There are innumerable books of fiction that contain huge amounts of factual data; real events, real people, real places. Yet, no one seriously makes the claim that because there are so many historically accurate details Robert Ludlum's "Jason Bourne" actually exists or that the supernatural events in a Steven King novel really occurred.
The problem I have is that the speaker and many others trying to prove the legitimacy of the Bible don't get that no matter how many "facts", incidences, names, events in the Bible can be supported by other sources, this does not prove that the entire book is 100% accurate. In particular, to claim that the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are true and the proof is that several natural events depicted in the Bible are corroborated is ridiculous.
Einstein didn't "prove" the big bang theory, you moron. it wasn't even his idea in the first place.And why not call everything else in the bible a metaphor. Like existance of moses, since there's no evidence of his existance..So who decides what is literal and what is a metaphor? you?
People who are honestly trying to understand the universe don't use metaphors. it's not philosophy. It's science..Creationist have nothing but a bullshit story from a magical book of fantasy.
you should read the bible properly" by first believing that it's absolutely true and accurate and then create reasons to support it or twist and misrepresent the definition of the word 'evidence' ..that's the creationsit way..use scientific terminology on people who don't understand any of it. that's what you do and you should be ashamed of yourself because underneath all that fansy misuse of terminology...you're a liar.
Creationist don't have a position to defend. they are deniars of some one else's position. Ask any creationist to link the bible with the origin of the universe. All they will have is a magical story that includes two naked people in a garden and a talking snake. It's like taling to a 6 year old child.
@vjholliday The fact that you refer to a talking snake shows the understanding of a 6 year old.
Ever hear of a metaphor? Snakes had great symbolic meaning in other ancient cultures. And WHO is ignorant?
The Bible spoke of the universe having a beginning thousands of years before Eintein proved it. Lucky guess, I suppose- like the great deluge being, which has been proven, as well.
Jesus made us our own free moral agents because He wants us to choose Him because we want to. Give up your foolish pride and prepare for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Bad times are ahead for those that choose Satan and his lies. There is not much time left. Jesus loves you so much He died that you may TRULY LIVE. He is about to appear in the clouds to take those that love him just before bad times and the antichrist. Bible prophecy has ALWAYS come to pass, and will again!!!! That is fact!
@always30 yes, bible prophecy always comes to pass. Thats why Jesus' second coming was while his apostles were still alive, like he told them it would be. In fact all of the apostles were "preparing for HIS second coming" It didn't happen, obviously.
No. Jesus did not tell his apostles that he would return in their lifetimes. He said THIS GENERATION shall not pass away. He was referring to their physical generation. Hes referring to what Eschatology refers to as the fig tree generation which hed just been speaking about then says And THIS GENERATION. Hes not talking to his disciples concerning their lifetime. He was talking about the alotted descripted time period hed just spoken about.
@Davemustang2600 Um yes, jesus did imply to his apostles that he would come again in their lifetime. All that talk about getting the church redy for his return and all that. Paul for sure thought he was coming back. The bible leaves details out, but if you use common sense, this is put together easily
You typed the word Um? Is that even a word? I thought that was a sound people made when their mouths were moving in place of their brains.
I have a degree in Theology stupid. You dont understand context. Nor do you understand how Jesus spoke and how he referred to things. When referring to the Temple. Jesus said 'Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in 3 days.' Jesus wasnt referring to the temple however his disciples thought he was. He was talking about Him
@Davemustang2600 If you have degree, I doubt you would nitpick about the word um. Thats something people who have nothing smart to say do. Maybe you should have gotten that degree in common sense and archaeology. You might understand the bible better for what it is. A historical book borrowed from cultures and exaggerated immensely. Stupid. A degree in theology is fucking useless. Congrats bro.
You realize in your first in your first 13 words you negated anything youve said or will ever say on here. You can come back from ignorance and even stupidity. Once you reach 'Fool' theres no return.
You have no common sense. And 90 percent of archaeology is imagination. Only 10 percent is actual science. I have friends who are paleontologists who will not say that in an interview but will admit to me over coffee.
You can dig around in the dirt until now until Jesus returns but youre not getting the big picture. Youre not even getting half the picture. Youre not even getting the frame the picture was set in. Youre getting? Mostly dirt! Takes more hope and dumb blind faith to trust archaeology than it does Scripture.
I understand what the Bible is. Where it came from. Who wrote it. Why they wrote it. And how every piece fits together in time.
This ridiculous idea that the Bible 'borrowed' stories from earlier cultures is nonsense. And its meant to sway idiots like you who dont know any better than to believe it.
Ancient Sumerian texts? Date back to 3000 BC. The Septuagint dates back to the exact say time. The Bible isnt a collection of earlier myths. Genesis was being written at the exact same time the Enki tablets in Sumeria were.
The flood account doesnt occur in the Bible because its relaying a version of a story from an earlier culture. It relays an account of something all of Mesopotamia regions were witnessing. Theyre are relaying their own accounts of events. Only the Bible has the credibility as the authority of said events for 2 reasons. 1. Historical accuracy. 2. Fulfilled Prophecies. 2500 to be exact.
If you did more homework than you did repeating other idiots assumptions we wouldnt be having this conversation.
Jesus in that moment referred to what Scholars call 'The Fig Tree Generation' Its this generation that see ALL the prophesies fulfilled concerning His returning. The disciples stayed in a state of confusion about what Jesus said because He referred to things beyond their ability to reason when He first spoke them.
Paul wasnt expecting Jesus returning. Thats why he kept saying he wanted to give himself an offering meaning martyrdom. He was in a hurry to get out of here but he didnt expect to leave via Rapture or Second Coming.
In fact, Christians that were expecting Jesus to return quickly Paul scolded and told them to get off their butts and go to work. Thats where the famous Pauline quote 'If you dont work you dont eat' comes from.
Just as Adam and Eves sin effects us to this day. God is a loving God, but will not tolerate sin. But soon those that love him will forever be without sin and evil and all its hassles, death, pain, suffering. aging, etc. When we rule and reign with Jesus we will be able to walk up to Lions, Bears, they will be tame as God intended in the beginning before sin. It will be amazing!!!! They will only eat plants, no more blood shed. Satan is the ruler of this world, and his desire is for you!!!!!!
One thing to seriously think about, your soul will end up in one of 2 places. And it will be there for ETERNITY. Jesus is coming soon, and He is so sweet and has so much for those who seek Him. No more hassles, no more pain, no more death. More proof is the curses we live under for our insistence on sinning. From the beginning of Adam and Eve to know, we suffer from their poor choices and their desire for sin. Our choices not only affect us but our children, and our childrens children.
govt. We can't see love but we feel it and know it exists right? EVERYONE can agree on that. Guess what, the Bible says God is love!!!!!! People who don't wish to acknowledge proof of God is due to the fact that they don't want to be held accountable for their actions. The Bible also says, " a fool claims there is no God." Archeology they are pulling out of the ground in Israel is proof the Bible is Gods word. Everything found is exactly where the Bible says it would be.
@always30 The bible says a lot of things to dispel people from leaving the religion. Thats why in genesis its the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Keyword is knowledge which has always been the enemy of religion. it wasnt the love of god that ,made the jews believe, it was the FEAR of god. The entire old testament has accounts of a wrathful, avenging god, but yet the new has only a forgiving god. Either its two different gods or he has a split personality.
First of all the Bible says there will be no excuse for any man to say he had no idea there is a God, all you have to do is look around you. Not one will be able to stand before Him and say I didn't know. His majesty in all He has created, including yourself, is proof alone. But we know evil exists, it manifests itself everyday in one form or another. That evil has a source, and it's name is Satan. People nowadays are openly worshiping Satan especially in the entertainment industry and world
@BereanBeacon, thanks for a very inspiring and motivating video. I'm gonna use some of the facts here to inform Bible detractors and disbelievers. This vid is definitely a treasure. Isn't there an earlier part and a part 2? i really would like to hear the conclusion. Thanks again and may you be blessed with more efforts like this.
@tuberobotto This is just some guy talking and cherry picking stories - he's not presenting facts. You should believe things that actually have evidence. Come on - he talks about a lion and bear working together to steal food. what kind of nonsense is that - where has anyone ever observed anything like that in the wild. Of course not. He goes on about giants too, they don't exist either.
does the argument from silence have something to do with the god of the gaps for evolutionary theory?
BTW, all scientific knowledge is made from within theories. Theory of electromagnetism, theory of gravity, theory of quantum mechanics. All growing and building as we learn more.
@candiceevans1 I don't understand why somebody can't believe in evolution and also believe in God? Evolution exists and is independent of any religious agenda. It exists, there is no doubt about it, and just because it exists absolutely does not prove or disprove the concept of God.
@skcin7 You can tell Richard Dawkins that and see if you get a 'friendly' answer. Dawkins' evolution is sharply opposed to creationism and he doesn't waste time to refute creationism and oppose the existence of God, though his efforts are futile in my opinion.
