Nephilim, I'm still waiting and eager to continue our discourse.
Of course, I'm typing this with the full realization my comments will most likely be deleted, but I couldn't listen to this video and not respond somehow. Anyhow, I am very sad I was banned before we were able to finish our talk.
I imagine many people taunt you and resent you, but I genuinely want to talk, discuss, and help. I won't pressure you after this, but feel free to contact me anytime. I'll be here to help!
Is Dr Craig a creationist? I didn't think he was. Anyway, I hope some athest had the guts of to show up to your debate challenge.They usually don't want to debate one on one, they like to gang up on people.
@NephilimFree and now the poles are covered in snow. and now we have deserts too. so do you think the animals that lived in the tropical had the same traits that animals that live in the, now, desert area? the animals would probably evolve to adapt to the environment. evolution is basically gaining new traits to survive the ever changing environment.
@g2g144 What I said is true. Scientists agree the earth had a tropical environment globally in the past. This was ofcourse prior to the flood. If you want to learn more, please come to shock's chat. I don't have time to do this with 100 posts. However, adaptation does not equate to evolution and it does not introduce change to morphology -- what evolutionism requires and claims.
@NephilimFree well really, adaption is evolution. it doesn't really have to have a physical change to be called evolution. it could be a biochemical change, or something internally. like some mammals developed a closed circulatory system to make metabolic heat because of the environment.
@g2g144 Adaptation does not produce evolutionary change. No number of the kind of adaptations life is capable can accrue to cause life to begat new inds of orgnisms.
Remember when you didn't debate somebody because they didn't have as many subs as you? Why should Don debate you if you don't have nearly as many subs as he does? Double Standard much?
@SACK0FWINE Because though there are relatively few atheists in the world, most of them subscribe to people like him because what he says tickles their ears. And he needs the humiliation he deserves for believing and telling others rock poop came alive and here we are.
love listening to you pwn atheists. and sometimes they actually listen to facts and let truth over ride their pride. Keep up the great work brother. I admire your gentle heart. God bless you!!
@tnafguy Dude read about Dr Richard Lenski's experiements on E coli and how gradually over ~45,000 generations a particular e coli population evolved to be able to digest citrate (Normally can only absorb glugcose) or how about the Nylon-eating bacteria Nylon being a man made substance the bacteria evolved a mechanism to digest nylon and this has been reproduced with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the laboratory this is Information being added to form new traits.
@MoMember88 That experiment failed evolution an=d supported creation. There was no structural design change in htem at all. In fact, they discovered that the earlier generations of the bacteria were more fit than the 52,00oth. This fuliflls creation and argues against evolution. You have stated a lie by twisting evidence to mean 100% the opposite of what it provides, a common tactic of evolutionists!
Richard Milner describes Gould as "a popular articulator of Darwinian evolution to a new generation, while privately, his creative and rebellious mind sought to move beyond it." A personal friend of Gould's, as well as his editor at Natural History magazine, Milner goes on to explain that "Gould took issue with those who used natural selection carelessly as a mantra, as in the evidence-free 'just-so stories' concocted out of thin air by mentally lazy adaptationists."
Nephilim, I'm sure they would let you straight through with little wait on hold if you were to call in to The Atheist Experience on Sundays. Why not take some initiative yourself? You'd be reaching thousands of us "sinners" from around the world instead of preaching to the converted. Isn't that what your mission is supposed to be about?
@tnafguy Cont- The actual article is only talking about a news peice from the BBC about trying to locate The Beagle he is a Christian and a creationist why you used this quote baffles me quote mining someone who is not qualified to speak on the subject is down right petty.
The words of David Coppedge are correct, It is not an opinion but a statement of fact, Untestable statements about the far distant past are not scientific but are just so stories, Darwinism is full of story telling.
"David Coppedge is not a biologist, geneticist or biochemist"
Neither are you but that does not stop you from coming here and shooting your mouth off, The evos can't have it both ways and say that it should be taught to school children of an age that can barely read and say they have the capacity to understand it and then turn around and say that an adult who is university degreed and worked for nasa can’t, it is quite funny to see the double think.
