forcing you views on people, u sound like a fanatic. Can you not debate without losing your temper. Losing temper = FAIL !!!!!
In fact, Darwinists have been unable to reveal a single finding to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Evolutionists are aware of this and starting with Darwin himself, have many times admitted that natural selection cannot cause new species to develop, much less new life forms.!!!!!
Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the twentieth century. Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cont..
..... cell membranes, or the endoplasmic reticulum, let alone a whole cell. For this reason, the claim that evolution brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of a fantasy based entirely on imagination.
Clearly you have no tenure in the subject you are talking about strikefighter. oh and. "the claim that evolution brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of a fantasy" Actually your right. because evolution does not create protocells. Abiogenesis does.
I never said im an expert in this field, but am very happy to point you in the direction of one. His name is Harun Yahya and hes the author of may books proving that you guys are idiots. Ever heard of his infamous book, its called Atlas of Creation?. Go and debate him, so he can slap you like a bitch you are!!! lol You guy Dawkins refuses to debate him, are you more of a man than him? LMAO .
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Calling Harun Yahya a crackpot hey?, learnt the ways to abuse others from your master Dawkins lol. You atheists have hijacked the theory of evolution for your own materialistic ways, Pathetic. Many of the major scientists including Darwin, Einstein, newton etc all believed in a creator, Is Harun Yahya wrong to say they they are the same? maybe in your eyes.. well you = Piltdown Man hoax, Nebraska Man, Haeckels FORGED EMBRYO DRAWINGS plus no transitional fossil ever found etc etc etc LMAO..
Your trying to capitalize on the mistake of a single scientist like a vulture when you don`t even realize that Modern Embryology text books use Micro Photographs displaying the same thing Haeckle had illustrated, minus a few minor errors. Strikefighter do you know who discovered the Hoaxes? You Don` t think there are transitional forms? how silly. you mean you have never heard of them?
I am aware of this. But the two theories are not completey independent. The theory of evoloution explains the development from Abiogenesis. The entire creation debate is attacking abiogenesis, not evoloution. Yet the two are interdependent, are they not? If you dispose of one, you dispose of the other. The intention of many evoloutionists was to create a scientific model in which life could form and develop on its own. Evolution explains the development of life but it has to have a start.
As far as I know, there is no alternative beginning aside from abiogenesis. What would an evoloutionist believe in otherwise? How can someone believe in evoloution without accepting abiogenesis. If you think that life was created by God, you have no reason not to think that God also created life as it is. There is no purpose in believing that God allowed the gradual development of life.
"If you dispose of one, you dispose of the other."
Sorry Strikefighter but science does not work this way.
You can`t invalidate evolutionary theory this way.
Since we know it occurs.
Speciation is a common event which has Thousands of peer reviewed papers. The documentation is extremely extensive, and eliminating protocell formation does not invalidate common decent in the slightest.
if you guys are right why does your leader Dawkins not debate Harun Yahya?, its because he knows he is wrong and that he will be embarrassed. He rather go around debating secondary school children. Lmao Another problem you guys have is you lack common sense. If you get told something you just jump on the bandwagon. Use your own brains sometimes, don't worry about getting kicked out of posts or being isolated by the scientific community!! LMAO
The problem with you guys is you believe in ur star trek ideas but when it comes to mathematical probability, you say that's rubbish. Morons!! and u say its me that don't accept facts!! lol
Cnidariousits my use of probability is the problem?, it was not me but world renowned mathematicians who came up with these figures. You guys believe in things so complex and make it sound so simple and probable.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(In mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are accepted as "zero probability.") If Dawkins is honest, he should point at a mass of proteins that formed by chance or by means of the methods he espouses. Let Dawkins explain us how he can account for the origin of life in evolutionary terms, when even a single protein—the building block of life—cannot form by chance!
Again Strikefighter you need to study a process called Chemical Evolution.
This is a Process allows only molecules which have specific Isomers to retain there structure in a given environment. The other Molecules which are unsuitable for the changing environment cannot maintain there structures and degrade.
This is Not random Strikefighter, It is Dictated by a Nonrandom force, The environment.
So you see Chance has Very little to do with this.
Abiogenesis and evolution are not forces of random chance.
Your confusing Variation with everything else. Variation is Random, Formation By natural selection is not random, It is almost guaranteed. So yes Strikefighter sudden formation does have low odds.
good thing that natural selection is the very direct opposite of "random" otherwise you would have a point. Also this is a misuse of the anthropic principle. "If proteins didnt form the way they do, they wouldnt form the way they do" Circular! BTW I have worked out the odds of your lineage being only 10 generations long and still producing you. The (very) conservative estimate is 1x10 to the power of 107. by your logic, you dont exist. watch?v=ZIH5nLuPnEA
The dramatic reenactments are far more detailed than I appreciated when I first saw this. Lots of little historical references about Darwin, his family, work, contemporaries, etc.
Considering Evolution shows we are all related, how can the biologists justify killing them?
marcluc1988 2 months ago
The narrator sounds an awful lot like Liam Neeson.