You've got to go deeper into their philosophy and you will find that their primary goal is to get the world into believing that God doesn't exist. But how long can you sustain that argument? Only 'till while you live.
@skcin7 very true. It just blows away the biblical creation story and that story is in itself contradictory of itself so should not be taken literally anyway. Perhaps a metaphor would work better. Anyway Christians, read up - there are actually 2 creation stories that contradict each other in the bible. Geology, Physics, Genetics, biology and many other fields of science contradict the story empirically so why believe it as a literal truth?
"The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrovertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jerusalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. who were eager to burnish their national history."
Lazare, D. 'False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History,' Harper's Magazine, March, 2002.
The bible is not pure fact in every way and I don't need archeology to prove that. Ezra chapter 2 and Nehemiah chapter 7. Which numbers are the correct figures? This is not to remove all validity from the bible as a historical document but it does serve as evidence that it is not completely inerrent.
So a lot is learned about archeology in a 5 year time period let alone 20 or 30. Obviously the information is going to be outdated. If you're not learning what is current.... what's the point of learning it? Many things may have been corrected, adjusted, thrown out, etc. Science is an ever improving study and just about everything is provisional; meaning it can be changed if new information comes to light.
No, actually if you listened to the audio at around the 8:20-9:00 minute mark, the man speaking mentions a woman, "in 1987...20 years ago...", so I assume this was recorded in 2007.
Mumbo jumbo? That's quite an insult to the scientists who have spent their lifetimes understanding evolution, don't you think? You do realize without our knowledge of evolution we'd never cured poleo and other diseases? Not to mention it's never been disproven or had any need to be seriously revamped. The same cannot be said about very many aspects of archeology, hence my "30 years old??" comment.
What about evolution is "mumbo jumbo" ? Care to be specific?
@pokerslut530 evolution is a THEORY that is being taught as fact. A frog can turn into a prince...ding, ding, ding..fairy tail but let a "scientist" tell the story and a frog does turn into a prince. Just add a few 100 million years to the story. Sounds like a fairy tail to me.
" Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted myself to phantasy." - Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol.2, pg. 229
Of course Darwin was suspect of his own findings, he didn't have much evidence to go on at that time. We're talking over 200 years ago, you brainiac, and since have found mountains of supporting evidence without ever finding a single shred of refuting evidence.
I highly advise tugging slowly when you're ready to remove your head from your ass.
And one more thing, go take your stupid ass on over to google and type in "scientific theory" and explain to me how a theory is somehow anything less than fact. Please, I'd love to hear you explain this.
You don't even know the most basic thing about science and yet, have the gall to challenge its validity. That sir, is what we call proudly talking out of our ass.
Stop talking about something you know nothing about especially in such an assertive tone as if you KNOW.
Again quoting Darwin? Did I not just explain to you that his opinions were due to a severe lack of evidence? That his opinions are over 200 years old and since we've acquired mountains of evidence without ever finding any shred of evidence disproving evolution?
Stop willingly being stupid. It's not very becoming, it certainly doesn't lend you any intellectual points nor does it lend your religion any credibility. You people are going to kill your own religion with your own moronic behavior.
Because Dawkin's quote is outdated and essentially useless. You're pulling a quote from 200 years ago before we even had microscopes.
Yeah, that's a real valid argument. And somehow I am a bad person because I can't believe how fucking stupid you are to even be willing to make such an assinine statement without letting it swirl around in your brain for a second.
Yeah, it's me who is the bad guy for trying to correct your guys' serious misconceptions.
You still haven't logically explained how a 200 year old quote is relevant today or somehow negates the scientific evidence accumulated since.
Using profanity is the only way I know how to express my utter shock at how illogical your statement is.
Even after I just explained to you we didn't even have microscopes back then you retort with "oooh profanity" and STILL insist you're right. Whats left to say besides "wow you're a fucking idiot!"
@pokerslut530 HA HA HA! I know people personally who use profanity. They freely admit it's because they don't know how to express their minds & they usually do so when they have NO TIME to ponder their words before they speak.
What makes YOURS more horrible? None of us FORCE you to comment IMMEDIATELY. You CAN stay away UNTIL you can formulate a reasonable response!
@pokerslut530 Of course there are misconceptions. No one knows everything. It's the attitude that matters. Not the level of knowledge. Would you be so kind to verify my playlists on: 1. top of the bill sciences 2. decades of updates you seem to have missed probably because your attitude has prevented you RESEARCHING (not cheep Twittery scorning) sound science. Life is designed 'learning by experience'. The Bible is the best attitude Teacher. You, I prove it daily. grtz
@hiyosilver100 yes its a theory. A Scientific theory is an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts things which can be observed and/or measured and theories - explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
@Realityprogramming Evolution has never been observed. And it can not be reproduced under controlled conditions let alone repeated. Evolution is NOT scientific based on their on definitions. It's closer to a religion complete with belief systems based solely on faith.
(Why did you bother to respond to a comment over a year old?)
@hiyosilver100 I'm afraid you are incorrect, modern medicine and all of biology is based on the theory of evolution. Why do you think you need to get a flu shot every year? its because the virus responsible has evolved and a new vaccine is required. Calling it a belief system based on faith just shows how little you know. I suggest you do a bit of research and get back to me. By research i mean look at the scientific evidence.
I wasn't looking at the age of the comments - just responding.
@Realityprogramming No one NEEDS to get a flu shot. And what you refer to is micro evolution. I stand by what I said. Evolution is NOT scientific and has never been observed. Yes. A good idea. Please do look at the scientific evidence. You will quickly see that evolution has not happened and in fact is impossible based on the the events required. DNA is information. Perhaps explain how 'information' can be evolved from nothing. Out here.
@hiyosilver100 If it's not scientific why is it that the vast majority of scientists in the field disagree with you? Here is something else that you should watch which may help you understand. watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw
@hiyosilver100 You should really read that entire quote from "The Origin of Species"...Not only yours is inaccurate ("...seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.") but, more important, it goes on by saying that with further reflection, it is perfectly natural that lower life forms developed light-sensible cells that evolved to become our eye. Don't take phrases out of context or, if you are just repeating something you've heard, try to consult the source before using it.
@n2motocross so is god, you mad bro trolololololololololololololololololololololololololol
We can actually witness evolution and adaptations in real life, watch the tasmanian devils, suffering from tumors, the older ones are more sucsptable. So genes are being made that make breeding at younger ages possible, and it is spreading, and this will be a makeshift fix until they have a gene that stops this tumor disease
@n2motocross not all atheists are rude. Not all religious reject evolution. the catholic church and the protestants accept evolution. even sects of islam accepted evolution (they actually put the idea forward before darwin.)
I don't think the religious community with hundreds of books can claim the truth when evolution has one primary book.
Why is your religion right and mormans are wrong?
@n2motocross >> Why do atheists get so upset when Christians express their belief in the one true, living GOD. Darwin was NEVER able to prove his 'theory', where's the missing link!? My advice to atheist, you still have time to give your life to Jesus Christ and be saved!! Please do, you'll thank me eternally! GOD is LOVE.
@n2motocross >> Atheist can't win and that makes them mad, where they should be concerned with their 'eternal soul'. Yes, forever is a long long time and failure to accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal savior, will sentence you to eternal damna tion
@RANJO517 you are using a computer that works because of science - its not magic. Science gives us answers because it is the only tool we have for finding out how things really work. Atheists just use those same methods to examine your claims for the existence of a god and have come to the conclusion that you don't have any evidence for your claim. You just have faith - not evidence.
@Realityprogramming >>> I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I feel sorry for your blindness, since you've never seen a sunset or a birth of a grandbaby. The flowers in the spring and as in my case, your lovely wifes eyes. GOD bless you and oh yes, prove to me that there is no GOD. My proof surrounds you EVERYWHERE!
@RANJO517 All I see round me is the natural world. I see no magic man in the sky. If you believe there is then surely there would be some evidence for this? If there is I have not found any, so again I ask: If you have evidence for your god please show me as I am open to changing my mind.
P.S. Your opening insult is a really old one and sounds much better coming from a solid argument.
I agree with you my friend. Everybody was created perfect and with eyes and ears just listen and look around you. God will reveal himself to you man cannot prove God . He is the all living God master and creator of everyone ! Even unbelievers. GOD BLESSYOU!
@RANJO517 We are not upset - we just don't believe you. What makes you think there is a god? What is your evidence for this? and if we were to accept that there is a god, what makes Christianity more right than Islam or Judaism? Impress me - i'm open to changing my opinion.
So, it's OK for you to voice your opinion and I just have to accept what you say!? That shows a closed mind and I wish not to waste my time so May GOD have mercy on your soul. Try to have a happy forever
@RANJO517 I'm not asking you to accept what i say at all. But if you want evidence you should watch this: watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM its very interesting.