@tnafguy I suspect you have never actually read the article and instead just quote mined from csama(dot)org the actual quote begins with " Charlie is still the darling of the evolutionists, but more as an aging patriarch than a trendy guy". Then goes on to say the rest. David Coppedge is not a biologist, geneticist of biochemist his a Computer specialist when you attempt to use an argument from authority at least use someone who knows what they are talking about and not writing opinion pieces
On the MagicSandwich show DonExodus2, Thunderf00t and AronRa were all there debating you and they cut your connection. So did you expect to have an evolutionist challenge you in a debate, after all that?
All right everyone, to the betting booth! What will Nephilimfree's next big scandal be? The first time he got caught with smut on his computer. The second time he got caught talking dirty to a young girl. What's he going to do next? Place your bets, now!
Rember folks, there are three types of aliens. There's the Alien Grey, there's the Black Dwarf, and there's the Reptilian. The Grey is a mix between human and insect, probably praying mantis. The Black Dwarf is a mix of human and ape, probably chimpanzee.
@thenotsoholyman I thank you for providing your own answer, but I'd still like one from Mr. Free... I just personally don't like it when others try to answer for someone else. But thanks anyway!
"There is gradualism in the fossil record, There is also quicker changes in the fossil record"
Yes, evolution is slow except for when it is fast, You have all bases covered eh!
" The ignorance of science by those who criticize it always astounds"
Science is a process, You are confused about the content and the process, That shows how little you know about Science and were projecting your own ignorance.
@FSApetheist Evolution happens. The changes we can see through the fossil record differ in rates based on the fact that fossilization is rare, environmental factors, and so forth.
What biologist is saying the "tree of life" is dead?
What is a "discover interview?" If you're going to poke someone else for not getting the proper word, try ensuring your posts are 100% correct.
Margulis knows evolution occurs. She's arguing what the factor is. She is, of course, wrong about gradualism.
"If you are going to poke somebody else for not getting the proper word"
Asking somebody to clarify a term is not poking them, You are yet again confused.
" the tree of life is being politely buried" evo biologist michael rose, that is as good as saying it is dead, You need to be spoon fed eh! Seeing as you have shown me that you are online a lot then why don't you look it up instead of being spoon fed like a baby.
@FSApetheist It's not an excuse. Fossilization is a rare event. Ask any paleontologist or anthropologist.
Did you mean the Discover interview? Hint: proper nouns get capitalized.
Michael Rose's quote is short. However, he, like other biologists, are stating the simple idea of the tree is not valid. As I said, it's an analogy; near the roots, it's a web. Toward the tips, it still branches like a tree. Your point?
You make the claims, you'd better back them up. That's why.
Oh marguilis might know some evo occurs, it depends how you define evo, other evo she will believe on with faith just like you have faith.
OH if Csbair the youtube biologist who does not know the difference between the process of science and the content of science say's she is wrong then she must be wrong eh!
Changes to allele frequency is variation within an existing gene pool. Changes in allele frequency only change the frequency in which already existing genes are expressed. This process may have led to change such as a wolf to a domestic dog, but structurally they are EXACTLY the same. In order for something to be considered evolutionary change, there has to be new structures present, this is exactly what evolution contends, that all forms of life originate from one body plan.
@FSApetheist "Changes in allele frequency only change the frequency in which already existing genes are expressed." Then what would de novo genes be, and where do they come from? And why are there tens of thousands of papers published about them? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why does "structurally" matter? Do you think species are defined only by their structure? If so, you truly need to get yourself into a biology class.
How can selecting from already existing genes, produce new genes for entirely new structures. This process of changing allele frequency is callled micro evolution, how can micro lead to macro When micro isn't evolution at all and results in no structural changes and is only an expression of existing genes
@FSApetheist So, evolution is change in frequency of alleles in a population over generations... You argue this is micro evolution. Then say it's not evolution at all. Yes, you really are that ignorant.
If there are no new genes able to form in species, then what magical power forms retroviruses? How do de novo genes arise? What is the force behind transposons?
" you argue that this is micro evolution, Then say it's not evolution at all" " yes you really are that ignorant"
hehehehehe
Let's make it a bit easier for your puny little mind, It is known as micro evolution, that is how it is labelled by evo faith heads, The point is that this is a false term and not really evo because nothing is evolving, it is just an expression of existing genetic capability- variation not evo ie: amphibian to reptile.
"So, evolution is change in frequency of alleles in a population over generations"
"I was taught and so were my contemporaries. And so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as 'changes in gene frequencies' in natural populations. The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another .
