I watch your videos to get some scientific data that I may have missed in studies ... the debunking of the pseudoscience of creationism is just an entertaining bonus.
this video is true I think potholer may be a sexual deviant of softs are perhaps just a simple narrowminded sociopath either one would explain a clean arrest record. ever wonder why the law is sooo soft on these scum. POTHOLER IS MOST LIKELY A PEDOPHILLE
tr4y and trace this ISP YOULL NEVER FIND IT. im smarter than potholer but a suprising amount of people are snmarter than me who work shit jobs. its true
What's up with the 10 1/2 minute long video? I just saw the thumbnail and title of this video and thought, "Wow! Good ol' Pete did an excellent job debunking as always! Those poor bastards just got raped!!"
The best thing that I learned from this video is that there is an organization called the "Spark Plug Collectors of America"... and that creationists are full of shit, but I already knew that.
@jiminiflix aboriginals have lived isolated in Australia since they arrived around 80 thousand years ago!
When god was supposedly making the first people, there were already many huge civilizations building giant stone temples and cities all over the world.
@jiminiflix I didn't follow your first point, did I ever say that a homo sapian didn't come from a male and female homo sapian?? everyone has always been born to parents of the same species.
no, we didn't all come from the area that the bible describes, we all came from Africa, and those that have stayed in Africa never lived in biblical places.
We can trace mans history back a LOT further than 5 or 6 thousand years. Agriculture was invented about 14 thousand years ago, domestication about 17.
(you just seemed to get the wrong impression from my very brief mention of the 'mitochondrial eve' concept. Of course they didn't breed together, being separated by so much time. Instead they are individuals that are genetic common ancestors to all surviving people.. And Eve didn't give birth to a new species, nor was she the first of hers. They were members of a population of their species. Again, I can't remember much, we should both research it.)
Donexodus2's "why every scientist accepts evolution"
I've just found out this guy is actually a theist, but this is still one of my all time favorite evolution doco's.
Multiple fields (genetics, paleontology, anatomy) discovering the same history of life, common ancestry- GREATLY reinforces our certainty.
we can be very sure the moon is there not just because we can see it, but we have been to it and brought back material, and can observe its effects on the tide, etc
The one concept that is little understood is also the simplest and most important: stratigraphy. Careful excavation of almost anywhere will reveal (in section) the sequence in which strata were laid down. An immutable law of stratigraphy is that the stratum that underlies the stratum above is ALWAYS older. And so a little history of anywhere in the world can be observed. Items--finds, fossils etc that are embedded in one stratum are always older than the objects in the stramum above. Geddit?
Yeh you could make billions off these gullible creationists that is why the so called champions of creationism strut their bullshit..1/2 hour TV program in USA makes heaps of money..
@winterstellar See thats just a typical fallacy. Wow wikepedia says it so its a ' fact '. I can't believe someone has said that to me. Its like me ,a creationist saying dinasaurs were made extict because of KFC. The question is does science determine evolution to be a fact. Well I know there is equal scientific debate and evidence to disprove it. Please tell me the best proof for evolution.
@winterstellar Which e-coli experiment (zillion -23?)Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms. Where did information come from for speciation to occur if not from original creatures made by God in the beginning?
@winterstellar No thats a cop out and such a tired argument. I will talk science but answer my question. Where did the information for speciation come from?. I don't deny speciation. Transspeciation is the issue which is impossible.
@jiminiflix "Information" is a term used by creationists to confuse people. It's just chemistry/physics, complex molecules, complex chemical reactions. Over hundreds of millions of years it's not strange that the reactions had become very complex, there is no need for magic man:) Again, look up speciation to see how it happens and how long it takes and so on. You'll find it in wikipedia.
@winterstellar Well science is ALL about information? You need to think because information is required for all life processes, it can be stated unequivocally that information is an essential characteristic of all life.Evolution could only occur if the possibility existed that information could arise by itself out of matter. But information requires an intelligent sender and information is a non material fundamental entity. Chemical equations evolving is impossible and not even enough.
@Craigmw45 Absurd notion? That shows that you are not even open to what I said. Do you dispute that information (no matter what type) cannot be construed as accidental or from a non intelligence? Lets reason scientifically here. Did language evolve by accident without intelligence? How therfore could the most complex of information within all DNA possibly arrise from a 'non' intelligence?
@jiminiflix :Do you dispute that information cannot be construed as accidental or from a non intelligence?"
Well..... yes of course.... Considering all the "information" (notice quotes) in your body is nothing more then a chemical reaction I can not see, at all, why anyone would say it evidence of some sort of intelligence.
Information, like the term "kind" is something creationist will never define, since they know the moment they do, the facts will wtfpwn them. Can you define information?
@Craigmw45 This is information, logical and intelligent sentences of code (letters) speaking a message to the reciever (yourself), from an intelligent source (myself). What are the chances of this message occuring by chance?. DNA is more complex .In your oppinion if the right chemicals exist, evolution can occur.You may have a correct 'recipe" but information is not a chemical, order from information is something that is intelligently programmed and needs to be meticulously put into action.
@jiminiflix "logical and intelligent sentences of code"
Well then DNA is not information by this definition. There is no intelligence behind it's, its not logical, in fact most of it is useless. Frankly its nothing more then a chemical reaction. And FFS, no one but creationists constructing ridiculous strawman think it happed by chance, or evolution is a chance based process. Darwin spent fully half of Origins of species dictating why it's not a chance based process.
@jiminiflix And to be frank, just for the sake of argument, lets accept that DNA is somehow information. Is gene duplication not new information? How about ERV's, most certainly new information, for an outside none intelligent source mind you... How about ERV's that become mutated and co-oped for say a protein building. What about a mutation in a previously useless piece, which is selected for an becomes used.
We can watch all this happen, can you honestly tell me this isn't new info?
@Craigmw45 If its new information, where did it come from and who wrote it? If there is any new information its not "original" information but a duplication, which we know makes a gene half useless.
"We can watch all this happen" - what have you ACTUALLY seen of evolution. Call me old fashioned but I would expect that IF evolution is an actual fact, we should all be observing it globally. But species don't change EXCEPT according to Genesis.
@jiminiflix "what have you ACTUALLY seen of evolution" Google examples of speciation, there are 100's if not 1000's.
"where did it come from and who wrote it"
No one wrote it, and it came from no where,(I guess) We can watch this happen, over and over, and no magic required. Why would you assume some supernatural force is required in the past, when its not on a lab counter top?
"EXCEPT according to Genesis."
No we don't. We see things evolve that can no longer interbreed. Google the examples.
@Craigmw45 It's best to ignore scientifically illiterate people who are proud of it. No matter how much you explain the science and the methodology, they'll always ignore your answers and go back to the same questions >:(
@Craigmw45 Wow " We see things evolve that can no longer interbreed" - That is not evolution then is it. VAriation within kinds is a fact, rings species may be true, but the species don't change. No macro-evolution, no transpeciation, no scietific evidence of anything you have said.
@jiminiflix "No macro-evolution, no transpeciation....."
In my very last comment I asked you to google examples of speciation to see for your self. I see your quite happy to not do that, since it would prove your argument wrong, and instead just repeat it.
Since I'm a nice guy, I googled it for you, you seem to be pretty good at copy pasting so here you go.
Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura
@jiminiflix "" We see things evolve that can no longer interbreed" - That is not evolution then is it."
That's exactly what it is.
When I said you seem to have no idea what evolution is and shouldn't try to argue against it, I wasn't being mean or insulting, just trying to give you some advice. Your argument looks more cohesive if you are educated on the subject.
PS I would like an answer to my last comment... Is entirely new pieces of DNA inserted into the genome not "new information?"
@Craigmw45 I talk to people like you everyday. I hope to at least make you question WHY you believe what you believe and you all certainly believe it .I am a creationist and so I do also believe .I dispute evolution becuase you all seem to believe its a scientific fact, when its not. If evolution is "proven" through life no longer breeding can you understand why the theory looks like a joke? I If you are referring to bred mules or ligers, do you see these occurring in nature?
The comma doesn't help the question make sense, unfortunately.
"If evolution is "proven" through life no longer breeding"
This is so nonsensical I can't even fathom what you mean. Either the person who told you this is very confused, very inept at explaining, or you are very obtuse at understanding.
Please explain more verbosely what that sentence is supposed to even mean.
@uvauva2 TO QUOTE YOU!! - "No we don't. We see things evolve that can no longer interbreed" and I said :["If evolution is "proven" through life no longer breeding, can you understand why the theory looks like a joke?"] How can evolution bring any advantageous benefits IF the results produce life that cannot interbreed? Mutations do that lets remember. Can you also let me know of any creatures in nature that cannot interbreed(in specie) due to evolution? ie (not by breeding programs)
Except you aren't quoting me. Is reading usernames too hard for you?
"How can evolution bring any advantageous benefits IF the results produce life that cannot interbreed?"