What I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence for your claim that there is a god. Imagine I said my Gran lived on the moon. You wouldn't believe me unless i had some evidence to back this up. So turning it round again - what evidence do you have for your similarly hard to believe claim.
@n2motocross Not believing in evolution is not like believing in geography. It exists. There is no doubt about it. Gravity is also a theory. Just because something is a theory does not mean it is wrong.
Now we're getting to the root of your misunderstanding.
A theory IS as close as you get to FACT in science with anything that isn't physically measurable. A theory isn't a blind guess nor is a valid theory ever been disproven WHILE ALSO having ONLY supporting evidence.
You're using the colloquial terminology and applying it to technical science. In colloquial terms, evolution IS fact.
You do realize gravity and atomic power are also theories as well, right? Are these now in question too?
So is Natural Selection, the driving force of evolution - measurable by it's mutation to success rate.
The RATE at which gravity reacts to mass is what is LAW as its measurable. The theory of RELATIVITY explains HOW gravity works is a theory. "HOW" cannot be measured, photographed or observed in any way for gravity. Hopefully you now understand what a theory is?
The same applies to the theory of atomic power, theory of germs and every other scientific theory. They're all comprised of laws.
DNA of a particular kind? All DNA controls every aspect of every cell in every living creature that has ever existed since the evolution of RNA to DNA. Mutations are not confined to a particular section of DNA or RNA.
That's akin to saying that only a particular square area of a blueprint could possibly have errors in it. Makes absolutely no sense.
Except for evolution. In evolution there is no law that drives evolution past changes, which are confined by the encoded DNA of a particular kind of life. We've got to be careful what we say to Creation Deniers, they grasp at any loop hole they can find!
I didn't mark your comment as spam, and even though it's absurdly wrong, I support your right to voice your opinion and clicked Not Spam.
I have to ask you when you say "creation deniers" what exactly there is to deny?
Do you understand how science was created? In a nutshell, extremely religious and respected priests went out in the world to grab the proof they were sure to find for gods existence, as explained in genesis to the other religions. They didn't go out to DISPROVE. Wake up.
"Except for evolution. In evolution there is no law that drives evolution past changes, which are confined by the encoded DNA of a particular kind of life.
We've got to be careful what we say to Creation Deniers, they grasp at any loop hole they can find! "
You sure have put a lot of time into learning things incorrectly.
Enough occurrences of microevolution innevitably MUST lead to macroevolution. If you rewrite a book and everytime add an error, eventually it would result in what could only be considered a "different book" from the original and in animals, given its own species.
Natural selection IS evolution; your statement in conjunction with your argument that the theory of evolution somehow isn't legitimate is contradictory and illogical.
Several generations of SMALL changes (micro) with lots of TIME = new species (macro). Is it that complex man, seriously?
There is plenty of evidence of this, a great example being that of the evolution of humans from neanderthals and the genetic lineage we can follow to know this.
Your argument is akin to saying "no one has ever seen the tectonic plates create mountains, so that's impossible." You're just all sorts of confused. You should be making questions, not stating assertions.
You are being intentionally deceiving. I know that you've studied more than that, and I know you're more intelligent than this. Just because small changes exist doesn't mean a jump from species to species. There is no evidence of this. In fact, you can look at the evolutionary charts over time. They keep changing as new "theories" are created to account for new evidence. By your definition they would be changing fact for another fact.
Please don't misplace the deception YOU'RE using upon me. I already explained was wrong and precisely why. Now if you can refute the authenticity of genetic lineage, then let's hear it. Your comment is simply reasserting your original, faulty position.
Evolutionary charts are UPDATED as new fossilized species are found - not "changed", as if they were originally totally incorrect and had to be thrown out, like you're clearly implying.
Here's an easy way to break this down for you, and if you can't understand this, you must have a learning deficiency:
If you take a solid white piece of paper and put it on a copy machine, you're going to get another white piece of paper with a few very tiny black dots on it. If you repeat this process a million times, what are you going to have? A solid black piece of paper. Now if these pieces of paper were animals, would you call the black paper a different species?
Terrible analogy that has nothing to do with real life and actual DNA.
So far, from what I can tell, you are very good at insulting people, but not so good at research.
I think it's time to put the insult book down and pick up a Science book and recent Science studies and read what is fact and what is based on theory.
What is there actual evidence for, and what is merely speculation and supposition.
Ad hominen's don't lend your case any credibility. The analogy was very appropriate. Never once did I insult you. You show your own lack of research by simply using the terminology "based on theory" as if theory is somehow unreliable.
Once again, if you can refute the proven genetic lineage of humans or any other species, let's hear it.
watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
Clear up your misconceptions. It fully explains macro and micro evolution, etc.
I don't think you're understanding the concept of natural selection. I watched your video, but the facts remain. Dogs breed dogs. Horses breed horses. Cows breed cows. They don't through natural selection grow tales.
What about exotic pigeons who've been bred to eventually be completely different from regular pigeons? What is that, just... magic? Look up show pigeons on google images and tell me some of those don't look like they should be their own species (although their not, due to the rules of speciation).
It all boils down to where you draw the line at calling it an entirely different species, which opens a whole new can of worms if you know anything about speciation.
No, but dogs, horses and birds are subject to natural selection, as you previously stated. They, however, and not subject to mutating into another creature, growing a tale..etc.
I'll check out your new examples, but I'm sure it's more of the same.
I've read and researched this topic more than you think, and I'm capable of looking at the evidence objectively. I think you have just as much an atheist "dogma" as I do a Christian one.
My atheist "dogma" solely means it requires evidence to subscribe to ANYTHING.
You seem to purposely ignore the genetic hereditary map (as I have mentioned three separate times now at least). It is my suspicion you do not argue this fact because, if you are as well researched as you claim, you realize--well, it's FACT. Regardless that there ARE actual physical, transitional fossils, (which I'm fairly sure is what your'e inferring), the genetic evidence ALSO conclusively PROVES it.
Wow you're really getting on my nerves. So far you've said:
"You're wrong... I have no evidence to back it up, but you're just wrong. Birds are birds. Dogs are dogs."
I explained to you THOROUGHLY that birds are NOT one species and that things CAN and DO change species even within observable time and even provided you COMPELLING physical evidence. YOU are the one refusing to accept facts. YOU are the one who can't refute ANYTHING I've said with anything besides "NUH UH!"
So far I've said that Natural selection exists. I can prove it because dogs have remained dogs throughout the years.
You've said, "Nuh uh." And the proof you've provided was change within birds. I agree with you, birds have remained birds. No dispute here!
It was compelling physical evidence that birds are subject to natural selection, and they can change a great deal. Ultimately though, they are still birds. That was your evidence, correct?
Potholer actually has done a video exactly to tackle this misunderstanding.
watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
The intro is only about 30 seconds then it gets to it.
I'm confused how you could think this though. If you understand and accept that natural selection exists and species can slowly change, then where is your misunderstanding of evolution?
It sounds like you're assuming evolution claims dramatic changes like a dog giving birth to a cat ? It's just an extremely slow process on the macro scale.
I completely understand the evolutionary process. That's where you are mistaken. The problem is that cats and dogs have a totally different DNA structure. Let's look at cows to whales for example. No matter how slow you go through natural selection there is no DNA for a tail. Where does this information appear from? Thin air? Mutation?
You could not have possibly watched the video if you're asking such an absurd question.
Watch the presentation and if you have an better-informed question to ask after that, I'm all yours.
They're two totally different branches of the evolutionary tree.
There is no DNA for a tail? Are you kidding me? No, you tell ME where the information for a tail comes from if it is not in DNA? God snaps his finger every time a mouse is born?
"I completely understand the evolutionary process."
"Ooh.. Birds breed Birds and Dogs breed Dogs.. and Does eat Oats and Mares eat Oats.. and Theories are Laws and Tails are Magic.. and little Lambs eat Ivy.. Oh I need it to be true, why don't you?"
I am astounded that you don't understand my questions. Yes, cows have tails. Yes, whales have tales. But the two species don't have anywhere close to the same genetic makeup. Where did the cows legs go? Through millions of years of slow gradual changes. Yes, of course. I don't think you understand how complex DNA is.
Did you watch the video from potholer ?? Again: watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
Cows didn't evolve into whales man. Cows and whales are two totally different evolutionary branches that separated millions of years ago from a *common ancestor*. Slowly, they went diff directions.
I'd never assume to fully understand the complexities of DNA or genetics in general nor do I believe I am pretending to.
"there is no DNA for a tail" I'd still like to hear where these biological instructions reside if not DNA?
I deeply apologize for my comment about tails and DNA. I clearly mispoke. Yes, there is DNA for a tail. I also understand the concept that cows and whales had a similar ancestor...but where are the fossils for these ancestors? Have you seen them? I have. It's laughable.