I was taught and so were my contemporaries. And so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as 'changes in gene frequencies' in natural populations. The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another. . No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were
When evo laymen on yt try to bluff that it is a fact that they know how their faith occured then it is just that bluff, because even the professional evo believers admit that they do not know.
But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.”
University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education, “The Big Issues.”
ht t p:// evolution . berkeley .e du/evolibrary /article/0_0_0/evo_50
@Pillowpants8495 I thought I heard Thunderf00t say in one of his videos that you were a geo-centrist or a flat earther or something. He may not have said it, I can't really remember. Is that true?
So totally true Neph!! I'm sure they've got excuses for not showing up, just like they have excuses for everything else. Number one being that Magic asteroid flying through space making planets, killing dinosaurs, putting micro marine life fossils on the moon and such. I want to know where all the very detailed Hominid skeletons are. There's plenty of detailed dinosaur skeletons, so there should be plenty of detailed Hominid skelatons as well.
I would debate an Atheist if I could keep one on track. They play a big game about "scientific proof" stuff, but when you scientifically point out the glaring fallacies in their position they change the subject, or worse, point out and complain about your typing/spelling skills. Jesus is Lord!
So, i have recently watched one of your videos challenging Atheists to a debate. I would be more than happy to take you up on this. So will you debate a University student studying life sciences? Or will you back in the corner like usual?
PM me and let me know if you wish to have a debate.
@OrbitPrime Why does he have to PM you? He just said in the video where he would be available for a live debate this very day. I'd pass on it if that's all the better you can understand a simple 2 minute video man.
@ NephilimFree The past 150 years of science since the Origin of species has not only confirmed Darwin's hypnosis but built upon it the shear amount of evidence is over whelming just like the amount of people who have tried to explain this to you but you refuse to listen why should anyone debate someone who closes their ears when your addressed?
@NephilimFree But you were already exposed as someone who knew nothing about evolution, biology or any other subject of science, repeatedly. I met your video challenges and you've never responded to my rebuttals. I destroyed you during the 12-hour call on various claims you made. And I challenged you and other creationists over a year ago for a simple thing, that had a monetary prize, and you couldn't even bother with it.
The past 150 years of science since the Origin of species has not only confirmed Darwins hypnosis"
Hypnosis?
Do you mean Hypothesis?
Darwins Hypothesis failed, Central to Darwins Hypothesis was a tree of life pattern, The tree Hypothesis has been buried thus biologists failed to confirm universal common ancestry.
There is no Gradualism in the fossil record, Punctuated Equillibrium was brought in to explain away the lack of Gradual change.
@FSApetheist The "tree of life" is still a valid analogy to the theory of evolution. Nearest the roots, the tree isn't a branching system but more of a web.
There is gradualism in the fossil record. There are also quicker changes in the fossil record.
The ignorance of science by those who criticize it always astounds.
"The "tree of life" is still a valid analogy to the theory of evolution. Nearest the roots, the tree isn't a branching system but more of a web." The tree of life is dead that is what the biologists are saying, it is denialism to say that a tree pattern is valid.
Which theory of evolution predicted a web?
A web does not show the smooth pattern that you would expect if univeral common ancestry were true.
Natural selection is a vaccuous tautology and does not explain how the fittest came to be, It just says those that are fit for their enviroment live and those that are unsuited die, wowiee survivors survive.
@FSApetheist If you have the limited brain power to understand how natural selection and survival of the fittest work I suggest doing some reading into Dr Richard Lenski E coli experiments and if you are not the reading type I suggest watching Ainulindale21's Beyond Reasonable Doubt #1 - The Lenski Experiments a excellent summery of these experiments.
What needs explaining is the arrival of the fittest not the survival of the fittest, You can worship youtubers all you want, I suggest you do your own homework beyond youtube or you wouldn't be as ignorant as csbair who does not even know the difference between the content of science and the process.
@MoMember88 unfortunately you are wrong. You believe a myth stated as fact. Evolution is as much a religion as Creationism except creationism makes sense as it can explain the big bang whereas evolution must suspend the laws of physics and something must come out of nothing (can a religion be any better evidenced?). BTW, Darwin's full title of his book was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin = racist
@KJVWordofGod You are very confused. I'm probably wasting my time in replying to you.
