Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination. now have fun
@MrValidin actually sexual reproduction is a better system because it allows for more variations in the gene pool and thus lets the species survive better.
@blackbite50 survive better?? if it wasnt for the medical care we got now and mdeical science there would be more dead babys then there would be 1000 years ago. face it mankind has got ver very weak. not stronger or advanced. maybe on tech level but surely not on body level.
@MrValidin because humans have not the need to be as strong and have evolved to be weaker because it uses less energy. We would be far more easily attacked by bacteria or viruses if we asexually reproduced.
@blackbite50 why wont humans have the need anymore to be as strong as we were in the old days?? agree it uses less energie. but people dont have much energie left anyways because mankind got lazy due all the hightech. u actually got any real scientific evidence were they can show the change between asexual and needing man and woman??
@MrValidin Your speaking as if all species originally breed asexually which is simply not true at all. the change however can be seen in some simple life forms that can do both such as worms. another example is gymnosperms which reproduce almost sexually but still very primitively.
Your first and second statement cancel each other out so I feel no need to argue that point further.
@blackbite50 no there are "species that breed asexual, sexual and can both but i can find the connection were the simple lifeforms brought fourth the complexer lifeforms. but its not only rain that buried the earth, the earths atmosphere was cover with water or ice. that whent down + there was a lot of water that came out of the ground aswell. and were are wich animals?? who says that they arent??
@blackbite50 lets say scienctist find simple lifeforms 100meter deep so they say that the strata they are found in is 50million years old. if they find in another part of the world a complexer lifeform 100meter deep then they say mhh its complexer so it ahs to be younger so this strata isnt that old either. we'll date it 100000 years old
"if it wasnt for the medical care we got now & mdeical science there would be more dead babys then there would be 1000 years ago"
Your point being?? Evo theory is the unifying principle & very foundation of modern biology. It's directly implemented & saves lives on a daily basis ie. it works!
"face it mankind has got ver very weak. not stronger or advanced"
Is that why the average life expectancy has increased by a massive 50 years? Quit lying to validate your claims!
@MrValidin I also must point out that some bacteria reproduce sexually so this -->[For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.] doesn't make an effective argument.
@blackbite50 ok bacteria reproduce sexual. so they got sex organs, sperm eggs and all the associated machinery that we got today?? or how did that become.
@MrValidin No actually its quite interesting really the create a sort of "bridge" between themselves by fuzing their cell walls were in DNA that was duplicated within the cell is transferred.
I was simply putting forth the idea that one doesn't truly need ally those things to sexually reproduce it simply makes the process easier and less harmful to the individuals.
@MrValidin Asexual and sexual reproduction isn't about whether animals have sex or not, which becomes obvious when you consider that it extends outside of animals (plants, bacteria etc). It's about where the DNA of the offspring comes from. If it's an amalgamation of two organisms it is sexual reproduction. For example a human conceived through in vitro fertilisation is still a product of sexual reproduction, just not a product of sex. Asexual is essential cloning ones self, not a lack of sex.
@JoolsCaesar are u stalking me? xp. yea i kinda know now how it works. but foesnt matter how the reproduce the product will still be the same as the ones that created it. it wont be something totaly different. ok it will variate after time but those variations have a limit. its not that they keep variating till u cant see any resemblence between the first and the last animal of that kind anymore.
@MrValidin Haha nah, I'm subscribed to DonExodus2.
Out of curiosity, how would you explain animals that can produce hybrids? Like how lions and tigers have changed independently to a point that they can't produce fertile offspring, so they're a different species by definition, but they haven't changed so much that they can't produce infertile hybrids like a liger.
@JoolsCaesar that is were the DNA does mesh but not well. Its sort of like if you were to force a triangular block into a square hole. It might work with enough force but the product will not work well.
@JoolsCaesar they can produce a liger but the liger cant produce anymore right? see ur right a tiger and a lion are totally diferent. but if u really look close what animal would u see? 3 words. a BIG cat. a lion, tiger, leopard, ... those are all catlike animals. we dont call them cats though thats probably because people back then didnt know better. but never the last its still a cat u can turn the picture how u wont it will always be a cat.
@MrValidin It will not be exactly the same ,but slightly different. enough of these small differences over time or even one large difference can change a species or make a new one but that requires the isolation of a group of a species so they're DNA becomes different enough were they are no longer the same species.
@blackbite50 thats not correct. ok they differ from eachother over time i fully agree. i can even give them different names doesnt matter. what u cant deny is that the animal is still the same as the ones he came from so many years before. its not that he grow wings, or anything that his grandparents never had.
@MrValidin you are simplifying it to much. its not like BAM! wings its more; skin flaps round the arms for extended jumping, lighter build for longer glide, decreased width of arm bones, increased size of skin flaps with extended fingers for added lift, increased muscle strength at the base of the arm for better lift. each one of these stages can take many generation to develop fully and each has its own advantages.
This is only a ruff group, they may come in different orders.
@blackbite50 "you are simplifying it to much. its not like BAM! wings its more; skin flaps round the arms for extended jumping, lighter build for longer glide, decreased width of arm bones, increased size of skin flaps with extended fingers for added lift, increased muscle strength at the base of the arm for better lift. each one of these stages can take many generation to develop fully and each has its own advantages." ever observed this by any animal?? if not than its an assumption =belief.
@MrValidin yes, after the DNA is passed both cells split creating 4 cells, two of them are identical to the original cells while the other two are a mix of both.
@blackbite50 but never the last they are still cells. and that all that they ever will be cells. u got numerous variations of cells. but they will always be cells not a fly, cow, wasp, always a cell.
Sexual reproduction has advantages over asexual reproduction in that it allows for a more diverse gene pool in fewer generations & for greater genetic diversity & variability again in fewer generations. Obviously the benefits of greater genetic diversity & variability in fewer generations far outweighed the pitfalls of higher energy expenditures.
There has also been a re-emergence of sexual reproduction in Hieracium pilosella & Crotoniidae clearly demonstrating that it can happen.
Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation �according to its kind�, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the �geologic column� and giving the appearance of a �Cambrian Explosion�.Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from �simpler� forms to more complex/higher-level forms,
@MrValidin I'm sorry to tell you but no amount of rain can "scoure the earth down to its basement rock". BUT lets for the sake of argument say that it did. well....were are all those animals today hmmmmm...... and wouldn't we see highly complex animals and even humans buried alongside the simple ones (not everything can swim and especially not during a world wide flood.
"Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation"
Nonsense, there would be no order to the fossil record if it was in line with creation. Creationism cannot justify the clear order of complexity found in the fossil record.
"�according to its kind�"
What the hell is a 'kind'???
"a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the �geologic column�"
..........Grand Canyon was carved out by this mythical flood in which case, what laid down the geological column we find it carved through?? Tripped yourself up there Mungo. If what you were saying was true then explain how come we find surface features such as rain drops, footprints, meteor craters & wind blown dunes to name but a few? Explain how the hell a flood can create angular unconformities? What about fossilised forests found directly on top of each other (some even showing.........
..........signs of forest fires!) with hundreds of meters of strata between them? Why no water damage on pre-existing structures? Come on, the flood has to be the easiest of all biblical myths to refute, how can you possibly believe such crap?
"Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from �simpler� forms to more complex/higher-level forms"
...........dinosaur make to high ground with the elephants, giraffes, hippos etc? Do you class a Hydrological sorting would incidentally sort things into the opposite order of what we find them in ie. big shit on the bottom, small shit on the top. You also clearly have no understanding of what is meant by 'morphologically, complex.
What a spectacular display of worshipping the 'god of the gaps' you've given, however, none of which poses a problem for evolutionary theory. Just because every single detail is not yet known, doesn't make something false. It's like discarding the English language because you don't know every word in which case you'd be screwed. This is the reason we have scientific enquiry, to find answers to such questions. Religion on the other hand simply gives up & lazily claims 'god did it'.
There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a �half-scale/half-wing�. A reptile breathes using an �in and out� lung (like humans have), but a bird has a �flow-through� lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place?
(1) Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional form between reptile & avian. It has more in common with Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does modern birds before you ignornatly claim it's avian. Reptiles are polyphylogenic - that is they do not have a recent common ancestor. They are kind of a 'catch-all' group with some of the grouping based on derived, rather than acquired characters. In other words, it is not particularly helpful to talk about birds evolving from reptiles - which reptile?
@flypaper4weirdos "It has more in common with Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does modern birds before you ignornatly claim it's avian" so u can tell wich animal evolved from wich just by seeing were it has the most commong attributes in?? thats sounds more like ur assuming something their using ur immagination instead of really 100% knowing the one evolved from another. its not mine field of expertise to know wich reptile evolved into what. u should show me that kind of proof not me
Furthermore, it isn't clear how closely related dinosaurs were to current extant reptiles. It's the logical fallacy of an 'argument from ignorance' - if we can't logically explain it, it didn't happen. You also need to understand that lungs & circulatory systems are soft body parts ie. they don't fossilize well, so it is difficult to extrapolate much about lung morphology of extinct ancestors/relatives. It's believed that birds evolved from theropods who's lungs we cannot identify.
here is more The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don�t change much over time (�stasis�). The �Cambrian Explosion� in the �primordial strata� documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals
"The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don�t change much over time (�stasis�)"
Are you aware of the precise order of morphology found in the fossil record? Why don't we find complex organisms low down in the strata? Why no mammals in the pre-Cambrian? Why no dinosaurs above the KT or human remains below it?
"The �Cambrian Explosion� in the �primordial strata� documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals"
Prior to the Cambrian animals were soft bodied which again, don't fossilise well. The Cambrian is most likely explained by the development of the eye which would have lead to predation. Really, is it any wonder why people mock you guys when you obtain your science from faceless, fundamental, religious websites like the one you gleaned that spurious crap from (bestbiblescience com)? Any danger of you providing us with REAL science? Something that's gone down the implicit route of peer review.
