No scientist in the world can make life or even the building blocks of life. All they have is assumptions! that one molecule might have linked up with another, or life flew in from space, or polarized light made complex molecules, its all assumptions! Homochirality proves natural processes can not produce life!!
@5tonyvvvv First dino 'blood' extracted from ancient bone h t t p://w w wDOTnewscientistDOTcom/article/dn17060-first-dino-blood-extracted-from-ancient-boneDOThtml A hadrosaur bone buried for 80 million years has yielded a mix of proteins and microstructures resembling cells that may help shed light on dinosaur evolution. Not a creation site.
Same KIND? Yes! You can't make an animal change into another kind of animal. Dogs make dogs. Apes make apes. That is why humans are still apes. And all apes are still monkeys. And all monkeys are still primates. And all primates are still mammals. And all mammals are still tetrapods. And all tetrapods are still vertebrates. You can't outgrow you ancestry. Read a science book.
I love it how the only evidence The creationists can use on their behalf is the bible. A scripture rewritten, originally by old men and their views. I think the bible is not to be taken literally.
@dillondownie The religious straw man you are raising is from The Lame Excuse Handbook. Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize.
@BereanBeacon1 Are you ever going to have the courage to answer my question regarding the life science challenge?
Would you rather take medicine to treat an infection produced by virologist and put through clinical trials by other virologists or produced by a kinesiologist and submitted only to a circuit court judge for approval?
@BereanBeacon1 The " Life Science Prize"...what a laugh...a rigged bogus notion that is a complete joke. No wonder nodoby reputable will have anything to do with it....BTW, Kitzmiller vs. Dover demonstrated that creation/intelligent design is religion and evolution is science...this is now Federal Law in the USA... Mastropaolo owes Judge Jones 10 grand...btw, The McLean vs. Arkansas case hinged on whether creationism is religion or science, and Judge Overton ruled that it is religion.
@BereanBeacon1 'evolutionists lack evidence' hmm do you really understand the theory of evolution? Maybe you should check it out before criticizing it. evolutionists aren't limited to the internet-they so happen to be in schools. evolution may not yet be proved but creation scientists are a joke-bending the world to fit their views. According to creationists the earth is apparently only 6000 years old, yet we find rocks (and fossils) that are much older. How do you explain that?
@BereanBeacon1 Yet strangely enough none of them point to the world being only 6000 years old. And they conflict because some rocks were formed before others. Think about volcanoes. Whereas Creationists have no evidence.
Like Dr. Parker, I once defended evolution vigorously & I was upset with anyone who didn't believe in it. But the more I searched more empty the arguments in favor the theory became. I came to realize that it was merely an interpretation of the evidence but the evidence did not support those interpretations. I knew that the world could not have created itself (1st Law of Thermo) nor could life have developed by itself(Biogenesis) & the world is degenerating (2nd Law). All are found in scripture.
"I've been alive for almost 50 years and have not seen it yet"
Well, I am 60 next month and I have seen plenty of evidence of evolution (a liitle trick achieved by reading peer reviwed science). I can see, first hand where i live, the geological evidence of an old earth (no book needed). On the other hand in all of my 59 years (including my ealy years brought up as a christian), i have not seen the tiniest piece of evidence for any god and don't subscribe to any bronze age myths.
Yes, I have. It is called my life. Please provide me with ANY scientific proof for Creation and ANY proof whatsoevere for god. On the other hand (if you are remotely interested) i will provide you with plenty of evidence for Evolution. It is out there for those who make the effort to approach the matter with an open mind.
@thebig1 No i mean the evidence that is available to those of us who are not apathetic. I mean the evidence that undergoes strict scrutiny. I mean the evidence that supports itself from independent disciplines. What you got???
@pilgrimpater You don't have it either because evolution has not gone through " those independent testings " The fossil record doesn't support evolution and never will. Evolutionists lack the transitional fossils that prove their case...THEY JUSDT ARENT THERE.
@thebig1 Evolution fulfils the complete scientific method. That is an inescapable fact. If you disagree then tell me why. If you believe otherwise then lobby your local police department to stop spending tax payer's money on forensics. Despite, the special conditions that are necessary for fossilisation it is amazing that we have so many thousands of transitional fossils. You simply cannot continue to deny that fact. I would be interested to know what YOUR definition of a transitional is.
@thebig1 Look i don't wish to be rude but chanting blind slogans is not the way to go forward on this debate. I asked you for a definition of what a transitional is. Until you give me that definition how can you possibly lay claim to what is not a transitional. The hilarious thing is that even without the thousands of transitionals that we do have(and we DO have them), the fossil record still confirms an evolutionary development of organisms. It's inescapable i'm afraid.
@pilgrimpater I'm asking you the same thing. Prove to me that the so called " transitional fossils " we always hear about ARE ACCURATE AND TRUE? You can't because they don't exist!!!!
@thebig1 But they DO. E.G. Tiktalik is clearly a creature that exhibits both fish & amphibian traits. It is not important that we even know the species before or after. That is why i tried and failed to get you to give me your definition but you are obviously totally lost. We even have a living example in the mudskipper. But don't worry, we don't even need the thousands of transitionals we have. Simple observation shows organisms becoming more complex over time. Only evolution can explain this
@pilgrimpater In both cases your wrong. We have fossils animals from thousands of years ago that look the same as the animals of today. No evolutionary change was needed because they always looked like they do today. The Cambrain the earliest level shows us all the basic body types that are in existence today. If there hadf been animals before the cambrain we would have found them but we have not. THE FOSSIL RECORD IS COMPLETE AND SUPPORTS CREATIONISM!!!!
@thebig1 Well still avoiding the question but dear oh dear let's continue with your latest comment. For a start the cambrian is 570 mill years old and lasted 70 mill years. Only the major PHYLA are found in the Cambrian. No fish, No amphibians, no reptiles, no birds, no mammals, no humans. If your myth were true we would find all of these in the Cambrian. We simply don't which is yet another nail in the coffin of creationism. Another question to avoid. What dating methods do Creationists have?
@thebig1 By the way, of course we have fossils of animals from thousands of years ago that look the same today. In fact we even have fossils of millions of years ago that look the similar to today e.g. coaelcinth, crocodiles, sharks. There is no rule in evolution that states that evolution happens at the same rate for all species. Perjaps you should consider those that HAVE changed like the horse and the whale to name but two. I want to know why dinosaur fossils are not found with humans.
@pilgrimpater Do you listen to your self talk? If you did you would stop because you make yourself sound ignorant. You say there is no rule to evolution I'd say YOUR RIGHT because evolution is bogas from the top down. Animals both marine and land are the same today as they were thousands of years ago. There is no fossil record supporting the changes you say have happened over history. NONE!!! EVolution is a man made religion!!!!
@thebig1 I didn't write that there are no rules in Evolution but i did state that there is no rule for rate (either within a species or across species). So please have the courtesy to read my comments correctly. Yes there are animals the same today as thousands of years ago because thousands in geological time is relatively insignificant. It really is about time you addressed the points i make instead of quoting useless slogans without any supporting argument.
@pilgrimpater Not if you understand that the earth IS YOUNG. Radio carbon dating has FLAWS that even evolutionists now have to admit. You base your entire premise that the earth is OLD based on RADIO CARBON DATING and its been proven flawty. The earth is thousands not millions or billions!!!!
@thebig1 Radio carbon dating is very accurate as is confirmed by tree ring and ice ring growth (almost spot on). However, radio carbon dating is used only on organic material and has a only short half life and hence is only useful for tens of thousands of years. Radiop carbon dating is NOT used to date rocks. Other isotopes (that independently agree with each othe)r are used. Here is another question for you to run from. What dating methods do Creationists have?
@thebig1 Also i am still waiting for your definition of a transitional. Because without that you have no right to make claim as to what is not a transitional. Even a Creationist must have enough brain cells to appreciate such an untenable position (boy you have more than enough of those). I have given you examples of transitionals & i want you to tell me why they're not. That's your homework. Blind faith slogans from your propoganda sites will not suffice. Blind faith vs reality does not work.