Evolution doesn't try to explain the big bang, evolution doesn't suspend the laws of physics - if it did evolution would be self-refuted and no scientist would believe it.
"something must come out of nothing" incorrect - abiogenesis is not evolution (I'm guessing that's what you meant)!
Darwin being racist is irrelevant, there's a mass of evidence that supports evolution.
@KJVWordofGod " You believe a myth stated as fact. Evolution is as much a religion as Creationism except creationism makes sense as it can explain the big bang whereas evolution must suspend the laws of physics and something must come out of nothing" Evolution is the science that explains the diversity of life not its origin that's Abiogenesis. For explainations of the big bang I suggest you read up on Cosmology and physics. Evolution to be valid does not hinge on these sciences to explain it.
@KJVWordofGod Cont. "Darwin's full title of his book was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin = racist" Weather or not Darwin was a racist of not does not undermine the theory of evolution through natural selection in explaining a natrual mechonisim for the diversity of life. over the last 150 years we have built upon the theory and through mapping the genome we can see Race is mealy a human construct
Nephilim, I'm still waiting and eager to continue our discourse.
Of course, I'm typing this with the full realization my comments will most likely be deleted, but I couldn't listen to this video and not respond somehow. Anyhow, I am very sad I was banned before we were able to finish our talk.
I imagine many people taunt you and resent you, but I genuinely want to talk, discuss, and help. I won't pressure you after this, but feel free to contact me anytime. I'll be here to help!
artemis3120 3 weeks ago
Did you debate Thunderf00t? I saw he put up some challenge. I saw it way after the fact though.
Andromedonian 1 month ago
@Andromedonian Did I not say in this video that I ave challenged thunderfood to debate?
NephilimFree 1 month ago
Is Dr Craig a creationist? I didn't think he was. Anyway, I hope some athest had the guts of to show up to your debate challenge.They usually don't want to debate one on one, they like to gang up on people.
tarstarkusz 3 months ago
neph, im just sitting here from a grade 11 bio/chem student, and i'd just like to ask you something. do you believe that the climate is changing?
g2g144 3 months ago
@g2g144 Yes, it is warming from the "ice age" caused by the Noachian Flood.
NephilimFree 3 months ago
@NephilimFree right, so even then, there is still environmental change. so do you think that the earth has the same climate it did 6000 years ago?
g2g144 3 months ago
@g2g144 The earth was globally tropical prior to the flood, as verfied by the plant and animal fossils, even those recovered at the poles.
NephilimFree 3 months ago
@NephilimFree and now the poles are covered in snow. and now we have deserts too. so do you think the animals that lived in the tropical had the same traits that animals that live in the, now, desert area? the animals would probably evolve to adapt to the environment. evolution is basically gaining new traits to survive the ever changing environment.
g2g144 3 months ago
@g2g144 What I said is true. Scientists agree the earth had a tropical environment globally in the past. This was ofcourse prior to the flood. If you want to learn more, please come to shock's chat. I don't have time to do this with 100 posts. However, adaptation does not equate to evolution and it does not introduce change to morphology -- what evolutionism requires and claims.
NephilimFree 3 months ago
@NephilimFree okay, can you pm me the link to shocks chat?
g2g144 3 months ago
@NephilimFree well really, adaption is evolution. it doesn't really have to have a physical change to be called evolution. it could be a biochemical change, or something internally. like some mammals developed a closed circulatory system to make metabolic heat because of the environment.
g2g144 3 months ago
@g2g144 Adaptation does not produce evolutionary change. No number of the kind of adaptations life is capable can accrue to cause life to begat new inds of orgnisms.
NephilimFree 3 months ago
YouTube atheists are like crickets... They make a lot I'd noise from a distance but shut up the moment you walk past.
brindabellaoffroad 3 months ago
there is no such thing as atheist there is only people that want to die or live the death life
dtmpowerboss 3 months ago
Remember when you didn't debate somebody because they didn't have as many subs as you? Why should Don debate you if you don't have nearly as many subs as he does? Double Standard much?
SACK0FWINE 3 months ago
@SACK0FWINE Because though there are relatively few atheists in the world, most of them subscribe to people like him because what he says tickles their ears. And he needs the humiliation he deserves for believing and telling others rock poop came alive and here we are.
NephilimFree 3 months ago
@SACK0FWINE So what you're saying is that an atheist never debates creationist who have less subs? That is just an excuse to cover up your cowardice.
