I have to say though, the missing link they're talking about is total crap. There is no such thing as a missing link in my opinion. Because evolution is gradual, there is no species that peekes above all others as being 'the missing link'. Every fossil we find, no matter how much information it gives us about the roots of certain species, is a transition on its own.
@chilionesaus you are forgetting that scientific illiterates find it difficult appreciate slight differences between animal species. How many for example can tell the difference between seals and sealions? They need dramatic differences to appreciate them. If you can show them something with very obvious features of 2 species that are temporally separated they are more likely to accept it, eventually the gaps will be filled to a point where transitions should be subtle yet obvious.
i read all the important papers concerning this subject (had to do this for a presentation about the phylogeny of Cetartiodactyls, I'm a biologist). The video is quite basic, but matches the papers. Maybe because of the simplicity of most videos shown to the public makes people doubt about the origins of cetaceans. If they would really read the articles about the studies, they would be convinced I think. Good post though! Helps you with getting the bigger picture.
OK, I'll buy the fact that they lived around water, like hippos but whales??? I mean,,, really.... they are completely reaching in the dark. I totally disagree with the whale theory here.... It just doesn't add up.
@agentorange20 This whole theory. there's no reason for a land going animal to just go to the sea. Isn't that backward from the,,, all life came from the sea idea? Going backwards just doesn't add up in my mind. Just can't see it happening, that's all. one animal changing into a completely different animal??? Sorry, I just don't buy it. An animal making adaptations to suit it's survival in a new situation? SURE! but not to completely change???? That's not even evolution... something different...
@Landotter1 'no reason for a land going animal to just go to the sea'
it depends, each niche is different & life will evolve along the path of least resistance, so if there is ample food & fewer predators where they locally evolved in the shallows, then it makes perfect sense.
'life came from the sea'
that it originated in the sea doesn't exclude the possibility of many millions of years later a small group of mammals taking back to the sea.
@agentorange20 Ain't buying it man.... evolution takes too long for one animal to change to another, intact with the new set of instincts of the new animal and all??? I just ain't buying it...
@Landotter1 'takes too long for one animal to change to another,'
it's not one animal turning into another, it's a line of descent w/ modification where you have isolated genetic populations. it does take long, millions of years long, it's not a thing that takes place in a single generation.
'new set of instincts of the new animal and all?'
Yes, the instincts are groomed/maintained by external pressures which preserve them if they aid in the survival of the organism.
A it wouldn't be changing into a fish, but rather a mammal living in water. b, we're talking over ~ 45 million years you go from something like pakicetus to other descendants like cetacean today, so to suggest it was in single generation flat out wrong/misleading.
we can't see mountains form either, yet we know sediment & uplift is the reason for them. we can deduce what occurred in the past vie empirical consistent evidence. It's like forensics. would you say that b/c you cannot directly witness a murder that via evidence we cannot deduce who did it? the record of these changes in organism is in the fossils & their DNA.
@agentorange20 The whole basis of fossil science and dinosaurs etc. comes from an animal that went extinct millions of years ago. DNA or not, we have no idea what they really looked like and how they behaved. We look at current spicies and try to imagine how prehistoric life forms "must" have been. It's all guesswork except the hard evidence, the bones themselves. That's all we have. I don't like someone telling me what they have no real idea about. Never liked it.
@Landotter1 'DNA or not, we have no idea what they really looked like'
The fossils show their morphology, (go to a museum) & they can determine their diet based on teeth, other flora in same layers. morphology is an expression of the DNA, the more similar the DNA & morphology the closer the species are related.
'imagine how prehistoric life'
Not at all. There is no imagining required if we have fossils, we which do.
@agentorange20 I'm with ya to an extent but still even the fossil folks will admit that they really operate mostly from guesswork and a little fossil evidence. At that point almost anything can be made up, to support one's theory. Don't get me wrong... I'm just saying that I don't buy the whole package. No one was areond "10 million" years ago and we REALLY don't know..... It's not worth getting into a heated debate over and I won't do it either.
They're not guessing w/ respect to the morphology, that they have. to suggest a single fossil is sufficient evidence isn't reasonable either, thankfully there are dozens of specimens.
'I don't buy the whole package'
I guess I really shouldn't expect you to considering you've not looked at all the articles, books, on the evidence.
'10 million" years ago'
10 million, 10 years, so long as there is empirical data to study we can know something about the time.
@agentorange20 "I guess I really shouldn't expect you to considering you've not looked at all the articles, books, on the evidence" I've seen enough that I can make up my own mind. Just because I disagree, respectfully, by the way, gives you no right to start shit. You don't know me man so get off this kick of what I know and what I don't. pretty arrogant on your part I think. You need to chill-out and learn how respect another's opinion or thoughts. Yes, I don't buy it....
@Landotter1@Landotter1 if you'd really seen enough then I'd have to ask where is the objection, (e.g, what would convince you?) as other than misunderstanding or ignorance on what evolution is or what the evidence consists of I have a hard time believing you've 'seen it all' especially as new discoveries are always being made which are consistent w/ the rest of the evidence. I can respect your view, but I won't pretend it's valid, not all views are equal after all.
@agentorange20 I appreciate the consideration of my views. I DON'T pretend to know all. I'm not that stupid. Maybe a bit retardrd, but not that stupid. :-D No sir, i don't know it all and do not make such claim. With anyone else it's what you choose to belive in. Just as many think God is a fantasy, some think evolution is a pipe dream of a drug addict. I'm claiming neither here. illustration only. I'm not asking for validation but thanks for the respect! Cheers!
Seriously though. Just one question on whale evolution. Concerning the complex pattern of fossils & the design of evolution:
If not descent with modification, please tell us your explanation for the temporal appearance of these extremely closely related, in morphological terms, organisms over time?
There are so many ignorant retards on YouTube that I guess evidence for the fact of evolution is still needed. It's a good thing though that nobody in science doubts evolution, even though the dumbest third world retards on YouTube seem to still doubt it. : )
Oh yes, I see absolutely no creativity in any animal that has been created on earth Mr. Dense in the Brain... No thought went into creating any creature Mr. Dense?
So let me get this straight the animals first started as one celled organisms left the water and then a couple million years later was like fuck it the sea was alot better than dry land lol i call bull shit!!!!
If you're going to present bullshit you're going to call it bullshit.
What really happened was that these creatures lived in shallow waters and over the generations they adapted to these waters. Gradually they began swimming in deeper waters, though some obviously stayed, and they adapted to these increasingly deeper waters.
@ace1025691 Yes. Animals can evolve over time to occupy land, sea, and air. Over hundreds of millions of years many life forms have done this. It is fairly common knowledge if you even have the smallest amount of scientific education. These changes are usually the result of climatic and environmental changes that push the evolution in one direction or the other. This is how MRSA and other new strains of bactiria are created using antibiotics incorrectly.
@smoothpeople33 How the hell are we supposed to know if they had sonar? They certainly have the bone structures that would allow it, but fossils give us morphological evidence. And bone density progressively changes as well throughout the transitional line, so I don't know how you imagined that it poses a problem in this case.
@ianman6 You see...the problem comes in with my imagination. I have a hard time believing in impossible things. Cows don't have sonar nor are they or any relatives on there way to getting the ability to use underwater sonar. It is a case of jigsaw pieces hammered in where it is convenient.
@smoothpeople33 "You see...the problem comes in with my imagination." - Argument from incredulity. That is your problem, not science's.
". Cows don't have sonar nor are they or any relatives on there way to getting the ability to use underwater sonar" - What does this have to do with cows? Like, at all? No one said cows are evolving into whales, nor does evolutionary theory expect or predict that. I sense you may have some major misconceptions about evolution.
@ianman6@ianman6 sorry u missed the sarcasam...The transitions that are used don't appear to be related to whales or each other All the bones of these old animals only proved that they lived and died. It takes a tremendous amount of imagination to turn big rats into the first whales. It really is funny.
@smoothpeople33 Well I'm glad you see at least some humor value. But it remains that this is how phylogyny is established. I take it, then, that you have a problem with evolution in general. If that is the case then any lineage will be unconvincing to you.
Check out the non-Christian program DESTINATION TRUTH; season 3; episode 1; time 16 minutes to 26 minutes into the episode
They are researching a haunted forest in Romania when Evan the camera man gets thrown like a rag doll out of nowhere. They see him go flying on one of their base-camp cameras of which you can't see anything pick him up and throw him.
@thesacredcowtipper When they go over to him, he has claw marks on his arm and is itching all over. Of course, they not looking at this in a Biblical way, and trying to figure it out scientifically won't say it was a demon that did it but the Bible alreay answers a lot of the world's mysteries if people would just read it. I have a friend that was into Satanism adn he has seen people get thrown around like this. (cont)
@thesacredcowtipper If Satan and his demons are real, and the Bible already gives a lot of information of who he is and what happened to him, then why not say, "It is very logical for me to beleive that there is somethign outside of this realm that science can never ascertain because it has ntohing to do with this natural world; wow, maybe the supernatural realm does exist adn created this natural realm."
@thesacredcowtipper When they go over to him, he has claw marks on his arm and is itching all over. Of course, they not looking at this in a Biblical way, and trying to figure it out scientifically won't say it was a demon that did it but the Bible alreay answers a lot of the world's mysteries if people would just read it. I have a friend that was into Satanism adn he has seen people get thrown around like this.