Explain the supposed contradiction. The process through which two populations initially of the same species can come not to be genetically compatible anymore is usually geographical separation. The original population splits into two, each of which slowly diverges to better adapt (...)
(...) to it's environment, and after a long enough period of isolation from each other the two populations may have diverged enough not to be able to interbreed any longer. Explain which part of this precludes "advantageous benefits".
"Can you also let me know of any creatures in nature that cannot interbreed(in specie) due to evolution?"
Search for ring species. In fact, potholer himself has a video about this v=1RnygS7opCA
Quit being a misleading twat. Micro and macro evolution are the same concept. Macro (big) evolution is simply micro (small) evolution compounded over time and scale. You said yourself you know what a ring species is, what more explaining do you need?
@sweetmonkeylove1 Whats the big deal about ring species?. They don't prove anything beneficial for evolution.An ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind—just as creationists maintain must have happened.Ring species and similar examples actually highlight the great variety and rich information which must have been present in the original created kinds.Can you show me an example of trans speciation?
@jiminiflix Can I show you genes? Get a brain. You can only treat this like your little trump card because it sounds good but it is just religious nutcase jibberjabber.
"You should apply for work as a tour guide at a creationist museum. Your customers might be stupid enough to consider you to be a genius!"
An interesting suggestion. However I find abusing the ignorant is immoral, and neither do I find the financial incentive compelling. Nor does my ego need massaging, as you seem to imply.
On another note, I'm under the impression you don't even understand the conversation you are butting into.
@uvauva2 What makes sense about evolution? I mean you have no scientific proof that any of the mechanisms of evolution actually cause evolutionary change across species different genus's. Its evolution that is imaginary and non scientifically possible. Its at least a religion.
"I mean you have no scientific proof that any of the mechanisms of evolution actually cause evolutionary change across species different genus's."
Whatever do you think this means? You have plentiful evidence that the distribution of the similarity of life matches the proposed mechanisms. But then again, I doubt you even understand what the words you are using mean.
@jiminiflix do you accept that huge changes can happen to animals when humans take control of natural selection, and domesticate things with controlled breeding?
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Chanes ofcourse occur within a genus or kind. There are 200 varieties of dogs. This has been done mainly by man but breeds within dogs and cats and horses and cattle would happen naturally (not as many of course), but this I argue is not evidence as evolution. This is stated in Genesis as all life was commanded by God to go and multiply on the earth. God made all kinds to reproduce after its kind as we see in nature. Have you ever seen this NOT occurring?
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Evolution as well is supposed to a natural process. Do you think all the thousand of species of life on earth came about by artificail insemination? Evolution has never been observed by man and I am supposed to believe all life is a result of evolutonary "mechaniism" that are not proven at all to cause evolution? Do you realise how much faith is needed to believe that?
@jiminiflix Sex between two animals is not artificial insemination :P
just like humans have produced over 200 species of dog in just 13 thousand years of controlled breeding, YES, I do think all the species on earth were produces by 4 billion years of naturally, controlled breeding. Natural and sexual selective pressures were the controls.
you accept that all the modern dogs are descended from a wolf ancestor. Would you accept all the modern mammals are descended from a mammal ancestor?
@jiminiflix Evolution HAS be observed by man, in many ways. Just one example is bacteria in the lab adapting to antibiotics, and understanding of this taught us how and why the medical industry needs to be very restrictive on antibiotic prescriptions.
We have also seen the creation of new species on the macroscopic scale. Are you familiar with 'speciation'? describe that process to me if you are, and we will go from there
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Speciation which is new species formed over time within a kind. They can occur rather quickly. As I believe all creatures are descendents of life of Noahs ark, the range in new species have arisen in 4500 years only. Dogs came from two dogs (most likely a wolf ancestor). This is all confirmed by the Bible but you may interpret this as evolution, but this is not evidence at all for evolution which is a non-plausable explantion for how all life has come to be as it is.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke There has been extensive studies done on both bacteria and flies. Though mutations can happen, always, you end up with a fly. Bacteria still remain bacteria even if they can eat Nylon. Theres no increase in genetic information.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Whatever, you still have flies and bacteria, where is evolution evident in nature and in the thousands of other species on earth. I am not talking about speciation within a kind. Chanes occur and have always occurred within kinds. New species have developed but they remain of their kind. There are no transitional fossils that show any mergences or x of kinds within the world as the Bible declares wouldn't happen.The overall scientific evidence is pretty weak for evolution.
I've now realized that you are the same dishonest moron to whom I was explaining the exact same point months ago. I also notice that now that I've exposed your silly strawman (again) you have elected not to answer me... What a despicable little tool you are.
@uvauva2 Really? Did I "elect" not to answer you?You have exposed my "silly strawman argument"? You call me a despicable tool and I have no idea who you are, I don't remember you I am sorry. I usually talk to rational people.
@jiminiflix lol mergences? the whole speciation thing is that you don't have branches of the tree of life rejoining once they have separated a bit. It is astronomically unlikely for one 'kind' to evolve into another pre-existing kind, instead new kinds are always made
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Which is unscientifically founded, never observed and purely a belief. Changes have only been observed within a kind, never have new kinds been observed or proven to be made. A new kind can only possibly come from two pre existing kinds mating. How else does the notion of birds evolvin from lizards possible occur? Can't you see how contrived evolution is?
"How else does the notion of birds evolvin from lizards possible occur?"
You pathetic tool. I've answered this to you already, as I suspect have plentiful others. Birds evolved from lizards by small gradual changes. The notion that such might have occurred was first suggested by the fossil record and morphological analysis, and more recently confirmed by genetic analysis.
@uvauva2 I could respond to your low level of rationality but obviously you choose to be what you are. If only you could evolved and change to be something beneficial to this world. You ofcourse KNOW birds changed from lizards by "small gradual changes" by fossils?? But fossils PROVE NOTHING! They are dead thats it. Morphological analysis? Its never been observed, not even in the fossils. You are referring to natural chanes WITHIN KINDS!! Not birds evolving from lizards- archaeopteryx is fake!
"You (...) KNOW birds changed from lizards by "small gradual changes" by fossils??"
Your reading skills are obviously pretty poor.I said that the evolution of birds from reptiles was first INDICATED via fossils and comparative morphology.The piece of evidence that ultimately put the issue beyond reasonable doubt was genetic analysis, and more concretely the convergent evolutionary trees predicted by multiple independent genes (and which also match the previous forms of evidence)(...)
(...) But at this stage in the conversation any discussion of this kind is pointless: the reason you are a tool is that you keep pretending that the theory of evolution somehow advocates any "inter "kind" " breeding, even after explained multiple times that no such thing is part of the theory. If you actually want to argue against it, first learn what it actually says, as opposed to arguing against idiotic strawman of your(?) creation.
@jiminiflix I don't know how you planned that merging of two kinds is how birds evolved from reptiles lol :P if reptiles were the mother species, what was the father species? lol
anyway, a new kind comes from one kind mating not two, just as an isolated group.
if you can accept controlled evolution could change a wolf into a chihuahua or great dane, how can you find it so extreme to imagine that natural evolution could change a monkey to an ape. Think of the very similar kinds
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I diddn't give you details luke. I simply stated the how ludicrous the idea was that birds came from reptiles becuause you would NEED a bird to start with, IF it was genetically possible for them to mate- which they couldn't becuase they have entirely different genes. Birds have hollow bones, complex respiritory system, they are also warm blooded. Feathers CANNOT evolve from scales, nor the miraculous ability to fly. I don't know how you believe this is science?
@jiminiflix how can you insist feathers cannot evolve from scales? answer; you cant.
You can't declare anything impossible just because you don't understand its natural mechanism. That IS the definition of an argument from ignorance.
Feathers DID evolve from scales, not only are the occasional feather seen on dinosaurs in the fossil record, but birds still have the dna for growing teeth. Flying isn't miraculous, and feathers animals aren't the only ones to discover how
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Are you talking science here or heresay? What science is there to prove a feather can ACTUALLY evolve from a scale. I ask YOU how can you declare it as POSSIBLE when you have no evidence. How can you also SO IGNORANTLY diminish the amazing wonder of birds ability to fly and PRESUME through your BELIEF SYSTEM and LIE TO US ALL that science PROVES ITS TRUE?What evidence do you have that legs evolved into wings? Archaeopteryx ?Its a hoax and can prove nothing anyhow.
@jiminiflix Archaeopteryx isn't a hoax :P there was a hoax involved but it was quickly noticed as a composite piece. funnily enough one limb turned out to be from a new species that was an even more obvious transitional species than archaoepteryx itself!
there are dozens of archaeopteryx fossils now btw
but it's not just that, there's millions more that are just like it, in the same and different lineages.
the shape of the family tree has been genetically revealed too.
@jiminiflix bird flight is NOT a miracle lol. it's so well understood that we can now fly ourselves (planes).
anyway we all get that you reject the modern scientific understanding of the world pretty clearly now, can I ask, why do you accept the religious account of how things got here??