Sustenance21 5 months ago
@Sustenance21 I just looked it up. It is Liam Neeson :)
franzsmr 5 months ago
@franzsmr Ah, thank you very much for taking the time to. I should have just taken the time to do it myself, but I thought I was mistaken for sure. Anyway, again, thank you. ^^
Sustenance21 5 months ago
@Sustenance21 It is Liam Neeson.
Yourfrontallobe 4 months ago
Anyone who wants to make the assertion, "Science doesn't disprove God." is like saying, "Science doesn't disprove unicorns." Both statements are correct but this does not imply that such beings do exist since that is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies with the religious folk that God does exist, not for scientists to prove he doesn't since one cannot disprove a negative.
franzsmr 5 months ago
darkness can not be without light just as all that reside in the universe.
evolution just doesn't make any since considering the symbiotic nature of the world we live in!
faron27 7 months ago
@faron27 sense* lol that typo just told me all arguments you have are piss poor based on your lack of education. And darkness does exist without light just an fyi.
eddiedenied 7 months ago
@eddiedenied just for you i will make sure all spelling and grammar are correct from now on!
don't try to discredit what i have said because of a typo try and be an adult about it.
faron27 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@faron27
There is no such thin as darkness. Light comes in a variety of levels, includeing those that are too low for us to pervieve items in.
Evolution is the ultimate symbiosis, it is the interdenednece of everything upon each other, the influence of everythign on everythign and how those triggers alter the course of existance.
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
Why do people not understand that Science can NOT test things such as religion, theology, philosphy, art or music.... they can not be tested. You can not gather data on God therefore you can not disprove his excistance. I am a Christian but I am not afraid of evolution nor do I consider the idea false... Darwin said we all came from a common ancestor.... in my OPINION...again.. OPINION... that common ancestor is God.. Things such as DNA are far to complex to happen by "accident"
tbonebowie62 9 months ago
17 people are wasting all their precious sunday mornings
mercutio47 9 months ago
Thanks!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
watch?v=vgRgh9sajvI
This is the evolution
hamedhihg 1 year ago
15 dislikes are not cool
Dragonquestism 1 year ago
@Dragonquestism this is good but not that good
chrisiangeorge2 1 year ago
i like this video
chrisiangeorge2 1 year ago
animal harassment lol
celticschampions 1 year ago
total nonsense
omaro0ot 1 year ago
4. In Bible, we find two (2) candidates to be called GOD, but atheists are arguing just
with ONE,not with other pretendent.
5. Mostly atheist, are against God's morality and justice
but never refer the same to other candidate: satan.
6. Bible maintans evolution after creation, earth have billions of years etc.
Atheism is a dead concept.
Acmd7 1 year ago
God exist! evidences:
1. In Bible we find a lot of prophecies which happened and are happening.
2. If anybody will follow what God asks (ex: praying), everybody will have whatever they (ask)
want (somebody can call it miracles).
3. Blasphemies: if anybody will do it, is puniched very soon and anybody is free to try it,
even right now!
Acmd7 1 year ago
I want to go back in time and tell him he was right.
bouiglob 1 year ago
This is like a mental orgasm hahaha XD
Diomenesx 1 year ago
there were no proves that life began from a commom ancestor, so people believed in divine will and god's creation, until darwin proposed his theory
nowadays there are no proves that simple chemical reactions can create basic life, so people still believe in divine will and god's creation.. wait until someone can prove it, and god disappears
TitusLoL 1 year ago
What Miller-Urey proved was that the early Earth had plenty of raw material from which life could have come. To say that life came from nothing is a red herring. The constituent material was there. What will people say when a lab actually achieves something recognizably alive? That it hasn't been done shouldn't trouble anyone and it's not a problem for evolutionary theory which relies on billions of years. We've been at it for mere decades.
captainzero1969 1 year ago
@captainzero1969 that's what's always baffled me when people try to discredit ANY theory of abiogenesis by saying "how can you get something out of nothing?!?!?" as if organic molecules and "nothingness" whatever the hell that means are synonymous.
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
There is no prove that chemical reactions can create basic life. Atheist you guys had one prove you would pay money to post it as advertising at TNT!! Guys please do not keep showing off and get attention and think when you die and meet god would you have a convincing answer. You can lie on us but can you lie on god???
Albakritube 1 year ago
@Albakritube If God is real, if he is, he will send us to hell for thinking rationally and using our potential to seek understanding that was given to use by himself. If thats the reason, so be it.
Diomenesx 1 year ago
@Diomenesx No, God will send people who do not think in a rational way. Please do not be so brave with God. Put your finger in the oven check out if you can handle it before writing down these words.
Albakritube 1 year ago
@Albakritube So, in you're understanding, who are people who do not think in a rational way? Surely you do not mean scientist or people who understand evolution as a proven theory? They merely followed natural clues to obtain the solution to a problem. The weight that the solution has pertaining religion and science is another subject.
Diomenesx 1 year ago
@Diomenesx check expelled no intelligence allowed for Bin Stein. About evolution it happens of course but not in the way that Darwin said, at Darwin time people did not know anything about cells when you compare it to these days. Every thing that I will say about evolution is already mentioned in Ben's Documentary from people who graduated from, Berkley, Yale ...etc If these will not convince you I will not, man if we have a common gene with the ape where is our common gene with the bacteria!