@flypaper4weirdos ooh so if a sciencetist that beliefs in god tells u something u wont believe him?? because he believes in god? and if he comes up with a theorie it should ,in ur eyes, first be examined by scienctist that believe in "evolution" before it can be classified as right or wrong? that sounds like a tyranny in the science sector.
life did not evolved. want proof that everything but i mean litterally everything is planned?? go look up new world order conspiracy on youtube ull see why they want u to believe evolution. and why there is such a commotion arount the year 2012. because u guys know nothing. uve all ben decieved justso the nwo can make their plans come true.
Fuck your irrational, NWO, conspiracy bullshit, stick to science. Commotion around 2012? Only by yootoob educated dicks like you. How stupid will you feel when 2012 passes without event, or will you simply come up with another lame excuse then move the date back once again as you window lickers usually do? Remember Y2K?
I'll ask you once again to demonstrate where a single claim made using evo theory's false. There a literally millions to choose from so shouldn't be difficult.
@flypaper4weirdos well ok u believe that nwo is bullshit. u still think the world one pretty place isnt it?? u just know shit. the only thing u know and what sciencetist claim to be evolution is the fact that they KNOW how everything works. human body and all thats stuff and universe and so on. but by knowing how something works doenst mean that thats the way how everything got here. so instead of thinking that everything they tell u is true investigate for urself about the nwo. dumbass
*yawn* seriously, i would rather boil my head or drink wasps than hear any more about the fucking NWO. I'm sick of you conspiracy cranks with the IQ of lint thinking you're smarter than the rest of us. You're not, you're fucking stupid, every last one of you. Just look at the kind of people promoting this crap, freaks like David Icke! lol
AGAIN, demonstrate where a single claim made using evo theory has been shown to be false. Put up or shut up & quit dodging the question.
@flypaper4weirdos almost every claim that they found a transitional fossils was or man made fossils or just animal fossils that has nothing to do with us. look really i dont care anymore what u think about the nwo and ur precious evolution. its ur bussines have fun with the rest of ur life for as long it will take hehe
"almost every claim that they found a transitional fossils was or man made fossils or just animal fossils that has nothing to do with us."
lol, with such a level of ignorance, it's nothing short of a miracle how you make it through each day unharmed. Man-made fossils??? You're talking about a single example so to say "almost every" one was man-made isn't quite true is it. That particular example incidentally is an excellent example of how reliable scientific enquiry is........
@flypaper4weirdos single example?? i saw already 4 or 5 hand made ones so dont lie. ok that can be true if u can tell me what claims? we lost the war?? hahahahahaha look u think u are winning the war. but my guess is that ur only busy with evolution and nothing else right?? so any knowledge about the rest that going on the world is passing ur empty head right?? doesnt wonder me actualle. ill answer ur question.
"i saw already 4 or 5 hand made ones so dont lie."
Reference them & show i'm lying instead of just saying it. We have thousands upon thousands of transitional forms, in fact & in reality EVERY fossil is a transitional form as it's simply 'that years model' & life is constantly evolving, it's just evolution happens over vast expanses of time, one step at a time. No transitional fossils *facepalm* have you even bothered watching this video??
@flypaper4weirdos 1> i already ask people here or on other sides to show me proof were u can see that 1 fossil is the evolved form of an other fossil so were u can see that the 1 animal cam from a totally different one. they never show me that so why should i bother to give u examples were u can see they are man made if they cant even show me how they can see that an animal evolved. "life is constantly evolving,"?? life is constantly variating. that means being different from on another by how..
@flypaper4weirdos far the information in ur dna allows u to. if we could really evolve then there would not only be humans walking on land but also humans flying and swimming in the water.
"we lost the war?? hahahahahaha look u think u are winning the war."
If you're talking about the 'war' between creationism & evolution, you guys lost that one in the mid 19th century. You seriously need to understand that in science (which quite frankly is the only place that counts or matters) there is no conflict & the ENTIRE scientific community accept evolution without question. Hell, even most Christians accept it! The only people rejecting it are fanatical, religiously.........
@flypaper4weirdos ouch wrong. people that are accepting evolution is just proof for how easy it is to deceive mankind. get a guy with loads of cash let him pay some people to bring a theorie about how everyithng came here, let them put some scientific evidence in their theorie thats is true and wave ur lies around it and bring this to the people then they will believe u because they dont know any better.
........retarded fundamentalists who reside in the cultural backwaters of society.
"but my guess is that ur only busy with evolution and nothing else right??"
Erm, wrong. What a stupid assumption to make.
"so any knowledge about the rest that going on the world is passing ur empty head right??"
Again, wrong. I keep myself up to date with current affairs. Now what the hell does this have to do with the argument? Sounds like distraction tactics born out of desperation to me.
"second law of thermodynamics:By definition, something must be eternal (as we have �something� today and something cannot come from �nothing�, so there was never a time when there was �nothing�)."
lol, is this the best you can come up when asked for evidence opposing evolution??? Firstly you're talking about the FIRST law of thermodynamics (demonstrating once again that you have no idea what you're talking about). Secondly, it only applies to isolated systems so is irrelevant as..........
.........earth is an open system. Thirdly it's only brainless creanderthals like you who claim something has come from nothing, scientists certainly don't make such claims making that nothing more than a desperate strawman. Is this seriously the evolution busting evidence i've waited so long for?? FAIL, try again.
"Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal."
So those are the only 2 options?? I'm afraid your..........
.........oversimplified logic is redundant. Time didn't come into existence until the moment of the Big Bang & being that the BB was a quantum event, we know full well that things pop in & out of existence all the time in the quantum. It's also FAR more plausible to believe that initial energy had always existed rather than what you're proposing which in reality solves nothing & just leaves even more questions. Who created your god?
@flypaper4weirdos were can u study, observe and proof that time came into existence until the movement of the big bang?? sounds like a assumption = believe. energy had always existed? how do u study, observe or proof that?? assumption again = believe. bible says that there are 3 heavens. the first 1 we can see everyday, second is somewhere in the universe and the third is were god is and thats outside the universe. bible also says that outside the universe there is no time, space or matter. ...
@flypaper4weirdos so to answer ur question god is not created. for were he lives there is no time so u cannot place a label on him were he comes from or how old he is. and thats something common people like we cant understand. because we have to live by the laws we got.
........by exposing that hoax. It wasn't even made by a scientist, it was a hoax to trick the scientific community but science being science exposed it & discarded it as it's doesn't (& couldn't) hang onto evidence that has been scientifically refuted. Now if you want to talk about hoaxes, the number of scientific hoaxes pale in comparison to the number of creationist hoaxes there have been & they HAVE been committed by creationists desperate to validate their spurious claims.
Another fundamental difference is that creanderthals are such a dishonest, deceitful & purposely misleading lot, you people still use these exposed hoaxes as evidence!
In reality, we have a full set of transitional forms supported by numerous other independent scientific studies, ALL converging to reach the same conclusion. That's how science works, it doesn't just rely on a single piece of evidence. If you had ANY understanding of scientific enquiry & the processes & means by.........
........which it proceeds, you'd understand how it's now impossible to refute evolution. You're fighting a battle you guys lost 150yrs ago, you need to drag your ass into the present Cletus, you may as well be arguing geocentricity which, if you really did take the bible literally, a geocentrist you would be. Yet ANOTHER biblical flaw & incontrovertible proof it was not Divinely inspired.
NOW FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, ANSWER THE QUESTION & GIVE A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OPPOSING EVOLUTION!!!
@flypaper4weirdos second law of thermodynamics:By definition, something must be eternal (as we have �something� today and something cannot come from �nothing�, so there was never a time when there was �nothing�). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and ..
"We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion)."
Of which nobody denies.
"Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and .. have created the universe."
lol, what makes you think that even there was any truth in the irrational bollox you spout, it's the god of the bible??? Again, who created the creator & what was he doing prior to creating the universe?
@flypaper4weirdos i just answered that and how can i answer what he did prior to creating the universe. do u know what ur shoemaker does prior to making shoes????
@flypaper4weirdos have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question �who created God� is therefore an improper/invalid question,
"Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures"
Agreed which is why you're unable to comprehend that the universe didn't require any supernatural intervention. Incidentally, why do you take the word of Einstein when he was an 'evolutionist'? Why take the word of ANY scientist............
@flypaper4weirdos no thats means that without time or space it means that there was nothing and there cannot come something out of nothing. thats fantasy but thats what u believe. and u just cant comprehend that god does not need to obey to the laws like we do. so we have to have a beginning of live so god needs one. thats how u think. why not not every sciencetist sells bullshit so he can deceive people in believeing we are just annimals.
..........being as they all accept evolution? Yet you put your faith in them every time you get in a car or travel on an airplane.
"but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws."
Is that why the entire scientific community completely discarded creationism centuries ago? Eternal beings COMPLETELY fly in the face of scientific laws.
"The question �who created God� is therefore an improper/invalid question"
@flypaper4weirdos "Is that why the entire scientific community completely discarded creationism centuries ago?" why do u think they did that?? got paid by rich people just to let common people like u and me ,that in their eyes is worth nothing more than a bag of shit, believe we are just animals and that the strongest of the evolved species has right to determine what happens to us. in other words a rich man like many other rich people think they are the advanced evolved specie of humankind, ...
@flypaper4weirdos therefore they can decide whats best for u and me so if they get it in their mind ur nothing worth for them they can just kill u because they are the strongest of the species. and u cant say anything about that because its the law of the strongest.
..........mind it isn't, it's only you window lickers who say as much simply because you can't answer the question.
"as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause."
@flypaper4weirdos big bang is a result of what cause?? so u just put bb in the place of god. because the bb is the uncaused first cause in ujr eyes therefore according to ur logic.
@flypaper4weirdos as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.