Just think. millions of years down the line. Highly evolved dolphins will be b*tching about where an ancient civilasation came from, on their world wide bubble net thingies.
what makes thes bones transitional? is it simply based on looks? or homology? is it dna approved. why cant these skeletons be their own animal and not an ancestor. just an honest question.
- the intermediary features such as the nose and it's whale-like traits such as it's periotic bones.
"is it simply based on looks? or homology? " - it's based on the science of comparative anatomy which determines relatedness by tracing small changes through a given lineage.
@types10000 but that is my point homology is very unconvincing because there are other animals with similar structures that have been deemed not of ancestoral descent.... homology is a science based on assumption.. Dna for sure is a better study but that is still new data. similar dna again is almost the same as homology in some cases. what if these creatures were instead designed, thus having similar structures and DNA like an engineer would... this of course is an assumption. same problem
"but that is my point homology is very unconvincing because there are other animals with similar structures that have been deemed not of ancestoral descent."
- homology is determined through the field of comparative anatomy, the fact they are so proficient at their work that they can determine whether similarly appearing structures are homologous SHOULD MAKE IT CONVINCING.
"homology is a science based on assumption" - not at all.
"Dna for sure is a better study but that is still new data. similar dna again is almost the same as homology in some cases"
- that's a ridiculous statement to make. genetic similarity IS indicative of relatedness, it's an established trend that is OBSERVABLE at the parent/child and species/sub-species level.
what if these creatures were instead designed, thus having similar structures"
- comparative anatomy determines relatedness by tracing smallscale changes THROUGH a lineage (on the 'microevolutionary' level), they dont simply go 'duhhh that looks the same so they must be related'
"and DNA like an engineer would"
- again, genetic similarity being indicative of relatedness is following AN ESTABLISHED TREND, it has evidence, design has nothing.
to elaborate a little more on DNA and comparative anatomy, there are a seemingly infinite number of ways that a given instance of DNA or structure can superficially achieve the same function.
eg.
- the genes that code for platypus poison vs snake poison
- the radically different wing structure of birds and bats
however every organism in existence falls within the TESTABLE nested hierarchy of evolutionary theory. the tree is verified across the board by scientific evidence.
both ambulocetus and lineage it evolved from (Pakicetids) are extinct however extant forms from both are still around.
- in the case of ambulocetus, modern day whales
- in the case of Pakicetids, modern hoofed mammals. cows .etc
science has revealed that the genetic relationship between the cow and the whale is quite similar; giving credence to the fact they both shared a fairly recent common ancestor.
Hey at least there's one thing all of us here CAN agree on. This debate is damn good FUN.
Here's a theory for budding scientist and religious folk alike. A way a 'God' could control and know all is to 'BE' all. And lets face it, even 'God' has to follow rules.
Theoretically, if everything is part of this 'God'/Universe. Then I don't think the rest of 'God' Cares when it hits part of itself with an asteroid because it's bored of flippin' dinosaurs. Wow! more sugar please. :)
@thesacredcowtipper Thank you. I suppose if we are all like Tamogatchi's in a realm. We would never see what's on the other side of the multiple screen we are being watched on.
Every time the White Man Consontrate on something He destroys them!!!?
Look at our world today!!? I am all for Sience and understanding how things have been and are, but one has to have respect for nature and Humans too. Mostly there is no respect for nothing anymore...When was the last time that people were able to shut down a chemical factory which is destroying their water, food and the invierment!!? But i have to admit that sometimes i make the mistake of generalising everything....!!
I bet this job would be great. I know how it feels to put together a puzzle, but pieces of this magnitude would be incredible. Im eager to see more pieces, and im not a scientist.
What exactly is unbelievable about them? Simply stated, you 'getting it' is not a prerequisite of them actually existing, or being evidence for evolution. I can though see how you might not understand it, given how earlier you conflated evolution as being a huge change in a single generation...
dense bones means it was an aquatic animal? this is proof. This is a joke. These are intermeidate links? How so? One looks more like a crocodile adn another like a stinkin large rat. I can't believe people believe this stuff. If I was a college student that got indoctrinated with this crap, I would sue the college on fraud and get my money back adn that would take care of my student loan.
Only partially aquatic, like the guy said. If anything it stayed near the shallows. "These are intermeidate links?"
Those shown here are but a sub-set of the entire lineage. they only show like 3 of the dozen or so that we currently know of, given more time more will be found.
@agentorange20 These three are unbelievable so I am sure the rest are too. Otters spend much if not most of their time in water; does this also make them a potential missing link for the whale. The whole reasoning behind this thinking is flawed. Do evolutionists believe in FARM anymore? Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, mammal?? They seem to change things they said were fact 5o years ago because things never seem to fit their theory.
@thesacredcowtipper "Otters spend much if not most of their time in water; does this also make them a potential missing link for the whale."
No. It's more complicated than if it was aquatic or not, it also depends on the morphology of the species in order to determine relatedness. They can tell alot by morphology, just take a look at the ancestor of modern horses, manatees, or even homo sapiens.
Sure, but such rigid definitions are hard to establish in cases where a species, like Tiktaalik, or Archeopteryx, or those in the cynodants blurs the normal understood lines of distinction. Also, most biologists don't narrowly define species as 'reptile', typically they associate them for instance as being one of the sub-classes, for instance Synapsids.
@thesacredcowtipper What as opposed to 2000+ year old scriptures that had folks shouting the world is flat. Thus having religious hierarchy killing folks who thought other wise? And oh look, someone thought they were wrong and prooved it. Even you can't deny the world is round.
Scientists are explorers and they are not tied to 'no you can't do that!'.
@stufaman The scriptures say the world is round adn that was stated in the book of Isaiah 2,700 years ago way before science figured it out. Why do evolutionists think creationists are against science. Many creationists are scientists adn many use to believe in evolution. Before you down the scriptures, you need to read them adn not take your professor's words as fact..
@thesacredcowtipper 'Why do evolutionists think creationists are against science?'
I dunno, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, heretical witch hunting & burning, calling for teaching of religion in science classes, calling it 'just a theory', etc. might have something to do with it...
'Many creationists are scientists '
Right, like who? Kent Hovind isn't a scientist, & the likes of him certainty don't adhere to methodological naturalism.
@agentorange20 AIG has several scientists "on staff", along with ICR adn many other organizations. You just don't think they are scientists because they don't agree with your theory.
So when you die, you think it is all over with? What if we are right? We lost maybe 30 to 50 years of our life which would be meaningless anyhow if we cease to exist afterwards. If you are wrong, you have an eternity to think about believing in a lie. I care enough about you to tell you these things.
Where are there peer reviewed works? Where is all there evidence that creationism is actually correct? Why is it, 'creation-science' doesn't like to adhere to the more basic rules of science, like falsifiability, testability, & repeatability by peers? As soon as you acknowledge why they do not commit to those basic science tenants, the sooner you're going to see what they're doing isn't science, but mere apologetic's.
@agentorange20 Many creationists scientists had peer reviewed works until they became creationists and then they were outcasts. The documentary by Ben Stein called "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" shows but a few of those instances where you become blacklisted in the scientific community. Watch the documentary and then you can say that ALL creationists are apologetics only.
Wonderful excuses, but still you cannot mention a single one. Quite telling...
'blacklisted in the scientific community'
I've watched it, quite a few times, quite a lot wrong with their assertions, both in principle & in what actually occurred. That's b/c those fuckstards weren't practicing science either.
This has nothing to do with evolution, or cetacean evolution at all, so how about you instead of moving to another topic try to answer my statements I sent you & commented on already? As far as, 'what happens after death', I do not know & frankly nor do you.
@agentorange20 I know the hereafter exists - not because of science but because of thigns I have experienced. God's word says that if I repent of my sins, and believe on Christ's redemptive work on the cross for me that I would be saved adn when I did that adn surrendered my life to Him, there was a inner cleansing that I experienced from all my past sins. It's good to feel clean inside.Some of the gifts of the spirit like prophecy and words of knowledge happen at times to me by the Holy Spirit
Bullshit. You believe, you do not know. There is a BIG difference between believing & knowing, conflating the 2 as you just did shows you don't know the difference.
'thigns I have experienced.'
& a single, subjective, anecdotal opinion of some random guy on the internet is convincing evidence why?
@agentorange20 There was a time in my life that I wasn't right with God and a demonic entity tried to enter me a few times. My eyes started to roll back in me when it was happening adn it freaked my buddy Mike out. These things are real. I knwo there are a lot of stupid things out there like ghost hunters - most fo that is fake but there is some real evil spirits called familiar spirits that appear as a loved one to deceive people. Not science.
Sure, they're real b/c YOU say they're real? Not convincing. You need actual evidence, something testable, of your claims. Mere hearsay wont suffice, not by a long shot.
'ghost hunters - most fo that is fake'
Oh, so that ghost hunters are fake, while your demons are real? Please, both are utterly laughable & neither have any empirical evidence whatsoever.
@agentorange20 Over 3,000 prophecies in the Bible have come to pass so I am going to take everything else it says seriously and there is much talk about the afterllife and it explains who will live in paradise and who will go to the other place that rejected God's provision of salvation. I am not so concerned about evolution as I am for your soul. He loves you and cares about you but sin cannot exist in paradise or it wouldn't be paradise for those who have been cleaned up spiritually.