(if you reject the scientific method for finding things out, isn't faith in ancient books an infinitely more flimsy tool for sorting fact from fiction?)
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Thats just your oppinion. Its not a scientific issue, bird flight may be understood but thats only a recent understanding.Many birds fly contrary to scientific reason or logic. I accept creation because I have a personal knowing of who God is. Thats something I cannot prove to you, I just know it. I also with my logic and my conscience have a different faith to you. I believe God made the world"s" and all life to multiply within thier kind -as scripture says clearly.
@jiminiflix well it doesn't matter what scripture says, that's just an old fable, a creation myth, written by people with a very primitive scientific understanding.
No, there are no birds with flight techniques contrary to scientific reason. There are no 'miracles' known in the world, only a few things we haven't figured out yet, nothing that breaks the rules. Birds don't need gods help to fly, it's aerodynamics.
'within their kind' isn't how reality works, new kinds evolve from old ones
@jiminiflix well it doesn't matter what scripture says, that's just an old fable, a creation myth, written by people with a very primitive scientific understanding.
No, there are no birds with flight techniques contrary to scientific reason. There are no 'miracles' known in the world, only a few things we haven't quite figured out yet, nothing that breaks the rules. Birds don't need gods help to fly, it's aerodynamics.
'within their kind' isn't how reality works, new kinds evolve from old ones
@jiminiflix well it doesn't matter what scripture says, that's just an old fable, a creation myth, written by people with a very primitive scientific understanding.
No, there are no birds with flight techniques contrary to scientific reason. There are no 'miracles' known in the world, only a few things we haven't quite figured out yet, nothing that breaks the rules. Birds don't need gods help to fly, it's aerodynamics.
'within their kind' isn't how reality works, new kinds evolve from old ones
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Of course its aerodynamics, funny how birds are so aerodynamic? Its seems obsurd to me that you must assume they are evolved by chance and time and NOT possibly the result of intelligent design. New species may form within kinds but mate your in la la land to believe all lifeforms are interlinked. "reality" what do you know of that?
@jiminiflix rofl that IS the current scientific model of the history of life, and most of us understand why :P you're the one out of touch with reality.
ya, funny how birds are so aurodynamic. funny how fish have fins, exactly what they would need for swimming in water. Funny how snails have shells, and everything being specialized to live in its environment. No, it's no miracle that birds are well designed for flight, that's what adaptation does. durrrrr :P
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke So YOU believe that adaption has intelligence or are you just denying that there is obvious intelligence in the design of life? If evolution was possible, how do you water down the miracle of flight? To me if bird evolved firsly to "be" and adapted to fly it is an even GREATER miracle. i mean it would be like winning the lottery a billion times in sequence!! ESPECIALLY with no mind behind it at all. FAROUT you have such faith! I am such a durr brain.
are you calling the action of flying a miracle, or the evolution of it? either way, something (seemingly) extremely unlikely occurring isn't a miracle, unlikely things happen all the time! only impossible things are miracles.
before birds evolved, dinosaurs and insects had already invented featherless flight. It's a pretty natural next step to gliding.
No, I don't believe either question in your first sentence. Adaptation IS the designer, and it works without being an intelligence
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I am saying , the greatest MIRACLE of all would be a bird evolving and being able to fly, purely by adaptation and no intelligence needed. That would be AMAZING! Why aren't you amazed? Its absolutely mind bogglin don't you think? That first everything came from nothing, for no purpose whatsoever and through just chemicals and BILLIONS of years the unverse just formed and life on earth just happenned and all the millions of species - just amazing- why aren't you amazed?
@jiminiflix lol it's pretty amazing! (btw we don't know everything came from nothing before the big bang) it's cool how complex systems work, and it can be hard to understand them, but you are using the word miracle totally casually! I'd reserve it for things that shouldn't happen, not things that are understood but just beautiful and complicated.
Mr. A? lol. adaptation is a natural process :P
when you see water become a spiral down the sink, do you anthropomorphize it? Mr. S?
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke The big bang theory is. a good comedy show, but it is at odds with a number of principles of real operational science.Particle physicists claim high temperature conditions of the big bang should have created magnetic monopoles. There are none found.The BB should have produced precisely equal amounts of matter and antimatter.But there is not which is good or matter and antimatter would destroy itself.The BB leaves nearly 90 elements to be explained as to their existance.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke our galaxy alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it. Yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements that the Big Bang can account for ) Helium, Hydrogen and trace elements of Lithium.Basically BB is BS.
@jiminiflix uuuh what? BB doesn't predict stars of pure Helium and Hydrogen! and it can't 'only account for' those rofl. It predicts the opposite, because so much time has passed since then that pure clouds are astronomically unlikely
the first generation of stars, 1 billion years after the big bang were pure hydrogen, which burnt hydrogen into all the heavier elements then exploded, the dust of which became the next generation of stars. We are made of stardust :)
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke the first stars would be comprised of only the three lightest elements.Some such stars should still be around today since their lifespans are computed to exceed the time that has elapsed since the big bang. Such stars would be called “population III” stars. Amazingly (to those who believe in the big bang), population III stars have not been found anywhere.Hydrogen BTW cannot burn into all elements. The theory is nuclear fusion and supernovas spread heavier elements (from?)
@jiminiflix yyyyes, Hydrogen CAN burn into all the heavier elements, why did you assert it can't? that's why the sun shines, it converts something like 100 million tonnes of hydrogen into something like 95 million tonnes of helium every second, the remaining 5% becoming the energy that escapes as radiation. The hotter the star, the heavier elements it makes. Ours is only hot enough to forge the lightest 8 or so elements.
(minor detail, hydrogen doesn't burn DIRECTLY into all the heavier elements, for example some are made by humans in exotic conditions, but still, we're making them out of the products of Hydrogen)
I really want you to acknowledge that you heard&understood me correct you on the big bang/everything from nothing thing, because then you would be being dishonest if you ever again say anything like "nothing exploded" without adding a "perhaps, although thats not part of whats proven, just speculation"
@jiminiflix Just, what is classed as part of 'The Big bang theory' is the observationally confirmed stuff, that everything was very dense 13.72 billion years ago. Whether the dense universe came from nothing, or came from some proto-universe/multiverse, is a fun and important speculation, but outside the realm of the big bang theory.
Can you tell me you hear me? that the big bang does NOT claim everything came from nothing? only from a very dense state.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Well you haven't explained where all matter came from. I would like to add to that , nor how all chemicals came into being. How did the age of 13.72 billion years come about?
@jiminiflix I haven't explained where all matter came from? that's because we don't know, depending on your definition of matter.
Energy and matter are the same thing, interchangable. In the very early big bang it was too hot for subatomic particles to form, there was just raging energy. After about 1 second, it was cool enough for atoms to form. You could say that's where all matter came from, but really it was just in another more energetic form before that.
@jiminiflix also, can I get you to acknowledge the point I corrected you on about the big bang theory being an 'everything came from nothing' situation? Just so I know you are listening.
The big bang is the extrapolation of the expansion back to a very very dense start 13.72 billion years ago. It's a proven fact, and does NOT claim where that dense universe came from, although we can speculate.
MAYBE nothing, maybe the singularity was eternal, maybe a multiverse, maybe eternal inflation etc.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke " It's a proven fact" but where the matter came from,"we can speculate".If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass.Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra,embarked to find evidence to support the big bang model by compiling large star maps. The more progress they madethe clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery.It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter ('dark matter') was postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this 'dark matter' is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.
@jiminiflix yes, you're kind of right, but wrong that you think that dark matter somehow disproves the whole known history of the universe. The same for the current state of clumpiness of matter. This was one of the ways the hypothesis of inflation was stumbled upon, an explanation for the clumpiness vs. smoothness of matter (the distribution )
no direct evidence? you badly described the very reason we predict it :P We just don't know what it is.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes,"'There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are.' He later continues: 'The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the frustration
@jiminiflix why do you think our struggling to accurately understand how the current state of the universe formed, and getting close, but not having the perfect answer yet, means you can say "oh you don't know how it happened so I can say I know for sure it was this magic being"
it's a god of the gaps argument, you can't fill the gaps in our knowledge with god as an explanation, it's just a bad explanation. You actually need evidence for your god, not the receding gaps in scientific knowledge
@jiminiflix I've told you repeatedly, it's a proven fact that all the galaxies were practically on top of each other in a very dense state 13.72 billion years ago.
When you wrongly describe the big bang as claiming that everything came from nothing, then no, that is not a proven fact.
look, imagine I wrongly state that all religion claims 'god appeared out of nothing before creating everything'. You would rightly object that there are other options, god could be eternal in some way.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke It doesn't matter what I say, it what God has declared to all mankind. :"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20 The evidence of God is in what He has made, from the smallest electon to 100 billion trillion stars. All life has order and design, refute it - ok - you have the right to what you believe.