@pilgrimpater How old are you if I may ask? I told you already the Cambrian level the animals marine and land are already fully formed by that time. If there were transitional fossils proving evolution then there would be fossils below that level that demonstrated a gradual change but there is none. As I said before the only thing there is fossilized eggs that are very well preserved. Don't you think if those eggs are preserved it would also preserve a transitional fossil?
@thebig1 And i told you all about what is found in the Cambrian and what is NOT found i.e. not found is fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. You seem to convenienty gloss over such points but then again you are a Creationist. Prior to the cambrian would be only soft bodied organisms which is why we don't get many fossils but we do get enough. Perhaps you could tell me which organism has a fossiled egg but no parent. That is not impossible of course but extremely rare.
@thebig1 Perhaps you could also tell me (or fail to tell me judging by your past record) why organisms become more complex over geological time (or even time).
The geoligical fossil bearing records clearly show evolution, a gradual change of speciation. That is fact that somehow Creationists have to explain. Your mythical flood would have fossils mixed i.e. dinosaurs with modern man. The observations simply do not support such a ludicrous notion. Any honest person can see that.
@pilgrimpater Jesus is historic. And I would say it started in the stone age. lol Now you can call him a liar that's fine. But my contension is that you were lied to by the Atheists not Jesus. Evolution is hypothesis at best, maybe even dogma now. I hear Atheists saying about evidence. lol It's only data interpreted by dishonest people to convince the masses for our own good. Atheists are amoral and should be outed as the ideologs they are. Mammals are being found with dinos. Evolution is debunk
@easymoney4ever There is no contemporary writing of Jesus so how can you claim him historic? Atheism has nothing to do with evolution so you are already deluded. You LOL at concrete evidence? That's your problem. The fossil record exhibits clear increase of complexity over geological time. Only evolution explains this. Mammal and Dino fossils found together fully supports evolutiion. Atheists are more moral than christians because our goodness comes from the heart and not the fear of a tyrant.
@easymoney4ever . "Mammals are being found with dinos" Where is it that it is said that mammals did not live during the latter time of dinosaurs? Your contention debunks nothing. Evolution states HUMANS did not live at the time of dinosaurs, which has been shown to be correct...you lose.
@pilgrimpa All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'.Homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!!!. Which life cant use!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do today is copy pre existing information,thats not creating anything!!..
@5tonyvvvv Why are you limiting this argument to just a 50/50 mixture? Why are you talking about first life? How first life occurs is irrelevant to the evolution that subsequently occured afterwards. Evolution has been proved both in the lab and by the fossil record. Yet again, i find somone who appears to use the god of gaps argument to explain an as of yet unsolved (i assume unsolved as i am no expert in the field of microbiology) problem. What created the creator?
@pilgrimpater The laws of thermodynamics are only applicable to this universe, so to attach it to a being that supposedly exists (and created the law in the first place) outside our continuum is ridiculous. To use the term microbiology with regards to a supernatural being is even more laughable. Also, to what labs are you referring? If anything the labs have proved the opposite (fruit fly experiment).
@BeholdTheExtinction Also you are putting faith in an unproven theory. Many so called "fossil records" have been proven to be hoaxes or erroneous (i.e pilt down man, nebraska man, Neanderthal) or to even be fabricated. You have faith that lies or inaccurate information are not printed for nefarious purposes. I doubt you've been conducting experiments, or digging in the dirt. All of your info, comes from secondhand sources that report things you haven't seen with your eyes but believe anyway.
@BeholdTheExtinction None of what you said answers the question of what created the creator & you can't address the fact that it must have aquired it's intelligence somehow. How do you know the Laws of the Universe did not exist prior to the birth of this universe? As usual this creation stuff is all supposition based upon wishful thinking. Microbiology does indeed disprove a one off 6 day creation & the fruit fly experiments prove speciation in the lab with real science What have Creos got? 0
@5tonyvvvv I think that is supposition. There is no reason to believe that an imbalance could not have happened in the past. Even if we treat your statement as true it is irrelevant to the subsequent evolution that followed. Now i don't know if you believe in such stuff as taking Genesis literally but if you do then your own assertion defeats your own belief since homochirality is impossible with dust as the source. In fact what is your explanation for first life? Warning"God Dunnit" is a fail.
@pilgrimpater LOL, You need the Chemistry for the first cell by undirected natural processes, to even get to evolution Dummy! Learn Homochirality! its nothing more the stubborn logic made up by the evolutionists!
@5tonyvvvv Of course, i understand that biology is merely an extension of chemistry. No body knows how the transfer from chemistry to biology occured. That's called an "i don't know" in the real world. On the other hand you attrribute this action to some invisible unproven deity. Where is your evidence? Maybe you can LOL & insult me when you provide that evidence but i know you can't. Although first life is necessary as a precursor to evolution it doesn't negate the subsequent evolution.
@pilgrimpater "I don't know"..sounds like evolution of the Gaps!, See the Atheist scientist wants to explain all life, but never ever the first cell.. this complicated yet simple chemical process can never be explained..repeated observed or tested...sounds like a FAITH to me!!!
@5tonyvvvv Please get your comprehension skills up to scratch. "I don't know" applies to first life and not to the subsequent evolution. Surely that is not too hard for you to grasp. "I don't know" is the opopsite of faith which is "i guess (because it suits my peconceptions". No faith whatsoever needed for Evolution by the way.
Wonderful. Opening up with a COMPLETELY UNPROVEN STATEMENT THAT EVERYONE WILL BELIEVE HUNGRILY NO MATTER WHAT. Thats the way to go, boys! God damned stupid people...
What kind of childish propaganda is it to introduce him as someone who is now kindly and gentle, but when he talked evolution was horrible? These people should be selling tires.
"How many offsprings did theses fossils have?" - I can not see how this is relevant or where you would possibly go with this. I don't know, there are thousands of fossils (at least)I don't know how they breed or there breeding patterns.
"What do you mean by the record is Complete? " - I didn't say that. I said nearly. We can estimate where an undiscovered fossil would be and go find it. That is how accurate our records are, Tiktaalik is an example of this.
Right, so from the off I know that the next 14 minutes I'm listening to are lies.
No evidence for evolution?! The fossil records are damn near complete! We can see evolution occurring in labs! Virus's become immune to our immunizations so we make new ones. There is a type of orchid that has evolved to live in highly acidic industrial waste.
To be honest I have stopped this video at 2:27 and am going to go do some thing full filling, rather than listen to lies for the next 11 minutes.
Fabricating the mythical Jesus (there is not one piece of proof for the guy) may give hope but a false and misguided hope. Hope for what by the way? My goodness this is such a cringeworthy video. If only i could give it a minus 5. A worldwide flood of course is absolutely impossible which is why we have no proof of such an event. The great thing about Evolution is that there are no contradictions. The Bible is liierred with contradictions and lies.
To be a creationist you must be a bible nutter first , its a prerequisite.Can you name a single creationist who is so with out being a fundamentalist believer ?
There are no human footprints inside dinosaur footprints, because dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million year ago, but Homo sapiens has only existed for perhaps a few hundred thousand years.
Our hominid ancestors have roamed the Earth up to several million years ago, but certainly not 65 million years ago.
It is a great dilemma how a person can believe in angels and talking snakes and how that same person can dismiss a scientific theory because there is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to support it.
not just that there is no evidence for it, there is so much against it. It can't explain the beginning. Not the Big Bang, but the beginning of existance. Where did matter come from? Where did the stuff that went "bang" come from? Evolution has no answer.
Does evolution have something to do with the questions that you addressed? I must have REALLY missed something.
God, or magic by any other name, is the ultimate non-explanation because it does not add anything to our understanding as to how something works. Even worse, it rules out the possibility of a real explanation.
It also fails the most important requirement of science, which is being able to produce testable hypotheses.
The belief that God created man in his own image does not add to evolution, it contradicts it. Go ahead and test God. you'll get nowhere. God is not rational, he exists outside of science. For every "law" of science there is an exception. Darwin admitted miracles to be less explicable the more science progressed. If God is all powerful, created time and matter, do you really think he's gonna be human science explicable?
and again you avoid either a) admitting you are wrong or b) telling me any possible explanation for the origin of existance. All you have done here is jumped off topic by saying "Well just because science can't explain it..."
Maybe the postman did it? This is a normal everyday explanation, nothing special about it, known by all to happen very easily.