@thesacredcowtipper Oh Common!!!!? Bible has been rewritten so many times and some people still believe in every words!!!? I too Believe in a power that mostly is hard for us humans to understand. Specially when some Evil people Poisen our Body throu water and food, so that our ability to understand these thing drastically are reduced. But please Research when was the last time Bible was rewrittn once again and by which company. !!? Get wise, because your enemy is.....!!?
Bullshit. & besides, what of those which didn't come to pass? Not to mention the flawed logic of saying its a prophecy when you have no way now to confirm said events actually occurred or not, & that virtually all of the claims are those which are easily self fulfilling.
@agentorange20 You want failed prophecies of the Bible? Ok. It was predicted that Demascus would fall into ruin. That the Nile would dry up for ever. That noone would enter Jerusalem uncircumcised. That Egypt would be uninhabited for 40 years. That the world would end before Jesus' generation died.
There are many more, all you have to do is look them up. You clearly have Google, so why stay in ignorance? It doesn't help the problem go away.
@thesacredcowtipper Actually the bahai religion is more accurate. You’d better convert to save your soul.. On the second thought Buddhism is the truth, you’d better convert to save your soul.. Actually Islam's where its at, convert now and live with God forever.. Wait a moment. Rather than just making blind guesses on what we personally find more attractive, lets cut the bullsh*t, stop the guessing, and wait for the proof. Isn’t that more honest after all?
@thesacredcowtipper I would never want to rid the history of any religion. All are responsible for so much life coming to be. We live in a time where people are more free to believe what they want.
I choose to believe evolution over all other religions. As far as when I die, those who remember me will carry my afterlife. NOT a god.
This evidence only shows that the animal was heavy. Being so heavy the animals bones would have to support more weight thus the bone would grow more solid. This has nothing to do with animals evolving from one another. The elephant bones are also semi-solid like the whale. Does it mean the elephant is aquatic too? Lol, no it means the elephant bones are structured that way to support their enormous weight. How can this be transitional evidence?
@GateMessenger, if they had used the elephant as the link to whales it would be more believable than pakicetus who looks like a giant rat with long legs. HAR HAR HAR HAR
swim enough? that's not at all what evolution theory says. what you are implying is lamarcism. a disproved theory.
only if some of your descendants randomly mutated a trait that allowed a more beneficial phenotype in an aquatic environment there might be a chance of a positive selection towards more marine existence of the next descendants.
become fishes? a fish defines a group of species that are not mammals. ergo your words make no sense.
considering that the majority of people who make money and produce knowledge did "waste" money and time in such education, your remark is quite a show of stupidity, ignorance and sheer nonsense.
try get an education, dumbass.
unless you like living in a trailer park doing drugs.
@transtlantic macro-evolution is something like you jumping off the cliff 1000 times with a safety net under and after 1000 years and a couple of generations you grow wings. micro-evolution is humans having different skin colour, different eye colour, hair , height, weight. The difference is that nothing new appears in macroevolutions, but caracteristics like the amount of melanin modify themselves between certain margings THAT CANNOT BE OVERCAME .
ah...always lovely when christian fucktards use analogies that don't relate at all to what happens in reality...funny, but sad crap.
Macro evolution is MICRO evolution in a different scale. end of.
"grow wings"- nothing in evolution says that.
Macro evolution is also humans having different skin color, (especially considering that it took a lot more than 1000 generations of Homo sapiens for such trait to appear).
red-hair, height and weight actually are traits that already existed previous to the Homo sapiens species. so... you also using macroevolution for that.
"nothing new appears"? lol... bullshit. you are not even defining macro and micro. you just made a stupid analogy that can be used BOTH for micro and macro evolution. moron.
what you are mixing is macro evolution with speciation.
want examples? sure:
Vascular plant speciation, wall-lizard speciation, etc.
"nothing new" - down syndrome, new genotype in a line of progenitors without such genotype. S.aureus becoming MRSA, VRSA, and more. Legs in mutant snakes, tails in mutant humans, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc MILLIONS of examples.
2 black parents having a white child is NOT "certain margings". in fact we have EVIDENCE of such phenomena because RANDOM ungodly natural mutations happen resulting in NEW traits.
tried what to do in chickens? you are a complete idiot. loser.
@betterworld1 translunatic gives the same old tired bullshit answers to everyone. He's a self-confessed liar. My favorite quote from him is "ALL HORSES are born black." He's an idiot troll.
I am sorry to inform but "Whale evolution" is riddled with massive assumptions, I have studied it extensively for years. It's very poor science. Science as a whole looses credibility because of this.
@goshawker07 "Whale evolution" is riddled with massive assumptions"
OK, honestly I am not sure what you mean, like what assumptions? I could understand it not being the strongest case for descent w/ modification,but it is a piece of evidence for that model & model adheres to the rigors of methodological naturalism, so I am curious why you'd says it's not science.
@agentorange20 You don't know what assumptions? It assumes evolution. Otherwise all you have are a number of similar animals with no proof of lineage. goshawker is right, it makes scientists look like idiots.
@goshawker07 ya know that exact statement you just said is very fishy for instance if you studied it and know alot about it then why youtube it for more information and also there are very few assumptions but there is very high proof that the whale did infact walk on land at one time
Whale Evolution is mere speculation and guess work at best. The only way the evidence shown in this video can persuade the viewer is by applying there pre- conceived assumptions to the outcome. There are so many variables left unexplained its ridiculous. Call it what it is... an hypothesis, nothing more.
@goshawker07 obviously this video is not the all evidence on whale evolution, if one were to review the dozen or so fossilized species that exist which demonstrate the process is easier to understand. I wouldn't expect only 2 fossils, to demonstrate the shared ancestry.
Oh good! There's no religious nutters in here saying,"No this is all wrong!"
Oops.
Anyway I think we see similar creatures now don't we? Duck billed platepus(yeah I know, spelling) evolved mammals that say,"sod it! Not having much luck here I'll look in the water."
Maybe we humans might evolve so dependant on technology, we might evolve into big robots that turn into stuff.
brewercap, relation is descent, one is implied by the other, you can't be related to someone unless you're a descendant of them. They could be all have existed at the same time, but more likely there would be overlapping between forms as forms tend to go extinct, & further the array of species for cetaceans covers something like 50+ million years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hmmm. I don't understand how scientists can assume a pre-evolution form of a creature. Evolution is a theory. As far as I know, theory is not an established fact but a suggestion... Meaning it has flaws.
If we evolve from one organism. We can have sex with any creature and produce a different form of creature then.
Every creature has different sex organs. It's made by pairs. We have chromosomes that match each pair thus giving birth to a creature of our kind.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And if Evolution is a fact. It is not impossible for a man to impregnate a monkey because it is our ancestor or rather our relative. Thus giving birth to a hybrid of a man and a monkey.
It is also not impossible for a man to impregnate a horse or a male horse to impregnate a woman. Thus giving birth to hybrid of a man and a horse. Here in the Phlippines we call it "Tikbalang". It is a mythological creature that has a head of a horse, a body of a man, the legs of the horse and the tail.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm a Christian and I don't believe in the "rapture" it was never mentioned in the bible. It was made up by a girl who dreamed about it and the news was spread all over.
And I don't believe the earth was made a few thousand years ago and started with Adam and Eve. If you really read the very first verse in bible you would realise it is not a young earth.
And I don't believe in a world wide flood. If you read it from hebrew you would realise it was just a part of the earth that was flooded.
Theories-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Theories are very well proven and are just as apt as scientific laws
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Haha. Ok then. But as far as i know evolution means changing a creatures appearance or characteristics to adapt to the changing environment. Monkey did change it's appearance but they live on land same as humans do today, so why the sexual aspect changed???
If it is our relative then it would be just like the wolf and dog can cross breed, tiger and lion, a horse and a zebra, camel and lama, leopard and lion, etc.
So a monkey suddenly gave birth to a human and it's a different species?
No because the wolf and dog are the SAME species. Tiger and Lion can, but not always producing fertile offspring, a horse and a zebra can but always produce infertile offspring. Because of the distance of evolutionary change between species some will die early when crossed or be infertile. We have different numbers of chromosomes to a chimp so offspring would be rare if possible at all.
Evolution is both theory and fact just like gravity is both theory and fact.
Both gravity and evolution are clearly phenomena that manifest in the real word. The respective theories thereof try to explain WHY that is the case. They themselves are subject to testing/observation/falsification/predictions or in short the scientific method and if they are shown to be deficient like Newtons theory of gravity they will be modified to fit new evidence.
this evolution crap is pissing me off how could you believe we came from a rock or a particle in the ocean or whatever you want to believe its bull crap its such an evil theory and theres no proof for it at all. you just think there is and go oh theres the proof right there and its not you just want to keep that theory and im sure a lot of you know its wrong but you dont care. so believe what you want to believe a lot of you will be disappointed when you die
Evolution has nothing to do with religious belief. The Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox, Christian churches fully accept evolution. Yet apparently you don't.
If you have published or even unpublished scientific papers which present your evidence contradicting evolution; then perhaps you could share them with us. Otherwise, you are just parading your ignorance like a flag.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sorry folks but these scientists, educated as they are, are totally grasping at straws. How on earth can they build such an extreme theory on such scant evidence? They have tunnel vision.
Yea, the same way you believe your God with no evidence. Please open a book thats not the bible or what ever holy book thats part of your religion and see how wrong you are.