Albakritube 1 year ago
@Albakritube I have a good idea why but I won't say anything as I still don't have enough knowledge about genetics and therefore I might be wrong. I'll be sure to check out that documentary. You can't deny, however, the overwhelming evidence that has been piling up that strongly backs up Darwin's theory.
Diomenesx 1 year ago
@Albakritube I'm afraid your prophets have been proven wrong at every turn. The earth is not flat, it does not rest on pillars, there is no water above the earth, there is no firmament, there is no water under the earth and every other piece of divine knowledge they claimed has been demonstrated to be false. In the face of this evidence we might expect you to be more careful about believing what else they wrote; we see it does not affect you at all... This speaks volumes about you.
jacksawild 1 year ago 2
@Albakritube we do share dna with bacteria. we don't share very much. amount of DNA shared between two species can show a timeline as to when the species split.
we share a great deal with chimps because we split not so long ago. we share less with fish and plants, but still share a great deal. with bacteria, we don't share much, but alas, we do share something.
klaxto 1 year ago
@Albakritube we do share with bacteria. not very much though. the amount of dna shared can show you how long ago species split and branched into new species. we share a great deal with chimps because we split so recently. we share a great deal with other mammals and even fish. we share a lot of dna with plants, fruits, and vegetables, but the similarities obviously begin to decrease at this point. our evolution from bacteria was so long ago, we don't share much, but we do share something.
klaxto 1 year ago
liam neeson
shantiponks 2 years ago
the voice of the guy speaking, isn't that the same voice as teh father in fallout 3? :D
Gladdig 2 years ago
He's also Obi Wan's teacher from Phantom Menace.
jazzx251 2 years ago
wow, they kinda grab the animals really confident... birdies
krlsurquixa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Let Dawkins explain us in evolutionary terms how conversations, music and all other sounds form in the sound-isolated brain; who listens to and enjoys these sounds, who knows their meaning, who reflects on them consciously and who answers back these sounds!
strikefighter 2 years ago
"Let Dawkins explain us"
Non sequitur comments strikerfighter.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
Comment removed
Cnidarious 2 years ago
Comment removed
Cnidarious 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Let Dawkins explain us how all colorful, lively, three-dimensional and perfectly clear images, shortly life itself, can form in the pitch dark human brain and who sees this image in the brain!
strikefighter 2 years ago
So Far you have Presented nothing that Contains any Scientific Merit Or value what so ever.
You have misused the Term Theory, you do not know what Transitional form means, You use the Useless argument of Haeckels embryos and Nebraska man "which was not a Hoax by the way, It was a mistake" are useless to your postion?
You can`t present to me anything which i have not seen other under educated spoon fed Laymen try to use.
Cnidarious 2 years ago 18
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway.
strikefighter 2 years ago
Remember Strikefighter.
This was not a lie.
these were Honest mistakes made by haeckle.
And they are the only ones he made.
I am aware of some others that you likely are not.
But the man was not a liar for this.
And Modern Embryology Confirms Haeckles initial hypothesis using Micro photographs.
so don`t blame him.
We now know that piscean embryos and All Tetrapod embryos in there earliest stages of development are nearly identical.
Cnidarious 2 years ago 7
@Cnidarious and you have failed basic capitalization
dontforgetyertowel 2 days ago
Cnidarious
Archeological researches unearthed over a hundred million fossils, proving that life forms were created out of nothing. Still, there is not a single transitional fossil supporting the theory of evolution. If Dawkins is sincere in his claim, he should bring a transitional fossil and announce it to the public as "a transitional form!"
strikefighter 2 years ago
"there is not a single transitional fossil supporting the theory of evolution."
How about the entire fossil record? ever looked at it? icthyostega, tictalic and just about ever other creature found ARE transitional forms. Your doing yourself no favors by being Ignorant of these matters.
"All Forms are Transitional forms"
Cnidarious 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Even the transitional forms which u mention as well as the others can be counted on the hand. These "forms" can be debated so its not a fact they are transitional forms.
strikefighter 2 years ago
"Even the transitional forms which u mention as well as the others can be counted on the hand."
No Strikefighter you can`t.
There are thousands of them.
And no, There is no debate over these.
Only in the minds of the laymen does this controversy exist.
Cnidarious 2 years ago 31
@Cnidarious You are rigth but not right enough .....actually Every animal and plant on earth is a transitional specie on a march through time, changing to our environment in minute increments over the generations
jontibloom 1 year ago
@Cnidarious Only chuck norris could count all the transitional species.
ProfoundReality2 11 months ago
The interesting fact of the matter is that you don`t actually understand what a transitional form is.
Cnidarious 2 years ago 7
The interesting fact of the matter is that you dont seem to accept that what you claim as facts, are debatable.
strikefighter 2 years ago
@strikefighter only by creationists
Liorte1973 1 year ago
@Cnidarious he's probably thinking of the "crocoduck" :P
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
Transitional forms cover the entire expanse of the Twin nested Hierarchy.