@jiminiflix it's just that, we have working explanations for how the apparent design in life arises, confirmed by observation and prediction and tested in the lab&field. That's why evolution is the current scientific theory, and not a hypothesis. We know the universe used to be very dense from very good reasons too.
Why do you quote the bible as if it is guaranteed truth from god, when we know of its very human creation?
Do you have any reason to trust the bible as authoritative? (not faith)
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke look sorry but can we please just backtrack a bit for a moment and make sure we have clearly covered this, you didn't acknowledge the point I really wanted you to.
Repeat after me
"The big bang doesn't claim that everything came from nothing, it describes the early stages of the expansion of the universe from a very dense state. I will never describe the big bang as 'nothing exploded' again, without feeling deeply dishonest because I now know better"
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Alan Guth. ( evolutionist)
@jiminiflix ya that's very inaccurate, maybe you should listen to Physicists and astronomers when it comes to cosmological history, not evolutionary biologosts (although you didn't say he was a scientist at all, just someone who accepts evolution!)
both his statements were wrong, we don't know that the universe came from nothing and BB theory doesn't assert it, and also it didn't generate stuff from nowhere as it got bigger, all energy-matter has existed at least since the big bang in some form
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I trust the Bible because its credable on many levels. I believe in God becuase as I apply His word, God moves in my life. I also cannot ever dismiss God because He is more real to me than this world is. Thats the truth. I love God and I know God abides in me and loves me. God IS Love. You know something is good, by its love. You know God is real by His love. John 3:16
@jiminiflix god is love? then I believe in your god!
why not just call it love? people don't mean it when they say god is love. They say god because they mean love, PLUS supernatural claims. Your god isn't just love.
lastly, why don't you wikipedia the BB and then you can explain to me, the specifics of why cosmologists can confidently say that all of space was very very dense 13.72 billion years ago. Great exercise, that's what you should do when you don't know something, not claim God did it
@jiminiflix (I've replied to all three of your messages and should wait for a reply before writing more, but I'd like to add that you are wrong about declaring knowledge of god through 'his love'. There's no way you can show that any deep feelings of love you feel originate from the judeo-christian god, its just a creation myth and nothing you're feeling confirms it. In fact, you don't feel other peoples love at all, you feel your own! you use empathy to predict their love, and simulate it)
there IS a reason why you have deep emotional feelings that there is a god listening to your thoughts and influencing reality, and it's not that there really is a god. Those feelings aren't a connection to and evidence for god, they are a product of living your life like there is one.
My dad was in a pseudo-wizardry group, they practiced rituals and visualization until an array of gods and demons 'felt' real eventually. It was actually an exercise of skepticism, debunking those feelings
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Your reasoning implies that we love conditionally; in other words, we love someone because they fulfill a condition that we require before we can love them.That is true in this world, basically man is selfish. This is because of sin that separates us from knowing God. It doesn't change who God is "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:8 But how can we even begin to understand that truth? John 3:16,Romans 5:8
@jiminiflix states where you love everything unconditionally are possible, but other than those rare mind expanding moments in deep meditation, trance, near death, on drugs, or just feeling one with the universe... yes, love is somewhat conditional, people tend not to love people who are stabbing them for example.
Do I believe it's impossible to have a relationship with god? yes
why? because I don't think he exists
on what evidence? I'm just unconvinced, theists have the burden of proof
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Do you believe its impossible to have a relationship with God? Why? On what evidence?God wants us to know that His love is unconditional, so He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us while we were still sinners. We didn't have to get clean, and we didn't have to make any promises to God before we could experience His love. His love for us has always existed, and because of that, He did all the giving and sacrificing long before we were even aware that we needed His love
@jiminiflix if gods love is unconditional, why did we have to torture and kill Jesus? couldn't he have just forgiven everyone, without a violent human sacrifice loophole to a rule that he himself made and maintains. The judeo-christian god of the bible is a monster! if you have the ability to prevent suffering and you don't, you're culpable. Every innocent child burnt to death in a carcrash, every person in agony, your god loves them but doesn't help them? why? on what non-biblical evidence?
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke If you commit a crime, tell me if you would prefer the judge to be JUST or MERCIFUL? Jesus was crucifed to pay for our sins so we could recieve redemption - He PAID a ransom for us. If we say to the judge "I don't need the ransom paid for me" Then the judge must lay down the law and offer justice for your sin - justice in the light of law. Thats why a repentant believer can only accept Christ, by Grace through Faith in Christ who has vindicated them before God the Father.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke There is no hiding the fact - aweful things happen to innocent people including children all over the earth. Do I believe God is to blame for that? No. Bad things happen to "good people" although no one IS truly good. If my child had cancer I would be upset - would I curse God? NO! I understand hardship, sufferring and pain are apart of this world, for the believer, we are not 'of 'this world so we seek first the Kingdom of God even in hard times.We mature with thankfulness.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke You are also looking at life from a perspective of a fleeting moment on earth. Fod God a day is like a thousand years. Eternity is a realm we have idea about except from God's Word. Pain and sufferring existed in Jesus time, but never forget Jesus truly suffered for us as well - God has shown He understands our situations and our pains, he has experienced them as a man. He left behind the comforter, the Holy Spirit to be our strength in times of trial. God is no monster ok?
@jiminiflix supposedly coming down in bodily form and experiencing suffering like a human is NOT applying his ability to end suffering.
If you drive by starving Ethiopians while you have a magic bag in your car which you can pull an infinite amount of food out of, and you don't give them the food instead you... fast for a few weeks and experience starving pains yourself, then you are evil, and insane.
The whole sin/Jesus system is immoral, and death and suffering are regular part of nature
Potholer54 is my favorite science channel! Is there a modern history channel as good as this?
bradjbourgeois73 3 days ago
I watch your videos to get some scientific data that I may have missed in studies ... the debunking of the pseudoscience of creationism is just an entertaining bonus.
KittenKoder 1 week ago
Hahaha, X-Files music. That show reminds me of Creationism, except Mulder always has more evidence for his beliefs than Ray Comfort does.
TheSamuraiGoomba 1 week ago 8
@TheSamuraiGoomba if creationists had as much evidence as mulder, I might be more inclined to believe them. lol
sniped101 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this video is true I think potholer may be a sexual deviant of softs are perhaps just a simple narrowminded sociopath either one would explain a clean arrest record. ever wonder why the law is sooo soft on these scum. POTHOLER IS MOST LIKELY A PEDOPHILLE
tr4y and trace this ISP YOULL NEVER FIND IT. im smarter than potholer but a suprising amount of people are snmarter than me who work shit jobs. its true
KBMFMVLF 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
What's up with the 10 1/2 minute long video? I just saw the thumbnail and title of this video and thought, "Wow! Good ol' Pete did an excellent job debunking as always! Those poor bastards just got raped!!"
MultiPaulinator 3 weeks ago
omg history channel...............
MisterFro9 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I don't understand this word. Can someone please tell me, how its written? "concrision" or sth. like that.
guillatra 1 month ago in playlist Weitere Videos von Potholer54debunks
@guillatra concretion
rubiniosity 1 month ago 2
@rubiniosity thx
guillatra 4 weeks ago
I wonder if a visitor to the creationist museum looked at the hammer and exclaimed 'Wow. What a wonderful example of concretion!"
cloudstone123 1 month ago
there are people collection spark plugs? lol :D
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur They have a facebook page with 6 members if you want to join hahaha
9CrystalDragon2 2 weeks ago
The best thing that I learned from this video is that there is an organization called the "Spark Plug Collectors of America"... and that creationists are full of shit, but I already knew that.
mcmonkey001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jiminiflix aboriginals have lived isolated in Australia since they arrived around 80 thousand years ago!
When god was supposedly making the first people, there were already many huge civilizations building giant stone temples and cities all over the world.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
Comment removed
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@jiminiflix I didn't follow your first point, did I ever say that a homo sapian didn't come from a male and female homo sapian?? everyone has always been born to parents of the same species.
no, we didn't all come from the area that the bible describes, we all came from Africa, and those that have stayed in Africa never lived in biblical places.
We can trace mans history back a LOT further than 5 or 6 thousand years. Agriculture was invented about 14 thousand years ago, domestication about 17.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
(you just seemed to get the wrong impression from my very brief mention of the 'mitochondrial eve' concept. Of course they didn't breed together, being separated by so much time. Instead they are individuals that are genetic common ancestors to all surviving people.. And Eve didn't give birth to a new species, nor was she the first of hers. They were members of a population of their species. Again, I can't remember much, we should both research it.)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGYn
Donexodus2's "why every scientist accepts evolution"
I've just found out this guy is actually a theist, but this is still one of my all time favorite evolution doco's.