Cool, glad we cleared that up and happy to see you're apparently honestly trying to learn, too.
What is laughable about tiktaalik, for example?
Fossils are not the only way this is proven either, we can get this information through DNA in creatures alive today. This is how we know the sea sponge is the oldest living organism for example.
Evolutionary fossil taxonomy isn't the only way we understand these things, but it is an important factor. Evolution also predicted we'd find these.
chuber- Please don't be mislead. There may be a *concept* that whales and cows have a similar ancestor but there is NO proof of that. Many of us see that proof of that will never be found as it is not true!
Thankfully it looks like chuber has a desire to learn and doesn't seem to favor false indoctrination. And good for him. Stop trying to regress the progress we've made here you scum bag.
I'm aware, that's why I quit trying to argue. He believes in a magical similar ancestor that never existed, and he's curse and talkt down to anyone who doesn't believe in it. It's sad.
Were you or were you not the one sitting here so retardedly claiming tails have no DNA?
Did you not go on to also claim there is no transitional fossil showing species going from water to land? And did I not also show you exactly such a transitional fossil?
Now you claim because I occasionally use curse words, somehow my information is invalid? Yet you can't refute it?
Brilliant man. You look amazingly intelligent here, lemme tell ya.
A) I never claimed tails don't have DNA. I wrote a poorly contructed thought. I clearly did not mean that.
B) You have shown me NO compelling fossil of this transitional creature that was ancestor to cow and whale.
C) You are refuting me without evidence, but by usuing curse words. Yet, somehow you claim that I'm discrediting you for using curse words. No, it's the lack of evidence.
A) That's still very much what you said - proving without a shadow of a doubt you're grossly undereducated on even the BASICS of DNA to even ATTEMPT to debate it.
B) There IS NO WHALE-COW TRANSITION. How many times do I have to explain this? They came from a SINGLE ANCESTOR and the branches of species separated into cow and into whale. I SHOWED YOU TIKTAALIK which IS the common ancestor. If you cannot understand this, that is YOUR shortcoming, NOT mine.
The problem is you're twisting my words to mean something totally different.
Secondly, you still haven't shown me the SINGLE ANCESTOR of which you speak. Is the Tiktaalik the ancestor of the cow and the whale? If so, where are the species inbetween these creatures to support this supposed fact.
See instead of presenting evidence, you begin calling me undereducated. Simply supply the evidence and have an adult conversation.
You even retracted your statement and recognized your egregious error once I pointed it out. Anyone can look back and see what you said.
I have shown you the common ancestor. Tiktaalik is a common ancestor to all land mammals (and fits the timeline perfectly). There would be THOUSANDS of species in between, not 1 (and we have the fossils). I will PM some links to mid-specie links.
I've clearly been trying to have a calm, rational conversation and will continue to if you're trying to learn.
for the same reason you wrote this. to waste your time. lol someone who calls old research... outdated. simply because the artifatcs found are OLD.... is probably one of the most retarded things i have ever heard..... nothing i would ever expect to hear from a grown adult.
but i am done with you now. go ahead and distract some more folks. You seem to have that mastered.
Can anyone see the falsity in this statement? The truth according to pok makes beagles different species from cocker spaniels, Clydesdales are different species from Paso Finos, Blue Jays are different species from Cardinals. Pok- NOT "suddenly" - Always been that way! Fish do not breed birds, lizards do not breed dogs, hogs do not breed ponies! Please continue! Show us! Show us ONE!
Yes, it's so hard to understand that everything had a common ancestor at some point in history that they both came from. Apparently because your mentally handicapped imagination cannot fathom such a basic principle, it is me who must be lying.
You can't EXPLAIN how I'm lying, so you are forced to use retarded examples. "fish do not breed birds" and no where does evolution claim it does either. You're grossly uneducated.
It is taught as scientific fact GLOBALLY because no one is "real sure"
To elaborate.
There are innumerable books of fiction that contain huge amounts of factual data; real events, real people, real places. Yet, no one seriously makes the claim that because there are so many historically accurate details Robert Ludlum's "Jason Bourne" actually exists or that the supernatural events in a Steven King novel really occurred.
VoiceOfReasonXXX 21 hours ago
I don't dispute the examples.
The problem I have is that the speaker and many others trying to prove the legitimacy of the Bible don't get that no matter how many "facts", incidences, names, events in the Bible can be supported by other sources, this does not prove that the entire book is 100% accurate. In particular, to claim that the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are true and the proof is that several natural events depicted in the Bible are corroborated is ridiculous.
VoiceOfReasonXXX 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Einstein didn't "prove" the big bang theory, you moron. it wasn't even his idea in the first place.And why not call everything else in the bible a metaphor. Like existance of moses, since there's no evidence of his existance..So who decides what is literal and what is a metaphor? you?
People who are honestly trying to understand the universe don't use metaphors. it's not philosophy. It's science..Creationist have nothing but a bullshit story from a magical book of fantasy.
vjholliday 5 days ago
Comment removed
vjholliday 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you should read the bible properly" by first believing that it's absolutely true and accurate and then create reasons to support it or twist and misrepresent the definition of the word 'evidence' ..that's the creationsit way..use scientific terminology on people who don't understand any of it. that's what you do and you should be ashamed of yourself because underneath all that fansy misuse of terminology...you're a liar.
vjholliday 5 days ago
Comment removed
vjholliday 5 days ago
Comment removed
vjholliday 5 days ago
Creationist don't have a position to defend. they are deniars of some one else's position. Ask any creationist to link the bible with the origin of the universe. All they will have is a magical story that includes two naked people in a garden and a talking snake. It's like taling to a 6 year old child.
vjholliday 2 weeks ago
@vjholliday lol you should read the bible properly..
jaeare100 6 days ago
@vjholliday The fact that you refer to a talking snake shows the understanding of a 6 year old.
Ever hear of a metaphor? Snakes had great symbolic meaning in other ancient cultures. And WHO is ignorant?
The Bible spoke of the universe having a beginning thousands of years before Eintein proved it. Lucky guess, I suppose- like the great deluge being, which has been proven, as well.
Vaekkrinhart 5 days ago
are you S ???
tuxnor 1 month ago
Jesus made us our own free moral agents because He wants us to choose Him because we want to. Give up your foolish pride and prepare for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Bad times are ahead for those that choose Satan and his lies. There is not much time left. Jesus loves you so much He died that you may TRULY LIVE. He is about to appear in the clouds to take those that love him just before bad times and the antichrist. Bible prophecy has ALWAYS come to pass, and will again!!!! That is fact!
always30 1 month ago
@always30 Could you tell me which prophecies does the bible has that came to be?
synchronyJEM 1 month ago
@synchronyJEM read Isaiah 53 for a start. that's just one that Jesus fulfilled.
jimjimsmom 1 month ago in playlist Bible science & archaeology
@jimjimsmom is the prophecy intended to predict the coming of Jesus?
synchronyJEM 1 month ago
@always30 yes, bible prophecy always comes to pass. Thats why Jesus' second coming was while his apostles were still alive, like he told them it would be. In fact all of the apostles were "preparing for HIS second coming" It didn't happen, obviously.
cageofrage69 1 month ago
@cageofrage69
No. Jesus did not tell his apostles that he would return in their lifetimes. He said THIS GENERATION shall not pass away. He was referring to their physical generation. Hes referring to what Eschatology refers to as the fig tree generation which hed just been speaking about then says And THIS GENERATION. Hes not talking to his disciples concerning their lifetime. He was talking about the alotted descripted time period hed just spoken about.
Davemustang2600 2 weeks ago
@Davemustang2600 Um yes, jesus did imply to his apostles that he would come again in their lifetime. All that talk about getting the church redy for his return and all that. Paul for sure thought he was coming back. The bible leaves details out, but if you use common sense, this is put together easily
cageofrage69 2 weeks ago
@cageofrage
You typed the word Um? Is that even a word? I thought that was a sound people made when their mouths were moving in place of their brains.
I have a degree in Theology stupid. You dont understand context. Nor do you understand how Jesus spoke and how he referred to things. When referring to the Temple. Jesus said 'Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in 3 days.' Jesus wasnt referring to the temple however his disciples thought he was. He was talking about Him
Davemustang2600 2 weeks ago
@Davemustang2600 If you have degree, I doubt you would nitpick about the word um. Thats something people who have nothing smart to say do. Maybe you should have gotten that degree in common sense and archaeology. You might understand the bible better for what it is. A historical book borrowed from cultures and exaggerated immensely. Stupid. A degree in theology is fucking useless. Congrats bro.
cageofrage69 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cageofrage69
You realize in your first in your first 13 words you negated anything youve said or will ever say on here. You can come back from ignorance and even stupidity. Once you reach 'Fool' theres no return.