@GnosticHumanist se ethats a problem again with u u always think in millions of years this and millions of years that. think very logically about evolution ok. start at the beginning abio genessis. then go the human body structurs. the only thing that sciencetist CAN proof is HOW things work. but its not because it works that way that live started that way. evolution starts with some facts and then it goes to fantasy were u need to believe. evolution is nothing more than a relegion.
lol i hope u realize that fossils doenst prove evolution at all u say comon ancestor well i can easely just be a common creator thats why the fossils look like eachother doenst proof evolution at all
"i hope u realize that fossils doenst prove evolution at all"
Alone they don't 'prove' evolution but we have countless & every single one ever found has been found just as evolutionary theory predicts, in order of morphology. They make compelling evidence for evolution & when you add this evidence to the mountain of other evidence furnished independently from every other scientific discipline, there really is no doubts whatsoever. The common creator.............
............theory falls apart when you take into consideration the biological evidence alone, unless you believe in an exceptionally sinister deity who is intentionally trying to trick us & set us up to fail...............again.
"common creator thats why the fossils look like eachother"
It just so happens that a flood managed to sort them into a specific, morphological order. What kind of god do you bow to?
@flypaper4weirdos ur serieus right?? if i got a theory and i found fossils that would destroy my theory but help a religion i hate then i wouldnt show the fossils duh... they found shells on the mount everest so plz explain to me how do they come up there?? they find so many things but they will only show the ones that fit their geological scale.
@MrValidin Shells grow in shallow clear sea water. They build up and make limestone thousands of feet think. The whole top of Mt. Everest is an old sea floor, there are not some shells washed up there or a thin layer of shells.
The whole area was pushed up by the India Plate colliding with the Asia Plate, the mountain is still getting higher.
@MrValidin I didn't say that, I said Mt. Everest is getting higher. I said the shells grew under the sea level and were pushed up to 29,029 feet above sea level by plate tectonics over millions of years.
They mountains in Nevada were formed by the ground being pulled apart. Some mountains are formed by block faulting, there are lots of ways to make a mountain. A flood is not one of them.
@gregrutz thats what u say. i didnt say a flood made mountains. the earth was made like it is now with som slight changes now. tectonic plates is an example of how the earth works for example. doesnt mean because mountains are rising now that thats the way how they formed.
@gregrutz lol always the geology book i can write wathever i want 2 and let it named a textbook. doenst mean because the textbook says so that it is true. ur 1 of the many people that doesnt ask question u just follow what everyone says. thats pathetic
@MrValidin Science is not like bible study where you have to be told what it means because it it so screwed up. People study science, they repeat the experimants, look at all the evidence and debate the theories that explain the facts. You should try it.
The earth is not the same as it was in the past, there are fossils. Stop ignoring the facts.
@gregrutz they repeat experiments how they assume it happend. how they wanted that it happend. and those experiments what do they proof?? all the experiments they have done for so far is just letting us see that there is intelligence needed to for axemple create live in a testtube. it wont happen without our intelligence. and ur answer on this will be it does happen but it takes millions of years. prove to me that it does take millions of years and dont use ur "assumption based science"
@MrValidin The evidence shows that life evolved With the earth over millions of years. That is what scientists find when they study the fossil record. It is fact, not a theory.
@gregrutz no, what evidence show is the fact that animals variate but that it still stays the same animal. its like finding all those fossils of fish some fish are slightly different then the other ones. doesnt show that they evolved from eachother. but thats what sciencetist say because they wnat u to believe that. the only proof that evolution happend is the assumption evidence brought by sciencetist nothing more but u are to ignorant to see the lies. u just believe everything they say
@gregrutz got that from a textbook? or from a evolution site? see they can say whatever they want. so long its in a textbook it has to be true. thats how most people think. because they studied they have to be right about everything. they thaught people for idk 1000 years that if u throw a heavy rock and a light rock from a high spot the heavy rock will come down first. is that true? no but everone believed them because they were sciencetists.
@MrValidin How do you think science gets into text books? You accept the bible as a book with no evidence. People study science. They go out and look at the geology and study the facts.
And heavy things do fall faster than light things due to air resistance. Drop a rock and a feather, they fall at the same rate on the moon, but not on earth in air.
Why do you accept the bible that says there was a global flood when that has been proven wrong?
@gregrutz science gets in the textbooks by people that BELIEVE in evolution. its true textbooks contains facts i agree on that. but they give it a twist. the facts show us how things WORK. not how things got here. they assume they things got here by how the things works. well eeuuh thats isnt right. its not because u know how something works that it explains how it got there. and u talk about a rock and a feather duh they dont fall together i talked about same materials not rock and feather
@gregrutz i watched a piece and i saw different animals/fossils that have things in common with otehr animals/fossils. proof for evolution?? no not at all u say common ancestor i can say commonc reator because he had in mind to design the animals how he wanted to
@MrValidin So you think God made trilobites and then millions of years later He made reptiles. Then millions of years later he made dinosaurs and let them evolve for 160 million years and then let them die off and made mammals and birds? Is that correct?
@gregrutz eeuh no u believe earth is billions of years old i believ earth isnt older than 6000 years. everything was created at the same time dinosaurs, human, trilobites, birds ect ect.
@MrValidin Then what is your theory as to why the dinosaur lived and changed for 160,000,000 years? How do you explain all those strange marine creatures that lived in the Cambrian Period 530 million years ago?
How do you explain Homo Neanderthals, the different kind of humans that lived with homo sapians?
@gregrutz who says that dinosaures did lived 160millions years ago? and mrine creatures 530million years?? thats hwta they evolutionists believe. everything lived together 6000years ago but how did they got extint? i dunno if there is a bear living next to u and u feel traitened by him what would u do 6000years ago? u would just kill it. thats probably what man did with dinosaurs and there will be other reasons why they got extinct. and man got 900years back then those were the neanderthales.
@gregrutz ooooh cant win?? yea see thats something that all of u guys do isnt it? mmh i dont know what to say anymore ill just go and insult them. pff u know how u make urself look now? pathetic. u studied but cant win against someone that didnt study? and then insults him hahahahaha little child
lol, man killed the dinosaurs??? Are you huffing glue? Explain why we NEVER find human remains or artefacts below the KT Boundary & why we NEVER find dinosaur remains above it? If what you're saying was true then they'd all be jumbled up with in no specific order so please enlighten us as to how this happened.
"i believ earth isnt older than 6000 years. everything was created at the same time dinosaurs, human, trilobites, birds ect ect."
You are out of your mind. No sane person could bury their head to such an overwhelming amount of evidence that categorically proves them wrong, you're clearly suffering some form of mental instability. You're even a minority amongst Christians! If your claims are true then why is it the lower through the strata we dig, the less complex life becomes?
Question: Why before the pre-Cambrian are the only organisms found as fossils prokaryotes such as bacteria? Was "Yahweh" just warming up?
Also how come we see live emerging very gradually step by step as time goes by, and you don't find fully formed vertebrates like humans or donkeys amongst fossils of basal chordates in the Cambrian?
There is only ONE logical possible explanation, and that is evolution.
@GnosticHumanist answer: ever thought about it that sciencetist DO find such fossils of man with dinosaurs but that they dont publice them because it would support creation instead of evolution???? explain to me were do we see live emerging step by step when time goes by??
and if u think its logical that we all come from a rock were there is no life on it at all not bacteria nothing and then it just by accident brings fourth a cel by no reasen then thats ur choice my friend.
WOW. You think that countless thousands of scientists all around the world from every different background, culture and religious view, are conspiring to keep supposed "fossils of men living with dinosaurs" from the public?! Well I guess if you already believe in talking snakes & magic-man in the sky...
BUT not only that, you somehow think that all organisms were created at the same time; that chimps were living 550Ma in the Cambrian when only simple chordates were emerging?
@GnosticHumanist wow u are really so ignorant are u?? were do those sciencetists believe in? ooh yea EVOLUTION would it be smart of them to show evidence for the relegion they wanna destroy?? eeuh NO. and besides its not only the sciencetist that keep this from us its mostly the worldly government. u really think they give something about us? about normal people with a middle income i mean then?? well then ur the one thats living in a fairyworld. wt.. 550ma? noo dude 6000 years not millions
@GnosticHumanist haha lol mmh doenst the bible says that people will begin to say that cristians got mental problems?? ooh yea u just did mmmh just confirmed bible is right again TY so much u made my day
lol, for somebody who can't even spell the word 'scientist' you sure have one hell of an ego to believe you have a greater understanding of the natural world than every credible scientist on earth! The vast majority of Christians worldwide accept evolution. In fact it's only you slack-jawed, inbred hicks who reside in the Southern states of America who reject it. Science is agnostic by definition & follows the evidence matter where it leads. There is no rational reason..........
@flypaper4weirdos ever thought that thats the whole reason?? everybody on earth needs to believ in evolution so the nwo can make their move and tell u pricks that the earthc is overpopulated . so then they can kill 90 procent because their objective is to bring population down to 500mill people. did u know that? no. did u know that there are many diseases that those nwo elite people spread themselfs?? hiv is one of them. dont believe me? look up confessions of ex nwo elites or illuminati.
.......to lie in science, no way of propping up lies in science & no presuppositions to uphold as there is in religion. What part of the fact that you, me or ANYBODY on earth is free to study, test & refute ANY scientific claim ever made, don't you understand??? Is that so difficult a concept for you to understand???
Do you seriously believe there's a global conspiracy amongst the entire scientific community & governments of every country across the globe that's spanned generations.........
........simply to take people away from Jebus?? Fuck me, Clinton couldn't even keep a blow job secret!! lol, you're out of your tiny, religiously stunted mind. Instead of making up shit & lying through your teeth without actually offering up any real objections to evo theory, how about you take a claim made by evo theory & then demonstrate it's false using actual evidence? That's how science works & if you can't do that then you may as well tuck your dick up between your legs & cluck off.
@flypaper4weirdos and ur lack of knowing the conspiracy bothers me. u got no right to talk to me like that if ur a person that deny that the whole damn government of each country is CORRUPT. u really really really think those people feel sympathie for u or any other human?? well whos living in the fantasy world. ur even dumber then i thought. but yea if ur to blind to see and to daf to hear. idiot
"ever thought about it that sciencetist DO find such fossils of man with dinosaurs but that they dont publice them because it would support creation instead of evolution????"