Multiple fields (genetics, paleontology, anatomy) discovering the same history of life, common ancestry- GREATLY reinforces our certainty.
we can be very sure the moon is there not just because we can see it, but we have been to it and brought back material, and can observe its effects on the tide, etc
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
Ooo! Thanks for the money making idea!
cloudstone123 1 month ago
I totally buy the alien story!
geyza0711 1 month ago
Your also completely wrong on your so called observations of the big bang tard
njpilot78 1 month ago
And I mock you and god !!!! So blah
njpilot78 1 month ago
@ Jiminiflix there is no roman record of Christ or his execution , seems odd being they kept very very very good records!!!!
njpilot78 1 month ago
Someone needs to tell jiminiflix that if you write 5 seperate comments that are 10 lines each no one's gonna read them
MasterYangLi 1 month ago
I know how to reverse fossilize objects. Give the rapid fossilization process, it was a simple matter of reversing it.
mjn132 1 month ago
@mjn132 using running clean water to slowly wash them?
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
Obviously the Aliens came to Earth, tested the Dinosaurs and Humans and took the smarter species with them
mrtoshko 1 month ago
Which further proves that creationists are clearly wilfully ignorant... ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 1 month ago
Nephilimfree scares me.
jmhizon83 1 month ago
The one concept that is little understood is also the simplest and most important: stratigraphy. Careful excavation of almost anywhere will reveal (in section) the sequence in which strata were laid down. An immutable law of stratigraphy is that the stratum that underlies the stratum above is ALWAYS older. And so a little history of anywhere in the world can be observed. Items--finds, fossils etc that are embedded in one stratum are always older than the objects in the stramum above. Geddit?
CobinRain 2 months ago
wow....just wow
bigolol 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Rock Lobster at 9:46
Sakanakao 2 months ago
1920's Champion spark plug <3
SkaCoreX 3 months ago
LOL 5:14
nanaforiod 3 months ago
Potholer, you are one great ape!
sweetmonkeylove1 3 months ago 4
What is the music or sountrac used at 3:50 ?
Chavadorf18 4 months ago
Well he's using a HP so he's obviously an idiot.......
rcflight13 4 months ago
If I don't understand it right away it can only be a miracle.
mehja1 5 months ago 17
Potholer54debunks, perhaps you could look into the composition of the London artifact? It was obviously not made by anyone recently!
earlysda 5 months ago
Yeh you could make billions off these gullible creationists that is why the so called champions of creationism strut their bullshit..1/2 hour TV program in USA makes heaps of money..
timdnwd 5 months ago
@timdnwd What a stupid comment.
jiminiflix 5 months ago
He has rocks in his head, bash him on the head with the fucken hammer,knock some sense into his brain...
timdnwd 5 months ago
aliens no way! evolution even more obsurd!
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix Evolution is fact, just look it up in wikipedia. Look up evolution there.
winterstellar 5 months ago
@winterstellar See thats just a typical fallacy. Wow wikepedia says it so its a ' fact '. I can't believe someone has said that to me. Its like me ,a creationist saying dinasaurs were made extict because of KFC. The question is does science determine evolution to be a fact. Well I know there is equal scientific debate and evidence to disprove it. Please tell me the best proof for evolution.
jiminiflix 5 months ago
Comment removed
winterstellar 5 months ago
@winterstellar Which e-coli experiment (zillion -23?)Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms. Where did information come from for speciation to occur if not from original creatures made by God in the beginning?
jiminiflix 5 months ago
Comment removed
winterstellar 5 months ago
@winterstellar No thats a cop out and such a tired argument. I will talk science but answer my question. Where did the information for speciation come from?. I don't deny speciation. Transspeciation is the issue which is impossible.
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix "Information" is a term used by creationists to confuse people. It's just chemistry/physics, complex molecules, complex chemical reactions. Over hundreds of millions of years it's not strange that the reactions had become very complex, there is no need for magic man:) Again, look up speciation to see how it happens and how long it takes and so on. You'll find it in wikipedia.
winterstellar 5 months ago
@winterstellar Well science is ALL about information? You need to think because information is required for all life processes, it can be stated unequivocally that information is an essential characteristic of all life.Evolution could only occur if the possibility existed that information could arise by itself out of matter. But information requires an intelligent sender and information is a non material fundamental entity. Chemical equations evolving is impossible and not even enough.
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix Can you give me a definition of information that we can work with to debunk this absurd notion?
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@Craigmw45 Absurd notion? That shows that you are not even open to what I said. Do you dispute that information (no matter what type) cannot be construed as accidental or from a non intelligence? Lets reason scientifically here. Did language evolve by accident without intelligence? How therfore could the most complex of information within all DNA possibly arrise from a 'non' intelligence?
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix :Do you dispute that information cannot be construed as accidental or from a non intelligence?"
Well..... yes of course.... Considering all the "information" (notice quotes) in your body is nothing more then a chemical reaction I can not see, at all, why anyone would say it evidence of some sort of intelligence.
Information, like the term "kind" is something creationist will never define, since they know the moment they do, the facts will wtfpwn them. Can you define information?
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@Craigmw45 This is information, logical and intelligent sentences of code (letters) speaking a message to the reciever (yourself), from an intelligent source (myself). What are the chances of this message occuring by chance?. DNA is more complex .In your oppinion if the right chemicals exist, evolution can occur.You may have a correct 'recipe" but information is not a chemical, order from information is something that is intelligently programmed and needs to be meticulously put into action.
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix "logical and intelligent sentences of code"
Well then DNA is not information by this definition. There is no intelligence behind it's, its not logical, in fact most of it is useless. Frankly its nothing more then a chemical reaction. And FFS, no one but creationists constructing ridiculous strawman think it happed by chance, or evolution is a chance based process. Darwin spent fully half of Origins of species dictating why it's not a chance based process.
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@jiminiflix And to be frank, just for the sake of argument, lets accept that DNA is somehow information. Is gene duplication not new information? How about ERV's, most certainly new information, for an outside none intelligent source mind you... How about ERV's that become mutated and co-oped for say a protein building. What about a mutation in a previously useless piece, which is selected for an becomes used.
We can watch all this happen, can you honestly tell me this isn't new info?
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@Craigmw45 If its new information, where did it come from and who wrote it? If there is any new information its not "original" information but a duplication, which we know makes a gene half useless.
"We can watch all this happen" - what have you ACTUALLY seen of evolution. Call me old fashioned but I would expect that IF evolution is an actual fact, we should all be observing it globally. But species don't change EXCEPT according to Genesis.
jiminiflix 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« If its new information, where did it come from and who wrote it? »
From variation and selection. Nobody wrote it. It emerged spontaneously, as a natural consequence of variation and selection.
The principle is simple: you have a genetic sequence; some spontaneous alteration takes place; voila, you now have a different, *new* sequence.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@jiminiflix "what have you ACTUALLY seen of evolution" Google examples of speciation, there are 100's if not 1000's.
"where did it come from and who wrote it"
No one wrote it, and it came from no where,(I guess) We can watch this happen, over and over, and no magic required. Why would you assume some supernatural force is required in the past, when its not on a lab counter top?
"EXCEPT according to Genesis."
No we don't. We see things evolve that can no longer interbreed. Google the examples.
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@Craigmw45 It's best to ignore scientifically illiterate people who are proud of it. No matter how much you explain the science and the methodology, they'll always ignore your answers and go back to the same questions >:(
hildegain 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@Craigmw45 Wow " We see things evolve that can no longer interbreed" - That is not evolution then is it. VAriation within kinds is a fact, rings species may be true, but the species don't change. No macro-evolution, no transpeciation, no scietific evidence of anything you have said.
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix "No macro-evolution, no transpeciation....."
In my very last comment I asked you to google examples of speciation to see for your self. I see your quite happy to not do that, since it would prove your argument wrong, and instead just repeat it.
Since I'm a nice guy, I googled it for you, you seem to be pretty good at copy pasting so here you go.
Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@jiminiflix "" We see things evolve that can no longer interbreed" - That is not evolution then is it."
That's exactly what it is.
When I said you seem to have no idea what evolution is and shouldn't try to argue against it, I wasn't being mean or insulting, just trying to give you some advice. Your argument looks more cohesive if you are educated on the subject.
PS I would like an answer to my last comment... Is entirely new pieces of DNA inserted into the genome not "new information?"
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@Craigmw45 I talk to people like you everyday. I hope to at least make you question WHY you believe what you believe and you all certainly believe it .I am a creationist and so I do also believe .I dispute evolution becuase you all seem to believe its a scientific fact, when its not. If evolution is "proven" through life no longer breeding can you understand why the theory looks like a joke? I If you are referring to bred mules or ligers, do you see these occurring in nature?
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix
"If evolution is "proven" through life no longer breeding can you understand why the theory looks like a joke?"
THIS sentence looks like a joke. Are you even trying to write in english?
uvauva2 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@uvauva2 Is the question too hard?
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix
No, it's merely nonsensical. If you bother rephrasing the question in a way english speaking people can understand it, I may bother answering it.
uvauva2 5 months ago 5
@uvauva2 If evolution is "proven" through life no longer breeding, can you understand why the theory looks like a joke?"
I gave you a comma.
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix
The comma doesn't help the question make sense, unfortunately.