The second explanation is that it was god's miracle! Parthenogenesis maybe.
On the scale of probabilities the latter is infinitely less plausible that the former, so you might expect that only someone who has abandoned reason might believe it.
books are written by humans, and therefore biased. "science" books of today clearly do not accept the facts.
Fact: there is no evidence of any species evolving into another species. Evolution claims that over a looooong period of time things changed but in all the fossils, in all the layers, with human footprints inside dinosaur footprints, there is not one connecting link.
The evidence is incredibly abundant, it can be read out in billions of base pairs of dna, our's and of other organisms, which indicates with great detail how and when organisms evolved and where they are in the phylogenetic tree.
You might as well say that there is no evidence that the Earth is round, and you would not be more wrong.
INDICATES. in other words, someone looked at some DNA similarities between two animals and claimed it as proof of evolution. the fact of the matter is, there are no fossils of ANY link animal. Aomebas still exist, bacteria still exist. Why would they still be around if they could be evolving into something better? There is no proof only evidence which is ALWAYS interpreted by humans and usually how they want it to be. You cannot misinterpret what isn't there.
Some think that in a debate it is important to know something about the subject matter.
Those people gather knowledge about the subject matter from books and other valid sources, which then enables them to make valid arguments.
Other knowledgeable individuals then see that the person understands what he is talking about, and respect the other person as their intellectual equal.
yeah because what you believe HAS to be true therefore any scientist who says differently is lieing. You are a typical dime-a-dozen hands over your eyes blind believer of a man-made explanation for something, admittedly intended to avoid moral consequences.
On the contrary, since science has no final truths, everything is subject to critical review.
However, if you want to assert a novel explanation, you need to present supporting evidence.
That is where creationism fails big time.
There is no supporting evidence, which is a very embarrassing track record for creationists, considering that their explanation has been around much longer than any science theory.
By writing "science" in quotes you are probably referring to pseudoscience, such as creationism, which fails as a science because it does not produce testable hypotheses which could be used to falsify it.
You are right, creationism does not accept facts :-)
Real science is actually not so much about accepting facts but about explaining them.
and again you prove that you can't detract from the evidence I put forth. All you can do is try to turn it around on me. You still have not (and probably won't) tell me by what mystical way the origin of existance came, but yet you refuse to believe there could be anything that has no beginning. I have yet to have an evolutionist TRY to explain that. One tried to explain some energy balls before the big bang, but my question will always be: "and before that? Where did THAT come from?"
ooh another liberal journalist! WOW I must be wrong cuz a liberal journalist said I was! So if I write an article that says you are a banana not a person, that makes it true!
Quoting someone does not prove anything. Therefore the reason why it is true is NOT because someone said so.
It is true because evidence, in this case fossils, actually exist by truckloads.
Similarly, the reason why you're wrong is NOT because "a liberal journalist said" you were. If I was to make statements about let's say polymer physics, which I do not understand at all, I'd be wrong also.
The difference between science and creationism is that science asserts theories which try to explain facts (with varying success), while creationism only offers the "magic man answer" to EVERY QUESTION.
In science the amount of merit that a theory has depends on the evidence that agrees with it, but in creationism a claim is actually more virtuous if it is not supported by any evidence at all, and better yet if it does not make any sense whatsoever.
The whole of christianity is nothing but lies upon lies piled high upon more lies. It is pathetic to hear such so called "DR'S" and "biologists" make such ridiculously false claims. They desperately, frantically spew out this garbage in order to keep and hold on to their scams; and keep the sheeple in the dark. Ugh!
@PaineLover You can't prove his claims false. No one can. That's why people can assert it. You seem bitter at the evil christians. Why? You love your fellow man? Stalin believed Darwin. Hitler believed him. Mao believed him. Your concern Christianity is hurting your fellow man rings hollow. For what has Evolution done to the world if not true? Extermination in their struggle. Was Darwin wrong about that? If not, where should we start this war right with each other to survive the struggle?
The millons upon millions of fossils found worldwide is evidence of a global flood staring us right in the face. A real testiment that God judges the world. Just as people refused to believe Noah and be saved, many are running away from Jesus Christ who is the way, the light, the truth. You can ask Him into your life right now and have eternal life from the moment you invite Him in your life. Jesus Christ is the One who can make you a whole person and free you from your sins.
The fossils contradict the global flood, since marine dinosaurs would not have been wiped out, and all the land animals would have been found in the same age strata layer. They are not, also note that never have human and dinosaur remains ever been found in the same strata layer.
Go to any forrest where there are bears and see if you find evidence of a human bone with bear bones. Not! As a matter of fact while you are at it try to find bear bones.You do believe bears and humans exsist at the same time don't you? Even though there is no evidence of a bear bone with a human bone. What's the name of your marine dino Please open your eyes. The lie is getting worse.Now oprah believes a man can be pregnant. Do you? It's not a man but a woman who has mutalated her body legally
I find it disturbing how poeple will continue to cling to a lie. Scientific research and evidence supports creation and shows evolution as a mere fairy tale. If evolution is true, then we should be able to change a frog into a rat in the laboratory. The attempt to create a single cell in the laboratory was a failure. If we can't make a cell in a laboratory, then how can a cell form on its own. If the natural laws of science won't allow a cell to develope spontaneously, evolution is a joke.
My most sincere apologies. I read your comment too quickly and missed that it was a response to a deluded nut. Isn't this brodacst just so cringeworthy. Easily 99% on the cringe metre. Parker probably was forced to go to church by his wife under the threat of withholding sex.
That is what happens when one is use to using sarcasim as irony in daily life and thinking.
Irony -- The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
If you think like this throught your daily life, you will look at the truth someone is saying and believe with all your heart it' false.
It's a form of lieing to yourself. ever notice that when mocking christians everyone uses irony. The way they think keeps them from ever seeing the truth
That is not Irony but cold stone fact. The only irony is that your blind and baseless faith has the arrogance to dismiss the undisputable evidence that supports evoloution. You do realise that god, christianity and evolution are all comnpatible with each other. It is only the lie of the literal version Genesis that i am, putting it in your words, "mocking".
"What is this undisputable evidence of evolution? "
First and foremost the fossil record. You find progressively more complex (developed) organisms, the younger the rock. Pre Cambrian rock contains only simple cell organisms.
Second the Genome which gives us the ability to confirm the tree of life which previously was only s drawn up by looking at the morphology of organisms. The two different methods agree.
@bigboyvernon . Yes but not the main purpose that it sevres in our close vegetarian cousins. Pray, tell me what the purpose of the vestigal tail is in humans and why the so called "creator" gave vestigal limbs to whales and dolphins but not to the equally large whale sharks?
6 minutes in and no scientific evidence for Creation or against evolution has been given. I'm not going to waste my time watching the rest of this shit.
This was great. God is good and worthy to be praised. I'm happy that these men opened their eyes to the truth. Proverbs 4:19 say the way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. That is why it is hard for people to believe the bible as Gods word.
Yes scripture is my bestfriend and I worship the very God who wrote it. I understand that scripture because I understand my God. I can not explain this scripture to you because I gather you are not a Christian and you without the Holy Spirit could never understand. I can share this with you that God loves you that He sent His Son Jesus to die to spare you from being dashed against a rock and now is the time to repent. Have a good day.
but.. his son is the one that SAID.. i should be bashed against a rock... =[
i hate it that christians don't realize that not only does christianity make no sense whatsoever, but that there's PROOF of evolution. they just choose to go "LA LA LA, I DON'T HEAR YOU" when you show it to them. look up the many transition fossils scientists have found. also, while you're doing that, please explain to me how we can see light from galaxies billions of light years away when the earth is '6000 years old'.
okay who do you know that has traveled billions of light years? I think it's funny people believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and people can find dinosaur bones in a grave no deeper than 2 feet in some cases people have tripped over the bones and yet they died millions of years ago. As for la la la I don't hear you, I hear you. Do you hear me. God is real and my faith in him is real and time and time again His protection, provision and His love has proven His exsistens for me.
Second, there are many methods that show us how far something is, stellar parallax alone shows us stars >6,000 light-years away, "standard candles" show us galaxies that are millions of light-years away, and the hubble constant and red-shift show us galaxies that are BILLIONS of light-years away.