All Life is transitional.
There is no eukaryote or prokaryote anywhere on earth that is a static unchanging life form.
Cnidarious 2 years ago 5
You clearly know nothing at all about the subject if you think there are very few transitionals.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago 5
@strikefighter "something out of nothing???" what does that even mean? what would be your definition of nothing?
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
@mightyafrowhitey nothing is when there is no mass, volume, energy or any kind of materialistic objects.
Albakritube 1 year ago
So three idiots who don't even know what the law says.
Base on their logic planes and computers getting more complex also goes against the law as well.
mecher3k 2 years ago
professors and academics are idiots and don't know what they are talking about?. i rest my case.
strikefighter 2 years ago
If they don't know what the law actually says and are commenting on it then yes. And like I said, how is technology getting more complex then? Hmmm?
Retard.
mecher3k 2 years ago
How would they not know what they are talking about, u pathetic excuse for a human being. Im kinda starting to believe your ancestors were monkeys. How do u guys explain the consciousness of the brain? you guys have been known for faking evidence etc.
strikefighter 2 years ago
"consciousness of the brain?"
Really? That isn't hard at all to explain. Our ancestors started to use tools, our brains developed more, then we could speak, that really forced our brains to be developed more.
And that is skipping many steps, and is as simple as I can explain it.
Ohz noz a few scientists faking evidence, like what? Plitdown man? It was found out when scientists examined it. That's about it. Nebraska man was known to be BS by the scientific community instantly.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Julian Huxley, an evolutionist who spent years trying to establish a materialist foundation for consciousness, admits his failure in these terms:
How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nerve tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin, when Aladdin rubbed his lamp
strikefighter 2 years ago
For years, the portrayed the Coelacanth as an intermediate form, and were surprised when it transpired that the creature was still alive today. They came up with an imaginary scenario of equine evolution, although horse fossils dating back 53 million years were identical to horses alive today, but eventually had to confess that this, too, was a fraud.
strikefighter 2 years ago
So what, a few frauds. Whoopee doo. So that makes all the evidence frauds as well?
Based on that logic all religion and gods are bullshit.
Pathetic when I can so easily use your own argument against you.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Didn't say it makes all the evidences fraud, just saying that evolutionists have gone to extremes in lying to prove their theory, this in itself shows how desperate they are. I'm not defending all religions, just mine.
strikefighter 2 years ago
So? I could say the same thing about religion, it means nothing in the end.
People who knowing lie in science are ridiculed out of the scientific community. Look at the Korean scientist and his cloning data, once it was found it was a fraud he fucked his career up as a scientist.
mecher3k 2 years ago
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell. Evolution is a lie and that has not been accepted by the stubborn people you are!!
strikefighter 2 years ago
Hmmm well just ignore the fact the origins of life is abiogensis and nothing to do with evolution.
Now on to destroy what you just said. Once again, first cell would of been extremely simple, and the first organism would of had around 8 or so base pairs or something like that.
And you can't use chance to say what already has happened didn't happen. That's like saying since winning the lottery is so mathematically impossible, no one could of won it.
That's is what you are saying. Pathetic.
mecher3k 2 years ago
So what does the most basic " simple" cell consist off?
What you say happened is what you believe, its not what i believe. Comparing the probability of winning the lottery and a formation of a simple cell is just stupidity of highest level.
Your "first simple cell" theory has never been proven, its just that , a theory!!!
strikefighter 2 years ago
That's right abiogensis is still in it's early stages, but it is looking very promising.
And evolution takes place only once life as gotten here. That is why it has nothing to do with abiogensis. The two are only loosely connected. But a god could of placed the first cell and evolution would still be unaffected.
Really wouldn't be hard to just look up videos about abiogensis. The simple cell is nothing, and I mean nothing, like a modern one.
And once again, probability means nothing.
mecher3k 2 years ago
"Your "first simple cell" theory has never been proven, its just that , a theory!!! "
You are now Demonstrating a Gross Misunderstanding of the very simplest of scientific Principles.
A theory Is not a guess, It is the highest
Level explanation of Phenomena in Scientific nomenclature.
Please for your deities sake get a education before you get laughed out of existence.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
According to Darwins theory of evolution, there is an imaginary first cell which came into being from the chance combination of inanimate substances. And according to Darwinism, everything began with this first cell. It is this imaginary first cell that, according to Darwinism, is the origin of all life, butterflies, birds, lions, deer and finally human beings who produce technologies, found civilizations, trains, travel into space and study the cells they possess in the laboratory.
strikefighter 2 years ago
Your talking about a protocell.
You sound like a fundie.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.
strikefighter 2 years ago
Well no shit it collapses there, ITS NOT SUPPOSE TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
Evolution is the explanation for the DIVERSITY of life. Origin of life is abiogensis, quite different.
mecher3k 2 years ago
many educated people are in error in this regard. For example, in some articles dealing with the theory of evolution, one can read such statements as, "Combining and boiling such organic matter as amino acids or proteins produce life." This is probably the superstition that the Miller experiment left in the minds of some
strikefighter 2 years ago
The truth is, such a thing has never been observed. As explained above, the Miller Experiment, which tried to explain the formation of amino acids, let alone the origin of life, is now shown to be outmoded and invalid. It has suffered the same fate as Jan Baptista van Helmont's so-called proof for abiogenesis on the basis of maggots in meat or Athanasius Kircher's experiment.
strikefighter 2 years ago
the Miller Experiment really? The experiment that abiogensis has nothing to do with?