DemonHunter7609 3 months ago
love listening to you pwn atheists. and sometimes they actually listen to facts and let truth over ride their pride. Keep up the great work brother. I admire your gentle heart. God bless you!!
~Tonya♥
galaxydreams2 3 months ago
@galaxydreams2 Thanks Tonya!
NephilimFree 3 months ago
@tnafguy Dude read about Dr Richard Lenski's experiements on E coli and how gradually over ~45,000 generations a particular e coli population evolved to be able to digest citrate (Normally can only absorb glugcose) or how about the Nylon-eating bacteria Nylon being a man made substance the bacteria evolved a mechanism to digest nylon and this has been reproduced with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the laboratory this is Information being added to form new traits.
MoMember88 3 months ago
@MoMember88 That experiment failed evolution an=d supported creation. There was no structural design change in htem at all. In fact, they discovered that the earlier generations of the bacteria were more fit than the 52,00oth. This fuliflls creation and argues against evolution. You have stated a lie by twisting evidence to mean 100% the opposite of what it provides, a common tactic of evolutionists!
NephilimFree 3 months ago
@MoMember88
Richard Milner describes Gould as "a popular articulator of Darwinian evolution to a new generation, while privately, his creative and rebellious mind sought to move beyond it." A personal friend of Gould's, as well as his editor at Natural History magazine, Milner goes on to explain that "Gould took issue with those who used natural selection carelessly as a mantra, as in the evidence-free 'just-so stories' concocted out of thin air by mentally lazy adaptationists."
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Nephilim, I'm sure they would let you straight through with little wait on hold if you were to call in to The Atheist Experience on Sundays. Why not take some initiative yourself? You'd be reaching thousands of us "sinners" from around the world instead of preaching to the converted. Isn't that what your mission is supposed to be about?
ceanderson79 3 months ago
hey nephilimfree you are retarded.
laddu56 3 months ago
@tnafguy Cont- The actual article is only talking about a news peice from the BBC about trying to locate The Beagle he is a Christian and a creationist why you used this quote baffles me quote mining someone who is not qualified to speak on the subject is down right petty.
MoMember88 3 months ago
@MoMember88
The words of David Coppedge are correct, It is not an opinion but a statement of fact, Untestable statements about the far distant past are not scientific but are just so stories, Darwinism is full of story telling.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@MoMember88
"David Coppedge is not a biologist, geneticist or biochemist"
Neither are you but that does not stop you from coming here and shooting your mouth off, The evos can't have it both ways and say that it should be taught to school children of an age that can barely read and say they have the capacity to understand it and then turn around and say that an adult who is university degreed and worked for nasa can’t, it is quite funny to see the double think.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@tnafguy I suspect you have never actually read the article and instead just quote mined from csama(dot)org the actual quote begins with " Charlie is still the darling of the evolutionists, but more as an aging patriarch than a trendy guy". Then goes on to say the rest. David Coppedge is not a biologist, geneticist of biochemist his a Computer specialist when you attempt to use an argument from authority at least use someone who knows what they are talking about and not writing opinion pieces
MoMember88 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
On the MagicSandwich show DonExodus2, Thunderf00t and AronRa were all there debating you and they cut your connection. So did you expect to have an evolutionist challenge you in a debate, after all that?
DebateRobo 3 months ago
All right everyone, to the betting booth! What will Nephilimfree's next big scandal be? The first time he got caught with smut on his computer. The second time he got caught talking dirty to a young girl. What's he going to do next? Place your bets, now!
HighSchoolFootbalFan 3 months ago
Rember folks, there are three types of aliens. There's the Alien Grey, there's the Black Dwarf, and there's the Reptilian. The Grey is a mix between human and insect, probably praying mantis. The Black Dwarf is a mix of human and ape, probably chimpanzee.
BenGoosey2 3 months ago
Nephy is a sad example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Poor little guy.
FSUjonnyD 3 months ago
atheists are ignorant and dumb
TheBigPicture1 3 months ago
@thenotsoholyman I thank you for providing your own answer, but I'd still like one from Mr. Free... I just personally don't like it when others try to answer for someone else. But thanks anyway!
amanda2324 3 months ago
@csbair
"There is gradualism in the fossil record, There is also quicker changes in the fossil record"
Yes, evolution is slow except for when it is fast, You have all bases covered eh!