One word:Not, although that may play a part in finding some bones that's not what has happened in every case. Look at grave yards erosion is happening around those grave yards too and burried just six feet under and I have never heard of ANYBODY walking and tripping over a human body from a grave yard or a box for that fact. If erosion were happening as much then we would have to go back and redig the graves because they are just sixfeet under. Here's some good news Jesus Loves you. Thanks
The difference there is time-scale, human burials date only for a few thousand years, we're talking 65 million years + for dinosaurs. Up to a thousand times more erosion can occur, however with more modern burials, planet activity alters erosion rates.
Yes, you are right and I agree, human burials date for a few thousand years.Try this get some dirt in a deep bowl take a toy dinosaur and place at bottom pour dirt on it then take some toy soldiers lay them above and cover with dirt then cause your own erosion start the toys will come up first before the dinosaurs. Why? Because if you blow the dirt the top will be uncovered 1st. If you use a flow of water the top will be uncovered 1st.
Are you a Christian? Do you know Jesus Christ? take care.
TheDarkLordLucifer, For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1Corinthians 1:18,19
people cant argue against creation because its made up and people want to believe it. you cant argue with modern, scientific people because they use facts and observations to explain the natural world
Also, scientific data has refuted plenty of events in the Bible, for example, there was no worldwide flood. Besides, the Bible's historical record is in disagreement with other parts of the Bible's historical record. skepticsannotatedbible(dot)com isn't perfect, but it does a decent job of pointing out some of the contradictions. Lastly, none of your historians were around until at least 70 years after Jesus was long gone and were merely writing on hearsay alone.
jetmanisme, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:21,22
jetmanisme, the proof of the Bible comes by reading it. Gospel of John at h t t p://w w w dot youtube dot com/watch?v=kY-N-2Y1K2U so please listen to find out who Jesus was what he was about. What have you got to lose?
Comment removed
44bobio 2 months ago
Listened to first 12 seconds, threw my hands up in the air and yelled `DONE!`and resumed watching videos of crocodiles murdering other animals
iguardo 3 months ago
No scientist in the world can make life or even the building blocks of life. All they have is assumptions! that one molecule might have linked up with another, or life flew in from space, or polarized light made complex molecules, its all assumptions! Homochirality proves natural processes can not produce life!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv First dino 'blood' extracted from ancient bone h t t p://w w wDOTnewscientistDOTcom/article/dn17060-first-dino-blood-extracted-from-ancient-boneDOThtml A hadrosaur bone buried for 80 million years has yielded a mix of proteins and microstructures resembling cells that may help shed light on dinosaur evolution. Not a creation site.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
Just look at your damn feet. Your toes are stubby little fingers. Any moron can see that.
JordanHofer 9 months ago
gregrutz 10 months ago
I REALLY want to believe in God but no one ever tells me why they stopped believing!!! What are those 3 things?!?!
NotaUserIam 1 year ago
I love it how the only evidence The creationists can use on their behalf is the bible. A scripture rewritten, originally by old men and their views. I think the bible is not to be taken literally.
dillondownie 1 year ago
@dillondownie The religious straw man you are raising is from The Lame Excuse Handbook. Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 For someone who says that creationists are interested in 'real science' they lack one of the basic fundamentals; evidence.
dillondownie 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Are you ever going to have the courage to answer my question regarding the life science challenge?
Would you rather take medicine to treat an infection produced by virologist and put through clinical trials by other virologists or produced by a kinesiologist and submitted only to a circuit court judge for approval?
You keep dodging, I'll keep asking.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 The " Life Science Prize"...what a laugh...a rigged bogus notion that is a complete joke. No wonder nodoby reputable will have anything to do with it....BTW, Kitzmiller vs. Dover demonstrated that creation/intelligent design is religion and evolution is science...this is now Federal Law in the USA... Mastropaolo owes Judge Jones 10 grand...btw, The McLean vs. Arkansas case hinged on whether creationism is religion or science, and Judge Overton ruled that it is religion.
pontecanis 1 year ago
Maybe Overton and Jones can split the 10 grand...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis Cluck
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Would you cluck at a prosecutor for not presenting his legal case to a biologist for a ruling?
If not, why not?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 'evolutionists lack evidence' hmm do you really understand the theory of evolution? Maybe you should check it out before criticizing it. evolutionists aren't limited to the internet-they so happen to be in schools. evolution may not yet be proved but creation scientists are a joke-bending the world to fit their views. According to creationists the earth is apparently only 6000 years old, yet we find rocks (and fossils) that are much older. How do you explain that?
dillondownie 11 months ago
@dillondownie Your dating results are selected and disagree with each other.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 'Your dating results are selected and disagree with each other. '
Source?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Yet strangely enough none of them point to the world being only 6000 years old. And they conflict because some rocks were formed before others. Think about volcanoes. Whereas Creationists have no evidence.
dillondownie 11 months ago
Idiots.
octocycle 1 year ago
Lost me in the first 5 seconds. What an idiot. Xtians are retarded.
murrangurk 1 year ago
Evolution does not say one animal turns into another kind of animal.
Dogs make dogs.
Apes make apes.
That is why we will always be apes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
wolf too poodle --should i say more
funkster22657 1 year ago
Same Kind? YES! That is why; all humans are still apes,
and all apes are still monkeys,
and all monkeys are still primates,
and all primates are still mammals.
and all mammals are still tetrapods.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Just POWERFUL
shayneby 2 years ago
Like Dr. Parker, I once defended evolution vigorously & I was upset with anyone who didn't believe in it. But the more I searched more empty the arguments in favor the theory became. I came to realize that it was merely an interpretation of the evidence but the evidence did not support those interpretations. I knew that the world could not have created itself (1st Law of Thermo) nor could life have developed by itself(Biogenesis) & the world is degenerating (2nd Law). All are found in scripture.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
Well... "Dr" Gary Parker seems to be a pathetic moron.. like every religious person.
Have fun in church, blinded, delusional, pathetic zombiesheeps!
FeineMresse 2 years ago
abusive angry atheist like all atheists.
have fun abusing people and deriding others in your deluded self righteous stupor.
arsjth 2 years ago
@FeineMresse Have fun in hell ignorant new age moron!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
"I've been alive for almost 50 years and have not seen it yet"
Well, I am 60 next month and I have seen plenty of evidence of evolution (a liitle trick achieved by reading peer reviwed science). I can see, first hand where i live, the geological evidence of an old earth (no book needed). On the other hand in all of my 59 years (including my ealy years brought up as a christian), i have not seen the tiniest piece of evidence for any god and don't subscribe to any bronze age myths.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
", i have not seen the tiniest piece of evidence for any god and don't subscribe to any bronze age myths."
Have you done any research on this?
RebelRay 2 years ago
Yes, I have. It is called my life. Please provide me with ANY scientific proof for Creation and ANY proof whatsoevere for god. On the other hand (if you are remotely interested) i will provide you with plenty of evidence for Evolution. It is out there for those who make the effort to approach the matter with an open mind.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
@pilgrimpater You mean the " evidence " you have had shoved down you throat from middle school to college?
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 No i mean the evidence that is available to those of us who are not apathetic. I mean the evidence that undergoes strict scrutiny. I mean the evidence that supports itself from independent disciplines. What you got???