It proved that amino acids can be formed by naturalistic means.
Oh and the maggots in meat thing, is spontaneous generation, which abiogensis is not. It's about chemical reactions creating the original cell.
mecher3k 2 years ago
the "miller experiment" has nothing to with abiogenesis!!, u sure about that? life from no life!!. They used that as proof for a long time until proven invalid.Milled tried to make Proteins, and proteins are made up of amino acids, and we know that Miller attempted to produce amino acids in his experiment [but it turned out that the environment he made was not the earthly environment in which he claimed that abiogenesis occurred.
strikefighter 2 years ago
Actually that`s not entirely wrong.
Modern Abiogenesis research is Lightyears ahead of The Urey miller Experiments.
Almost having nothing to do with them what so so ever.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
the environment he made was not the current earthly environment but earth was like his environment billions of years ago
crazygeek777 2 years ago
Comment removed
Cnidarious 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
by chemical reactions i take it you mean
Chemical Evolution.
And yeah, Non living things can also be subjected to natural selection.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
it has been observed many times that with the right chemicals and electricity you can create basic life
crazygeek777 2 years ago
an example of the right chemicals with electricity is? oh dont forget it has to be in the right atmosphere lol.
strikefighter 2 years ago
>> it has been observed many times that with the right chemicals and electricity you can create basic life
Well no, we haven't quite gotten that far yet. Strikefighter's credulousness is obviously ridiculous and his facts are woefully flawed, not to mention he's being incredibly dishonest, but he's right about one thing.. We have not reproduced abiogenesis in the lab. What we have done is reproduce individual processes that may have been involved in abiogenesis.
coasterpro 2 years ago 2
i thought that their were studies done by a guy i can't think of his name though it starts with a d i think
crazygeek777 2 years ago
miller experiments i men't
crazygeek777 2 years ago
You're talking about the Miller-Urey experiments in the 1950's. They produced amino acids and other organic compounds which was a breakthrough at the time. However they never produced simple life, nor was that ever their goal.
Dozens of labs have worked on origin-of-life research since then, expanding on the prebiotic synthesis of aminos, nucleotides and peptides to infer how the first self-replicating cells may have formed and how the first genomes evolved.
coasterpro 2 years ago 2
(cont..) For instance we've gained an understanding of how cell walls most likely formed. Scientists have also demonstrated the evolution of RNA replicases (self-catalyzing ribozymes); chemicals believed to be the precursors to modern protein-based replicases and other polymerases. And of course we've demonstrated the abiotic production of virtually every chemical constituent to life. So we know it CAN happen, and probably DID happen, but are still formulating a cohesive theory explaining how.
coasterpro 2 years ago
they created amino acids not life. it is still amazing but not the same thing
bcw324 1 year ago
please post a valid prof (video, scientist, university..)
Albakritube 1 year ago
This is not creating, it is a chemical reaction. If you react Na + Cl ------ NaCl (Salt) Creating means making something from nothing!!! Science will never be able to do that because chemical reactions needs material, energy ( things that are have been created already)
Albakritube 1 year ago
yes yes I am a biochem major, I used a poor choice of words
bcw324 1 year ago
Thanks a lot. You are the first person here who make a mistake and will admit it. Every body make mistakes thanks again.
Albakritube 1 year ago
@Albakritube creation does NOT mean something from nothing (unless you're talking about the biblical story of creation". "nothing" does not exist. the act of creation is just the reordering of old information into something new.
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
@mightyafrowhitey, First I am Muslim, and I believe in the old Bibal not the one that exists these days. This is your understanding of creation. The only one who can create is God and that is why one of his names is the creator. Yes for anybody else there is no creation. Man please just set outside early in the morning and think about how are we living every second, how many things do we need to stay alive. So we have lungs then we find O2, we have eyes then we find a reflecting light...etc
Albakritube 1 year ago
Um yeah strikefighter your making a critical mistake, One which Reveals your lack of insight.
Your Discussing Abiogenesis, Not Evolution.
sorry but your the captain of the failboat today. Nothing that your saying has any scientific basis.
And Abiogensis is a actively Studied field Of science, Which has Developed considerably since the Urey miller Experiments.
You have nothing.
We have Peer reviewed literature.
the end.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
"gone to extremes in lying to prove their theory"
LoL nice,
The evil evolutionist conspiracy card.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
"professors and academics are idiots and don't know what they are talking about?. i rest my case. "
Okay strikefighter.
So according to you, Those with the Highest levels of education which have Placed Millions of man hours in the field and in laboratories
are all wrong?