" The ignorance of science by those who criticize it always astounds"
Science is a process, You are confused about the content and the process, That shows how little you know about Science and were projecting your own ignorance.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist Evolution happens. The changes we can see through the fossil record differ in rates based on the fact that fossilization is rare, environmental factors, and so forth.
What biologist is saying the "tree of life" is dead?
What is a "discover interview?" If you're going to poke someone else for not getting the proper word, try ensuring your posts are 100% correct.
Margulis knows evolution occurs. She's arguing what the factor is. She is, of course, wrong about gradualism.
csbair 3 months ago
@csbair
"Fossilization is rare"
Just keep making the excuses.
"If you are going to poke somebody else for not getting the proper word"
Asking somebody to clarify a term is not poking them, You are yet again confused.
" the tree of life is being politely buried" evo biologist michael rose, that is as good as saying it is dead, You need to be spoon fed eh! Seeing as you have shown me that you are online a lot then why don't you look it up instead of being spoon fed like a baby.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist It's not an excuse. Fossilization is a rare event. Ask any paleontologist or anthropologist.
Did you mean the Discover interview? Hint: proper nouns get capitalized.
Michael Rose's quote is short. However, he, like other biologists, are stating the simple idea of the tree is not valid. As I said, it's an analogy; near the roots, it's a web. Toward the tips, it still branches like a tree. Your point?
You make the claims, you'd better back them up. That's why.
csbair 3 months ago
@csbair
Oh marguilis might know some evo occurs, it depends how you define evo, other evo she will believe on with faith just like you have faith.
OH if Csbair the youtube biologist who does not know the difference between the process of science and the content of science say's she is wrong then she must be wrong eh!
h
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
* believe in
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist How about Jerry Coyne: bit ly dPEYBU
Evolution is clearly defined: Change in frequency of alleles in a population over generations. It happens. Even with humans.
csbair 3 months ago
@csbair
Changes to allele frequency is variation within an existing gene pool. Changes in allele frequency only change the frequency in which already existing genes are expressed. This process may have led to change such as a wolf to a domestic dog, but structurally they are EXACTLY the same. In order for something to be considered evolutionary change, there has to be new structures present, this is exactly what evolution contends, that all forms of life originate from one body plan.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist "Changes in allele frequency only change the frequency in which already existing genes are expressed." Then what would de novo genes be, and where do they come from? And why are there tens of thousands of papers published about them? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why does "structurally" matter? Do you think species are defined only by their structure? If so, you truly need to get yourself into a biology class.
csbair 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@csbair
"Why does structurally matter?"
Oh it does matter for you, That is why you spend so much time trying to convince yourself that your faith is more than a faith.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@csbair
How can selecting from already existing genes, produce new genes for entirely new structures. This process of changing allele frequency is callled micro evolution, how can micro lead to macro When micro isn't evolution at all and results in no structural changes and is only an expression of existing genes
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist So, evolution is change in frequency of alleles in a population over generations... You argue this is micro evolution. Then say it's not evolution at all. Yes, you really are that ignorant.
If there are no new genes able to form in species, then what magical power forms retroviruses? How do de novo genes arise? What is the force behind transposons?
csbair 3 months ago
@csbair
" you argue that this is micro evolution, Then say it's not evolution at all" " yes you really are that ignorant"
hehehehehe
Let's make it a bit easier for your puny little mind, It is known as micro evolution, that is how it is labelled by evo faith heads, The point is that this is a false term and not really evo because nothing is evolving, it is just an expression of existing genetic capability- variation not evo ie: amphibian to reptile.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@csbair
"So, evolution is change in frequency of alleles in a population over generations"
"I was taught and so were my contemporaries. And so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as 'changes in gene frequencies' in natural populations. The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another .
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@csbair
No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but
not verified, were taught as fact.”
Evolutionist Lynn Margulis"
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@csbair
I was taught and so were my contemporaries. And so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as 'changes in gene frequencies' in natural populations. The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another. . No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were
taught as fact.”
Evolutionist Lynn Margulis
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@csbair
When evo laymen on yt try to bluff that it is a fact that they know how their faith occured then it is just that bluff, because even the professional evo believers admit that they do not know.
But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.”