You have no common sense. And 90 percent of archaeology is imagination. Only 10 percent is actual science. I have friends who are paleontologists who will not say that in an interview but will admit to me over coffee.
Davemustang2600 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cageofrage69
You can dig around in the dirt until now until Jesus returns but youre not getting the big picture. Youre not even getting half the picture. Youre not even getting the frame the picture was set in. Youre getting? Mostly dirt! Takes more hope and dumb blind faith to trust archaeology than it does Scripture.
I understand what the Bible is. Where it came from. Who wrote it. Why they wrote it. And how every piece fits together in time.
Davemustang2600 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cageofrage69
This ridiculous idea that the Bible 'borrowed' stories from earlier cultures is nonsense. And its meant to sway idiots like you who dont know any better than to believe it.
Ancient Sumerian texts? Date back to 3000 BC. The Septuagint dates back to the exact say time. The Bible isnt a collection of earlier myths. Genesis was being written at the exact same time the Enki tablets in Sumeria were.
Davemustang2600 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cageofrage69
The flood account doesnt occur in the Bible because its relaying a version of a story from an earlier culture. It relays an account of something all of Mesopotamia regions were witnessing. Theyre are relaying their own accounts of events. Only the Bible has the credibility as the authority of said events for 2 reasons. 1. Historical accuracy. 2. Fulfilled Prophecies. 2500 to be exact.
Davemustang2600 2 weeks ago
@cageofrage69
If you did more homework than you did repeating other idiots assumptions we wouldnt be having this conversation.
Jesus in that moment referred to what Scholars call 'The Fig Tree Generation' Its this generation that see ALL the prophesies fulfilled concerning His returning. The disciples stayed in a state of confusion about what Jesus said because He referred to things beyond their ability to reason when He first spoke them.
Davemustang2600 2 weeks ago
@cageofrage69
Paul wasnt expecting Jesus returning. Thats why he kept saying he wanted to give himself an offering meaning martyrdom. He was in a hurry to get out of here but he didnt expect to leave via Rapture or Second Coming.
In fact, Christians that were expecting Jesus to return quickly Paul scolded and told them to get off their butts and go to work. Thats where the famous Pauline quote 'If you dont work you dont eat' comes from.
Davemustang2600 2 weeks ago
Just as Adam and Eves sin effects us to this day. God is a loving God, but will not tolerate sin. But soon those that love him will forever be without sin and evil and all its hassles, death, pain, suffering. aging, etc. When we rule and reign with Jesus we will be able to walk up to Lions, Bears, they will be tame as God intended in the beginning before sin. It will be amazing!!!! They will only eat plants, no more blood shed. Satan is the ruler of this world, and his desire is for you!!!!!!
always30 1 month ago
One thing to seriously think about, your soul will end up in one of 2 places. And it will be there for ETERNITY. Jesus is coming soon, and He is so sweet and has so much for those who seek Him. No more hassles, no more pain, no more death. More proof is the curses we live under for our insistence on sinning. From the beginning of Adam and Eve to know, we suffer from their poor choices and their desire for sin. Our choices not only affect us but our children, and our childrens children.
always30 1 month ago
See below first!
govt. We can't see love but we feel it and know it exists right? EVERYONE can agree on that. Guess what, the Bible says God is love!!!!!! People who don't wish to acknowledge proof of God is due to the fact that they don't want to be held accountable for their actions. The Bible also says, " a fool claims there is no God." Archeology they are pulling out of the ground in Israel is proof the Bible is Gods word. Everything found is exactly where the Bible says it would be.
always30 1 month ago
@always30 The bible says a lot of things to dispel people from leaving the religion. Thats why in genesis its the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Keyword is knowledge which has always been the enemy of religion. it wasnt the love of god that ,made the jews believe, it was the FEAR of god. The entire old testament has accounts of a wrathful, avenging god, but yet the new has only a forgiving god. Either its two different gods or he has a split personality.
cageofrage69 1 month ago
First of all the Bible says there will be no excuse for any man to say he had no idea there is a God, all you have to do is look around you. Not one will be able to stand before Him and say I didn't know. His majesty in all He has created, including yourself, is proof alone. But we know evil exists, it manifests itself everyday in one form or another. That evil has a source, and it's name is Satan. People nowadays are openly worshiping Satan especially in the entertainment industry and world
always30 1 month ago
@BereanBeacon, thanks for a very inspiring and motivating video. I'm gonna use some of the facts here to inform Bible detractors and disbelievers. This vid is definitely a treasure. Isn't there an earlier part and a part 2? i really would like to hear the conclusion. Thanks again and may you be blessed with more efforts like this.
tuberobotto 1 month ago
@tuberobotto This is just some guy talking and cherry picking stories - he's not presenting facts. You should believe things that actually have evidence. Come on - he talks about a lion and bear working together to steal food. what kind of nonsense is that - where has anyone ever observed anything like that in the wild. Of course not. He goes on about giants too, they don't exist either.
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
Comment removed
n2motocross 2 months ago
does the argument from silence have something to do with the god of the gaps for evolutionary theory?
BTW, all scientific knowledge is made from within theories. Theory of electromagnetism, theory of gravity, theory of quantum mechanics. All growing and building as we learn more.
watch?v=CfzslZ8tFNw
kelbykross1 2 months ago
@candiceevans1 I don't understand why somebody can't believe in evolution and also believe in God? Evolution exists and is independent of any religious agenda. It exists, there is no doubt about it, and just because it exists absolutely does not prove or disprove the concept of God.
skcin7 2 months ago
@skcin7 You can tell Richard Dawkins that and see if you get a 'friendly' answer. Dawkins' evolution is sharply opposed to creationism and he doesn't waste time to refute creationism and oppose the existence of God, though his efforts are futile in my opinion.
You've got to go deeper into their philosophy and you will find that their primary goal is to get the world into believing that God doesn't exist. But how long can you sustain that argument? Only 'till while you live.
tuberobotto 1 month ago
@skcin7 very true. It just blows away the biblical creation story and that story is in itself contradictory of itself so should not be taken literally anyway. Perhaps a metaphor would work better. Anyway Christians, read up - there are actually 2 creation stories that contradict each other in the bible. Geology, Physics, Genetics, biology and many other fields of science contradict the story empirically so why believe it as a literal truth?
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
We will never know since muslims control archeological areas and have been destroying historical sites and evidence for years.
goldensassenach 5 months ago
@goldensassenach Thats the damn truth!
n2motocross 2 months ago
Digging in an 8x6 feet location for several years?! Who pays these guys' salaries...?
joroma77 5 months ago
"The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrovertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jerusalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. who were eager to burnish their national history."
Lazare, D. 'False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History,' Harper's Magazine, March, 2002.
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrthodoxDarwinist Archaeology: Digging for the Truth of the Bible
h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=NWawVUZg3Es
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
alas, henry jones jr is who i first thought of when he asked his opening question. but in fact it is patient sifting through dirt and dusty archives
Strefanasha 8 months ago
@candiceevans1 Right. I'll leave'em with a quote from the Apostle Paul: " But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. - I Corinthians 14:38.
n2motocross 8 months ago
Brother Dave do you have anymore archeology videos like this?
tobigforyou 9 months ago
@tobigforyou Ask and ye....
Archaeology: Digging for the Truth of the Bible Play List - w w wdotyoutubedotcom/playlist?p=PL20D09B0B86CE896F
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 thx Dave, amazing playlist. It will keep me busy for a while :)
tobigforyou 9 months ago
Love the video thanks for posting
tylrjsph 11 months ago
The bible is not pure fact in every way and I don't need archeology to prove that. Ezra chapter 2 and Nehemiah chapter 7. Which numbers are the correct figures? This is not to remove all validity from the bible as a historical document but it does serve as evidence that it is not completely inerrent.
TheEmpiricalTruth 11 months ago
The video stopped at 18:23, and won't continue.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
The hopeless, eagerly pursuing their non-existant hope.
B., I give up; TRY to have a good life.
ChurchOfKali66619 2 years ago
even if evolution is 100% true, they will find a new way of interprete the bible and everything is the same again.
The key for their survival is to find new ways of interprete the bible, so it fits new discoveries in science.
mifster83 2 years ago
fantastic. Thank you for putting this up.
GodsWordOfTheDay 2 years ago
Nice one for posting brother.
I enjoyed this as both informative and encouraging.
Put this with the many other evidences abroad and rejoicein the truth of the Bible.
Praise the Lord.
James
jamesglory1 2 years ago
Going to watch now. I'll rate after.
jamesglory1 2 years ago
great video, fascinating stuff! thanks for sharing. :)
boan000 2 years ago 2
Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.
laneywag 2 years ago
This is 30 years old? ... umm
lol?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
so?
galaxydreams 2 years ago
So a lot is learned about archeology in a 5 year time period let alone 20 or 30. Obviously the information is going to be outdated. If you're not learning what is current.... what's the point of learning it? Many things may have been corrected, adjusted, thrown out, etc. Science is an ever improving study and just about everything is provisional; meaning it can be changed if new information comes to light.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
How does that change the FINDINGS of this video? Its all documented.