"If evolution is "proven" through life no longer breeding"
This is so nonsensical I can't even fathom what you mean. Either the person who told you this is very confused, very inept at explaining, or you are very obtuse at understanding.
Please explain more verbosely what that sentence is supposed to even mean.
uvauva2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uvauva2 TO QUOTE YOU!! - "No we don't. We see things evolve that can no longer interbreed" and I said :["If evolution is "proven" through life no longer breeding, can you understand why the theory looks like a joke?"] How can evolution bring any advantageous benefits IF the results produce life that cannot interbreed? Mutations do that lets remember. Can you also let me know of any creatures in nature that cannot interbreed(in specie) due to evolution? ie (not by breeding programs)
jiminiflix 5 months ago
@jiminiflix
"TO QUOTE YOU!!"
Except you aren't quoting me. Is reading usernames too hard for you?
"How can evolution bring any advantageous benefits IF the results produce life that cannot interbreed?"
Explain the supposed contradiction. The process through which two populations initially of the same species can come not to be genetically compatible anymore is usually geographical separation. The original population splits into two, each of which slowly diverges to better adapt (...)
uvauva2 4 months ago
@jiminiflix
(...) to it's environment, and after a long enough period of isolation from each other the two populations may have diverged enough not to be able to interbreed any longer. Explain which part of this precludes "advantageous benefits".
"Can you also let me know of any creatures in nature that cannot interbreed(in specie) due to evolution?"
Search for ring species. In fact, potholer himself has a video about this v=1RnygS7opCA
uvauva2 4 months ago
@uvauva2 I know what ring species are. Can you show me an example of trans speciation?
jiminiflix 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jiminiflix
"I know what ring species are."
Then WHY were you asking about "Can you also let me know of any creatures in nature that cannot interbreed(in specie) due to evolution?"
"Can you show me an example of trans speciation?"
And what, tell me, is "trans speciation" meant to be?
uvauva2 4 months ago
Quit being a misleading twat. Micro and macro evolution are the same concept. Macro (big) evolution is simply micro (small) evolution compounded over time and scale. You said yourself you know what a ring species is, what more explaining do you need?
sweetmonkeylove1 3 months ago
@sweetmonkeylove1 Whats the big deal about ring species?. They don't prove anything beneficial for evolution.An ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind—just as creationists maintain must have happened.Ring species and similar examples actually highlight the great variety and rich information which must have been present in the original created kinds.Can you show me an example of trans speciation?
jiminiflix 3 months ago
@jiminiflix Can I show you genes? Get a brain. You can only treat this like your little trump card because it sounds good but it is just religious nutcase jibberjabber.
sweetmonkeylove1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sweetmonkeylove1 Don't you understand?
jiminiflix 3 months ago
@uvauva2 You should apply for work as a tour guide at a creationist museum. Your customers might be stupid enough to consider you to be a genius!
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndrthrdr1
"You should apply for work as a tour guide at a creationist museum. Your customers might be stupid enough to consider you to be a genius!"
An interesting suggestion. However I find abusing the ignorant is immoral, and neither do I find the financial incentive compelling. Nor does my ego need massaging, as you seem to imply.
On another note, I'm under the impression you don't even understand the conversation you are butting into.
uvauva2 4 months ago
@uvauva2 What makes sense about evolution? I mean you have no scientific proof that any of the mechanisms of evolution actually cause evolutionary change across species different genus's. Its evolution that is imaginary and non scientifically possible. Its at least a religion.
jiminiflix 2 months ago
@jiminiflix
"I mean you have no scientific proof that any of the mechanisms of evolution actually cause evolutionary change across species different genus's."
Whatever do you think this means? You have plentiful evidence that the distribution of the similarity of life matches the proposed mechanisms. But then again, I doubt you even understand what the words you are using mean.
uvauva2 2 months ago
@jiminiflix do you accept that huge changes can happen to animals when humans take control of natural selection, and domesticate things with controlled breeding?
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
(and to plants and bacteria)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Chanes ofcourse occur within a genus or kind. There are 200 varieties of dogs. This has been done mainly by man but breeds within dogs and cats and horses and cattle would happen naturally (not as many of course), but this I argue is not evidence as evolution. This is stated in Genesis as all life was commanded by God to go and multiply on the earth. God made all kinds to reproduce after its kind as we see in nature. Have you ever seen this NOT occurring?
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Evolution as well is supposed to a natural process. Do you think all the thousand of species of life on earth came about by artificail insemination? Evolution has never been observed by man and I am supposed to believe all life is a result of evolutonary "mechaniism" that are not proven at all to cause evolution? Do you realise how much faith is needed to believe that?
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix Sex between two animals is not artificial insemination :P
just like humans have produced over 200 species of dog in just 13 thousand years of controlled breeding, YES, I do think all the species on earth were produces by 4 billion years of naturally, controlled breeding. Natural and sexual selective pressures were the controls.
you accept that all the modern dogs are descended from a wolf ancestor. Would you accept all the modern mammals are descended from a mammal ancestor?
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke No I believe there are limits to speciation.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix Evolution HAS be observed by man, in many ways. Just one example is bacteria in the lab adapting to antibiotics, and understanding of this taught us how and why the medical industry needs to be very restrictive on antibiotic prescriptions.
We have also seen the creation of new species on the macroscopic scale. Are you familiar with 'speciation'? describe that process to me if you are, and we will go from there
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Speciation which is new species formed over time within a kind. They can occur rather quickly. As I believe all creatures are descendents of life of Noahs ark, the range in new species have arisen in 4500 years only. Dogs came from two dogs (most likely a wolf ancestor). This is all confirmed by the Bible but you may interpret this as evolution, but this is not evidence at all for evolution which is a non-plausable explantion for how all life has come to be as it is.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke There has been extensive studies done on both bacteria and flies. Though mutations can happen, always, you end up with a fly. Bacteria still remain bacteria even if they can eat Nylon. Theres no increase in genetic information.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix you are wrong, the Nylon digesting ability was an increase in genetic information of over two thousand genes.
we wouldn't expect to be able to change a fly into a non fly in human timescales. big changes are just a build up of small changes.
Know what the longest genome in nature is? not humans, it's an odd bacteria! with over 150 times as much genetic information than humans.
so you wouldn't be opposed to that particular bacteria 'microevolving' into any kind of complex animal?
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Whatever, you still have flies and bacteria, where is evolution evident in nature and in the thousands of other species on earth. I am not talking about speciation within a kind. Chanes occur and have always occurred within kinds. New species have developed but they remain of their kind. There are no transitional fossils that show any mergences or x of kinds within the world as the Bible declares wouldn't happen.The overall scientific evidence is pretty weak for evolution.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix
I've now realized that you are the same dishonest moron to whom I was explaining the exact same point months ago. I also notice that now that I've exposed your silly strawman (again) you have elected not to answer me... What a despicable little tool you are.
uvauva2 1 month ago
@uvauva2 Really? Did I "elect" not to answer you?You have exposed my "silly strawman argument"? You call me a despicable tool and I have no idea who you are, I don't remember you I am sorry. I usually talk to rational people.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jiminiflix
"I have no idea who you are, I don't remember you I am sorry"
You can find said comments in this very video.
"You have exposed my "silly strawman argument"?"
Twice. The same one. You can read it (again, twice, the first of which around 2 months ago) in the previous comments on this video.
"I usually talk to rational people."
Perhaps. But the fact that you seem to learn nothing from those conversations and yet spout the same crap again and again establishes you as a tool.
uvauva2 1 month ago
@jiminiflix lol mergences? the whole speciation thing is that you don't have branches of the tree of life rejoining once they have separated a bit. It is astronomically unlikely for one 'kind' to evolve into another pre-existing kind, instead new kinds are always made
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
Comment removed
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Which is unscientifically founded, never observed and purely a belief. Changes have only been observed within a kind, never have new kinds been observed or proven to be made. A new kind can only possibly come from two pre existing kinds mating. How else does the notion of birds evolvin from lizards possible occur? Can't you see how contrived evolution is?
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix
"How else does the notion of birds evolvin from lizards possible occur?"
You pathetic tool. I've answered this to you already, as I suspect have plentiful others. Birds evolved from lizards by small gradual changes. The notion that such might have occurred was first suggested by the fossil record and morphological analysis, and more recently confirmed by genetic analysis.
uvauva2 1 month ago
@uvauva2 I could respond to your low level of rationality but obviously you choose to be what you are. If only you could evolved and change to be something beneficial to this world. You ofcourse KNOW birds changed from lizards by "small gradual changes" by fossils?? But fossils PROVE NOTHING! They are dead thats it. Morphological analysis? Its never been observed, not even in the fossils. You are referring to natural chanes WITHIN KINDS!! Not birds evolving from lizards- archaeopteryx is fake!
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix
"You (...) KNOW birds changed from lizards by "small gradual changes" by fossils??"