And somehow you can Topple all modern science with a Youtube comment? How very foolish. Its impossible for you to be correct. You don`t even know what a theory is.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
Get your facts right, i was referring to mecher3k who when i quoted some scientists he said they were idiots, read before you speak. DUH!!
strikefighter 2 years ago
Einstein said Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. . Newton also believed in a creator, and your point is?
strikefighter 2 years ago
Read the Atlas of Creation and weep u darwinist nuthuggers !! lol
strikefighter 2 years ago
weep at how utterly retarded it is, yes.
mecher3k 2 years ago
and you base your comment on? come on say exactly what about the Atlas of creation says is wrong?. or u giving up already? lol
strikefighter 2 years ago
Hmmm let's see ALL OF IT?
Yeap that's it. Helps to have actually gone to science class in school btw.
mecher3k 2 years ago
so you have read it? you say All of it it !! .Thats just proved you haven't read it and don't know what your talking about. Practice what you said in your last sentence.
strikefighter 2 years ago
No need to read it when it says arguments that have been destroyed not only by scientists, but in court as well.
Do I need to read The Last Wish to know it is just a novel? No.
You fail.
mecher3k 2 years ago
If every person who held an argument or debate with someone and did not know what they were talking about or researched it, they FAIL!!!!. Reading a novel and a book of science is two different things. You cant just read the title or contents and have great understanding of it. I t seems its been a while since you have studied anything.
strikefighter 2 years ago
Atlas of creation is a novel, not a science book.
mecher3k 2 years ago
LOL, shows us that you do not know what your talking about. Is this the best you supporters of Darwinism can come up with LOL
strikefighter 2 years ago
I have the entire field of genetics to back evolution up, also evolution has more evidence backing it up then even gravity does. ERVs, paternal and maternal genetic markers, genetic patterns, vestigal organs, fossils, etc.
Creationism's evidence? A book written over a thousand years ago.
Darwinism does not exist. Otherwise you will have to call me a Einsteinist, Newtonian, and on and on.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species. The fossils you refer to were Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design.
strikefighter 2 years ago
There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs.Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."
strikefighter 2 years ago
Feather's would not be "half-developed." They would smaller. And eyes? There are examples of really simple eyes, all the way to complex ones all over in nature. So once again with the lying. And arteries, etc would not be half-developed as well.
Leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing? WHAT? More lying. That leg would never turn into a wing, that wing would be stub.
Wow, your entire "argument" is based on lies and ignorance. You fail horribly.
mecher3k 2 years ago
All "true" mutations are harmful? I could of sworn lying is a sin, is it not? As that is exactly what you are doing. Most mutations are neutral, period.
And once again with the lying, ""All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. "
More BS. I could list the fossils found proving you and him wrong, but I know you will just call them hoaxes, fakes, etc. Deluded minds then to do that.
mecher3k 2 years ago
I think you really need to do more study on this subject. Only a moron could believe that without a designer things so complex could be made. Do u know the complexity of just a simple cell?. You and all the world together couldnt make it. Most mutations cause harm, thats a FACT!!!!!!!!. Richard Dawkins is slowly changing his mind, id advise you to do the same.
strikefighter 2 years ago
So why can't nature produce anything complex? Give me a reason.
And no most mutations are NEUTRAL, they do not harm or help the organism in anyway. From birth we have about 120 mutations.
Richard Dawkins is changing his mind? ROFL.
So what if the cell is complex? The first cell was simple, really simple.
And you are telling me to do more studying? I'm the not the one lying, or don't even know the basics of evolution.
mecher3k 2 years ago
. . . Such devices could not have been put together by chance. And of course, no sensible scientist ever said they could. (From Richard Dawkins Explains His Latest Book,
You rightly say that random mutation is NOT a good explanation for the evolution of giraffes' necks or, indeed, of anything else! (From Richard Dawkins: Frequently Asked Questions, it is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work.
strikefighter 2 years ago
Ahhh quote mining, evolution does not work by chance, the mutations are chance, but natural selection is not. So what he said, was right.
Really is quite pathetic if all you are going to do is quote mine.
mecher3k 2 years ago
or any unintentional process like natural selection to produce rational designs, organs, structures in living things is impossible. Natural selection has never been observed to form a new organ from scratch or to transform one structure into another.
strikefighter 2 years ago
Our bodies are far from being perfect, so designed they can not be.
Unless you are saying that god is a horrible designer, which in that case, it wouldn't be god.
Your "arguments" just fail.
mecher3k 2 years ago
and you compare the body to? dvd player? ferrari?, give me a break. Its more logical than atoms which have no life coming together to form complex structures.
I bet your one of these guys who thinks that if you left a heap of metal , plastic etc somewhere and was able to come back to it millions and millions of years later , there in front of you would be a lamborghini gallardo, LOL
strikefighter 2 years ago
Hmmm no that example would proof of creation.I would expect there to be nothing recognizable left after all that time. Atomic theory and the law of thermodynamics says so.
Really, there must be a gene for intellect. That or your upbringing sucked.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine:
One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order
strikefighter 2 years ago
rofl, you have just proven how much of a idiot you are if you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a problem for evolution.
Just shows how you know nothing of what you are talking about.
And really look up what the most simple cell would of been. It's components are really basic. And on a planetary scale, it was going to happen.
