Vance Nelson interview on Revelation TV

[odinata]

Why would we care what Vance Nelson has to say about Biology?

[yootoobisrunbyidiots]

CreationTruth??? An oxymoron, as is clear from what this thimblebrain is saying.

[ComputerScience54]

lol, evolution does not explain the origin of life, but the DIVERSITY of life...science does not rule out intelligent design or creationism or any of that, but until proven they're all hypothesis! You people grasp the fact that science can't prove the origin of life so your ideas must be right! Way to promote ignorance...

[RFIDemocracy]

@ComputerScience54 Whereas creationists can't prove anything about anything. Way to promote ignorance.

[ibizajoey]

my problem is i dont believe a word that comes out of any christians mouth because you are all so willing to lie for jebus. you lie so often you dont even notice anymore. no one can lie as well as christians do, they even believe them themselves.

[jkdyoung]

@ibizajoey I WAS an atheist and I can tell you it is atheists and evolutionists that lie! I am now a Christian Creationist and I can tell you nothing but the truth and the truth is you are wrong. I would not lie for Jesus because I know He would not ask me too therefore it would not be Jesus. Take a look at the history of Evolution, or the "Evolution" of Evolution and you will find countless lies and false evidence with multiple cover ups. Sorry, you are not right and I am not a liar! God Bless!

[5tonyvvvv]

@jkdyoung Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube.

[RFIDemocracy]

@jkdyoung "I WAS an atheist and I can tell you it is atheists and evolutionists that lie!" And yet you're lyng right now. Oh right, the twelve step program. I get it.

[RFIDemocracy]

@ibizajoey Creationists are precisely the kind of frauds Jesus would have hated, had he actually lived, for which, as usual, their is zero proof and *extremely* scant "evidence".

[tonyinvan]

Dynosaurs had cancer therefore they must be recent because the bible tells us disease didn't happen until ~4k years ago! Yes this is "science" creationism in effect.  Don't let them preach this shit in our schools.

[Science4God]

tonyinvan,

It looks like you need to get out of the van Tony and see the real world around you. There are thousands of accurate dinosaur depictions from all around the world. Creation is believed BECAUSE of the evidence. Your faith in evolutionism is believed IN SPITE of the evidence. I commend you on your blind faith! No-one who adheres to evolutionism has ANY clue how life began. Evolutionists believe it happened on FAITH! I wish I could muster that much faith, but I can't.

[tonyinvan]

Sorry you cant muster faith when you believe in the OT book of tales about a god full of punishment and hate. Up there with Thor and the gods of Mt Olympus. You push false logic as science. You assume Im an evolutionist Im not. Your paranoid of a world is full of evolutionistsshowing your false logic. We have many religions in the world and you have no proof that yours is the true or false one. So how dare you say I have blind faith? You have blinder and more illogical faith.

[RFIDemocracy]

@Science4God Nice try attempting to paint rational people as another religion. It just ain't so.

[Science4God]

Pienipaha,

Oh, by the way, the "Nylon eating bateria", from the evidence (see references already noted) have LOST specificity. But you'll need to read the references. I do not have the time to correct every evolutionist on youtube. These are the same OLD examples I see again and again! The answers are already out there, if you are interested in looking at them...I don't have the time to transcribe everything here...Once your done reading the references, then get back to me...OUT for NOW...

[Science4God]

Pienipaha,

IF the processes inherent in chemistry and matter are leading to the ultimate destruction of every genome (ultimately leading to extinction)...then HOW can these same processes be used to EXPLAIN the origin of the genomic information in the first place? By the way, Dr. Sanford believes there are MANY beneficial mutations. He demonstrates, however, that they fall into the "near-neutral" zone and therefore are neither selected for OR against...THIS IS A MUST READ.

[Science4God]

Pienipaha,

You will also need to read (if you want to be informed on the PROBLEMS with the modern theory of evolution in the area of genetics):

"Not by Chance" Dr. Lee Spetner (Biophysicist MIT)

"Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" Dr. John Sanford (Cornell University). Dr. Sanford is a geneticist and the inventor of the "gene gun"...He demonstrates that the genomes of ALL organisms are degenerating. How then, could these genomes have "developed" in the first place?

[Science4God]

Thwaites, W.M. 1985. New Proteins Without Gods Help. Creation/Evolution. 5 (2): 1-3.