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater You don't have it either because evolution has not gone through " those independent testings " The fossil record doesn't support evolution and never will. Evolutionists lack the transitional fossils that prove their case...THEY JUSDT ARENT THERE.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 Evolution fulfils the complete scientific method. That is an inescapable fact. If you disagree then tell me why. If you believe otherwise then lobby your local police department to stop spending tax payer's money on forensics. Despite, the special conditions that are necessary for fossilisation it is amazing that we have so many thousands of transitional fossils. You simply cannot continue to deny that fact. I would be interested to know what YOUR definition of a transitional is.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater You have not one transitional fossil that supports evolution NOT ONE.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 Since you have failed to define what a transitional is you are in no position to deny the literally thousands of transitionals that we have.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Thats just the point YOU HAVE NONE that backup what you say about evolution. ITS A FALSE SCIENCE!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 Look i don't wish to be rude but chanting blind slogans is not the way to go forward on this debate. I asked you for a definition of what a transitional is. Until you give me that definition how can you possibly lay claim to what is not a transitional. The hilarious thing is that even without the thousands of transitionals that we do have(and we DO have them), the fossil record still confirms an evolutionary development of organisms. It's inescapable i'm afraid.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater I'm asking you the same thing. Prove to me that the so called " transitional fossils " we always hear about ARE ACCURATE AND TRUE? You can't because they don't exist!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 But they DO. E.G. Tiktalik is clearly a creature that exhibits both fish & amphibian traits. It is not important that we even know the species before or after. That is why i tried and failed to get you to give me your definition but you are obviously totally lost. We even have a living example in the mudskipper. But don't worry, we don't even need the thousands of transitionals we have. Simple observation shows organisms becoming more complex over time. Only evolution can explain this
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater In both cases your wrong. We have fossils animals from thousands of years ago that look the same as the animals of today. No evolutionary change was needed because they always looked like they do today. The Cambrain the earliest level shows us all the basic body types that are in existence today. If there hadf been animals before the cambrain we would have found them but we have not. THE FOSSIL RECORD IS COMPLETE AND SUPPORTS CREATIONISM!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 Well still avoiding the question but dear oh dear let's continue with your latest comment. For a start the cambrian is 570 mill years old and lasted 70 mill years. Only the major PHYLA are found in the Cambrian. No fish, No amphibians, no reptiles, no birds, no mammals, no humans. If your myth were true we would find all of these in the Cambrian. We simply don't which is yet another nail in the coffin of creationism. Another question to avoid. What dating methods do Creationists have?
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@thebig1 Oh and if the fossil record is complete, why are we constantly finding new fossils?
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@thebig1 By the way, of course we have fossils of animals from thousands of years ago that look the same today. In fact we even have fossils of millions of years ago that look the similar to today e.g. coaelcinth, crocodiles, sharks. There is no rule in evolution that states that evolution happens at the same rate for all species. Perjaps you should consider those that HAVE changed like the horse and the whale to name but two. I want to know why dinosaur fossils are not found with humans.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Do you listen to your self talk? If you did you would stop because you make yourself sound ignorant. You say there is no rule to evolution I'd say YOUR RIGHT because evolution is bogas from the top down. Animals both marine and land are the same today as they were thousands of years ago. There is no fossil record supporting the changes you say have happened over history. NONE!!! EVolution is a man made religion!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 I didn't write that there are no rules in Evolution but i did state that there is no rule for rate (either within a species or across species). So please have the courtesy to read my comments correctly. Yes there are animals the same today as thousands of years ago because thousands in geological time is relatively insignificant. It really is about time you addressed the points i make instead of quoting useless slogans without any supporting argument.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Not if you understand that the earth IS YOUNG. Radio carbon dating has FLAWS that even evolutionists now have to admit. You base your entire premise that the earth is OLD based on RADIO CARBON DATING and its been proven flawty. The earth is thousands not millions or billions!!!!
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 Radio carbon dating is very accurate as is confirmed by tree ring and ice ring growth (almost spot on). However, radio carbon dating is used only on organic material and has a only short half life and hence is only useful for tens of thousands of years. Radiop carbon dating is NOT used to date rocks. Other isotopes (that independently agree with each othe)r are used. Here is another question for you to run from. What dating methods do Creationists have?
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@thebig1 Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was billions of years old.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@thebig1 Also i am still waiting for your definition of a transitional. Because without that you have no right to make claim as to what is not a transitional. Even a Creationist must have enough brain cells to appreciate such an untenable position (boy you have more than enough of those). I have given you examples of transitionals & i want you to tell me why they're not. That's your homework. Blind faith slogans from your propoganda sites will not suffice. Blind faith vs reality does not work.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater How old are you if I may ask? I told you already the Cambrian level the animals marine and land are already fully formed by that time. If there were transitional fossils proving evolution then there would be fossils below that level that demonstrated a gradual change but there is none. As I said before the only thing there is fossilized eggs that are very well preserved. Don't you think if those eggs are preserved it would also preserve a transitional fossil?
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 And i told you all about what is found in the Cambrian and what is NOT found i.e. not found is fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. You seem to convenienty gloss over such points but then again you are a Creationist. Prior to the cambrian would be only soft bodied organisms which is why we don't get many fossils but we do get enough. Perhaps you could tell me which organism has a fossiled egg but no parent. That is not impossible of course but extremely rare.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@thebig1 Perhaps you could also tell me (or fail to tell me judging by your past record) why organisms become more complex over geological time (or even time).
The geoligical fossil bearing records clearly show evolution, a gradual change of speciation. That is fact that somehow Creationists have to explain. Your mythical flood would have fossils mixed i.e. dinosaurs with modern man. The observations simply do not support such a ludicrous notion. Any honest person can see that.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@thebig1 Cambrian level the animals marine and land are already fully formed by that time''
Yes, all animals are fully formed. No, there were no land animals in the Cambrian Period.
The fossils before the Cambrian are called the Pre-Cambrian, easy to remember. Don't worry, everyone had a mom and a dad, just like today.
All you are saying is, 'Before there were fish with backbones, there were no fish with backbones.'' Yup, they evolved.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@thebig1 '' are the same today as they were thousands of years ago''
You haven't noticed the dinosaurs are small and feathered?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@thebig1
Please provide any valid, objective, positive evidence that your God exists.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Jesus is historic. And I would say it started in the stone age. lol Now you can call him a liar that's fine. But my contension is that you were lied to by the Atheists not Jesus. Evolution is hypothesis at best, maybe even dogma now. I hear Atheists saying about evidence. lol It's only data interpreted by dishonest people to convince the masses for our own good. Atheists are amoral and should be outed as the ideologs they are. Mammals are being found with dinos. Evolution is debunk
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever There is no contemporary writing of Jesus so how can you claim him historic? Atheism has nothing to do with evolution so you are already deluded. You LOL at concrete evidence? That's your problem. The fossil record exhibits clear increase of complexity over geological time. Only evolution explains this. Mammal and Dino fossils found together fully supports evolutiion. Atheists are more moral than christians because our goodness comes from the heart and not the fear of a tyrant.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever . "Mammals are being found with dinos" Where is it that it is said that mammals did not live during the latter time of dinosaurs? Your contention debunks nothing. Evolution states HUMANS did not live at the time of dinosaurs, which has been shown to be correct...you lose.
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pilgrimpa All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'.Homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!!!. Which life cant use!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do today is copy pre existing information,thats not creating anything!!..
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Why are you limiting this argument to just a 50/50 mixture? Why are you talking about first life? How first life occurs is irrelevant to the evolution that subsequently occured afterwards. Evolution has been proved both in the lab and by the fossil record. Yet again, i find somone who appears to use the god of gaps argument to explain an as of yet unsolved (i assume unsolved as i am no expert in the field of microbiology) problem. What created the creator?
pilgrimpater 9 months ago
@pilgrimpater The laws of thermodynamics are only applicable to this universe, so to attach it to a being that supposedly exists (and created the law in the first place) outside our continuum is ridiculous. To use the term microbiology with regards to a supernatural being is even more laughable. Also, to what labs are you referring? If anything the labs have proved the opposite (fruit fly experiment).
BeholdTheExtinction 7 months ago
@BeholdTheExtinction Also you are putting faith in an unproven theory. Many so called "fossil records" have been proven to be hoaxes or erroneous (i.e pilt down man, nebraska man, Neanderthal) or to even be fabricated. You have faith that lies or inaccurate information are not printed for nefarious purposes. I doubt you've been conducting experiments, or digging in the dirt. All of your info, comes from secondhand sources that report things you haven't seen with your eyes but believe anyway.
BeholdTheExtinction 7 months ago
@BeholdTheExtinction Homochirality proves life from non life is chemically and mathematically impossible!
5tonyvvvv 7 months ago
@BeholdTheExtinction None of what you said answers the question of what created the creator & you can't address the fact that it must have aquired it's intelligence somehow. How do you know the Laws of the Universe did not exist prior to the birth of this universe? As usual this creation stuff is all supposition based upon wishful thinking. Microbiology does indeed disprove a one off 6 day creation & the fruit fly experiments prove speciation in the lab with real science What have Creos got? 0
pilgrimpater 7 months ago
@pilgrimpater Homochirality proves life from non life is chemically and mathematically impossible!