And evolutionist can't prove natural selection? Sure just ignore things like nylon eating bacteria. It's easy to say they can't when you ignore the evidence.
mecher3k 2 years ago
J. H. Rush works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado:
In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.
strikefighter 2 years ago
G. P. Stavropoulos: Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the Second Law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language
strikefighter 2 years ago
yay quote mining.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
Prof. Ilya Prigogine, known for his research into thermodynamics at the Université Libre de Belgique:
There is another question, which has plagued us for more than a century: What significance does the evolution of a living being have in the world described by thermodynamics, a world of ever-increasing disorder?
U may not accept what i say but i suppose you know more than these experts. Need i say more?
strikefighter 2 years ago
LOL at your comment. In order for the cell to survive, all the basic components of the cell, each performing many vital functions, have to be intact. If the cell came into existence by evolution, then millions of its components had to simultaneously exist in the same place and they had to come together in a particular order and plan. Since this is utterly implausible, such a structure has no explanation other than "creation."
strikefighter 2 years ago
Not the first simple cell, if you going to be a idiotic and think the first cells would be like modern ones, then you are retarded, and not just deluded.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Go have and have a look at the most basic structure of the cell and you will see for your self that is contains some very complex components. How can you even think such a structure came by chance? All the components would of had to come together simultaneously for the cell to function!!
strikefighter 2 years ago
English mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in one of his interviews published in Nature magazine November 12, 1981. Even an evolutionist himself, Hoyle said that the odds that higher life forms might have emerged in this way was comparable to the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials in it. This means that it is not possible for the cell to come into being by coincidence and therefore, it must definitely have been "created"
strikefighter 2 years ago
Fred hoyle was not a "evolutionist. " He was a creationist who was a stubborn fuck who couldn't understand that the universe was NOT, in steady state.
And his chance calculation means nothing. No matter how unlikely something happened, you can't do the chances AFTER the event happened. It happened, doesn't matter how unlikely it was.
The more you talk, the more you fail.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Evolution does not work on chance, it works on natural selection. Mutations may be chance, but natural selection is the driving force behind it.
And AGAIN, the first cell was really simple. Get that through your fucking head, if at all possible.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Looks like you getting angry, shows how weak you are. Forcing you views on people, u sound like a fanatic. Can you not debate without losing your temper. Losing temper = FAIL !!!!!
In fact, Darwinists have been unable to reveal a single finding to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Evolutionists are aware of this and starting with Darwin himself, have many times admitted that natural selection cannot cause new species to develop, much less new life forms.!!!!!
strikefighter 2 years ago
still even the most simple cell with its basic components would of had to come together simultaneously to function. Am i right?
strikefighter 2 years ago
"still even the most simple cell with its basic components would of had to come together simultaneously to function. Am i right"
Nope.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
Not only could the cell, the smallest unit of life, never have come about by chance in the primitive and uncontrolled conditions in the early days of the Earth, as evolutionists would have us believe, it cannot even be synthesized in the most advanced laboratories of the twentieth century. Amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins that make up the living cell, cannot of themselves build such organelles in the cell as mitochondria, ribosomes, cont..
strikefighter 2 years ago
..... cell membranes, or the endoplasmic reticulum, let alone a whole cell. For this reason, the claim that evolution brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of a fantasy based entirely on imagination.
strikefighter 2 years ago
Clearly you have no tenure in the subject you are talking about strikefighter. oh and. "the claim that evolution brought about the first cell by chance remains the product of a fantasy" Actually your right. because evolution does not create protocells. Abiogenesis does.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
I never said im an expert in this field, but am very happy to point you in the direction of one. His name is Harun Yahya and hes the author of may books proving that you guys are idiots. Ever heard of his infamous book, its called Atlas of Creation?. Go and debate him, so he can slap you like a bitch you are!!! lol You guy Dawkins refuses to debate him, are you more of a man than him? LMAO .
strikefighter 2 years ago
LoL,
Sorry bud. Yahya is a crackpot.
Know why?
I bet you don`t.
This is the guy who thinks
Crinoids and Saballids are the same animal.
And expert you say?
Obviously not in a scientific discipline.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Calling Harun Yahya a crackpot hey?, learnt the ways to abuse others from your master Dawkins lol. You atheists have hijacked the theory of evolution for your own materialistic ways, Pathetic. Many of the major scientists including Darwin, Einstein, newton etc all believed in a creator, Is Harun Yahya wrong to say they they are the same? maybe in your eyes.. well you = Piltdown Man hoax, Nebraska Man, Haeckels FORGED EMBRYO DRAWINGS plus no transitional fossil ever found etc etc etc LMAO..
strikefighter 2 years ago
Don`t use the Haeckels embryos.
Its a bad idea.
Your trying to capitalize on the mistake of a single scientist like a vulture when you don`t even realize that Modern Embryology text books use Micro Photographs displaying the same thing Haeckle had illustrated, minus a few minor errors. Strikefighter do you know who discovered the Hoaxes? You Don` t think there are transitional forms? how silly. you mean you have never heard of them?
