@TruthSeekingOne I'm talking about the one the scientific community uses, and not the creationist propaganda strawman version.
Sorry if it wasn't clear. I do realize that creationists use "evolution" to describe every aspect of a naturalistic worldview that they don't agree with.
@AntiTheocracy Evolution and Big Bang theories are almost hand in hand, they are both the only two popular theories (which usually go together) that pseudo scientists have to try and solve our questions of origin without having a creator involved. Even with the high improbability of BOTH of these theories, one could still argue that a God used these methods to orchestrate the sequence of events that caused our existence. Your name AntiTheocracy is very telling of your ignorance to the issue..
@TruthSeekingOne and your name is pretty ironic, as you don't seem interested in the search for truth at all, rather than reinforcing the falsehoods you've already been indoctrinated with.
@AntiTheocracy I do seek truth, show me some empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution instead of some slight variation within a species which will not change it into another species of animal over any period of time - and then I will give some credence to the idea in that area, but even still there is much more you fail to see which needs to be overcome before the evolution theory is at all practical.
BereanBeacon-No matter how many copyright violations you make by posting ICR junk, you still have made a dent to the fact evolutionary science is well established and will not be overthrown by the likes of you or your compatriots.
Commissar lawilson200, The only thing you people have is a somewhat efficient propaganda machine operating in all areas of education similar in countries dominated by Marxism. Your desire is to keep people in the dark and prisoner to both your religions. Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction. Proverbs 10:14
Commissar? Personally, I never read Marx and by this stage of the gamee, I never care to read him. As for keeping people in the dark, the only examples from history that I am aware of are overzeolous religious nutballs who believe any field of study that is not related to the Bible is heresy.
everyone is entitled to an opinion, and everyone is entitled to post it here. A lot of people who are not scientists jump on the evolution band wagon and get aggressive without understanding it. So some of what the creationists say about some so called evolutionists attitudes is justified. However as far i see no real evidence for creationism. They pick a few holes in evolution that are not proven yet, however holes in one theory is not evidence for another. That is false logic.
I do believe religious indocterination is evil, and should be banned. However because someone seeks an explanation in the creation of the universe and tries to substantiate it with evidence, does not make them a fanatic, or mean they are indocterinating.
I had read through your comments and found them interesting. Care must be shown here, because you need to keep in mind the purpose of YEC. Evidence for YECers really does not matter. It is the fact that in the US, evangelical theology is not permitted free reign in our public schools. And YECers will do and say anything to force their way back into schools.
The easiest way to shoot down their theories is simply to allow it to be tested under scientific method and peer review. At that point they may not drop it, but it will be such a laughing stock internationally that it will stop its spread dead.
Each time YECers suffer another legal blow, they find another way to repackage their nonsense. It's been what? 148 years since Origins of Species and YECers still have not given up.
SqrJames "holes in one theory is not evidence for another" - if I understand you correctly, you were saying a few holes in evolution isn't proof for creation. It also works the other way around; just because you see holes in Creationism doesn't mean evolution is true...
Yes, but creationism just just have holes, it has no evidence to stand on. In fact it has a mountain of evidence against it, especially the young earth creationism. YECism to be honest is an absolute joke in the scientific community.
That's not true. We know for a fact that time had a beginning (see harvardhouse). We know there had to be a first cause. We know life can only come from life; it does not come from chemical soup.
Contradiction! If only life gives life, and your God is the life that gave us our life, then some life gave God God's life, no? When did this occur? when was God's God given life and by whom? Is there any explanation at all?
it doesn't make sense, does it? I mean if looking at humans one can remark "surely such an intricate creature was designed" one would only be more inclined to say the same looking at God.
Isn't it possible that what we call God is actually a creature that has its own limitations, that required creating and that has intentions and desires?
Somebody should have told this guy evolution isn't the theory about the origin of life before he went on a 45 minute tangent.
AntiTheocracy 1 year ago
@AntiTheocracy That depends on what classification of evolution you are talking about.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne I'm talking about the one the scientific community uses, and not the creationist propaganda strawman version.
Sorry if it wasn't clear. I do realize that creationists use "evolution" to describe every aspect of a naturalistic worldview that they don't agree with.
AntiTheocracy 1 year ago
@AntiTheocracy Evolution and Big Bang theories are almost hand in hand, they are both the only two popular theories (which usually go together) that pseudo scientists have to try and solve our questions of origin without having a creator involved. Even with the high improbability of BOTH of these theories, one could still argue that a God used these methods to orchestrate the sequence of events that caused our existence. Your name AntiTheocracy is very telling of your ignorance to the issue..
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne and your name is pretty ironic, as you don't seem interested in the search for truth at all, rather than reinforcing the falsehoods you've already been indoctrinated with.
AntiTheocracy 1 year ago
@AntiTheocracy I do seek truth, show me some empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution instead of some slight variation within a species which will not change it into another species of animal over any period of time - and then I will give some credence to the idea in that area, but even still there is much more you fail to see which needs to be overcome before the evolution theory is at all practical.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne 'some slight variation within a species which will not change it into another species of animal over any period of time'
pubmed.gov search for : speciation.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Wow.