5tonyvvvv 7 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I think that is supposition. There is no reason to believe that an imbalance could not have happened in the past. Even if we treat your statement as true it is irrelevant to the subsequent evolution that followed. Now i don't know if you believe in such stuff as taking Genesis literally but if you do then your own assertion defeats your own belief since homochirality is impossible with dust as the source. In fact what is your explanation for first life? Warning"God Dunnit" is a fail.
pilgrimpater 7 months ago
@pilgrimpater LOL, You need the Chemistry for the first cell by undirected natural processes, to even get to evolution Dummy! Learn Homochirality! its nothing more the stubborn logic made up by the evolutionists!
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Of course, i understand that biology is merely an extension of chemistry. No body knows how the transfer from chemistry to biology occured. That's called an "i don't know" in the real world. On the other hand you attrribute this action to some invisible unproven deity. Where is your evidence? Maybe you can LOL & insult me when you provide that evidence but i know you can't. Although first life is necessary as a precursor to evolution it doesn't negate the subsequent evolution.
pilgrimpater 9 months ago
@pilgrimpater "I don't know"..sounds like evolution of the Gaps!, See the Atheist scientist wants to explain all life, but never ever the first cell.. this complicated yet simple chemical process can never be explained..repeated observed or tested...sounds like a FAITH to me!!!
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Please get your comprehension skills up to scratch. "I don't know" applies to first life and not to the subsequent evolution. Surely that is not too hard for you to grasp. "I don't know" is the opopsite of faith which is "i guess (because it suits my peconceptions". No faith whatsoever needed for Evolution by the way.
pilgrimpater 9 months ago
Wonderful. Opening up with a COMPLETELY UNPROVEN STATEMENT THAT EVERYONE WILL BELIEVE HUNGRILY NO MATTER WHAT. Thats the way to go, boys! God damned stupid people...
TurthanNatner 3 years ago
Thanks for posting this.
LoricaLady 3 years ago
Amen! this video was a blessing :)
jazz7148 3 years ago
Also, why didn't each guy just say "I had a Ph.D. and believe in magic" and sign off?
bberntson 3 years ago
What kind of childish propaganda is it to introduce him as someone who is now kindly and gentle, but when he talked evolution was horrible? These people should be selling tires.
bberntson 3 years ago
"How many offsprings did theses fossils have?" - I can not see how this is relevant or where you would possibly go with this. I don't know, there are thousands of fossils (at least)I don't know how they breed or there breeding patterns.
"What do you mean by the record is Complete? " - I didn't say that. I said nearly. We can estimate where an undiscovered fossil would be and go find it. That is how accurate our records are, Tiktaalik is an example of this.
brinnmilo 3 years ago
Right, so from the off I know that the next 14 minutes I'm listening to are lies.
No evidence for evolution?! The fossil records are damn near complete! We can see evolution occurring in labs! Virus's become immune to our immunizations so we make new ones. There is a type of orchid that has evolved to live in highly acidic industrial waste.
To be honest I have stopped this video at 2:27 and am going to go do some thing full filling, rather than listen to lies for the next 11 minutes.
brinnmilo 3 years ago
How many offsprings did theses fossils have? What do you mean by the record is Complete?
Riverfrog72 3 years ago
I actually made it to 3:31. Ugh. Don't know what I was thinking.
mirutsa 3 years ago
Evolution doesn't give you hope? What a lie.
Fabricating the mythical Jesus (there is not one piece of proof for the guy) may give hope but a false and misguided hope. Hope for what by the way? My goodness this is such a cringeworthy video. If only i could give it a minus 5. A worldwide flood of course is absolutely impossible which is why we have no proof of such an event. The great thing about Evolution is that there are no contradictions. The Bible is liierred with contradictions and lies.
pilgrimpater 3 years ago
To be a creationist you must be a bible nutter first , its a prerequisite.Can you name a single creationist who is so with out being a fundamentalist believer ?
flyingscience 3 years ago
> human footprints inside dinosaur footprints
There are no human footprints inside dinosaur footprints, because dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million year ago, but Homo sapiens has only existed for perhaps a few hundred thousand years.
Our hominid ancestors have roamed the Earth up to several million years ago, but certainly not 65 million years ago.
jtoksa 3 years ago
It is a great dilemma how a person can believe in angels and talking snakes and how that same person can dismiss a scientific theory because there is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to support it.
jtoksa 3 years ago
not just that there is no evidence for it, there is so much against it. It can't explain the beginning. Not the Big Bang, but the beginning of existance. Where did matter come from? Where did the stuff that went "bang" come from? Evolution has no answer.
blackhawk1491 3 years ago
> Evolution has no answer.
Does evolution have something to do with the questions that you addressed? I must have REALLY missed something.
God, or magic by any other name, is the ultimate non-explanation because it does not add anything to our understanding as to how something works. Even worse, it rules out the possibility of a real explanation.
It also fails the most important requirement of science, which is being able to produce testable hypotheses.
jtoksa 3 years ago
The belief that God created man in his own image does not add to evolution, it contradicts it. Go ahead and test God. you'll get nowhere. God is not rational, he exists outside of science. For every "law" of science there is an exception. Darwin admitted miracles to be less explicable the more science progressed. If God is all powerful, created time and matter, do you really think he's gonna be human science explicable?
blackhawk1491 3 years ago
> If God is all powerful, created time and
> matter, do you really think he's gonna be
> human science explicable?
The most important word in your sentence is "if".
Gods are a convenient answer to our fears and psychological needs, but not a shred of evidence exists that there are any.
> The belief that God created man in his
> own image
I never understood that "own image" part. The human body is so full of design flaws that god as an engineer seems hopelessly incompetent to me.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> Darwin admitted miracles to be less
> explicable the more science progressed.
Citation needed.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> tell me by what mystical way the origin
> of existance came
Suppose that a phenomenon does not have a complete and satisfactory explanation.
Therefore it follows that there exists a magic man who reads our thoughts and who is obsessed with our sex habits. Sure.
The impetus for science is the desire to explain the unexplained. Therefore unanswered questions are in a way a benefit rather than a disadvantage.
jtoksa 3 years ago
and again you avoid either a) admitting you are wrong or b) telling me any possible explanation for the origin of existance. All you have done here is jumped off topic by saying "Well just because science can't explain it..."
blackhawk1491 3 years ago
> Go ahead and test God
I try.
Suppose a "virgin" is found to be pregnant.
Alternative explanations:
Maybe the postman did it? This is a normal everyday explanation, nothing special about it, known by all to happen very easily.
The second explanation is that it was god's miracle! Parthenogenesis maybe.
On the scale of probabilities the latter is infinitely less plausible that the former, so you might expect that only someone who has abandoned reason might believe it.
Or a christian.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> Evolution has no answer.
Actually it does explain the diversity of species rather elegantly, which is the thing that it is meant to explain.
If you were interested in such answers, the logical thing would be to read a book, no?
And I am not talking about the quran or the bible, which are not a good foundation for a science education.
jtoksa 3 years ago
books are written by humans, and therefore biased. "science" books of today clearly do not accept the facts.
Fact: there is no evidence of any species evolving into another species. Evolution claims that over a looooong period of time things changed but in all the fossils, in all the layers, with human footprints inside dinosaur footprints, there is not one connecting link.
blackhawk1491 3 years ago
> Fact: there is no evidence of any species
> evolving into another species.
What an astonishingly false statement.
The evidence is incredibly abundant, it can be read out in billions of base pairs of dna, our's and of other organisms, which indicates with great detail how and when organisms evolved and where they are in the phylogenetic tree.
You might as well say that there is no evidence that the Earth is round, and you would not be more wrong.
jtoksa 3 years ago
INDICATES. in other words, someone looked at some DNA similarities between two animals and claimed it as proof of evolution. the fact of the matter is, there are no fossils of ANY link animal. Aomebas still exist, bacteria still exist. Why would they still be around if they could be evolving into something better? There is no proof only evidence which is ALWAYS interpreted by humans and usually how they want it to be. You cannot misinterpret what isn't there.
blackhawk1491 3 years ago
> Why would they still be around if they
> could be evolving into something better?