There's also a great documentary floating around sometimes on national geographic or one of the discovery channels, I think you can find parts on youtube
And by saying complicated, I mean that there must have been a whole lot of branches that disappeared. Then we must find when one species separated into others to form dolphins and whales. It is almost obvious that it occured to an animal that was close to both of them. Maybe some things they are saying here will be proven wrong, because one of those species will be a dead branch, and the next step will have evolved from something else.
Thankfully, there is peer review. A self-correcting and independent process that all science must go through in order to be accepted by the community. If you truly feel as if there is something wrong, then by all means; investigate and go public with your discoveries.
I couldn't agree with you more. Fortunately the thousands of scientists that support creation have already gone public with amazing discoveries which has dwindled the evolution believing American population down to 39%. I am as thankful for the self correction process as you are.
All that proves is that 61% of the American population are idiots. And for every 1 scientist that supports creation there are several dozen ready to discredit that work. There are reasons why you don't see creation in museums (outside of that one museum, that's been disowned by the scientific community as a whole). I'm sorry, but you're never going to convince the scientific world that an invisible all-powerful being lives in the sky and created the earth 6000 years ago.
I don't need to convince the evolutionary scientists of God's existence. That will be taken care of on it's own in due time. Besides, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. The Bible says those who deny Noah's flood are "willingly ignorant". How can I convince a person who is willingly ignorant?
So god created all these similarities to make it all just 'look like' common ancestry & evolution is going on? But that statement isn't science, it can't be falsified.
Next I guess you're going to say god also made the earth appear old, as from what we can tell it's at least 4.57 billion years old. Aren't such acts at the very least misleading or look like a trickster?
All of the dating methods evolutionists use have been shown to be faulty. Radiometric dating has been shown to be off by a factor of 10,000. In other words that turns a billion years into a thousand. Helium is still found in granite at a depth of 9000 feet. It can only be there if the earth is only thousands of years old. Radio halos in granite prove instant solidification and not cooling over billions of years. Coal was produced in a lab in one years time. Evolution is in trouble.
Helium is not used to radiometrically date the age of the earth.
The radiometric methods that ARE used to date the earth are reliable, especially things such as isochrons, which contain internal self-checks on the validity of the data. The consistently show the earth to be billions of years old, not just thousands.
Put down the anti-science religous crap and read some science.
You must not be aware of the granite core samples from 14000 feet up to 3000 feet. The helium levels in the granite are completely inconsistent with a 4 billion year old earth. Question: Are you aware of the radio halos found in all granite in the late 70s? They are spherical scars from radioactivity that occurs for only a 4 second time period. If granite took more than 4 seconds to cool then the scarring would not occur. Rapid solidification consistent with creation.
If you are going to respond to me, then respond to what I say.
Isochrons have internal checks, and multiple isochrons, using different parent-daughter isotopes, have been run on individual samples, producing consistent ages for the earth, meteorites, and moon rocks. They are billions of years old.
Ahh, yes. Due time. In other words, you expect it to happen at teh rapture, or when they die or some other way that's completely unverifiable to ever happen. And know one's being willingly ignorant. We're just not ready to warp reality to fit a religion like you.
Actually, no Green. You have the rare privilege of speaking to someone who actually knows how to understand these prophecies. It is sad but 98% of Christians DO NOT understand these prophecies. I can show you exactly how they have fulfilled beginning in 605 BC all the way up to now. I can also tell you of events that it appears could happen within the next 10 years. These prophecies predict the rise and fall of Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, The Papacy, and the United States.
Christ, not another prophecy-hound. ALL kingdoms rise and fall. Our own country will rise and fall. That's just the way of the world. And They've been claiming that the rapture will happen now for the past 1800 years. Of course, they didn't have God's special little child that you are, did they. Christ, the ego on you...
The rise and fall of these nations was predicted BEFORE they even existed or rose to power with the exception of Babylon because Babylon was in existence and in power when the prophecy was penned. Are you sure you know everything? If these prophecies were made plain to you and you were able to see the compromised position you are in right now you would apologize up and down to me and every other person that has tried to tell you about Christ. Don't make the biggest mistake a human can ever make.
I've already blasphemed against your God and have no intention of changing my tune, so spare me your romantic nonsense and save yourself the time. Even if there WERE evidence of your God, I would never bow done to a genocidal, bigoted, megalomaniacal murderer. And if you had a working brain, you'd be right here with me.
I think what you say is a fair statement and God does not hold it against us for coming to what seems to be a logical conclusion. If you are sincere in your opinion of Him then how can you be held accountable? You are just being honest. But God says, "Come let us reason together". God invites you to learn why His hand was forced to do these things. There is a battle raging right now and God is as much a victim as you and I. My point is to make sure you know His reasons before condemning Him.
If God is truly willing to reason, then I will hear him out. In person, mind you. I don't take interpretations in place of a conversation. Have him seek me out and explain his actions to me, and then we'll talk.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you were to see Him in person in your sinful state you would cease to exist. I can only tell you about what I have experienced. 99% of any spiritual questions I have ar
I have to say though, the missing link they're talking about is total crap. There is no such thing as a missing link in my opinion. Because evolution is gradual, there is no species that peekes above all others as being 'the missing link'. Every fossil we find, no matter how much information it gives us about the roots of certain species, is a transition on its own.
chilionesaus 1 month ago
@chilionesaus you are forgetting that scientific illiterates find it difficult appreciate slight differences between animal species. How many for example can tell the difference between seals and sealions? They need dramatic differences to appreciate them. If you can show them something with very obvious features of 2 species that are temporally separated they are more likely to accept it, eventually the gaps will be filled to a point where transitions should be subtle yet obvious.
uknowispeaksense 1 month ago
i read all the important papers concerning this subject (had to do this for a presentation about the phylogeny of Cetartiodactyls, I'm a biologist). The video is quite basic, but matches the papers. Maybe because of the simplicity of most videos shown to the public makes people doubt about the origins of cetaceans. If they would really read the articles about the studies, they would be convinced I think. Good post though! Helps you with getting the bigger picture.
chilionesaus 1 month ago
OK, I'll buy the fact that they lived around water, like hippos but whales??? I mean,,, really.... they are completely reaching in the dark. I totally disagree with the whale theory here.... It just doesn't add up.
Landotter1 6 months ago
@Landotter1 what doesn't add up?
agentorange20 6 months ago
@agentorange20 This whole theory. there's no reason for a land going animal to just go to the sea. Isn't that backward from the,,, all life came from the sea idea? Going backwards just doesn't add up in my mind. Just can't see it happening, that's all. one animal changing into a completely different animal??? Sorry, I just don't buy it. An animal making adaptations to suit it's survival in a new situation? SURE! but not to completely change???? That's not even evolution... something different...
Landotter1 6 months ago
@Landotter1 'no reason for a land going animal to just go to the sea'
it depends, each niche is different & life will evolve along the path of least resistance, so if there is ample food & fewer predators where they locally evolved in the shallows, then it makes perfect sense.
'life came from the sea'
that it originated in the sea doesn't exclude the possibility of many millions of years later a small group of mammals taking back to the sea.
agentorange20 6 months ago
@agentorange20 Ain't buying it man.... evolution takes too long for one animal to change to another, intact with the new set of instincts of the new animal and all??? I just ain't buying it...
Landotter1 6 months ago
@Landotter1 'takes too long for one animal to change to another,'
it's not one animal turning into another, it's a line of descent w/ modification where you have isolated genetic populations. it does take long, millions of years long, it's not a thing that takes place in a single generation.
'new set of instincts of the new animal and all?'
Yes, the instincts are groomed/maintained by external pressures which preserve them if they aid in the survival of the organism.
agentorange20 6 months ago
@agentorange20 A land going animal essentially changing into a fish IS changing into another animal. sorry man, I just don't buy it.....
Landotter1 6 months ago
@Landotter1 'hanging into a fish IS changing '
A it wouldn't be changing into a fish, but rather a mammal living in water. b, we're talking over ~ 45 million years you go from something like pakicetus to other descendants like cetacean today, so to suggest it was in single generation flat out wrong/misleading.
agentorange20 6 months ago
@Landotter1 'can't see it happening'
we can't see mountains form either, yet we know sediment & uplift is the reason for them. we can deduce what occurred in the past vie empirical consistent evidence. It's like forensics. would you say that b/c you cannot directly witness a murder that via evidence we cannot deduce who did it? the record of these changes in organism is in the fossils & their DNA.
agentorange20 6 months ago
@agentorange20 The whole basis of fossil science and dinosaurs etc. comes from an animal that went extinct millions of years ago. DNA or not, we have no idea what they really looked like and how they behaved. We look at current spicies and try to imagine how prehistoric life forms "must" have been. It's all guesswork except the hard evidence, the bones themselves. That's all we have. I don't like someone telling me what they have no real idea about. Never liked it.
Landotter1 6 months ago
@Landotter1 'DNA or not, we have no idea what they really looked like'
The fossils show their morphology, (go to a museum) & they can determine their diet based on teeth, other flora in same layers. morphology is an expression of the DNA, the more similar the DNA & morphology the closer the species are related.
'imagine how prehistoric life'
Not at all. There is no imagining required if we have fossils, we which do.
agentorange20 6 months ago
@agentorange20 I'm with ya to an extent but still even the fossil folks will admit that they really operate mostly from guesswork and a little fossil evidence. At that point almost anything can be made up, to support one's theory. Don't get me wrong... I'm just saying that I don't buy the whole package. No one was areond "10 million" years ago and we REALLY don't know..... It's not worth getting into a heated debate over and I won't do it either.