I dont understand your logic.
galaxydreams 2 years ago
Did I SAY it did? NO. I said it is likely LESS THAN CURRENT so why bother learning something when its OUTDATED information. Helllloooooooo?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
galaxy- trading comments with pok is futile. He seems to be evolving on his own entirely. Likely a new specie of poksomething is on the way.
hiyosilver100 2 years ago
No, actually if you listened to the audio at around the 8:20-9:00 minute mark, the man speaking mentions a woman, "in 1987...20 years ago...", so I assume this was recorded in 2007.
ViciousAnimus 2 years ago
a lot of evolution mumbo jumbo is 30, 100, 160 years old..
natruto 2 years ago
Mumbo jumbo? That's quite an insult to the scientists who have spent their lifetimes understanding evolution, don't you think? You do realize without our knowledge of evolution we'd never cured poleo and other diseases? Not to mention it's never been disproven or had any need to be seriously revamped. The same cannot be said about very many aspects of archeology, hence my "30 years old??" comment.
What about evolution is "mumbo jumbo" ? Care to be specific?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@pokerslut530 evolution is a THEORY that is being taught as fact. A frog can turn into a prince...ding, ding, ding..fairy tail but let a "scientist" tell the story and a frog does turn into a prince. Just add a few 100 million years to the story. Sounds like a fairy tail to me.
manofreedom 2 years ago
Where does the theory of evolution state "a frog can turn into a prince" ?
Source?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@manofreedom
very well put!
n2motocross 2 years ago
Well put........ how? He's flat out wrong.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@pokerslut530:
How could evolution be a pure FACT?
Even the Father of Evolution had doubts:
" Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted myself to phantasy." - Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol.2, pg. 229
Does that sound like Darwin was 100% certain?
EVOLUTION IS A THEORY!
n2motocross 2 years ago 12
Of course Darwin was suspect of his own findings, he didn't have much evidence to go on at that time. We're talking over 200 years ago, you brainiac, and since have found mountains of supporting evidence without ever finding a single shred of refuting evidence.
I highly advise tugging slowly when you're ready to remove your head from your ass.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
And one more thing, go take your stupid ass on over to google and type in "scientific theory" and explain to me how a theory is somehow anything less than fact. Please, I'd love to hear you explain this.
You don't even know the most basic thing about science and yet, have the gall to challenge its validity. That sir, is what we call proudly talking out of our ass.
Stop talking about something you know nothing about especially in such an assertive tone as if you KNOW.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
n2- Another quote attributed to Chucky boy:
The case that the human eye is designed and constructed by EVOLUTION makes me sick to my stomach. CHARLES DARWIN
Evolution is a theory and a fairy tale. Not a fact!
hiyosilver100 2 years ago 8
Again quoting Darwin? Did I not just explain to you that his opinions were due to a severe lack of evidence? That his opinions are over 200 years old and since we've acquired mountains of evidence without ever finding any shred of evidence disproving evolution?
Stop willingly being stupid. It's not very becoming, it certainly doesn't lend you any intellectual points nor does it lend your religion any credibility. You people are going to kill your own religion with your own moronic behavior.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@hiyosilver100:
Very well put!
...Its funny how pokerslut530 responded with profanity toward me when I quoted Darwins statement of doubt.
What pokerslut530 doesn't realize is that profanity is a clear indicator that he has lost the debate.
n2motocross 2 years ago 3
Because Dawkin's quote is outdated and essentially useless. You're pulling a quote from 200 years ago before we even had microscopes.
Yeah, that's a real valid argument. And somehow I am a bad person because I can't believe how fucking stupid you are to even be willing to make such an assinine statement without letting it swirl around in your brain for a second.
Yeah, it's me who is the bad guy for trying to correct your guys' serious misconceptions.
Fuck you people.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@pokerslut530:
tsk...tsk..tsk.. profanity.
Debate 101: profanity is a clear indicator that you lost the debate.
BTW: Its Darwin...... not Dawkins. lol!
n2motocross 2 years ago 6
I so frequently mix up those two names up LOL.
You still haven't logically explained how a 200 year old quote is relevant today or somehow negates the scientific evidence accumulated since.
Using profanity is the only way I know how to express my utter shock at how illogical your statement is.
Even after I just explained to you we didn't even have microscopes back then you retort with "oooh profanity" and STILL insist you're right. Whats left to say besides "wow you're a fucking idiot!"
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@pokerslut530 HA HA HA! I know people personally who use profanity. They freely admit it's because they don't know how to express their minds & they usually do so when they have NO TIME to ponder their words before they speak.
What makes YOURS more horrible? None of us FORCE you to comment IMMEDIATELY. You CAN stay away UNTIL you can formulate a reasonable response!
JeremiahWitte 1 year ago
ytjhaas40 1 year ago
@hiyosilver100 yes its a theory. A Scientific theory is an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts things which can be observed and/or measured and theories - explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
@Realityprogramming Evolution has never been observed. And it can not be reproduced under controlled conditions let alone repeated. Evolution is NOT scientific based on their on definitions. It's closer to a religion complete with belief systems based solely on faith.
(Why did you bother to respond to a comment over a year old?)
hiyosilver100 1 month ago
@hiyosilver100 I'm afraid you are incorrect, modern medicine and all of biology is based on the theory of evolution. Why do you think you need to get a flu shot every year? its because the virus responsible has evolved and a new vaccine is required. Calling it a belief system based on faith just shows how little you know. I suggest you do a bit of research and get back to me. By research i mean look at the scientific evidence.
I wasn't looking at the age of the comments - just responding.
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
@Realityprogramming No one NEEDS to get a flu shot. And what you refer to is micro evolution. I stand by what I said. Evolution is NOT scientific and has never been observed. Yes. A good idea. Please do look at the scientific evidence. You will quickly see that evolution has not happened and in fact is impossible based on the the events required. DNA is information. Perhaps explain how 'information' can be evolved from nothing. Out here.
hiyosilver100 1 month ago
@hiyosilver100 If it's not scientific why is it that the vast majority of scientists in the field disagree with you? Here is something else that you should watch which may help you understand. watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
@hiyosilver100 This is good: watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
@Realityprogramming Curious how your channel and information is not available. Trolling just to make your opinion known and then disappeared.
hiyosilver100 1 month ago
@hiyosilver100 I've not disappeared. I'm waiting to hear what you think of the video.
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
@hiyosilver100 You should really read that entire quote from "The Origin of Species"...Not only yours is inaccurate ("...seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.") but, more important, it goes on by saying that with further reflection, it is perfectly natural that lower life forms developed light-sensible cells that evolved to become our eye. Don't take phrases out of context or, if you are just repeating something you've heard, try to consult the source before using it.
synchronyJEM 1 month ago
@n2motocross exactly!!!and apparently he fessed up before he died,this is unofficial it think......
hotties3v3n 1 year ago
@n2motocross so is god, you mad bro trolololololololololololololololololololololololololol
We can actually witness evolution and adaptations in real life, watch the tasmanian devils, suffering from tumors, the older ones are more sucsptable. So genes are being made that make breeding at younger ages possible, and it is spreading, and this will be a makeshift fix until they have a gene that stops this tumor disease
herp a derp
SuperFlamingTomato 5 months ago
@n2motocross That's quote-mining nonsense.
Google TalkOrigins to see the truth.
You religiotards are polished liars, but young people see right through you.
That's why your mythical sky wizard cults are dying out.
dimefeet 3 months ago
@dimefeet religiotards??
If given the chioce between religion and hateful, name-calling atheists like yourself, I'll choose religion.
I don't need to google any leftist, atheist blogs.. I have the truth,, The Holy Bible.
n2motocross 3 months ago
@n2motocross not all atheists are rude. Not all religious reject evolution. the catholic church and the protestants accept evolution. even sects of islam accepted evolution (they actually put the idea forward before darwin.)
I don't think the religious community with hundreds of books can claim the truth when evolution has one primary book.
Why is your religion right and mormans are wrong?
kelbykross1 2 months ago
@n2motocross >> Why do atheists get so upset when Christians express their belief in the one true, living GOD. Darwin was NEVER able to prove his 'theory', where's the missing link!? My advice to atheist, you still have time to give your life to Jesus Christ and be saved!! Please do, you'll thank me eternally! GOD is LOVE.