Some think that in a debate it is important to know something about the subject matter.
Those people gather knowledge about the subject matter from books and other valid sources, which then enables them to make valid arguments.
Other knowledgeable individuals then see that the person understands what he is talking about, and respect the other person as their intellectual equal.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> someone looked at some DNA similarities
Creationism places hard requirements for scientists.
Suppose you are a biologists who works with our genome.
Suppose you see daily, with your own eyes, detailed and consistent evidence of how evolution has worked on our genes.
Now imagine that you were required to say, it is not there because it contradicts religion.
Should schizophrenia be a university entrance requirement, so that they could do what you require?
jtoksa 3 years ago
yeah because what you believe HAS to be true therefore any scientist who says differently is lieing. You are a typical dime-a-dozen hands over your eyes blind believer of a man-made explanation for something, admittedly intended to avoid moral consequences.
blackhawk1491 3 years ago
> to avoid moral consequences
Belief in the supernatural is NOT a requirement for personal morality.
Some theists are more moral than some atheist and vice versa, because the two things are unrelated.
Consider Ted Haggard who pretended to be morally superior, but was caught being a closet homosexual who purchased drugs from a male prostitute lover.
Bill gates is an atheist who has promised to donate almost all of his vast fortune to charity.
Which is the better role model?
jtoksa 3 years ago
> HAS to be true therefore any scientist
> who says differently is lieing
On the contrary, since science has no final truths, everything is subject to critical review.
However, if you want to assert a novel explanation, you need to present supporting evidence.
That is where creationism fails big time.
There is no supporting evidence, which is a very embarrassing track record for creationists, considering that their explanation has been around much longer than any science theory.
jtoksa 3 years ago
I would like to write more about theism vs. morality.
Do you ever study what Jesus did and said, and compare it to what modern day Christians do?
Right now kids in Haiti are eating mud cakes because parents cannot buy food after the price of rice went up by 50%.
Simultaneously u.s. evangelicals think that the Iraq war, which has killed hundreds of thousands of women and children, is a good thing.
If you imagine Jesus as your head of state, what would he do and say?
Seriously! Try this.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> books are written by humans, and therefore
> biased. "science" books of today clearly
> do not accept the facts.
By writing "science" in quotes you are probably referring to pseudoscience, such as creationism, which fails as a science because it does not produce testable hypotheses which could be used to falsify it.
You are right, creationism does not accept facts :-)
Real science is actually not so much about accepting facts but about explaining them.
jtoksa 3 years ago
and again you prove that you can't detract from the evidence I put forth. All you can do is try to turn it around on me. You still have not (and probably won't) tell me by what mystical way the origin of existance came, but yet you refuse to believe there could be anything that has no beginning. I have yet to have an evolutionist TRY to explain that. One tried to explain some energy balls before the big bang, but my question will always be: "and before that? Where did THAT come from?"
blackhawk1491 3 years ago
> there is not one connecting link.
I quote Donald Prothero, who recently wrote an article about transitional forms in New Scientist.
He wrote that the non-existence of transitional fossils is creationists' "favourite lie" and that it is "manifestly untrue".
jtoksa 3 years ago
ooh another liberal journalist! WOW I must be wrong cuz a liberal journalist said I was! So if I write an article that says you are a banana not a person, that makes it true!
blackhawk1491 3 years ago
> I must be wrong cuz a liberal journalist
> said I was!
Prothero is a geologist, not a journalist.
Quoting someone does not prove anything. Therefore the reason why it is true is NOT because someone said so.
It is true because evidence, in this case fossils, actually exist by truckloads.
Similarly, the reason why you're wrong is NOT because "a liberal journalist said" you were. If I was to make statements about let's say polymer physics, which I do not understand at all, I'd be wrong also.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> So if I write an article that says you are
> a banana not a person, that makes it true!
Actually, while I am not a banana, evidence does suggest very strongly that all life on Earth shares the same origin.
Here the key is the evidence, not because "someone says so".
So, while I am obviously not a banana, I am remotely related to bananas, and all other organisms too.
And so are you. You may believe that is not the case, but that does not make it so.
Sorry about that :-)
jtoksa 3 years ago
only relationship between me and a banana is that we are both made out of atoms.
God created me and you, you may believe that is not the case, but that doesn't make it not true.
Riverfrog72 3 years ago
It kind of does. Of course it doesnt make it not true to you, but it becomes untrue to me.
TurthanNatner 3 years ago
The difference between science and creationism is that science asserts theories which try to explain facts (with varying success), while creationism only offers the "magic man answer" to EVERY QUESTION.
In science the amount of merit that a theory has depends on the evidence that agrees with it, but in creationism a claim is actually more virtuous if it is not supported by any evidence at all, and better yet if it does not make any sense whatsoever.
jtoksa 3 years ago
The whole of christianity is nothing but lies upon lies piled high upon more lies. It is pathetic to hear such so called "DR'S" and "biologists" make such ridiculously false claims. They desperately, frantically spew out this garbage in order to keep and hold on to their scams; and keep the sheeple in the dark. Ugh!
PaineLover 3 years ago 7
@PaineLover You can't prove his claims false. No one can. That's why people can assert it. You seem bitter at the evil christians. Why? You love your fellow man? Stalin believed Darwin. Hitler believed him. Mao believed him. Your concern Christianity is hurting your fellow man rings hollow. For what has Evolution done to the world if not true? Extermination in their struggle. Was Darwin wrong about that? If not, where should we start this war right with each other to survive the struggle?
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
The millons upon millions of fossils found worldwide is evidence of a global flood staring us right in the face. A real testiment that God judges the world. Just as people refused to believe Noah and be saved, many are running away from Jesus Christ who is the way, the light, the truth. You can ask Him into your life right now and have eternal life from the moment you invite Him in your life. Jesus Christ is the One who can make you a whole person and free you from your sins.
wardmjwrd 3 years ago
The fossils contradict the global flood, since marine dinosaurs would not have been wiped out, and all the land animals would have been found in the same age strata layer. They are not, also note that never have human and dinosaur remains ever been found in the same strata layer.
ThetaOmega 3 years ago 2
Go to any forrest where there are bears and see if you find evidence of a human bone with bear bones. Not! As a matter of fact while you are at it try to find bear bones.You do believe bears and humans exsist at the same time don't you? Even though there is no evidence of a bear bone with a human bone. What's the name of your marine dino Please open your eyes. The lie is getting worse.Now oprah believes a man can be pregnant. Do you? It's not a man but a woman who has mutalated her body legally
tesswilliams 3 years ago
I find it disturbing how poeple will continue to cling to a lie. Scientific research and evidence supports creation and shows evolution as a mere fairy tale. If evolution is true, then we should be able to change a frog into a rat in the laboratory. The attempt to create a single cell in the laboratory was a failure. If we can't make a cell in a laboratory, then how can a cell form on its own. If the natural laws of science won't allow a cell to develope spontaneously, evolution is a joke.
wardmjwrd 3 years ago
"If we can't make a cell in a laboratory, then how can a cell form on its own"
That is ABIOGENESIS NOT, I repeat NOT evolution.
"If evolution is true, then we should be able to change a frog into a rat in the laboratory"
This simply demonstrates your ignorance with regard to the theory of evolution.
"I find it disturbing how poeple will continue to cling to a lie."
I completely agree.
ThetaOmega 3 years ago
> research and evidence supports creation
> and shows evolution as a mere fairy tale.
> If evolution is true, then we should be
> able to change a frog into a rat in the
> laboratory. The attempt to create a single
> cell in the laboratory was a failure. If we
> can't make a cell in a laboratory, then how
> can a cell form on its own.
Wow. This is really something.
If ignorance was a sport, you could compete in the Olympics anytime.
jtoksa 3 years ago
jtoksa
1) Research & massive evidence supports evolution & confirms the bible as pure myth
2) Change a frog into a rat? Don't be daft. What has this got do with evolution? Oh by the way try creating god in a lab.
3) Making a cell is not far off but even if it was it would not disprove evolution which can be traced from the first cell division.
Now for Genesis.
1) Explain how daylight was created before the sun
2) explain how plants were created without the sun.