This is really stupid.
So the only possible explanation for the Origin of Life is "It must have been One of US... but with superpowers..."
Brilliant.
Diosibundo 1 year ago
google Doe's Account
seekfears 1 year ago
lol quoting an article from 1961
I notice a lot of down thumbing here, but not a lot of refutations of what us 'evilutionists' are saying.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
What is this buffoonery?
You CAN explain biodiversity with the theory of evolution WITHOUT considering the origin of life on Earth.
This is nonsense.
The only other explanation for biodiversity on Earth is Creationism. And THAT is purely religious (and nonsensical).
no1sjester 2 years ago
Yes, evolution is the only religion in which you can put the cart before the horse.
awguenin 2 years ago
This was the worst "video" ever. Please try to look up videos by Kent Hovind or Venomfangx which is much much better on the subject better.....
venomfangx1supporter 2 years ago
Bye Bye Darwin.
Your story was only brainstorming
akkafietje 2 years ago
Don't ya just love it when twits like this mangle the use of the word "theory."
Quoting a work from the 60's is useful? How?
Gish is one of the most deceitful YECSers ever.
ozowen 2 years ago
pseudo science, pure and simple nonsense. Damn those pesky scientists with their so called evidence.
AndyBoyd86 2 years ago
lol
oliver159 3 years ago
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=EHgCBN7mlTA
youtube(dot)com/view_play_list?p=75A9C5177D393ACD
A4AgnstcFndmntlst 3 years ago
Interesting lecture
Terrelleeno 4 years ago
BereanBeacon-No matter how many copyright violations you make by posting ICR junk, you still have made a dent to the fact evolutionary science is well established and will not be overthrown by the likes of you or your compatriots.
lawilson200 4 years ago
Commissar lawilson200, The only thing you people have is a somewhat efficient propaganda machine operating in all areas of education similar in countries dominated by Marxism. Your desire is to keep people in the dark and prisoner to both your religions. Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction. Proverbs 10:14
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
Commissar? Personally, I never read Marx and by this stage of the gamee, I never care to read him. As for keeping people in the dark, the only examples from history that I am aware of are overzeolous religious nutballs who believe any field of study that is not related to the Bible is heresy.
lawilson200 4 years ago
everyone is entitled to an opinion, and everyone is entitled to post it here. A lot of people who are not scientists jump on the evolution band wagon and get aggressive without understanding it. So some of what the creationists say about some so called evolutionists attitudes is justified. However as far i see no real evidence for creationism. They pick a few holes in evolution that are not proven yet, however holes in one theory is not evidence for another. That is false logic.
SqrJames 4 years ago
I do believe religious indocterination is evil, and should be banned. However because someone seeks an explanation in the creation of the universe and tries to substantiate it with evidence, does not make them a fanatic, or mean they are indocterinating.
SqrJames 4 years ago
I had read through your comments and found them interesting. Care must be shown here, because you need to keep in mind the purpose of YEC. Evidence for YECers really does not matter. It is the fact that in the US, evangelical theology is not permitted free reign in our public schools. And YECers will do and say anything to force their way back into schools.
lawilson200 4 years ago
The easiest way to shoot down their theories is simply to allow it to be tested under scientific method and peer review. At that point they may not drop it, but it will be such a laughing stock internationally that it will stop its spread dead.
SqrJames 4 years ago 2
Each time YECers suffer another legal blow, they find another way to repackage their nonsense. It's been what? 148 years since Origins of Species and YECers still have not given up.
lawilson200 4 years ago
SqrJames "holes in one theory is not evidence for another" - if I understand you correctly, you were saying a few holes in evolution isn't proof for creation. It also works the other way around; just because you see holes in Creationism doesn't mean evolution is true...
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
Yes, but creationism just just have holes, it has no evidence to stand on. In fact it has a mountain of evidence against it, especially the young earth creationism. YECism to be honest is an absolute joke in the scientific community.
SqrJames 4 years ago
doesn't just*
SqrJames 4 years ago
That's not true. We know for a fact that time had a beginning (see harvardhouse). We know there had to be a first cause. We know life can only come from life; it does not come from chemical soup.
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
life only comes from life.
time had a beginning.
Contradiction! If only life gives life, and your God is the life that gave us our life, then some life gave God God's life, no? When did this occur? when was God's God given life and by whom? Is there any explanation at all?
contekkst 3 years ago
contekkst-God, being self-existent, did not need a creator.
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
it doesn't make sense, does it? I mean if looking at humans one can remark "surely such an intricate creature was designed" one would only be more inclined to say the same looking at God.
Isn't it possible that what we call God is actually a creature that has its own limitations, that required creating and that has intentions and desires?
contekkst 3 years ago
Evolutionists don't try and prove evolution by finding holes in creationism however, we find real evidence.
SqrJames 4 years ago