Landotter1 6 months ago
@Landotter1 'fossil folks '
They're not guessing w/ respect to the morphology, that they have. to suggest a single fossil is sufficient evidence isn't reasonable either, thankfully there are dozens of specimens.
'I don't buy the whole package'
I guess I really shouldn't expect you to considering you've not looked at all the articles, books, on the evidence.
'10 million" years ago'
10 million, 10 years, so long as there is empirical data to study we can know something about the time.
agentorange20 6 months ago
@agentorange20 "I guess I really shouldn't expect you to considering you've not looked at all the articles, books, on the evidence" I've seen enough that I can make up my own mind. Just because I disagree, respectfully, by the way, gives you no right to start shit. You don't know me man so get off this kick of what I know and what I don't. pretty arrogant on your part I think. You need to chill-out and learn how respect another's opinion or thoughts. Yes, I don't buy it....
Landotter1 6 months ago
@Landotter1 @Landotter1 if you'd really seen enough then I'd have to ask where is the objection, (e.g, what would convince you?) as other than misunderstanding or ignorance on what evolution is or what the evidence consists of I have a hard time believing you've 'seen it all' especially as new discoveries are always being made which are consistent w/ the rest of the evidence. I can respect your view, but I won't pretend it's valid, not all views are equal after all.
agentorange20 6 months ago
@agentorange20 I appreciate the consideration of my views. I DON'T pretend to know all. I'm not that stupid. Maybe a bit retardrd, but not that stupid. :-D No sir, i don't know it all and do not make such claim. With anyone else it's what you choose to belive in. Just as many think God is a fantasy, some think evolution is a pipe dream of a drug addict. I'm claiming neither here. illustration only. I'm not asking for validation but thanks for the respect! Cheers!
Landotter1 6 months ago
Seriously though. Just one question on whale evolution. Concerning the complex pattern of fossils & the design of evolution:
If not descent with modification, please tell us your explanation for the temporal appearance of these extremely closely related, in morphological terms, organisms over time?
TheSchraughts 6 months ago
Beautiful! Again, the process of science prevails over woeful ignorance! After all:
1. The gathering of evidence (Luke 10:2),
2. the honest assessment of the data (1 Kings 3:9), and
3. the statistical inference (Matthew 18:16) -neither colluded nor fabricated (1 Timothy 1:6)-
enlightens all those seeking the observable & objective truth (Matthew 5:15).
Biological evolution is true and you know it (Romans 2:15)!
TheSchraughts 6 months ago
There are so many ignorant retards on YouTube that I guess evidence for the fact of evolution is still needed. It's a good thing though that nobody in science doubts evolution, even though the dumbest third world retards on YouTube seem to still doubt it. : )
winterstellar 6 months ago
Oh yes, I see absolutely no creativity in any animal that has been created on earth Mr. Dense in the Brain... No thought went into creating any creature Mr. Dense?
starsapphires 8 months ago
So let me get this straight the animals first started as one celled organisms left the water and then a couple million years later was like fuck it the sea was alot better than dry land lol i call bull shit!!!!
ace1025691 8 months ago
@ace1025691
If you're going to present bullshit you're going to call it bullshit.
What really happened was that these creatures lived in shallow waters and over the generations they adapted to these waters. Gradually they began swimming in deeper waters, though some obviously stayed, and they adapted to these increasingly deeper waters.
It's only bullshit if you present it as you did.
Quintinohthree 7 months ago
@Quintinohthree Hey suck a whale dick bro hahaha
ace1025691 6 months ago
@ace1025691
Yes, I see, these whales have no relation with land mammals. It's so obvious when someone tells you you should suck a whale's dick.
Really, is that the best you can do? Not even an ad hominem but a straight out insult? Dude, you're weak.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@ace1025691 Yes. Animals can evolve over time to occupy land, sea, and air. Over hundreds of millions of years many life forms have done this. It is fairly common knowledge if you even have the smallest amount of scientific education. These changes are usually the result of climatic and environmental changes that push the evolution in one direction or the other. This is how MRSA and other new strains of bactiria are created using antibiotics incorrectly.
edwardschlosser1 6 months ago
@edwardschlosser1 o my god it was a freaken joke damn
ace1025691 6 months ago
If i am a great creator or designer, i will create a new design and not to recreate it back my design.
sennnaku 9 months ago
have any transitional forms have sonar? Bone density isn't nearly close to making it "almost a whale or related in anyway"
smoothpeople33 9 months ago
@smoothpeople33 How the hell are we supposed to know if they had sonar? They certainly have the bone structures that would allow it, but fossils give us morphological evidence. And bone density progressively changes as well throughout the transitional line, so I don't know how you imagined that it poses a problem in this case.
ianman6 9 months ago
@ianman6 You see...the problem comes in with my imagination. I have a hard time believing in impossible things. Cows don't have sonar nor are they or any relatives on there way to getting the ability to use underwater sonar. It is a case of jigsaw pieces hammered in where it is convenient.
smoothpeople33 9 months ago
@smoothpeople33 "You see...the problem comes in with my imagination." - Argument from incredulity. That is your problem, not science's.
". Cows don't have sonar nor are they or any relatives on there way to getting the ability to use underwater sonar" - What does this have to do with cows? Like, at all? No one said cows are evolving into whales, nor does evolutionary theory expect or predict that. I sense you may have some major misconceptions about evolution.
ianman6 9 months ago
@ianman6 @ianman6 sorry u missed the sarcasam...The transitions that are used don't appear to be related to whales or each other All the bones of these old animals only proved that they lived and died. It takes a tremendous amount of imagination to turn big rats into the first whales. It really is funny.
smoothpeople33 9 months ago
@smoothpeople33 Well I'm glad you see at least some humor value. But it remains that this is how phylogyny is established. I take it, then, that you have a problem with evolution in general. If that is the case then any lineage will be unconvincing to you.
ianman6 9 months ago
390 ppl believe in god .. lol
rodney007OG 9 months ago
looks like bullshit to me.
unkhl3 9 months ago 2
@skunkhl3 God you stink.
efzt 9 months ago
hahahahahahahahahhaahaaa
1001Freedom 11 months ago
Check out the non-Christian program DESTINATION TRUTH; season 3; episode 1; time 16 minutes to 26 minutes into the episode
They are researching a haunted forest in Romania when Evan the camera man gets thrown like a rag doll out of nowhere. They see him go flying on one of their base-camp cameras of which you can't see anything pick him up and throw him.
thesacredcowtipper 11 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper When they go over to him, he has claw marks on his arm and is itching all over. Of course, they not looking at this in a Biblical way, and trying to figure it out scientifically won't say it was a demon that did it but the Bible alreay answers a lot of the world's mysteries if people would just read it. I have a friend that was into Satanism adn he has seen people get thrown around like this. (cont)
thesacredcowtipper 11 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper If Satan and his demons are real, and the Bible already gives a lot of information of who he is and what happened to him, then why not say, "It is very logical for me to beleive that there is somethign outside of this realm that science can never ascertain because it has ntohing to do with this natural world; wow, maybe the supernatural realm does exist adn created this natural realm."
thesacredcowtipper 11 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper When they go over to him, he has claw marks on his arm and is itching all over. Of course, they not looking at this in a Biblical way, and trying to figure it out scientifically won't say it was a demon that did it but the Bible alreay answers a lot of the world's mysteries if people would just read it. I have a friend that was into Satanism adn he has seen people get thrown around like this.
thesacredcowtipper 11 months ago
Just think. millions of years down the line. Highly evolved dolphins will be b*tching about where an ancient civilasation came from, on their world wide bubble net thingies.
stufaman 1 year ago
what makes thes bones transitional? is it simply based on looks? or homology? is it dna approved. why cant these skeletons be their own animal and not an ancestor. just an honest question.
BigG99 1 year ago
@BigG99
"what makes thes bones transitional?"
- the intermediary features such as the nose and it's whale-like traits such as it's periotic bones.
"is it simply based on looks? or homology? " - it's based on the science of comparative anatomy which determines relatedness by tracing small changes through a given lineage.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 but that is my point homology is very unconvincing because there are other animals with similar structures that have been deemed not of ancestoral descent.... homology is a science based on assumption.. Dna for sure is a better study but that is still new data. similar dna again is almost the same as homology in some cases. what if these creatures were instead designed, thus having similar structures and DNA like an engineer would... this of course is an assumption. same problem
BigG99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigG99
"but that is my point homology is very unconvincing because there are other animals with similar structures that have been deemed not of ancestoral descent."
- homology is determined through the field of comparative anatomy, the fact they are so proficient at their work that they can determine whether similarly appearing structures are homologous SHOULD MAKE IT CONVINCING.
"homology is a science based on assumption" - not at all.
types10000 1 year ago
@BigG99
"Dna for sure is a better study but that is still new data. similar dna again is almost the same as homology in some cases"
- that's a ridiculous statement to make. genetic similarity IS indicative of relatedness, it's an established trend that is OBSERVABLE at the parent/child and species/sub-species level.
types10000 1 year ago
@BigG99
what if these creatures were instead designed, thus having similar structures"
- comparative anatomy determines relatedness by tracing smallscale changes THROUGH a lineage (on the 'microevolutionary' level), they dont simply go 'duhhh that looks the same so they must be related'
"and DNA like an engineer would"
- again, genetic similarity being indicative of relatedness is following AN ESTABLISHED TREND, it has evidence, design has nothing.
types10000 1 year ago
@BigG99
to elaborate a little more on DNA and comparative anatomy, there are a seemingly infinite number of ways that a given instance of DNA or structure can superficially achieve the same function.
eg.