Why would we there is NOTHING in the way of evidence to suggest that's the case? Surely the many Christian scientists would be shouting it from the rooftops but for some reason they're not, why is that? I'll tell you why, because NEVER has there been dinosaur remains found below the KT & NEVER............
........have human remains or artefacts ever been found above it. If there was then the evidence would be everywhere & in abundance. It would require the silencing of EVERY single archaeologist/palaeontologist/geologist/biologist etc. in the history of science & if you say otherwise then the burden of proof lies with you. Cite your source & show us your evidence. Please, no mention of the long refuted & typically desperate & dishonest, creationist hoax known as 'Paluxy Footprints'.
"got that from a textbook? or from a evolution site?"
Nope, it's was EVERY secular scientist on earth will tell you & you are free to study the evidence for yourself. If you find evidence that conflicts then there is nothing stopping you from overturning ANY claims made by ANY scientist.
"they thaught people for idk 1000 years that if u throw a heavy rock and a light rock from a high spot the heavy rock will come down first. is that true?"
"what evidence show is the fact that animals variate but that it still stays the same animal"
Don't be absurd & quit playing dumb. You know damn well that we shouldn't be able to witness an animal changing into another animal, that would fly in the face of evolutionary theory making that nothing other than a desperate strawman. Evolution happens over millions of years! Saying that, speciation has been directly observed in both nature & in the lab so if that isn't proof........
"its like finding all those fossils of fish some fish are slightly different then the other ones. doesnt show that they evolved from eachother"
How do you explain the fact that we can use evolutionary theory to predict exactly in what area & in what strata we will find certain transitional forms prior to their discovery? (e.g. Tiktaalik) Lucky guesswork?
As for believing everything scientists say, that may be in many instances but only............
..........because we're aware of the strict, implicit scrutiny & processes scientists must abide by. Would you take the word of a brain surgeon if you were diagnosed with a tumour? Science is a reliable study with very real results. Religion on the other hand is stagnant & relies purely on ignorance & authority. It frowns upon you questioning it whereas you will NEVER hear a scientist asking you to take their word on something. Science encourages you to question everything & there...........
........is NOTHING in science that you, me or anybody on this earth cannot study, test, refute or verify for themselves with the correct tools. You're simply too stupid, too indoctrinated, too uneducated, too lazy & wilfully fucking ignorant to understand or bother your arse to check. Yet, you're willing to believe in everything magically poofing into existence fully formed by a fairy godfather who lives in the sky even though this has COMPELTELY been refuted by an untold amount of evidence.
You're a fisting idiot with the IQ of lint, no wonder people regard creanderthals as being borderline retarded, your level of ignorance coupled with such arrogance leaves me breathless. Evolutionary theory has undergone the EXACT same level of scrutiny that EVERY other scientific theory has undergone. It hasn't failed once & has 300yrs of empirically gathered evidence supporting it. It was accepted as fact 150yrs ago &..........
...........has since been spectacularly proven more than we could have ever hoped to have been with the study of genetics & biology. The evidence is overwhelming & the ONLY reason you reject it is because you're a mind-fucked moron who had their mind turned to mush by religion from birth. Science works & has very real results such as technology, agriculture & medicine. What the hell has religion offered in the past 2000yrs? That's right FUCK ALL!!!! Absolutely nothing other than............
..........repression, conflict, bloodshed & death. It is the cancer of humanity & is utterly pointless. It's nothing more than a pathetic leftover of man's ignorant past & is just a crutch for the weak-minded/uneducated who can't deal with the reality of life. Thankfully you're a dying breed. Even real Christians wish to disassociate & distance themselves from you lot, you're even an embarrassment to them.
So do you now accept that marine fossils found on Everest have nothing to do with any flood & are actually the result of the top of Everest once being shallow sea-beds?
@flypaper4weirdos no i dont accept that. were is ur proof that the mountains were shallow sea beds once?? they can easely started in the form that they are now. but that they have risin some inches or i dunno in all those years. noone can possible know how the world looked before they lived to see it themself. to say they got proof that the earth looked like they say it looked thats just using their imagination to give support for evolution.
How convenient you ignore everything else i've said. Of course they were once sea-beds, this is NOT in question & hasn't been for centuries, even Leonardo De-Vinci was aware of & noted this back in the 16th century prior to evolution even being theorised! It wasn't a problem then & it sure as hell isn't now. The evidence is conclusive. The marine life alone proves it but on top of that the composition of the rock, the biogeography of the fossilised remains, the fact it .........
..........lies directly between 2 tectonic plates & it's still rising to this day etc. etc. I'd also love to hear you explain how a flood could bury fossils into solid rock? What you're suggesting is impossible but then again you don't really want an answer do you. Your goal is to ask a question that you believe proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet have an answer to, to then make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god,..........
..........specifically the same god you conveniently happens to believe in. It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, & because of the contained logical fallacy. It's done almost exclusively by Christians fundamentalists. Try finding a single geologist or scientist of any relevant discipline who questions the fact that these mountain ranges were once shallow sea beds then ask yourself why you can't & why even those who are...........
"noone can possible know how the world looked before they lived to see it themself"
So by your logic nothing can ever be known unless it's been directly observed? You're a fucking idiot with no power of rational thought. How we manage to get convictions for crimes committed when there have been no witnesses is beyond me *facepalm* Just because you're obscenely stupid don't make the mistake of thinking everybody else is.
@flypaper4weirdos are u serieus?? plz tell me ur joking ok? how do u get convivtions of crimes committed when there are no witnesses? well eeum investigate the crime scene on finger prints, skinsamples, if someone is murdered then they ask close family/friends if the dead person had enemy's. thats how they do it. was ur family there when the earth was formed?? can they interrugated someone that left fingerprints there?? uuuh i dont think so? and insult me as much as u like. proves that u lost
Exactly, they go on forensic evidence, that's my point!! They use the exact same processes & means throughout science & information is gathered to piece together the bigger picture. As far as evolution goes, the picture is far more complete than almost all other scientific theories. Evolutionary theory brings together practically all other scientific disciplines & is literally known as the unifying principle of biology. Life evolved whether you like it or not, get over it Mungo.
Are yoju aware that there are fossils of sea shells as high as the the highest mountain on the planet: Mt. Everest? How do you think they got there? Did God put them there? NO, plate techtonics over time did. we can actually measure the rate of continental drift.
no evidence for the flood?? they find human skulls in the layers were dinosaurs and even in layers were trilobites are ofcourse they dont show anything that doenst fit their geological bullshit. and the found shells on the mount everest. now u tell me how shells get on the mount everest??? well simple there was a flood and it covered the whole earth even the highest mountains. in turkey there is a print of a huge ship on a mountain how did that came there??
"they find human skulls in the layers were dinosaurs and even in layers were trilobites are"
Really? Where can i find the details of this discovery, can you cite your source?
"the found shells on the mount everest. now u tell me how shells get on the mount everest???"
This has been known for centuries. The answer is that such mountain tops were not always at such elevation. They were in fact once shallow sea beds until the collision between Asia & the Indian.............
I just had to download this to show to friends that are unsure of the plausibility of evolution theory. I'll be taking a college class in evolution in the fall, and I'm "boning up" on the subject to have an edge over my classmates. Thanks, DonExodus2!
@odinata There is only 1 God Jesus Christ. read all about it in the Bible. you can also learn tons about Creation Science on my channel if your interested in the truth.
Not to mention that most mutations that happen are harmful to the animal, not useful. Like extra (useless) eyes, legs protruding out of the head, deformed limbs/wings etc. You'd have to have 1000s of random mutations to begin with, and then there might be one that might one day be useful, if it developed further, and it would also have to be a dominant gene for it to be passed on to the offspring.
Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination. now have fun
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin actually sexual reproduction is a better system because it allows for more variations in the gene pool and thus lets the species survive better.
blackbite50 1 month ago
@blackbite50 survive better?? if it wasnt for the medical care we got now and mdeical science there would be more dead babys then there would be 1000 years ago. face it mankind has got ver very weak. not stronger or advanced. maybe on tech level but surely not on body level.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin because humans have not the need to be as strong and have evolved to be weaker because it uses less energy. We would be far more easily attacked by bacteria or viruses if we asexually reproduced.
blackbite50 1 month ago
@blackbite50 why wont humans have the need anymore to be as strong as we were in the old days?? agree it uses less energie. but people dont have much energie left anyways because mankind got lazy due all the hightech. u actually got any real scientific evidence were they can show the change between asexual and needing man and woman??
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin Your speaking as if all species originally breed asexually which is simply not true at all. the change however can be seen in some simple life forms that can do both such as worms. another example is gymnosperms which reproduce almost sexually but still very primitively.
Your first and second statement cancel each other out so I feel no need to argue that point further.
blackbite50 1 month ago
@blackbite50 no there are "species that breed asexual, sexual and can both but i can find the connection were the simple lifeforms brought fourth the complexer lifeforms. but its not only rain that buried the earth, the earths atmosphere was cover with water or ice. that whent down + there was a lot of water that came out of the ground aswell. and were are wich animals?? who says that they arent??
MrValidin 1 month ago
@blackbite50 lets say scienctist find simple lifeforms 100meter deep so they say that the strata they are found in is 50million years old. if they find in another part of the world a complexer lifeform 100meter deep then they say mhh its complexer so it ahs to be younger so this strata isnt that old either. we'll date it 100000 years old
MrValidin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrValidin
"if it wasnt for the medical care we got now & mdeical science there would be more dead babys then there would be 1000 years ago"
Your point being?? Evo theory is the unifying principle & very foundation of modern biology. It's directly implemented & saves lives on a daily basis ie. it works!
"face it mankind has got ver very weak. not stronger or advanced"
Is that why the average life expectancy has increased by a massive 50 years? Quit lying to validate your claims!