RANJO517 2 months ago
@RANJO517 Atheists get upset because they are opposing themselves by opposing God. The apostle Paul wrote about that.
n2motocross 2 months ago
@n2motocross >> Atheist can't win and that makes them mad, where they should be concerned with their 'eternal soul'. Yes, forever is a long long time and failure to accept JESUS CHRIST as your personal savior, will sentence you to eternal damna tion
RANJO517 2 months ago
@RANJO517 you are using a computer that works because of science - its not magic. Science gives us answers because it is the only tool we have for finding out how things really work. Atheists just use those same methods to examine your claims for the existence of a god and have come to the conclusion that you don't have any evidence for your claim. You just have faith - not evidence.
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
@Realityprogramming >>> I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I feel sorry for your blindness, since you've never seen a sunset or a birth of a grandbaby. The flowers in the spring and as in my case, your lovely wifes eyes. GOD bless you and oh yes, prove to me that there is no GOD. My proof surrounds you EVERYWHERE!
RANJO517 1 month ago
@RANJO517 All I see round me is the natural world. I see no magic man in the sky. If you believe there is then surely there would be some evidence for this? If there is I have not found any, so again I ask: If you have evidence for your god please show me as I am open to changing my mind.
P.S. Your opening insult is a really old one and sounds much better coming from a solid argument.
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
@RANJO517
I agree with you my friend. Everybody was created perfect and with eyes and ears just listen and look around you. God will reveal himself to you man cannot prove God . He is the all living God master and creator of everyone ! Even unbelievers. GOD BLESSYOU!
lexikitten444 1 month ago
@RANJO517 We are not upset - we just don't believe you. What makes you think there is a god? What is your evidence for this? and if we were to accept that there is a god, what makes Christianity more right than Islam or Judaism? Impress me - i'm open to changing my opinion.
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
@Realityprogramming
So, it's OK for you to voice your opinion and I just have to accept what you say!? That shows a closed mind and I wish not to waste my time so May GOD have mercy on your soul. Try to have a happy forever
RANJO517 1 month ago
@RANJO517 I'm not asking you to accept what i say at all. But if you want evidence you should watch this: watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM its very interesting.
What I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence for your claim that there is a god. Imagine I said my Gran lived on the moon. You wouldn't believe me unless i had some evidence to back this up. So turning it round again - what evidence do you have for your similarly hard to believe claim.
Realityprogramming 1 month ago
Comment removed
skcin7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@n2motocross Not believing in evolution is not like believing in geography. It exists. There is no doubt about it. Gravity is also a theory. Just because something is a theory does not mean it is wrong.
skcin7 2 months ago
Now we're getting to the root of your misunderstanding.
A theory IS as close as you get to FACT in science with anything that isn't physically measurable. A theory isn't a blind guess nor is a valid theory ever been disproven WHILE ALSO having ONLY supporting evidence.
You're using the colloquial terminology and applying it to technical science. In colloquial terms, evolution IS fact.
You do realize gravity and atomic power are also theories as well, right? Are these now in question too?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Um, Gravity is a Law.
chuber1979 2 years ago
So is Natural Selection, the driving force of evolution - measurable by it's mutation to success rate.
The RATE at which gravity reacts to mass is what is LAW as its measurable. The theory of RELATIVITY explains HOW gravity works is a theory. "HOW" cannot be measured, photographed or observed in any way for gravity. Hopefully you now understand what a theory is?
The same applies to the theory of atomic power, theory of germs and every other scientific theory. They're all comprised of laws.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Except for evolution. There is no law that drives evolution past changes confined by the encoded DNA of a particular kind.
Howie47 2 years ago
DNA of a particular kind? All DNA controls every aspect of every cell in every living creature that has ever existed since the evolution of RNA to DNA. Mutations are not confined to a particular section of DNA or RNA.
That's akin to saying that only a particular square area of a blueprint could possibly have errors in it. Makes absolutely no sense.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Except for evolution. In evolution there is no law that drives evolution past changes, which are confined by the encoded DNA of a particular kind of life. We've got to be careful what we say to Creation Deniers, they grasp at any loop hole they can find!
Howie47 2 years ago
I didn't mark your comment as spam, and even though it's absurdly wrong, I support your right to voice your opinion and clicked Not Spam.
I have to ask you when you say "creation deniers" what exactly there is to deny?
Do you understand how science was created? In a nutshell, extremely religious and respected priests went out in the world to grab the proof they were sure to find for gods existence, as explained in genesis to the other religions. They didn't go out to DISPROVE. Wake up.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is what Howie said, and he nailed it:
"Except for evolution. In evolution there is no law that drives evolution past changes, which are confined by the encoded DNA of a particular kind of life.
We've got to be careful what we say to Creation Deniers, they grasp at any loop hole they can find! "
galaxydreams 2 years ago
So don't try to fool by using theory when you mean law. There is no Law of Macroevolution.
Natural Selection is Law, yes and creationist believe in it, or at least they should.
chuber1979 2 years ago
You sure have put a lot of time into learning things incorrectly.
Enough occurrences of microevolution innevitably MUST lead to macroevolution. If you rewrite a book and everytime add an error, eventually it would result in what could only be considered a "different book" from the original and in animals, given its own species.
Natural selection IS evolution; your statement in conjunction with your argument that the theory of evolution somehow isn't legitimate is contradictory and illogical.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Natural Selection is not evolution...it is change within a species.
Micro to Macro evolution has never been witnessed and never been proven. You seem to be the one who has learned incorrectly, friend.
chuber1979 2 years ago
Several generations of SMALL changes (micro) with lots of TIME = new species (macro). Is it that complex man, seriously?
There is plenty of evidence of this, a great example being that of the evolution of humans from neanderthals and the genetic lineage we can follow to know this.
Your argument is akin to saying "no one has ever seen the tectonic plates create mountains, so that's impossible." You're just all sorts of confused. You should be making questions, not stating assertions.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
You are being intentionally deceiving. I know that you've studied more than that, and I know you're more intelligent than this. Just because small changes exist doesn't mean a jump from species to species. There is no evidence of this. In fact, you can look at the evolutionary charts over time. They keep changing as new "theories" are created to account for new evidence. By your definition they would be changing fact for another fact.
chuber1979 2 years ago
Please don't misplace the deception YOU'RE using upon me. I already explained was wrong and precisely why. Now if you can refute the authenticity of genetic lineage, then let's hear it. Your comment is simply reasserting your original, faulty position.
Evolutionary charts are UPDATED as new fossilized species are found - not "changed", as if they were originally totally incorrect and had to be thrown out, like you're clearly implying.
What theories have changed?
Fact for another fact? Uh?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@pokerslut530 oops... explained WHAT was wrong*
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Here's an easy way to break this down for you, and if you can't understand this, you must have a learning deficiency:
If you take a solid white piece of paper and put it on a copy machine, you're going to get another white piece of paper with a few very tiny black dots on it. If you repeat this process a million times, what are you going to have? A solid black piece of paper. Now if these pieces of paper were animals, would you call the black paper a different species?
Hopefully that helps.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Terrible analogy that has nothing to do with real life and actual DNA.
So far, from what I can tell, you are very good at insulting people, but not so good at research.
I think it's time to put the insult book down and pick up a Science book and recent Science studies and read what is fact and what is based on theory.
What is there actual evidence for, and what is merely speculation and supposition.
chuber1979 2 years ago
Ad hominen's don't lend your case any credibility. The analogy was very appropriate. Never once did I insult you. You show your own lack of research by simply using the terminology "based on theory" as if theory is somehow unreliable.
Once again, if you can refute the proven genetic lineage of humans or any other species, let's hear it.
watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
Clear up your misconceptions. It fully explains macro and micro evolution, etc.
Spread your misinformation elsewhere.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
I don't think you're understanding the concept of natural selection. I watched your video, but the facts remain. Dogs breed dogs. Horses breed horses. Cows breed cows. They don't through natural selection grow tales.
chuber1979 2 years ago
What about exotic pigeons who've been bred to eventually be completely different from regular pigeons? What is that, just... magic? Look up show pigeons on google images and tell me some of those don't look like they should be their own species (although their not, due to the rules of speciation).
It all boils down to where you draw the line at calling it an entirely different species, which opens a whole new can of worms if you know anything about speciation.
I'm sorry, evolution is fact.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Actually "fancy pigeon" yields far more illustrative results. Here is a great example:
iranianfancypigeons (. ) com / resources / aboutus2 (. ) jpg
I mean come on man... what else do I need to show you?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Did you notice the main point here...THEY ARE STILL BIRDS. Birds breed birds. Dogs breed dogs. Horses breed horses. Shall I continue.
chuber1979 2 years ago
So suddenly all birds are one specie?
All dogs are one specie?
All horses are one specie?
Shall *I* continue?!?!?!?!?!?!
pokerslut530 2 years ago
No, but dogs, horses and birds are subject to natural selection, as you previously stated. They, however, and not subject to mutating into another creature, growing a tale..etc.
I'll check out your new examples, but I'm sure it's more of the same.