- the genes that code for platypus poison vs snake poison
- the radically different wing structure of birds and bats
however every organism in existence falls within the TESTABLE nested hierarchy of evolutionary theory. the tree is verified across the board by scientific evidence.
types10000 1 year ago
@BigG99
"is it dna approved."
- sortof.
both ambulocetus and lineage it evolved from (Pakicetids) are extinct however extant forms from both are still around.
- in the case of ambulocetus, modern day whales
- in the case of Pakicetids, modern hoofed mammals. cows .etc
science has revealed that the genetic relationship between the cow and the whale is quite similar; giving credence to the fact they both shared a fairly recent common ancestor.
types10000 1 year ago
Hey at least there's one thing all of us here CAN agree on. This debate is damn good FUN.
Here's a theory for budding scientist and religious folk alike. A way a 'God' could control and know all is to 'BE' all. And lets face it, even 'God' has to follow rules.
Theoretically, if everything is part of this 'God'/Universe. Then I don't think the rest of 'God' Cares when it hits part of itself with an asteroid because it's bored of flippin' dinosaurs. Wow! more sugar please. :)
stufaman 1 year ago
@stufaman That's an itneresting thought Stufaman. That's pantheism though.
thesacredcowtipper 11 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper Thank you. I suppose if we are all like Tamogatchi's in a realm. We would never see what's on the other side of the multiple screen we are being watched on.
stufaman 11 months ago
Every time the White Man Consontrate on something He destroys them!!!?
Look at our world today!!? I am all for Sience and understanding how things have been and are, but one has to have respect for nature and Humans too. Mostly there is no respect for nothing anymore...When was the last time that people were able to shut down a chemical factory which is destroying their water, food and the invierment!!? But i have to admit that sometimes i make the mistake of generalising everything....!!
BishiSab 1 year ago
I bet this job would be great. I know how it feels to put together a puzzle, but pieces of this magnitude would be incredible. Im eager to see more pieces, and im not a scientist.
strikenetter 1 year ago
we think, we suppose, we guess, we wonder. Yeah. so do we.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper "unbelievable"
What exactly is unbelievable about them? Simply stated, you 'getting it' is not a prerequisite of them actually existing, or being evidence for evolution. I can though see how you might not understand it, given how earlier you conflated evolution as being a huge change in a single generation...
agentorange20 1 year ago
dense bones means it was an aquatic animal? this is proof. This is a joke. These are intermeidate links? How so? One looks more like a crocodile adn another like a stinkin large rat. I can't believe people believe this stuff. If I was a college student that got indoctrinated with this crap, I would sue the college on fraud and get my money back adn that would take care of my student loan.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper "dense bones means it was an aquatic animal?"
Only partially aquatic, like the guy said. If anything it stayed near the shallows. "These are intermeidate links?"
Those shown here are but a sub-set of the entire lineage. they only show like 3 of the dozen or so that we currently know of, given more time more will be found.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 These three are unbelievable so I am sure the rest are too. Otters spend much if not most of their time in water; does this also make them a potential missing link for the whale. The whole reasoning behind this thinking is flawed. Do evolutionists believe in FARM anymore? Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, mammal?? They seem to change things they said were fact 5o years ago because things never seem to fit their theory.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper "Otters spend much if not most of their time in water; does this also make them a potential missing link for the whale."
No. It's more complicated than if it was aquatic or not, it also depends on the morphology of the species in order to determine relatedness. They can tell alot by morphology, just take a look at the ancestor of modern horses, manatees, or even homo sapiens.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper "Do evolutionists believe in FARM anymore?"
Sure, but such rigid definitions are hard to establish in cases where a species, like Tiktaalik, or Archeopteryx, or those in the cynodants blurs the normal understood lines of distinction. Also, most biologists don't narrowly define species as 'reptile', typically they associate them for instance as being one of the sub-classes, for instance Synapsids.
"change things they said were fact 5o years ago "
I'm sorry like what?
agentorange20 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper What as opposed to 2000+ year old scriptures that had folks shouting the world is flat. Thus having religious hierarchy killing folks who thought other wise? And oh look, someone thought they were wrong and prooved it. Even you can't deny the world is round.
Scientists are explorers and they are not tied to 'no you can't do that!'.
stufaman 1 year ago
@stufaman The scriptures say the world is round adn that was stated in the book of Isaiah 2,700 years ago way before science figured it out. Why do evolutionists think creationists are against science. Many creationists are scientists adn many use to believe in evolution. Before you down the scriptures, you need to read them adn not take your professor's words as fact..
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper 'Why do evolutionists think creationists are against science?'
I dunno, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, heretical witch hunting & burning, calling for teaching of religion in science classes, calling it 'just a theory', etc. might have something to do with it...
'Many creationists are scientists '
Right, like who? Kent Hovind isn't a scientist, & the likes of him certainty don't adhere to methodological naturalism.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 AIG has several scientists "on staff", along with ICR adn many other organizations. You just don't think they are scientists because they don't agree with your theory.
So when you die, you think it is all over with? What if we are right? We lost maybe 30 to 50 years of our life which would be meaningless anyhow if we cease to exist afterwards. If you are wrong, you have an eternity to think about believing in a lie. I care enough about you to tell you these things.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper 'AIG has several scientists'
Where are there peer reviewed works? Where is all there evidence that creationism is actually correct? Why is it, 'creation-science' doesn't like to adhere to the more basic rules of science, like falsifiability, testability, & repeatability by peers? As soon as you acknowledge why they do not commit to those basic science tenants, the sooner you're going to see what they're doing isn't science, but mere apologetic's.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 Many creationists scientists had peer reviewed works until they became creationists and then they were outcasts. The documentary by Ben Stein called "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" shows but a few of those instances where you become blacklisted in the scientific community. Watch the documentary and then you can say that ALL creationists are apologetics only.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper 'Many creationists scientists had peer reviewed works '
Wonderful excuses, but still you cannot mention a single one. Quite telling...
'blacklisted in the scientific community'
I've watched it, quite a few times, quite a lot wrong with their assertions, both in principle & in what actually occurred. That's b/c those fuckstards weren't practicing science either.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper 'when you die, you think it is all over with?'
This has nothing to do with evolution, or cetacean evolution at all, so how about you instead of moving to another topic try to answer my statements I sent you & commented on already? As far as, 'what happens after death', I do not know & frankly nor do you.
'What if we are right?'
What if you're wrong?
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 I know the hereafter exists - not because of science but because of thigns I have experienced. God's word says that if I repent of my sins, and believe on Christ's redemptive work on the cross for me that I would be saved adn when I did that adn surrendered my life to Him, there was a inner cleansing that I experienced from all my past sins. It's good to feel clean inside.Some of the gifts of the spirit like prophecy and words of knowledge happen at times to me by the Holy Spirit
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper 'I know the hereafter exists'
Bullshit. You believe, you do not know. There is a BIG difference between believing & knowing, conflating the 2 as you just did shows you don't know the difference.
'thigns I have experienced.'
& a single, subjective, anecdotal opinion of some random guy on the internet is convincing evidence why?
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 There was a time in my life that I wasn't right with God and a demonic entity tried to enter me a few times. My eyes started to roll back in me when it was happening adn it freaked my buddy Mike out. These things are real. I knwo there are a lot of stupid things out there like ghost hunters - most fo that is fake but there is some real evil spirits called familiar spirits that appear as a loved one to deceive people. Not science.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper 'demonic entity'
Sure it did.
'These things are real'
Sure, they're real b/c YOU say they're real? Not convincing. You need actual evidence, something testable, of your claims. Mere hearsay wont suffice, not by a long shot.
'ghost hunters - most fo that is fake'
Oh, so that ghost hunters are fake, while your demons are real? Please, both are utterly laughable & neither have any empirical evidence whatsoever.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 Over 3,000 prophecies in the Bible have come to pass so I am going to take everything else it says seriously and there is much talk about the afterllife and it explains who will live in paradise and who will go to the other place that rejected God's provision of salvation. I am not so concerned about evolution as I am for your soul. He loves you and cares about you but sin cannot exist in paradise or it wouldn't be paradise for those who have been cleaned up spiritually.
thesacredcowtipper 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper Oh Common!!!!? Bible has been rewritten so many times and some people still believe in every words!!!? I too Believe in a power that mostly is hard for us humans to understand. Specially when some Evil people Poisen our Body throu water and food, so that our ability to understand these thing drastically are reduced. But please Research when was the last time Bible was rewrittn once again and by which company. !!? Get wise, because your enemy is.....!!?
BishiSab 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper '3,000 prophecies in the Bible'
Bullshit. & besides, what of those which didn't come to pass? Not to mention the flawed logic of saying its a prophecy when you have no way now to confirm said events actually occurred or not, & that virtually all of the claims are those which are easily self fulfilling.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 You want failed prophecies of the Bible? Ok. It was predicted that Demascus would fall into ruin. That the Nile would dry up for ever. That noone would enter Jerusalem uncircumcised. That Egypt would be uninhabited for 40 years. That the world would end before Jesus' generation died.
There are many more, all you have to do is look them up. You clearly have Google, so why stay in ignorance? It doesn't help the problem go away.