3) Explain Genesis.
pilgrimpater 3 years ago
> 1) Explain how daylight was created before
> the sun
> 2) explain how plants were created without
> the sun.
> 3) Explain Genesis.
Is there some misunderstanding here? I am not a delusional bible nut, I just quoted one.
I am an atheist and I have all my nuts and bolts in their correct places.
jtoksa 3 years ago
My most sincere apologies. I read your comment too quickly and missed that it was a response to a deluded nut. Isn't this brodacst just so cringeworthy. Easily 99% on the cringe metre. Parker probably was forced to go to church by his wife under the threat of withholding sex.
pilgrimpater 3 years ago
That is what happens when one is use to using sarcasim as irony in daily life and thinking.
Irony -- The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
If you think like this throught your daily life, you will look at the truth someone is saying and believe with all your heart it' false.
It's a form of lieing to yourself. ever notice that when mocking christians everyone uses irony. The way they think keeps them from ever seeing the truth
Riverfrog72 3 years ago
That is not Irony but cold stone fact. The only irony is that your blind and baseless faith has the arrogance to dismiss the undisputable evidence that supports evoloution. You do realise that god, christianity and evolution are all comnpatible with each other. It is only the lie of the literal version Genesis that i am, putting it in your words, "mocking".
pilgrimpater 3 years ago
What is this undisputable evidence of evolution?
I've been alive for almost 50 years and have not seen it yet.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
"What is this undisputable evidence of evolution? "
First and foremost the fossil record. You find progressively more complex (developed) organisms, the younger the rock. Pre Cambrian rock contains only simple cell organisms.
Second the Genome which gives us the ability to confirm the tree of life which previously was only s drawn up by looking at the morphology of organisms. The two different methods agree.
Thirdly. Vetigal Organs.
There is more of course.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
"I've been alive for almost 50 years and have not seen it yet. "
If your eyes don't work, what are you doing on youtube?
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
amateurevolutionist.
"I've been alive for almost 50 years and have not seen it yet. "
That was a quote from 3gdosrfs to whom i was responding. He is the one who cannot or will not see the light in evolution.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
Ow, sorry, the reply was also directed at 3gdosrsfs, just clicked the wrong button :P
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
Vestigial organs? Like the appendix, which has now been shown to have a useful purpose.
bigboyvernon 2 years ago
@bigboyvernon . Yes but not the main purpose that it sevres in our close vegetarian cousins. Pray, tell me what the purpose of the vestigal tail is in humans and why the so called "creator" gave vestigal limbs to whales and dolphins but not to the equally large whale sharks?
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
There is no science here. Why is it that creationists think that this is at all convincing?
You must be delusional to believe either creationism or that this is evidence of creation.
dmosier 4 years ago 4
One word: Faith.
This is their religious belief, they have been indoctrinated to fight for it.
"People will pay to hear what they already believe."
ThetaOmega 3 years ago
what a steaming pile of lies
artyfarty2 4 years ago 6
6 minutes in and no scientific evidence for Creation or against evolution has been given. I'm not going to waste my time watching the rest of this shit.
DNAunion 4 years ago 6
@DNAunion Go to ICR.org there is plenty of evidence there.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1
There's a lot f RELIGION at ICR, no real science.
DNAunion 1 year ago
Watch My 2 New Videos -
Fossil Seashells Below Creation Museum Confirm Noah Deluge ?
........................
Creation Museum debunked by fossil reef below it?
flyingscience 4 years ago
This was great. God is good and worthy to be praised. I'm happy that these men opened their eyes to the truth. Proverbs 4:19 say the way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. That is why it is hard for people to believe the bible as Gods word.
tesswilliams 4 years ago
Aaah, scripture. A christians best friend.
Here's one of my favorite quotes:
"Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and DASHES them against the rocks!"
~Psalms 137:9
The loving jesus. :]
RAmen everyone.
cheeseclo 4 years ago
Yes scripture is my bestfriend and I worship the very God who wrote it. I understand that scripture because I understand my God. I can not explain this scripture to you because I gather you are not a Christian and you without the Holy Spirit could never understand. I can share this with you that God loves you that He sent His Son Jesus to die to spare you from being dashed against a rock and now is the time to repent. Have a good day.
A believer in Christ
Tess
tesswilliams 4 years ago
but.. his son is the one that SAID.. i should be bashed against a rock... =[
i hate it that christians don't realize that not only does christianity make no sense whatsoever, but that there's PROOF of evolution. they just choose to go "LA LA LA, I DON'T HEAR YOU" when you show it to them. look up the many transition fossils scientists have found. also, while you're doing that, please explain to me how we can see light from galaxies billions of light years away when the earth is '6000 years old'.
cheeseclo 4 years ago
okay who do you know that has traveled billions of light years? I think it's funny people believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and people can find dinosaur bones in a grave no deeper than 2 feet in some cases people have tripped over the bones and yet they died millions of years ago. As for la la la I don't hear you, I hear you. Do you hear me. God is real and my faith in him is real and time and time again His protection, provision and His love has proven His exsistens for me.
tesswilliams 4 years ago
One word: EROSION
Second, there are many methods that show us how far something is, stellar parallax alone shows us stars >6,000 light-years away, "standard candles" show us galaxies that are millions of light-years away, and the hubble constant and red-shift show us galaxies that are BILLIONS of light-years away.
ThetaOmega 3 years ago
One word:Not, although that may play a part in finding some bones that's not what has happened in every case. Look at grave yards erosion is happening around those grave yards too and burried just six feet under and I have never heard of ANYBODY walking and tripping over a human body from a grave yard or a box for that fact. If erosion were happening as much then we would have to go back and redig the graves because they are just sixfeet under. Here's some good news Jesus Loves you. Thanks
tesswilliams 3 years ago
The difference there is time-scale, human burials date only for a few thousand years, we're talking 65 million years + for dinosaurs. Up to a thousand times more erosion can occur, however with more modern burials, planet activity alters erosion rates.
ThetaOmega 3 years ago
Yes, you are right and I agree, human burials date for a few thousand years.Try this get some dirt in a deep bowl take a toy dinosaur and place at bottom pour dirt on it then take some toy soldiers lay them above and cover with dirt then cause your own erosion start the toys will come up first before the dinosaurs. Why? Because if you blow the dirt the top will be uncovered 1st. If you use a flow of water the top will be uncovered 1st.
Are you a Christian? Do you know Jesus Christ? take care.
tesswilliams 3 years ago
And the propaganda machine continues on.
Such an excellent example of failure.
ThatOneQuestion 4 years ago 3
Excellent Video
goodshorts 4 years ago
Creationists are full of shit.
TheDarkLordLucifer 4 years ago
TheDarkLordLucifer, For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1Corinthians 1:18,19
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
I don't give a rat's ass what your bible says. I think for myself.
TheDarkLordLucifer 4 years ago
Lucifer doesn't exit and you believe in him ?
GodForum 4 years ago
what are your pionts against creation...???thers lots against evolution but youve said nothing
bynumi 4 years ago
My point is that if you are a creationist, you are scientifically illiterate and full of shit.
TheDarkLordLucifer 4 years ago 3
Take a look at the majority of Noble prize winners in science and see who is full of it.
GodForum 4 years ago
people cant argue against creation because its made up and people want to believe it. you cant argue with modern, scientific people because they use facts and observations to explain the natural world
GroverGee 4 years ago 4
Also, scientific data has refuted plenty of events in the Bible, for example, there was no worldwide flood. Besides, the Bible's historical record is in disagreement with other parts of the Bible's historical record. skepticsannotatedbible(dot)com isn't perfect, but it does a decent job of pointing out some of the contradictions. Lastly, none of your historians were around until at least 70 years after Jesus was long gone and were merely writing on hearsay alone.
jetmanisme 4 years ago
jetmanisme, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:21,22
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
I'm not professing myself to be wise, I'm just looking at evidence and using logic and reason.
jetmanisme 4 years ago
jetmanisme, the proof of the Bible comes by reading it. Gospel of John at h t t p://w w w dot youtube dot com/watch?v=kY-N-2Y1K2U so please listen to find out who Jesus was what he was about. What have you got to lose?
BereanBeacon 4 years ago