Cnidarious 2 years ago
I am aware of this. But the two theories are not completey independent. The theory of evoloution explains the development from Abiogenesis. The entire creation debate is attacking abiogenesis, not evoloution. Yet the two are interdependent, are they not? If you dispose of one, you dispose of the other. The intention of many evoloutionists was to create a scientific model in which life could form and develop on its own. Evolution explains the development of life but it has to have a start.
strikefighter 2 years ago
As far as I know, there is no alternative beginning aside from abiogenesis. What would an evoloutionist believe in otherwise? How can someone believe in evoloution without accepting abiogenesis. If you think that life was created by God, you have no reason not to think that God also created life as it is. There is no purpose in believing that God allowed the gradual development of life.
strikefighter 2 years ago
"The theory of evoloution explains the development from Abiogenesis"
No it doesn't
It explains common decent.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
"If you dispose of one, you dispose of the other."
Sorry Strikefighter but science does not work this way.
You can`t invalidate evolutionary theory this way.
Since we know it occurs.
Speciation is a common event which has Thousands of peer reviewed papers. The documentation is extremely extensive, and eliminating protocell formation does not invalidate common decent in the slightest.
There`s too much evidence.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
if you guys are right why does your leader Dawkins not debate Harun Yahya?, its because he knows he is wrong and that he will be embarrassed. He rather go around debating secondary school children. Lmao Another problem you guys have is you lack common sense. If you get told something you just jump on the bandwagon. Use your own brains sometimes, don't worry about getting kicked out of posts or being isolated by the scientific community!! LMAO
strikefighter 2 years ago
Look Strikefighter,
I am a little Apprehensive to listen to the view
point of one like Yahya, A religious apologetic,
Who does not understand the differences between a Annelid and a Echinoderm.
It sounds to me like he never graduated highschool.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
"Since this is utterly implausible, such a structure has no explanation other than "creation." "
Strikefighter,
Type, "define False Dichotomy" into google.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
The problem with you guys is you believe in ur star trek ideas but when it comes to mathematical probability, you say that's rubbish. Morons!! and u say its me that don't accept facts!! lol
strikefighter 2 years ago
The problem is not in the Probability Strikefighter.
Its your use of it that is the error.
And From what i have seen, No you don`t accept fact.
It is correct to assume the formation of cell happening by chance is improbable.
however Strikefighter no one actually says this.
There is a Very specific Process that leads to the formation of a protocell, and its not Random.
Variation is Random, Survivability is not.
and you call us morons?
You have been Attacked by the Fail whale.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
Cnidariousits my use of probability is the problem?, it was not me but world renowned mathematicians who came up with these figures. You guys believe in things so complex and make it sound so simple and probable.
strikefighter 2 years ago
You don`t understand .
There`s nothing wrong with the figures.
Its Your use of them that`s the issue.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The odds against a functional protein emerging randomly is 10950 to 1—a practical impossibility
Now how do i use this figure in an absurd way?
Ouch that must hurt your ego!! lol
strikefighter 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(In mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are accepted as "zero probability.") If Dawkins is honest, he should point at a mass of proteins that formed by chance or by means of the methods he espouses. Let Dawkins explain us how he can account for the origin of life in evolutionary terms, when even a single protein—the building block of life—cannot form by chance!
strikefighter 2 years ago
Again Strikefighter you need to study a process called Chemical Evolution.
This is a Process allows only molecules which have specific Isomers to retain there structure in a given environment. The other Molecules which are unsuitable for the changing environment cannot maintain there structures and degrade.
This is Not random Strikefighter, It is Dictated by a Nonrandom force, The environment.
So you see Chance has Very little to do with this.
Cnidarious 2 years ago 2
strike fighter would you mind learning what evolution is before you try to debate it
crazygeek777 2 years ago
No Strikefighter it did not hurt my ego.
Your still not using the
Figures properly.
Yes Forming randomly does have very low odds.
However no scientists has made this claim.
Abiogenesis and evolution are not forces of random chance.
Your confusing Variation with everything else. Variation is Random, Formation By natural selection is not random, It is almost guaranteed. So yes Strikefighter sudden formation does have low odds.
But that`s not how it works.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
good thing that natural selection is the very direct opposite of "random" otherwise you would have a point. Also this is a misuse of the anthropic principle. "If proteins didnt form the way they do, they wouldnt form the way they do" Circular! BTW I have worked out the odds of your lineage being only 10 generations long and still producing you. The (very) conservative estimate is 1x10 to the power of 107. by your logic, you dont exist. watch?v=ZIH5nLuPnEA
intelligentfalling 2 years ago 4
WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE ARGUING.... ITS CLEAR ALLAH MADE PEOPLE OUT OF CLAY, AND GOD MADE THE EARTH IN 7 DAYS OR WHAT EVER...
im joking lol, religion and god is obsolete.
benhoshinji 1 year ago
The dramatic reenactments are far more detailed than I appreciated when I first saw this. Lots of little historical references about Darwin, his family, work, contemporaries, etc.
FuzzyDuck 3 years ago
love this. it's a big f*** you to creationist nonsense.
johnnythunder4 3 years ago 7