1234funsies 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper Actually the bahai religion is more accurate. You’d better convert to save your soul.. On the second thought Buddhism is the truth, you’d better convert to save your soul.. Actually Islam's where its at, convert now and live with God forever.. Wait a moment. Rather than just making blind guesses on what we personally find more attractive, lets cut the bullsh*t, stop the guessing, and wait for the proof. Isn’t that more honest after all?
NightHawkBomber001 1 year ago
@thesacredcowtipper I would never want to rid the history of any religion. All are responsible for so much life coming to be. We live in a time where people are more free to believe what they want.
I choose to believe evolution over all other religions. As far as when I die, those who remember me will carry my afterlife. NOT a god.
stufaman 1 year ago
@agentorange20 ON THE DUCKBILL PLATYPUS "it's (sic) cousins are all but extinct" HAR HAR HAR HAR ROFL ROFL
brayingjackass 1 year ago
This evidence only shows that the animal was heavy. Being so heavy the animals bones would have to support more weight thus the bone would grow more solid. This has nothing to do with animals evolving from one another. The elephant bones are also semi-solid like the whale. Does it mean the elephant is aquatic too? Lol, no it means the elephant bones are structured that way to support their enormous weight. How can this be transitional evidence?
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger, if they had used the elephant as the link to whales it would be more believable than pakicetus who looks like a giant rat with long legs. HAR HAR HAR HAR
brayingjackass 1 year ago
this is hilarious! according to this, if enough of my decendants wish they were a bird, somebodys going to bleeping sprout feathers!
betterworld1 1 year ago
@betterworld1
that's not at all what is said in the vid or what is explained by evolution theory.
you didn't even watch or read about evolution, that much is obvious.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic well, if my decendants swim enough can they become fishes? after millions of years of course?
betterworld1 1 year ago
@betterworld1
swim enough? that's not at all what evolution theory says. what you are implying is lamarcism. a disproved theory.
only if some of your descendants randomly mutated a trait that allowed a more beneficial phenotype in an aquatic environment there might be a chance of a positive selection towards more marine existence of the next descendants.
become fishes? a fish defines a group of species that are not mammals. ergo your words make no sense.
get an education, kid.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic but i heard a professor state that "given enough time you can change anything into anything."
betterworld1 1 year ago
@betterworld1
in terms of phenotype, why not? it just takes time.
doesn't mean you make a fish or an ant. it means the species change into different things, that might look like a fish or an ant.
once dolphins were thought to be fish.
seriously... get an education.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic but the kind of education you recomend seems such a waste of time and money.
betterworld1 1 year ago
@betterworld1
considering that the majority of people who make money and produce knowledge did "waste" money and time in such education, your remark is quite a show of stupidity, ignorance and sheer nonsense.
try get an education, dumbass.
unless you like living in a trailer park doing drugs.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic you mean you have to believe in macro evolution in order make money and produce knowledge?
betterworld1 1 year ago
@betterworld1
nope, you can become a minister and try to fool people into believing god exists. that makes a lot of money too. dosn't produce knowledge though...
and what the f is macro evolution in your words? i bet you can't say.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic ppp.
betterworld1 1 year ago
@betterworld1 translunatic thinks that the accusation of "belief in God" proves evolution.
brayingjackass 1 year ago
@transtlantic macro-evolution is something like you jumping off the cliff 1000 times with a safety net under and after 1000 years and a couple of generations you grow wings. micro-evolution is humans having different skin colour, different eye colour, hair , height, weight. The difference is that nothing new appears in macroevolutions, but caracteristics like the amount of melanin modify themselves between certain margings THAT CANNOT BE OVERCAME .
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp
ah...always lovely when christian fucktards use analogies that don't relate at all to what happens in reality...funny, but sad crap.
Macro evolution is MICRO evolution in a different scale. end of.
"grow wings"- nothing in evolution says that.
Macro evolution is also humans having different skin color, (especially considering that it took a lot more than 1000 generations of Homo sapiens for such trait to appear).
same for eye color.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp
red-hair, height and weight actually are traits that already existed previous to the Homo sapiens species. so... you also using macroevolution for that.
"nothing new appears"? lol... bullshit. you are not even defining macro and micro. you just made a stupid analogy that can be used BOTH for micro and macro evolution. moron.
what you are mixing is macro evolution with speciation.
want examples? sure:
Vascular plant speciation, wall-lizard speciation, etc.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic They tried doing that with chickens and cows in the alimentar industry and the results are dezastrous.
nightcrawlercyp 1 year ago
@nightcrawlercyp
"nothing new" - down syndrome, new genotype in a line of progenitors without such genotype. S.aureus becoming MRSA, VRSA, and more. Legs in mutant snakes, tails in mutant humans, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc MILLIONS of examples.
2 black parents having a white child is NOT "certain margings". in fact we have EVIDENCE of such phenomena because RANDOM ungodly natural mutations happen resulting in NEW traits.
tried what to do in chickens? you are a complete idiot. loser.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@betterworld1 translunatic gives the same old tired bullshit answers to everyone. He's a self-confessed liar. My favorite quote from him is "ALL HORSES are born black." He's an idiot troll.
brayingjackass 1 year ago
this is evidence that indohyus existed and had amphibious qualities, not that it is a link....
Let me know when you figure out the platypus.
jarak36 1 year ago
@jarak36 "not that it is a link..."
I think you're neglecting all the other species which came after indohyus and weren't modern cetaceans nor were they terrestrial.
"figure out the platypus"
It's a very old class of egg laying mammals that gives milk to it's young, it's cousins are all but extinct.
agentorange20 1 year ago
The 388 people who disliked this are retarded.
Proghead88 1 year ago
@Proghead88
the 388 people are most likely Evolution hating creationists...
silverangel1110 1 year ago
A Bottlenose Dolphin With Four Fins found in Japan.
mmifsud07 1 year ago
I am sorry to inform but "Whale evolution" is riddled with massive assumptions, I have studied it extensively for years. It's very poor science. Science as a whole looses credibility because of this.
goshawker07 1 year ago
@goshawker07 "Whale evolution" is riddled with massive assumptions"
OK, honestly I am not sure what you mean, like what assumptions? I could understand it not being the strongest case for descent w/ modification,but it is a piece of evidence for that model & model adheres to the rigors of methodological naturalism, so I am curious why you'd says it's not science.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 You don't know what assumptions? It assumes evolution. Otherwise all you have are a number of similar animals with no proof of lineage. goshawker is right, it makes scientists look like idiots.
brayingjackass 1 year ago
@goshawker07......like what assumptions?
agentorange20 1 year ago
@goshawker07 Sorry bro but you "lose" all credibility as a whole when you say "looses"....
robertchflynn 1 year ago
@goshawker07 ya know that exact statement you just said is very fishy for instance if you studied it and know alot about it then why youtube it for more information and also there are very few assumptions but there is very high proof that the whale did infact walk on land at one time
millanrob 1 year ago
@goshawker07 Hehe, "looses"??? One thing I like about scientists is that most of them can spell. Err..unlike creationists.: )
winterstellar 1 year ago
Whale Evolution is mere speculation and guess work at best. The only way the evidence shown in this video can persuade the viewer is by applying there pre- conceived assumptions to the outcome. There are so many variables left unexplained its ridiculous. Call it what it is... an hypothesis, nothing more.
goshawker07 1 year ago
@goshawker07 obviously this video is not the all evidence on whale evolution, if one were to review the dozen or so fossilized species that exist which demonstrate the process is easier to understand. I wouldn't expect only 2 fossils, to demonstrate the shared ancestry.
agentorange20 1 year ago
This is a joke video right? I'm a bio-geneticist and this is so far from science it's embarrassing.
goshawker07 1 year ago
@goshawker07 why is it not science mr bio-geneticist? does it not use methodological naturalism (science method)?
agentorange20 1 year ago
Umm I'm thinking....not
h2omanz 1 year ago
Oh good! There's no religious nutters in here saying,"No this is all wrong!"
Oops.
Anyway I think we see similar creatures now don't we? Duck billed platepus(yeah I know, spelling) evolved mammals that say,"sod it! Not having much luck here I'll look in the water."
Maybe we humans might evolve so dependant on technology, we might evolve into big robots that turn into stuff.
stufa1978 1 year ago
Why does similarities show direct descent and not just relation. Could all these species have existed at the same time?
brewercap 1 year ago
brewercap, relation is descent, one is implied by the other, you can't be related to someone unless you're a descendant of them. They could be all have existed at the same time, but more likely there would be overlapping between forms as forms tend to go extinct, & further the array of species for cetaceans covers something like 50+ million years.
agentorange20 1 year ago
They bitch when you don't have any fossils, and then they bitch when you find all the transitional fossils.
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hmmm. I don't understand how scientists can assume a pre-evolution form of a creature. Evolution is a theory. As far as I know, theory is not an established fact but a suggestion... Meaning it has flaws.
If we evolve from one organism. We can have sex with any creature and produce a different form of creature then.
Every creature has different sex organs. It's made by pairs. We have chromosomes that match each pair thus giving birth to a creature of our kind.
maac 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And if Evolution is a fact. It is not impossible for a man to impregnate a monkey because it is our ancestor or rather our relative. Thus giving birth to a hybrid of a man and a monkey.