University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education, “The Big Issues.”
ht t p:// evolution . berkeley .e du/evolibrary /article/0_0_0/evo_50
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Nephy, all we want is to help you get over your delusion, we just don't know how.
Pillowpants8495 3 months ago
@Pillowpants8495 I thought I heard Thunderf00t say in one of his videos that you were a geo-centrist or a flat earther or something. He may not have said it, I can't really remember. Is that true?
Pillowpants8495 3 months ago
Translation: I'l lonely....come give me attention!
pauliexcluded1 3 months ago
Hey Brother, I was wondering what you think of whats going on in the middle east.
InventorGorilla 3 months ago
I am a minor atheist here on YT, but I will debate you. This will be funny. See you there.
CadicusTheDamned 3 months ago
I challenge you to a debate in shock's room! ....O wait we are both creationists...and I am always in shock's room.... YOU WIN! God Bless!
Nytmare8u 3 months ago
NEPHILIMFREE.... IS..... BACK!!!
HOORAAAH!!!
RaytownSoClassof2010 3 months ago
NephillimFree: I'm a Christian myself, and I don't believe in Macro-Evolution, either. It's nice to have you back.
However, as an honest question... why are there so many deleted comments on your video? Did they contain foul language or something?
amanda2324 3 months ago
So totally true Neph!! I'm sure they've got excuses for not showing up, just like they have excuses for everything else. Number one being that Magic asteroid flying through space making planets, killing dinosaurs, putting micro marine life fossils on the moon and such. I want to know where all the very detailed Hominid skeletons are. There's plenty of detailed dinosaur skeletons, so there should be plenty of detailed Hominid skelatons as well.
ironman197268 3 months ago
/watch?v=iHvQ2q-AwCQ
TheGlutesOfWrath 3 months ago
@TheGlutesOfWrath Oh, if that were genuine. Lol.
mygodlesslife 3 months ago
Good to see you back Nephie.
TheGlutesOfWrath 3 months ago
Well I guess I was wrong about taking 2 days to start censoring. It's begun already. How honest of you Neph
bewbmike 3 months ago
And Nephy is deleting comments already... Who's scared of whom?
csbair 3 months ago
welcome back my Brother. :)
ThickShades0 3 months ago
I would debate an Atheist if I could keep one on track. They play a big game about "scientific proof" stuff, but when you scientifically point out the glaring fallacies in their position they change the subject, or worse, point out and complain about your typing/spelling skills. Jesus is Lord!
funkidelicFrank 3 months ago
Hey bro, you forgot to set the commentssection to approval only. Those evilusionismists already spam your video with reason and logic
D3V1N3CR34710R 3 months ago
.
Very glad to hear your voice again Neph!!!
Keep up the good work!
Be safe, be well.
-.-
ExsecratusSicarius 3 months ago
@NewConsoleGamer Much more important things to do? Oh you mean like trolling Youtube?
DemonHunter7609 3 months ago
So, i have recently watched one of your videos challenging Atheists to a debate. I would be more than happy to take you up on this. So will you debate a University student studying life sciences? Or will you back in the corner like usual?
PM me and let me know if you wish to have a debate.
Orbit.
OrbitPrime 3 months ago 6
@OrbitPrime Why does he have to PM you? He just said in the video where he would be available for a live debate this very day. I'd pass on it if that's all the better you can understand a simple 2 minute video man.
donotresussitate 3 months ago
I may not be a big time Atheist, But i will happily debate you, Sir. Will you take my challenge?
OrbitPrime 3 months ago 3
@OrbitPrime ... So did he end up debating you?
MrVegemitesandwich 3 months ago
Love you neph, hope they accept your challenge.
korus1234 3 months ago
Glad to see you back neph. Your in my prayers
Onetruthrgv 3 months ago
@NewConsoleGamer debate him them if he is so wrong I am sure you can finish it in two minutes and not waste any time.
Onetruthrgv 3 months ago
@ NephilimFree The past 150 years of science since the Origin of species has not only confirmed Darwin's hypnosis but built upon it the shear amount of evidence is over whelming just like the amount of people who have tried to explain this to you but you refuse to listen why should anyone debate someone who closes their ears when your addressed?
MoMember88 3 months ago
@MoMember88 LOL! The opposite is true. Come to SHock's chat and I will educate you why you are so utterly ignorant of the evidence.