Anderson, K.L, and G. Purdom. 2008. A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh PA: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 73-86.

[Science4God]

Pienipaha,

What I mean by NEW information is NEW specified complexity. This is NEW information in the genotype of an organism that did not previously exist that is then expressed phenotypically.

[pienipaha]

By stating that you just proved, that you do o understand the mechanisms of neither (the mechanisms are more or less the same). Macro can happen faser also, though this is much rarer.

I've self studied evolution since a kid (of my own free will, school didn't teach it properly ever) and now I study biology in a University. I'm specializing in evolution and genetics.

If you or anyone else actually knew how to disprove it, they wouldn't rant in the net but they would be polishing their Nobel!

[pienipaha]

Evolution is a fact, the theory is a sum of theories that explain it. It is also is the vary basin for all modern biology and much more. You have no idea the richness of explanations to everyday things that can, at least indirectly, be explained by it.

If you can't give me one reason, accompanied with evidence, your claims have no more value than any other scientific illiterate.

The burden of proof is not on the scientific community, they have and are doing their part.

[pienipaha]

What is information? This concept has not come up in anywhere else than creationist things.

"New" information is not needed and you'd understand that if you knew anything about genetics. The mutations can happen in many ways in different places in different multitudes and it is where and how the mutation effects that causes changes. Ever heard of regulatory genes? And what about the nylon eating bacteria?

[pienipaha]

Addition of new genes, if this is what you mean by information as it has never been defined by creationists, is a simple and quite common. It's called gene duplication. It is one way evolution happens, but not the only one. (Like the mutation of regulatory genes just mentioned or activation genes.)

[Science4God]

Ade42,

Darwin had a whole book of "Presuppositions"...When Darwin boarded the HMS Beagle for his "historic" voyage, he took with him Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology". Darwin used Lyell's ideas as presuppositions to build his own evolutionary ideas...

Sorry, but you have (and Darwin had) presuppositions...

[Science4God]

Ade42,

Well, you DO have presuppositions or axioms...Think about it...your main axiom is that Darwinism is a fact...and Darwin's conclusions of his observations were correct...Yup, you can't get away from Presuppostions! Another axiom you apparently hold is that "naturalism" is sufficient to explain the ORIGIN of everything...

[Science4God]

Ade42,

Lets look at an example of a mutation causing resistance. The "mycin" drug works by adhering to a particular site on the ribosome thus causing protein production to slow or cease. Certain bacteria in the population can get mutations which deform the ribosomes. Since the deformed ribosomes do not allow the attachment of the "mycin" drug, they survive. BUT they have lost genetic information. Macroevolution REQUIRES addition, not subtraction. Nice try!

[pienipaha]

Congratulations, you have proven that you do not understand the genetic basics of evolution.

"Additional information" (what ever that is) is not required.

[Science4God]

Plenipaha,

Here is the point...You (not me since I don't believe in macroevolution) started out as algae or bacteria. An Escherchia coli bacterium has maybe one or two books worth of information. I have 2,000 - 4,000 books worth of information. Somewhere along the line, NEW genetic information had to come into existence that did NOT previously exist... I have no problem with observable microevolution... Loss of information, mutations, etc. But the real issue is ADDITION of NEW info.

[pienipaha]

Yet science doesn't know the concept of "new info", probably because it isn't needed. It all depends on where the mutation happens.

[Ade42]

"Creation is a faith that fits the facts"

The fact is that all evidence of evolution (no matter how tenuous you consider it to be) is ongoing and constant - predictions can be made from evolutionary theory. This is where anti-biotics come from.

God, on the other hand, was really busy for...well, only for the periods of time described in bible stories - he's been absolutely silent and non-interventionist since then.

These are the facts. Grow up.

[Ade42]

Oh dear, they started off quite badly, didn't they? It takes a pre-supposition to arrive at the evolution conclusion? Really?

So, are these guys trying to tell us that Darwin was an atheist BEFORE he observed evolution in action?

The evidence changed Darwin's mind. Ignorance and intellectual laziness keeps creationists' minds the same.

[Science4God]

Ade42,

Speaking of laziness...Perhaps you better do a little more research...Most antibiotic resistance that occurs among bacteria is due to a small % of the population already being resistant BEFORE the application of the antibiotic...the non-resistant ones die off, leaving room for the resistant ones to re-fill the niche. A smaller number of cases of resistance are due to plasmid transfer. The smallest number of cases are due to mutation (a loss of information)...