It is also not impossible for a man to impregnate a horse or a male horse to impregnate a woman. Thus giving birth to hybrid of a man and a horse. Here in the Phlippines we call it "Tikbalang". It is a mythological creature that has a head of a horse, a body of a man, the legs of the horse and the tail.
maac 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If we can impregnate a monkey we can give birth to Super Saiyans like Son Gouku. lol
Anyway if "Tikbalang" was not a myth but a real creature. Then evolution must be right. lol.
maac 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm a Christian and I don't believe in the "rapture" it was never mentioned in the bible. It was made up by a girl who dreamed about it and the news was spread all over.
And I don't believe the earth was made a few thousand years ago and started with Adam and Eve. If you really read the very first verse in bible you would realise it is not a young earth.
And I don't believe in a world wide flood. If you read it from hebrew you would realise it was just a part of the earth that was flooded.
maac 2 years ago
That's what I believe too!
RockSmithStudio 2 years ago
NO, we split from monkeys and are now to far from them to mate.
We were one species, but now we are two species. Species means you cant breed together.
You don't understand evolution !
gregrutz 2 years ago 5
Theories-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Theories are very well proven and are just as apt as scientific laws
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Haha. Ok then. But as far as i know evolution means changing a creatures appearance or characteristics to adapt to the changing environment. Monkey did change it's appearance but they live on land same as humans do today, so why the sexual aspect changed???
If it is our relative then it would be just like the wolf and dog can cross breed, tiger and lion, a horse and a zebra, camel and lama, leopard and lion, etc.
So a monkey suddenly gave birth to a human and it's a different species?
maac 2 years ago
No because the wolf and dog are the SAME species. Tiger and Lion can, but not always producing fertile offspring, a horse and a zebra can but always produce infertile offspring. Because of the distance of evolutionary change between species some will die early when crossed or be infertile. We have different numbers of chromosomes to a chimp so offspring would be rare if possible at all.
Munro1Man 2 years ago 2
So a monkey suddenly gave birth to a human and it's a different species?
No, that is not what happened, no one ever thought that.
Species, breeding populations, evolve.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Evolution is both theory and fact just like gravity is both theory and fact.
Both gravity and evolution are clearly phenomena that manifest in the real word. The respective theories thereof try to explain WHY that is the case. They themselves are subject to testing/observation/falsification/predictions or in short the scientific method and if they are shown to be deficient like Newtons theory of gravity they will be modified to fit new evidence.
infinit888 2 years ago 2
this evolution crap is pissing me off how could you believe we came from a rock or a particle in the ocean or whatever you want to believe its bull crap its such an evil theory and theres no proof for it at all. you just think there is and go oh theres the proof right there and its not you just want to keep that theory and im sure a lot of you know its wrong but you dont care. so believe what you want to believe a lot of you will be disappointed when you die
furyofoleary22 2 years ago
Evolution has nothing to do with religious belief. The Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox, Christian churches fully accept evolution. Yet apparently you don't.
If you have published or even unpublished scientific papers which present your evidence contradicting evolution; then perhaps you could share them with us. Otherwise, you are just parading your ignorance like a flag.
asianlife53 2 years ago 2
This is very interesting.
kingferret53 2 years ago
Just a note:
You say "the evolution of 'Cetations'"...that should be spelled 'Cetaceans'.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
Stupid vote-bots. These fundies always bring them with them.
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry folks but these scientists, educated as they are, are totally grasping at straws. How on earth can they build such an extreme theory on such scant evidence? They have tunnel vision.
carp1844 2 years ago
Did you take '' there is no evidence'' lessons for Hovlid. Open your eyes, you have never seen a fossil or read a science book.
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
Yea, the same way you believe your God with no evidence. Please open a book thats not the bible or what ever holy book thats part of your religion and see how wrong you are.
TheDarkKnight987 2 years ago
There's also a great documentary floating around sometimes on national geographic or one of the discovery channels, I think you can find parts on youtube
eldictator1 2 years ago
And by saying complicated, I mean that there must have been a whole lot of branches that disappeared. Then we must find when one species separated into others to form dolphins and whales. It is almost obvious that it occured to an animal that was close to both of them. Maybe some things they are saying here will be proven wrong, because one of those species will be a dead branch, and the next step will have evolved from something else.
ivanlagrossemoule 2 years ago
early whales hahaha!!!!!!!!!
rocha333 2 years ago
rocha 333 ha ha ha what a joke
eldictator1 2 years ago
These are not facts, Whales evolution, HAHAHAHAH! fools!
rocha333 2 years ago
the fossils are facts, they're empircally testable as they exist.
agentorange20 2 years ago
It's the interpretation that gets slippery.
carp1844 2 years ago
Thankfully, there is peer review. A self-correcting and independent process that all science must go through in order to be accepted by the community. If you truly feel as if there is something wrong, then by all means; investigate and go public with your discoveries.
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago 2
I couldn't agree with you more. Fortunately the thousands of scientists that support creation have already gone public with amazing discoveries which has dwindled the evolution believing American population down to 39%. I am as thankful for the self correction process as you are.
carp1844 2 years ago
All that proves is that 61% of the American population are idiots. And for every 1 scientist that supports creation there are several dozen ready to discredit that work. There are reasons why you don't see creation in museums (outside of that one museum, that's been disowned by the scientific community as a whole). I'm sorry, but you're never going to convince the scientific world that an invisible all-powerful being lives in the sky and created the earth 6000 years ago.
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago
I don't need to convince the evolutionary scientists of God's existence. That will be taken care of on it's own in due time. Besides, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. The Bible says those who deny Noah's flood are "willingly ignorant". How can I convince a person who is willingly ignorant?
carp1844 2 years ago
So god created all these similarities to make it all just 'look like' common ancestry & evolution is going on? But that statement isn't science, it can't be falsified.
Next I guess you're going to say god also made the earth appear old, as from what we can tell it's at least 4.57 billion years old. Aren't such acts at the very least misleading or look like a trickster?
agentorange20 2 years ago
All of the dating methods evolutionists use have been shown to be faulty. Radiometric dating has been shown to be off by a factor of 10,000. In other words that turns a billion years into a thousand. Helium is still found in granite at a depth of 9000 feet. It can only be there if the earth is only thousands of years old. Radio halos in granite prove instant solidification and not cooling over billions of years. Coal was produced in a lab in one years time. Evolution is in trouble.
carp1844 2 years ago
Helium is not used to radiometrically date the age of the earth.
The radiometric methods that ARE used to date the earth are reliable, especially things such as isochrons, which contain internal self-checks on the validity of the data. The consistently show the earth to be billions of years old, not just thousands.
Put down the anti-science religous crap and read some science.
DNAunion 2 years ago
You must not be aware of the granite core samples from 14000 feet up to 3000 feet. The helium levels in the granite are completely inconsistent with a 4 billion year old earth. Question: Are you aware of the radio halos found in all granite in the late 70s? They are spherical scars from radioactivity that occurs for only a 4 second time period. If granite took more than 4 seconds to cool then the scarring would not occur. Rapid solidification consistent with creation.
carp1844 2 years ago
@carp1844
If you are going to respond to me, then respond to what I say.
Isochrons have internal checks, and multiple isochrons, using different parent-daughter isotopes, have been run on individual samples, producing consistent ages for the earth, meteorites, and moon rocks. They are billions of years old.
DNAunion 1 year ago
Ahh, yes. Due time. In other words, you expect it to happen at teh rapture, or when they die or some other way that's completely unverifiable to ever happen. And know one's being willingly ignorant. We're just not ready to warp reality to fit a religion like you.
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago
Actually, no Green. You have the rare privilege of speaking to someone who actually knows how to understand these prophecies. It is sad but 98% of Christians DO NOT understand these prophecies. I can show you exactly how they have fulfilled beginning in 605 BC all the way up to now. I can also tell you of events that it appears could happen within the next 10 years. These prophecies predict the rise and fall of Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, The Papacy, and the United States.
carp1844 2 years ago
Christ, not another prophecy-hound. ALL kingdoms rise and fall. Our own country will rise and fall. That's just the way of the world. And They've been claiming that the rapture will happen now for the past 1800 years. Of course, they didn't have God's special little child that you are, did they. Christ, the ego on you...
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago
The rise and fall of these nations was predicted BEFORE they even existed or rose to power with the exception of Babylon because Babylon was in existence and in power when the prophecy was penned. Are you sure you know everything? If these prophecies were made plain to you and you were able to see the compromised position you are in right now you would apologize up and down to me and every other person that has tried to tell you about Christ. Don't make the biggest mistake a human can ever make.
carp1844 2 years ago
I've already blasphemed against your God and have no intention of changing my tune, so spare me your romantic nonsense and save yourself the time. Even if there WERE evidence of your God, I would never bow done to a genocidal, bigoted, megalomaniacal murderer. And if you had a working brain, you'd be right here with me.
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago
I think what you say is a fair statement and God does not hold it against us for coming to what seems to be a logical conclusion. If you are sincere in your opinion of Him then how can you be held accountable? You are just being honest. But God says, "Come let us reason together". God invites you to learn why His hand was forced to do these things. There is a battle raging right now and God is as much a victim as you and I. My point is to make sure you know His reasons before condemning Him.
carp1844 2 years ago
If God is truly willing to reason, then I will hear him out. In person, mind you. I don't take interpretations in place of a conversation. Have him seek me out and explain his actions to me, and then we'll talk.
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you were to see Him in person in your sinful state you would cease to exist. I can only tell you about what I have experienced. 99% of any spiritual questions I have ar