I've read and researched this topic more than you think, and I'm capable of looking at the evidence objectively. I think you have just as much an atheist "dogma" as I do a Christian one.
chuber1979 2 years ago
My atheist "dogma" solely means it requires evidence to subscribe to ANYTHING.
You seem to purposely ignore the genetic hereditary map (as I have mentioned three separate times now at least). It is my suspicion you do not argue this fact because, if you are as well researched as you claim, you realize--well, it's FACT. Regardless that there ARE actual physical, transitional fossils, (which I'm fairly sure is what your'e inferring), the genetic evidence ALSO conclusively PROVES it.
The end !
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Fact is I follow evidence that exists...you look for evidence and find what you want to find.
chuber1979 2 years ago
Wow you're really getting on my nerves. So far you've said:
"You're wrong... I have no evidence to back it up, but you're just wrong. Birds are birds. Dogs are dogs."
I explained to you THOROUGHLY that birds are NOT one species and that things CAN and DO change species even within observable time and even provided you COMPELLING physical evidence. YOU are the one refusing to accept facts. YOU are the one who can't refute ANYTHING I've said with anything besides "NUH UH!"
GROW UP.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
So far I've said that Natural selection exists. I can prove it because dogs have remained dogs throughout the years.
You've said, "Nuh uh." And the proof you've provided was change within birds. I agree with you, birds have remained birds. No dispute here!
It was compelling physical evidence that birds are subject to natural selection, and they can change a great deal. Ultimately though, they are still birds. That was your evidence, correct?
chuber1979 2 years ago
Potholer actually has done a video exactly to tackle this misunderstanding.
watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
The intro is only about 30 seconds then it gets to it.
I'm confused how you could think this though. If you understand and accept that natural selection exists and species can slowly change, then where is your misunderstanding of evolution?
It sounds like you're assuming evolution claims dramatic changes like a dog giving birth to a cat ? It's just an extremely slow process on the macro scale.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
I completely understand the evolutionary process. That's where you are mistaken. The problem is that cats and dogs have a totally different DNA structure. Let's look at cows to whales for example. No matter how slow you go through natural selection there is no DNA for a tail. Where does this information appear from? Thin air? Mutation?
chuber1979 2 years ago
You could not have possibly watched the video if you're asking such an absurd question.
Watch the presentation and if you have an better-informed question to ask after that, I'm all yours.
They're two totally different branches of the evolutionary tree.
There is no DNA for a tail? Are you kidding me? No, you tell ME where the information for a tail comes from if it is not in DNA? God snaps his finger every time a mouse is born?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Ha! Holy shit this is killin me..
"I completely understand the evolutionary process."
"Ooh.. Birds breed Birds and Dogs breed Dogs.. and Does eat Oats and Mares eat Oats.. and Theories are Laws and Tails are Magic.. and little Lambs eat Ivy.. Oh I need it to be true, why don't you?"
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
I am astounded that you don't understand my questions. Yes, cows have tails. Yes, whales have tales. But the two species don't have anywhere close to the same genetic makeup. Where did the cows legs go? Through millions of years of slow gradual changes. Yes, of course. I don't think you understand how complex DNA is.
chuber1979 2 years ago
Did you watch the video from potholer ?? Again: watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
Cows didn't evolve into whales man. Cows and whales are two totally different evolutionary branches that separated millions of years ago from a *common ancestor*. Slowly, they went diff directions.
I'd never assume to fully understand the complexities of DNA or genetics in general nor do I believe I am pretending to.
"there is no DNA for a tail" I'd still like to hear where these biological instructions reside if not DNA?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
I deeply apologize for my comment about tails and DNA. I clearly mispoke. Yes, there is DNA for a tail. I also understand the concept that cows and whales had a similar ancestor...but where are the fossils for these ancestors? Have you seen them? I have. It's laughable.
chuber1979 2 years ago
Cool, glad we cleared that up and happy to see you're apparently honestly trying to learn, too.
What is laughable about tiktaalik, for example?
Fossils are not the only way this is proven either, we can get this information through DNA in creatures alive today. This is how we know the sea sponge is the oldest living organism for example.
Evolutionary fossil taxonomy isn't the only way we understand these things, but it is an important factor. Evolution also predicted we'd find these.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
chuber- Please don't be mislead. There may be a *concept* that whales and cows have a similar ancestor but there is NO proof of that. Many of us see that proof of that will never be found as it is not true!
hiyosilver100 2 years ago
Thankfully it looks like chuber has a desire to learn and doesn't seem to favor false indoctrination. And good for him. Stop trying to regress the progress we've made here you scum bag.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
chub- Is there a need to make an apology? You can see from poks name calling and schoolyard responses just what you are dealing with.
hiyosilver100 2 years ago
I'm aware, that's why I quit trying to argue. He believes in a magical similar ancestor that never existed, and he's curse and talkt down to anyone who doesn't believe in it. It's sad.
chuber1979 2 years ago
@chuber1979
"magical ancestor than never existed?"
..that your opinion. NOT FACT!
n2motocross 2 years ago
A similar magic ancestor? Excuse me?
Were you or were you not the one sitting here so retardedly claiming tails have no DNA?
Did you not go on to also claim there is no transitional fossil showing species going from water to land? And did I not also show you exactly such a transitional fossil?
Now you claim because I occasionally use curse words, somehow my information is invalid? Yet you can't refute it?
Brilliant man. You look amazingly intelligent here, lemme tell ya.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
A) I never claimed tails don't have DNA. I wrote a poorly contructed thought. I clearly did not mean that.
B) You have shown me NO compelling fossil of this transitional creature that was ancestor to cow and whale.
C) You are refuting me without evidence, but by usuing curse words. Yet, somehow you claim that I'm discrediting you for using curse words. No, it's the lack of evidence.
chuber1979 2 years ago
A) That's still very much what you said - proving without a shadow of a doubt you're grossly undereducated on even the BASICS of DNA to even ATTEMPT to debate it.
B) There IS NO WHALE-COW TRANSITION. How many times do I have to explain this? They came from a SINGLE ANCESTOR and the branches of species separated into cow and into whale. I SHOWED YOU TIKTAALIK which IS the common ancestor. If you cannot understand this, that is YOUR shortcoming, NOT mine.
C) No evidence? WHAT?!?!?! You liar.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
The problem is you're twisting my words to mean something totally different.
Secondly, you still haven't shown me the SINGLE ANCESTOR of which you speak. Is the Tiktaalik the ancestor of the cow and the whale? If so, where are the species inbetween these creatures to support this supposed fact.
See instead of presenting evidence, you begin calling me undereducated. Simply supply the evidence and have an adult conversation.
chuber1979 2 years ago
You even retracted your statement and recognized your egregious error once I pointed it out. Anyone can look back and see what you said.
I have shown you the common ancestor. Tiktaalik is a common ancestor to all land mammals (and fits the timeline perfectly). There would be THOUSANDS of species in between, not 1 (and we have the fossils). I will PM some links to mid-specie links.
I've clearly been trying to have a calm, rational conversation and will continue to if you're trying to learn.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
wow.... you are completely ignorant... i dont even know what else to say to you lol
Good luck.
galaxydreams 2 years ago
@galaxydreams Then why did you bother to write that? ..........
pokerslut530 2 years ago
for the same reason you wrote this. to waste your time. lol someone who calls old research... outdated. simply because the artifatcs found are OLD.... is probably one of the most retarded things i have ever heard..... nothing i would ever expect to hear from a grown adult.
but i am done with you now. go ahead and distract some more folks. You seem to have that mastered.
galaxydreams 2 years ago
I never said the information was wrong or outdated because the artifacts are old. You are clearly mentally crippled.
Distracting folks is not my intention, correcting misconceptions about science is.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I said it is likely LESS THAN CURRENT so why bother learning something when its OUTDATED information."
"I never said the information was wrong or outdated because the artifacts are old. You are clearly mentally crippled."
its like..... you are arguing with yourself.... that's trippy. lol
galaxydreams 2 years ago
Can anyone see the falsity in this statement? The truth according to pok makes beagles different species from cocker spaniels, Clydesdales are different species from Paso Finos, Blue Jays are different species from Cardinals. Pok- NOT "suddenly" - Always been that way! Fish do not breed birds, lizards do not breed dogs, hogs do not breed ponies! Please continue! Show us! Show us ONE!
hiyosilver100 2 years ago 2
Yes, it's so hard to understand that everything had a common ancestor at some point in history that they both came from. Apparently because your mentally handicapped imagination cannot fathom such a basic principle, it is me who must be lying.
You can't EXPLAIN how I'm lying, so you are forced to use retarded examples. "fish do not breed birds" and no where does evolution claim it does either. You're grossly uneducated.
It is taught as scientific fact GLOBALLY because no one is "real sure"
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Explain to me where tiktaalik fits in, then? I'd love to hear this.
pokerslut530 2 years ago