[pienipaha]

And their genes get more efficiently passed on, which is exactly what evolution is about. Descent with modification.

Also, could define information in the concept in which you use it?

[Science4God]

Ade42,

...evidence that "changed Darwin's mind". Lets take a look again...I think his most famous evidence may be the finches on different islands. Certain sources have suggested up to 14 different species of finch in the Galapagos...Most biologists consider a group of organisms to be the SAME species IF they can interbreed and have fertile offspring. Well, guess what...many of the finches of the Galapagos CAN and DO interbreed and have fertile offspring often...14 species? Nope, Just one...

[pienipaha]

By the same standards a dog and a wolf are also the same species. The 14 species of finches (as are dog and wolf) are subspecies.

This means that even if successful breeding is possible, it rarely happens because of anatomical or behavioral differences. (Dog and wolf rarely, if ever, breed in natural conditions.)

There is also proof of speciation where a species has derived into separate species in which the new organisms could no longer breed with the parent species.

[Science4God]

Pienipaha,

Listen, the real argument is at the macro level...I'd agree with you on MOST of your micro examples...My point above was to simply show that one of "Darwin's" most famous examples isn't even true! Dogs turn into dogs...Finches turn into finches...I agree!

[pienipaha]

Macroevolution is simply micro with more time. There is no reason to actually even make a difference. It's evolution at purest. It takes more time and more speciation for new groups to evolve, and the bottom line is that it's all just how we classify these animals.

[Science4God]

Pienpipaha,

Nope, Nope, Nope...You are absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong. We understand the mechanisms that underlie micro...They CANNOT be used to explain macro...Nice uneducated try though!

[JohnTraviss]

Uneducated? She's a college student majoring in biology!

[Science4God]

Yea,

That's nice, I have a few degrees, one in biology...Hum, where is it now? Probably in a pile with my other things...Am I impressed? I hardly think so...

[theTRUTHgroup]

This is a great video.

Thanks for posting this.

Awesome!

[Spankyhs]

FYI...bad science yields bad results...Radiocarbon dating is only used to date items with a know age of less than 50000 years do to the carbon14 half life cycle. So artifacts and items of that nature are dated this way. They sent those bones to be tested knowing the results would come back incorrect. Google Fossilized Dino Skin and you will find that it is a fossile of soft tissue not actual soft tissue as it is implied here...They are lying to the public to push their shit beliefs

[lacreation]

Well Radiocarbon magazine documents many, many signifigant C14 of 300 million year old coal. Something doesn't make sense - I trust C14 more than K-Ar - much lower error.

[Science4God]

Oh, I see...once you KNOW how old something is, THEN you can date it! As far as dinosaur skin, there is NO mention of dinosaur skin in the entire video...you better watch it again!

[ectogambit]

"Science4God"

They're talking about dinosaur tissue 10mins and 40 seconds into the video.

[Science4God]

YES, they ARE! That's the point...its soft elastic tissue extracted from a "68 million year old" T. rex bone. It has nothing to do with dinosaur skin...Its amazing how people criticize and really don't even know what they are criticizing...Then call the creationists "Liars". "Spankyhs" sees something in the newspaper or on the internet in the last few months about the "mummified" dinosaur and ASSUMES this is what the speaker is talking about.

[ectogambit]

so how many fossilized, "mummified", or extracted dinosaur tissues are there?

I mean he may be mistaken and be refering to something else. I dunno, maby you should talk to the guy and straighten things out.

[Science4God]

As far as the so-called "mummified" dinosaur recently in the newspapers, there have actually been quite a few; most of them are from Montana, the most recent, if believe, is from ND. As far as the "extracted" elastic tissue, the examples mentioned in the video were part of Dr. Mary Schweitzer's (I hope I got the spelling right) research...she had done similar things back in the 90's which was published in 1993. Actually I responded to the comment and he has not responded back...

[darpachief]

wow

[ectogambit]

intresting but i remain unconvinced. I'll trust the scientific community over the religious when interpreting the evidence.

[jcw2131]

Great video!

[waltmanxp]

Darwin is dead, long live the creator!!!