Your reading skills are obviously pretty poor.I said that the evolution of birds from reptiles was first INDICATED via fossils and comparative morphology.The piece of evidence that ultimately put the issue beyond reasonable doubt was genetic analysis, and more concretely the convergent evolutionary trees predicted by multiple independent genes (and which also match the previous forms of evidence)(...)
uvauva2 1 month ago
@jiminiflix
(...) But at this stage in the conversation any discussion of this kind is pointless: the reason you are a tool is that you keep pretending that the theory of evolution somehow advocates any "inter "kind" " breeding, even after explained multiple times that no such thing is part of the theory. If you actually want to argue against it, first learn what it actually says, as opposed to arguing against idiotic strawman of your(?) creation.
uvauva2 1 month ago
@jiminiflix I don't know how you planned that merging of two kinds is how birds evolved from reptiles lol :P if reptiles were the mother species, what was the father species? lol
anyway, a new kind comes from one kind mating not two, just as an isolated group.
if you can accept controlled evolution could change a wolf into a chihuahua or great dane, how can you find it so extreme to imagine that natural evolution could change a monkey to an ape. Think of the very similar kinds
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I diddn't give you details luke. I simply stated the how ludicrous the idea was that birds came from reptiles becuause you would NEED a bird to start with, IF it was genetically possible for them to mate- which they couldn't becuase they have entirely different genes. Birds have hollow bones, complex respiritory system, they are also warm blooded. Feathers CANNOT evolve from scales, nor the miraculous ability to fly. I don't know how you believe this is science?
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix how can you insist feathers cannot evolve from scales? answer; you cant.
You can't declare anything impossible just because you don't understand its natural mechanism. That IS the definition of an argument from ignorance.
Feathers DID evolve from scales, not only are the occasional feather seen on dinosaurs in the fossil record, but birds still have the dna for growing teeth. Flying isn't miraculous, and feathers animals aren't the only ones to discover how
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
(and no you don't need a bird to start with of course)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Are you talking science here or heresay? What science is there to prove a feather can ACTUALLY evolve from a scale. I ask YOU how can you declare it as POSSIBLE when you have no evidence. How can you also SO IGNORANTLY diminish the amazing wonder of birds ability to fly and PRESUME through your BELIEF SYSTEM and LIE TO US ALL that science PROVES ITS TRUE?What evidence do you have that legs evolved into wings? Archaeopteryx ?Its a hoax and can prove nothing anyhow.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix Archaeopteryx isn't a hoax :P there was a hoax involved but it was quickly noticed as a composite piece. funnily enough one limb turned out to be from a new species that was an even more obvious transitional species than archaoepteryx itself!
there are dozens of archaeopteryx fossils now btw
but it's not just that, there's millions more that are just like it, in the same and different lineages.
the shape of the family tree has been genetically revealed too.
and the spread of species
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@jiminiflix may I recommend my favorite doco maker on evolution, AronRa?
(favorite after David Attenborough, of course)
/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
this series is fantastic
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@jiminiflix bird flight is NOT a miracle lol. it's so well understood that we can now fly ourselves (planes).
anyway we all get that you reject the modern scientific understanding of the world pretty clearly now, can I ask, why do you accept the religious account of how things got here??
(if you reject the scientific method for finding things out, isn't faith in ancient books an infinitely more flimsy tool for sorting fact from fiction?)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Thats just your oppinion. Its not a scientific issue, bird flight may be understood but thats only a recent understanding.Many birds fly contrary to scientific reason or logic. I accept creation because I have a personal knowing of who God is. Thats something I cannot prove to you, I just know it. I also with my logic and my conscience have a different faith to you. I believe God made the world"s" and all life to multiply within thier kind -as scripture says clearly.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix well it doesn't matter what scripture says, that's just an old fable, a creation myth, written by people with a very primitive scientific understanding.
No, there are no birds with flight techniques contrary to scientific reason. There are no 'miracles' known in the world, only a few things we haven't figured out yet, nothing that breaks the rules. Birds don't need gods help to fly, it's aerodynamics.
'within their kind' isn't how reality works, new kinds evolve from old ones
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@jiminiflix well it doesn't matter what scripture says, that's just an old fable, a creation myth, written by people with a very primitive scientific understanding.
No, there are no birds with flight techniques contrary to scientific reason. There are no 'miracles' known in the world, only a few things we haven't quite figured out yet, nothing that breaks the rules. Birds don't need gods help to fly, it's aerodynamics.
'within their kind' isn't how reality works, new kinds evolve from old ones
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@jiminiflix well it doesn't matter what scripture says, that's just an old fable, a creation myth, written by people with a very primitive scientific understanding.
No, there are no birds with flight techniques contrary to scientific reason. There are no 'miracles' known in the world, only a few things we haven't quite figured out yet, nothing that breaks the rules. Birds don't need gods help to fly, it's aerodynamics.
'within their kind' isn't how reality works, new kinds evolve from old ones
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Of course its aerodynamics, funny how birds are so aerodynamic? Its seems obsurd to me that you must assume they are evolved by chance and time and NOT possibly the result of intelligent design. New species may form within kinds but mate your in la la land to believe all lifeforms are interlinked. "reality" what do you know of that?
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix rofl that IS the current scientific model of the history of life, and most of us understand why :P you're the one out of touch with reality.
ya, funny how birds are so aurodynamic. funny how fish have fins, exactly what they would need for swimming in water. Funny how snails have shells, and everything being specialized to live in its environment. No, it's no miracle that birds are well designed for flight, that's what adaptation does. durrrrr :P
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke So YOU believe that adaption has intelligence or are you just denying that there is obvious intelligence in the design of life? If evolution was possible, how do you water down the miracle of flight? To me if bird evolved firsly to "be" and adapted to fly it is an even GREATER miracle. i mean it would be like winning the lottery a billion times in sequence!! ESPECIALLY with no mind behind it at all. FAROUT you have such faith! I am such a durr brain.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix
are you calling the action of flying a miracle, or the evolution of it? either way, something (seemingly) extremely unlikely occurring isn't a miracle, unlikely things happen all the time! only impossible things are miracles.
before birds evolved, dinosaurs and insects had already invented featherless flight. It's a pretty natural next step to gliding.
No, I don't believe either question in your first sentence. Adaptation IS the designer, and it works without being an intelligence
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I am saying , the greatest MIRACLE of all would be a bird evolving and being able to fly, purely by adaptation and no intelligence needed. That would be AMAZING! Why aren't you amazed? Its absolutely mind bogglin don't you think? That first everything came from nothing, for no purpose whatsoever and through just chemicals and BILLIONS of years the unverse just formed and life on earth just happenned and all the millions of species - just amazing- why aren't you amazed?
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix lol it's pretty amazing! (btw we don't know everything came from nothing before the big bang) it's cool how complex systems work, and it can be hard to understand them, but you are using the word miracle totally casually! I'd reserve it for things that shouldn't happen, not things that are understood but just beautiful and complicated.
Mr. A? lol. adaptation is a natural process :P
when you see water become a spiral down the sink, do you anthropomorphize it? Mr. S?
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke The big bang theory is. a good comedy show, but it is at odds with a number of principles of real operational science.Particle physicists claim high temperature conditions of the big bang should have created magnetic monopoles. There are none found.The BB should have produced precisely equal amounts of matter and antimatter.But there is not which is good or matter and antimatter would destroy itself.The BB leaves nearly 90 elements to be explained as to their existance.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke our galaxy alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it. Yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements that the Big Bang can account for ) Helium, Hydrogen and trace elements of Lithium.Basically BB is BS.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix uuuh what? BB doesn't predict stars of pure Helium and Hydrogen! and it can't 'only account for' those rofl. It predicts the opposite, because so much time has passed since then that pure clouds are astronomically unlikely
the first generation of stars, 1 billion years after the big bang were pure hydrogen, which burnt hydrogen into all the heavier elements then exploded, the dust of which became the next generation of stars. We are made of stardust :)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke the first stars would be comprised of only the three lightest elements.Some such stars should still be around today since their lifespans are computed to exceed the time that has elapsed since the big bang. Such stars would be called “population III” stars. Amazingly (to those who believe in the big bang), population III stars have not been found anywhere.Hydrogen BTW cannot burn into all elements. The theory is nuclear fusion and supernovas spread heavier elements (from?)
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix yyyyes, Hydrogen CAN burn into all the heavier elements, why did you assert it can't? that's why the sun shines, it converts something like 100 million tonnes of hydrogen into something like 95 million tonnes of helium every second, the remaining 5% becoming the energy that escapes as radiation. The hotter the star, the heavier elements it makes. Ours is only hot enough to forge the lightest 8 or so elements.
Do you accept the expansion of the universe?