NephilimFree 3 months ago
@NephilimFree But you were already exposed as someone who knew nothing about evolution, biology or any other subject of science, repeatedly. I met your video challenges and you've never responded to my rebuttals. I destroyed you during the 12-hour call on various claims you made. And I challenged you and other creationists over a year ago for a simple thing, that had a monetary prize, and you couldn't even bother with it.
csbair 3 months ago
@NephilimFree lol your grammar
MrVegemitesandwich 3 months ago
@MoMember88
The past 150 years of science since the Origin of species has not only confirmed Darwins hypnosis"
Hypnosis?
Do you mean Hypothesis?
Darwins Hypothesis failed, Central to Darwins Hypothesis was a tree of life pattern, The tree Hypothesis has been buried thus biologists failed to confirm universal common ancestry.
There is no Gradualism in the fossil record, Punctuated Equillibrium was brought in to explain away the lack of Gradual change.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist The "tree of life" is still a valid analogy to the theory of evolution. Nearest the roots, the tree isn't a branching system but more of a web.
There is gradualism in the fossil record. There are also quicker changes in the fossil record.
The ignorance of science by those who criticize it always astounds.
csbair 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@csbair
Furthermore Lynn marguils who is an evo biologist said in her discover interview.
" There is no Gradualism in the fossil record"
You need to stay on the shortbus kid, Your ignorance of what evo biologists are saying shows you are not tall enough for the ride
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@csbair
"The "tree of life" is still a valid analogy to the theory of evolution. Nearest the roots, the tree isn't a branching system but more of a web." The tree of life is dead that is what the biologists are saying, it is denialism to say that a tree pattern is valid.
Which theory of evolution predicted a web?
A web does not show the smooth pattern that you would expect if univeral common ancestry were true.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@MoMember88
Natural selection is a vaccuous tautology and does not explain how the fittest came to be, It just says those that are fit for their enviroment live and those that are unsuited die, wowiee survivors survive.
Darwinism has failed.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist If you have the limited brain power to understand how natural selection and survival of the fittest work I suggest doing some reading into Dr Richard Lenski E coli experiments and if you are not the reading type I suggest watching Ainulindale21's Beyond Reasonable Doubt #1 - The Lenski Experiments a excellent summery of these experiments.
MoMember88 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@MoMember88
What needs explaining is the arrival of the fittest not the survival of the fittest, You can worship youtubers all you want, I suggest you do your own homework beyond youtube or you wouldn't be as ignorant as csbair who does not even know the difference between the content of science and the process.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@MoMember88 unfortunately you are wrong. You believe a myth stated as fact. Evolution is as much a religion as Creationism except creationism makes sense as it can explain the big bang whereas evolution must suspend the laws of physics and something must come out of nothing (can a religion be any better evidenced?). BTW, Darwin's full title of his book was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin = racist
KJVWordofGod 3 months ago
@KJVWordofGod You are very confused. I'm probably wasting my time in replying to you.
Evolution doesn't try to explain the big bang, evolution doesn't suspend the laws of physics - if it did evolution would be self-refuted and no scientist would believe it.
"something must come out of nothing" incorrect - abiogenesis is not evolution (I'm guessing that's what you meant)!
Darwin being racist is irrelevant, there's a mass of evidence that supports evolution.
MythicalManMoth 3 months ago
@KJVWordofGod " You believe a myth stated as fact. Evolution is as much a religion as Creationism except creationism makes sense as it can explain the big bang whereas evolution must suspend the laws of physics and something must come out of nothing" Evolution is the science that explains the diversity of life not its origin that's Abiogenesis. For explainations of the big bang I suggest you read up on Cosmology and physics. Evolution to be valid does not hinge on these sciences to explain it.
MoMember88 3 months ago
@KJVWordofGod Cont. "Darwin's full title of his book was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin = racist" Weather or not Darwin was a racist of not does not undermine the theory of evolution through natural selection in explaining a natrual mechonisim for the diversity of life. over the last 150 years we have built upon the theory and through mapping the genome we can see Race is mealy a human construct
MoMember88 3 months ago
I remember you being on the magic sandwhich show with thunderf00t dprjones and aronra and getting your ass handed to you...
CountHektor 3 months ago
@CountHektor LOL! I punked em good.
NephilimFree 3 months ago
Glad to see you making video again Nephilimfree
pythonman007 3 months ago