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@MrValidin I also must point out that some bacteria reproduce sexually so this -->[For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.] doesn't make an effective argument.
blackbite50 1 month ago
@blackbite50 ok bacteria reproduce sexual. so they got sex organs, sperm eggs and all the associated machinery that we got today?? or how did that become.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin No actually its quite interesting really the create a sort of "bridge" between themselves by fuzing their cell walls were in DNA that was duplicated within the cell is transferred.
I was simply putting forth the idea that one doesn't truly need ally those things to sexually reproduce it simply makes the process easier and less harmful to the individuals.
blackbite50 1 month ago
@blackbite50 but they are still cells then??
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin Asexual and sexual reproduction isn't about whether animals have sex or not, which becomes obvious when you consider that it extends outside of animals (plants, bacteria etc). It's about where the DNA of the offspring comes from. If it's an amalgamation of two organisms it is sexual reproduction. For example a human conceived through in vitro fertilisation is still a product of sexual reproduction, just not a product of sex. Asexual is essential cloning ones self, not a lack of sex.
JoolsCaesar 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrValidin 1 month ago
@JoolsCaesar are u stalking me? xp. yea i kinda know now how it works. but foesnt matter how the reproduce the product will still be the same as the ones that created it. it wont be something totaly different. ok it will variate after time but those variations have a limit. its not that they keep variating till u cant see any resemblence between the first and the last animal of that kind anymore.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin Haha nah, I'm subscribed to DonExodus2.
Out of curiosity, how would you explain animals that can produce hybrids? Like how lions and tigers have changed independently to a point that they can't produce fertile offspring, so they're a different species by definition, but they haven't changed so much that they can't produce infertile hybrids like a liger.
JoolsCaesar 1 month ago
@JoolsCaesar that is were the DNA does mesh but not well. Its sort of like if you were to force a triangular block into a square hole. It might work with enough force but the product will not work well.
blackbite50 1 month ago
@JoolsCaesar they can produce a liger but the liger cant produce anymore right? see ur right a tiger and a lion are totally diferent. but if u really look close what animal would u see? 3 words. a BIG cat. a lion, tiger, leopard, ... those are all catlike animals. we dont call them cats though thats probably because people back then didnt know better. but never the last its still a cat u can turn the picture how u wont it will always be a cat.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin It will not be exactly the same ,but slightly different. enough of these small differences over time or even one large difference can change a species or make a new one but that requires the isolation of a group of a species so they're DNA becomes different enough were they are no longer the same species.
blackbite50 1 month ago
@blackbite50 thats not correct. ok they differ from eachother over time i fully agree. i can even give them different names doesnt matter. what u cant deny is that the animal is still the same as the ones he came from so many years before. its not that he grow wings, or anything that his grandparents never had.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin you are simplifying it to much. its not like BAM! wings its more; skin flaps round the arms for extended jumping, lighter build for longer glide, decreased width of arm bones, increased size of skin flaps with extended fingers for added lift, increased muscle strength at the base of the arm for better lift. each one of these stages can take many generation to develop fully and each has its own advantages.
This is only a ruff group, they may come in different orders.
blackbite50 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackbite50 "you are simplifying it to much. its not like BAM! wings its more; skin flaps round the arms for extended jumping, lighter build for longer glide, decreased width of arm bones, increased size of skin flaps with extended fingers for added lift, increased muscle strength at the base of the arm for better lift. each one of these stages can take many generation to develop fully and each has its own advantages." ever observed this by any animal?? if not than its an assumption =belief.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin yes, after the DNA is passed both cells split creating 4 cells, two of them are identical to the original cells while the other two are a mix of both.
blackbite50 1 month ago
@blackbite50 but never the last they are still cells. and that all that they ever will be cells. u got numerous variations of cells. but they will always be cells not a fly, cow, wasp, always a cell.
MrValidin 1 month ago
@MrValidin
Sexual reproduction has advantages over asexual reproduction in that it allows for a more diverse gene pool in fewer generations & for greater genetic diversity & variability again in fewer generations. Obviously the benefits of greater genetic diversity & variability in fewer generations far outweighed the pitfalls of higher energy expenditures.
There has also been a re-emergence of sexual reproduction in Hieracium pilosella & Crotoniidae clearly demonstrating that it can happen.
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.
ill give one more because its probably not enough for u
MrValidin 2 months ago
Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation �according to its kind�, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the �geologic column� and giving the appearance of a �Cambrian Explosion�.Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from �simpler� forms to more complex/higher-level forms,
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin I'm sorry to tell you but no amount of rain can "scoure the earth down to its basement rock". BUT lets for the sake of argument say that it did. well....were are all those animals today hmmmmm...... and wouldn't we see highly complex animals and even humans buried alongside the simple ones (not everything can swim and especially not during a world wide flood.
blackbite50 1 month ago
@MrValidin
1:
"Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation"
Nonsense, there would be no order to the fossil record if it was in line with creation. Creationism cannot justify the clear order of complexity found in the fossil record.
"�according to its kind�"
What the hell is a 'kind'???
"a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the �geologic column�"
Really? According to creationists the...........
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
2:
..........Grand Canyon was carved out by this mythical flood in which case, what laid down the geological column we find it carved through?? Tripped yourself up there Mungo. If what you were saying was true then explain how come we find surface features such as rain drops, footprints, meteor craters & wind blown dunes to name but a few? Explain how the hell a flood can create angular unconformities? What about fossilised forests found directly on top of each other (some even showing.........
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:
..........signs of forest fires!) with hundreds of meters of strata between them? Why no water damage on pre-existing structures? Come on, the flood has to be the easiest of all biblical myths to refute, how can you possibly believe such crap?
"Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from �simpler� forms to more complex/higher-level forms"
lol, so why didn't a single...........
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
4:
...........dinosaur make to high ground with the elephants, giraffes, hippos etc? Do you class a Hydrological sorting would incidentally sort things into the opposite order of what we find them in ie. big shit on the bottom, small shit on the top. You also clearly have no understanding of what is meant by 'morphologically, complex.
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@MrValidin
What a spectacular display of worshipping the 'god of the gaps' you've given, however, none of which poses a problem for evolutionary theory. Just because every single detail is not yet known, doesn't make something false. It's like discarding the English language because you don't know every word in which case you'd be screwed. This is the reason we have scientific enquiry, to find answers to such questions. Religion on the other hand simply gives up & lazily claims 'god did it'.
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a �half-scale/half-wing�. A reptile breathes using an �in and out� lung (like humans have), but a bird has a �flow-through� lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place?
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
(1) Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional form between reptile & avian. It has more in common with Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does modern birds before you ignornatly claim it's avian. Reptiles are polyphylogenic - that is they do not have a recent common ancestor. They are kind of a 'catch-all' group with some of the grouping based on derived, rather than acquired characters. In other words, it is not particularly helpful to talk about birds evolving from reptiles - which reptile?
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos "It has more in common with Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does modern birds before you ignornatly claim it's avian" so u can tell wich animal evolved from wich just by seeing were it has the most commong attributes in?? thats sounds more like ur assuming something their using ur immagination instead of really 100% knowing the one evolved from another. its not mine field of expertise to know wich reptile evolved into what. u should show me that kind of proof not me
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
(2)
Furthermore, it isn't clear how closely related dinosaurs were to current extant reptiles. It's the logical fallacy of an 'argument from ignorance' - if we can't logically explain it, it didn't happen. You also need to understand that lungs & circulatory systems are soft body parts ie. they don't fossilize well, so it is difficult to extrapolate much about lung morphology of extinct ancestors/relatives. It's believed that birds evolved from theropods who's lungs we cannot identify.
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
here is more The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don�t change much over time (�stasis�). The �Cambrian Explosion� in the �primordial strata� documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals
MrValidin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrValidin
1.
"The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don�t change much over time (�stasis�)"
Are you aware of the precise order of morphology found in the fossil record? Why don't we find complex organisms low down in the strata? Why no mammals in the pre-Cambrian? Why no dinosaurs above the KT or human remains below it?
"The �Cambrian Explosion� in the �primordial strata� documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals"
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
2.
Prior to the Cambrian animals were soft bodied which again, don't fossilise well. The Cambrian is most likely explained by the development of the eye which would have lead to predation. Really, is it any wonder why people mock you guys when you obtain your science from faceless, fundamental, religious websites like the one you gleaned that spurious crap from (bestbiblescience com)? Any danger of you providing us with REAL science? Something that's gone down the implicit route of peer review.
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos ooh so if a sciencetist that beliefs in god tells u something u wont believe him?? because he believes in god? and if he comes up with a theorie it should ,in ur eyes, first be examined by scienctist that believe in "evolution" before it can be classified as right or wrong? that sounds like a tyranny in the science sector.
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
life did not evolved. want proof that everything but i mean litterally everything is planned?? go look up new world order conspiracy on youtube ull see why they want u to believe evolution. and why there is such a commotion arount the year 2012. because u guys know nothing. uve all ben decieved justso the nwo can make their plans come true.
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
Fuck your irrational, NWO, conspiracy bullshit, stick to science. Commotion around 2012? Only by yootoob educated dicks like you. How stupid will you feel when 2012 passes without event, or will you simply come up with another lame excuse then move the date back once again as you window lickers usually do? Remember Y2K?
I'll ask you once again to demonstrate where a single claim made using evo theory's false. There a literally millions to choose from so shouldn't be difficult.
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos well ok u believe that nwo is bullshit. u still think the world one pretty place isnt it?? u just know shit. the only thing u know and what sciencetist claim to be evolution is the fact that they KNOW how everything works. human body and all thats stuff and universe and so on. but by knowing how something works doenst mean that thats the way how everything got here. so instead of thinking that everything they tell u is true investigate for urself about the nwo. dumbass
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
*yawn* seriously, i would rather boil my head or drink wasps than hear any more about the fucking NWO. I'm sick of you conspiracy cranks with the IQ of lint thinking you're smarter than the rest of us. You're not, you're fucking stupid, every last one of you. Just look at the kind of people promoting this crap, freaks like David Icke! lol
AGAIN, demonstrate where a single claim made using evo theory has been shown to be false. Put up or shut up & quit dodging the question.
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos almost every claim that they found a transitional fossils was or man made fossils or just animal fossils that has nothing to do with us. look really i dont care anymore what u think about the nwo and ur precious evolution. its ur bussines have fun with the rest of ur life for as long it will take hehe
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
1+
"almost every claim that they found a transitional fossils was or man made fossils or just animal fossils that has nothing to do with us."
lol, with such a level of ignorance, it's nothing short of a miracle how you make it through each day unharmed. Man-made fossils??? You're talking about a single example so to say "almost every" one was man-made isn't quite true is it. That particular example incidentally is an excellent example of how reliable scientific enquiry is........
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos single example?? i saw already 4 or 5 hand made ones so dont lie. ok that can be true if u can tell me what claims? we lost the war?? hahahahahaha look u think u are winning the war. but my guess is that ur only busy with evolution and nothing else right?? so any knowledge about the rest that going on the world is passing ur empty head right?? doesnt wonder me actualle. ill answer ur question.
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
1>
"i saw already 4 or 5 hand made ones so dont lie."
Reference them & show i'm lying instead of just saying it. We have thousands upon thousands of transitional forms, in fact & in reality EVERY fossil is a transitional form as it's simply 'that years model' & life is constantly evolving, it's just evolution happens over vast expanses of time, one step at a time. No transitional fossils *facepalm* have you even bothered watching this video??
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos 1> i already ask people here or on other sides to show me proof were u can see that 1 fossil is the evolved form of an other fossil so were u can see that the 1 animal cam from a totally different one. they never show me that so why should i bother to give u examples were u can see they are man made if they cant even show me how they can see that an animal evolved. "life is constantly evolving,"?? life is constantly variating. that means being different from on another by how..
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos far the information in ur dna allows u to. if we could really evolve then there would not only be humans walking on land but also humans flying and swimming in the water.
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
2>
"we lost the war?? hahahahahaha look u think u are winning the war."
If you're talking about the 'war' between creationism & evolution, you guys lost that one in the mid 19th century. You seriously need to understand that in science (which quite frankly is the only place that counts or matters) there is no conflict & the ENTIRE scientific community accept evolution without question. Hell, even most Christians accept it! The only people rejecting it are fanatical, religiously.........
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos ouch wrong. people that are accepting evolution is just proof for how easy it is to deceive mankind. get a guy with loads of cash let him pay some people to bring a theorie about how everyithng came here, let them put some scientific evidence in their theorie thats is true and wave ur lies around it and bring this to the people then they will believe u because they dont know any better.
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
3>
........retarded fundamentalists who reside in the cultural backwaters of society.
"but my guess is that ur only busy with evolution and nothing else right??"
Erm, wrong. What a stupid assumption to make.
"so any knowledge about the rest that going on the world is passing ur empty head right??"
Again, wrong. I keep myself up to date with current affairs. Now what the hell does this have to do with the argument? Sounds like distraction tactics born out of desperation to me.
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
4>
"second law of thermodynamics:By definition, something must be eternal (as we have �something� today and something cannot come from �nothing�, so there was never a time when there was �nothing�)."
lol, is this the best you can come up when asked for evidence opposing evolution??? Firstly you're talking about the FIRST law of thermodynamics (demonstrating once again that you have no idea what you're talking about). Secondly, it only applies to isolated systems so is irrelevant as..........
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
5>
.........earth is an open system. Thirdly it's only brainless creanderthals like you who claim something has come from nothing, scientists certainly don't make such claims making that nothing more than a desperate strawman. Is this seriously the evolution busting evidence i've waited so long for?? FAIL, try again.
"Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal."
So those are the only 2 options?? I'm afraid your..........
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
6>
.........oversimplified logic is redundant. Time didn't come into existence until the moment of the Big Bang & being that the BB was a quantum event, we know full well that things pop in & out of existence all the time in the quantum. It's also FAR more plausible to believe that initial energy had always existed rather than what you're proposing which in reality solves nothing & just leaves even more questions. Who created your god?
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos were can u study, observe and proof that time came into existence until the movement of the big bang?? sounds like a assumption = believe. energy had always existed? how do u study, observe or proof that?? assumption again = believe. bible says that there are 3 heavens. the first 1 we can see everyday, second is somewhere in the universe and the third is were god is and thats outside the universe. bible also says that outside the universe there is no time, space or matter. ...
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos so to answer ur question god is not created. for were he lives there is no time so u cannot place a label on him were he comes from or how old he is. and thats something common people like we cant understand. because we have to live by the laws we got.
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
2+
........by exposing that hoax. It wasn't even made by a scientist, it was a hoax to trick the scientific community but science being science exposed it & discarded it as it's doesn't (& couldn't) hang onto evidence that has been scientifically refuted. Now if you want to talk about hoaxes, the number of scientific hoaxes pale in comparison to the number of creationist hoaxes there have been & they HAVE been committed by creationists desperate to validate their spurious claims.
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
3+
Another fundamental difference is that creanderthals are such a dishonest, deceitful & purposely misleading lot, you people still use these exposed hoaxes as evidence!
In reality, we have a full set of transitional forms supported by numerous other independent scientific studies, ALL converging to reach the same conclusion. That's how science works, it doesn't just rely on a single piece of evidence. If you had ANY understanding of scientific enquiry & the processes & means by.........
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
4+
........which it proceeds, you'd understand how it's now impossible to refute evolution. You're fighting a battle you guys lost 150yrs ago, you need to drag your ass into the present Cletus, you may as well be arguing geocentricity which, if you really did take the bible literally, a geocentrist you would be. Yet ANOTHER biblical flaw & incontrovertible proof it was not Divinely inspired.
NOW FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, ANSWER THE QUESTION & GIVE A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OPPOSING EVOLUTION!!!
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos second law of thermodynamics:By definition, something must be eternal (as we have �something� today and something cannot come from �nothing�, so there was never a time when there was �nothing�). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and ..
MrValidin 2 months ago
Comment removed
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrValidin
"We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion)."
Of which nobody denies.
"Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and .. have created the universe."
lol, what makes you think that even there was any truth in the irrational bollox you spout, it's the god of the bible??? Again, who created the creator & what was he doing prior to creating the universe?
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos i just answered that and how can i answer what he did prior to creating the universe. do u know what ur shoemaker does prior to making shoes????
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question �who created God� is therefore an improper/invalid question,
MrValidin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrValidin
1~
"Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures"
Agreed which is why you're unable to comprehend that the universe didn't require any supernatural intervention. Incidentally, why do you take the word of Einstein when he was an 'evolutionist'? Why take the word of ANY scientist............
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos no thats means that without time or space it means that there was nothing and there cannot come something out of nothing. thats fantasy but thats what u believe. and u just cant comprehend that god does not need to obey to the laws like we do. so we have to have a beginning of live so god needs one. thats how u think. why not not every sciencetist sells bullshit so he can deceive people in believeing we are just annimals.
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
2~
..........being as they all accept evolution? Yet you put your faith in them every time you get in a car or travel on an airplane.
"but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws."
Is that why the entire scientific community completely discarded creationism centuries ago? Eternal beings COMPLETELY fly in the face of scientific laws.
"The question �who created God� is therefore an improper/invalid question"
Not to anybody of fair..........
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos "Is that why the entire scientific community completely discarded creationism centuries ago?" why do u think they did that?? got paid by rich people just to let common people like u and me ,that in their eyes is worth nothing more than a bag of shit, believe we are just animals and that the strongest of the evolved species has right to determine what happens to us. in other words a rich man like many other rich people think they are the advanced evolved specie of humankind, ...
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos therefore they can decide whats best for u and me so if they get it in their mind ur nothing worth for them they can just kill u because they are the strongest of the species. and u cant say anything about that because its the law of the strongest.
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3~
..........mind it isn't, it's only you window lickers who say as much simply because you can't answer the question.
"as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause."
Logical fallacy/impossibility, don't be absurd.
flypaper4weirdos 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos big bang is a result of what cause?? so u just put bb in the place of god. because the bb is the uncaused first cause in ujr eyes therefore according to ur logic.
"Logical fallacy/impossibility"
MrValidin 3 weeks ago
@flypaper4weirdos as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.
MrValidin 2 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos another one for u wont be satified by this
MrValidin 2 months ago
@GnosticHumanist se ethats a problem again with u u always think in millions of years this and millions of years that. think very logically about evolution ok. start at the beginning abio genessis. then go the human body structurs. the only thing that sciencetist CAN proof is HOW things work. but its not because it works that way that live started that way. evolution starts with some facts and then it goes to fantasy were u need to believe. evolution is nothing more than a relegion.
MrValidin 2 months ago
Epic song.
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
good song
esraretin 3 months ago
lol i hope u realize that fossils doenst prove evolution at all u say comon ancestor well i can easely just be a common creator thats why the fossils look like eachother doenst proof evolution at all
MrValidin 4 months ago
@MrValidin
1=
"i hope u realize that fossils doenst prove evolution at all"
Alone they don't 'prove' evolution but we have countless & every single one ever found has been found just as evolutionary theory predicts, in order of morphology. They make compelling evidence for evolution & when you add this evidence to the mountain of other evidence furnished independently from every other scientific discipline, there really is no doubts whatsoever. The common creator.............
flypaper4weirdos 4 months ago
2=
............theory falls apart when you take into consideration the biological evidence alone, unless you believe in an exceptionally sinister deity who is intentionally trying to trick us & set us up to fail...............again.
"common creator thats why the fossils look like eachother"
It just so happens that a flood managed to sort them into a specific, morphological order. What kind of god do you bow to?
flypaper4weirdos 4 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos ur serieus right?? if i got a theory and i found fossils that would destroy my theory but help a religion i hate then i wouldnt show the fossils duh... they found shells on the mount everest so plz explain to me how do they come up there?? they find so many things but they will only show the ones that fit their geological scale.
MrValidin 4 months ago
@MrValidin
"if i got a theory and i found fossils that would destroy my theory but help a religion i hate then i wouldnt show the fossils duh"
So erm, how is it you know of these fossils? I'll ask you again to cite your source & offer evidence, or should i simply believe what you say?
"they found shells on the mount everest so plz explain to me how do they come up there??"
I've already done so. I suggest you read my response to this long answered question, it's right there.
flypaper4weirdos 4 months ago
@MrValidin Shells grow in shallow clear sea water. They build up and make limestone thousands of feet think. The whole top of Mt. Everest is an old sea floor, there are not some shells washed up there or a thin layer of shells.
The whole area was pushed up by the India Plate colliding with the Asia Plate, the mountain is still getting higher.
Read a Geology book.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz and the mountain goes down aswell. it doesnt only rise but that probably isnt in ur geology book?
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin Why don't you read a Geology book and find out?
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz why wont u admit that mountains dont only rise?
MrValidin 3 months ago
@gregrutz why wont u admit that mountains dont only rise?
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin I didn't say that, I said Mt. Everest is getting higher. I said the shells grew under the sea level and were pushed up to 29,029 feet above sea level by plate tectonics over millions of years.
They mountains in Nevada were formed by the ground being pulled apart. Some mountains are formed by block faulting, there are lots of ways to make a mountain. A flood is not one of them.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz thats what u say. i didnt say a flood made mountains. the earth was made like it is now with som slight changes now. tectonic plates is an example of how the earth works for example. doesnt mean because mountains are rising now that thats the way how they formed.
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin No, the earth has been changing for 4,545 million years. Read a Geology book.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz lol always the geology book i can write wathever i want 2 and let it named a textbook. doenst mean because the textbook says so that it is true. ur 1 of the many people that doesnt ask question u just follow what everyone says. thats pathetic
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin Science is not like bible study where you have to be told what it means because it it so screwed up. People study science, they repeat the experimants, look at all the evidence and debate the theories that explain the facts. You should try it.
The earth is not the same as it was in the past, there are fossils. Stop ignoring the facts.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz they repeat experiments how they assume it happend. how they wanted that it happend. and those experiments what do they proof?? all the experiments they have done for so far is just letting us see that there is intelligence needed to for axemple create live in a testtube. it wont happen without our intelligence. and ur answer on this will be it does happen but it takes millions of years. prove to me that it does take millions of years and dont use ur "assumption based science"
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin The evidence shows that life evolved With the earth over millions of years. That is what scientists find when they study the fossil record. It is fact, not a theory.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz no, what evidence show is the fact that animals variate but that it still stays the same animal. its like finding all those fossils of fish some fish are slightly different then the other ones. doesnt show that they evolved from eachother. but thats what sciencetist say because they wnat u to believe that. the only proof that evolution happend is the assumption evidence brought by sciencetist nothing more but u are to ignorant to see the lies. u just believe everything they say
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin Here is the evidence, the facts, go look.
The fossils are layered like this:
In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils
and dinosaur fossils.
No human or bunny fossils in any of these layers.
No dating method used
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz got that from a textbook? or from a evolution site? see they can say whatever they want. so long its in a textbook it has to be true. thats how most people think. because they studied they have to be right about everything. they thaught people for idk 1000 years that if u throw a heavy rock and a light rock from a high spot the heavy rock will come down first. is that true? no but everone believed them because they were sciencetists.
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin How do you think science gets into text books? You accept the bible as a book with no evidence. People study science. They go out and look at the geology and study the facts.
And heavy things do fall faster than light things due to air resistance. Drop a rock and a feather, they fall at the same rate on the moon, but not on earth in air.
Why do you accept the bible that says there was a global flood when that has been proven wrong?
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz science gets in the textbooks by people that BELIEVE in evolution. its true textbooks contains facts i agree on that. but they give it a twist. the facts show us how things WORK. not how things got here. they assume they things got here by how the things works. well eeuuh thats isnt right. its not because u know how something works that it explains how it got there. and u talk about a rock and a feather duh they dont fall together i talked about same materials not rock and feather
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin Watch Don's videos and you will ''believe'' in evolution too.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz i watched a piece and i saw different animals/fossils that have things in common with otehr animals/fossils. proof for evolution?? no not at all u say common ancestor i can say commonc reator because he had in mind to design the animals how he wanted to
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin So you think God made trilobites and then millions of years later He made reptiles. Then millions of years later he made dinosaurs and let them evolve for 160 million years and then let them die off and made mammals and birds? Is that correct?
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz eeuh no u believe earth is billions of years old i believ earth isnt older than 6000 years. everything was created at the same time dinosaurs, human, trilobites, birds ect ect.
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin Most of the species that ever lived on the earth are EXTINCT. I guess me missed it all.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz yea in 6000 years there can happen alot. just because that there are many extinct animals doesnt proof evolution tho
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin Then what is your theory as to why the dinosaur lived and changed for 160,000,000 years? How do you explain all those strange marine creatures that lived in the Cambrian Period 530 million years ago?
How do you explain Homo Neanderthals, the different kind of humans that lived with homo sapians?
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz who says that dinosaures did lived 160millions years ago? and mrine creatures 530million years?? thats hwta they evolutionists believe. everything lived together 6000years ago but how did they got extint? i dunno if there is a bear living next to u and u feel traitened by him what would u do 6000years ago? u would just kill it. thats probably what man did with dinosaurs and there will be other reasons why they got extinct. and man got 900years back then those were the neanderthales.
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin Close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud until all those pesky fossils go away.
Or get an education.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz ooooh cant win?? yea see thats something that all of u guys do isnt it? mmh i dont know what to say anymore ill just go and insult them. pff u know how u make urself look now? pathetic. u studied but cant win against someone that didnt study? and then insults him hahahahaha little child
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin
lol, man killed the dinosaurs??? Are you huffing glue? Explain why we NEVER find human remains or artefacts below the KT Boundary & why we NEVER find dinosaur remains above it? If what you're saying was true then they'd all be jumbled up with in no specific order so please enlighten us as to how this happened.
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
@MrValidin
"i believ earth isnt older than 6000 years. everything was created at the same time dinosaurs, human, trilobites, birds ect ect."
You are out of your mind. No sane person could bury their head to such an overwhelming amount of evidence that categorically proves them wrong, you're clearly suffering some form of mental instability. You're even a minority amongst Christians! If your claims are true then why is it the lower through the strata we dig, the less complex life becomes?
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
@MrValidin
Question: Why before the pre-Cambrian are the only organisms found as fossils prokaryotes such as bacteria? Was "Yahweh" just warming up?
Also how come we see live emerging very gradually step by step as time goes by, and you don't find fully formed vertebrates like humans or donkeys amongst fossils of basal chordates in the Cambrian?
There is only ONE logical possible explanation, and that is evolution.
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@GnosticHumanist answer: ever thought about it that sciencetist DO find such fossils of man with dinosaurs but that they dont publice them because it would support creation instead of evolution???? explain to me were do we see live emerging step by step when time goes by??
and if u think its logical that we all come from a rock were there is no life on it at all not bacteria nothing and then it just by accident brings fourth a cel by no reasen then thats ur choice my friend.
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
WOW. You think that countless thousands of scientists all around the world from every different background, culture and religious view, are conspiring to keep supposed "fossils of men living with dinosaurs" from the public?! Well I guess if you already believe in talking snakes & magic-man in the sky...
BUT not only that, you somehow think that all organisms were created at the same time; that chimps were living 550Ma in the Cambrian when only simple chordates were emerging?
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@GnosticHumanist wow u are really so ignorant are u?? were do those sciencetists believe in? ooh yea EVOLUTION would it be smart of them to show evidence for the relegion they wanna destroy?? eeuh NO. and besides its not only the sciencetist that keep this from us its mostly the worldly government. u really think they give something about us? about normal people with a middle income i mean then?? well then ur the one thats living in a fairyworld. wt.. 550ma? noo dude 6000 years not millions
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
Have you ever considered psychiatric help? Your symptoms are identical to acute psychosis.
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@GnosticHumanist haha lol mmh doenst the bible says that people will begin to say that cristians got mental problems?? ooh yea u just did mmmh just confirmed bible is right again TY so much u made my day
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
Hmmm... yes. And does this magical sky daddy talk to you in your head?
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@GnosticHumanist look i really dont care how childish u behave ok. now go watch disney channel
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
Childish? You're the one who is saying that the Flinstones is a documentary!
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
@GnosticHumanist and ur the one thats says we are animals so go make a dump in the woods
MrValidin 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheRunner314 2 months ago
@TheRunner314 ooh why is this removed??
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
1#
lol, for somebody who can't even spell the word 'scientist' you sure have one hell of an ego to believe you have a greater understanding of the natural world than every credible scientist on earth! The vast majority of Christians worldwide accept evolution. In fact it's only you slack-jawed, inbred hicks who reside in the Southern states of America who reject it. Science is agnostic by definition & follows the evidence matter where it leads. There is no rational reason..........
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos ever thought that thats the whole reason?? everybody on earth needs to believ in evolution so the nwo can make their move and tell u pricks that the earthc is overpopulated . so then they can kill 90 procent because their objective is to bring population down to 500mill people. did u know that? no. did u know that there are many diseases that those nwo elite people spread themselfs?? hiv is one of them. dont believe me? look up confessions of ex nwo elites or illuminati.
MrValidin 2 months ago
2#
.......to lie in science, no way of propping up lies in science & no presuppositions to uphold as there is in religion. What part of the fact that you, me or ANYBODY on earth is free to study, test & refute ANY scientific claim ever made, don't you understand??? Is that so difficult a concept for you to understand???
Do you seriously believe there's a global conspiracy amongst the entire scientific community & governments of every country across the globe that's spanned generations.........
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
3#
........simply to take people away from Jebus?? Fuck me, Clinton couldn't even keep a blow job secret!! lol, you're out of your tiny, religiously stunted mind. Instead of making up shit & lying through your teeth without actually offering up any real objections to evo theory, how about you take a claim made by evo theory & then demonstrate it's false using actual evidence? That's how science works & if you can't do that then you may as well tuck your dick up between your legs & cluck off.
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos and ur lack of knowing the conspiracy bothers me. u got no right to talk to me like that if ur a person that deny that the whole damn government of each country is CORRUPT. u really really really think those people feel sympathie for u or any other human?? well whos living in the fantasy world. ur even dumber then i thought. but yea if ur to blind to see and to daf to hear. idiot
MrValidin 2 months ago
@MrValidin
1>
"ever thought about it that sciencetist DO find such fossils of man with dinosaurs but that they dont publice them because it would support creation instead of evolution????"
Why would we there is NOTHING in the way of evidence to suggest that's the case? Surely the many Christian scientists would be shouting it from the rooftops but for some reason they're not, why is that? I'll tell you why, because NEVER has there been dinosaur remains found below the KT & NEVER............
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
2>
........have human remains or artefacts ever been found above it. If there was then the evidence would be everywhere & in abundance. It would require the silencing of EVERY single archaeologist/palaeontologist/geologist/biologist etc. in the history of science & if you say otherwise then the burden of proof lies with you. Cite your source & show us your evidence. Please, no mention of the long refuted & typically desperate & dishonest, creationist hoax known as 'Paluxy Footprints'.
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
@MrValidin
"got that from a textbook? or from a evolution site?"
Nope, it's was EVERY secular scientist on earth will tell you & you are free to study the evidence for yourself. If you find evidence that conflicts then there is nothing stopping you from overturning ANY claims made by ANY scientist.
"they thaught people for idk 1000 years that if u throw a heavy rock and a light rock from a high spot the heavy rock will come down first. is that true?"
BULLSHIT, whoever said that???
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
@MrValidin
1)
"what evidence show is the fact that animals variate but that it still stays the same animal"
Don't be absurd & quit playing dumb. You know damn well that we shouldn't be able to witness an animal changing into another animal, that would fly in the face of evolutionary theory making that nothing other than a desperate strawman. Evolution happens over millions of years! Saying that, speciation has been directly observed in both nature & in the lab so if that isn't proof........
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
2)
...........then i don't know what is.
"its like finding all those fossils of fish some fish are slightly different then the other ones. doesnt show that they evolved from eachother"
How do you explain the fact that we can use evolutionary theory to predict exactly in what area & in what strata we will find certain transitional forms prior to their discovery? (e.g. Tiktaalik) Lucky guesswork?
As for believing everything scientists say, that may be in many instances but only............
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
3)
..........because we're aware of the strict, implicit scrutiny & processes scientists must abide by. Would you take the word of a brain surgeon if you were diagnosed with a tumour? Science is a reliable study with very real results. Religion on the other hand is stagnant & relies purely on ignorance & authority. It frowns upon you questioning it whereas you will NEVER hear a scientist asking you to take their word on something. Science encourages you to question everything & there...........
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
4)
........is NOTHING in science that you, me or anybody on this earth cannot study, test, refute or verify for themselves with the correct tools. You're simply too stupid, too indoctrinated, too uneducated, too lazy & wilfully fucking ignorant to understand or bother your arse to check. Yet, you're willing to believe in everything magically poofing into existence fully formed by a fairy godfather who lives in the sky even though this has COMPELTELY been refuted by an untold amount of evidence.
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrValidin Read a Geology book.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@MrValidin
1#
"repeat experiments how they assume it happend."
You're a fisting idiot with the IQ of lint, no wonder people regard creanderthals as being borderline retarded, your level of ignorance coupled with such arrogance leaves me breathless. Evolutionary theory has undergone the EXACT same level of scrutiny that EVERY other scientific theory has undergone. It hasn't failed once & has 300yrs of empirically gathered evidence supporting it. It was accepted as fact 150yrs ago &..........
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
2#
...........has since been spectacularly proven more than we could have ever hoped to have been with the study of genetics & biology. The evidence is overwhelming & the ONLY reason you reject it is because you're a mind-fucked moron who had their mind turned to mush by religion from birth. Science works & has very real results such as technology, agriculture & medicine. What the hell has religion offered in the past 2000yrs? That's right FUCK ALL!!!! Absolutely nothing other than............
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
3#
..........repression, conflict, bloodshed & death. It is the cancer of humanity & is utterly pointless. It's nothing more than a pathetic leftover of man's ignorant past & is just a crutch for the weak-minded/uneducated who can't deal with the reality of life. Thankfully you're a dying breed. Even real Christians wish to disassociate & distance themselves from you lot, you're even an embarrassment to them.
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
@MrValidin
So do you now accept that marine fossils found on Everest have nothing to do with any flood & are actually the result of the top of Everest once being shallow sea-beds?
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos no i dont accept that. were is ur proof that the mountains were shallow sea beds once?? they can easely started in the form that they are now. but that they have risin some inches or i dunno in all those years. noone can possible know how the world looked before they lived to see it themself. to say they got proof that the earth looked like they say it looked thats just using their imagination to give support for evolution.
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin
1]
How convenient you ignore everything else i've said. Of course they were once sea-beds, this is NOT in question & hasn't been for centuries, even Leonardo De-Vinci was aware of & noted this back in the 16th century prior to evolution even being theorised! It wasn't a problem then & it sure as hell isn't now. The evidence is conclusive. The marine life alone proves it but on top of that the composition of the rock, the biogeography of the fossilised remains, the fact it .........
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
2]
..........lies directly between 2 tectonic plates & it's still rising to this day etc. etc. I'd also love to hear you explain how a flood could bury fossils into solid rock? What you're suggesting is impossible but then again you don't really want an answer do you. Your goal is to ask a question that you believe proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet have an answer to, to then make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god,..........
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
3]
..........specifically the same god you conveniently happens to believe in. It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, & because of the contained logical fallacy. It's done almost exclusively by Christians fundamentalists. Try finding a single geologist or scientist of any relevant discipline who questions the fact that these mountain ranges were once shallow sea beds then ask yourself why you can't & why even those who are...........
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
4]
.........people of faith don't even question it.
"noone can possible know how the world looked before they lived to see it themself"
So by your logic nothing can ever be known unless it's been directly observed? You're a fucking idiot with no power of rational thought. How we manage to get convictions for crimes committed when there have been no witnesses is beyond me *facepalm* Just because you're obscenely stupid don't make the mistake of thinking everybody else is.
flypaper4weirdos 3 months ago
@flypaper4weirdos are u serieus?? plz tell me ur joking ok? how do u get convivtions of crimes committed when there are no witnesses? well eeum investigate the crime scene on finger prints, skinsamples, if someone is murdered then they ask close family/friends if the dead person had enemy's. thats how they do it. was ur family there when the earth was formed?? can they interrugated someone that left fingerprints there?? uuuh i dont think so? and insult me as much as u like. proves that u lost
MrValidin 3 months ago
@MrValidin
Exactly, they go on forensic evidence, that's my point!! They use the exact same processes & means throughout science & information is gathered to piece together the bigger picture. As far as evolution goes, the picture is far more complete than almost all other scientific theories. Evolutionary theory brings together practically all other scientific disciplines & is literally known as the unifying principle of biology. Life evolved whether you like it or not, get over it Mungo.
flypaper4weirdos 2 months ago
@MrValidin
Are yoju aware that there are fossils of sea shells as high as the the highest mountain on the planet: Mt. Everest? How do you think they got there? Did God put them there? NO, plate techtonics over time did. we can actually measure the rate of continental drift.
GnosticHumanist 2 months ago
no evidence for the flood?? they find human skulls in the layers were dinosaurs and even in layers were trilobites are ofcourse they dont show anything that doenst fit their geological bullshit. and the found shells on the mount everest. now u tell me how shells get on the mount everest??? well simple there was a flood and it covered the whole earth even the highest mountains. in turkey there is a print of a huge ship on a mountain how did that came there??
MrValidin 4 months ago
@MrValidin
1#
"they find human skulls in the layers were dinosaurs and even in layers were trilobites are"
Really? Where can i find the details of this discovery, can you cite your source?
"the found shells on the mount everest. now u tell me how shells get on the mount everest???"
This has been known for centuries. The answer is that such mountain tops were not always at such elevation. They were in fact once shallow sea beds until the collision between Asia & the Indian.............
flypaper4weirdos 4 months ago
2#
............subcontinent some 50 million years ago giving rise to the Himalayan mountain range.
"there was a flood and it covered the whole earth"
Never in earth's history has this happened let alone so little as 4000yrs ago.
"turkey there is a print of a huge ship on a mountain"
It's just a rock formation, it's one of numerous alleged 'Ark' discoveries.
flypaper4weirdos 4 months ago
Another great video Don, great accompanying track choice too ;)
flypaper4weirdos 4 months ago
You didn't offer any evidence, and I didn't run at all you little bitch.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 6 months ago
I just had to download this to show to friends that are unsure of the plausibility of evolution theory. I'll be taking a college class in evolution in the fall, and I'm "boning up" on the subject to have an edge over my classmates. Thanks, DonExodus2!
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
Science is the study of Gods Creation. You dont study science you study Fairytales like evol.
coolvideo28 7 months ago
@coolvideo28
Uh huh.
Meanwhile, back in the real world.....
odinata 7 months ago
@odinata ......God Created everything
coolvideo28 7 months ago
@coolvideo28
Which God? How?
odinata 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata There is only 1 God Jesus Christ. read all about it in the Bible. you can also learn tons about Creation Science on my channel if your interested in the truth.
coolvideo28 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coolvideo28 "God Created everything"
Saying something doesn't make it true.
1Erik85 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coolvideo28 "Science is the study of Gods Creation. You dont study science you study Fairytales like evol."
Science is the study of facts like evolution. You dont study science, you study Fairytales like Gods Creation in the bible.
HonestMan395 6 months ago
Not to mention that most mutations that happen are harmful to the animal, not useful. Like extra (useless) eyes, legs protruding out of the head, deformed limbs/wings etc. You'd have to have 1000s of random mutations to begin with, and then there might be one that might one day be useful, if it developed further, and it would also have to be a dominant gene for it to be passed on to the offspring.
dessertthingy 7 months ago