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
(minor detail, hydrogen doesn't burn DIRECTLY into all the heavier elements, for example some are made by humans in exotic conditions, but still, we're making them out of the products of Hydrogen)
I really want you to acknowledge that you heard&understood me correct you on the big bang/everything from nothing thing, because then you would be being dishonest if you ever again say anything like "nothing exploded" without adding a "perhaps, although thats not part of whats proven, just speculation"
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke WHat about all the other 90 elements? Do I accept the expanding universe?Yes. Ok give it to me...
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix Just, what is classed as part of 'The Big bang theory' is the observationally confirmed stuff, that everything was very dense 13.72 billion years ago. Whether the dense universe came from nothing, or came from some proto-universe/multiverse, is a fun and important speculation, but outside the realm of the big bang theory.
Can you tell me you hear me? that the big bang does NOT claim everything came from nothing? only from a very dense state.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Well you haven't explained where all matter came from. I would like to add to that , nor how all chemicals came into being. How did the age of 13.72 billion years come about?
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix I haven't explained where all matter came from? that's because we don't know, depending on your definition of matter.
Energy and matter are the same thing, interchangable. In the very early big bang it was too hot for subatomic particles to form, there was just raging energy. After about 1 second, it was cool enough for atoms to form. You could say that's where all matter came from, but really it was just in another more energetic form before that.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@jiminiflix also, can I get you to acknowledge the point I corrected you on about the big bang theory being an 'everything came from nothing' situation? Just so I know you are listening.
The big bang is the extrapolation of the expansion back to a very very dense start 13.72 billion years ago. It's a proven fact, and does NOT claim where that dense universe came from, although we can speculate.
MAYBE nothing, maybe the singularity was eternal, maybe a multiverse, maybe eternal inflation etc.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke " It's a proven fact" but where the matter came from,"we can speculate".If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass.Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra,embarked to find evidence to support the big bang model by compiling large star maps. The more progress they madethe clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery.It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter ('dark matter') was postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this 'dark matter' is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix yes, you're kind of right, but wrong that you think that dark matter somehow disproves the whole known history of the universe. The same for the current state of clumpiness of matter. This was one of the ways the hypothesis of inflation was stumbled upon, an explanation for the clumpiness vs. smoothness of matter (the distribution )
no direct evidence? you badly described the very reason we predict it :P We just don't know what it is.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes,"'There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are.' He later continues: 'The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the frustration
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix why do you think our struggling to accurately understand how the current state of the universe formed, and getting close, but not having the perfect answer yet, means you can say "oh you don't know how it happened so I can say I know for sure it was this magic being"
it's a god of the gaps argument, you can't fill the gaps in our knowledge with god as an explanation, it's just a bad explanation. You actually need evidence for your god, not the receding gaps in scientific knowledge
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Oh so its OK for you or the "science community" to lie to us and say "its a proven fact"
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix I've told you repeatedly, it's a proven fact that all the galaxies were practically on top of each other in a very dense state 13.72 billion years ago.
When you wrongly describe the big bang as claiming that everything came from nothing, then no, that is not a proven fact.
look, imagine I wrongly state that all religion claims 'god appeared out of nothing before creating everything'. You would rightly object that there are other options, god could be eternal in some way.
BB analogy
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke It doesn't matter what I say, it what God has declared to all mankind. :"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20 The evidence of God is in what He has made, from the smallest electon to 100 billion trillion stars. All life has order and design, refute it - ok - you have the right to what you believe.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
Comment removed
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@jiminiflix it's just that, we have working explanations for how the apparent design in life arises, confirmed by observation and prediction and tested in the lab&field. That's why evolution is the current scientific theory, and not a hypothesis. We know the universe used to be very dense from very good reasons too.
Why do you quote the bible as if it is guaranteed truth from god, when we know of its very human creation?
Do you have any reason to trust the bible as authoritative? (not faith)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
I really recommend AronRa's whole 16 part series 'the foundational falsehoods of creationism'
I really really do, from the bottom of my heart
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke look sorry but can we please just backtrack a bit for a moment and make sure we have clearly covered this, you didn't acknowledge the point I really wanted you to.
Repeat after me
"The big bang doesn't claim that everything came from nothing, it describes the early stages of the expansion of the universe from a very dense state. I will never describe the big bang as 'nothing exploded' again, without feeling deeply dishonest because I now know better"
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Alan Guth. ( evolutionist)
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix ya that's very inaccurate, maybe you should listen to Physicists and astronomers when it comes to cosmological history, not evolutionary biologosts (although you didn't say he was a scientist at all, just someone who accepts evolution!)
both his statements were wrong, we don't know that the universe came from nothing and BB theory doesn't assert it, and also it didn't generate stuff from nowhere as it got bigger, all energy-matter has existed at least since the big bang in some form
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I trust the Bible because its credable on many levels. I believe in God becuase as I apply His word, God moves in my life. I also cannot ever dismiss God because He is more real to me than this world is. Thats the truth. I love God and I know God abides in me and loves me. God IS Love. You know something is good, by its love. You know God is real by His love. John 3:16
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix god is love? then I believe in your god!
why not just call it love? people don't mean it when they say god is love. They say god because they mean love, PLUS supernatural claims. Your god isn't just love.
lastly, why don't you wikipedia the BB and then you can explain to me, the specifics of why cosmologists can confidently say that all of space was very very dense 13.72 billion years ago. Great exercise, that's what you should do when you don't know something, not claim God did it
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@jiminiflix (I've replied to all three of your messages and should wait for a reply before writing more, but I'd like to add that you are wrong about declaring knowledge of god through 'his love'. There's no way you can show that any deep feelings of love you feel originate from the judeo-christian god, its just a creation myth and nothing you're feeling confirms it. In fact, you don't feel other peoples love at all, you feel your own! you use empathy to predict their love, and simulate it)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
there IS a reason why you have deep emotional feelings that there is a god listening to your thoughts and influencing reality, and it's not that there really is a god. Those feelings aren't a connection to and evidence for god, they are a product of living your life like there is one.
My dad was in a pseudo-wizardry group, they practiced rituals and visualization until an array of gods and demons 'felt' real eventually. It was actually an exercise of skepticism, debunking those feelings
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Your reasoning implies that we love conditionally; in other words, we love someone because they fulfill a condition that we require before we can love them.That is true in this world, basically man is selfish. This is because of sin that separates us from knowing God. It doesn't change who God is "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:8 But how can we even begin to understand that truth? John 3:16,Romans 5:8
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix states where you love everything unconditionally are possible, but other than those rare mind expanding moments in deep meditation, trance, near death, on drugs, or just feeling one with the universe... yes, love is somewhat conditional, people tend not to love people who are stabbing them for example.
Do I believe it's impossible to have a relationship with god? yes
why? because I don't think he exists
on what evidence? I'm just unconvinced, theists have the burden of proof
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Do you believe its impossible to have a relationship with God? Why? On what evidence?God wants us to know that His love is unconditional, so He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us while we were still sinners. We didn't have to get clean, and we didn't have to make any promises to God before we could experience His love. His love for us has always existed, and because of that, He did all the giving and sacrificing long before we were even aware that we needed His love
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix if gods love is unconditional, why did we have to torture and kill Jesus? couldn't he have just forgiven everyone, without a violent human sacrifice loophole to a rule that he himself made and maintains. The judeo-christian god of the bible is a monster! if you have the ability to prevent suffering and you don't, you're culpable. Every innocent child burnt to death in a carcrash, every person in agony, your god loves them but doesn't help them? why? on what non-biblical evidence?
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke If you commit a crime, tell me if you would prefer the judge to be JUST or MERCIFUL? Jesus was crucifed to pay for our sins so we could recieve redemption - He PAID a ransom for us. If we say to the judge "I don't need the ransom paid for me" Then the judge must lay down the law and offer justice for your sin - justice in the light of law. Thats why a repentant believer can only accept Christ, by Grace through Faith in Christ who has vindicated them before God the Father.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke There is no hiding the fact - aweful things happen to innocent people including children all over the earth. Do I believe God is to blame for that? No. Bad things happen to "good people" although no one IS truly good. If my child had cancer I would be upset - would I curse God? NO! I understand hardship, sufferring and pain are apart of this world, for the believer, we are not 'of 'this world so we seek first the Kingdom of God even in hard times.We mature with thankfulness.
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke You are also looking at life from a perspective of a fleeting moment on earth. Fod God a day is like a thousand years. Eternity is a realm we have idea about except from God's Word. Pain and sufferring existed in Jesus time, but never forget Jesus truly suffered for us as well - God has shown He understands our situations and our pains, he has experienced them as a man. He left behind the comforter, the Holy Spirit to be our strength in times of trial. God is no monster ok?
jiminiflix 1 month ago
@jiminiflix supposedly coming down in bodily form and experiencing suffering like a human is NOT applying his ability to end suffering.
If you drive by starving Ethiopians while you have a magic bag in your car which you can pull an infinite amount of food out of, and you don't give them the food instead you... fast for a few weeks and experience starving pains yourself, then you are evil, and insane.
The whole sin/Jesus system is immoral, and death and suffering are regular part of nature
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago